You wouldn't have had to go search for it. It would have been attached to that ridiculous picture you posted. Or you would have seen it on Fox news.
I find this stuff in strange places. I just happened to be looking for the right cigar for election day. http://www.cigarbid.com/auction/forum/forum.cfm?action=list&forumID=7&messageDisplay=0000000212864
Oh I'm not offering an argument at all. Just saying what I've heard. It's like McCain voting against funding because it had a timeline requirement. Obama has voted for funding on some of the votes I think.
Even if there were, the media would knock themselves over explaining what he really meant and the Obamaites would accept it as fact. It's been done many times for both Obama and Biden. To paraphrase someone here, Obama could appear on the six o'clock news smoking a joint with a hooker on each knee and it wouldn't harm his reputation among his followers. They will excuse anything.
What I find really hard to believe is that with congress having the lowest approval rating in a very long time, we end up with not 1 but both of our presidental nominees from the congress that 9% of americans think is doing a good job! So we do really get what we deserve this time around.
And that's different from Bush or Palin's supporters in what way exactly? Have you been reading the dungeon over the past five years?
Yeah, I thought about that after I posted. I was thinking more along the lines of it wouldn't change a damn thing for you or Orvis.
Isn't it a Senator's job to vote the way his constituents want, and not based on one's own convictions? So if Obama had been a Senator in 2003 and voted for the war, that would not mean that he wasn't personally against it, or that he is wishy-washy, but rather it should show the wishes of those who elected him.
McCain also voted against funding the troops. He didn't like the bills that included timetables. Segue: Joe the Neocon Plumber endorsed McCain today and agreed that a vote for Democratic candidate Barack Obama would be "a vote for the death of Israel." I heart American politics!!
I think I posted about this a while ago but the real answer is closer to their own convictions. The goal of the bicameral legislative branch was to isolate one chamber from the whims of the day. The representatives are supposed to directly reflect the view of the constituents. The senate (which was not originally elected by citizens) is supposed to vote based on the long term interests of the state (nation). This is why there is a difference in the length of term for reps and senators. The longer term of the senate is supposed to insulate senators from the public a bit allowing them to take unpopular positions.
Theoretically Congressmen are voted in by popular vote which "should" mean he is the candidate most inline with the thinking of his/her constituents therefore voting their personal beliefs should be that of most constituents. But some people theorize that we came from fish with legs so there are issues with theories.
Point being even if he could have voted for or against do you think he would have voted? Abstain at best. And who was he talking to when he said he opposed the war. Revvy wright and pals of that sort. kid is a asshole thru and thru.
