1. The republicans are far more disciplined than the democrats.

2. The republicans had control of the government for 6 years and for that entire time they didn't think there was a problem.

I agree whole-heartedly with both points, MV.

I think "disciplined' is a kind euphemism. The way Republicans instantly do an about face on their own statements that are not precisely in line with their ever-morphimg official rhetoric is very telling.

Before John McCain won the nomination, many of his Republican colleagues were saying he was dangerously unstable. After he won it, they turned their backs on their country (which was now in grave danger according to their own statements) and decided that having an unstable, dangerously angry man in charge was less scary than expressing honest opinions about their concern for our country's safety. "Conservative principles" should appear next to "oxymoron" in the dictionary as the prime example.

The day after the Presidential election, I heard Neal Boortz (Atlanta's shame) use the term "Obama recession". It was a tongue-in-cheek offering....a joke about the disingenuous nature of his own party. (Yeah, I know he claims to be a Libertarian. Anyone who hears his rhetoric knows he is a typical, lying Republican. He supports them consistently while cowering from their "brand". People like him use the meaningless term "conservative" as camouflage for their party loyalty).

"Before John McCain won the nomination, many of his Republican colleagues were saying he was dangerously unstable"

What exactly was said, by whom, and in what context? Quote and cite, please. Thank you.

Here's a small taste of what his 'Republican colleagues' were saying when McCain was running for office in 2000:.
<link>

And BTW, they also attacked Kerry's status as an honobale war hero when he was running for office. They had called McCain 'unstablle' because he had been tortured as a prisoner of war and might have cried 'uncle.' How do you like them onions.
A

Fascinating, really. Just amazing what you can find on the Internet, isn't it?

thewolf05827:

"Before John McCain won the nomination, many of his Republican colleagues were saying he was dangerously unstable"

What exactly was said, by whom, and in what context? Quote and cite, please. Thank you.

<link>

Before you deny it, remember what Rove and the GOP did to Max Cleland just two years later.

Perhaps you should re-read the top post.

"[John] McCain is mentally unstable and vindictive and out of control."
--Arizona Republican state commiteeman Rob Haney 2007

<link>

McCain was a "Hanoi Hilton songbird" who collaborated with the enemy.

<link>

John McCain's Temper Preceded Vietnam

<link>

You're rapidly emerging as one of the more intellectually dishonest conservatives on the Fray. And that takes a LOT!

You attacked the response you yourself solicited by saying "amazing what you can find on the Internet, isn't it?"

So, are you telling us that it's not true that the Bush campaign smeared McCAin in South Carolina? They didn't spread false stories about him having a "black love child"?

They didn't try and make a national issue out of Cindy McCain's episode with painkillers (but none of the rest of us should ever dare to discuss Limbaugh's problems with the same drugs!).

Since you obviously didn't like the source, you're trying to dismiss his claim by dismissing his citation.

I do that the conservatives like you all the time.

It isn't because of the source, although many cons here seem to think that trash blogs like FreeREpublic and NewsMax are actual news sources and not propoganda mills.

I trash them because they're ususally lying about what they're talking about. And then I fact check them.

We know guys like you hate to be fact checked .

So, if you don't like his source on what the GOP was saying about McCAin, here's a few of mine:

<link>

<link>

<link>

Here's a sample of what they said about him after he wouldn't play the nuclear option game with then in 2005:

<link>

<link>

<link>

Evidently you, too, should re-read the top post.

Evidently thewolf5...
Is a member of what I call The Party Of The Voluntarily Brainwashed. Even trepanning wouidn't leave a dent:<link>
A

Given that you tried to answer a question about 2008 with an article about 2000, it may be that you're not necessarily the highest authority on brain function.

What exactly was said, by whom, and in what context? Quote and cite, please.

Senator Thad Cochran, MS

Pre-nomination (January,08): "The thought of him being President sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

Post-nomination, through his spokesman (chickenshit): "Though Senator McCain has had problems with his temper, he has overcome them."

Senator Bob Smith, NH

Pre-nomination, (April,08). "His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world, perhaps, in danger. In my mind it should disqualify him. I've witnessed a lot of his temper and outbursts. For me, some of this stuff is relevant. It raises questions about stability...it's more than just temper. It's this need of his to show you that he's above you....a sneering, condescending attitude."

Post-nomination: Silence. Statement nether retracted nor repeated.

You're also aware, I assume, that the first Bush campaign pounded on the anger and stability issues and told us we should be very afraid of a demented ex-POW. However, when McCain runs against a Democrat, they are no longer afraid for the country. They hug him. How comforting and patriotic.

Now, Wolf, you find the Senators or Congressmen who were saying, pre-nomination, that McCain did not have anger issues. My part was easier than yours will be.

By the way, Wolf, I am still of the opinion that you are sloppy drunk while you troll. I think it really comes through in your short, pointless, flimsy, angry, dishonest, predictably inane posts. Carry on.

How embarrassing for you.

I rest my case.