Funny, article. (Yep, and Al Gore was a historical lock to win the presidency, as well.)
If the Democrats had selected Hillary (or if B.O. picks her as VIP), then absolutely yes.
However, selecting one of the nation's most liberal US senators . . . again . . . not a good strategy. Thrown in his youth, inexperience, connection with shady Chicago politicians and questionable pastors, the Republic spin machine will have a field day. Does anyone remember the swiftboat show?
Yes, this might be a landslide, but in favor of McCain.
If the Dem's ever picked a new Democrat again (like Bill Clinton or Even Bayh) instead of these elite, quasi-socialist liberals, they could stop snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.
How many more ultra-liberals are they going to put up before they learn? It's like groundhog day, except with Obama instead of Kerry.
Again, not taking a partisan stand here (believe it or not), but Democrats seem like they are in denial every time they pick a candidate. This may play well in D.C., S.F. or N.Y., but it is not going to play well in the swing states.
Sorry, facts of life.
Good luck on this one, Marion . . . but don't be too surprised to wake up with a McCain/Romney as your Prez and VIP.
I don't think that will happen lunchabee. Character, youth, a fresh perspective, an inspiring vision, will win out against McCain who wants to continue Bush's legacy. At this point in time, the country doesn't want another Republican president. I suppose we can argue it to death, we'll just have to see.
Nobody knows who is going to win this one. It appears that it's going to be a close race, Either way, the taxpayer's get another empty suit that blows a ton of hot air.
BTW, Marion....why don't you enlighten all of us as to just exactly how Obama has such a new, fresh perspective? All I've read and heard is a bunch of nothing.
I think that this election is Obama's to lose. And I think Obama has enough vulnerabilities where that is a distinct possibility. I don't think you can look at this election through the lens of 2000 or 2004. The composite of the electorate is the wild card in this election. I wouldn't put too much stock in the polls this year due to pollsters probably not weighting the demographics correctly. Right now I would say that plays to Obama's favor. You could take Virginia as an example. This has been a reliable Republican state for decades but maybe not this year. You have a large African American population and the growing suburbs of N. Va which lean left. This is where all the energy and activism lies. Turnout among these voters will more than likely be historic, enough to flip Va blue. But there is enough controversy in Obama's past that could really galvanize the middle part of the electorate to vote on culture and national security issues which would benefit McCain. Right now given the state of the economy (housing bust, ongoing credit crisis, oil) and the fact that recently McCain has come cross as a creepy Mr. McGoo I would guess that Obama will win. My gut tells me he won't close the deal. JMHO.
Submitted by MisterMark123 on June 16, 2008 - 1:11pm.
Bush was the first President to create an Obscenity Prosecutions Task Force, allocating several FBI agents to the job of surfing the internet all day long, looking for "obscene" video and images. A good use of our tax dollars? I think not.
If you don't believe in free speech or habeas corpus, vote Republican. You can be assured that your civil liberties will continue to dwindle and restrictions on your personal freedom will increase.
There is no historical precedent for a black man running for President. People will come out of the woodwork to vote for him or against him based on that fact alone. Will they cancel each other out? I don't know; there is nothing historical to base it on. That's what makes this article a joke and the fact that they ignore this issue laughable.
Nevertheless, every time I see a poster of Obama with the words, "HOPE" in big letters on it I have one thought that comes from years and years of military training: Hope is not a military course of action.
I want a plan. A verifiable, concrete and workable course of action. The first candidate that can do that has my vote.
Submitted by equalizer on June 16, 2008 - 10:20pm.
luchabee and LA_renter:
I've been stating for a while what you two have posted, but I got flamed and was told the southern strategy is not needed. Yeah, its not needed only if you kick those states out the union. Extremely selfish dems in charge. Dean had it right when he stated that dems need to figure how to get the confed flag pickup drivers to vote for dems. Note to Dean: Right message, just can't say that in public.
Submitted by kicksavedave on June 17, 2008 - 1:15pm.
My prediction? Another split between the popular vote and the electoral college, meaning whoever wins will be a lame duck out of the gate. The animosity that this will create both with the public and in Congress will make the next Pesident almost as useless as W... almost.
Prediction number two? Should he win, Obama's VP will be the President within a year. There are just too many nut jobs in this country. Its a scary thought, scary to even type it, but its a very real possibility. On some level, Obama's best insurance policy would be to run with Hillary. She's the one person on the planet that the nut jobs would NOT rather have than Obama.
If Sen. John McCain is really serious about becoming a Web-savvy citizen, perhaps Kathryn Robinson can help.
Robinson is now 106 - that's 35 years older than McCain - and she began using the Internet at 98, at the Barclay Friends home in West Chester, Pa., where she lives. "I started to learn because I wanted to e-mail my family," she says - in an e-mail message, naturally.
Blogs have been buzzing recently over McCain's admission that when it comes to the Internet, "I'm an illiterate who has to rely on his wife for any assistance he can get." And the 71-year-old presumptive Republican nominee, asked about his Web use last week by the New York Times, said that aides "go on for me. I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself."...
Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was fundraising in Richmond, VA, and joked about how he vets prospective VP candidates:
“We’re going through a process where you get a whole bunch of names, and ya … Well, basically, it’s a Google. You just, you know, what you can find out now on the Internet. It’s remarkable, you know.”
I thought historians studied History and were experts in History (i.e. the past, not the future). They may be right (hey it's a 50/50 chance, right), but I think I'll wait for an article on what the expert "Futurians" predict.
Submitted by cooprider on July 22, 2008 - 10:40am.
At the risk of perpetuating OT posts, I'd suggest those who support Barack Hussein Obama II do a little reaserch on what he actually wants to do, and some of the things he has actually said before casting your vote for someone simply because they are not someone else.
Here's one quote that literally made my skin crawl.
"I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
Punished with a baby? Teach them morals, but no responsibility for their actions? Forget the abortion issue here, read between the lines.
I always wondered what he meant by punishment. I think it is a poor choice of words. It is also a weird thing for a father to say about his daughters. Many childless couples would consider a baby a blessing. It is not until they become teenagers that they are a punishment.
Submitted by seattle-relo on July 22, 2008 - 12:20pm.
I don't know...Obama at times can be a dramatic speaker, I wonder if he was just using the word "punished" to be a little dramatic. It is confusing though - wanting his daughters to be moral and responsible, yet not wanting them to step up to the real (pregnancy) consequences of their decisions/behaviors (pre-marital sex).
I agree. It is confusing because most fathers are very protective of their daughters. It is not a good message for raising children, especially in view of his speech about responsibility. The one that ticked Jackson off.
"And it's time for some more straight talk. This time it's about the budget deficit. Yes, it's much too high. But the President doesn't vote for a budget, and the President can't spend a dime. Only the Congress can do that. They blame, they blame the defense increases for the deficit, yet defense spending today, in real dollars, is almost exactly what it was six years ago. In a six-year period, Congress cut defense spending authority by over $125 billion. And for every one-dollar reduction in defense outlays, they added two dollars to domestic spending. Now if they had passed my first budget, my first spending plan, in 1982, the cumulative outlays in deficits would have been $207 billion lower by 1986."
"Every - every single year I've been in office, I have supported and called for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and the liberals have said no every year. I called for the line-item veto, which 43 governors have, to cut fat in the budget, and the liberals have said no. Every year, I've attempted to limit their wild spending sprees, and they've said no."
"They would have us believe that runaway budget deficits began in 1981, when we took office. Well, let me tell you something. The fact is, when they began their war on poverty in the middle 60's, from 1965 through 1980 - in just those 15 years - the budgets increased to five times what they had been, and the deficits went up to 52 times what they had been before their war on poverty. Now, now don't we know that, if they were elected - they're elected, their answer will be the one they have relied on in the past - and that is higher taxes?"
"The other party has controlled the House of Representatives for 52 out of the last 56 years. They've controlled the Senate also for 46 of those years. Where we really need a change is to elect Republican majorities in both Houses. Then - and then George Bush can have a team that will protect your tax cuts, keep America strong, hold down inflation and interest rates, appoint judges to preserve your rights, and, yes, reduce the budget deficit."
"In 1980 and before, it took seven weeks to get a Social Security card. Now it takes 10 days. It only takes 10 days to get a passport; it used to take 43 days. It took 75 days to get an export license; now it's only 17 days, and for some countries, only 5. It took over 100 days to process a claim for a Department of Housing and Urban Development Title I loan - 100 days. It now takes less than one-fourth of that - 22 days."
'Requirements for President'
"Because I feel so strongly about the work that must continue and the need to protect our gains for the American family and for national security, I want to share with you the qualities we should seek in the next President."
"We need someone who's big enough and experienced enough to handle tough and demanding negotiations with Mr. Gorbachev -because this is no time to gamble with on-the-job training. We need someone who's prepared to be President and who has the commitment to stand up for you against massive new taxes and who will keep alive the hope and promise that keeps our economy strong."
"It'll take someone who has seen this office from the inside, who senses the danger points, will be cool under fire and knows the range of answers when the tough questions come."
"This office is not mine to give - only you, the people, can do that. But I love America too much and care too much about where we will be in the next few years. I care that we give custody of this office to someone who will build on our changes, not retreat to the past."
"With George Bush I'll know, as we approach the new millenium, our children will have a future secure with a nation at peace and protected against aggression; we'll have a prosperity that spreads the blessings of our abundance and opportunity across all America; we'll have safe and active neighborhoods; drug-free schools that send our children soaring in the atmosphere of great ideas and deep values; and a nation confidently willing to take its leadership into the uncharted reaches of a new age."
I would also be interested in hearing about his "new" ideals. McCain has a huge following and I ,for one, was willing to vote for a democratic president but it was neither of the big two. Every time I see that stupid sticker that says "hope" I cringe. What does he offer that earn that title? Please explain it to me.
Everytime I hear McCain is the next Bush it makes me cringe. Are these the only two platforms that he is running on? Hope and McCain = Bush. Please explain with a valid arguement and I will promise to have an open mind.
And while you are explaining I will provide the following accompainment. It was suited for Kennedy... Maybe good for Obama too...
It's true! It's true! The crown has made it clear.
The climate must be perfect all the year.
A law was made a distant moon ago here:
July and August cannot be too hot.
And there's a legal limit to the snow here
In Camelot.
The winter is forbidden till December
And exits March the second on the dot.
By order, summer lingers through September
In Camelot.
Camelot! Camelot!
I know it sounds a bit bizarre,
But in Camelot, Camelot
That's how conditions are.
The rain may never fall till after sundown.
By eight, the morning fog must disappear.
In short, there's simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Camelot.
Camelot! Camelot!
I know it gives a person pause,
But in Camelot, Camelot
Those are the legal laws.
The snow may never slush upon the hillside.
By nine p.m. the moonlight must appear.
In short, there's simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Camelot
Just want a healthy dose of reality from our next president. Good know this one does know it...
Whether it is McCain or Obama, they will be dealing with a difficult world and not just one bellicose adversary, but many. Putin is no Gorbachev. He is much worse.
I can share my rationale. I was 'R' throughout the 90's but strongly disapprove of current Republican direction/leadership, "Terri Schiavo Syndrome". As many in my generation (X) are, I'm a fiscal and foreign policy conservative, progressive or libertarian on social issues (eg. I could care less about gay marriage). Three main reasons I support Obama:
1. Pragmatic foreign policy
2. Sensible energy policy
3. Throw the partisan bums out
Check out the "Obama is Conservative" thread for a reasonable discussion of foreign policy issues. Obama is advocating a return to pragmatism and conservatism. Bush/McCain and the new-age Republicans are ideological and interventionist. Easy to see which candidate aligns with my values.
With energy policy, BO is for R&D into USA energy infrastructure, diversification of sources, emphasis on renewables, conservation and greening our economy. JM is out there blathering about a gas-tax holiday (which is unbelievably retarded, BTW). I can't understate how important energy policy is becoming, BTW. It's the issue of our time.
Finally, out of the remaining candidates, BO offers what I believe is our best chance at turning the page on Clinton/Bush partisanship. We've had almost 2 decades now of boomer leftie war protesters going at it with moral-majority establishment types, reliving the 60's and Vietnam, dividing the country into Reds and Blues for cynical political gain.
Obama is the best chance to turn the page. I don't think I'm being naive here. The rap in the 'MSM' is BO's a radical liberal. If you study his positions, many of them are quite centrist and moderate. Google "Susan Eisenhower and Barack Obama", give it a read and let me know what you think.
These are the issues that factor into my analysis, and the rationale behind my support for Obama. You can make up your own mind. Enjoy the process.
Yeah I am with you on a lot of what you have said Grey Pilgrim. I did not like the Schivo thing either and when it comes to the whole Republican - Religious thing I am right with you in disgust.
As for engery policy... Shhhhyyyttttt... Don't get me started. As some one who has done a little research in the alternative engery area... The R's have thrown more money at it than the D's in the last twenty years. But even that is not really a valid arguement when considering the amoutn of money it was. The R's pushed "a drop in the bucket" kinda of money at it and the D's pushed a little less than that. Don't look to either for energy policy. The market will take care of that one on its own. So no... You can't sell my on that point.
JM blathering about his tax holiday was only supposed to be a temporary thing to give some quick relief to some. It was never intended to be a long term strategy so that is not a valid arguement. And I even have to agree with the policy somewhat because even though oil has fallen I still hear and see people struggling to get to work (at least in the very short term)
As for the paritisanship... McCain was considered an under-dog from day one BECAUSE of his voting record AGAINST the republicans. Remember he has had a hell of a time courting the right and has been considered traitorous because he will not vote party lines. This is the one republican candidate that the democrats should be rooting for. I think he is the most moderate of the other R's out there. As for Obama I think he would be more polarizing. In his defense I am sure that there are many schmuck R's out there that would vote against him only because he is a D's. I think the D's would be more open minded to JM so you have so wiggle room there.
So inconclusion, you haven't sold me yet. But I will do my homework that you have asked me to and google that.
I don't believe that Obama is a flaming liberal lefty. I know that he is more moderate than that but I really think all this Camelot crap is dissaffecting (did I use the word correctly) and most of his team encourge him. I think without all the hype I could be more convinced but he really isn't going to change the direction of this country dramatically and I am concerned with someone that would propagate that myth.
It is like Frodo said in books... "Some how I think the enemy would look fair and feel foul" to which Aragon replied "while I look foul and feel fair?". That is how I feel about the two.
Gandalf I will reply when I have read that article chartible. I promised to keep an open mind and I will.
Funny, article. (Yep, and Al Gore was a historical lock to win the presidency, as well.)
If the Democrats had selected Hillary (or if B.O. picks her as VIP), then absolutely yes.
However, selecting one of the nation's most liberal US senators . . . again . . . not a good strategy. Thrown in his youth, inexperience, connection with shady Chicago politicians and questionable pastors, the Republic spin machine will have a field day. Does anyone remember the swiftboat show?
Yes, this might be a landslide, but in favor of McCain.
If the Dem's ever picked a new Democrat again (like Bill Clinton or Even Bayh) instead of these elite, quasi-socialist liberals, they could stop snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.
How many more ultra-liberals are they going to put up before they learn? It's like groundhog day, except with Obama instead of Kerry.
Again, not taking a partisan stand here (believe it or not), but Democrats seem like they are in denial every time they pick a candidate. This may play well in D.C., S.F. or N.Y., but it is not going to play well in the swing states.
Sorry, facts of life.
Good luck on this one, Marion . . . but don't be too surprised to wake up with a McCain/Romney as your Prez and VIP.
I don't think that will happen lunchabee. Character, youth, a fresh perspective, an inspiring vision, will win out against McCain who wants to continue Bush's legacy. At this point in time, the country doesn't want another Republican president. I suppose we can argue it to death, we'll just have to see.
Nobody knows who is going to win this one. It appears that it's going to be a close race, Either way, the taxpayer's get another empty suit that blows a ton of hot air.
BTW, Marion....why don't you enlighten all of us as to just exactly how Obama has such a new, fresh perspective? All I've read and heard is a bunch of nothing.
I think that this election is Obama's to lose. And I think Obama has enough vulnerabilities where that is a distinct possibility. I don't think you can look at this election through the lens of 2000 or 2004. The composite of the electorate is the wild card in this election. I wouldn't put too much stock in the polls this year due to pollsters probably not weighting the demographics correctly. Right now I would say that plays to Obama's favor. You could take Virginia as an example. This has been a reliable Republican state for decades but maybe not this year. You have a large African American population and the growing suburbs of N. Va which lean left. This is where all the energy and activism lies. Turnout among these voters will more than likely be historic, enough to flip Va blue. But there is enough controversy in Obama's past that could really galvanize the middle part of the electorate to vote on culture and national security issues which would benefit McCain. Right now given the state of the economy (housing bust, ongoing credit crisis, oil) and the fact that recently McCain has come cross as a creepy Mr. McGoo I would guess that Obama will win. My gut tells me he won't close the deal. JMHO.
Bush was the first President to create an Obscenity Prosecutions Task Force, allocating several FBI agents to the job of surfing the internet all day long, looking for "obscene" video and images. A good use of our tax dollars? I think not.
If you don't believe in free speech or habeas corpus, vote Republican. You can be assured that your civil liberties will continue to dwindle and restrictions on your personal freedom will increase.
Good story about the creation of the task force:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=11...
There is no historical precedent for a black man running for President. People will come out of the woodwork to vote for him or against him based on that fact alone. Will they cancel each other out? I don't know; there is nothing historical to base it on. That's what makes this article a joke and the fact that they ignore this issue laughable.
I can't wait for this election to be over.
Bugs. I think I agree with you.
Nevertheless, every time I see a poster of Obama with the words, "HOPE" in big letters on it I have one thought that comes from years and years of military training: Hope is not a military course of action.
I want a plan. A verifiable, concrete and workable course of action. The first candidate that can do that has my vote.
Maybe Obama wrote this in Harvard Law Review:
SURVEY: MAJORITY OF WEB USERS ARE
FBI AGENTS POSING AS TEENAGE GIRLS
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0008/sati...
luchabee and LA_renter:
I've been stating for a while what you two have posted, but I got flamed and was told the southern strategy is not needed. Yeah, its not needed only if you kick those states out the union. Extremely selfish dems in charge. Dean had it right when he stated that dems need to figure how to get the confed flag pickup drivers to vote for dems. Note to Dean: Right message, just can't say that in public.
My prediction? Another split between the popular vote and the electoral college, meaning whoever wins will be a lame duck out of the gate. The animosity that this will create both with the public and in Congress will make the next Pesident almost as useless as W... almost.
Prediction number two? Should he win, Obama's VP will be the President within a year. There are just too many nut jobs in this country. Its a scary thought, scary to even type it, but its a very real possibility. On some level, Obama's best insurance policy would be to run with Hillary. She's the one person on the planet that the nut jobs would NOT rather have than Obama.
McCain is Computer Illiterate
If Sen. John McCain is really serious about becoming a Web-savvy citizen, perhaps Kathryn Robinson can help.
Robinson is now 106 - that's 35 years older than McCain - and she began using the Internet at 98, at the Barclay Friends home in West Chester, Pa., where she lives. "I started to learn because I wanted to e-mail my family," she says - in an e-mail message, naturally.
Blogs have been buzzing recently over McCain's admission that when it comes to the Internet, "I'm an illiterate who has to rely on his wife for any assistance he can get." And the 71-year-old presumptive Republican nominee, asked about his Web use last week by the New York Times, said that aides "go on for me. I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself."...
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080720...
It’s the Economic Stupidity, Stupid
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/opinio...
Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was fundraising in Richmond, VA, and joked about how he vets prospective VP candidates:
“We’re going through a process where you get a whole bunch of names, and ya … Well, basically, it’s a Google. You just, you know, what you can find out now on the Internet. It’s remarkable, you know.”
Watch it:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/09/mcca...
I thought historians studied History and were experts in History (i.e. the past, not the future). They may be right (hey it's a 50/50 chance, right), but I think I'll wait for an article on what the expert "Futurians" predict.
Ron Paul versus Barack Obama
That would be a good election contest.
Oh my lord, McCain stands in front of the bus and gets run over every time !!
"Iraq / Pakistan border".
(2004) "I think it's obvious we would have to leave" ...if Iraq asked us. THEY'RE ASKING!!!
Obama, please hurry up. We can't take too much more of this comedy. Somebody's likely to bust a gut.
At the risk of perpetuating OT posts, I'd suggest those who support Barack Hussein Obama II do a little reaserch on what he actually wants to do, and some of the things he has actually said before casting your vote for someone simply because they are not someone else.
Here's one quote that literally made my skin crawl.
"I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
Punished with a baby? Teach them morals, but no responsibility for their actions? Forget the abortion issue here, read between the lines.
I always wondered what he meant by punishment. I think it is a poor choice of words. It is also a weird thing for a father to say about his daughters. Many childless couples would consider a baby a blessing. It is not until they become teenagers that they are a punishment.
I don't know...Obama at times can be a dramatic speaker, I wonder if he was just using the word "punished" to be a little dramatic. It is confusing though - wanting his daughters to be moral and responsible, yet not wanting them to step up to the real (pregnancy) consequences of their decisions/behaviors (pre-marital sex).
I agree. It is confusing because most fathers are very protective of their daughters. It is not a good message for raising children, especially in view of his speech about responsibility. The one that ticked Jackson off.
As I understand both Obama and McCain fully support and will probably expand the H-1B programs.
If this is true, both candidates will be working hard to put you out of a job if you happen to work in IT.
Win One for the Gipper
"And it's time for some more straight talk. This time it's about the budget deficit. Yes, it's much too high. But the President doesn't vote for a budget, and the President can't spend a dime. Only the Congress can do that. They blame, they blame the defense increases for the deficit, yet defense spending today, in real dollars, is almost exactly what it was six years ago. In a six-year period, Congress cut defense spending authority by over $125 billion. And for every one-dollar reduction in defense outlays, they added two dollars to domestic spending. Now if they had passed my first budget, my first spending plan, in 1982, the cumulative outlays in deficits would have been $207 billion lower by 1986."
"Every - every single year I've been in office, I have supported and called for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and the liberals have said no every year. I called for the line-item veto, which 43 governors have, to cut fat in the budget, and the liberals have said no. Every year, I've attempted to limit their wild spending sprees, and they've said no."
"They would have us believe that runaway budget deficits began in 1981, when we took office. Well, let me tell you something. The fact is, when they began their war on poverty in the middle 60's, from 1965 through 1980 - in just those 15 years - the budgets increased to five times what they had been, and the deficits went up to 52 times what they had been before their war on poverty. Now, now don't we know that, if they were elected - they're elected, their answer will be the one they have relied on in the past - and that is higher taxes?"
"The other party has controlled the House of Representatives for 52 out of the last 56 years. They've controlled the Senate also for 46 of those years. Where we really need a change is to elect Republican majorities in both Houses. Then - and then George Bush can have a team that will protect your tax cuts, keep America strong, hold down inflation and interest rates, appoint judges to preserve your rights, and, yes, reduce the budget deficit."
"In 1980 and before, it took seven weeks to get a Social Security card. Now it takes 10 days. It only takes 10 days to get a passport; it used to take 43 days. It took 75 days to get an export license; now it's only 17 days, and for some countries, only 5. It took over 100 days to process a claim for a Department of Housing and Urban Development Title I loan - 100 days. It now takes less than one-fourth of that - 22 days."
'Requirements for President'
"Because I feel so strongly about the work that must continue and the need to protect our gains for the American family and for national security, I want to share with you the qualities we should seek in the next President."
"We need someone who's big enough and experienced enough to handle tough and demanding negotiations with Mr. Gorbachev -because this is no time to gamble with on-the-job training. We need someone who's prepared to be President and who has the commitment to stand up for you against massive new taxes and who will keep alive the hope and promise that keeps our economy strong."
"It'll take someone who has seen this office from the inside, who senses the danger points, will be cool under fire and knows the range of answers when the tough questions come."
"This office is not mine to give - only you, the people, can do that. But I love America too much and care too much about where we will be in the next few years. I care that we give custody of this office to someone who will build on our changes, not retreat to the past."
"With George Bush I'll know, as we approach the new millenium, our children will have a future secure with a nation at peace and protected against aggression; we'll have a prosperity that spreads the blessings of our abundance and opportunity across all America; we'll have safe and active neighborhoods; drug-free schools that send our children soaring in the atmosphere of great ideas and deep values; and a nation confidently willing to take its leadership into the uncharted reaches of a new age."
I would also be interested in hearing about his "new" ideals. McCain has a huge following and I ,for one, was willing to vote for a democratic president but it was neither of the big two. Every time I see that stupid sticker that says "hope" I cringe. What does he offer that earn that title? Please explain it to me.
Everytime I hear McCain is the next Bush it makes me cringe. Are these the only two platforms that he is running on? Hope and McCain = Bush. Please explain with a valid arguement and I will promise to have an open mind.
And while you are explaining I will provide the following accompainment. It was suited for Kennedy... Maybe good for Obama too...
It's true! It's true! The crown has made it clear.
The climate must be perfect all the year.
A law was made a distant moon ago here:
July and August cannot be too hot.
And there's a legal limit to the snow here
In Camelot.
The winter is forbidden till December
And exits March the second on the dot.
By order, summer lingers through September
In Camelot.
Camelot! Camelot!
I know it sounds a bit bizarre,
But in Camelot, Camelot
That's how conditions are.
The rain may never fall till after sundown.
By eight, the morning fog must disappear.
In short, there's simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Camelot.
Camelot! Camelot!
I know it gives a person pause,
But in Camelot, Camelot
Those are the legal laws.
The snow may never slush upon the hillside.
By nine p.m. the moonlight must appear.
In short, there's simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Camelot
Just want a healthy dose of reality from our next president. Good know this one does know it...
Take Care People,
CE
Whether it is McCain or Obama, they will be dealing with a difficult world and not just one bellicose adversary, but many. Putin is no Gorbachev. He is much worse.
cdma,
I can share my rationale. I was 'R' throughout the 90's but strongly disapprove of current Republican direction/leadership, "Terri Schiavo Syndrome". As many in my generation (X) are, I'm a fiscal and foreign policy conservative, progressive or libertarian on social issues (eg. I could care less about gay marriage). Three main reasons I support Obama:
1. Pragmatic foreign policy
2. Sensible energy policy
3. Throw the partisan bums out
Check out the "Obama is Conservative" thread for a reasonable discussion of foreign policy issues. Obama is advocating a return to pragmatism and conservatism. Bush/McCain and the new-age Republicans are ideological and interventionist. Easy to see which candidate aligns with my values.
With energy policy, BO is for R&D into USA energy infrastructure, diversification of sources, emphasis on renewables, conservation and greening our economy. JM is out there blathering about a gas-tax holiday (which is unbelievably retarded, BTW). I can't understate how important energy policy is becoming, BTW. It's the issue of our time.
Finally, out of the remaining candidates, BO offers what I believe is our best chance at turning the page on Clinton/Bush partisanship. We've had almost 2 decades now of boomer leftie war protesters going at it with moral-majority establishment types, reliving the 60's and Vietnam, dividing the country into Reds and Blues for cynical political gain.
Obama is the best chance to turn the page. I don't think I'm being naive here. The rap in the 'MSM' is BO's a radical liberal. If you study his positions, many of them are quite centrist and moderate. Google "Susan Eisenhower and Barack Obama", give it a read and let me know what you think.
These are the issues that factor into my analysis, and the rationale behind my support for Obama. You can make up your own mind. Enjoy the process.
Regards,
G
If this is true, both candidates will be working hard to put you out of a job if you happen to work in IT.
I call BS on that one. You just have to stay 1 ahead of the curve.
Yeah I am with you on a lot of what you have said Grey Pilgrim. I did not like the Schivo thing either and when it comes to the whole Republican - Religious thing I am right with you in disgust.
As for engery policy... Shhhhyyyttttt... Don't get me started. As some one who has done a little research in the alternative engery area... The R's have thrown more money at it than the D's in the last twenty years. But even that is not really a valid arguement when considering the amoutn of money it was. The R's pushed "a drop in the bucket" kinda of money at it and the D's pushed a little less than that. Don't look to either for energy policy. The market will take care of that one on its own. So no... You can't sell my on that point.
JM blathering about his tax holiday was only supposed to be a temporary thing to give some quick relief to some. It was never intended to be a long term strategy so that is not a valid arguement. And I even have to agree with the policy somewhat because even though oil has fallen I still hear and see people struggling to get to work (at least in the very short term)
As for the paritisanship... McCain was considered an under-dog from day one BECAUSE of his voting record AGAINST the republicans. Remember he has had a hell of a time courting the right and has been considered traitorous because he will not vote party lines. This is the one republican candidate that the democrats should be rooting for. I think he is the most moderate of the other R's out there. As for Obama I think he would be more polarizing. In his defense I am sure that there are many schmuck R's out there that would vote against him only because he is a D's. I think the D's would be more open minded to JM so you have so wiggle room there.
So inconclusion, you haven't sold me yet. But I will do my homework that you have asked me to and google that.
I don't believe that Obama is a flaming liberal lefty. I know that he is more moderate than that but I really think all this Camelot crap is dissaffecting (did I use the word correctly) and most of his team encourge him. I think without all the hype I could be more convinced but he really isn't going to change the direction of this country dramatically and I am concerned with someone that would propagate that myth.
It is like Frodo said in books... "Some how I think the enemy would look fair and feel foul" to which Aragon replied "while I look foul and feel fair?". That is how I feel about the two.
Gandalf I will reply when I have read that article chartible. I promised to keep an open mind and I will.
Take Care Piggs!
CE