U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[Askthepizzaguy]

Actually, I can't access the save since I got a new computer and a new operating system. The versions are incompatible.

I would, of course, if I could.

I offered half my empire to you, France.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Actually, I can't access the save since I got a new computer and a new operating system. The versions are incompatible.

I would, of course, if I could.

I offered half my empire to you, France.

Hey thanks!

[Askthepizzaguy]

Back on topic;

TuffStuff, I really understand your point of view. I used to hold almost exactly the same positions on everything.

Because I've seen both sides of the aisle, I realize that we really need to respect one another.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Back on topic;

TuffStuff, I really understand your point of view. I used to hold almost exactly the same positions on everything.

Because I've seen both sides of the aisle, I realize that we really need to respect one another.

What a coincidence! I used to hold almost the exact same positions that I hold now too.

[KukriKhan]

Amen. Ad hominems and irrelevances have been deleted. Further violations of disrespect will receive further sanction.

Thank you. Please carry on.

[PanzerJaeger]

Why are the democrats trying to steal the election with their poll numbers?

If some members continue pointing fingers at "conservatives", "liberals", republicans or democrats in general, I'm probably going to bow out of this discussion. Over-generalizing like that is prejudiced, ignorant, inaccurate, extremely biased, and shameful to an intelligent debate.

Were you with us four years ago? This year has been incredibly tame by comparison, thanks to some good moves by the mods.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Amen. Ad hominems and irrelevances have been deleted. Further violations of disrespect will receive further sanction.

Thank you. Please carry on.

There's still more.

uh oh, some of those irrelevances are mine!

hides behind a wall







____________________

[humor]See? I used the surrender smiley. This proves anyone who supports Obama is a white-flag waving surrender-crat. [/self-deprecating humor]

[Koga No Goshi]

Amen. Ad hominems and irrelevances have been deleted. Further violations of disrespect will receive further sanction.

Thank you. Please carry on.

I was going to research a huge old link list for CR but yeah... what's the point. I agree with Ask the Pizza Guy, it doesn't get us anywhere.

[Askthepizzaguy]

And it doesn't get us anywhere, for good reason.

Can I ask everyone a quick question? Has the long list of partisan attacks ever really changed anyone's mind? Perhaps when we were young, naive, and impressionable... but when people grow up, they get offended by that nonsense, because it is unfairly one-sided, it is cherry-picking and highlighting extremes. It's wingnut politics; where only the loudest, most shrill, most profane, most exaggerating, and most unbelievable get attention.

It's like Jerry Springer, Girls Gone Wild, or the television show "Jackass". It contains no useful facts, no reliable data, no reasonable argument, no exchange of information, and no accountability. Because it's full of extremes and superlatives and oddities or eye-catching material, it attracts attention.

It's nothing but noise. It's all a distraction, and it has nothing to do with ideas, issues, or solutions to problems.

How exactly will America recover from it's problems when all we do is slap each other in the face with pies? That's about as reasonable a metaphor as I can find for the mudslinging we've seen in this very thread. At least there are moderators here.

But we must learn to self-censor. Just because we may not like the opposition, that doesn't mean we have a right to slander. And if we do contribute to the discussion, it would be great if we had something useful to contribute.

Just some more of my "nobody asked for my opinion" opinion.

[Koga No Goshi]

And it doesn't get us anywhere, for good reason.

Can I ask everyone a quick question? Has the long list of partisan attacks ever really changed anyone's mind? Perhaps when we were young, naive, and impressionable... but when people grow up, they get offended by that nonsense, because it is unfairly one-sided, it is cherry-picking and highlighting extremes. It's wingnut politics; where only the loudest, most shrill, most profane, most exaggerating, and most unbelievable get attention.

It's like Jerry Springer, Girls Gone Wild, or the television show "Jackass". It contains no useful facts, no reliable data, no reasonable argument, no exchange of information, and no accountability. Because it's full of extremes and superlatives and oddities or eye-catching material, it attracts attention.

It's nothing but noise. It's all a distraction, and it has nothing to do with ideas, issues, or solutions to problems.

How exactly will America recover from it's problems when all we do is slap each other in the face with pies? That's about as reasonable a metaphor as I can find for the mudslinging we've seen in this very thread. At least there are moderators here.

But we must learn to self-censor. Just because we may not like the opposition, that doesn't mean we have a right to slander. And if we do contribute to the discussion, it would be great if we had something useful to contribute.

Just some more of my "nobody asked for my opinion" opinion.

Well if you flip back even through the last 3 pages or so, ATPG.... there's an awful lot of baiting with people acting like one side or the other is doing all the insidious evil plotting to swing the election or corrupt media. Although useless, it is difficult not to respond to people bringing one incident out of the vaccuum as if this is the first and only case of questionable politics which defines the "other side", when their own is fairly guilty as well. ;) Even moreso when their political side's strategies are even more infamous for the tactic in question.

(Sorry edited out a paragraph here that was meant for "America's Greatest Strength", ahhaha.)

[Askthepizzaguy]

Indeed. It is very, very difficult.

Doing the right thing is always difficult. I have been personally offended by much of what was said. However, if I may be immodest, my reaction was not to return fire with the same level of discourse.

I also realize my "side" does it too. Some of that was displayed by the very material shoved in my face. I may not like it, but there is a level of hypocrisy on my team. If we intend to hold our opponents to a high standard, we must hold ourselves to that standard, or better.

We can begin by debating the issues. Even if you disagree with Obama, for example, you at least know where he stands on the issues, because he's talking about them. The debates did not go well for the opposition because they were mostly negative. The polls seem to indicate that the almost wholly negative ads haven't made them more popular.

It's counterproductive. That's another very good reason not to engage in it... you make yourself look dirty and cheap. For the sake of the country, lets us both sides agree to stop this bull.

Don't react negatively when wingnuts shout their screed in shrill tones. React calmly, politely, and with good, positive ideas.

[Koga No Goshi]

Indeed. It is very, very difficult.

Doing the right thing is always difficult. I have been personally offended by much of what was said. However, if I may be immodest, my reaction was not to return fire with the same level of discourse.

I also realize my "side" does it too. Some of that was displayed by the very material shoved in my face. I may not like it, but there is a level of hypocrisy on my team. If we intend to hold our opponents to a high standard, we must hold ourselves to that standard, or better.

We can begin by debating the issues. Even if you disagree with Obama, for example, you at least know where he stands on the issues, because he's talking about them. The debates did not go well for the opposition because they were mostly negative. The polls seem to indicate that the almost wholly negative ads haven't made them more popular.

It's counterproductive. That's another very good reason not to engage in it... you make yourself look dirty and cheap. For the sake of the country, lets us both sides agree to stop this bull.

Don't react when wingnuts shout their screed in shrill tones. React calmly, politely, and with good, positive ideas.

I'm quite willing to accept this call you've made. But I would expect you to be the first one to speak up about trollish baiting. ;)

[Askthepizzaguy]

One down. 300 million to go.

As for trollish baiting... we do have moderators. They can force people to tone stuff down. That's why I love this forum... it's better than discussing things in public, where trolls in real life can foam at the mouth and you have to deal with it. Here, you can point out that their contributions seem mostly negative, and that you find it offensive (say this calmly and with respect, always), and then, if they refuse to be civil, use ye olde reporting button.

I hate reporting people, and I've only done it... like, 3 times in the past 18 months? I don't like censorship. The people I report truly, truly deserve it. I don't lean on it when I disagree, or someone phrases something in a bull-headed way. It's more of a last resort against truly unproductive, disruptive, asinine people.

So far, no one here has warranted such a reaction, but the tone has gotten more bitter as of late, and the contributions to the thread have been getting more and more negative. I'm just trying to remind everyone... it's ok to disagree, and you can do it with civility. And we don't need to resort to dirty tactics to debate. That's all.

[KukriKhan]

And I remind all about the "Report Bad Post" button at the bottom left of every post (red triangle with "!" inside). Using this alerts staff to content you think crosses the line. We investigate every instance/report. You may not get direct feedback, given our Privacy policies, but rest assured, it gets scrutinized.

[CrossLOPER]

And I remind all about the "Report Bad Post" button at the bottom left of every post (red triangle with "!" inside). Using this alerts staff to content you think crosses the line. We investigate every instance/report. You may not get direct feedback, given our Privacy policies, but rest assured, it gets scrutinized.

Do you really want to reread this entire thread?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Let the past be. Let's focus on the future. It's the only thing that matters anyway.

[Lemur]

Interesting — Obama is already reaching out to moderate/conservative Dems. These are not the guys he needs to win in November; these are the guys he needs to govern in January.

Whatever your opinion of the Junior Senator from Illinois, you gotta admit he always has a plan, and he's grinding away at it. If elected, I think he will be the most methodical President we've ever seen.

Obama took a break from campaigning last week to call each of them, among the leaders of the "Blue Dog Coalition," a group of conservative-leaning Democrats who are committed to balancing the federal budget. The group's 49 members already wield significant power in the House, and their ranks are expected to expand in the next Congress.

"He said he planned to be the next president and he wanted to work with us," Ross said in recounting his conversation with Obama before the House approved a $700 billion economic rescue package. "He also recognized that we had the numbers to block or clear" legislation coming from the White House if he is elected.

Obama's outreach to the Democratic centrists is part of a broader effort by his campaign to prepare for a possible transition.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Lemur, I would call that evidence of "bapartisanship", or at least a reach out to moderates and conservatives.



McCain has charged that he has a track record of working with Democrats, and will unite this country. Meanwhile, he's blaming everything on quote "Congressional liberals" "Risky Democrats" and Obama himself, using some very disingenuous and outrageous attacks. McCain is running an even more divisive campaign than the one aimed at John Kerry and Al Gore, with as much substance.

Obama has an ideology and a clear, consistent position, yet he's not insulting conservatives or laying all the blame on Republicans, nor is he tearing into McCain's character. McCain had a clear bipartisan position, but he's changed positions on many things to support the Republicans, and Bush's policies, he may have a track record of being bipartisan but this campaign is bitter, hostile, and divisive. Should McCain win, moderates, liberals, and democrats will feel governed by someone who blames them for everything, someone who has betrayed his legacy of civility and respect for his opponents, someone who promised change but delivered the same policies as the Bush administration.

If Obama wins, die-hard Republicans may not like it, but Obama's tone, rhetoric, and track record shows him to at least be true to his word, and respectful of his opponents. In this divisive time, we need unity and respect for one another. irrespective of the issues, which I believe also matter, the nation needs unity. More partisanship and ad hominem attacks from the Grand Ole Party will keep the country divided.

Democrats do have a history of being vicious and partisan as well, but this year, much of that seems to be reined in, and Obama has kept a clear, level head and denounced the worst of the wingnuts. John McCain is late to the party on that point, I respectfully submit.

[Spino]

Interesting — Obama is already reaching out to moderate/conservative Dems. These are not the guys he needs to win in November; these are the guys he needs to govern in January.

Whatever your opinion of the Junior Senator from Illinois, you gotta admit he always has a plan, and he's grinding away at it. If elected, I think he will be the most methodical President we've ever seen.

Obama took a break from campaigning last week to call each of them, among the leaders of the "Blue Dog Coalition," a group of conservative-leaning Democrats who are committed to balancing the federal budget. The group's 49 members already wield significant power in the House, and their ranks are expected to expand in the next Congress.

"He said he planned to be the next president and he wanted to work with us," Ross said in recounting his conversation with Obama before the House approved a $700 billion economic rescue package. "He also recognized that we had the numbers to block or clear" legislation coming from the White House if he is elected.

Obama's outreach to the Democratic centrists is part of a broader effort by his campaign to prepare for a possible transition.

Sends a shiver up your spine doesn't it? According to this passage...

"They recognize that they've sort of committed themselves to a rather inflexible standard of fiscal discipline," said Scott Lilly, a longtime senior House aide and now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. Obama, he said, "is looking at the Blue Dogs and realizing their position is not in line with what he needs. It's a very good sign. He's counting votes already, and he's got a pretty good sense of where the issues are going to be."

Whatever the outcome next month, the worsening economic crisis will place tremendous pressure on Congress to help stimulate a recovery.

Earlier in the presidential campaign, Obama had been reluctant to commit to the substantial tax increases and spending cuts that would be required to make his proposals budget-neutral. But as the economic picture grows more bleak, he has increasingly acknowledged the need for trade-offs, and Furman said he would be committed to establishing an overall budget framework that makes room for new programs but also requires meaningful cuts, along with tax increases on the wealthy.

Lovely passage. Let's play read between the lines! So the Blue Dog Democrat position, being more in line with the desires of the American people (balanced budget, curtailed spending, etc.) is viewed as being a considerable obstacle for President Obama (*shudders*) and the more liberal bloc of Senate & House Democrats. Now we're talking!

Furthermore we are led to believe "Obama had been reluctant to commit to the substantial tax increases and spending cuts that would be required to make his proposals budget-neutral" would have prevented him from winning winning the Presidency. Forgive my creative editing but the underlined text seems more relevant in an election year, no? And note that Furman was quoted as saying, "...he would be committed to establishing an overall budget framework that makes room for new programs but also requires meaningful cuts, along with tax increases on the wealthy." A poorly worded response but it speaks volumes as to their real intent. So this budget framework commits to making room for new programs along with tax increases on the wealthy but only mentions that it 'requires meaningful cuts'... Golly, which part of that sentence actually commits to a specific plan of action? Stating that something 'requires meaningful cuts' but never actually commiting to deliver on it... very careful use of language, no? Since Obama's budget framework "requires meaningful cuts" is it safe to say that it doesn't actually include any?

Once Obama achieves the ends he was aiming for he can then abandon the platform of means that allowed him to win and return to the ideological principles he held prior to this election year.... raising taxes & increasing spending. Obama knows that once elected there are considerable roadblocks in his own party that would prevent him and more liberal House Democrats & Senators from railroading spending bills through Congress so they're laying the groundwork now as opposed to waiting until after he's sworn in and Congress returns from vacation. Gosh, right now I'm just awash in warm fuzzy feelings.

But is Obama really that methodical or is he simply reacting to the direction of his Party's leadership? I might be able to buy it were it not for the fact that this news comes on the coattails of Pelosi's move to prep the House for an early return from vacation so they can begin passing legislation as soon as Obama is sworn in...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081011/D93OHKO80.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Tax rebate, food stamp money possible in aid plan

Oct 11, 5:24 PM (ET)

By DAVID ESPO

WASHINGTON (AP) - After consulting with Barack Obama, Democratic leaders are likely to call Congress back to work after the election in hopes of passing legislation that would include extended jobless benefits, money for food stamps and possibly a tax rebate, officials said Saturday.

The bill's total cost could reach $150 billion, these officials said.

The officials stressed that no final decisions have been made. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they did not want to pre-empt a formal announcement. House Democrats have announced plans for an economic forum on Monday "to help Congress develop an economic recovery plan that focuses on creating jobs and strengthening our economy."

Democrats said Obama's campaign has been involved in discussions on a possible stimulus package. The party's presidential candidate, running ahead in the polls, has outlined his own proposals for stimulating the economy.

Democrats are increasingly confident of capturing the White House and increasing their majorities in the House and Senate on Nov. 4.

If they are successful, a lame-duck session of Congress two weeks later would allow them to start work on a response to the credit crunch that has sent stock prices plummeting and also threatens to trigger a deep recession. It often takes two or three months for a new Congress to begin turning out legislation, particularly when a new president is settling into the White House.

On the other hand, by attempting to pass legislation next month, Democrats would have to negotiate with President Bush, whose term runs until Jan. 20, 2009. Additionally, Senate Republicans, with 49 seats, could block any measure they opposed.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters in Denver last Wednesday a $150 billion stimulus package is necessary and she may call the House back into session after the election. Her spokesman, Brendan Daly, added, "Congress just worked in a bipartisan way with the Administration to pass an economic rescue plan to help stabilize our financial markets, and we must now work together to pass a jobs creation and economic recovery stimulus package."

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has announced a post-election session beginning Nov. 17 to consider public lands legislation. His spokesman, Jim Manley, issued a written statement that said "recent developments only reinforce the need for additional action to reinvigorate the economy." He added, "no decisions have yet been made on how to proceed."

An Obama spokesman, Bill Burton, said the campaign is monitoring the situation.

The candidate has said previously he favors $25 billion to help states meet their own needs, another $25 billion for roads, bridges and other infrastructure, and $65 billion for tax rebates paid for by a windfall profits tax on oil.

Speaking in Ohio on Friday, the Illinois Democrat also said, "we should extend expiring unemployment benefits to those Americans who've lost their jobs and can't find new ones."

The House passed a $61 billion economic stimulus bill before lawmakers adjourned for the elections, but it was largely symbolic since Senate Republicans had already thwarted efforts to pass a companion measure.

It called for up to 13 additional weeks of jobless benefits in states with the highest unemployment, at a cost of $6 billion. Another $14.7 billion was ticketed to help states cover Medicaid costs. Enrollment in the federal-state health care program for the poor and disabled often rises with unemployment.

The measure also included money for road and bridge construction, a relatively easy way to create jobs and pump money into the economy.

With that bill's passage blocked, Pelosi then sought to have it added to the financial bailout legislation making its way to Bush's desk, according to officials in both parties. They said the White House signaled it would accept an extension of unemployment benefits, but the speaker refused to allow the stimulus package to be broken up.

As a result, Congress adjourned without providing additional benefits for the unemployed as increasing numbers of people are losing their jobs.

Congress enacted an earlier stimulus legislation with unusual speed last winter. It provided tax rebate checks of $600 to individuals and $1,200 to couples and included tax breaks to businesses investing in new plants and equipment.

So the Democratic House & Senate leaders 'consulted' Obama as to the course of action. Try to keep in mind despite his being the Democratic nominee Obama is still a junior senator and a relative n00b to the establishment running Congress & his Party. He also came dangerously close to being the man to split his party in two when he decided to skip his turn in line and run against Hillary Clinton & John Edwards so there had to be some back room dealings with the Party's higher ups to smooth out the wrinkles caused by this election year. I'm inclined to believe that they reached out to Obama first and told him to expect to keep his rubber stamp handy the day he's sworn in (ok, I'm fairly certain they didn't use that 'exact' language). Around the same time Obama 'reaches out' to Blue Dog Democrats, most of whom are probably aware of this plan to some degree, to demonstrate his leadership qualities... and butter them up in preparation for the spending binge to come. Keep in mind that Obama's economic plan doesn't call for a single cut to an existing social program and not once during this election year has he even mentioned cutting an existing program in order to curtail spending. These are the kinds of things that Blue Dog Democrats are supposedly mindful of. But no worries! You can guarantee that these Blue Dog Democrats will be bought out with generous earmarks as they and some of their Republican counterparts were when the Mortgage Bailout Bill came before the House for a second time... laden with a whopping $100 billion in earmarks.

Call me a pessimist but the only thing I can glean from this article is that Obama & the more liberal Democratic Senators & Representatives of Congress are working on a plan to remove any semblance of resistance to raising taxes, increasing spending and not balancing the budget in the House & Senate. Not too far fetched when you consider the last time anyone even entertained the idea of balancing the budget was when there was a budget surplus... back when Clinton was President and the Republicans ran Congress.

So if crossing ideological lines and working together for the greater good the purpose of worsening an already horrendous situation is good news then I'd hate to think what people would consider bad news...

[Askthepizzaguy]

Interesting, Spino.

Since both candidates' budget proposals do not balance the budget or fix the economy, why don't we at least spend the money on healthcare and education, and bring the Iraq war to a close? Obama and McCain both seem to want larger government, but Obama wants accountability and oversight and regulation, and McCain just seems to want to break the bank giving the rich their tax breaks.

How respond you?

[Koga No Goshi]

Interesting, Spino.

Since both candidates' budget proposals do not balance the budget or fix the economy, why don't we at least spend the money on healthcare and education, and bring the Iraq war to a close? Obama and McCain both seem to want larger government, but Obama wants accountability and oversight and regulation, and McCain just seems to want to break the bank giving the rich their tax breaks.

How respond you?

My thoughts exact. Nothing you just cheesegrated Obama's sincerity for is anything that can't be spun around on McCain and moreso, Spino. Since you can't even get McCain to budge on the huge sums being spent on Iraq, a war which he apparently feels we should fight for as long as obtaining an unquestionable "victory status" requires. (That remains unresolved as to what would qualify unquestionable victory after near 6 years of this.) And he proposes keeping the Bush tax cuts, despite today being a fairly good bit of proof that the philosophy of always cutting taxes on the rich will return as an investment in our domestic economic growth is not unconditionally true.

Both gave vague answers to the "in light of the economic crisis, how will your budgets/plans change", although Obama gave at least a more realistic answer that he would have to examine the budget when it comes in and scale back or piecemeal implementation of plans accordingly. McCain sorta bluffed through it and said "I don't see why I can't do everything I've laid out" without really addressing what, if anything, the economic crisis would change. (Palin did precisely the same thing at the VP debate when asked a nearly identical question about budgets.) So, one-sided attacks on either candidate for how he hasn't given you details of how his budgeting would work is quite unfair in terms of painting some doomsday scenario if Obama wins, Spino.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I concur, Koga.

If we are to criticize a candidate or a platform, that criticism apply as well to the opposing viewpoint if they are also guilty of it.

In summary, Spino, you may in fact be correct, but you haven't shown us why McCain is not guilty of the same thing you charge Obama with. Given the options, I'd prefer spending money on the sick, rather than prolonging a war.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Gentlemen:

Stop your whining about issues and positions. Useless claptrap. This election will be settled the old-fashioned way: innuendo, current generalized mood, mud-slinging and weather issues on election day.

Generalized nausea and damaged eye muscles (from too much rolling of the eyes) are, of course, acceptable responses.

[KukriKhan]

Gentlemen:

Stop your whining about issues and positions. Useless claptrap. This election will be settled the old-fashioned way: innuendo, current generalized mood, mud-slinging and weather issues on election day.

Generalized nausea and damaged eye muscles (from too much rolling of the eyes) are, of course, acceptable responses.

With respect, it's obviously slipped your mind the ultimate predictor of the POTUS contest winner, wrong only once since 1948:

the winner of the Washington Redskins football game immediately prior to the election; if the 'Skins win, the incumbent party stays; if they lose, the opposing party moves into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

November 3rd 2008, Redskins vs Pittsburgh Steelers. You pick 'em.

[Ronin]

John Cleese on Sarah Palin - Monty Phyton could have written this

[Koga No Goshi]

With respect, it's obviously slipped your mind the ultimate predictor of the POTUS contest winner, wrong only once since 1948:

the winner of the Washington Redskins football game immediately prior to the election; if the 'Skins win, the incumbent party stays; if they lose, the opposing party moves into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

November 3rd 2008, Redskins vs Pittsburgh Steelers. You pick 'em.

You are wrong AGAIN.

The true predictor of POTUS is whose Halloween mask sells better.

[PanzerJaeger]

If Obama wins, die-hard Republicans may not like it, but Obama's tone, rhetoric, and track record shows him to at least be true to his word, and respectful of his opponents. In this divisive time, we need unity and respect for one another. irrespective of the issues, which I believe also matter, the nation needs unity. More partisanship and ad hominem attacks from the Grand Ole Party will keep the country divided.

Wow. I would be surprised if you wrote that without even a little bit of chuckle.

[Spino]

Interesting, Spino.

Since both candidates' budget proposals do not balance the budget or fix the economy, why don't we at least spend the money on healthcare and education, and bring the Iraq war to a close? Obama and McCain both seem to want larger government, but Obama wants accountability and oversight and regulation, and McCain just seems to want to break the bank giving the rich their tax breaks.

How respond you?

You're operating on the assumption that McCain/Obama will deliver on their campaign promises & economic plans. Fat chance. The bulk of what these candidates promise in an election year means nothing. Zip. Nada. Jack. Squat. They can spin and respin and unspin their plans all they like but once the election is decided the bulk of whatever they promised in said plans is rarely delivered when they sit down in the Oval office.

I firmly believe the biggest mistake a voter can make is to base their decision whom to vote for based upon what the candidates say and do during an election year. The things a politician does prior to an election year speaks volumes as to what their real positions are on the issues and what they'll do when elected. Non-political endeavors and personal associations aside why do I feel more confident in McCain than Obama? If you recall back when the decision was made to invade Iraq McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts, not because he was opposed to tax cuts in principle but because he railed against the lack of spending cuts that accompanied the tax cuts. I also like the fact that McCain doesn't take earmarks for the State of Arizona, a stark contrast to Obama who has taken roughly one hundred million for Illinois (this is not including anything he may have added to the Bailout Bill). For me this is tangible proof as to what McCain actually stands for. In contrast I see no such thing from Obama who, prior to running for President, was voted as being the most liberal senator in Congress by the National Journal.

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

You may choose to believe every moderate, bi-partisan word, speech or promise coming out of Obama's mouth but his actual track record says otherwise.

I have no problem with McCain giving the rich their tax breaks (which in reality is not a question of giving anything but simply keeping the existing tax cuts in place) because that along with broader tax cuts is what helped bring this country out of a recession back in the early 80s. When the people who pay the lion's share of the nation's tax revenue get to keep more of their money (within reason) they have a strange habit of putting it back into the market by investing as opposed to stuffing it in their mattresses. When more money is put into the economy via investment there is a marked increase in venture capitalism, increased R&D, etc., all of which which translates into the creation of new industries and jobs which in turn increases tax revenues. So if you eliminate the existing tax breaks for the wealthy where will the money go? Into the hands of an ineffective, self serving institution called government (and one run by a particularly corrupt & greedy generation). The same institution that makes every tax dollar highly susceptible to earmark programs, special interest groups, lobbyists, etc. For example... for every $700 billion mortgage bailout bill you get $100 billion worth of earmarks, nice system eh?

Despite the fact that we have already spent a king's ransom on our education system it continues to get worse. The problem with America's education system is a direct result of the current generation of parents, teachers, adminstrators & managers. All the money in the world isn't going to improve America's education system one bit if parents continue to send spoiled, unattentive, undisciplined children to school who proceed to disrupt class & slow everyone else down by taking up the precious time of teachers. Nor does it help matters when we put more money into programs for children who cannot keep up instead of programs for children who are a cut above. Furthermore this same generation has worsened the situation by lowering standards in order to cater to children it cannot bear to give a bad grade to. Throwing more money at people running the institutions who caused the problem in the first place is hardly a solution. What is the solution? I have no idea. Whatever form it takes it needs to have a profound and widespread change in the culture responsible for the decline in the first place... and that is not going to happen by passing wasteful spending bills. Since sweeping cultural changes aren't on the radar then people will continue to scream for more money to throw onto the fire.

As to healthcare, even if you pulled everyone out of Iraq cold turkey & slashed the defense budget to bare bones levels you'd still be left with Medicare & Medicaid hogging up a nice chunk of every tax dollar. Obama can scream all day about how much the Iraq campaign is costing us but notice how he fails to mention all the other crap the government has been wasting money on for the last few decades. If a system such as Medicare/Medicaid which only covers senior citizens and select few Americans has contributed (along with Social Security) to an additional $40 trillion in unfunded debt on top of the $11 trillion already owed for our internal/external debt what in blazes do you think a universal healthcare system would cost this country?!? Socializing our healthcare system will prove to be disastrous. We need to get rid of HMO's and privatize the system. Switzerland has the best solution; strictly regulated, privatized healthcare that maximizes the quality and maintains high standards while controlling the costs. Provide tax credits to low income families to help get them coverage. Eliminate the government wastage, graft & lobbyist influences and let the market work out a solution.

[Koga No Goshi]

You're operating on the assumption that McCain/Obama will deliver on their campaign promises & economic plans. Fat chance. The bulk of what these candidates promise in an election year means nothing. Zip. Nada. Jack. Squat. They can spin and respin and unspin their plans all they like but once the election is decided the bulk of whatever they promised in said plans is rarely delivered when they sit down in the Oval office.

Okay, if you believe this, then there is no reason to trust or believe either candidate will be better than anything. And there is very little point in discussing it, dissuading someone from voting a certain way, or encouraging them to vote another way. So according to you, we are taking a total stab in the dark, and I fail to see why you would be so convinced, given such a dark uncallable shot, that Obama will be the worse of the two.

[Xiahou]

Okay, if you believe this, then there is no reason to trust or believe either candidate will be better than anything. And there is very little point in discussing it, dissuading someone from voting a certain way, or encouraging them to vote another way. So according to you, we are taking a total stab in the dark, and I fail to see why you would be so convinced, given such a dark uncallable shot, that Obama will be the worse of the two.

Try reading the rest of his post.

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

I posted that survey months ago, only to be informed that the National Journal is a partisan, right-wing rag. ....I know....

Even still, excellent post.
You summed up, as succinctly as possible, the conservative viewpoint on this election.