Wednesday, July 23, 2008

McCain: "It's My Surge, Dammit! I Was Right. Why Won't Anyone Show Me Some Respect!"

We all know the John McCain type. He's the petulant kid who barked "It's my ball" as he stormed off the field because he didn't get his way. He's the little bully who said his dad could beat up your dad. He's the nasty little brat who would tell on you so he could get the little pat on the head: "That's a good boy, Johnny, you did good!" And it's the same petulant little John McCain today who's practically stomping his feet and throwing a tantrum because that other kid, Barack Obama, is getting all the attention these days. The same nasty John McCain who responds to reporters' questions with "What do you want, you little jerks?" he did this week aboard his "Straight Talk" plane.

It seems that McCain's been having a hissy-fit over all the invaluable press coverage Obama's been getting during his much-hyped Middle-East visit which included stops in Afghanistan, Iraq and a meeting with Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq. Unfortunately for McCain, while he's been seen zipping around in a golf cart with his bud George Bush Sr. looking like a couple of crusty old rich white guys, Obama's been looking, sounding and acting like a brilliant, confident, modern-day statesmen on the world stage. Looking presidential. And it's killing McCain. He so riled up that it's continuing to throw him off his game. At a public forum Tuesday he referred once again to the non-existent country of Czechoslovakia. This is the same McCain who earlier this week incorrectly referred to the Iraq/Pakistan border. The same McCain who this Spring confused Iraq's Shia and Sunnis. Who incorrectly claimed that Iran was training al Qaeda terrorists. Who's confused Somalia and Sudan. Who's referred to Russia's Vladimir Putin as "President Putin of Germany." And this is the same guy who claims that he's best qualified to be Commander-in-Chief?

McCain appeared angry and frustrated in his attacks on Obama Tuesday. On the U.S. troop surge in Iraq, the feisty little Republican presidential candidate said: "He was wrong then, he is wrong now, and he still fails to acknowledge that the surge has succeeded. Remarkable." What's truly remarkable is that McCain, over the past year, has deluded himself into thinking that it's his surge. He talks about it as if he's its sole architect and beneficiary to its supposed success. Yes, supposed success. Let's not forget that the goal of the surge was to stabilize the country so that real political change could take place. While the violence is indeed down--not gone--there's not been anywhere near the political change the Bush administration expected or promised. As for the drop in violence, it should come as a shock to no one that sending in more U.S. troops could overpower a much smaller, less equipped, less sophisticated enemy in the contained areas in and around Baghdad. But the real question remains: what happens when the extra military muscle leaves? Does the violence increase again? Is there a strong enough political structure to run the country effectively and simultaneously secure itself? In that sense, the surge has not worked. Based on the original stated purpose, regardless of McCain's relentless macho chest-thumping, the surge is not a success.

What's also remarkable is that McCain can make the outlandish statement he made Tuesday about Obama's motives: "He would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." This is an unconscionable accusation to make during a presidential election campaign and while our nation's at war, and it further demonstrates just how low McCain and the GOP will stoop to win in November. So much for the "respectful" campaign McCain promised earlier this year.

The simple truth is, Obama was right about the war from the get-go. And based on the fact that Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his top military commanders support the Democrat's timetable for a 2010 troop withdrawal, he's still right. Obama not only understands the will of the American people when it comes to the war, but the Iraqis' as well. John McCain is simply out of touch.


Anonymous said...

By any objective measure, the candidate who during this incredibly long campaign has shown the most firm and consistent grasp of world affairs and a true understanding of the role of commander in chief is Barack Obama.

McCain has devolved into a parody of his former "maverick" persona and now embodies what former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) said of him - "he's a legend in his own mind."

It's thoroughly amusing watching McCain co-opting authorship of the surge strategy. Apparently he's gotten advice from Giuliani and has become little more than a "noun" and a "verb" and "the surge".

Hope it works as well for him as it did Giuliani.

Anonymous said...

Am I the only one who sees that race is going to play a part and white America will need to do a gut check?

Obama needs to work on those over 65 (who really vote) too. I saw where they are supporting McCain.

Anonymous said...


Here are the numbers right now (from Gallup) versus what happened in 2004 (via CNN) -

White men (Bush/Kerry): 62%-37%
White men (McCain/Obama): 56%-34%

White women (Bush/Kerry): 55%-44%
White women (McCain/Obama): 45%-44%

Age 60+ (Bush/Kerry): 54%-46%
Age 60+ (McCain/Obama): 46%-39%

If these numbers hold, Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States as he's getting far larger support than Kerry did among African-Americans and younger voters as well as significantly higher support among Latinos.

With the above white voter numbers, George Bush took the popular vote by a little less than 2%. Barack Obama is currently leading the race by an average of about 4% in the polls. It may not seem like much but a 6% national swing is statistically significant.

Anonymous said...

1. I trust a person who shows emotion over one who shows none The emotionally person, who reacts authentically, is less likely to deceive than one who is skilled at hiding what he thinks by keeping his emotions unrevealed. The ultimate poker player, a game Obama spends a lot of time playing. I don't trust Obama. He has shonn not one iota of emotion --not even when he was supposely angry with Rev. Wright.

2, If the surge has not worked and things are still very bad, why is Obama so willing to leave Iraq in chaos? Are the Muslim leaders so pleased that Obama has not forgotten his Muslim roots, because they think he will pull out as promised despite the need for further USA occupation according to the military leadership?

3. If we pull out before the Iraq gov. is able to govern, isn't that "losing the war and causing utter chaos in the region? That will raise gasoline prices even further.

4. Of course Obama "looks presidential." His acting skills (when no deepe motion is required) equal those of the late Lawrence Olivier.

Anonymous said...

In VA McCain leads with white voters and those over 65.

Obama has work to do.

Anonymous said...

Can Obama win without white support?

I find that hard to believe.

Anonymous said...


Define "without white support".

Al Gore lost the overall white vote to Bush and the Supreme Court had to take the election from him. John Kerry lost the white vote by 15-18% and still nearly won the election.

Right now, Barack Obama is polling better with white voters than the actual votes earned by John Kerry in 2004.

Anonymous said...

what is the argument. since blacks are only ten percent of the population plus the small percentage of other minorites, no one dan win without the majority "white" vote. The only racial component to these statistics is all the black votes are going to Obama.

Anonymous said...

John McCain did 100% more than Obama did to support the surge. He also called for more troops from early on in the conflict in Iraq. Right all along. Obama will not recognize the impact of the surge since it undermines his stand against the war from the beginning. This is also a falicy since he never had to vote for the resolution in the first place that took us there,since he was not in the Senate. If he had been under the same pressure in the Senate as John Edwards and Hillary Clinton you can bet he would have voted for the resolution as well since he is a follower of the polls and the polls at that time had heavy support in favor of ousting Hussein. Before you jump up on your highhorse I was against the war too but was dragged into it with the rest of the country and now we are there and we need to have the best possible outcome. Obama chaired a committee in the Senate on Afghanistan and held not one meeting but now he keeps stating how important it is to win there. If he felt that way why did he not fight harder to support our efforts there. He is a hypocrite from the get go and I don't for the life of me understand all the hoopla about him. It is frustrating to watch this campaign and see such unbalanced coverage of these candidates. There is just no justification for the treatment that has been given to Barak Obama. He is just the flavor of the season with the media and he has become their little darling.

Anonymous said...

In an interview Katie Couric tried to pin Obama down about his opinion of the surge and it's success. He talked nonsense. It was absurd. He said that yes the troops had allowed for the development of the Iraqi gov and that had been successful. Then, said Couric, you must say that the surge worked. Obama said, unbelievably, that no he couldn't say that since nobody can know what would have happened had his idea been implemented.

He is so evasive and wishy washy that's it's scary. Couric, I and probably everybody who heard him were frustrated and irritated.
He makes no sense.

Anonymous said...


Yes, a candidate for President can win the election without the majority of white votes. Bill Clinton did it twice.

Oh, and ethnic minorities total quite a bit higher percentage of the population than the "ten percent blacks plus a small percentage of others". Non-white citizens of the United States now make up in excess of a third of the citizen population.

Unknown said...

Dear "Anonymous",
Your bigotry is showing. So sorry that Obama is doing such a good job that he makes your "darling" candidate look like a blubbering idiot (which he apparently is). Go cry in your Ensure!

Anonymous said...

Obama is a bumbling fool. When he doesn't have a scripted answer to a question, the real Obama comes out.

"If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge:"

Obama: "No, because keep in mind that question, you wouldn't ... but keep in mind that kind of hypothetical is very difficult to know hindsight is 20-20 ... later ... but I think that what I'm absolutely convinced of is that at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with."

Anonymous said...


Joe Biden recently made it very clear to Mr. McCain that Obama did not chair any subcommittee meetings because Biden, as chair of the full committee, told him not to do so. That he, Biden, would chair meetings on Afghanistan at the full, not sub, committee level due to the importance and immediacy of the issues.

It's worth noting that McCain is a member of the full committee chaired by Biden (Foreign Relations) and he has not attended a single committee meeting on Afghanistan in two years.

Now, what has been the impact of the surge of troops? It has made areas of Iraq, specifically Baghdad, safer. This is good and repeatedly acknowledged by Obama. Has the surge alone been responsible for security gains in Iraq? Uh, no, and to claim so is an insult to the people of Iraq who began standing up to Al-Quaeda and the insurgents long before additional US troops were made available (see Anbar Awakening).

Also the goal of the surge was not only security gains, it was to provide an environment of stability (6 months worth) so political reconciliation could be achieved. That did not happen. So the surge was extended another 6 months. Still political reconciliation did not happen and has not happened. Why? In large measure because there are elements of the political world in Iraq who will not come to the table so long as the US has a major presence in Iraq. And even those factions that do support the efforts of the US see that it is politically untenable for them to do so publicly, which is why we see al-Maliki supporting Obama's call for a timetable of withdrawal.

John McCain was a major cheerleader for the war effort from the beginning. He did not blast Bush or Rumsfeld for throwing aside General Shinseki's recommendation of greater numbers of troops before the invasion. He said the effort would be easy. He said we would be treated as liberators. He said Iraqi oil would pay for our efforts. He said efforts in Iraq would not detract from Afghanistan.

On all of these judgments, John McCain was not only wrong on all of these issues - he was wildly off the mark. Now this self-described "master" of foreign policy almost daily makes false historical claims, geographical gaffes or co-opts more credit than he deserves for policies introduced by others.

Betcha he now wishes he never goaded Obama about going overseas!

Anonymous said...

10:36 You answered Couric's quesion with for more clarity and understanding than Obama was able to do, which proves the point. He is not ready or even able to be a good president of the United States.

Whoever you are, 10:36, I'd vote for you before I'd vote for Obama. He's only smile and dazzle.

Anonymous said...

MSNBC was showing, with glee, that Obama is the only one in our government who properly pronounces Pakistan and Iraq. Yet he, who said we should all learn Spanish and not make such fools of ourselves with our French language deficiency, actually called Illinois ILLINOISE. (And do we all remember he said the USA had 57 states.)

Anonymous said...

10:14 Many non-white people are really scientifcally white under the racial category of Caucasian. There are for more ethnic divisions than racial and the differences are sometimes blurred. It is a distinction with a difference. I think many accusations of racism may be based on ethnic considerations.

Anonymous said...


It does nothing of the sort in proving your point. Every bit of information I provided in my response was taken almost verbatim from comments made by Obama or by Joe Biden, in the case of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Meanwhile John McCain is running around having to explain this or that gaffe, this or that historical revisionism and generally looks like a damn buffoon, not a leader.

The most ludicrous event of the last few days is listening to his campaign and surrogates complain about media coverage. It's priceless coming from a guy who has so cultivated a relationship with the media that he refers to them as his "base" of support.

Well, it's maybe no so ludicrous given his close relationship with "advisor" Phil Gramm. Perhaps he's taken to heart Gramm's word and joined the ranks of "whiners". Next he'll take credit for advocating before anyone else that we whine our way out of the recession AND Iraq!

Anonymous said...

Given Obama's twenty-year close relationship with Wright I don't see why everybody screamed he should not be blamed for the whining about white mistreatment from his associate, if they, in turn, are going to blame McCain for Gramm.

And the difference in the relationships is startling.

Gramm is merely a financial advisor, whereas Wright was an over-riding influence and one who crafted Obama's life outlook. That of course affected Obamas opinion of and his relationship with over half the population he would govern as president.

Anonymous said...

11:55 More Joe Biden than Obama. I heard all of Obama's comments and they were not lucid. Maybe Biden will get to be another "Cheney-like" vp and run the country for Obama.

Anonymous said...


So are you saying just as Obama should not have Wright hung around his neck, McCain should not have Gramm hung around his neck? Fine by me.

I did not blame McCain for Gramm. I simply suggested that perhaps he had taken Gramm's viewpoint to heart and embraced "whining".

Oh, and bullshit on the differences in the relationships. John McCain and Phil Gramm have been friends and collegues for more than 20 years. McCain was campaign chair for Gramm when he ran for President in 1996. McCain's reliance on Gramm for economic advice was the answer for McCain's own acknowledged lack of expertise on the economy ("McCain's Economic Brain" - per Larry Kudlow).

Anonymous said...


Again tonight Obama echoed the comments made earlier when he was asked about the surge by Brian Williams. It was a perfectly lucid and rational response.

The GOP will respond with the petulance to which they've been reduced. That and lies (China drilling for oil off our shores, Katrina spilled no oil, redefining the surge as well as its goals, McCain's leadership bona fides, etc.) are all they have. They have no policies that resonate and they have no record of success upon which to run.

Anonymous said...

8:28 Most of us who have "friends" and even "advisors" know that relationship is different from our "Spiritual advisor"; "pastor"; "mentor"; "like an uncle"; as well as "friend" are different in their influende and importance. Not only that, Obama had the entire congregation at that church as "brothers and sisters" all interacting in their belief that white people are evil. Wright, as well as Michell, were sure "whining" about their victimhood on the clips we all saw on TV.

However, even if you equate Wright and Gramm with the same level of influence, look at the difference in thier doctrines. Gramm influenced McCain's economic ideas; and, Wright Obama's spiritual, cultural, social and political perspectives. And also, just because Gramm is a social idiot (did you seem him when he ran for president) doesn't mean he doesn't have solid credentials in finance.

6:40 I watched the Couric and the Williams interviews. No surprise, that after his abysmal answer and floudering with Couric, his "team" wrote an answer for him and groomed him for a better response the next time.

Now they're going to have to re-do his idea that American should join the world in taking care of all the problems of poverty, injustice, etc. and share the cost of these endeavors. So, with the Bush idea that it's our responsibility to "spread democracy" (and you see where that got us); now, Obama wants us to be the "Nanny of the World." No more "charity begins at home." with Obama. And, not only that, being a caregiver to the world wouldn't be as helpful as our just continuing to try to foster human rights as we've done for years. When the evil ways stop, the suffering countries will improve. Even here, in this couttry Muslims who are American citizens are murdering their daughters because they're becoming "too American" and have American boyfriends. They're called "Honor killings". That's the evil that destroys countries. Obama thinks merely spreading the resources equally will do it. We know communism has not worked for the welfare of the people.

Anonymous said...


Don't try and speak for others. Speak for yourself. Claiming to "know" how much more influential a pastor or spiritual advisor is versus a friend or business advisor is in a relationship is absurd. One only need look at our current President who has rebuffed the advice of his Methodist pastor in Austin while Governor as well as that of the Pope.

But, again, you avoid the question: if Gramm should not be hung around McCain's neck, should Wright be hung around Obama's?

Gramm's solid credentials in finance: flatly stated that the Clinton tax increases would destroy the economy and increase unemployment (oops!), authored deregulation of energy which led to Enron, championed deregulation of the banking industry which led to the mortgage crisis, etc.

Regarding your incoherent rant to 6:40, the only thing I can reply with is that evil is evil. It is not limited. It knows no specific religion. It knows no national boundaries. And abuse of human rights (from honor killings to sexual slavery to poverty and disease) needs to be combated in concert by all freedom loving nations of goodwill.

If you are a believer (Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.) you are morally compelled to do so. It is not communism. It is not "nanny state". It is the word of God.

Anonymous said...

8:29 You did not talk to the points and these cross-arguments on this blog are, as usual, a waste of time. I've made my last.

Anonymous said...


I spoke directly to the points and let's get one thing perfectly clear, if you think responding on Andy's blog is a usual waste of time then you have only yourself to blame.

Anonymous said...

10:16 Thank you, Mommy. Didn't think you'd know it was me, but it's like you always tell me "I only have myself to blame"; you are faultless.

Anonymous said...


Oh, I have faults.

Whining isn't one of them, though.

Anonymous said...

Obama, the Harvard grad, the Harvard professor, the private shcool elitkst, a Senator of the USA, the Democratic Party's candidate for president; and, the one who said we should all learn Spanish and quit embarrassing ourselves by our French limtied to "merci", spoke today in front of a group of French people and made the same terrible grammatical errors in his native tongue, English, that he has made in every speech I've heard him give. He and his "team" should be more careful.

Anonymous said...

Careful, eh?

Errors in the above:

1. Obama was not a Harvard professor. He taught at U of Chicago.

2. "shcool elitkst"? Is that Hungarian? It's not English.

Glass houses and stones don't go well together, do they?

(BTW, unless you are some sort of xenophobe, you might be interested in the views of another Harvard alum:

Anonymous said...

11:37 Yours is the more serious error: you cannot effectively evaluate situations. No matter what mistakes I made or may make, I am not in line to be the next president. Try to understand the difference: my house is not glass. Can you understand that?

Anonymous said...

Obama was not a professor of Consistutional Law, nor a bona fide professor at the U. of Chicago, or at any other university:


". . . 'seved as a professor' in the law school -- but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed on Friday. . . . 'He did not hold the title of professor of law.[ said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an assistant dean for commiunications and lecturer in law at the school. . . . Nagorsky said Omaba carried out, or served, a function of a professor . . . "

Anonymous said...

Obama echoed Michell's "mean country" when he mentioined in his speech to the French that the US used torture and had other faults (but we could all work together). Does that indicate that we can work with the world no matter how "mean" we are? As President, he will show us the light and the way, is implied.

Anonymous said...

There is a poll on today, "would you want your employer to have your health test results?"

Almost 200,000 people responded - 91% said "NO".

So 9 out of 10 people don't want their employer to know their health test results, yet almost 100% of Democrats want the government to have total control of their health.

Anonymous said...

10:05 So what? The government doesn't show my employer my tax return which would reveal my other job which I do part time. Your complaint is idiotic. My employer doesn't know my correct age but my State, where my birth certificate is registered. doesn't call my employer and tell him Im older than I told him. Government is not the enemy.

Anonymous said...

It's the big corporations, banks, and merchants who sell customer/client personal information. Their only consideration is profit and our personal information is a "product."

Of course, now the government can spy on us, contrary to the provision of the Constituion thanks to the Republicans and Obama.

Anonymous said...


The University of Chicago seemingly begs to differ:

Anonymous said...


Please see the following and then report back where Obama (or Clinton, for that matter) states the federal government will have total control over the health care system in this country:

Anonymous said...


What an ineffectual response.

You were throroughly loose with facts and made errors in the application of language when suggesting Obama and his team should be more careful regarding the very same issues.

(i.e. - Rocks thrown at glass)

Anonymous said...


This is complex. Sorry.

The Sun Times article was about the response of the assistant dean of communications at the University clarifying the misconception that OBama was a legitimate professor at the University; he was a part time lecturer. and later had one class. She explainsthe statement from the university which called Obama a professor and which caused the misunderstanding. Read the article.

For your glass house platitude to be applicable the person throwing the stones has to be "guilty" of that for which he is throwing stones, and has to be vulnerable to the counter attacks of the target, thus living in a "glass" house An anonymous blogger has nothing to fear if Obama accuses him of also misusing the English language and misspelling a word or making a typo.

Anonymous said...

Remember Hillary Care during the Clinton Administration? Hillary tried to make it illegal for a citizen to use his/her own money to pay for their health care without insurance.

Democrats want the government to have total control of your health. It's all about power.

Government is NOT good. If you want the government involved in your health, feel free to move to Cuba.

Anonymous said...

Without government there is anarchy. Our Constitution provides for the best government ever to appear on earth. Our government is not the enemy -- it is the scum we elect sometimes who subvert the Constitution.

The best run "business/program" in the history of our country, despite the Republicans dipping into it, is the Social Security program. It is not run by greedy, self-serving, unscrupulous individual businessmen.

Our government stands for freedom, privacy (until Bush started spying contrary to the Constituion) and protection from foreign lands and crooks in our own country. Our food supply is supposed to be protected too.

Coporate America has become a "legal" band of unpatriotic crooks.

Anonymous said...

Obama's brother lives in China helping the Chinese replace American jobs! Simply google "Worldnexus Ltd" and start your own investigation.

He decided to suspend his operations until his brother gets control of the White House. Once Obama becomes President, his brother will resume taking American jobs to China.

Anonymous said...

I admit I don't remember the details but what about the other relative - a cousin I think - that Obama sent huge sums of money to to help him win his political election in the Middle East? That would be another relative involved with President Obama in foreign affairs. He will make this "one world" under his presidency.

Anonymous said...


No need to apologize as it's not at all complex.

The University of Chicago Law School released a statement in response to media requests. In the column by Lynn Sweet that you cite, a lecturer from the Law School quibbled with the statement by proclaiming Obama did not hold the title of professor of law.

Sounds like that might make your point but it does not contradict in any way what the University put out in its release. The Law School statement stated, "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track."

RE: Glass houses - the idiom is meant to warn people that in attacking others it's often easy for the same attack to be leveled back in response. Obama was attacked for poor grammar by someone who exhibited the same (poor grammar) during his/her attack.


Medicare is run FAR more efficiently than private healthcare.

There is absolutely NOTHING in Obama's or Clinton's health care plan which precludes you or anyone else from purchasing private healthcare and it is instructive to note that 60% of doctors in this country are in favor of some sort of national health care program.

They recognize the system is screwed up.

Anonymous said...

and the logical next step is for the government to control individual health care decisions like:

"thou cannot smoke" to reduce government spending on lung care,

"thou shall not drink more than x amount of y for period z" to reduce government spending on liver care,

"thou shall not work more than 35 hours in a week" to reduce government spending on stress management costs

"thou must forfeit the right of the 2nd Amendment" to reduce government spending on 'gun-related' costs

"thou must forfeit the right of the 1st Amendment" to reduce government spending on 'hate-crime' and 'hate-crime-victim-recovery-and-reparation' costs,

"thou must forfeit ..." the government control of American citizens will happen on Barack Obama's watch.

Anonymous said...

2"15 I suspect you are one who strongly objects to the goverment welfare programs for citizens. Yet, since we can't have the equivalent of a Third World Country, we take care of the poor and sick. Yet, since that's the case, you object to what could be the government's effort to cut costs for caring for those people by encouraging them to stop their expensive, destructive behavior. I guess the only answer would be a healthcare program for those who are willing to follow health rues. If not, those people could be free to pay either their own doctor bills or find an insurance company who would insure them and then pay the huge fees. The same would go for alcohol.

Your other "thous shalt nots . . . " are really silly.

I do wish the government would legalize drugs so those who choose to kill themselves with such use would not cost the govenrment so much in the "drug war" police costs and the prison costs for users and dealers.

And there is another "thou shalt" I think is essential. "when you become a citizen of the USA thous shat accept the customes, mores, laugnage, and laws of the country." Maybe a trial period of at least a year living herre would allow the imbigrant to see if he can comply. If he can learn English, allow his children to go to school without wearing veils; agree to no "honor killings" or animal sacrifices; and, generally join the "melting pot" of America, he can become a citizen.

Anonymous said...

2:33 I want to be an English teacher and I already do very well in school. What is the incorrect grammar used by the person who blamed Obama for bad grammar. I only saw the misspelled word or typing mistake, but no grammar. I am so sorry to have missed it.

I didn't know what "idiom" meant and looked it up. The definition doesn't fit your explanation of the "glass house" thing. Help.

Anonymous said...


There are at least three misspelled words and a non-independent clause set off by a semicolon in the rant against Obama's grammar. Should you achieve your goal of teaching English, I think it likely you will deduct points from any student who provides work with such mistakes.

Also, if you ask a question you should end the sentence with a question mark (that was your mistake).

I'm glad you do well in school. My children were introduced to idioms in middle school (7th grade, as I recall) and you can find information about the specific idiom being discussed at the following:

Anonymous said...

12:16 Thank you very much, sir. I'm afraid I don't see your criticisms so I ll take it to school when it opens to get help from my English teacher. It looks like an independent sentence to me. I'm sure she'll show me what you mean. I'm going to check out "idiom" too because my dictionary says Idiom: the langugage peculiar to an individual, a group, a class, or culture; 2) the characteristic form or structure of a language.3) an expression in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself."

School doesn't start again for several weeks, but I sure appreciate your help. I'll get my teacher to help me understand what you said.

Anonymous said...

They're all rotten. In Sunday NY Times: RANGEL COLLECTS MORE FROM REAL ESTATE DONORS THAN MOST OTHERS IN CONGRESS. Then the article says :

"Some of Mr Rangel's largest contributors have come from people with ties to firms whose executives are leading members of the Rent Stabilizaiton Association. The group has been behind EFFORTS TO WEAKEN NEW YORK CITY'S RENT REGULATIONS, including a 1997 change in state law that eliminated rent controls on apartments when the tenants moved out or died . . . Now it is pushing to block what it calls 'a whole raft of pro-tenant bills bills". Rangel has received a least a hundred thousand dollars from them since 2004.

He not only took money, he is working against the welfare of his supporters.

Anonymous said...


It may look like an independent sentence to you, but the opening phrase of the reply is a sentence fragment. It therefore should not be used in conjunction with a semicolon.

Clearly you do not understand the third definition of "idiom" provided to you by your dictionary. Simply follow the link provided earlier and you will have an answer without needing to bother your English teacher with a question you can answer for yourself.

Anonymous said...

9:39 I am an innocent "bystander"

"Use a semicolon to separate a series of phrases or clauses that are long or have punctuation, like commas, within them."

LEO Literacy Education Online

Anonymous said...

"A little knowledge is a dnagerous thing."

Anonymous said...

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Excuse the typo. My little knowledge of how to type is also a "dangerous thing."

Anonymous said...


I am also an "innocent" bystander.

There is absolutely no need for the semicolon or the comma that quickly follows after the word "and" in the sentence. It is a poor construction.

The fact remains if a person wishes to denounce another for making grammatical errors they should be especially concerned about making errors in their criticism (grammatical, factual or otherwise). That is the essence of the "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones" idiom.

Anonymous said...

11:23 You are a narcissist who typically cannot tolerate being corrected. The semicolon in this case is not only correct, it is required by linguists.

Anonymous said...

The biggest concern is who Barack picks for his VP. With his poll numbers tanking, he better go with a proven winner, HILLARY.

Without Hillary he will lose and we'll have 4 more years of Bush the third.