laconic1

I'm not sure yet. I'm not thrilled with McCain, or with Barr. Some of it depends on McCains VP pick, although I'm not thrilled with any of the main VP choices I've heard bandied about. It doesn't help that Colorado is so tight in the polls now and has the potential to be the deciding state this year.

Mojo_PeiPei

I'm not voting for President. I'm doing this with the assumption that John Mccain will loose . This means the Dems will hold the congress and the Oval Office. Obama's joke policies falter, which I'm thinking will lead to a major shake up in the republican party. Should be good probably leading to a more moderate less corrupt more practical party.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Bilbert

I want to be your President! = I'm a complete nut case and it's way past my medication time!

Who in their right mind would want that job? I'll be casting my usual Libertarian vote as a protest to the big business subsidiary the government has become.

rlbond86

Obama all the way. I think he has the balls to take this country in another direction, and 4 more years of a neoconservative administration with scandals left and right is very scary. We're most certainly experiencing another gilded age in terms of government corruption. Keith Olbermann summed it up perfectly: "Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland ... Bush."

What's funny is, if you asked me a few years ago, I would have been thrilled with a McCain Presidency, and I had hoped he would run in 2008. But then, he sold out. I absolutely feel betrayed. Here he played the maverick, the one who would do what was right even if his party disagreed with him, and then he comes out with this "surge is working" BS, and "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran," and this incessant negative campaigning (which he promised to avoid); then he bolted straight to the right. Now a McCain presidency scares the hell out of me. It's funny because I think if he had just kept to his principles, the Republicans would have had to stick to him because nobody else had a shot, and independents and even a lot of democrats would have flocked to him. He would have won in a landslide. Now he's just a crazy old man.
I guess most of all, I'm ashamed of myself for believing in him.

asaris

I'm going for Cthulhu -- Why vote for the lesser of two evils?

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

ottopilot

Bush absolutely deserves to be included in such great company. However, to be fair (and unpopular), I'd have to insist on the addition of Bill Clinton.

After reviewing Obama's assent, it's hard to imagine where he hasn't sold out. Selling out is a prerequisite in mainstream politics. They will gladly eat their own if perceived not to be "on board". I understand the sentiment, but would seriously reconsider this rationality for endorsing Obama.

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

contour

"I'll give the Department of Education an additional 18 billion dollars but it won't make a dime's worth of difference if you don't turn off the TV and put away the Playstation."

That's when I knew.

Obama 2008.

loquitur

I'm writing in Penn Jillette.

fnaqzna

In 2000 and 2004 I voted against George Bush.

This year, I'm voting for Obama.

It's a nice change.

forseti-6

I don't like either candidate all that much. I hate Obama's social and foreign policy's and I hate McCain's history of being a maverick.

Like a few have mentioned, I'm voting for the lesser of two evils here. Ideally I would like to vote for Bob Barr, but as I see it, voting for anyone but McCain (or Nader) would be helping Obama. I think McCain would be a decent president, but Obama would destroy this country. So McCain it is.
-----Added 23/8/2008 at 11 : 05 : 04-----
I've heard people talking about this, referring to what Carter did for the Republican Party to help someone like Reagan emerge. The only problem I have with that is how long would it take this country to recover from four years of destructive Obama politics?

__________________
"Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened." - Dr. Seuss

dc_dux

Mojo and forseti....putting aside the personalities or taking the face off the candidates.

Why do you think more Americans agrees with Obama's (and/or general Democratic) domestic and foreign policies (perhaps with the exception of national security)....the policies that you believe are a "joke" or "destructive"?

Or specifically, which polities do you believe are a joke or destructive?

We hear the same tired and trite generalities all the time..but never the specifics.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

forseti-6

You want specifics? I'll give you specifics.

I don't like Obama's plan for wealth redistribution. I come from a family where both my parents grew up extremely poor and worked their way up to wealth. They didn't receive nor need wealth redistribution to get to where they got. Simple hard work and dedication got them where they are.

Why should they be penalized for their success. Why should they have to fit the bill for others who might not want to work hard? Wealth redistribution promotes contentedness, which hurts people's chances of advancing in society.

Obama wants to raise capital gains taxes. Another no no. Why penalize people who have be successful in investing? Again, penalizing hard work.

Obama supports late-term abortion - something I'm fundamentally against.

Obama want windfall taxes and raise taxes on the "rich." First off windfall taxes will just alienate business from doing business in this country. He has claimed that many companies are leaving this country for overseas, but don't you think windfall taxes will push more out? Now I know he has only mentioned windfall taxes on the oil companies, but what's to say he won't try to impose those on other "successful" businesses?

Obama wants to raise the taxes on the rich. My main gripe with that is how he defines rich. He defines rich as $250,000 or more. I hate to tell you, but having lived much of my life in Manhattan, $250K is NOT rich. Is it comfortable? Yes. But in no way is it rich.

He mentioned in the Saddleback Forum that he recognizes that rich is defined differently from region to region, and if he truly wants to raise to tax on the rich, he seriously has to go region by region to define rich.

Finally, my last big gripe with Obama is his foreign policy. You mention more American's agree with Obama's foreign policy. Oh really? I have yet to see a poll that shows that.

Obama wants to sit down with world tyrants like Ahmedinejad (sp?) without preconditions. He says that diplomacy is the way to go to deal with these people. Well wake up! Guess what we've been trying to do with them. All we have been doing is talk with them, but the problem is they cannot be taken for their word!

These world tyrants will see Obama as a pushover if he will just sit down and talk with them. Obama needs to be stricter on them.

One saving grace for Obama is Biden brings a ton of foreign experience with him.

Now lets hear your take on McCain (which I have made clear I do not like either, but I like him more than Obama).

__________________
"Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened." - Dr. Seuss

dc_dux

forseti> I understand why you dont like Obama's polices..but you havnt explained why they would be destructive.

How Obama's policy to let the tax cuts of 01 and 03 expire in 2010 as intended...and returning to the 1999 rates...and focusing tax cuts on the middle class.

How is that more destructive than adding to the massive national debt (nearly doubled since those tax cuts) as a result, in part, of those tax cuts and making them permanent? Was our tax policy of the 90s disastrous...did the wealthiest tax payers suffer irreparable damage?

Obama's support for late term abortion is only in the case of the life or serious health threat to the mother...a position held by a majority of Americans..again, how is that destructive?

I think most Americans want to see America's image around the world restored. Obama's foreign policy will put diplomacy and consulting with allies back in the mix as an important tool to resolve differences..as well as focusing on rebuilding our image around the world. Destructive? Or perhaps you dont think its important what our allies think us (lower now than any time in our lifetime).
-----Added 23/8/2008 at 12 : 44 : 53-----
I think McCain tax policy, focused on benefiting the top tax payers, is disastrous and will result in further increasang the national debt substantially.

McCain's health care policy will have the potential of destroying employer-based health plans..which are the foundation of our current health care delivery system.

McCain's broader economic policy?...he still hasnt explained it...perhaps because he admits he knows little about economic policy.

McCain war rhetoric directed at Iran is a continuation of the same..and only further alienating us from our allies.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

forseti-6

The massive national debt incurred in the last six years or so is more a result of the war in Iraq than tax cuts. The last figure I've read is $166 billion. Tax cuts or not, the national debt is ballooned from the war.

We are in economically less prominent times now than a few years ago, raising taxes will decrease spending and reduce the number of jobs. What I don't think Obama understands it that it's the wealthy that creates jobs for the middle class. The very wealthy don't really "suffer" but the middle class does. The people on the fringe (making just around Obama's self-defined $250k for rich) are going to be hurting more.

He's also for partial birth abortions. Not fundamentally destructive, just something I am very against.

Bottom line is, diplomacy is always better than strong-arming, however, as I have already mentioned, diplomacy doesn't work for the Ahmedinejads of the world. He has openly said he wanted to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. How will Obama deal with that? Will he just be like "Mahmoud, let's have a little talk about your proclamation?" That doesn't work!

Our allies will see us as a farce of what we used to stand for if Obama is elected. Obama wants to make this country in the image of Europe - a socialist state. Will they have a better image of us? Yes, but at what cost?

I disagree as previously stated. And I think a lot of money that is lost from taxes will be made up when McCain battles to reduce or eliminate pork barrel spending and useless government programs.

Obama wants to raise taxes to expand government. I don't have any figures here, but I would like to see for every dollar that goes to a useful government program, how much money is wasted on pork or ineffective programs?

Explain your reasoning on this, you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of on this point.

I think McCain's plan on subsidizing health care is a good one. It gives the ultimate choice on provider to the patient, while not jeopardizing the medical personnel.

Obama's plan for universal health care will destroy the world's greatest health care system. Many doctors in the profession (I have a quite a few friends in the medical profession and they echo this) will simply leave the profession if they are forced to work under a similar system as say Canada or the UK.

I must admit, I don't know his economic policy in depth. I think selecting Mitt Romney as his VP will strengthen this portion of his administration considerably.

Bottom line is, we're not going to war with Iran. We don't have the the man power. I know this, you know this, McCain knows this.

__________________
"Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened." - Dr. Seuss

dc_dux

The war in Iraq has cost less than $1 trillion so far...the national debt has increased by nearly $5 trillion since the tax cuts.


Our allies have pretty much turned against the Bush (McCain) approach...and as much as they can say publicly, want to see a less belligerent US that consults with them rather than bullies or strong-arms them into compliance.

Over rated rhetoric...pork is an insignficant portion of the federal budget....not that it shouldnt be cut, it just wont make much difference.


McCain's plan takes incentives away from employer based plans...which now represent nearly 2/3 of all those insured. His plan would give you a $2500 individual tax credit ($5000 for families) to buy health insurance outside of your work place....good luck on getting comprehensive health insurance for your family that costs only $5000/yr!

If you are healthy and think you (and your family) will be healthy in the future and only want very basic and limited coverage, McCain's plan may be cheaper in the short term..if you or a family member have a chronic illness or sudden medical emergency...it will cost you significantly more.

Obama's plan is to cover all kids w/o insurance (by including them in the widely popular SCHIP) and builds on employer-based plans with incentives to employers to keep premiums lower and to provide the means for small businesses w/o plans to join pools to provide coverage to employees. I cant imagine how this destroys our health care system.

The Bush/McCain rhetoric, re: Iran and Iraq has significantly harmed the US image among moderate Muslims in the Middle East and around the world and has served as a recruiting tool for al Queda and other terrorists groups (thats right out of a NIE)

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Tully Mars

Same here, but I was fooled in 2000.

Regardless of who wins the situation being left by bush and the Neo-cons will likely not be solved in one or even two terms by anybody.

It's a mess, a big mess. A mess created by everything from the failed energy, economic and foreign policies of Bush and Co. I see little or no difference between McCain's. And the differences I do see I don't like.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

ottopilot

In 2000 and 2004 I voted against Gore and Kerry.

I will absolutely vote against Obama.

I see two pandering politicians. However, McCain is a moderate conservative, resolute and experienced in international affairs, a record of significant political achievement and across-party cooperation, strong on national defense and economics (not to forget his service and POW status in Vietnam). Obama was a political organizer with Marxists roots, an ultra-liberal undistinguished state senator, and an ultra-liberal junior U.S. Senator with an unremarkable tenure... but he is "dreamy".

Obama may be ready in 4 to 8 years, but his candidacy is built largely on a cult of personality rather than experience and substance. Yes, McCain has his flaws too... and I'm amazed that either of these guys got their party nominations, but we're stuck with them. Voting for the "other candidates" is essentially a throw-away.

So if I have to choose between McCain or Jimmy Carter's second term, I choose not to vote for Obama.

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

dc_dux

Otto....what are McCain's significant political achievements in his 25 years in the House and Senate?

McCain/Feingold campaign reform? Yeah, it was a pretty good first attempt at reform..but he is now taking advantage of its loopholes (no one knows better how to do that) and is opposed to any further campaign finance reform.

McCain/Kennedy immigration reform? A good comprehensive approach that he has backed away from since it pissed off the conservative base.

I wouldnt characterize these flip flops for political expediency as being very "resolute" in his convictions.

So in 25 years, I count two good bills, one of which was not even enacted and both of which he no longer supports...and that is a record of significant political achievement? But maybe I missed some.

Perhaps you can enlighten me on McCain's other significant political achievements.

Really? I guess no one told him.

“The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should....” - John McCain, earlier this year

At least the old maverick McCain knew something about tax policy, when he was campaigning against Bush in 2000:

“There’s one big difference between me and the others–I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy.” [McCain campaign commercial, January 2000]

Or when he opposed Bush's tax cuts in 01 and 03:

“I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.” [McCain Senate floor statement, May 21, 2001]

These same tax cuts he opposed as too costly and favoring the wealthiest taxpayers are now the centerpiece of his economic policy. How things change when you pander to your base rather than be "resolute" in your convictions!

Others may see it as a choice between four more years of Bush foreign and domestic policy or a new direction for the country both at home and abroad.
-----Added 23/8/2008 at 04 : 19 : 05-----
BTW...I did get a laugh out of the "marxist" reference.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Cynthetiq

That will be a nice change from my usual Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

ottopilot

Laughing is a great coping mechanism.

However, the "Marxist" reference is becoming a common observation after closer examination in to Obama's formative political and activist years. This drama is playing out in full view this week... Obama appears to be using (abusing?) the power of his Senate seat asking the Justice Department to silence the likes of Stanley Kurtz and anyone delving in to his past regarding radical activism and ties to people like William Ayers. A little reminiscent of "il Duce" in training (IMO).

Regarding the McCain / Bush comparison (another Bush term? I don't think it's gonna stick.), here's some key points where they differ: Also, aren't Obama's career highlights basically "getting out the vote", community activism, supporting late-term abortions, not voting against the war (because he wasn't yet a Senator), missing more days in the Senate than he attended, and running for president? He also missed the most votes of any of his fellow Democratic Senators running in presidential primaries.

New Obama campaign slogan: He worked hard for his constituents just like he's going to work hard for all Americans!

From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he "logged" 143 days of experience in the Senate ... and that's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working... but what was Obama doing? He made less than a quarter of Senate votes the whole time he was "there".

John McCain would not be my first choice for a presidential candidate... but in contrast to Obama??? John McCain's 26 successful years in Congress, 22 years of military service (including 1,966 days in captivity as a POW in Hanoi) somehow seem a bit more impressive, if not substantial.

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

dc_dux

otto.....I did get a good laugh out of your list....

• McCain fought for campaign finance reform — McCain-Feingold — that Bush fought and ultimately signed because he had no choice.
• McCain led the battle to restrict interrogation techniques of terror suspects and to ban torture.
• McCain went with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on a tough measure to curb climate change, something Bush denies is going on.
• McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts when they passed.
• McCain urged the Iraq surge, a posture Bush rejected for years before conceding its wisdom.
• McCain favors FDA regulation of tobacco and sponsored legislation to that effect, a position all but a handful of Republican Senators oppose.
• McCain's energy bill, also with Lieberman, is a virtual blueprint for energy independence and development of alternate sources.
• After the Enron scandal, McCain introduced sweeping reforms in corporate governance and legislation to guarantee pensions and prohibit golden parachutes for executives. Bush opposed McCain's changes and the watered-down Sarbanes-Oxley bill eventuated.
• McCain has been harshly critical of congressional overspending, particularly of budgetary earmarks, a position Bush only lately adopted (after the Democrats took over Congress).

....McCain now has taken diametrically opposed positions on many of those "accomplishments" including his own campaign finance bill...his unwillingness to vote against restrictive interogation techniques (includling waterboarding)... his support now for extending the BUsh tax cuts that he called "fiscally irresponsible when he spoke out agains them in 2001....his hedging now on FDA regulation of tobacco and his own climate change bill.

I dont recall his so called energy bill for energy independence w/Lieberman (you or Morris will have to enlighten me on this one) but I would agree on his support (not sponsorship), along with many Republicans, of post-Enron corporate reform and SOX. This one is easy to understand - Enron was a political nightmare for Republicans.

The fact is he also voted the position requested by Bush 95% of time in the 2005-2006 session of Congress and skipped more votes than any other Senator in the 2007-2008 session, including Obama who was still in a tough primary campaign for months while McCain had already secured his nomination.

I also think experience is overrated. IMO Obama is far more intelligent and I consider that an equalizer to some degree.

The two most recent presidents with impressive Congressional/Executive branch resumes were LBJ (20+ years in the Senate and 3 years as VP) and GHW Bush (several terms in the House, UN ambassador, CIA director, 8 years as VP). And I dont consider either one as anything but mediocre presidents....LBJ marginally better with his "Great Society" programs that he personally strong-armed through Congress, but offset by lies to the American people and failed policy, re: Vietnam.

I am not suggesting that Obama is more qualified. I am suggesting they bring a different set of strengths to the table.

I think Obama is more deliberative, more open to understanding opposing points of view (you dont want to get into a discussion about McCain's temper when colleagues spoke out against his policy positions - see below) and more likely to "change the direction" of both domestic and foreign policies in a way the country desperately needs right now.

I believe he has the potential to be more of a "uniter, not a divider" with the understanding that probably 15% at both extremes have no interest in uniting.

He may fail, but if he does, he will fail at taking the country on a different course rather than continuing the failed economic and foreign policy course of the last 8 years.

-----Added 28/8/2008 at 05 : 43 : 16-----

added:
I thought you might like more on McCain's temper tantrums in the Senate for a laugh

Senator Pete Domenici - Newsweek's February 21, 2000 edition highlighted an exchange between McCain and Republican Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Chairman of the Budget Committee. In staunch disagreement with a particular portion of a budget amendment, McCain exploded. "Only an asshole would put together a budget like that." Domenici, who'd been in the Senate nearly 30 years by that point, gave a restrained reply, noting that even in the most heated debated throughout his entire career, no one had ever used that kind of language toward him. McCain didn't back down. "I wouldn't call you an asshole unless you really were an asshole."

Senator Chuck Grassley - The same Newsweek article that outlined McCain's confrontation with Domenici pointed to a similar incident with Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa. The two were debating issues related to soldiers who had been reported Missing In Action in Vietnam. After a blistering commentary by McCain, Grassley took offense. "Are you calling me stupid?" he asked. McCain didn't miss a beat. "No, I'm calling you a fucking jerk."

Senator John Cornyn - On May 18, 2007, The Washington Post reported that McCain had locked horns with another one of his GOP colleagues, this time Senator John Cornyn of Texas. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill of 2007 had caused an enormous rift among Republicans, and the two Senators found themselves on opposite sides. Cornyn objected to a provision of the bill that allowed for what he perceived as too many judicial appeals for illegal immigrants. McCain called his objections "chicken shit" and accused Cornyn of making petty tactics to sabotage the whole bill. Cornyn took immediate offense. ....Then McCain, who'd been spending a lot of time away from Washington on his presidential campaign, got a little more out of line. "Fuck you!" he shouted. "I know more about this than anyone in this room!" McCain apologized shortly afterword.

During a vitriolic exchange between McCain and another unnamed Senator who took a position contrary to that of his colleague from Arizona. McCain became infuriated, jumping from his chair and calling his fellow Republican a "shithead," prompting an immediate demand for an apology. McCain stood up again and issued it...sort of. "Okay, I apologize," he said. "But you're still a shithead."

(I didnt include the quote where he called his wife a "cunt" because that falls under personal conduct rather than professional conduct.)

I consider the above outbursts to be petulant and childish and certainly not a demonstration of strength of character or an openness to listening to a diversity of views on an issue.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

flstf

I'm voting for Obama because I think a black President would be good for the country and I like him better than McCain.
He will have a difficult time overcoming racial prejudice and Republican attack ads running every few minutes on TV.

Johnny Rotten

I'd like to see Obama elected just to stick it to those closet bigots and hardline neocons. As for McCain, as dc_dux says, he's completely flipped the script. Back around February, he went from respectable "maverick" to lobbyist lapdog. I put "maverick" quotes because I thought he was an old-school conservative who's only a maverick compared to the police state chickenhawk degenerates currently using the 4th and 5th Amendments as toilet paper.

McCain's campaign was in the dumps last summer, popularly and financially. But as the other candidates turned out to be incompatible with reality, the Washington machine dug him out of the ditch. All he had to give them was his soul. In exchange for money, he handed his campaign over to the lobby.

Do you know that he's taking Ambien as a sleep aid? You know that stuff puts you out like a light for eight hours, and can make you sleep walk, sleep eat, and sleep drive if you take one pill too many? I had to take it for some time, but before I did, I read up on it. It's not a pill that you can pop, and wake up to answer the phone in the middle of the night. It pretty much cancels crisis management. He's already prone to fits of profane anger, rash decision making, and inability to focus on the campaign trail -- do you think the White House is going to be any easier on him? No. The answer is no.

__________________
"The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

ngdawg

I'm willing to bet it doesn't matter who it is or what party they belong to-that stuff like that goes on without it being in the news because this is a person running for the White House. Harry Truman(democrat) did much the same things and they're documented in his library in Independence, MO.

The last one made me chuckle. Doesn't mean I'd vote for him, but at least he isn't condescending

dc_dux

ngdawg...those type outbursts do not go on in the Senate, the body that prides itself on decorum.

McCain has a long history of being bad tempered...from his school days through his military service to his Congressional career. I understand that some see McCain's temper as a positive trait...I dont.

IMO, termperament demonstrates a quality of leadership. I'll take an even-tempered person who is open to criticism and/or listening to a diversity of views on an issue w/o taking it as a personal offense over a hothead anytime.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ngdawg

Unless you have some sort of "in" with the Senate, I'm still betting that what isn't shown on tv, shouldn't be.
I never said it was a positive trait, but it's not totally an exception either.
Just like the rhetoric we hear every day, what's put out for our eyes and ears regarding one's "decorum" or lack thereof, has been and always will be bent depending on who's doing the putting.

dc_dux

Is working there for two years an "in" (granted, it was a long time ago)..and never, not once, hearing breaches of protocol and decorum anywhere comparable to McCain's outbursts (he was in the House at the time). I dont doubt that it goes on in private discussions among Senators...but not on the floor and not in caucus or committee meetings.

I still have an "in" but far less these days, but it is common knowledge among the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, that McCain's is far and away the body's number one hothead.
-----Added 1/9/2008 at 08 : 12 : 25-----
And its happened outside of the Senate, according to one Republican colleague:
Has he mellowed with age? Who knows? Old habits are hard to break...and the thought of a US president with such`a volatile temperament is troubling to me.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ngdawg

I am so opposed to this two-party elitism that generally, I don't vote for either one. In local politics, unless I can be swayed toward the major players, I "throw away" my vote by either voting libertarian or for any woman on the ballot.
This time it's no different. We're screwed no matter what. In that vein, after doing a brief search of the alternative candidates I chose Cynthia Ann McKinney

samcol

Hardcore Ron Paul fan and libertarian here. I'm actually considering voting for Ralph Nader at this point. The only people I really even considered before today were Ron Paul and Kucinich. Barr is running for libertarian candidate but I dont really trust or like him.

Nader has remained uncomprimising throughout the years and I really respect that.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Boo

I will vote McCain-Palin. I expect alot of controversy in the first couple years but reform is not easy. Palin has proven to be a reformer in Alaska. I voted for her once and have not been disappointed.

Obama's change will ruin the country. He has not said a word that I can believe or trust. No substance at all. Nothing in common with anyone that I personally know. He is just an icon for lost souls...... IMO.

__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old.

host

Goodness...there sure are a lot of these "lost souls".....probably all too lazy to "make it", best to call all of the "have nots", names....to demonize them....the powerless.....it certainly is in vogue, and it wins elections....

But, a little reality goes a long way to spotlight the contradictions in your reasoning:
America's wealthiest are the least taxed of any wealthy residents of post industrialized nations. GINI in France, according to the CIA Factbook, is 28, and in the US, 45. The wealth inequity in the US will be even more concentrated ..... The trend and the data demonstrate a continued elimination of households in the US potentially capable of real estate purchase. The destruction of real property valuations currently playing out in the US will have a much smaller impact on the wealthiest ten percent, who already own 70 percent of all of the wealth, because their wealth is much more diversified, as the above data clearly shows, than it is in the holdings of the next 40 percent, who own approx. 27-1/2 percent of the wealth....they were "house rich" before valuations began to plummet.

Boo

While I have compassion for hard working people that just haven't made it due to one reason or another, I do believe that people make their own sucesses. Todays crop of wanna have it now, spend our way to financial freedom, and no personal responsibility voters will definately vote Obama. His brand of sucess it easy, "redistribute the wealth". Hand outs instead of hand ups. Lets take the easy way out.

The US has too many people that believe that on $25,000 a year they can drive a new car, have a $300K house and take expensive vacations. All because they want it NOW.
Can't wait, gotta have that new tattoo, jewelry, TV, .....

Bring on a little personal responsibility. If you cannot make a life better where you live, MOVE. If you need a bit of education, get some. If you have to get up before 9AM to find a job, do it. We have gone through over 20 people this summer that could not show up, could not show up and function, could not practice safety. Good pay for entry level position. Most (not all) of them had Obama on the back of their newer vehicles. Too bad that they cannot afford the gas to drive to vote and are too lazy to ride the bus or walk (if they can put down their Playstation long enough).

If you blame the housing market on conservative values, you may want to read up on what conservative values are. I qualify for twice the home loan that I currently have. Does that mean that I need to buy a $700K or more home? Nope.

When McCain was asked about his quantity of homes, were you unhappy that he could not immediately count them in his head? I was hoping that he had more. I want someone that is sucessful in the White House.

The US tax code may lean a bit here and there. It may favor the rich. IMO - It also favors the poor. Earned income credit is one such program.

You can sit there and blame the rich for your plight in life or you can get out and try to
make it. Or you can vote Obama and hope he fills your bank account.

This is not France.

This is my reality. It may not coincide with yours.

__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old.

Derwood

but Boo, the reason rich people love the GOP is because the GOP loves handing tax money to rich people. I find it amazingly hypocritical when conservatives lambaste the poor and tell them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make themselves successful, that the government shouldn't hand them anything, only to see so much money being handed out to those who don't need it.

Charlatan

Fiscally speaking, there is a big difference between what you describe as traditional conservative values and what the Bush administration has done over the past 8 years. Their policies, the ownership society, etc. have directly encourage the marketing of sub-prime mortgages and the lowering of the entry into credit (and credit cards).

If you are a government that *leads* you should lead by policy and you should lead by example.

The Bush administration's examples and policy suggest that it's a good idea to spend what you don't have.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

dc_dux

IMO, the marketing of sub-prime mortgages and the lowering of entry into credit was the result of banking deregulation in the late 90s...an effort that was led in Congress by Sen. Phil Gramm (with the capulation of Clinton), who is now McCain's top economic adviser.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Boo

As a supervisor in the military, let me assure you that people did not practice good personal financial management through the Clinton years either.

If the schools in this nation taught personal finance we would not be in this situation or it would not have become such a huge problem.

It still falls under personal responsibility. Just because the banking industry offers 0 down loans does not mean that people should not be intelligent enough to refuse them.

If Ford still built the Pinto would people still buy it?

What exactly did the Bush administration do to force people to purchase more than they could afford? I received a VA loan during the Bush administration and it was a thorough credit checking process. I do remember some of my subordinates that were "house poor" in 95-99 in AK and NC. They were overfinanced and could barely make their monthly payment.

I do agree that some of the packaging of sub-prime loans bears investigation.

__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old.

Charlatan

As I said, it is about personal responsibility but it is also about leadership. If you want to encourage policy makes it easier for those who can't afford it to get further into debt. Debt they can't afford. Rather than making policies that encourages people to save and live life frugally... then your leadership isn't very responsible either.

People look to their leaders for inspiration and direction.

This leadership (and others like Clinton) have encouraged a culture of debt. They have done this through their policies (like deregulation), their words (post 9/11? Go shopping!), their actions (waging wars beyond your nation's ability to pay for it)... and I am sure the list goes on.

This style of leadership has lead us, by example, into bad practices.

So yes. I agree that people need to take responsibility but that will only take you so far when your leaders are leading you in a different direction.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke