Trent Steele wrote:

dajafi wrote:The NYT has a story today about Palin's religious views, starting with this exchange between the politician and her pastor:

He wrote back that she should read again from the Old Testament the story of Esther, a beauty queen who became a real one, gaining the king’s ear to avert the slaughter of the Jews and vanquish their enemies. When Esther is called to serve, God grants her a strength she never knew she had.

Mr. Riley said he thought Ms. Palin had lived out the advice as governor, and would now do so again as the Republican Party’s vice-presidential nominee.

“God has given her the opportunity to serve,” he said. “And God has given her the strength to carry out her goals.”
...
Interviews with the two pastors she has been most closely associated with here in her hometown — she now attends the Wasilla Bible Church, though she keeps in touch with Mr. Riley and recently spoke at an event at his former church — and with friends and acquaintances who have worshipped with her point to a firm conclusion: her foundation and source of guidance is the Bible, and with it has come a conviction to be God’s servant.

“Just be amazed at the umbrella of this church here, where God is going to send you from this church,” Ms. Palin told the gathering in June of young graduates of a ministry program at the Assembly of God Church, a video of which has been posted on YouTube.

“Believe me,” she said, “I know what I am saying — where God has sent me, from underneath the umbrella of this church, throughout the state.
...
In the address at the Assembly of God Church here, Ms. Palin’s ease in talking about the intersection of faith and public life was clear. Among other things, she encouraged the group of young church leaders to pray that “God’s will” be done in bringing about the construction of a big pipeline in the state, and suggested her work as governor would be hampered “if the people of Alaska’s heart isn’t right with God.”

Didn't we try this one before? She's wholly entitled to her beliefs, of course--I just don't want them running my government.

The worst thing about the Palin pick, I'm coming to believe, is that it puts us right back in 2004 where the election isn't primarily contested on whose policy views are supported by the public, but rather on who is Righteous and who is Wicked. To say this isn't good for America is a pretty tremendous understatement--even before you think about what it could mean to have a religious fanatic of little experience or adult supervision potentially facing down Iran or Russia if McCain's health failed.

Just as she is entitled to her beliefs, I'm entitled to believe she is an absolute whackjob for her beliefs.

I can completely understand why intelligent, thoughtful people would vote for John McCain.

I cannot fathom, for a single second, any reason why any intelligent, thoughtful person who wasn't already voting McCain would now vote for him because of the selection of Palin. I defy anyone to provide me a legitimate, non-assinine reason for this.

I've been listening to interview with delegates at RNC and other republicans and middle-americans from a variety of alternative media sources. It's frankly scary. As Thomas Frank made clear in "What's the MAtter with Kansas", people don't vote the issues or their class interests. They will not perceive McCain and Palin as more of the same ... that the speeches of Romney and Huckabee and Giuliani were extreme and massive lies and distortions ... that they appointed the last 2 and most of the Supreme Court Justices, DC is not liberal, Obama is not liberal -- and yet, this is what the little house wives and old ladies will believe.

There is an 'idenfitication' factor. Ignorant people are looking for things to believe in and on. There is a mythology being created around Palin and it doesn't ahve to be true, or even debunked by rational and or educated thinkers -- because as long as it sounds nice -- people will hold on to it, like all their other extreme and unsupported beliefs.

They had no idea really what Palin would do, or what would come of it, and they are just thanking their lucky stars that its taken on this life they never anticipated. Didn't Bush's speech writer write her speech?

800 people including valid journalists covering valid important events were arrested in St Paul, Minny -- where's that story? Michael Franti, who is doing his annual Power to the Peaceful event in SF today, played there and people started bobbing up and down, and SNIPERS TOOK AIM. That's the new America.

U.S. has highest teen pregnancy rate in developed world:

[A] 2001 Unicef report said that the United States teenage birthrate was higher than any other member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The U.S. tied Hungary for the most abortions. This was in spite of the fact that girls in the U.S. were not the most sexually active. Denmark held that title. But, its teenage birthrate was one-sixth of ours, and its teenage abortion rate was half of ours.

If there is a shame here, it’s a national shame — a failure of our puritanical society to accept and deal with the facts. Teenagers have sex. How often and how safely depends on how much knowledge and support they have. Crossing our fingers that they won’t cross the line is not an intelligent strategy.

To wit, our ridiculous experiment in abstinence-only education seems to be winding down with a study finding that it didn’t work. States are opting out of it. Parents don’t like it either. According to a 2004 survey sponsored by NPR, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, 65 percent of parents of high school students said that federal money “should be used to fund more comprehensive sex education programs that include information on how to obtain and use condoms and other contraceptives.”

Well, let's hope it's winding down. Probably that depends who wins this year.

I don't want to sound paranoid... but it's almost like the religious right is more interested in keeping "unsanctioned" sex stigmatized than in lowering the abortion rate.

Maybe the winning argument is to figure out the costs to the public treasury connected with accidental pregnancies. Then at least the more reality-susceptible Republicans (our guys here, at least some of them) might recognize how atrocious this abstinence-only policy really is.

If we have the highest teen pregnancy rate, chances are we also have the highest teen STD rate as well.

dajafi wrote:U.S. has highest teen pregnancy rate in developed world:

[A] 2001 Unicef report said that the United States teenage birthrate was higher than any other member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The U.S. tied Hungary for the most abortions. This was in spite of the fact that girls in the U.S. were not the most sexually active. Denmark held that title. But, its teenage birthrate was one-sixth of ours, and its teenage abortion rate was half of ours.

If there is a shame here, it’s a national shame — a failure of our puritanical society to accept and deal with the facts. Teenagers have sex. How often and how safely depends on how much knowledge and support they have. Crossing our fingers that they won’t cross the line is not an intelligent strategy.

To wit, our ridiculous experiment in abstinence-only education seems to be winding down with a study finding that it didn’t work. States are opting out of it. Parents don’t like it either. According to a 2004 survey sponsored by NPR, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, 65 percent of parents of high school students said that federal money “should be used to fund more comprehensive sex education programs that include information on how to obtain and use condoms and other contraceptives.”

Well, let's hope it's winding down. Probably that depends who wins this year.

I don't want to sound paranoid... but it's almost like the religious right is more interested in keeping "unsanctioned" sex stigmatized than in lowering the abortion rate.

Maybe the winning argument is to figure out the costs to the public treasury connected with accidental pregnancies. Then at least the more reality-susceptible Republicans (our guys here, at least some of them) might recognize how atrocious this abstinence-only policy really is.

I am firmly convinced that many anti-abortion zealots really aren't interested in life but interested instead in making sure sexual activity has negative consequences.

TenuredVulture wrote:If we have the highest teen pregnancy rate, chances are we also have the highest teen STD rate as well.

Lil sluts get whuts comin to em

Consider right wing opposition to the vaccine for hpv.

Philly the Kid wrote:You're a piece of work Lax. Like most conservatives and the media that seems to legitimize them, you point to a couple random examples to size up the entire scenario.

I've done nothing of the sort. I'm pointing out something that wasn't reported and you'd rather dismiss. I don't know the entire scenario and neither do you. So I haven't sized it up.

The cops went in to houses where no crime had been committed storm tropping to take pre-emptive action

?
Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. This story was reported on Saturday with few facts. No person arrested was interviewed and the police were not interviewed. While you automatically assume that the police didn't have probable cause, I prefer to have more information before making a judgement.

Is this America? I guess not. Journalists with deep creds like Amy Goodman were arrested with no explanation.

Then she wasn't listening or reading the arrest report. She was arrested and charged with obstruction and interference with a peace officer.

I know several journalists who were on the edge of an area that was tear gassed. They weren't paying attention to the situation and didn't know what was happening to justify tear gas. Thus they told me they didn't know if it was justified. They were there and made no judgement without more facts. You were not and don't need more facts. You've decided to condemn police based on your beliefs.

I was in Minneapolis and St. Paul this week and came upon many many protesters, none of whom were hassled by police in any way.

Olberman, and O'Reilly are joke compared to the real journalists out there trying to defend the constitution.

Neither man is a journalist. They are commentators and don't file stories.

Philly the Kid wrote:Whatever bro, get your priorities straight... then maybe I can take you seriously.

I have no idea what you believe my priorities are or what you think they should be and I certainly wouldn't want you to take anyone who didn't agree with you 100% seriously. My beliefs are that guilt must be beyond a reasonable doubt and that people are innocent until proven guilty. You believe in neither when it comes to the police. I have no idea why you think you believe in the Constitution since you believe it only applies to those you agree with and that those you see as the enemy don't have the same rights.

Philly the Kid wrote:people don't vote the issues or their class interests

You think that people need to vote the issues you think they should. Each individual is welcome to vote what ever issues they feel most strongly about. I know two women who were going to vote McCain but won't now because of Palin's views on abortion, evolution, and religion. I'm perplexed about this because 1) You're voting President, not Vice President 2) McCain is Pro-Life. If you were going to vote for him, why would Palin's views change things? 3) These issues don't have the impact that fiscal and foreign policy issues do this year.

The idea that middle class and poor people should vote Democratic and not Republican based on their income is a testament to Democratic marketing. That you don't understand why people who aren't rich vote Republican doesn't mean they are voting against their class interest.

the speeches of Romney and Huckabee and Giuliani were extreme and massive lies and distortions

As you've pointed out to me, the Democrats do the same thing.

Obama is not liberal

He votes party line. How is that not liberal?

Ignorant people are looking for things to believe in and on.

Yes, they are. The Democratic Party has a higher percentage of people with post-graduate degrees and who have not graduated high school. They have continually given ignorant people something to believe in.

dajafi wrote:The worst thing about the Palin pick, I'm coming to believe, is that it puts us right back in 2004 where the election isn't primarily contested on whose policy views are supported by the public, but rather on who is Righteous and who is Wicked.

The fascinating thing is that this wasn't an issue until the Democrats made it an issue. Say what you want about John McCain, but he has mostly avoided social issues in this campaign. Even though he's Pro-Life he never talks about it, even to the "base." While Governor Palin may make the "base" more enthusiastic there's no indication the McCain campaign is changing the focus. His speech focused mainly on energy, national security, and economic issues. Democrats believe Sarah Palin is too extreme for the middle and they are probably right. So they are making her opinions of "who is Righteous and who is Wicked" part of the campaign. I've heard a lot of third hand accounts on these issues, but she hasn't addressed them since she was picked. She didn't say that the Righteous should vote for McCain-Palin.

I cannot fathom, for a single second, any reason why any intelligent, thoughtful person who wasn't already voting McCain would now vote for him because of the selection of Palin. I defy anyone to provide me a legitimate, non-assinine reason for this.

Trent, the phrasing of your question indicates you don't want such an answer. Having spoken with a number of people who I consider intelligent and thoughtful there are reasons. People on the right who don't care a lot about social issues like that she's taken a reformist approach, stood up to the oil companies without trying to destroy them, gone after the old boy network, and is dedicated to small government. She's young and energetic. I know women, who I'm sure you think are misguided, who admire her for her hard work and success while raising five children. McCain doesn't appeal to women as well as men. If you're a "hockey mom" you can find a lot to like in Palin.

I don't want to sound paranoid... but it's almost like the religious right is more interested in keeping "unsanctioned" sex stigmatized than in lowering the abortion rate.

Yet with Sarah Palin's daughter they are doing the opposite. Perhaps this will change the way "unsanctioned" sex is perceived.

Palin I think is very much in the Bush mold, and they appeal to people who can't handle nuance or ambiguity.

I now have three people who regard themselves as being in the middle who will vote Obama because of Palin. This is a bad trend.

Has anybody yet pointed out that the avenging angel of earmark reform picked as his running mate the governor of the state that regards earmarks as something like a birthright?

McCain has vowed to wipe out earmarks, which are targeted funding for specific projects that lawmakers put into spending bills. As governor, Palin originally supported earmarks for a controversial $398 million Alaska project dubbed the "bridge to nowhere." But she dropped her support after the state's likely share of the cost rose. She hung onto $27 million to build the approach road to the bridge.

Under Palin's leadership, Alaska this year asked for almost $300 per person in requests for pet projects from one of McCain's top adversaries: indicted Sen. Ted Stevens. That's more than any other state received, per person, from Congress for the current budget year. Other states got just $34 worth of local projects per person this year, on average, according to Citizens Against Government Waste, a Washington-based watchdog group.The state government's earmark requests to Congress in her first year in office exceeded $550 million, more than $800 per resident.

I know the McCain campaign isn't letting her talk to those mean old journalists, so nobody can ask her if she thinks the earmarks were justified. But maybe they could ask McCain--if his Little Roves still let him talk to reporters--whether he thinks Alaska needed that quarter-billion dollars or so in earmark requests.

Paul Waldman, senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a columnist for American Prospect and the author of a number of books on media and politics. His latest book, co-authored with David Brock, is called Free Ride: John McCain and the Media.

"Well, obviously, the coverage was dominated by discussion of Sarah Palin. What really struck me after her speech was just how glowing so much of the coverage was of her speech. “It was a home run.” “It was so spectacular.” And I think that a lot of that had to do with the fact that the reporters who were covering it were actually there at the Republican convention, and who were they getting reactions from? Well, they’re getting reactions from the Republican delegates, who are themselves not just the base of the Republican Party, but kind of the base of the base. Those are the social conservatives who want—who wanted Sarah Palin on the ticket, and they’re so excited about her. But I haven’t seen any evidence, actually, that her speech or her pick was such a gigantic hit with the public at large. I think that oftentimes in a situation like this, the press can get kind of—have blinders on because of the situation that they’re in.


So far, it seems like the reviews of the people who were watching the speech, John McCain’s speech last night, were mostly negative. I mean, anyone who watched it, I think, would know that it was kind of a dud in any number of ways. But they do keep falling back on the same old narrative that they’ve been telling for so long about McCain. I mean, I can read you the lede of the Associated Press report on McCain’s speech. It says, “John McCain, a POW turned political rebel, vowed tonight to vanquish the ‘constant partisan rancor’ that grips Washington as he launched his fall campaign for the White House.” Now, if you’ve been watching the coverage of McCain over the last ten years, you know that almost every story about McCain seems to start with some version of that, that he’s the rebel, he’s the maverick, he was a prisoner of war.


Now, people may have heard this a few or maybe a few hundred times over the last week. That’s one of the most extraordinary things I’ve always found about the coverage of McCain, is that they always say how reluctant he is to talk about the fact that he was a prisoner of war, despite the fact that every single campaign he’s ever run since he first ran for Congress in 1982 has been based on the fact that he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Even last night, on the floor of the convention, after this week of just endless retellings and retellings of the story of his captivity, one of the network reporters said, “Well, you know, his aides must have convinced him finally to talk about the fact that he was a prisoner of war, because he’s so reluctant to talk about it.” He’s not reluctant; he talks about it all the time. But yet, that narrative, like so many of the narratives about John McCain, has managed to persist, just as he and his advisers want it to. "

"Well, obviously, as the Democrats have said many times, you know, in the last couple of years particularly, he hasn’t voted against the Bush administration once in 2008. He voted 95 percent of the time with the Bush administration in 2007. And if you look over the course of his career, he gets ratings from the conservative groups kind of in the mid-80s. A hundred would be absolutely perfect, and a zero would be what a conservative group would give to a real liberal. And that puts him at the—maybe not at the actual outer limit, but at the conservative end among his colleagues.


The reason that everybody thinks that he—that he’s different, that he bucks convention more often, is that, not because he actually does it more often—he doesn’t. There are a number of Republican senators who vote with the Democrats far more often than he does. But when somebody like, say, Susan Collins of Maine, when she votes with the Democrats, it doesn’t change the story that the reporters write about whatever that piece of legislation is. It’s still written as a conflict between Democrats and Republicans, maybe with a couple of defectors here and there. But when John McCain is the one who decides that he’s going to go against his party, that changes the story that reporters write. Instead of a story about a conflict between Democrats and Republicans, now they write a story about John McCain and his courageous rebellion. He’s the one who goes on Meet the Press to talk about the issue. He’s the one who is in the headlines, who gets quoted in the stories, and it becomes a story about him. So he actually votes against his party less often than many other people in the Republican Party do, but when he does it, the reporters, who have so much affection for him, they write it as though it’s—they write a different story that puts him at the forefront, making it seem as though it happens much more often. "

Full interview here

This is your Amerika folks....


"On Wednesday, prosecutors formally charged eight members of the RNC Welcoming Committee with conspiracy to riot in furtherance of terrorism. The eight activists are believed to be the first people ever charged under the 2002 Minnesota version of the federal PATRIOT Act. The activists face up to seven-and-a-half years in prison. "


On Thursday, other members of the RNC Welcoming Committee spoke to the media for the first time. The group, along with the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign, held a news conference at their convergence space to discuss their group and the charges against the so-called RNC Eight.

ELLIOT HUGHES: My name is Elliot Hughes. E-L-L-I-O-T, H-U-G-H-E-S. Me and some friends were chanting for—so that we could receive food in Ramsey County Jail, because we hadn’t been provided food. And six or seven officers came into my cell, and they took—one officer punched me in the face, right here where you see this bruise. And then they slammed—and I fell to the ground, unconscious. And the officer grabbed me by the head, slammed my head on the ground and re-awoke me out of—to consciousness. And I was bleeding everywhere. They dragged me to another detaining cell. They put a bag over my head that had a gag on it. And they used pain compliance tactics on me for about an hour and a half. They pressed—they separated my jaw as hard as they could with their fingers. And they bent my ankles back. They basically bent my foot backwards. I was screaming for God and like screaming for mercy, crying, asking them why they were doing this. And I’ve never been so violated in my life.

At about 2:45 this afternoon (Sept. 3), police wielding batons and a battering ram entered the professional office building on Selby Avenue in St. Paul where I-Witness Video is renting work space.

Geneva Finn, an attorney with the National Lawyer's Guild went to head off the police. After the police left, she made this statement at an impromptu press conference on the street:

A few minutes ago, one of our legal observers called me to the door. I saw the St. Paul police unloading a bunch of equipment from their cars and they saw me at the door. They saw me at the door, they motioned me forward. I came forward to their cars. They told me that they had reports that somebody was holding somebody hostage in the building, that there had been a kidnapping. They told me that somebody, an undercover had told them, that the anarchists were holding people hostage in our building.

I work for the NLG [National Lawyers Guild] here, we have, we're working at one of our lawyer's offices, I said, "Is it in our law office?" They said "No, it's upstairs." They then came into the building with me, I showed them what was going on upstairs. They did a pull-up on the frame of I-Witness' door, looked in, saw that there was people in there, nobody was being held hostage. I then asked the police to leave, since no one was obviously being held hostage here, and they refused. Eventually their head sergeant came here, and decided that they could leave the building.

Anarchists taking hostages? Kidnapping?

This is extraordinary, folks. The St. Paul police came after us with unfounded allegations that we were engaged in criminal behavior. This harassment has interfered with our ability to do the work of documenting the policing of protests that we have come to St. Paul to do. They were able to put pressure on the landlord to do something that they could not force under the law. We were informed that, as a result of all of the commotion, our landlord wanted us to leave the premises immediately.

We packed up our belongings as quickly as possible and were welcomed at the offices of Free Speech TV in St. Paul, for which we are deeply grateful.

especially for you LaX


"The Democratic and Republican national conventions have become very expensive and protracted acts of political theater, essentially four-day-long advertisements for the major presidential candidates. Outside the fences, they have become major gatherings for grass-roots movements—for people to come, amidst the banners, bunting, flags and confetti, to express the rights enumerated in the Constitution’s First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Behind all the patriotic hyperbole that accompanies the conventions, and the thousands of journalists and media workers who arrive to cover the staged events, there are serious violations of the basic right of freedom of the press. Here on the streets of St. Paul, the press is free to report on the official proceedings of the RNC, but not to report on the police violence and mass arrests directed at those who have come to petition their government, to protest. "

Laexile wrote:I now have three people who regard themselves as being in the middle who will vote Obama because of Palin. This is a bad trend.

It's a real trend. I am definitely liberal on social issues, but I seriously would have considered voting for McCain this year because I do trust him more on foriegn policy issues, I admire him, and he is a social moderate. The selection of Palin makes it impossible. A heartbeat away. There are many others like me.

The coverage of Sarah Palin's speech was hardly 100% glowing. Several analysts commented with things like "she didn't write that speech" as if other politicians write every word of their speeches.

Republican delegates, for the most part, were not social conservatives. I have to wonder who Mr. Brock spoke with. I spoke with a great many delegates. A lot of them were McCain supporters who don't tend to be social conservatives. This was a much less social conservative convention than the GOP has had in a long time. The delegates weren't responding to Sarah Palin's speech from a social conservative position. But what do I know compared to Mr. Brock? I was actually on the floor.

The often repeated Democratic mantra that John McCain hasn’t voted against the Bush administration once in 2008. He voted 95 percent of the time with the Bush administration in 2007 is, of course, misleading. He has barely voted in 2008 and hasn't voted on a bill in five months. He voted less than half the time in 2007. The National Journal regards his sample sizes insignificant to make a classification.

In 2007 Barack Obama voted with President Bush 40% of the time! In 2006 he voted with George Bush 49% of the time! Do we really want to elect a Democrat so aligned with President Bush? Of course these vote numbers are nonsense. Most Senate votes are unanimous and many of them are resolutions congratulating the World Series champs. A better indicator is how Obama voted in relation to his Party. He voted with fellow Senate Democrats 97 percent of the time in 2007 and 2005, and 96 percent of the time in 2006. Democrats need not worry. He votes straight Party line, even if it coincides with President Bush.

No one ever claimed John McCain was the most liberal US Senator. He hardly appears very conservative either. In 2007 the ACU ranked him the 33rd of 49 GOP Senators in Conservatism. In 2006 he was 42nd of 49. The National Journal didn't rank him in 2007, but put him 46th, 45th, and 49th in 2006, 2005, and 2004. He does not vote against his Party less than many other people in the Republican Party do. He actually does it more than just a few.

Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are certainly more liberal than he, but they represent a very blue state. Arizona has gone red in 13 of the last 14 elections.

ptk, I spoke with a number of the media and attended three protests. I found no media restricted in what they reported. Even if all the allegations in your posts are true they aren't being restricted from reporting them now. Your posts confirm this. Not only is police misconduct being reported but it is possibly being exaggerated by the media members who were harassed because the media plays the victim so well. These has been no restriction on freedom of the press.

It's certainly possible and probably likely that there were police abuses during the Convention. Rather than make a rush to judgement these abuses should be investigated by speaking with those allegedly harassed, the police, and neutral third parties. I know that you don't believe that Constitution rights should be afforded to anyone but liberals, but there still are a few people in America who believe they should.

dajafi, your snarky comments aside, there is one person in a senior position on the campaign, Steve Schmidt, who has ever had an affiliation with Karl Rove. Rick Davis, Charlie Black, Mark Salter, Carly Fiorina, Meg Wittman, Nicolle Wallace, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, and the much maligned Randy Scheunemann have never worked for Karl Rove. But forget that. It doesn't fit in with the John McCain, stooge of Rove and Bush, narrative.

Trent Steele wrote:

Laexile wrote:I now have three people who regard themselves as being in the middle who will vote Obama because of Palin. This is a bad trend.

It's a real trend. I am definitely liberal on social issues, but I seriously would have considered voting for McCain this year because I do trust him more on foriegn policy issues, I admire him, and he is a social moderate. The selection of Palin makes it impossible. A heartbeat away. There are many others like me.

I don't get that. If you feel McCain is a better man for the job than Obama how can you not vote for McCain? If Dick Cheney and his heart condition can survive eight years John McCain and his periodic skin cancer can survive four. Neither of Barack Obama's parents lived to be 60 and both of McCain's hit 70.

There seems to be this irrational fear that she's some sort of religious nut. We've had someone with similar religious beliefs in the White House the last eight years. Say what you want about Bush pooching foreign policy and economic matters, but how much have his social positions impacted the country? DoMA? McCain opposes gay marriage. Conservative judges? McCain supports them. We made it through four years of Dan Quayle. You vote for the top of the ticket. I can see a lot of reasons to vote for Obama. Palin isn't one of them I understand.

Laexile wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:

Laexile wrote:I now have three people who regard themselves as being in the middle who will vote Obama because of Palin. This is a bad trend.

It's a real trend. I am definitely liberal on social issues, but I seriously would have considered voting for McCain this year because I do trust him more on foriegn policy issues, I admire him, and he is a social moderate. The selection of Palin makes it impossible. A heartbeat away. There are many others like me.

I don't get that. If you feel McCain is a better man for the job than Obama how can you not vote for McCain? If Dick Cheney and his heart condition can survive eight years John McCain and his periodic skin cancer can survive four. Neither of Barack Obama's parents lived to be 60 and both of McCain's hit 70.

There seems to be this irrational fear that she's some sort of religious nut. We've had someone with similar religious beliefs in the White House the last eight years. Say what you want about Bush pooching foreign policy and economic matters, but how much have his social positions impacted the country? DoMA? McCain opposes gay marriage. Conservative judges? McCain supports them. We made it through four years of Dan Quayle. You vote for the top of the ticket. I can see a lot of reasons to vote for Obama. Palin isn't one of them I understand.

Thanks for the prognosis, doctor, but the fact is McCain will be 76 at the end of his 1st term and 80 at the end of his 2nd term. Putting aside the skin cancer issue, actuarial tables suggest he will die in office if he serves two terms. I don't believe in God, but I do believe in probability, and ignoring the possibility of his death in office is like ignoring the fact that Eric Bruntlett and So Taguchi suck...and then somebody gets hurt and they have to play.

My views of Obama/McCain are close enough to equal that even a 10% chance of President Palin swings my vote to Obama.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13096.html

About a 15% chance he doesn't make it to the end of his first term, and 1/3 chance he doesn't make it through both, according to the Politico.