dajafi wrote:Pip, why is Obama "too liberal" for you? What's he proposing that you take issue with?

It's been awhile since I researched the candidates (several months), so a lot of the specifics aren't on the "tip of my mind" at the momemt. So please forgive me for being a bit general with a couple I recall. I'll have to dig through the internets to refresh my memory on the specifics. One "general" I recall is he's proposing hundreds of billions in new spending without a way to pay for it.

Regarding his state and federal legislature voting record, again this is a case of it being several months ago so specific details are fuzzy. One thing I do remember is he was the only Illinois legislator (house and senate) to oppose some bill that would allow sex crime victims to petition to have their records sealed, saying it violates the rights of convicted criminals or something like that. There were others reflecting what one would consider a too soft on crime position. It's not that I'm an uber "law and order" guy, just that there were some that were a bit out of the realm of common sense, makes you say "huh?". There was also some bill about living abortions that just didn't seem quite right (even though I'm not a pro-life crusader). Don't think I'll need to dig up the details on this one, as I suspect the GOP will do that for us.

There were others. When time allows, I'll research again to refresh my memory.

Laexile wrote:

That's what "surrogates" are for... keeps your hands clean.

What McCain is selling is that his surrogates don't play dirty either. If his surrogates are smearing it should come right back on him. I think it will.

I'm sure there are (or will be) a buncha Republicans out there that just don't want a Democrat to win, and they'll put together some 527's (if they're not doing so already).

McCain billed himself as running a respectful campaign.

It's not like McCain has been running squeaky clean. Case in point, his Hamas/Obama comment. Sure, it's true the Hamas dude in America endorsed Obama. But McCain's comments on it could be perceived as a "cheap jab".

I'm not quite sure how trying to show you're not Muslim, and not named after Saddam Hussein (both things that at are still believed today by many), is anything more than that.

As soon as he starts using his religion to decide what should and shouldn't be legal, or dictate his policy decisions, that's when you'll see people getting upset. But just telling someone you're Christian has never been a problem for us crazy liberals. It's when someone's personal brand is forced on others.

I have to say that I'm surprised that there has been absolutely no discussion (save one short post) about the Edwards endorsement here. Do you all think that the endorsement is that unnewsworthy?

traderdave wrote:I have to say that I'm surprised that there has been absolutely no discussion (save one short post) about the Edwards endorsement here. Do you all think that the endorsement is that unnewsworthy?

I think pretty much everyone here thinks the nomination is already sewn up.

jerseyhoya wrote:

traderdave wrote:I have to say that I'm surprised that there has been absolutely no discussion (save one short post) about the Edwards endorsement here. Do you all think that the endorsement is that unnewsworthy?

I think pretty much everyone here thinks the nomination is already sewn up.

...and that Edwards has just positioned himself into a nice Veep role.

The black president, the southern white boy VP.

Nice way to get your red votes.

Didn't work for KErry, but that was with a southern white boy republican candidate...

The Dude wrote:
As soon as he starts using his religion to decide what should and shouldn't be legal, or dictate his policy decisions, that's when you'll see people getting upset.

This is the way the country has been run for 7 1/2 years...

Bob Loblaw wrote:

The Dude wrote:
As soon as he starts using his religion to decide what should and shouldn't be legal, or dictate his policy decisions, that's when you'll see people getting upset.

This is the way the country has been run for 7 1/2 years...

Thank you, MOTO

Glenn Beck says college is the problem

Interesting speechfrom McCain this morning, with reminders of why I like the guy...

I am presumptuous enough to think I would be a good President, but not so much that I believe I can govern by command. Should I forget that, Congress will, of course, hasten to remind me.
...
The powers of the presidency are rightly checked by the other branches of government, and I will not attempt to acquire powers our founders saw fit to grant Congress. I will exercise my veto if I believe legislation passed by Congress is not in the nation's best interests, but I will not subvert the purpose of legislation I have signed by making statements that indicate I will enforce only the parts of it I like. I will respect the responsibilities the Constitution and the American people have granted Congress, and will, as I often have in the past, work with anyone of either party to get things done for our country.

...and why I couldn't vote for him: the rest of the speech reads like a marginally more palatable version of the Bush-era Clap for Tinkerball "agenda."

Even so, I guess all the candidates are delusional, and his explicit repudiation of the Bush "unitary executive" theory is a huge relief.

In honesty, I don't dislike John McCain. However, I don't think I can stomach another four to five years of American casualties in Iraq, as he suggested yesterday.

traderdave wrote:In honesty, I don't dislike John McCain. However, I don't think I can stomach another four to five years of American casualties in Iraq, as he suggested yesterday.

I find it incredibly refreshing, actually, to have an "opponent" whom I don't detest, and whose mere presence in public life doesn't suggest to me that the country has some intrinsic, possibly fatal flaw.

What got to me most about Bush, the ur-problem from which all the other ones spring, is how totally lacking he is, in terms of intellect, temperament and character, for the job he holds. Without the almost unimaginable advantages he enjoyed all through life, he probably would have wound up tending bar or pumping gas somewhere after a few failed stints as a salesman. Even Giuliani, much as I feared and loathed him, was pretty clearly talented and hard-working.

If Clinton Wants VP, Obama Can't Stop Her

Kind of an interesting thought. Not sure she wants to be VP that badly, though.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Glenn Beck says college is the problem

Well, educated, informed voters are a problem for the Republican Party. If that's what he means.

BuddyGroom wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Glenn Beck says college is the problem

Well, educated, informed voters are a problem for the Republican Party. If that's what he means.

Democrats win the undereducated and overeducated. Republicans do best among college grads and people who start college but don't graduate.

pacino wrote:

Laexile wrote:

momadance wrote:Pol Pot would have a better approval rating than Bush.

Then we know that Pol Pot wouldn't be in Congress, since Congress has been running way below Bush.

People dislike 'Congress' as an idea. They like their own congressman.

This is true. But it also is true that after the Democrats re-took Congress, the public approval ratings for Congress rose briefly, then plunged again.

I can't blame people who give this Congress low marks. For the most part, the Democrats seem to have done little since January 2007 other than implying that they'll wait to be re-elected (ratified by winning twice, in other words) and getting a president of their own party before they'll actually stick their necks out for something.

It's the kind of the thing that really had me hoping for a Michael Bloomberg independent run for president for a while.

Beck's idea was that we shouldn't be talking about oil companies and their windfall profits since university endowments don't get taxed and their main function is to spread radical ideology.

Aah, yes. How fondly I remember my days in the liberal indoctrination labs at Penn State.

When I was a kid, a majority of college-educated voters were Republican. Now the reverse is true. Instead of demonizing colleges, their professors, students and graduates, Republicans might do better actually trying to, you know, appeal to them.

I'll post this again, since it was the last post on the previous page, and no one seems to have read it...

In 2004, Bush won people who graduated high school, had some college, and graduated college.

Kerry won people who did not graduate high school, and have post graduate degrees.

We believed you, homes.