The Two Most Vicious Cartoons of the Campaign...So Far

[The Bare Knuckled Pundit]

http://i342.photobucket.com/albums/o432/dsalvis/41302556.jpg
Dana Summers, Orlando Sentinel

http://i342.photobucket.com/albums/o432/dsalvis/toon073008.gif
Michael Ramirez, IBDEditorials.com

As the ripples from Senator Obama’s cannonball into the international pool continue to reverberate across the political waters, Ramirez’s depiction of him using a wounded American soldier as a springboard in his political slam dunk and Summer's portrayal of Obama's tour bus running over a wounded vet may well create an emotional tsunami.

With conflicting stories floating about as to why the junior Senator from Illinois cancelled a previously scheduled visit to wounded American soldiers while in Germany last week, the episode quickly became a black cloud over what was otherwise considered a resounding public relations success.

Ramirez astutely visualizes what many believe is at the heart of the Senator’s cancelled visit; his desire to use America’s wounded warriors as political props to propel the momentum of his world tour even higher. Meanwhile, Summers taps into the belief that confronted with a ban on bringing the media with him to visit our wounded heroes, he summarily tossed them under the proverbial bus as it were.

Hmmmmm.....I wonder what Michael Jordan thinks about the one? Hello, Nike Legal?

While I fervently hope that neither is the case, my fear is it is yet another indication that despite his protestations and assertions to the contrary, Senator Obama is, in fact, just another politician. A highly gifted and articulate one, granted. But in the end, still just another politician.

[Joe Steel]

Michael Ramirez, IBDEditorials.com

As the ripples from Senator Obama’s cannonball into the international pool continue to reverberate across the political waters, Ramirez’s depiction of him using a wounded American soldier as a springboard in his political slam dunk and Summer's portrayal of Obama's tour bus running over a wounded vet may well create an emotional tsunami.



McCain has proven himself to be one of the greatest enemies American military personnel ever have had:


But not that many really, truly know just how horrific (McCain's) voting record is when it comes to the troops. And it is pretty consistent – whether it is for armor and equipment, for veteran’s health care, for adequate troop rest or anything that actually, you know, supports our troops.

This is chock full of links to the roll call votes, and the roll call votes have links to the actual underlying bills and amendments. I present this so that there is support and things that can be rattled off when saying that McCain is not a friend of the military. Feel free to use it as you want, but this can be tied into the "Double Talk Express". But here is a very quick statement - John McCain skipped close to a dozen votes on Iraq, and on at least another 10 occasions, he voted against arming and equipping the troops, providing adequate rest for the troops between deployments and for health care or other benefits for veterans.

McCain's Voting Record: He Does Not Support Our Troops and Veterans (http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/articleid/9559)

[darin]

What silly folk don't get is this:

#1 - It's painfully obvious why Obama didn't visit the vets. No Photo Op. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

#2 - taking somebody's voting record on specific issues out of the context of 'why' the voted is being intellectually dishonest.

Just the first couple 'points' made by the author at that link show me how one would likely have to be a certifiable dumb-ass to use those points to make the argument "McCain doesn't support the troops".


September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments. At the time, nearly 65% of people polled in a CNN poll indicted that "things are going either moderately badly or very badly in Iraq


Adequate? what does that mean? 4 years? Who is to say what they had wasn't adequate. The legislation didn't call for 'adquate' - the biased hack of a journalist writing the piece used that word. The Legislation called for congress to set MINIMUM periods of 'not-deployed' time. Perhaps McCain thought that best left up to Military Commanders? What does that CNN data at the end of that paragraph have to do with the price of a BJ in TJ?


July 2007: McCain voted against a plan to drawdown troop levels in Iraq. At the time, an ABC poll found that 63% thought the invasion was not worth it, and a CBS News poll found that 72% of respondents wanted troops out within 2 years.


....how exactly is that 'not supporting the troops'? The writer of this piece is a fruitcake. Agian with more BS data which is irrelevant in using it as showing how McCain didn't support the troops.

March 2007: McCain was too busy to vote on a bill that would require the start of a drawdown in troop levels within 120 days with a goal of withdrawing nearly all combat troops within one year. Around this time, an NBC News poll found that 55% of respondents indicated that the US goal of achieving victory in Iraq is not possible. This number has not moved significantly since then.


Once again - that has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING relating to 'supporting the troops'. He didn't vote on bullshit legislation - Defeat Policy they call it.

That whole piece is FILLED with logical fallacies and hyper-over-the-top wild-ass conclusions based on NO supporting evidence.