The Conventions Are Over ... and now we begin again!
There are two months left. Who would you prefer? Why?
Remember - Be CIVIL!
posted by Meyer @ 9:52 AM
Meyer AP Government - Election 2008
Our take on the very long 2008 Election.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Remember - Be CIVIL!
Meyer AP Government - Election 2008
Our take on the very long 2008 Election.
Previous Posts
- So it is late January... (DEMOCRATS FOCUS)
- It's late January and... (REPUBLICAN FOCUS)
- The Early Favorites
142 Comments:
Obama is nothing. When the Republicans say that Obama is a good speech they are 100% correct. There is no question Mccain knows what he’s doing on foreign policy vastly more than Obama. Quite frankly there is very little question that he would lower the deficit more as well. He has a history of hating pork barreling and does not want universal health care and a legion of other government programs. People need to stop using Mccain as an effort to get their revenge on Bush. Mccain is just a senator; he had no more control over the economy than Obama over the last four years. And can someone please tell me what these “failed Bush economic policies” are. I want to debate them. The chief culprit in my opinion is the deficit, which Mccain would better handle, and energy, which Mccain would better handle. I really do fear that we young people are overlooking the better candidate because we are mad at Bush.
I'm leaning more for Obama and not because I'm mad at Bush. Although Mccain shows more Bush-like traits, that's not what I based my decision on. I think Obama could do just as well as Mccain relating to the "experience" aspect of it. Obama voted a vice president to pick up for what he lacks. You can't ever ever ever be experienced enough to be president because you will never know what will happen and how you will solve it unless both candidates are physics in which this case I think not. One of the biggest issues to me is war. Obama, easier said than done, wants to be done with fighting and war. Mccain made a comment that the war may last for another 100 years. First off, who wants war??? Some people know the stress of war first hand if their son, husband, brother, or dad is fighting in a war and never knowing if they will come back alive. Do you want to worry about those things within your own family? That alone can ruin and has ruined thousands of families. Another issue is gay marriage. Obama is for gay marriages and letting people be who they want to be! Who cares if you don’t like gay people? Some gay people might not like your significant other but they aren’t trying to stop you from marrying them so why make it illegal for people to express who they like? You probably don’t like people nosing around in your personal things, so stay out of their business and start worrying about your own life. I do support some of what Mccain is advertising, and think that either candidate would be strong for America, but I agree more with Obama and disagree more with Mccain.
How exactly would government programs increase the national debt? Much as politicians like to skirt the issue, these kinds of things would preferably be funded by tax increases. A failed economic policy of Bush's is the tax cuts for the upper classes--I would consider this to be a contributing factor to our massive deficit.
As for who I'd vote for, principle-wise I'm not terribly close to McCain. However, I'm not sure how effective Obama would be as a president--it's true that he seems to be a lot of style and little substance. If I were to vote I'd probably vote for him, not because I'm particularly in love with him, but, as in many elections these days, he's the candidate who I dislike the list. I also don't think I could, in good conscience, vote for a ticket with Sarah Palin.
I could go on about her for years. Normally, I wouldn't consider the VP issue to be of paramount importance, but given McCain's age and medical history I think there is a fair concern about what would happen were he to shuffle off this mortal coil. Palin was a good speaker, I'll admit, despite the fact that much of her speech was catty comments directed towards Obama and irrelevant information about her life as a "hockey mom". It seems there is a lot of focus about her sporting hobbies or about how she is as a mother, as opposed to her political views. She has swiftly proven herself a hypocrite as well: Discussion of her pregnant daughter is considered off-limits, but her infant with Down's syndrome is already being paraded around. It seems she thinks that the kids shouldn't be involved...unless she benefits from it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I will break from the topic slightly to start with; perhaps Sarah Palin wants the best for all her children and is not such a huge hypocrite on this issue. Maybe she has deemed that it is best for the pregnancy to be kept low profile, if not for her daughter's mental stability. And perhaps she has thought that the best way to get help to people with down's syndrome(and by extension her child) and other disabilities is to have a prominent person pay attention to the issue, so that a blind eye can't be turned on the people who suffer from this condition.
As for voting, I still don't have a clear idea of who I would vote for. Because while I have enormous respect for John McCain and the ways in which he has served our country, I think that Obama has some interesting ideas on how to change things up in our current state of affairs. McCain seems to be the emblem of service and duty to the country, and Obama seems to sum up the American Dream pretty well, no matter what you think of either of them. But rather than making a flash decision based on personal impressions, I would like to see who can best withstand the trial by fire of the media and the opponent's campaign constantly trying to make the other trip up. It seems to me that the candidate who can make the best decisions under this kind of pressure is a good indicator of who is better suited to handle the pressure of the presidency.
I again agree with Tom. Republicans in recent years have just made our deficit worse. Reagan had driven our deficit up to a huge number, but then Clinton got back into positive numbers. And even though Clinton left with us in the positives, Bush somehow managed to get that back up to the largest deficit in the history of the united states. I think history has shown that liberals are the great leaders of America, and come around when we need them. I refer to Abraham Lincoln, who, although republican, would disagree with them now. FDR, who is the definition of president, was a huge liberal and stated many government programs to get us out of the Great Depression, and it worked. JFK was a liberal, same with Clinton. All of these considered great leaders who have saved America, and all liberal. As far as who to vote for, for me it is obviously Obama, because experience doesn't matter as much, especially in a world that changes so fast, and because he has he best ideas and strategies for our country. It's worked for us before, it works for others around the world, he will fix our country.
The bottom line is: I have no idea who I would vote for. I would consider myself politically independent, as I lean very liberal on some issues and conservative on others. It is very hard to find a candidate who supports both the war as well as gay marriage and abortion. However, I have serious doubts about both potential candidates and their vice presidents. On the Obama side, I see the obvious lack of experience, althoug I'm not sure how much that actually matters. The other thing that worries me about Obama is exactly what Tom said: "he seems to be a lot of style and little substance". He has a lot of grand ideas but does he have what it takes to actually accompllish these things? That is the question. On the McCain side, I really respect his history as a POW. My family is very militarily oriented and that is important to me. Also, his age didn't become a factor to me until he picked Palin as his vp. I seriously doubt that she is ready to lead our country if McCain happened to be incapacitated. It's great that women are playing a major role in this election, but I feel like she would not earn the level of respect on a global level that she would need to be effective internationally. I think that many people in other countries (as well as our own), would focus on the various colorfull aspects of her life rather than her policies and decisions. I guess, in retrospect, I see the Obama camp as the lesser of two evils, and if I could vote, I would chose him even though I would not feel that great about that decision.
On the topic of Sarah Palin...
I think that it was a good tactical choice for McCain. She draws in many voters who would otherwise not vote, due her stance on social issues. She also has the potential to bring some of the disgruntled Clinton supporters over to McCain’s side. Additionally, the pick of Sarah Palin has generated a lot of press for McCain. With the choice coming out of left field, there has been a lot more coverage of Palin then there has been of Biden, which could be a plus for the McCain campaign.
On the topic of presidential preference...
I am currently undecided. I am enjoying watching the race play out, and I will decide my pick closer to the election.
If I were to vote, I think I would go Obama. I will admit, he did start out his campaign with the whole "I'm a new kind of politician", "I will run a clean campaign without attacking my opponent" and "put and end to bipartisan gridlock" type of talk, and he has now shown his true colors as just another politician.
I agree with previous posters, that McCain's biggest shortfalls in my opinion are his tax cuts for all Americans (including the upper class) and his stance on the war.
Obama is opposed to the war, and proposes tax cuts for the lower and middle class with tax raises for the upper. If Obama ends up winning, I think this will be a big reason why.
On another note, I am kind of disappointed that the main points that both sides are attacking are pointless issues: Obama's inexperience and McCain's age.
Whoever is elected will have an army of informers and advisers that will surely make up for any lack of experience. And realistically, how much does experience matter? I think the real issue that voters should be focusing on in this regard is "do I trust my candidate to make the right choices?" Will an extra couple of years voting in the Senate have all that much effect on the choices that they will make as president?
As far as McCain's age goes, again, who cares? So he would be the oldest president if he gets elected, but he still obviously is sound of mind and capable of making rational decisions. Then there is the very legitimate concern of his health. True, he is probably at greater risk of a heart attack than Obama, but he appears to be in superb health and has chosen a capable running mate should something happen to him. And I doubt that his risk of death is that much greater that Obama's, who could face a very real threat of assassination due to the race issue (yes, I'm kind of a conspiracy theorist).
I know there has been some Palin discussion bouncing around, and I wanted to mention a rather interesting headline I saw today. It was on the Comcast.net page and read "McCain-Palin becoming Palin-McCain?". I know that Emily mentioned how Palin was a good strategic move on McCain's part, due to the kinds of voters that she attracts.
(I personally think that she's a powerful woman and an excellent choice for VP-- I was unsure of how I stood between the candidates, but seeing her speech the other night made me really pull over to the McCain team. Her personality, experiences, and philosophies compliment McCain very well.)
Anyways, the article (http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20080906/McCain.Palin/) basically discussed how Palin's popularity has skyrocketed in a matter of days, overshadowing her running mate. Is this a good thing? I know that right now, whatever votes the Republicans can manage are important in simply winning the election. But if McCain does take the White House, what does it mean for a president when his VP is more popular and beloved than he is? I mean, let's face it, she gets people excited and he... doesn't. Are there ramifications of a man entering the presidency on the coat-tails of his VP?
melanie b, I think that at least for now Palin's soaring popularity is good for McCain. It does bring some attention to his campaign by extension. After a while I think it will die down and she will become more of a traditional running mate than she is now.
But if that doesn't happen, then I think it will be bad for McCain. I think Palin is a particularly bad VP to ride in on the coat-tails of precisely because of her experiences, or really lack there-of.
During her speech she framed the debate as a comparison of her mayor experience and Obama's community organizer experience. This really ignores the more important issue of Obama's experience on the national level as a US Senator.
Palin quite simply has no national experience. She made no decisions as head of the national guard and I am fairly certain visiting them in Kuwait was the only time she has left the country. (If anyone can confirm or deny that I would very much appreciate it.)
Aside from the that, she was a former member of the Alaska Independence Party (she can be seen addressing them here). The AIP wants to secede Alaska from the United States. Somehow, having a VP who wanted to take her state out of the Union seems...ironic to me.
In summary, Palin as VP is a prospect that I certainly do not welcome. I support Obama, and the pick of Palin only reinforces my support. However, an ABC News poll indicates that McCain gets a 6% net gain in people likely to vote for him through the pick, so it might be paying off.
im just saying hello like im supposed to
I seriously doubt that "disgruntled Clinton supporters" will shift over to Palin's side. The two candidates stand very differently on issues and have different levels and types of experience. If Clinton supporters choose to support Palin simply because of her sex I believe that is a very shallow and uneducated choice.
How much does "experience" truly matter? So Palin has little if any experience on the national scale, but she does have "executive experience." Obama is a U.S. senator and was a community organizer, so he has national experience but maybe not so much "executive experience." I think what matters is the quality of the choices each candidate makes on his or her scale. Did Obama's choices benefit his community? Did he make the lives of the people he worked with and for better? And what about Palin?
I think that the uneducated voters really swing the votes. Maybe they vote because that is what their friend is doing or they really liked that one commercial, but it is a problem in my opinion. I agree with Michelle that Clinton supporters won’t shift unless they were honestly voting for her because of her gender. If I could vote, I would vote for Obama because I think the change of parties in the White House could help our economy.
I think the debate over the importance of experience is an interesting and certainly important one.
For me, a candidate has to prove that the experience they have had was worthwhile and that it has led them to make good policy decisions. I feel that Barack Obama has shown that, and I personally have a lot of problems with Palin's positions on the issues.
In response to julianna d.a., I think that most people that vote really aren't all that "educated" about candidates and issues. I will try and find some statistics about it, although it can't be easy to measure.
Experience does not seem to be the most important thing to me. I can vote this election and i agree that many people arent too educated on who they vote for or some don't care and they vote for who is blue or red or what name sounds cooler. But back to experience i dont feel that is too important because the president is going to be surrounded by people with experience and every person brings there own view. Oh and yes im just saying hello as well.
Since I can vote this election I have been paying attention to the election and because I tend to lean more towards the democratic side I am most likely going to vote for Obama. I have not been happy with the way Bush has been leading our country and I feel like if McCain is put in office we will have the same problems we have now, for another four years. I think Obama will help turn our country back around. It is a historical fact that when demacrats are in office the economy does better. Since our economy is not doing very well right now I believe a democrat in office would help. When it comes to Sarah Palin, I personally think she is over rated, and most of the people who are voting for McCain are only voting for him because there will be a female VP, not what he stands for and what he will do for us.
Obviously I am voting for McCain since I am "the poster child". I believe experience does matter when running for president and VP. Palin has more experience running for VP then Obama who has only spent roughly 145 days in the senate. Our country is not an experiment and the people of our country should be protected and led in the right direction. I also believe McCain will bring the war with Iraq to an end with a victory. Overall I believe in the conservative ways and my hard work goes to me instead of some lazy person Obama would like to give our tax dollars to. Most people are rich because of hard work not because the government decided to give them breaks. In the end the liberal/democratic way is not rational thinking in my opinion.
A quick clarification. I don't think homosexuality should be illegal, I just don't think it should be subsidized by the government. Hardly anyone thinks homosexuality should be illegal. This is the stance created by the left that never actually existed. The right just doesn't want the state to recognize it as a licensed marriage. That's all. It's actually a pretty moderate and rational position if you actually think about it. There's nothing extremist about it. There are no children involved, so its not the same thing as a marriage.
Another quick clarification. I am against the decision to invade Iraq but that is the past. The opposition should have come before the war when 85% of the population agreed with it. My dad looked and looked for someone he could protest with before the war and couldn’t find one. Now he rolls his eyes at the anti-war movement. A little late for that. We need clean up after ourselves as best we can. When Mccain said he was OK with a hundred years his point was troop presence usually extends for that long. We still have troops in Korea and Germany to this day. The casualties not the time is what matters. If Obama had had his way we would still be sustaining over 100 casualties a month right now. He opposed the surge and tried to cut funding. His record of handling Iraq is appalling.
Tomr, it is a double standard that you fear Palin and not Obama, he is just as inexperienced. And the kid with down syndrome was her decision not her daughter’s decision. It proved she was willing to practice what she preached with regards to abortion.
Adam B, the budget was balanced because republicans in congress shoved the end of many entitlement programs down Clinton's throat, the previous president Bush 1 had raised some taxes, Clinton raided our social security fund, and Clinton crippled our military with major cuts. Reagan was justified in running temporary deficits because he had a goal in mind and achieved it. The Soviets fell in part to his work. Clinton has no legacy except this balanced budget half truth.
This comment has been removed by the author.
If you are going to define all the presidents as liberal then of course all the great leaders are liberal, and if Clinton gets to be on your list than so does Reagan. Clinton never got anywhere near 50% of the vote (Ross Perot was the spoiler who got almost 20% of the vote). Reagan on the other hand won 49 of 50 states. Stop revising history to glorify your mediocre Clintons.
mattf, high taxes for the upper class mean less jobs and lower wages. The white house doesn't create jobs, businesses create jobs. Mccain has made the budget a priority and Obama has not. There is no way that he can increase spending and still increase taxes so much that the economy will improve and the deficit will dissipate. Mccain has said he'll cut taxes IF HE CAN. I think that's a fair promise.
mattf, you don't think an extra two decades of debating and formulating policy is inconsequential.
benh, Palin was a governor for as long as Obama was a senator. She is every bit as qualified as Obama, only she is in the supporting role. She is not the top of the ticket. A man who has served his country for his whole life and knows foreign policy, AND THE ECONOMY better than Obama. A recession while a president from his party is in office doesn't change that.
I have more to say, but I'll shut up now. I was just reading through the blogs and kept having impulsive responses.
adam b, you have no idea what Lincoln would or would not oppose today. I suppose Republicans are pro-slavery now.
If I could vote I would vote for McCain. The big issue for me is foreign policy and there is not a doubt in my mind that McCain is better suited for handling very serious threats such as Iran, North Korea and the situation in Georgia. One thing that really makes me wonder about Obama is that when asked how he would handle Russia's invasion of Georgia Obama said "The UN needs to intervene." Even I, a highschool student immediatly knew that Russia is a permanent member of the UN therefore they could veto what little action the UN would take. He was asked the same question again and for a second time he gave the same response. Barack Obama has constantly been flip floping his policy on foreign affairs which I consider one of the most important things to be decessive and clear cut on. If Obama is put in a situation similar to George Bush (9-11) I am convinced it will be a fiasco.
lauren l: How will McCain achieve "victory" in Iraq?
You also said that "Most people are rich because of hard work not because the government decided to give them breaks." For a substantial amount of people neither is true. About half of America's wealthiest simply inherited family fortunes.
I am also curious how you believe Obama would give your tax dollars to "lazy people."
Well, Dick Cheney's got a lot of foreign policy experience, and look where he's gotten us.
nathana: In response to your response, your claim is untrue. Palin was elected governor in 2006, whereas Obama was elected to the senate in 2004. So he has been a Senator approximately 2 years longer.
In the end I don't view a wealth of experience as that important. When it comes down to it, I am appalled by some of Palin's policies, and view most of Obama's favorably.
It is also debatable whether McCain knows the economy better. He himself admitted (and then tried to deny) that he didn't have that much experience on the economy.
And again tomr raises an excellent point. Experience doesn't matter if it doesn't lead you to make the right choices.
If I were able to vote, I would vote for Obama. I think that our country and our economy especially needs to have a Democratic leader, after having Bush in office for the past eight years. America needs a face-lift!
Personally, one of my biggest concerns in this election is whether or not the war should last. McCain wants it to continue, and Obama will end the war. We are incredibly in debt from it, and I have not seen enough positive results to convince me that we should remain there - nor was I ever for war in the first place.
Essentially, most of Obama's positions on issues coincide with my liberal opinions, making him the more attractive candidate for me.
Just to touch on Sarah Palin...I am not a fan. I think her speech was effective, but I could've done without the extensive family introductions, the Obama bashing, and the defense of everything the media has said about her. I felt that was all her speech was. Yes, the media has been harsh on her, but they haven't released any false information! (Except the DS baby being Bristol's...we assume...). She has too much on her plate already - being in office is not in her best interest right now. She is on the brink of becoming the President and, honestly, that scares me.
I am the opposite in opinion as Abby above. Turning 18 this August I am thrilled that I can vote and be a supporter of McCain.
Abby, I can tell you watched the Democratic National Convention because that's what everyone has been saying there...blaming the past 8 years on Bush and saying we don't need more years of that. McCain is NOT Bush, which many people seem to still be struggling with.
Just to touch on that...let Bush go! I am frankly so tired of people bashing Bush. He is out of power now, pretty much, so let it be in my opinion. Also, people are going to look back at all that Bush was faced with, especially internationally, and be impressed with how well he handled it all. I think the average U.S. citizen is too uninformed and can't ever imagine making decisions that a president must...especially when it comes to war.
The war in Iraq, for example. We are finally having success...why stop at the brink of success? And of course we do not see enough success in Iraq through the media. Do we see Iraq at all much anymore? Honestly, unless you have a loved one in Iraq I think we forget we are still in a war over there. Not to mention that we don't hear the soldier's perspectives and I have a hunch their service to our country is given much more dignity and positive outlooks than we give credit. Just a thought.
Also, as a Conservative Republican I lean towards McCain's policies. I also think Palin is going to be so great working with him. She has ties to oil and is definitely on the Conservative side. She has helped people see that McCain is more Conservative than many some people, like myself, thought he was in the beginning. McCain did not start off as strong but he has come a long way. He has been around for a while, and sure he might not look as good on the TV but politics are what matters in the end right? So let's vote on what matters...the ISSUES of our country.
*COUNTRY FIRST*
While I'm waiting for the debates to make a final decision on the election, I would likely vote for Senator Obama at this point in the campaign. From what I've witnessed on the senate floor, I feel like Obama has the capacity to make definite change in healthcare, taxes and the foreign oil crisis. While working in the Senate, I felt like Obama was a more prominent figure head. He was present for most, if not all votes and often spoke on the floor for healthcare reforms. His 10-year oil figure was a bold step as he was the first candidate to do so--even Romney, prior to primaries, etc.,was hesitant to give a definite time figure. After meeting both candidates, I must admit that Obama does come off as an appealing, confident man who I think will be able to take this nation farther. And while I feel confident in Obama's movement for change, I have been quite fascinated with Pallin and her stance on guns, abortion and healthcare. This race will undoubtedly become one of Pallin vs. Obama as both have great potential for change.
On a more personal note I would just like to comment on the issue of health care which seems to be the predominant issue in the upcoming election. I want to become a doctor so I am going to present my opinions from a future doctor's standpoint. My whole reason in wanting to become a doctor is so I can help people in anyway I can. I don't think that current system is the most beneficial system for neither doctor or patients but I have many concerns about Obama's ideas for health care reform. If universal health care were instated I feel that it would take away from the motivation for people to become doctors. Let's face it a lot of people become doctors in order to make a lot of cash. I'm sure we all have noticed the cost of college. I have checked the cost for medical school alone and by the time I graduate medical school I will have approximately $200,000 in debt. Truth is doctor's don't start making money until about ten years after they start practicing. If all doctors worked for the government, and the cost of medical school stayed given that government workers aren't known for their fat paychecks it would probably take doctors most of the LIVES to pay off school. That does not sound like a very happy career. This would be detrimental to our medical community because already there is a shortage of doctors.
Universal health care would also mean it would be harder to get organ transplants and emergency care. I'm sorry as a doctor I don't want to have to go through a slow government process in order to perform emergency surgery on a patient. I want to be able to help people and help them in a timely fashion. I don't want to have to wait for the government to tell me I can do so, let's just git-er-done!!
As a patient, as a future doctor I feel our health care system needs a lot of work but I do not agree with Obama that we should universalize it.
In response to Bri's comment of the war:
I totally agree. How many have had family or friends serve in the war? My cousin Joseph just finished his 4 years. He fought in Falujah (sp?) he has seen the destruction and lost friends. How can we pull out now and let all of those men who died, die for nothing? I've talked to him and asked him, would he want the U.S. to pull out now and he was offended I even asked. The last thing he wants to see is the U.S. ditch Iraq and leave them on their own. He wants us to finish what we started. He wants to see Iraq be a stable democratic country, he does not want to return in 20 years and see it how he left it, in ruins. Once they have a stable government I propose we send humanitarian aid instead of military. Rebuild their infrastructure with roads, hospitals, and schools. Give them the tools to rebuild their country. THEN pull out.
My brother is currently in Iraq and he has told me he doesn't want to come home. He "wants to see this country rise up and become an efficient country."
Words of a soldier.
Nathan A - Popularity at the time is not that big of factor for me in great leaders. As you said, your dad tried to protest the war, but 85% of the country supported it. Also, Lincoln supported a strong centralized government and was against small government run by the states. That is why he would be a democrat now.
Bri B - people will look back on Bush and wonder how he wasted the help and sympathy of almost every nation in the world by invading another country for no real reason. Now, most of the world looks at us in contempt and he has turned Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground. And just as a side note, McCain's country first motto is kind of ironic because conservative are about the individual before the whole country. Democrats are for country before individual.
Kristin C. - Universal health care would work because it would help those people who can't afford the care. And it's not as if someone who is in an emergency has to wait, they will prioritize patients to try to save as many people as possible. And if our system becomes more like Europe, your education would be partially, if not fully paid for by the state.
To Adam:
The whole point of the American dream is to earn your way. I don't want the state paying for my schooling, nor do I want them paying for my health care. If you work, you eat. I don't like that thought that someone works over 40 hours a week gets the same health care coverage and service as someone who crossed the border illegally. I see no justice in that. Truthfully, I'm a libertarian. I want to get what I earn, nothing more, nothing less. If I don't pay for my education, I don't want it. I think that your education is only worth what your are willing to pay for it. I don't want the government to have control over my health or my education. That may seem harsh but perhaps privatizing both health care and education would impose competition therefore pushing the standard of both higher.
How would you prioritize patients? Would you do it by age? Or by how serious the injury? Or would you do it by preventative medicine?
First off, let’s get things straight. This link shows how OBAMA and MCCAIN stand on certain issues. While watching this, ask yourself two questions.
Who takes up the most time effectively?
Who knows what they believe?
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/blog/2008/08/here-is-where-you-put.html
And as for Adamb, I have a question for you.
How on God's green earth can you say that Liberals are the best presidents WITHOUT ANY PROOF? I admire your opinion but without facts it isn't worth my time.
For instance, JFK brought us within the push of a button for nuclear war. He was also an advocate for reducing taxes, not increasing them like the current candidate.
EXPERIENCE IS A HUGE PART OF THE PRESIDENCY!!! 125 days in the Senate is a joke! McCain has over 25 years of experience.
Ronald Reagan put the Soviets Union out of Business with his policies and ended the Cold War. I don’t know where you got your facts but I would like to know.
Reagan’s fiscal policies were responsible for one of the largest bull markets and prosperous times in US History!
George W. Bush removed one of the worst terrorists in World History. As for Bush, I will stand by him. If that doesn't satisfy you, Bush has installed policies that saved the American People over 1.3Trillion in taxes (2003) according to whitehouse.gov/infocus/taxes.
Also, why is it that according to whitehouse.gov, that democrats refused his tax cuts and called for a raise in taxes when we saved 1.3 Trillion?
Finally, Is Sep. 11th, a good enough reason to attack? Please remember the fact that we are attacking on a world scale along with other countries and we are taking it to them not letting them bring it to us.
The intelligence came from Clinton’s Administration concerning Iraq.
While talking to Bri, Nathan and Kristin, Democrats are about big government, higher taxes, and universal healthcare (Remember Hillary), I want a smaller government who keeps their hands out of my business.
Before I get a chance to come back and comment more thoroughly, take a quick look at this chart compiled using data from a Princeton Professor's report.
The X-axis is five categories of wealth from poorest to wealthiest. The Y-axis is how much each category's income grew.
Conclusion: Income growth was both greater and more equal during Democratic presidents terms.
I was personally surprised when first reading this blog after reading the other last night.
Please be open-minded, whichever side you're on. This is not a battle between red and blue.
Yes, I'm a liberal. I like Obama; I like McCain; I think Palin is intelligent but far too conservative for my taste; I think Biden is an awesome old man.
Bri, the Bush-McCain connection was drastically overplayed at the convention. Part of what I respect about McCain is his willingness to be his own man: his "Maverick-ness" if you will.
In my mind, people place too much emphasis on experience for both Obama and Palin.
I really don't think either candidate will take drastically different measures in Iraq. The approach may be different, but the result may likely look the same.
I love my country deeply, and I would be honored to serve. Their are a number of issues facing our military today. I think the Israeli policy of mandatory service at a certain age makes much more sense.
We disagree about economics. Ok, what's new? I don't see that either way is the supreme Truth or that we will ever reach an ultimate concensus.
I want to know what people think about Obama and his relationships with Reverand Wright, as well as Bill Ayers. Do you think that they will affect his campaign negatively? (Sorry I'm not commenting on any of the other posts, but I just don't have enough time to read them all!)
The today show this morning had a survey of which presidential or vp candidate you would rather have dinner with. The results were:
40% Obama
33% Palin
15% McCain
7% Biden
Apparently some people didn't want to eat with any candidate. What do these results say about Americans' opinion of politicians? Also, who would you rather eat with and why, please for a reason other than "They are in my party".
Palin would be really interesting to meet and have lunch with. She just seems like such a fascinating person, especially since she hasn't been in the news a all until very recently. Also, since I want to work with special needs kids, it would be interesting to her about her stuggle with hers.
I would actually enjoy having lunch with John McCain, despite the fact that I am quite liberal and support his opponent. I seem to be the only one in the world other than him that think some of his jokes are funny, and I am sure he has an unbelievable amount of great stories from his years in politics.
I would love to go to lunch with Obama. I think he seems like a great and caring person. I do not see eye to eye with his beliefs so I would be interested in talking to him and telling him my insecurities with his campaign.
I would say that Obama's relationship with Reverend Wright should make a difference, but I don't think it will make a huge difference. The Reverend Wright situation happened when Clinton was in the race and Obama still pulled through and won the candidacy. Republicans will continually bring up this situation but I don't think it will make a big difference for the people that are in between McCain and Obama. I think that democrats try to look past the whole ordeal and republicans are dwelling on the situation a little too much.
(the second part of that comment was for michelle m's question)
I would like to have lunch with Palin also, just because she is so different from me and it would be interesting to know where she's coming from and why. But eating lunch wit any of them would be awesome.
Justin B. - I feel the need to defend myself now. My proof is history. FDR did bring us out of the Great Depression and through WWII. JFK did not bring us to the brink of nuclear war, the Soviets did, JFK saved the world by not pushing the button and relying on diplomacy. Also, Bush may have saved the American people 1.3 trillion dollars in taxes, and that's probably why our country is in so much debt and owes a lot of money to China. That is putting the individual over the country.
I also agree with spencer that some sort of civil service should be mandatory, but bot just in the military. I think that becoming a police officer or fire fighter or other public servants would work in addition to the military.
Benh, my comment about Palin having as much experience as govenor as Obama has as senator is completely true. A huge chunk of Obama's time in the senate was spent campaigning. In defense of lauren l, Obama does want to give handouts to the poor at the expense of the rich. This is a marxist ideal and would be terrible for the economy. The rich, not the white house create jobs and wages.
The only modern democratic president has been Clinton. (unless you want to add Carter and LBJ to that list). He operated with a Republican congress. There have not been enough democratic presidents to make a fair economic comparisson. But again, be my guest if you want to add LBJ, Carter or even the barely
Inaugurated JFK.
adamb, Europe takes away all your money. These government progams come at an enormous cost. Europe is a bunch of rich wine drinkers they can afford to flush money down the toilet. America has many blue collers that can't afford to have most of their income dissolved into a beurocracy. Europe and America our different and should have different economic systems. I want to keep the fruits of my labor, and when you have a major income someday you will too. By the way, Europe right now is also entering a major recession and is currently cutting taxes.
Nathan - that seems a bit stereotypical. Europe also has many blue-collar workers. My cousins and family in Germany tell me about much they pay in taxes, but also about how there is universal health care and free college. Those are what I personally want. I can also tell you, they are not rich enough to flush money down the toilet. Europe is entering a recession because we are, which is because of our conservative president.
Nathana- I think you should watch your stereotypes. What is the percentage of "rich wine drinkers" that "can afford to flush money down the toilet"? Because I bet that it is quite a bit less than you would think. I too have family living in Europe who has to pay quite a bit of their own salaries on taxes. It is closer to 65% for even my fairly wealthy Uncle. (If you want, here are some statistics from a Swedish American living in Sweden... "So Denmark sits atop the list with a tax burden of 48.4%. Sweden is reported to have a burden of 47.8%. But don't worry Reinfeldt says that that is old information and it is actually below 47%. Wooooo." This was found at http://welcometosweden.blogspot.com/2008/03/swedish-tax-burden.html) Also, in Sweden, they tax quite a bit for all alcohol, tobacco, and other spirits. (On the same site, from the same Swede: "The tax burden isn't just the tax rate. It includes all the exciting taxes you might pay. My understanding that the burden includes your income tax, your tax on food, your tax on booze, your tax on everything. Which puts it up at nearly 50%. Ridiculous.") I know for a fact, (Since I was in Sweden this summer) dinning out is a 25% tax and a regular restaurant. Since it is a socialistic country, you get medical benefits, however, it could take up to a year if you need surgery. My grandma needed surgery on something, which she found out about in June 2006, and she finally got her surgery in February 2007, and she has worked and paid taxes for most of her life. Meanwhile, she had to still pay regular taxes in her year of waiting, which was quite a bit of money.
And I don't think that it is quite fair to say that "Europe takes away all your money" either. If you have numbers and facts to PROVE that this is true, then I will retract my previous statements, but I think that it is unfair to say those comments. Also, you can't lump ALL of the European countries' governments into 'European government', because they all have different systems, different tax systems, and different percentages of "rich wine drinkers".
So I guess I agree that many governments in Europe are not the best, but they definitely don’t “steal” our money and they don’t have enough money of their own to blow on expensive wine, which is much more expensive than it is here. If you think your taxes are bad, just look at the taxes in most of the European countries, especially on gas, which is $9 in Sweden, then come back and say that they steal our money.
Ben- Before you make any presumptive conclusions define the graph (One Professors Report) for me because it is unclear. On the Y axis what are the percentages taken out of? Income, annual income, gross income? What are the percentiles on the X Axis? The graph shows no key or any vital information and for all I know, you could have made it up. Sorry to be on the attack but just show the website so we can reference it.
adam- Our country owing money is not a serious problem. It is a part of market and economic cycles. Sometimes the American dollar is less than the Euro and vise versa. By having lower taxes, businesses have more money to devote to research and development, providing more jobs, individuals have more spending money, etc. all of which drives a more robust economy. This in turn actually puts more money in the government! Here is a small snip it from a man who runs a business.
~~~~Glenn, I just read your anti-business editorial in the Sept. 8 Financial week.
I thought the (your) editorial was snide and partisan – especially for a business weekly.
As a small business owner (23 employees), taxes are a direct cost to our business. Higher taxes are no different than any other increased cost and keeps us from making investments that we would have otherwise made. Lower taxes (lower costs) makes it easier to make more firm investments, hire more people, take more risks.
I don’t know where you get your data on government revenue growth, but it must come from biased sources. If you look at revenue objectively, government revenue growth is generally higher with lower tax rates. Economics is NOT a zero sum game!
I suspect that you have never owned a business or met a payroll. Small business is the backbone of America and increasing taxes (including and especially payroll taxes) is a big nut to swallow – especially in a slowing economy. Let small business invest their own capital. Taking from lean businesses and giving to our bloated government will slow the economy, not just in the short run, but the long run! Please show me where your socialist leanings have worked over time? You can’t, because they haven’t!
Richard M. Todd, Managing Principal
http://innoblog.typepad.com~~~
Spencer and Adam- The great thing about America is freedom. Why would you want to require Americans to serve as public servants, I will do it because I want to not because I am forced to? I would gladly serve in our Military or serve as a public servant, no doubt about it. But, to force Americans to serve the country isn’t what America is about.
justinb: That is a perfectly legitimate concern. Her is a link to the original report.
The graph I linked to was reconstructed from the data by Washington Monthly for increased readability. A similar (but black and white) chart can be found in the report.
The Y-axis percentages are taken out of the annual income adjusted for inflation. The X-axis percentiles are the income percentiles. For example, the 40th percentile is people who are richer than 40% of the population.
In all honesty, Ron Paul was the man most qualified for the presidency. However, due to a lack of media coverage he lost the Republican nomination. I feel, if given similar coverage as Romney or McCain, Americans would have more exposure to RP's genius and have voted in their caucuses accordingly. Sadly, Ron Paul was not nominated so I must deal with this election realistically.
I will be turning 18 ON election day, and I am so lucky to be able to vote. Since I can't vote RP in, I have researched the two major party candidates, and the Libertarian candidate. I like things about all 3, Barr, McCain, and Obama, but in my eyes there is only one choice I can make.
I am Libertarian, and believe the Constitution is the "law of the land" for just reason. In light of this, Bob Barr is the only candidate that mirrors my ideological values (you can read about 'em in the other blog). I would feel like a hypocrite for voting for a man who would raise taxes like Obama, and even worse for a man who seeks to TAKE AWAY freedoms and keep us in a war that robs our once proud nation of economic prosperity AND the lives of our finest young men and women.
BOB BARR 08
To answer Sander K's question:
I think the poll results show that Obama and Palin are much more charismatic than McCain and Biden. People want to have a meal with someone who comes off as interesting not someone who comes off as dull.
This leads to my question:
Which party has the advantage in terms of charisma and how much do think this advantage will help or hurt them in the election?
I think that up until the selection of Palin two weeks ago, Democrats had a definite charisma advantage. Now that Palin is in the mix, I think that advantage has lessened a lot. I also think charisma is very important in this presidential race because realistically it is how many Americans pick who how to vote for. They chose based on each candidate’s appearance not the issues.
Justin, the dollar has not surpassed the Euro in value since 2002; they must be doing something right.
I would agree that the European Union has many admirable economic policies and that we might be better off with some of them here in America. However, I do not think it wise or just to completely blame our "conservative president" for our deficit, because the budget has a great deal to do with the legislative branch of our government, not merely the executive branch.
I feel that I must disagree with the statement: "Ron Paul was the man most qualified for the presidency. However, due to a lack of media coverage he lost the Republican nomination. I feel, if given similar coverage as Romney or McCain, Americans would have more exposure to RP's genius and have voted in their caucuses accordingly." I don't think that even if Ron Paul had gotten "adequate" media coverage, he would have won. Not enough Americans agree with his positions on the issues. Also, I dislike the "media bias" argument for two reasons, no matter who is claiming bias: 1) Too often it comes across as just someone to blame for not being good enough to make the cut, and 2) There are so many news outlets out there that I am positive that one of them probably gave bias to every candidate under the sun, the fact that these networks or online media outlets are under-utilized suggests that that position is unpopular. I am sorry if it seems like they are directed at any one candidate in particular, they are not intended that way, but that is my perception of the "media bias" argument.
The conservative president and conservative legislative he had for 6 years, them too. Good point Sander. I also agree about the media. Everyone has their opinion and is biased, and that goes both ways.
ben- thanks for clarifying your graph. it is a very interesting report and I am still reading it.
Tomr-"the dollar has not surpassed the Euro in value since 2002; they must be doing something right."
Please feel free to prove it! :-)
Sander, media played a significant role in RP's failed nomination attempt. You think I'm wrong? Well, Ron Paul was not invited to several pre-caucus Republican debates. Mike Huckabee was there. John McCain was there. Mitt Romney was there. RP was not. When he was invited to be a participant in debates there WAS media bias, no matter how much you would like to disagree. I personally watched every debate he partook in, and time after time I witnessed the station cutting to commercials in the MIDDLE OF THE MAN'S ARGUMENT. If the station was not cutting Congressman Paul off, the debate moderator would see to it that he did not have sufficient time to debate his point. Here's an interesting fact that I found: In debates RP participated in the speaking time he was allotted was one third to one half of what the other candidates were allowed. How can the man win votes to his side when he is only allowed 10 minutes and McCain gets 30?
Aaronw, I respect your opinion about Ron Paul and the media bias. I never said that he wasn't biased against, merely that I didn't think that he would have won had he received the time that you believe he deserved. The only other thing that I expressed was that I dislike the fact that politicians whine about media bias. The media cares about its ratings. And in a situation like Ron Paul's, I am inclined to believe that the media would upset less people by cutting off Ron Paul than by cutting off McCain, Romney, or Huckabee. If a politician can't get around this obstacle, then, generally speaking, they don't deserve the attention they are clamoring for. I say this because it is possible to say that with the right kind of media biases, the socialist worker party could find themselves in power instead of out in the cold. While it is possible, can we please stick to what is at least likely. And I would tend to believe that Ron Paul's nomination was not. However, if you can show me why he deserved the presidency, I would be happy to reconsider.
This comment has been removed by the author.
1. Ron Paul has never voted for legislation unless it is expressly authorized by the Constitution.
You see Sander, none of the people vying for the presidency can claim this, besides Congressman Paul. I could list off dozens of facts, statistics, quotes, etc. but nothing I say can truly validate my arguement in the eyes of everyone except this. The man is clearly the least hypocritical person who ran for the nomination. His values, unlike the the values of the other candidates, are uncorruptable. His beliefs are clearly expressed in document form. In essence, RP is the only "honest politician" in the race. The Constitution is the Law of the Land, and should be treated as such. All of the Republican candidates that voted to go to iraq without declaring war basically wiped their butts with the Constitution. Ron Paul didn't, though. His understanding and respect, even love for the Constitution is admirable, and since he is the only man to follow it religously I feel like he is the only man that should run our country.
And as many people saw over the internet, Ron Paul unifies many different people from varying backgrounds almost as well as Obama. A man with such a solid core of LEGAL beliefs, a man that unifies people, a man that is intelligent (highest IQ among candidates), and a man that is compassionate (He was OBGYN, he delivered thousands of babies)surely DESERVES the presidency.
Ron Paul is a great man and knows what he believes in. But he is in a tough position, because he differs enough from the general Republican beliefs that he couldn't get enough votes there. As you mentioned, he was against the war in Iraq. And since he is libertarian, his policy would be to get government down to the basics. While he may agree with liberals on some issues such as abortion, small government is almost opposite of everything else that a democrat would want. Personally, I don't agree with Ron Paul on almost everything except a few issues, I do respect his beliefs and that he acts on what he believes very clearly.
Aaronw, thank you for explaining to me. I haven't had the time to do any detailed research into Ron Paul, except Wikipedia, which doesn't tell me a whole lot. I read what you said and did some additional research. Now I can understand what you mean. Previously, I was looking at Ron Paul through the filter of the issues, and hadn't really considered the Constitutional aspect of it. A mistake on my part. I apologize for any offense I may have given. However, I am not sure enough people could be persuaded to this view of things to win the nomination or election. I'm still not sure that I would vote for him, but he certainly has my respect.
Somebody ask a Question!!!
Okay, so if I was from another planet, how and who would you convince me to vote for?
Why is it that aliens are always hostile? One minute they are blowing up our cities and the next they are trying to infiltrate our electoral system.
Okay fine. I'm a legal alien who emigrated from Mars because I was being unfairly discriminated against for my humanoid characteristics. I love AMERICA. I just became a citizen through due process of law. Now I want to vote, who should I vote for?!?
I would much rather McCain because he is older. He is much wiser and knows what he is talking about because he's already been through a lot of it before. Obama has been in his new office for less than a year and won’t give a straight answer on anything he stands for. We defiantly need a change but I want a change with a plan.
Just to clear this up, Barack Obama was elected to the senate in 2004, and began his service on January 3, 2005. He also has given plenty of specifics. He did in his speech and he does on his website.
As far as the alien thing, are they carbon-based? Are they part of a hive-mind? Are they more or less advanced than us, or around the same?
The only way I could convince you to vote would be through the issues.
Since this never really came up as a direct subject, what about Gov. Palin?
Totally carbon based, not a hive mind and we so much more advanced than you it isn't even funny. However, our electoral system is in shambles and xenocide will shortly ensue if we don't restore order.
What do you think of this link?
http://commontater.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/barack-obama-freudian-slip-you-decide/
Is Obama really muslim or christian?
Did Obama cover up his muslim religion like the kings in Europe used to do in order to get into leadership? (England and France)
adamb- ok, name some meaningful pieces of legislation that he has produced. Name one group or committee that he has been on.
O and by the way, he has been in office less than a first grader is required to go to school.
173 days exactly in the senate.
justinb: Here are a few committees he has been on, just off the top of my head. I can give you a more complete list later. Foreign relations, Homeland security and governmental affairs, and Veteran's affairs.
And for legislation, it depends on how you define "produce," but he was instrumental in crafting legislation with I think Dick Luger and Sam Nunn about nuclear arms control and he also sponsored a bill that increased government transparency by putting all the organizations that receive federal funding in a searchable online database.
Tank you Ben. In the state senate, he also helped a piece of legislation on monitoring racial profiling get passed and also was very active in working with the police department to get death penalty reforms.
As far as him being muslim or christian, I think he is christian like he says he is. And if he's not, what does it matter? Islam is built on the same moral principles as Christianity and Judaism.
Which kings of England were secretly muslim?
That was supposed to be thank you, not tank you.
When I think of democrates I think hand outs, class presidents promising change and once elected never doing it, and sugar coating. I vote for McCain/Palin because they are def the safer choice. Republicans aren't war loving people who drive in Ram 2500's and are part of the gun club. Republicans are people who work to hard to let any person or people destroy what they have worked for (terrorists). I support war because I like the feeling of protection and I vote conservative because "Governments first duty is to protect the people, not control their lives" -RR
Lauren - "I support war because I like the feeling of protection..." I take you mean this war, which is us invading other countries. We lost our objective of protection when we invaded Iraq. All we did their was bring extreme islamic terrorism to Iraq and create chaos. How is unjustly killing others protection?
As far as the Ronald Reagan quote, I think the one issue where anyone's life will be controlled in a negative way would be abortion, and McCain/Palin is the ticket which wants to force people to do one thing.
How are they the safer choice after what we have witnessed the last 8 years?
lauren l: You said that "Republicans are people who work to hard to let any person or people destroy what they have worked for (terrorists)."
I also think that Democrats have worked too hard to let terrorists destroy their work. In fact, all Americans deserve to not have their work destroyed by terrorists. I don't think that the right to safety and property applies to only one type of American.
There are also a few questions I have about your comment:
1) Can you show a significant difference between Democrats not delivering on election promises and Republicans?
2) You say you like feeling protected. What about Democrats would make America less protected?
3) You seem to insinuate that Democrats "control people's lives," but how do Democrats actually do that?
Anyone can answer those that wants to.
And now, as promised, more info on Barack Obama! First, the committees he as served on. And second, his legislation in the US Senate. All 136 bills he sponsored, 619 he cosponsored, and the 2 that became laws.
I think it would be foolish to associate war with security, hasn't it been proven that just the opposite occurs all too often? However, if by that you mean that it is important to feel that we are doing something about the problem, then I think you might be right. And hello, you only think of democrats when you think of sugar-coating, un-kept promises, and change. Could we all just accept these as the most universal of all political strategies and just get over it. Lauren l, you have some interesting ideas, but I think that calling democrats sugar-coating, do-nothing, false-promisers is going a little to far if you don't include some republicans too.
Meyer for President! Anyone else?
Cancel or delay the debate!?! Is he totally crazy? I need something to watch on TV.
I just watched the debate, so I guess I'll throw my opinion out there now.
One of the things that caught my attention in the very beginning of the debate was when McCain said he would "Veto every bill suggesting an increase in spending." Veto every bill suggesting an increase in spending? Every is a very strong word when proposing how to handle new bills. Every? That's ridiculous and irrational. What if we need an increase in spending in an area? The fact that he's promising to reject EVERY bill suggesting a spend increase implies that he's not even going to thoroughly review it. Shouldn't every bill be reviewed before a decision is made on it? Obama's rebuttle brought up the point that we might need an increase on spending in some areas. Some areas are already underfinanced, and I don't see how rejecting every increase in funding is going to magically help everything.
It was certainly an intense debate, though.
You could tell through the candidates body language that Barack Obama definitely is more dominant and confident than John McCain. Through the whole debate I watched Obama stare McCain down, and never once did he match his gaze. Obama also MADE SENSE. It seemed to me John kinda circumvented direct answers on several questions, and gave nonsensical responses. John McCain also seemed to be brutish and condescending when he would frequently trivialize anything Obama had to say with "That's Naive" or "Your lack of experience means you don't know as much as me".
I think that both candidates had their fair share of arrogance in the debate. McCain seemed to refer to Obama as if he weren't in the room, while Obama always referred to McCain as "John". Both of these were fairly frustrating to me. I think it will be fairly obvious on Thursday who is more experienced and who is more energetic in the VP debate.
In the debate, McCain seemed to dodge questions, and never really answer, while Obama did answer straightly. But McCain was funnier, ended well, and actually stayed calmer than Obama did. The VP debate will be interesting because Biden makes a lot of mistakes when talking and Palin doesn't know what she is talking about.
Speaking of Palin being an idiot, did anyone see the Katie Couric interview? I won't lie, I lol'd the whole time! This woman is not qualified to be a vice president, let alone THE PRESIDENT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP12aNzocSc
"I'll try and find you some and I'll bring em to ya"
hahahaha
It's Thursday! And that means that it is time for the highly anticipated VP debate. I found a great political ad this morning in the Post, here is a link.
http://www.denverpost.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=2124951
Sorry that I cant get it to hyper link. Just copy and paste to the URL bar, if you didn't already know that.
http://www.denverpost.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=2059862
I thought that this was a good one too.
I was very impressed with Palin’s performance in the debate. She superseded all expectations. It’s like anticipating a car crash and receiving a smoothie. Although I still cannot support her due to political differences. Yet I have to ask, does anyone else find Palin’s use of slang(heck, yep, you betcha!) unnerving? I understand that her personality is part of her appeal, however after watching the debate I’m finding it unsettling. I can’t imagine her in the White House.
I was also surprised by Palin, she was much more articulate and eloquent than last week with Katie Couric. This doesn't mean anything to me personally, though, because it was 100% necessary for her to perform exceptionally tonight or the McCain/Palin ticket would have been toast. After Couric, a poor performance tonight would have solidified Palin's reputation of having an IQ similar to a monkey with head trauma. Her use of slang is just proof that you can truly "put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig". The Republican party can coach Palin through debates as much as they'd like, but her adorable yet retarded personality will still leak through.
Biden performed ok, but not exceptionally. I thought he won, but to someone who values how someone articulates something over what is actually said the debate probably went to the sugary sweet Palin. I actually expected him to womp on Palin, but it was pleasant to have a very even playing field.
Newsflash! Biden still comes off as a brusque jerk. He's super smart, but clearly there is a reason he isn't the Democratic presidential nominee.
After watching this tonight I have a pretty good gut feeling that Obama will win. The Republicans face mistake after mistake from McCain telling the nation he had his own plan for the economic recovery (rather than the bipartisan plan) to Palin showing her ignorance on issues of MONUMENTAL importance. These mistakes as well as the George Bush factor, the corruption of the Alaskan Governors office, flimsy policies and so many more issues will hurt the 'Pubs. Obama will be buoyed by his mastery of rhetoric, his sound policies, his clean political record, and his charm.
I would still prefer a Libertarian in office, but it ain't gonna happen. Honestly, the VPs have a huge influence on my vote since Crypt Keeper will keel over dead any day now and Obama will have a train run on him by every redneck KKK man in the US. I don't want to elect Palin who continually lies to the American people, so lets hope for Obama Biden.
benh- You used a Wikipedia article to answer my question! Wrong! I can change anything in Wiki. It is a decent source, but I am looking for something a little more solid. Can you help me out please? Has Barack passed anything or has he just put his name on the committee list and voted present?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lauren, if you look at the parties stances, Republicans would be intruding on personal choice much more than democrats. They would make abortion illegal, getting rid of choice. They also wouldn't allow gat marriage, which would be controlling personal lives. The democrats, while having higher taxes, would just make government programs to help people, not limit them. And I am assuming that you are not lower class because you go to this school, but they are not just lower class because they are lazy. They are usually born into it and not given opportunities that you are. Some are born with a cocaine addiction and left on the street. Now, that may be an extreme case, but shouldn't the government of a country as great as ours help him. And as far as the rich getting taxed more, they still have more than enough money to do what they want, and the money will come back to them in the form of a stronger military, better infrastructure such as roads, hopefully universal health care, and less international debt. If you want to feel protected, you need money to form, fund, and advance the military. One F-22 Raptor costs 137.5 million dollars. You need a lot of money to keep up production and maintenance of that aircraft.
Lauren l, I have to disagree with your statements. I will agree with Adamb republicans tend to take more of a stand on an issue whereas democrats primary phrase tends to be choice. I like choice rather than having the government determine it for me. I simply interpret it in a slightly different manner. it could be seen differently. Also, how does being in a war make you feel protected. In an abstract sense, we are now more hated by more of the world than ever before, and this continues to worsen our international standing. And in a more concrete way, having our army,navy, air force, etc. overseas decreases our capacity to defend ourselves at home. So in a way, what you said is wrong and the opposite is true. You did ask some decent questions, though, like different tax amounts. However, it is important to keep in mind that this question can be applied to both parties, and it should be. Also, your first phrase startles me. I would like an explanation. Can you provide any evidence for this that comes from a moderately unbiased source (Bill O'Rielly doesn't count). A defense of this argument is what I ask instead of attacking what I believe to be an inaccurate position.
Lauren, I don't know how Sander or Adam deciphered your post, but you should really consider typing with correct grammar and usage. I can't even figure out what you're trying to say.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
justin: Why is it "Wrong!" to use a Wikipedia article to answer your question? Unless you can prove that the information I used is actually false, then your argument means nothing.
Not only that, but the list of committees that he is on is listed on his page. A locked page. Unless you are a Wikipedia administrator, you can't actually just go and edit it. (If you are, I applaud your positive contribution to the Wikipedia community.) As far as his legislation, it is taken directly from the public domain government legislative database. If you can find an inconsistency between the two, I'll apologize profusely. Otherwise, Wikipedia is yet again a completely credible source.
As far as helping you out, committees don't "pass" things in the same sense as congress itself. To get an accurate picture of how much he contributed you would have to painstakingly pore through the transcripts (even I am to lazy to do this) or ask another senator on the committee. As far as legislation, I did provide some examples. He certainly does not have as comprehensive or lengthy a legislative history as McCain, but how much does it really matter when it comes to having the judgment to lead the nation?
lauren l: Why wouldn't there be a Democratic party if all people worked hard? I would very much appreciate it if you could find any evidence whatsoever to back up this statement.
I am against the war because I like to feel protected. Sander k did a plenty good job elaborating why it makes us less safe, but I think the damage it has done to our international standing is very concrete as well. Before we went into Iraq, they were no friend of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda did not operate in Iraq, and received no support from their government. But now, it is a hotbed of terrorist training and recruitment. We have given the entire Islamic world a reason to hate us, and recruitment to the their cause has skyrocketed. We have given them the best training they could ask for. Even worse, we have given them an opportunity to kill Americans in their own backyard. The 4000+ soldiers that have been killed are certainly not safer.
The argument for a graduated tax has already been well articulated so I will not belabor the point. But adamb's point that many are not given an equal opportunity in the first place bears repeating. Many are in poverty or homeless through an unlucky tragedy, like the death of the family member responsible for most of the income or an unexpected illness. Without universal healthcare, people that are so lazy they get cancer won't be able to get treatment, and they will leave their family destitute.
You again bring up that people have more money because of hard work. This is more often than not not the case. The majority of America's wealthiest citizens inherited their wealth. I don't know if I would count surviving childbirth as hard work. At least not for the baby.
It is also important to remember the discrepancies in pay between minorities and Caucasians as well as men and women. Study after study finds that minorities and women make substantially less. I think this indicates that not everyone truly has equal opportunity.
You also ask the question "why vote for what you do?" Although I am not yet old enough to vote, I think the reasons I believe what I believe are similar to the reasons many Democrats vote.
There are a lot of reasons I believe what I do, but I would like to throw one out that fits closely with our current topic in class: I don't feel that the current administration has respected the constitution, and too many Republicans have supported that.
benh/lauren l Isolating the issues of American's wealth and money vs. hard work, you may find this interesting. In 2005 the New York Times published a comprehensive article on class in America. Here is a link to the section on income mobility.(It comes complete with interactive graphs)
Income mobility made fun!
If you take a look at income elasticity, however slow, there is still mobility for those lower income families. Nevertheless this trend occurs in both directions of the income ladder and those in the lowest 5th income bracket are more likely to stay there.
If you aren't willing to defend your comments that others find offensive or inflammitory, than please don't comment and leave.
Obviously this blog is an expression of ones opinion and evidently what I say to the dems and what the dems say to the repubs is not going to matter because our opinions aren't going to change. We as a whole should direct our information to the independents/undecided because they have not deciphered who they are going to vote for. As for you aaronw my grammar is fine though that paragraph was hastily written and I agree it was a little rocky, also it’s sad to see that’s the only thing you can say to my comments. Also to all you peers who flipped at my comment I enjoy it greatly to see you frustrated and angry, for once you decided to take a stand. Personally I'm not one to take a stab at someone on a blog. If anyone would like to speak to me personally please do, I would gladly sit down and have a chat. O and the anonymous punk you need to calm down because you are obviously a little pansy if you have to post as a mystery person.
Lauren, I would say everything in my previous comment to you in person and would post under a real name if there werent an aversion to the use of cuss words in our society. I find that strong words such as bullshit are the best way on a blog to truely show what you believe, and would rather use them than say annoying and weak things like gosh-darn (as a certain underqualified vp candidate would do).
Lauren, it would be nice if there were some independents on the log, but it doesn't really seem like there are. So instead, we should debate the points of each side. Personally, I have an open mind, so if you have brilliant reasoning as to why the Republicans are better on a certain issue, I would think about and possibly change my position. I do agree with Sander, you need to defend your positions, not just change the subject or attack others, calling them, "little pansy" and other such insults.
I think that either side is has a position that is either justifiable or understandable on most given issues. However, if things are taken to an indecent extreme then it is the responsibility of the poster to apologize for their comments. This applies to things like: "complete bullshit" and also "WHY WOULD YOU DELETE YOUR POST SO THAT I CANNOT QUOTE IT, LAUREN L!?!" Anyway I was going to quote the deleted line about how democrats don't work hard and all hard working Americans are republicans. Could people please leave their comments on so that people at least know what we are talking about?
Yes, please refrain from deleting your comments. If you are not willing to defend what you have to say, don't say it in the first place.
Lauren, I could argue with you, but your post was addressed to Ben. I'm not going to jump in and rip your unsubstantiated and flimsy arguement to pieces when Ben can do it for me. I'll fight my own battles, so if you call me out on an issue (sadly, it seems like every Republican posting on the blogs is afraid of me)I'll debate it.
So, Lauren, I would comment on your now absent post, but it's "sad" you felt like you had to take it off. If you'd like to comment on anything I've written feel free to do so, but don't expect me to delete my comments or butcher the English language like you've done.
I agree with our anonymous friend, basically all the Conservative posters on here have bull-oney arguments.
It seems like every Republican posting is afraid of you, Aaron, but of having their beliefs questioned, they just say something ridiculous, and then don't return to defend their argument. It's too bad, really.
Can we set down some basic rules here:
1.)Be able to defend what you say.
2.)Don't delete your comment if others are commenting on it.
3.)Attack positions and beliefs, not people or groups of people.
What do you guys think? Are there any others, or should we go without basic guidelines.
Lauren l, if you happened to have saved your deleted post on Word or somewhere, it would be nice if you reposted it just so that others looking at the blog aren't in the dark about what is going on.
Thought I'd apologize. My comment above that contains some severe language is a quote from a post that Mr. Meyer deleted. I didn't mean to be profane, I merely intended to be accurate
I agree about the rules, but I'd prefer if others posted without doing hose things than not post at all.
Alright people. Now that we all have vented some of our frustrations let's step back and realize that no one is without fault here and that this once intelligent conversation between America's (supposed) best and brightest has turned into a caddy argument over which political color you prefer to wear.
This blog is not supposed to be about what party you belong to, instead it's supposed to be about OUR opinions. I think it is a sad mistake to label each other or ourselves with a party name because we then adopt the identity of that particular party. Parties should not matter in this debate. Your registered party does not make you right or any more intelligent. So for the sake of our zealous classmates let's just agree to keep the discussion of parties out of it.
I believe that no matter who is elected neither one of the canidates will be able to help the economy. In my computer class we were allowed to invest $50,000 in whatever shares we wanted. At the time I thought I chose some pretty good stocks but right now i am down 20%. Just think if that were real money that would be pretty scary. I can't wait to see what happens in the next couple of years whether or not Obama or McCain gets elected.
I think that while a candidate might be able to help the economy, it can't be with just American policy. The economy is too global to allow for one country to recover while all others fail. The winner must meet with leaders worldwide to attempt to re-establish consumer confidence and restore the economy.
The truth is that the president really has very little power over the economy. Both candidates are being criticized for not answering questions on the economy but I personally would prefer them not to. I don't want these two men pretending they know the details of a horribly complex system that very few people on the planet understand. Yes I want to hear their ideas but I do not want them acting like they have all the answer because they don't. At all.
I don't think that the election of either candidate will have a true affect on our economy.
If we wanted to elect someone who could fix the economy then we should elect Warren Buffet or Alan Greenspan.
I think that the election of a certain candidate has the potential to affect the economy. Whoever gets elected, they may inspire confidence if they can fool enough people into thinking they know what to do.
How so? Do you think a candidate could build up enough confidence in people to get them to spend more or how would this pan out in the next 3-4 years? Are you thinking more along the lines of what FDR did in the 30's and 40's?
I have a few thought on the candidates. Now being able to vote is quite a privalege. I however don't like any of the andidates but I will vote for McCain because his policies seem to be better than Obama's.
I have recently discovered that a family has come under major financial trouble. The amount of money on the taxes has devastated the family. The amount has placed them under major pressure EVEN WITH THE TAX CUTS.
I find it ironic that our country is falling for a man who is going to RAISE TAXES.
I ask you, has your family been under stress because of finances? If your answer is yes, THEN WHY ARE WE VOTING FOR A MAN WHO IS GOING TO THROW US INTO A GREATER DEBT!?
I am not saying to vote for McCain, but we need to consider the benefits of voting for a man who will lower taxes.
I don't think the economy is Bush's fault. If we follow patterns of the market, we notice that this has happened time and time again. Now, obviously not this drastic but a dropping economy has happened before.
I fear that if we vote for OBAMA (MOST LIBERAL VOTER IN SENATE) then we will sink many of our American families. Obama stands with the Democratic Platform who want a bigger government who will have more control in the lives of Americans and they will raise taxes when really we need the money to pay the bills so we don't go under.
Justin, why do you flat out fail to recognize Obama will lower taxes for all families under 250,000. His tax cuts for middle and lower class families are even bigger than McCain's. If your friend's family was intelligent and wanted more money as a result of tax cuts they would definitely see Obama as the clear cut choice.
McCain's plans for the economy are too risky, and McCain's judgment, ESPECIALLY in regards to the economy, is downright awful.
Anyone want to debate me on that statement?
Anyways, Justin, stop regurgitating every painfully obvious fallacy the Republican party spoon-feeds you through their Barack Obama attack ads.
Merely out of curiosity, how can Obama decrease taxes on families making under 250,000 and still find the money to do everything he wants to? Why will no one answer the question about what they will cut out due to the current economy? In the past we used to get other cool things for taxes, like free entry into national parks. I happen to think that some of both candidates plans are dangerous. If we keep cutting taxes, how will this solve our problems as the candidates want to? It seems that it might take more not less money for some of these plans. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Kristinc, I meant it in a more short term setting, but long term effects could be had if the next pres. does well for his first few years.
Aaron, I couldn't agree more. You say that he would drive us greater in debt when that is not true. First off, raising taxes lowers debt, but he won't due that due to our struggling economy. Second of all, a republican, Bush, has brought our country's debt to a all time high, even after a democrat, Clinton, got rid of our national deficit and gave Bush surpluses. Sander, Obama recognizes that he cannot do everything he wants to until the economy is fixed and on track.
Okay, so he can't do everything. But what we he do and what won't he do? Just saying that he won't do some things is too vague and nondescript for me. Please actually tell me what he said he would cut. However, I haven't heard even a inkling of a plan from the McCain camp. Perhaps that is because I just haven't listen hard enough, but at the debates they both answered with nonsense.
Adamb, it is overly simplistic to solely blame Bush for our economic woes. If anything, the blame lays more on Congress, because they approved the budget year after year and also approved the war, if that is something you take into consideration.
Justin, why do you find it ironic that America is falling for "A MAN WHO WILL RAISE TAXES". Some people believe this is the way to go, that with higher taxes comes greater benefits, and that the trade is worth it. Justin, if your going to say that he will raise taxes and also drive us into debt, please explain. Do you mean America or the populace will be in deeper debt? Your statements previous to that comment seemed to be family oriented, but I was just curious.
Sander k, your poorly attempted middle of the road stance is incredibly annoying, toughen up and admit that you have picked a side already. Obama's economic policies are ridiculous.Please, a 90 day foreclosure protective measure. How on earth do you determine if a person is really trying to pay off debt. This is just a method of silly vote-garnering. I am personally disgusted with the way that both campaigns are being run. Sarah Palin is the best Palin since Michael Palin. She should be out in public more and not be attacked so viciously by the media. Most of the media, including CNN, are all in Obama's pocket, right next to his terrorist pal, Ayers who is "Guilty as hell, free as a bird". Only Fox news and Bill O'Reilly have had the guts to spearhead the media movement that happens to believe in real and honest reporting.
5thhoursurprise, I hope that is a joke. Fox news doesn't even attempt to be balanced. Everyone else at least tries. Some lean a little liberal, but Fox balances it out.
Obama and Bill Ayers served on the same charity board. That is really their only connection, which is not a bad one considering that it was a charity.
Sarah Palin is an insult to the American people, or at least me. She is married to a man who is in the oil business and was a secessionist, which is a much stronger connection than Obama's to Ayers. She is obviously not very smart or thoughtful. She has 6 kids, one of which is severely disabled, and she took this offer without thinking. She doesn't think global warming is man-made and she proposed the aerial hunting of wolves. She's just ridiculous. The fact that she denied health benefits for homosexuals should be enough for here to be seen as a bad person, but networks like Fox News, who blast Obama for being on a charity board with a former terrorist while she is married to a secessionist, keep her afloat. She is guilty of abusing her power. The worst part of her abuse was that her husband, a man who was not elected, called the meeting. She is immoral and irresponsible and should not be anywhere near our government.
I don't really appreciate being insulted like this on a blog, but if that's what floats your boat then ok. Just don't expect me to respond to any arguments you make after you insult me. I'm sorry that you feel that opinions independent of a party aren't valid, but there isn't anything I can do about it.
Adamb, any connection with a terrorist is a bad one. Remember, this is the candidate that advocated sitting down with the leaders of countries that make up the Axis of Evil. This position was refuted by most of our close allies. It took quite a while for Obama to realize that it was a bad idea and switch his opinion. Your accusations of Fox News being biased for McCain are baseless. Bill O'Reilly has reported on the Factor with integrity for a long time, much to the chagrin of fear mongers like Stephen Colbert. How can Sarah Palin be construed as an awful person when she advocated smart poliicy, such as the energy providing policy of "DRILL BABY, DRILL". The fact that she took the nomination with 6 children doesn't appear to be a similar problem with John McCain, who has many children also. They are the pair for the White house because they know what America needs and wants, and in the end, Barrack Obama doesn't.
If America wants and needs to be economically crippled then hell ya let's vote for McCain. But you know what? I don't think America wants to slide further into an economic depression. I don't think Americans need tax breaks for corrupt and greedy corporations, but rather for themselves. This is why Barack Obama will win. America is sick and tired of the dreadfully ineffective economic policies that the Republican party has used for the last 8 years.
Now, 5thhr, your attacks on Barack are flimsy and unconvincing. You brusquely brush him off as a decadent liberal who has terrorist ties, but if we're going to talk about the past of each opponent you simply can't debate the corruption and scandal that follows John McCain. He was one of 5 congressmen partially responsible for the last economic crash during the savings and loan crisis. His deregulation policies seriously hurt our country. Along with seriously injuring our economy, McCain flagrantly tossed aside his honor and good name for money. Charles Keating, chairman of Lincoln Financial, paid McCain off to protect his personal financial interests in congress.
I'm rambling now, but honestly there are no intelligent, informed Americans who would vote for a man who already crashed our economy because of his own blind greed and his corrupt decisions.
I have to agree with Aaronw on this one, 5thhr's attacks on Barrack Obama are unsound in that principally lie on a connection with a domestic terrorist though, as adamb put it, "A charity board". Is there something wrong with this as long as we know that Obama was just there for the charity work? Also, O'Reilly is just about the most mentally unsound reporter for Fox News. If you want to portray them as being a decent media source, then don't pick O'Reilly.
5thhrsuprise-
First of all, you spelled surprise wrong, unless you were making up a new word. Secondly, the reason Sarah Palin is attacked by the media is because of what she has said (and in some cases what she has failed to say or show knowledge of) in public, so I would think that you would be in favor of her not being in the public eye so much. Thirdly, you are obviously in Fox News' pocket which simply shows that maintstream media definitly has a brainwashing effect upon viewers, weather it be viewers of Fox or CNN. Finally, I wanted to say I respect the fact that even though you believe Obama has terrorist connections, you havent expressed desire to go into a war against the United States, considering that members of your side of the political spectrum have already attacked countries that are believed to have terrorist connections.
5thhrsuprise: I think it is a little uncalled for to characterize a candid statement of one's opinions as pathetic, and I don't really agree with any of the other things you said either.
But none more so than your assertion that "Sarah Palin is the best Palin since Michael Palin." Hardly. The truth is obvious after visiting michaelpalinforpresident.com. Be warned however, there is a brief sexual reference in the video so visit at your own discretion.
That is the best link ever posted on this blog!!! GO MICHEAL PALIN!!!
Benh, I did not say that expressing one's opinions was pathetic, just that people should come out and tell us who they are rooting for, and that hiding which candidate you have picked is a little bit annoying. It is nothing personal against anyone, just that I wish tehy would tell us who they have picked.
Out of all the people who have responded to my posts, not one has so far commented on Senator Obama's old offer to meet with leaders from countries in the Axis of Evil. This just shows his dangerous lack of experience in the foreign policy arena. In today's world, that should alone be grounds for not getting elected, and no amount of cheering crowds will change that.
Fox vs. CNN
It has been obvious that CNN has been a liberal media fountain during this campaign. They are always spewing liberal propaganda in order to get Barrack Obama votes. Fox News on the other hand, has tried to stick to the facts and present this election as it really is. Calling Bill O'Reilly mentally unsound is just an excuse to disregard what is obviously just incredible enthusiasm for the truth and for the public to know the truth about politics.
Okay, 5thhr, I will comment on Obama's offer to meet with leaders from the so-called "Axis of Evil." Is it really an example of a dangerous lack of experience that he wants to try diplomacy? This is an argument I have consistently been stymied by. What is so wrong with meeting with the leaders of foreign countries to try and create a peaceful compromise?
One of the strange arguments I have heard in support of this is that it will somehow legitimize those leaders. How? Are they not legitimate leaders already? Like it or not, they are in a position of leadership in their country. I doubt the citizens of said countries find Barack Obama so cool that a photo-op with him would gain their leader support.
Personally, I am glad that Obama is willing to try peace first.
Sorry I am in a rush to start studying for the gov test. I only had time to read the last comment, but personally I oppose meeting with the leaders not because of the idea of diplomacy but that by diplomacy Obama means appeasement. Looking at Obama's experience in foreign relations, do we really trust him to meet with "legitimate" leaders?
Also there is the example of Hitler and Austria in WWII. Diplomacy wasn't exactly successful.
lyndsey - Austria submitted to Germany on it's own. Austria own Nazi party had taken control and joined Germany. Hitler was appeased, yes, but if they didn't meet with him, the result would have been the same, he would've invaded areas like Sudetenland. Meeting leaders does not appease them. Appeasing them would be meeting and then letting them do what they wanted. If we don't meet with them, we are just denying they are there and doing something we don't like. How would Obama appease them and what part of his record are you referring to?
Thank you for nice information. Please visit our web:
deny
denyg
Post a Comment
<< Home