2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: Obama (D-IL) vs. McCain (R-AZ)

[Highway6]

So McCain saying he is a "maverick" and "change candidate" isn't misrepresenting who he is as a person? That's who he was years ago. Since running for president this cycle he's changed every position that made him a "maverick". Now he just tows the GOP line.

Actually, you just made my point.

he's changed every position that made him a "maverick"

That would be Policy b.s. to attract whoever he needs more of at any given time - independents, or base.... Not Personal b.s. about his character.

And besides....Obama tows the liberal line.

All this crap about McCain agreeing with Bush 90% of the time... yah.. well I'm betting Obama would agree with liberal posterboy Kennedy 100% of the time... that is if he actually ever actually would have voted yes/no for anything.

McCain is the more moderate of the two candidates. For me.. that is the change i want... change towards the middle.

Compared to your average republican senator.. yeah.. he's a maverick. Everyone in the senate R and D think of him as so.

Compared to Bush.. yeah.. he's not "means well but slightly incompetent".. yeah, thats a change.

You want to change the Uber-partisan bickering and getting nothing done in Washington ?

Obama's version of change is switching from 100% to the right to 100% to the left.

McCains version of change is switching from 100% to the right to worst case, 90% right.

Whatever the %s are... I believe McCain is more the moderate of the two. That is the kind of change i want.

Your and Obama's change.. shifting everyone from the right side of the boat to the left side... will equally get you nowhere.

[west20th]

Actually, you just made my point.

he's changed every position that made him a "maverick"

That would be Policy b.s. to attract whoever he needs more of at any given time - independents, or base.... Not Personal b.s.

And besides....Obama tows the liberal line.

All this crap about McCain agreeing with Bush 90% of the time... yah.. well I'm betting Obama would agree with liberal posterboy Kennedy 100% of the time... that is if he actually ever actually would have voted yes/no for anything.

McCain is the more moderate of the two candidates. For me.. that is the change i want... change towards the middle.

Compared to your average republican senator.. yeah.. he's a maverick. Everyone in the senate R and D think of him as so.

Compared to Bush.. yeah.. he's not "means well but slightly incompetent".. yeah, thats a change.

You want to change the Uber-partisan bickering and getting nothing done in Washington ?

Obama's version of change is switching from 100% to the right to 100% to the left.

McCains version of change is switching from 100% to the right to worst case, 90% right.

Whatever the %s are... I believe McCain is more the moderate of the two. That is the kind of change i want.

Your and Obama's change.. shifting everyone from the right side of the boat to the left side... will equally get you nowhere.

OK we agree. McCain will say anything to get elected.

[Highway6]

OK we agree. McCain will say anything to get elected.

OK we agree. Politicians will say anything to get elected.

Agreed !!!

Which brings us back to your previous statement of having two flawed candidates and picking the least flawed.

And since we cant base that on policy, if we base it on character.. Mr McCain wins hands down.

And i think the DNC would agree since all the cable news stations are covering that Obama is trying to get it "back on the issues" and that if it remains a personality contest.. McCain wins.

[west20th]

Agreed !!!

Nice bit of quote editing.

[Highway6]

Nice bit of quote editing.

Thanks.. Well, I assumed that was what you meant to say. Don't worry.. I fixed it for ya.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Nice bit of quote editing.

Nice bait and switch in the summation!

[west20th]

Agreed !!!

Which brings us back to your previous statement of having two flawed candidates and picking the least flawed.

And since we cant base that on policy, if we base it on character.. Mr McCain wins hands down.

And i think the DNC would agree since all the cable news stations are covering that Obama is trying to get it "back on the issues" and that if it remains a personality contest.. McCain wins.

Mmmmmmm. Don't agree. McCain has had some character flaws. The fact that McCain is drawing attention away from the issues shows how weak he is on those issues. He isn't that much different from GWB (now, not years ago) on most issues. Feel free to point some out that he differs radically on from "W". I find it amazing he is running on a promise of: hey we sucked in the past but now we are gonna change, just don't ask how.

Nice bait and switch in the summation!

?

[barracuda]

Actually, you just made my point.

he's changed every position that made him a "maverick"

That would be Policy b.s. to attract whoever he needs more of at any given time - independents, or base.... Not Personal b.s. about his character.

And besides....Obama tows the liberal line.

All this crap about McCain agreeing with Bush 90% of the time... yah.. well I'm betting Obama would agree with liberal posterboy Kennedy 100% of the time... that is if he actually ever actually would have voted yes/no for anything.

Is it still crap if it's actually true?

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_i...voted_with.html

And in fact, he's voted with Bush 100% in 2008.

McCain is the more moderate of the two candidates. For me.. that is the change i want... change towards the middle.

Compared to your average republican senator.. yeah.. he's a maverick. Everyone in the senate R and D think of him as so.

Compared to Bush.. yeah.. he's not "means well but slightly incompetent".. yeah, thats a change.

McCain was a moderate. But that was up until around 2006. Since then, he has flip-flopped to the far right on most issues. You're living in the past man!

http://election08.videosift.com/video/The-...formed-Maverick

[KinkaidAlum]

"I disagree with Obama's flip to allow for "limited" offshore drilling increases in areas where it was once banned. What does limited mean? Why did he change his views?"

Because --oops--, have you even put gas in a car, are you aware of the fact that we are dependant on foriegn oil, are you aware that the majority of that oil comes from not too friendly places, and are you even cognisent of the fact that anything we do even if it takes years is positive to fix these problems!

head explodes.

I am totally aware that we are dependent upon foreign oil. I am also completely aware of the fact that there are NO EASY solutions. That's why I am against the change in off-shore drilling regulations. It's a quick fix to win over voters. The only problem? It ISN'T a quick fix!

We have to start somewhere and Obama's comprehensive energy plan is FAR superior to just assuming we can drill our way out of our dependence. Good luck with that...

[RedScare]

You can ban weapons all the way down to a common butter knife, you are dreaming and living in fantasy land if you think it will make us safer. Do you not understand that criminals don't go to the local Academy Sporting Goods to buy their weapons? They are criminals, they are already banned from them having anything over a 4 inch pocket knife. Yet they still have them. Why you ask? BECAUSE THEY ARE CRIMINALS, AND THAT's WHAT THEY DO, BREAK THE LAW!!!

Weapons ban for the sake of getting them off the streets is the biggest farce known to mankind. Crack is illegal and they still have it. Heroin is illegal and they still have that. Are we getting it yet. Banning weapons is nothing more that violating the second amendment rights of those that obtain weapons LEGALLY. Plain and simple. Do I own any assault weapons, yes I do. I also hold a Class "A" FFL and can legally do so. I also hold a concealed handgun permit. I have never robbed anyone, but I have stopped someone from being robbed. My father was a peace officer for over 60 years, I have nothing but respect for the law, and have little tolerance for those that don't.

I let this stuff slide a lot, because I don't want to bog the discussion down, but since Mark brought it up again, I'll make this brief comment. The argument that if guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns, is completely missing the point. Criminals will always have weapons. This is true. However, if the weapons are all legal, the police will have no right to arrest the criminals for possessing them. Armed robbers will not be breaking any law while standing outside the bank. Drive by gangsters stopped by the police BEFORE the drive by must be released, as they are legal citizens. The examples are endless.

No US politician is trying to disarm the law abiding public. They are trying to disarm the law BREAKING public. Clearly, some take the attempts to protect the public too far, just as the Bush administration has done in the name of terror. But, just as clearly, some on the other side are making things worse in their "defense of the 2nd Amendment". Current Texas law now requires police to allow criminals to proceed WITH their guns, as long as they are not breaking the law at the time the police stop them. This means that a proactive policeman now has NO authority to arrest a criminal with a gun that he suspects is about to commit a crime. This is not my imagination talking. It is happening today on a regular basis.

Reasonable gun laws have their place. Unreasonable laws should be tossed. And unreasonable groups like the NRA should not receive the patriotic label they receive. They have done more to tie the hands of police than any terror group.

Note: This is not a defense of the assault weapons ban, a schizophrenic law based on whether a gun LOOKED scary. It is a plea for REASONABLE laws that help police fight crime, while at the same time allowing citizens to defend themselves and their homes.

[Highway6]

Mmmmmmm. Don't agree. McCain has had some character flaws. The fact that McCain is drawing attention away from the issues shows how weak he is on those issues. He isn't that much different from GWB (now, not years ago) on most issues. Feel free to point some out that he differs radically on from "W". I find it amazing he is running on a promise of: hey we sucked in the past but now we are gonna change, just don't ask how.

Well, first, i dont think McCain is purposefully drawing attention away from policy.. I think he's riding the re-branding re-engerized high left over from the convention.

Plus.. real policy discussion will come soon enough when the debates start (which i think is thurs... CNN forum).

It's not like they can each stand there the whole night going "Blah blah Hope and change" "Blah blah country first" "blah blah mccain more of the same" "blah blah maverick" all night.

Guess that would party depend on why you think W sucks.

General Policy-wise, in my opinion, is not where W or the republican party is deficient.

I think W is deficient in his war-time management above anything else.

Perhaps he's also deficient in the character department as far as his eternally misguided optimism is concerned.

Your essentially judging the party platforms with your statement.. and many other could judge the liberal platform as easily.

I don't expect McCain to differ 180 degrees from Bush.

I expect him to be more moderate though and more open to compromise and getting stuff done.

I also expect him to be a better leader than Bush or Obama and more worthy of the position.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Anyone who thinks that we can really be off of foreign imported oil in ten years, is really clueless, and has not one clue what the real world is really like. No matter who's plan they use, ten years is absurd. You cannot build hybrid cars and alternative sources fast enough to even make it seem the least remotely reasonable, especially when our growth and usage is more than we can keep up with using foreign oil.

[Highway6]

I am totally aware that we are dependent upon foreign oil. I am also completely aware of the fact that there are NO EASY solutions. That's why I am against the change in off-shore drilling regulations. It's a quick fix to win over voters. The only problem? It ISN'T a quick fix!

We have to start somewhere and Obama's comprehensive energy plan is FAR superior to just assuming we can drill our way out of our dependence. Good luck with that...

Why do you assume those that support off-shore drilling think its a quick fix ?

You're right, there are no Easy solutions. It will take comprehensive solutions, of which off-shore drilling is part of that solution.

Plus, it might could be argued that while it's not a quick fix as far as energy dependence is concerned, it might be in the least a shot in the arm to the country's economic psyche....

As far as how comprehensive each of their plans are...

They each want reduction in carbon emission level by 2050 ( Mccain 60% below 1990 levels, Obama 80% below 1990 levels)

The each want to significantly invest in renewable energy. ( Mccain use the free market to do so, incentives, lower coproporate tax rate, Obama - invest 150 billion )

They actually both to some degree want off shore drilling to be allowed, though Obama's support is more limited.

Where they differ...

McCain additionally wants Clean coal technology and 45 nuclear reactors up and running.

Neither of them mention Picken's Wind plan or wind at all.. I would hope they both want to add that to their solutions.

Yeah.. who has the more comprehensive plan for a complex problem?!? .. not Obama

* I pulled this off CNN Money's candidate coverage.. if someone has a better link to where either stand on energy security, please share.

[Mark F. Barnes]

I let this stuff slide a lot, because I don't want to bog the discussion down, but since Mark brought it up again, I'll make this brief comment. The argument that if guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns, is completely missing the point. Criminals will always have weapons. This is true. However, if the weapons are all legal, the police will have no right to arrest the criminals for possessing them. Armed robbers will not be breaking any law while standing outside the bank. Drive by gangsters stopped by the police BEFORE the drive by must be released, as they are legal citizens. The examples are endless.

No US politician is trying to disarm the law abiding public. They are trying to disarm the law BREAKING public. Clearly, some take the attempts to protect the public too far, just as the Bush administration has done in the name of terror. But, just as clearly, some on the other side are making things worse in their "defense of the 2nd Amendment". Current Texas law now requires police to allow criminals to proceed WITH their guns, as long as they are not breaking the law at the time the police stop them. This means that a proactive policeman now has NO authority to arrest a criminal with a gun that he suspects is about to commit a crime. This is not my imagination talking. It is happening today on a regular basis.

Reasonable gun laws have their place. Unreasonable laws should be tossed. And unreasonable groups like the NRA should not receive the patriotic label they receive. They have done more to tie the hands of police than any terror group.

Note: This is not a defense of the assault weapons ban, a schizophrenic law based on whether a gun LOOKED scary. It is a plea for REASONABLE laws that help police fight crime, while at the same time allowing citizens to defend themselves and their homes.

I know we're splitting hairs here, but when we speak of criminals, we're talking about convicted felons. You're not a criminal until you're convicted of something. Now if a Policeman pulls over a carload of gang-bangers and they're criminals by my definition, and they have a gun, they are going straight to jail, and not only face State criminal charges, but also Federal criminal charges, and you know that Red. If they are riding around in their car and have no criminal record, and have a concealed handgun in their possession, they are going to jail, record or no record. That's the Law as it reads, no debate about it. If they are standing outside a bank with a handgun hidden or not, they are going to jail, and you know that, don't try and muddle that up. If the DA is not charging them and convicting them, that's their fault, not the rights of law abiding citizens. With the handgun laws as they are today, even if you have a concealed handgun permit (CHP), you can't go in a Bank, Post Office, School, Library, and many many other buildings, if you do, you are going to jail. That's the law as it reads. It's up to prosecutors to prosecute. Concealed handgun laws are very very stringent. If I get pulled over and do not present my CHP along with my drivers license, I can be taken to jail. for not volunteering my CHP. When the police run your license, your CHP is attached to it, and will come up on the DMV run, and if you haven't presented your CHP in advance, you are in serious trouble. So I am not buying the "that a proactive policeman now has NO authority to arrest a criminal with a gun that he suspects is about to commit a crime." Policeman can take you to jail for suspicion of just about anything, for little if no probable cause. But if you are riding around in a car with a pistol and no CHP, you are going to jail period.

[RedScare]

I know we're splitting hairs here, but when we speak of criminals, we're talking about convicted felons. You're not a criminal until you're convicted of something. Now if a Policeman pulls over a carload of gang-bangers and they're criminals by my definition, and they have a gun, they are going straight to jail, and not only face State criminal charges, but also Federal criminal charges, and you know that Red. If they are riding around in their car and have no criminal record, and have a concealed handgun in their possession, they are going to jail, record or no record. That's the Law as it reads, no debate about it. If they are standing outside a bank with a handgun hidden or not, they are going to jail, and you know that, don't try and muddle that up. If the DA is not charging them and convicting them, that's their fault, not the rights of law abiding citizens. With the handgun laws as they are today, even if you have a concealed handgun permit (CHP), you can't go in a Bank, Post Office, School, Library, and many many other buildings, if you do, you are going to jail. That's the law as it reads. It's up to prosecutors to prosecute. Concealed handgun laws are very very stringent. If I get pulled over and do not present my CHP along with my drivers license, I can be taken to jail. for not volunteering my CHP. When the police run your license, your CHP is attached to it, and will come up on the DMV run, and if you haven't presented your CHP in advance, you are in serious trouble. So I am not buying the "that a proactive policeman now has NO authority to arrest a criminal with a gun that he suspects is about to commit a crime." Policeman can take you to jail for suspicion of just about anything, for little if no probable cause. But if you are riding around in a car with a pistol and no CHP, you are going to jail period.

I watch it occur nightly, big guy. New Texas law (as of Sept. 1, 2007) does not allow for an arrest in that scenario. Say what you will, think what you will, but pre-2007 gang-bangers who went to jail for carrying a handgun now drive away.

What charge do you suggest arresting them on?

[Mark F. Barnes]

I watch it occur nightly, big guy. New Texas law (as of Sept. 1, 2007) does not allow for an arrest in that scenario. Say what you will, think what you will, but pre-2007 gang-bangers who went to jail for carrying a handgun now drive away.

What charge do you suggest arresting them on?

So if they have a clean record they walk? That's news to me. Unauthorized possession of a concealed weapon has been altered? Have to study on that a little.

My original point, from post #1515 was the criminals, already have them illegally, how is taking mine away going to prevent that? Answer is, it's not. Nothing is short of locking them away for life or putting a pill in the noggin'. Bar that, the criminals are ALWAYS going to be armed. Those that don't have records are not criminals yet, I guess, but they keep that up they are on the road to being one.

[houstonmacbro]

We're Gonna Frickin' Lose this Thing

Full article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-mckay/w...t_b_124772.html

"Stop saying that!" my wife says to me. But this is not a high school football game and I'm not a cheerleader with a bad attitude. This is an election and as things stand now, we're gonna frickin' lose this thing. Obama and McCain at best are even in the polls nationally and in a recent Gallup poll McCain is ahead by four points.

Something is not right. We have a terrific candidate and a terrific VP candidate. We're coming off the worst eight years in our country's history. Six of those eight years the Congress, White House and even the Supreme Court were controlled by the Republicans and the last two years the R's have filibustered like tantrum throwing 4-year-olds, yet we're going to elect a Republican who voted with that leadership 90% of the time and a former sportscaster who wants to teach Adam and Eve as science? That's not odd as a difference of opinion, that's logically and mathematically queer.

It reminds me of playing blackjack (a losers game). You make all the right moves, play the right hands but basically the House always wins. I know what you're going to say " But I won twelve hundred dollars last year in Atlantic City!" Of course there are victories. The odds aren't tilted crazy, but there is a 51%-49% advantage. And in the long run, the house has to win. The house will win.

So what is this house advantage the Republicans have? It's the press. There is no more fourth estate. Wait, hold on...I'm not going down some esoteric path with theories on the deregulation of the media and corporate bias and CNN versus Fox...I mean it: there is no more functioning press in this country. And without a real press the corporate and religious Republicans can lie all they want and get away with it. And that's the 51% advantage.

[houstonmacbro]

And one more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/j...v_n_123852.html

[RedScare]

So if they have a clean record they walk? That's news to me. Unauthorized possession of a concealed weapon has been altered? Have to study on that a little.

My original point, from post #1515 was the criminals, already have them illegally, how is taking mine away going to prevent that? Answer is, it's not. Nothing is short of locking them away for life or putting a pill in the noggin'. Bar that, the criminals are ALWAYS going to be armed. Those that don't have records are not criminals yet, I guess, but they keep that up they are on the road to being one.

That's pretty much it. Not being a partisan on either side of the gun issue (gun owner, not an NRA member), I believe that laws can be crafted that protect rights, but allow arrest of criminals AND potential criminals. But, it seems only the partisans participate in the debate.

Oh well, what's new, right?

[west20th]

Well, first, i dont think McCain is purposefully drawing attention away from policy.. I think he's riding the re-branding re-engerized high left over from the convention.

Plus.. real policy discussion will come soon enough when the debates start (which i think is thurs... CNN forum).

It's not like they can each stand there the whole night going "Blah blah Hope and change" "Blah blah country first" "blah blah mccain more of the same" "blah blah maverick" all night.

Guess that would party depend on why you think W sucks.

General Policy-wise, in my opinion, is not where W or the republican party is deficient.

I think W is deficient in his war-time management above anything else.

Perhaps he's also deficient in the character department as far as his eternally misguided optimism is concerned.

Your essentially judging the party platforms with your statement.. and many other could judge the liberal platform as easily.

I don't expect McCain to differ 180 degrees from Bush.

I expect him to be more moderate though and more open to compromise and getting stuff done.

I also expect him to be a better leader than Bush or Obama and more worthy of the position.

McCain Manager: 'This Election is Not About Issues'

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/20...election_i.html

[west20th]

Nice bait and switch in the summation!

Again I ask what you mean by this? Explain please.

[Highway6]

McCain Manager: 'This Election is Not About Issues'

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/20...election_i.html

Yeah yeah... and Obama spent the day yapping about pigs and lipstick and smelly 8 year old fish..... same crap, different politician.

.. the debates will get under way soon enough and hopefully then we'll have our candidate's policy differences hammered out then, eh

[Highway6]

Again I ask what you mean by this? Explain please.

your post 531, after i went on about both candidates being b.s. ers, stated what "We Agree, McCain will say anythng" when i said nothing of the sort.

you switched my summary of my previous post for your side and stated that we agreed, when in reality, we only would have been in agreement had you said that all politicians will say anything to get elected.

really. was it that unobvious you had to ask twice ?

[west20th]

Yeah yeah... and Obama spent the day yapping about pigs and lipstick and smelly 8 year old fish..... same crap, different politician.

.. the debates will get under way soon enough and hopefully then we'll have our candidate's policy differences hammered out then, eh

Can't wait. The debates are really the most (only?) usefull part of this loooooooooong campaign.

your post 531, after i went on about both candidates being b.s. ers, stated what "We Agree, McCain will say anythng" when i said nothing of the sort.

you switched my summary of my previous post for your side and stated that we agreed, when in reality, we only would have been in agreement had you said that all politicians will say anything to get elected.

really. was it that unobvious you had to ask twice ?

Hey it's been a long day. Plus my mind is elsewhere. Been worried how I'll pay the extra taxes if McCain gets elected and starts taxing my health care benifits.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Again I ask what you mean by this? Explain please.

You tried to make your summation of HWY 6's post look as though you two agreed when you obviously didn't, and tried to throw in the "We agree", in hoping he's slip and just say yes, and then you'd have your silly point high lighted by baiting him into agreement, however he out thought you, and made his edit. I just found it humorous.

Irony of it all is ALL Politicians are full of crap. They will say whatever whenever to get what they want out of you, mainly your vote and your money. They are the pimps of our society, they do little and take most of the profit, and the hole time we are the one's getting screwed. So you figure it out.

You don't hear me bashing Obama because I don't play like that. I hash out my views on issues and vote the way I want come election day. I f Obama would have stuck to his guns, you might have heard some praise from me, but he's flipped just like the rest of them. Knew it was to good to be true, not that I ever really believed, he was a man of his convictions and would face the fire, no matter what. He's resorted to the same ole tired rhetoric as the rest of them. So frankly he's just as full of crap as the rest of them, and with zero experience in the real world, my vote goes elsewhere. He couldn't even stand up to lame ass Bill O'Reilly's cross examination, without getting thrown off and stammering around like a little kid. What do you think is going to happen in the face of pressure in the White House. That is a big ass chair to fill.

George W Bush like him or not, he's a man of his convictions and he pretty much sticks to his guns. Good bad or indifferent. He's not a smooth talker, and even a worse dancer, but he's stays true to his beliefs, no matter how off they may be. He walked into a buzz saw when he took office, with all that happened in his first year of office, and he took it like a man. People have fun pot shot-ting him over his verbal blunders, and stupid jokes, but he's been Popeye through it all. "I ams what I ams". And he's not spent half his tenure dodging senate subcommittee Q and A's, hasn't been caught committing adultery in the white house and then lying about it on national TV and under oath in a legal proceeding. His law firm hasn't been under indictment for stealing funds from tax payers in his former state, and when he gets out of office , he's welcome in Texas and we're glad to have him. He may not have been Ronald Reagan, but he's kept the office some kind of respect. The left haters can say all they want, he's not been through possible impeachment proceedings, and I'll bet he doesn't pardon a bunch of shady ass criminals his last day in office. The next guy in line can deal with the leftovers, and I admit it's not going to be pretty, but it may be just me, but it's not as bad as the media loves to paint it every election year. We go through this every time. The media cries the sky is falling, and the sheep go for it, they get fresh blood in the white house and it's all good again for another 4 years. Same ole same ole.

[Highway6]

Can't wait. The debates are really the most (only?) usefull part of this loooooooooong campaign.

Hope you're right. I will agree that its the only part that has the potential for being useful.

Hey it's been a long day. Plus my mind is elsewhere. Been worried how I'll pay the extra taxes if McCain gets elected and starts taxing my health care benifits.

I got paid to donate plasma twice a week for over yr while in college...... desperate times call for desperate measures... good luck

[Deut28Thirteen]

Thats some funny ish right there!

I doubt people will vote for him because of a couple of reasons; one people for some idiotic reason thinks he is a Muslim terrorist, another major reason no one wants to believe exist, he is some how elitist and thinks he is better than other people (I also don't see how he people thinks he is better than the middle class and I for one want an elite leader unlike the one we have now), and there is some more reasons. Thats why I think Obama won't get elected for some of the reasons stated above but I pray and hope to God he does!!!!!

I just don't believe how anybody would vote for another four years of the last eight!!!!!!!! I JUST DON'T GET IT! Some one please explaine! People tend to think he does not have any experience but maybe a community organizer is what we need for this country. If this country would stop looking at it self in terms of black or white, i.e. politics and race, but as a community then maybe we could get somewhere but people still want to think in terms of Republican and Democrat. How can any body say Obama has no right to be president because he has lack of experience and then say Sara Palin VP choice does because she was Governor of Alaska. Chi town's population almost doubles that of Alaska and that's not including the Chicago metro population. That no experience crap can be thrown out of the window. And that we don't know him thing, well who is Sara Palin. Case should have been closed when he beat Clinton.

One more thing I want to say because I was reading it through out the topic what's wrong with teaching creation in schools too? We are forced to learn in the theory of evolution whether you think it is true or not. It is what it is a theory because even with all your facts and radio carbon dating you can not really prove it because there are still holes in it. A theory is something that has not been proven. I am tired of people telling me there is no God or Jesus did not really rise from the dead. How dare anybody tell me my God does not exist.

Happy to get that off my chest.

Thats funny somthing on the Big band theory just came on the History channel.

[RedScare]

George W Bush like him or not, he's a man of his convictions and he pretty much sticks to his guns. Good bad or indifferent. .

There is actually, a growing body of evidence that he really has no convictions to speak of. Even this war of his does not appear to be a war of conviction. I believe the final analysis will show the impression given by Bush's handlers was far more impressive than Bush's actual convictions.

[pineda]

There is actually, a growing body of evidence that he really has no convictions to speak of. Even this war of his does not appear to be a war of conviction. I believe the final analysis will show the impression given by Bush's handlers was far more impressive than Bush's actual convictions.

I disagree. I don't know what "growing body of evidence" you are referring to here. If you have links/sources, I'd be interested in reading what you have.

I'm sure Bush does have his own convictions, no matter how right or wrong we may think they are, and I'm only guessing here, but I would venture that Obama, Biden, McCain and Palin all have "handlers" now. It seems these days that those employed by McCain and Palin are doing a much better job than those employed by Obama and Biden.

From Politico

Interesting comment in the last sentence of this article! It looks like we'll be seeing Hillary in Texas soon.

[RedScare]

Try reading Bob Woodward's new book when it comes out. Early reviews and Woodward's own statements suggest that Bush may have a false set of convictions. He has always been accused of not having intellectual curiosity. Many of his "convictions" seem to me to have a political convenience to them, not the least among them his religious convictions. Even his patriotism has a falseness to it.