Most people have no idea what Obama is all about. This is a guy who has only spend two years in the senate (most of that time he has been running for President) people see the word "change" and think that sounds great without knowing what the candidate is all about. This is a man who can potentially be our commander and chief and can even say the pledge of alligence to the flag. But, he wants to be commander and chief?

Obama surrounds himself with thugs and racist biggots.

Great Leaders surround themselves with great people just like Obama.

"Coast2coast lumped Obama in with Jackson, Sharpton and Farrakhan. Essentially, the only thing these four have in common is that they are all African American (though Obama is biracial). They fall in different places in the political spectrum. Coast2coast, you have no credibility whatsoever. Your view below confirmed it for me."
All three have endorsed Obama for President. Along with Bill Ayres (Known Terrorist),Hamas (terrorist group),Tony Rezko,Jeremiah Wright, The President of Iran.

Yeah; as soon as someone with a neutral perspective comments that the left was getting killed in this debate, that person OF COURSE, has no credibility! Always works that way with the left. They loose debate after debate, and it's always the listeners/readers fault! Can't wait to see Hussein debate McCain. After he falls flat on his face, it will OF COURSE be someone else's fault. The viewers, the moderators, the news network who hosted it, ext ext. CLASSIC!

Coast2coast lumped Obama in with Jackson, Sharpton and Farrakhan. Essentially, the only thing these four have in common is that they are all African American (though Obama is biracial). They fall in different places in the political spectrum. Coast2coast, you have no credibility whatsoever. Your view below confirmed it for me.

Curly, Larry and Moe had a great run based upon slapstick also.

I'm pretty much center when it comes to politics, but just reading through some of the recent comments I have to say Billnewbie, whysbad, and kiowamohican are getting the much better of these debates.

Instead of blaming the government for everything you may just want to look at why the health care system is so flawed. Doctors have to carry exorbitant amounts of malpractice insurance just in order to practice medicine. You go to the doctor and they run you through five tests to tell you you have the flu. They have to do this to cover their behinds in hopes of not getting sued. This drives up the costs of a doctors visit. People have over used insurance for years and years. What I mean by this is someone with good insurance only has to pay a small co-pay or nothing at all at a doctors visit. So, people don't actually see the big bill. They see the ten dollar co-pay and are done with it. If people actually had to pay the whole doctor bill they would think twice about going to the doctors office for a hang nail. There isn't any competition among medical doctors because of this. The can charge ten dollars for a band aid and not think twice about it because the insurance company will pay it. I'm a strong believer in Health savings accounts which can be used to pay for medical procedures. It would help competition among doctors and bring down the cost of going to the doctor. How many people go into a doctors office and ask how much a procedure is going to cost? You wouldn't buy a car or a toaster without knowing how much they will cost. Look at the procedures that aren't typically covered under health insurance like lasik eye surgery. When they first came out it was very expensive and not a lot of people could afford it. Then more doctors were offering it and competition helped drop the cost. It is now very reasonable to have it done now. Don't play the blame game all the time you need to look at solutions and government isn't always the answer.

Hang in there Sassy, from the few posts I've seen you seem to be sincere in your decision-seeking. This is what democracy should be about - both the process and seeking a high standard for your processing.

NVgrf, yeah, I'm a little slow sometimes in coming to realize the futility with the hardened ineducable.

Awww, the poor baby took his ball and went home. Can't come down to the level of all us "commoners" in a blog. That's fine, head back over to Europe so you can suck the majestic slong of all your socialist buddies. After McCain wins in November, all your type can ask yet AGAIN...WHAT HAPPENED?? And blame it on all those dumb, fooled, moronic Americans.

hey! why isn't it ok to just have a different opinion? nobody is going to "enlighten" anyone and all of a sudden change their political stance based on a gazettextra blog...

Our perceptions come from our experiences and our goals for the future, our family needs and our vision for America. But, IMHO, it doesn't help to get so carried away with our attempts to "convert" someone...kind of a waste of time, don't you think? Thank God we live in a land where it is ok to discuss political views publicly, but do we have to make personal attacks too? (I'm scolding myself, as well...)

Quite right again NVgrf, left wing types do seem to be reason challenged, as is so well shown in your most of their posts.

mabuse... - You will never be able to reason with these right wing types. But you have certainly hit the nail on the head on many fronts.

Apology accepted. Now if only you would apologize for slandering your country....

billie, you never heard of bi-residentiality? You love to accuse others of hate. Must be a topic in which have some expertise. These exchanges with nothing but name-calling and accusations of name-calling are hardly enlightening to anyone. You confuse evidence-based citation with hate. Speaking of which, I DO hate slipping into them and down to your level. Apologies to all; carry on. So be it. One has more pressing things to engage.

Mabusejuvenalis:
Whining and complaining? That characterizes your posts accurately. If yours is the majority opinion, why does it bother you so much that I write what I think? What a typical reaction you've had to your "facts" being challenged. Want me to shut up and go away? Too bad.
By the way, you said you are living outside of the country, therefore your may be a citizen but you are not a resident. You left the country on your own volition and you can return whenever you like. You mischaracterize my referencing your foreign residence. I was pointing out the fact that from there, you are insulated from the effects of the policies you advocate, and absent from “the good fight”, pursuing your own interests. You do still reside elsewhere, do you not?
Unlike you, I am not interested in silencing those I disagree with. That may be your vision of a better America but it is not mine. Talk your head off. The more hatred you spew, the more you discredit yourself and your cause.
You slandered your country by belittling its charitable record to your shame. Your hatred for your country that you share with so many that you identify with will disable the political movement you believe will prevail, as it always has.
For future reference, for now I prefer the term “knuckle dragging Neanderthal”, although I am open to newer and more creative invectives.

whybe:

No one has suggested, except you and couple crude-thinking extremists mischaracterizing others in this blog, that "we rely on the Government to take care of us in all aspects of our lives." No one. That is a cheap straw man ploy and we all know it.

Nobody except Harry and Louise in the massive anti Hillary ad campaign of '93-'94 has proposed that "the government has any right (or interest) in controlling my health and telling me which doctor to see and what procedures are in the best interest of my body." That, as of now, is the privileged province of the profit-motivated insurance companies and the God-knowing right-wing religious, neither of which do I hear you addressing with any concern.

I guess you like that, and, along with it, the fact that 47,000,000 Americans have no coverage, and the endangered life of a mother has to come second to a fetus. And the fact that hundreds of people daily are seeing their nest eggs destroyed by exorbitant health and drug costs. These are not fancy talking blowhard lines. They are real lives in real situations.

Finally, you say "I do believe it's the governments (sic) responsibility to protect our borders." Since when did our borders reside in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Colombia, Bosnia, Sudan, Viet-Nam, Cambodia, Korea, Laos, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, etc etc, etc, just for starters, as more jpublic examples of the US "defense" in 137 nations? Don't we have countless wiser ways to invest our trillions if we truly love our country, and wish to invest intelligently in its future? Just think of the horrid waste, only to enrich the very military industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about and its resultant destruction of our image throughout the world.

I don't mind paying taxes. I do mind paying excessive taxes. I don't mind helping out people that are down on their luck. I also feel that people need to take care of their selves first and for most. I believe that it isn't the governments responsibility to support people. People need to take responsibility for their families and for their selves. Most people in this country agree with this. I believe that there should be no limits on to what a person makes. I don't hate Bill Gates for making a lot of money. This is America and that is a great American success story. I believe people should be able to earn as much money as they can and keep as much of it as possible. I feel Americans can and know best how to spend their hard earned money better than the government. I believe we should help our people by giving them opportunities to succeed. We can't just give people a check every month and think everything is going to be ok. These people need an incentive to make their lives better. Throwing money at the problem doesn't help matters it makes them worse. The democrats have been preaching about the same topics (health care, poverty etc) for 40 years and we haven't gained anything according to them. This country does have problems but,this country isn't as bad as politicians want to make it seem. It's a political year and they are going to give you the same old gloom and doom. There is no magic wand to make everything better and it's not going to happen overnight. Sure democrats have some good ideas but so do the republicans. We are all Americans and we truly want whats best for this Country it's just how do we do that properly? Do we rely on the Government to take care of us in all aspects of our lives? I don't believe the government has any right in controlling my health and telling me which doctor to see and what procedures are in the best interest of my body. I do believe it's the governments responsibility to protect our borders.

kio and billie,
first of all, your terms like "whining" and "compaining" only expose the usual cheap rhetoric and show inability to digest productive fact-based criticism - there is a difference, both procedurally and rhetorically. Secondly the repetitive accusation to leave the country because sombody is not like "us" is troubling on several fronts, two of which are: 1) it reverberates with the same mentality of Nazi Germans uber alles, and 2) the "us" is not you. Survey after survey show that you are in the dwindling and dying minority.

Your disparagement of progressive thinking and yuopur repeated failure to analyzing beyond your own noses, hiding behind the usual dreary epithets and generalizations steeped in an arrogant self-appointed US identity, shows you for the dinosaurs you are, and you will realize it only too soon. You do not speak for "us." I respectfully resent your childish self-appointment to that privilege. And no one who is the least bit aware of the public concern believes you. So crawl back in your hole and squeak all you want about your one-issue unpatriotic unwillingness to pay taxes, and leave the future to those who care, who care honestly about more than just self-centered, unpatriotic greed.

Incidentally, not that you have any right to know, with your mad capacities for ignorant slander, I am NOT a govt employee, and I AM a US resident, AND a Wisconsin property holder; and HAVE the widse international experience to make comparisons and to know whereof I speak: criticisms of the immature, careless, vastly destructive Bush idiocy are not to be confused with unpatriotic "whining," in fact are just the opposite. Informed concern about our country's directions are myriad, and poll after poll show they are shared by over 2/3 of "OUR" population, and the opopulace has come to realize that these horrid 8 years represent the most inept (and name-calling) administration in history. So quit appropriating "our" status to your monolithic selfishness.

Mabusejuvenalis :
Those interesting ratios compare development assistance as a percentage of gross national income. It does not include disaster relief, famine relief or military aid, and since the wars we fight seem to be to the advantage of others, the main complaint of isolationists, one could add a great deal of the military budget to the total generosity of this nation. Furthermore, you ignore private charitable contributions to foreign peoples as well. Besides, spanky didn't claim our country as the most generous even though most of us do. But we are, consistently, the one most reliable country that others turn to in times of distress. Even those on your list which you think are superior to us have accepted massive amounts of aid from us, and some who call us enemy have accepted our help as well. We have always stood ready to help any people who need it. Mabusejuvenalis, since you have taken up residence in a foreign land, it seems not only that you are where you want to be, but that you are ashamed of your former home. If things are as bad here as you seem to think, why did you walk away when your country needs you? Rather than work for your concept of peace and justice here where you find it so lacking, you left, pursuing you self-interest just like so many you find fault with. Yet you still want to influence politics here while insulated from the effects of the policies you advocate.

mabuse:
I personally could care less what you think of me. You are just a typical whining, far left elitist. Anyone reading your posts can see that. People like you are the ones Americans laugh at. All you do is complain, mock the American lifestyle, and tell us how great the European socialist countries are. As I posted in another thread, here are the European tax rates for all the "clueless" American, chest thumping hicks, who are not aware.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_o...

Not only do you pay about half your income to the government, you get nailed with a VAT (value added tax) on most everything your purchase. Gas over there goes on average between $8.00 - 12.00 a gallon (when converted from liters).
So if you want to have this debate on how great these European models are, BRING IT ON...You'll LOOSE every time amongst all the dumb hicks here in the chest thumping US of A. Most all of who like to keep their $$$, and spend it the way they want, and not give it the all knowing big government hacks, such as yourself!
.

Cut and paste my comments, so all your European buddies can get a good laugh from one of those dumb, clueless Americans. Like most of us really care what they think of us.

Mabuse, don't get too upset. Many, many people I talk to are moving leftward or becoming disillusioned with the right. It only makes sense though it seems America moves in around 40 year cycles of lib and con. Since Nixon we've moved further to the right. Now it time for the counterbalance.

Spanky: Very generous? The US ratio of $ spent on war to that spent on humanitarian aims is obscenely gross and shameful. US war spending outdistances the cumulative compilation of the next 15 runners-up. Our "generous" nation's international humanitarian aid as a percentage of GNI shrivels to insignificance compared with true donor industrialized countries. (See below.)

And the reason we should care what other contries think about us, all arrogant chest-thumping aside, is that no country is an island, our national interests are affected by how we are regarded, and the wonderful worldwide reputation we had in yesteryear is now deep down the outhouse hole, inlarge part courtesy of Bush and Cheney.

One might also note that many of those highest on the list below for giving are also highest on the recent Leicester University international study of quality of life and Happiness Index.

Country Aid amount by GNI
Source: OECD Development Statistics Online last accessed Sunday, April 27, 2008

Norway 0.95
Sweden 0.93
Luxembourg 0.9
Denmark 0.81
Netherlands 0.81
Ireland 0.54
Austria 0.49
Belgium 0.43
Spain 0.41
Finland 0.4
France 0.39
Germany 0.37
Switzerland 0.37
UK 0.36
Australia 0.3
Canada 0.28
New Zealand 0.27
Italy 0.19
Portugal 0.19
Japan 0.17
Greece 0.16
USA 0.16

Why should we care what other countries think of us? We are a very generous nation and if other countries don't like us to bad.

kio: you are getting far too much attention, so I will be brief.
A) Interesting how you right-wingers always come up with some version of "Love it or leave it" when your narrow views are exposed. And how your "love it" refers only to your bigotries.
B) I presently live in two countries, thank you very much, mostly the other one, and recreat and consult in several (on five continents), where clowns like you are pretty much laughed at, pitied, or hated. Stereotypically selfish like you are what gives our country a bad name. But I wouldn't know what country to suggest you move to, since you would be useless to them all. Maybe best stay here, where naive fillies like tj fester in common supply and you can b** your way through the next eight years of common-sense government again.

tjncj:
Thank you for the kind compliment.

Kiowamohican, your posts are about the only ones I enjoy reading on this thread.

kio.......The only disingenuous phony named in your posting is George Bush.

Pubsrus, your posts are about the only ones I enjoy reading on this thread.

The latest news bite I head was Susan washed up Sarandon was going to move to Europe if McCain was elected. Of course the SAME nonsense was spewed from Barbra Streisand, Alex Baldwin, George Clooney, and many others in the Hollywood elite in 2004 if Bush were to be elected.

ALL still remain here, of course!
Just proving what a bunch of disingenuous phonies they really are!

mabuse:
I never have claimed to be an "expert" on anything. Your the one who has the love fest with European countries, with the high taxes and mega government social programs. It's rather amusing though, for all you love of them, you still live in the evil capitalist; US of A.

Just move over there; you won't hurt anyones feelings.

Where did I say I had all the answers. So if someone has an opinion different from yours they are a liberal elitist? Plus I don't recall saying anything about being cheated in the elections. The elected government is supposed to do the will of the people. However, it doesn't seem that bush has learned that. You think bush is a leader? That is pretty funny right there! I want a leader who leads as well, not some bullheaded moron who never succeeded at anything! McCain sure isn't the answer, nor is Obama or Hillary.

whybesad--- not whining just stating facts. If and when the pubs control congress again, the same will hold true. If you were truly honest you would say that is correct.

Shutupandfish: Bush merely signed an extension of the current state of the children's health care insurance plan, not an expansion of benefits. Of course that is not going to make headlines. The premise that the bill put forth both Democrats (and some Republicans) would extend benefits to the children of wealthy is preposterous. This just goes to show that Republicans care about "life" up until the the fetus is born, and then it is everyone for his or herself.

As for the timeline for leaving Iraq, the 2006 election was arguably a mandate. With your argument, we'll never be able to leave Iraq. Al-Qaeda will always have Pakistan and Yemen anyhow, there will always be pockets of resistence. That was always the plan, to draw the US into an intractable war in the Middle East, to recruit more into Al-Qaeda and make the US look unpopular. Meanwhile we will just send poor young men and women to die needlessly, billions of dollars down the toilet and bomb Iraq a few more hundreds of years behind the rest of civilization. Mission accomplished.

I see from browsing through these blogs, kio is an expert, among so many other things, on plugged toilets in Europe. Perhaps that refers to the ones he habited, and I can well see why.

Always an excuse for the democrats for not getting anything done. They told us if we had control of the congress that things would change. They had a big plans for their first hundred days and they haven't done a thing. Now your whining because you don't have 2/3 majority. That's different another excuse.

The checks and balances aren't John Q. Public and polls.

Anybody who is glad bush does what he wants is what is wrong with this country. The government has checks and balances for a reason--to reign in idiots who try to circumvent our form of government. If this is allowed to happen we just may as well be a dictatorship; and in bush's case that is what he would want. Whethter you want to admit it or not bushII has never been successful at anything be it business or politics. So you may be glad he does what he wants but if you have any kids or grandkids they are the ones who are going to pay for it. He is typical of all republican elite, you know the ones who just can't stand to be told no just like the spoiled kid in the candy store.

Not being able to admit you were wrong, and correcting the course, is the fatal flaw of any administration, be it Republican or Democrat. And we are the recipients of that bad judgement.

McClellan was perfectly summed up by Bob Dole. You see people like this all the time in life. They are the lowest forms of life. The have no backbone, and only care about themselves. Notice McClellan NEVER said a word how he disapproved of what was going in in meeting after meeting. Then when he left as press secretary he said "how great of an honor it was to serve for Bush, and with such fine people, blah blah blah".

Now he comes out with this book that is marketed to all you far left wing lunatics; and he'll make a fortune because you will all buy it! For how anti-capitalist you all are on the left, I'm surprised your so supportive of a guy making millions off this selfish stint (and that is all this is about..CASHING IN). I guess as long as it impugns Bush though, anything goes with you guys. What's funny is, a few moths ago you ALL hated this guy just as much as you do anyone in the Bush administration. Now he's your hero.

ya know; for all you far left lunatics who think Bush was responsible for 9/11, is running this evil dictatorship of lies and deception, I'm curious then..How did this book get out? Why didn't Bush just have had McClellan taken out, when he got word of it?

The first hundred days of the democratic congress? I thought this thread was about John McCain's vision of victory. The bar has been set for control of congress. Unless you have a 2/3 majority, you are never going to be able to do anything.

"President Bush does what the generals on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan tell him not what john q. public thinks."

but ignores Colin Powell, his Secretary of State. Don't lie to yourself: Bush does what he wants. End of story.

The first hundred days of the DEMOCRAT run house.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_zZKEtoP...

Bob Dole, you mean viagra Bob? He is just mad he never had an administration (and thank God he didn't).

The real John McCain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp...

Bob Dole hit it on the head about McClellan.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/30/...

JSM the health care for the children was a terrible bill at first it would have covered children from wealthy families who could afford health care and children who are already covered under their parents health care plan. He did later sign a children's health plan bill that was more deserving of children that really needed it. That was on the back pages of the newspapers. Telling the enemy when we are going to withdraw troops is suicide. President Bush does what the generals on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan tell him not what john q. public thinks.

So what do you rebooblicans think about McClellan's book? I suppose he is just making it all up, huh? Come on, let's hear your Attila the Hun take on it.

kiowamohican: " I believe the analysts are wrong on this"."I personally bet this on the future exchanges"
I've heard this before.
code for..I LOADED UP ON MCCAIN...haha

You've just made one of the most obvious political observations, regardless of which side of the political spectrum you fall on. We don't even need to get to that point here because the issue wasn't add ons -- Bush disagreed with the fundamental principal of both bills. Bush refuses to accept a timeline for withdrawal, even though the majority of the public wants the troops out within a year. Further, Bush did not want the health care plan the Democrats were proposing for low income children. So your point is both obvious and superfluous.

Well, Bush did veto a bill tying Iraq spending to a timetable for withdrawal (which a majority of the US supports) and vetoed a bill providing health care insurance to children. So, there you have two publicly popular bills vetoed by Bush.

All three candidates aren't very qualified to be President. I guess you have to pick the lesser of two evils. Obama hangs around a bunch of racists. Hillary thinks she deserves it because she was the first lady. Macain is a chameleon who changes his position to please whoever he is talking to.

I guess you could worry about a Presidential veto if you ever gave a bill to the President to veto. Then you can worry about a 2/3 majority.

love that dummycrat babble too. billnewbie is right, you squawk too much!

Gotta love the Rebooblican babble. Attempting to defend the last eight years is a hell of a tough job!! LOLOL

Do they have a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate? Because that's what it takes to override a presidential veto. I realize that some Republicans are jumping the sinking ship that is the Bush administration, but even that doesn't give a majority to push through major changes in policy.

Democrats have the majority in the house. Nothing a republican brings to the floor will pass. Didn't the democrats say they were going to get all these things done when they had the majority? Broken promises again from the democrats. They have the majority and STILL can't get things done.

Well, I don't know. Swiftboating was o.k. when Kerry was running. I don't see the problem now. Besides, I checked the accuracy of the info before I posted it.

I didn't know that Congress consisted of 100% Democrats now. When did Paulie Ryan convert? Did his pollsters indicate that it would make him more likeable? Also, last I checked, McCain is in Congress (though he doesn't always vote, particularly for veterans' benefits). So, I guess he falls in the low ratings, too, huh?

I love the use of far left wing blogs as a "source". Truly laughable. If you are going to use sources; at least use a REPUTABLE source if you want to have ANY credibility other then with your with your own political side.

Bush may have bad approval numbers (around 30-35%), but it really looks fantastic compared to the GREAT JOB that the Democratic congress is doing!!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...
That's right folks 18%. You can pick your nose all day, and get higher approval numbers then that!

I don't doubt that George W. Bush loves his country, but that doesn't make him qualified to be president. And it looks like 71% of Americans agree with me, according to national polls.

At least Macain loves his country.

If you look on Wikipedia and several other sites, you will see that the crashes are authenticated. I believe the UK article you cited from two years ago had a typo.

A. He lost the plane of which he was in control. OK, I'll give you that one but he still lost 4 other planes.
B. He claimed he had a flame out. That was not verified.
C. Yes, I blame him. He is a terrible pilot and not very bright.

Can I get a "count your chickens" comment? I'm feeling a little left out here.

It was Obama's great uncle, so his grandmother's brother. Still classified as an uncle. You know, probably about the same age as McCain. Speaking of McCain, the flying skill must run in the family:

1 - Student pilot McCain III lost jet number one in 1958 when he plunged into Corpus
Christi Bay while practicing landings.
2 - Pilot McCain III lost another plane two years later while he was deployed in the
Mediterranean. ”Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula, he took out some power lines
which led to a spate of newspaper stories in which he was predictably identified as the
son of an admiral.
3 - Pilot McCain III lost number three in 1965 when he was returning from flying a Navy
trainer solo to Philadelphia for an Army-Navy football game. McCain III radioed, ”I’ve got
a flameout” and ejected at one thousand feet. The plane crashed to the ground and
McCain III floated to a deserted beach.
4 - Combat pilot McCain III lost his fourth on July 29, 1967, soon after he was assigned to
the USS Forrestal as an A-4 Skyhawk combat pilot. While waiting his turn for takeoff, an
accidently fired rocket slammed into McCain Jr’s. plane. He escaped from the burning
aircraft, but the explosions that followed killed 134 sailors, destroyed at least 20 aircraft,
and threatened to sink the ship.
5 - Combat pilot McCain III lost a fifth plane three months later (Oct. 26, 1967) during his
23rd mission over North Vietnam when he failed to avoid a surface-to-air missile. McCain
III ejected from the plane breaking both arms and a leg in the process and subsequently
parachuted into Truc Bach Lake near Hanoi.
(taken from www.vietnamvetsagainstjohnmccain.com)

BTW, I'm not a liberal, but I guess in your black and white universe nuances don't count.

Further, mistaking two concentration camps from over 60 years ago is less worrisome than McCain confusing present-day Iran and Iraq (requiring Lieberman to whisper in his ear), especially when McCain has an itchy trigger finger.

Obama's uncle did liberate concentration camp survivors. So what if it was Buchenwald, not Auschwitz? The point is, his uncle was directly involved in liberating survivors. Therefore, this silly litmus test of machismo can be discharged. If we are going to split hairs, then let us take a more critical look at McCain's so-called "heroics". He crashed 5 planes, at what cost to the American taxpayers? He should have never qualified to be a pilot to begin with. He only did so because his father and grandfather were admirals. If he never crashed the plane, it is likely that he never would have been a POW. Really, that is McCain's only currency in this election.

From a political strategic standpoint, McCain really has the advantage in this race (which will be against Obama). On the world exchanges Obama is actually favored, but I don't think that many analysts are looking at it correct. They are putting WAY to much into it being a Democratic year, and equating anti Bush sediment to McCain being a "3rd Bush term". That is laughable, because anyone who follows politics at all knows McCain is no where close to Bush, platform wise. Bush and McCain got so heated at one another in 1999, in the SC primary, that McCain actually considered switching parties, and running as a Democrat. He has also HARDLY followed the Bush line on many voting issues the last 8 years in the senate, and has actually teamed up with some of the most far left members (Kennedy, Feingold, ext). So painting his as a 3rd Bush term simply does not fly with anyone but the far left Democrats who would never vote for him anyway. It is the INDEPENDENT voters who decide this; as in general the far left, and far right cancel one another out.
.
The reason McCain should win is because if you look at the internal polling data (which is what any good strategist does) Obama was really crushed after the Rev Wright incident came out, along with his comments about "people clinging to guns and religion" in small towns. While those comments hurt him some in the race with Hillary, the numbers were much more mis-leading because in the GENERAL voting population they were FAR more damaging. Among independents; Obama lost around 15% support! His national favorability rating dropped from the high 60's all the way down to the low 50's.
*con't

This is VERY damaging; as in general, national races (especially close ones) are decided by your independent voters. Much like the last 4-5 elections, the race will be decided in the BATTLE GROUND states. Obama will carry the left coast (CA, OR, WA and the NE states) while McCain should sweep the south (as the Republicans have the last two decades) , as well as the mountain west states. So it comes down to the usual states like : OH, FL, PA, MO, WI, MI, WV that will be the deciding states.
.
McCain fairs very well in many of the big ones: PA, FL, MI, OH. ALL states that Hillary won, and the internals showed a lot of problems for Obama. If McCain takes all 4 of those states; he is all but certain of victory. .
Remember NEVER put any faith in NATIONAL polls. It's ALL about the electoral map! And from an electoral standpoint; McCain is looking very strong. I have personally bet him on the exchanges (at better then even money). LOTS can change in 5 months, but I think if anything is to change, it will only be McCain getting stronger! He is much more experienced, and would only seem to fair better in the Sept/Oct national TV debates. While watching Obama vs Hillary, I was not at ALL impressed with Obama. Frankly; I think Hillary destroyed him in all of those debates. McCain comes off as a much more polished debater. Obama obviously does fantastic on the campaign stump, and at rallies, but I think is charm and endless talk of hope and change will grow tired; and combined with many of the negative factors on him; his support will drop off.
.
So there is my FREE handicapping analysis of the race; for all you loyal Janesville gazette readers. Hope you enjoyed, haha.

whatdidyousay.....You are a real piece of work. Do you believe that babbling on about the holocaust somehow helps to support your right wing position? And any time you wish to debate or compare IQ's just let me know. I know you and your right wing buddies will enjoy the Obama Presidency!

Whatdidyousay, can we agree to disagree on our political views? I am certainly not trying to make enemies here or be rude. I admit I have made some sarcastic comments, for which I apologize.

apparently in your opinion the only way one has a right to be an American is to join the armed forces. interesting.

This discussion has gotten to be a little too angry for my tastes. I am not trying to "one up" anyone on information, stats, agendas or the upcoming election. I was stating my opinion, that, yes, I am thankful that I have the right to do so. I'm sorry you are mad that I have those rights, but I am grateful for those who fought for them (which includes my family, friends and many many strangers and heroes).

To be clear, I don't care what YOUR political stance is, what military experience YOU have or what YOUR priorities are, Whatdidyousay. I care about what MY families needs, interests and concerns of the future are. I'm sure that YOUR family is what YOU are concerned about. Good for you. Vote the way you feel you will best be served.

also to be clear, I grew up when women were not "welcome" to provide any intelligence, combat or assistance to the armed forces, unless of course I wanted to be a nurse or another "woman's type job"...it wasn't until recently, if you will recall that women and gays were "allowed" to serve. But if you don't ask, I won't tell you I'm a woman....

and on yet another note, I have repeatedly filled you in on my legitimate reservations for not being an Obama supporter. Please stop telling me what I should believe, or who you think I am going to vote for, or what I have or have not done with my voting history because, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn what you think. ta da!

I know the answer to no. 2... John McCain. Though, to be fair to nos. 895-899, McCain's father WAS a 4-star admiral so I think that might have given him a boost.

"To win the conservative Republican votes so critical in the primaries and caucuses this year, McCain flip-flopped on numerous of his most "principled" stands. Those unfair tax cuts? He now favours extending them. His compassion about illegal immigrants has given way to a pledge to build walls to keep the Mexicans out. McCain has gone from opposing the repeal of Roe vs. Wade to asserting his pro-life credentials. McCain's opposition to federal subsidies for corn-based ethanol, which consumes more energy to produce than it yields, gave way to a pro-ethanol stand as the caucuses in corn-belt Iowa approached."
Toronto Star

Just For Fun...............
1. "We are simply seeking a leader who can take us in a better direction and inspire us to work hard to become greater than we are."
Editorial quote from the Las Vegas Sun. To whom are they referring:
A. Hillary Clinton
B. John McCain
C. Barak Obama

2. Which candidate was ranked 894 out of 899 in college?
A. Hillary Clinton
B. John McCain
C. Barak Obama

Now I know why his name is whatdidyousay. The guy blabs on so much he can't hear others.

10. Barack Obama has the intellect, natural talent and charisma to communicate effectively to the entire world, bring people together, change the status quo and move our country forward.

11)He can also see dead veterans.

I don't deny he violated sanction after sanction.
I just think at some point you have to ask; "is the cost worth it?" There is no doubt we can win any military battle we engage in. I just think you really have to seriously weight the costs. Your putting a lot of young lives at stake over a country who yes, was defying sanctions, but in reality was no real threat to our security. I'm certainly no bleeding heart liberal, but as an American it just pains me to see our brave volunteers killed, especially over something that I don't feel was a serious threat to our national security.
Someone also mentioned Bosnia, and Somalia. True to my principals, I totally opposed those conflicts; as well. The real unfortunate part of it all is that many of our security agencies (CIA, NSA, ext) have been de-fanged, compliments of the liberals throughout their years in congress. I'm all for using covert operations to take out these dictator thugs, or start a civil uproar/over throw. Funny if you read some of the stories about Castro, and just how many times we BOTCHED taking him out! There is story after story on all the failed attempts our CIA made. One of the funnier ones was to give him a cigar as a "gift" that was tainted with botulism!
.
I'm also not one to say "instead of spending a billion a day in Iraq, we could be using that $$$ for (fill in your social program)". How about not spending the money in the first place! Our Federal budget is spiraling out of control with spending as it is, and massively in the RED. If our debt continues to grow, the interest we pay is going to become a huge burden, and it will keep sinking the dollar further and further, which as you are all ready seeing now has major effects on food and commodities.

The United States Secretary of State is the head of the United States Department of State, concerned with foreign affairs. Reminds me of the line in the Sound of Music: "It says only the names of the children." "It says the von Trapp Family Singers. . .
. . .and I am the head of the von Trapp family, am I not?"

So you are basically saying that Colin Powell, who was the head of foreign affairs, should not have his informed opinion taken seriously, but that the "armchair generals" somehow had a better grip on the situation?

and I believe wholeheartedly that had Congress and the rest of the United States not been lied to about Weapons of Mass Destruction and the other bunk we were fed, there never would have been a successful vote to go to war and Hillary Clinton has stated that many many times.

And you don't have a clue about my political support of Republicans who have a clue and vote with a conscience and listen when issues are raised that I am concerned about and actually keep my family's needs in mind while they are in office; you don't know of my contributions to service men and women, my family's dedication to armed forces, my son's enlistment, my grandfather's service during WWII, my father's service during Korea, my brother's service during peace time or my ability to make a sound and rational decision. I don't need a magnetic ribbon to support the causes that I choose to support. Nor do I appreciate your comments that I have no basis for my reasons.

I am not claiming to be a politician, however I am a citizen of the United States and I don't take that for granted. I choose to use my voting rights in a manner that my family and my country will best be served. I am sure you will do the same.

whybesad.... Israel has "thumbed it's nose" at more United Nations Resolutions than any other nation on the planet. By your logic we should therefore invade them and take Ohlmert out and hang him. Be careful what you wish for.

kiowamohican I don't think we could actually sit around and watch Saddam thumb his nose at the UN resolutions for another 12 plus years. He was playing with us knowing that for 12 years we did nothing he could pretty much do as he wanted and profit from it as we found out (oil for food scandal). I agree with you that there are thugs all over the world but, those other thugs didn't sign a resolution that was to be enforced. If we as a country can't enforce our own resolutions what good are we? He violated 16 of them here is a link.
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/13456.htm...

whybesad, as I've said before, I don't claim to be an historian, an economist nor a commander in chief. I just don't want to be lied to anymore by the government that pays for the damn war that is killing too many innocent people. And for a reason that we can't decide even exists. I'm not an armchair diplomat.

I have a right to voice my concerns as much as the next guy...or is it because I'm not a guy?

I'm just saying: When will someone give me a valid reason WHY we are spending BILLIONS of dollars a day for being in Iraq when our own citizens are going without necessities (and then I am being blamed for being a bleeding heart liberal who only wants to give hand outs and apparently I am the cause of the increase of our taxes)?!

Well, I am one of the few conservatives who has to disagree with this war. The reasons given for us going in are all factually correct, it's just that if you use that as a standard, you'll be in dozens of countries throughout the world. Look at Darfur, and half of Africa, and lots of SE Asia. They are messes, run by murderous, dictator THUGS, just a pathetic as Saddam was.

I think for us to go to war, there has to be a vital threat to out national security, otherwise we'll be all over the damn globe getting our brave men/woman killed as the world policeman. I just never saw it with Iraq. Saddam was so weakened after the gulf war that he wasn't any serious threat to us. He had no WMD's, and his military was weak as ever. In reality, Iran was (is) a MUCH bigger threat to our national security.

The real big problem with this war, is not only has it seen over 4,000 heroic soldiers of ours parish, but that it's simply costing us a BOATLOAD of $$$$. As a very strong fiscal conservative, that is my biggest problem. The last I heard it was around one BILLION $'s per DAY being in Iraq! This is one of the many reasons you have seen the US dollar plummet, which in turn has sent gas/commodities through the roof. Granted the insane spending/give outs by our congress has added to the weakening dollar problem, but this major $$$ involved in the war sure does not help it.

on a positive note, there has been a lot of good news coming out of Iraq. Sadar city (a big strong hold of the insurgence) has been secured, and things really are looking good now that the "surge" strategy has been put in place.

Those are real good points there. Ms. Sassy doesn't seem to grasp what war has done for this country and how we became a great country. If it wasn't for war we would all be speeching French.

I would feel MUCH better leaving military operations to those who claim to be professionals; however, the people who ARE professionals and gave advice against the war (Colin Powell and others), we fought this war...for...could SOMEBODY tell me why???

It hasn't made sense from the start.

and thanks to our service men and women, I DO have rights...and I am proud to support our troops, without fail.

That doesn't mean that I have to support the decisions of this government that isn't very good at the "leadership" game.

don't misunderstand that last sentence. I am not equating George Bush with Saddam Hussein. I'm merely pointing out one similarity.

The first President Bush had an opportunity with saddam. dubya was just trying to "fix" what his dad didn't. regardless, you are calling me a pessimist and a compassionate liberal...I think it's high time we clean up our OWN country's mess and get the terrorists (like kids bringing guns to schools, meth lab operators, violence against children in their own homes and sexual offenders) off the streets here before we can take any leadership role in another country. Why would they listen to us, as we don't have it right, either. I guess I have a valid reason to be a pessimist then, if that is what you call looking in your own mirror before going around pointing fingers at other people. Saddam was a bully. So is Bush.

Would you just have let Saddam torture his people and continue to ignore the UN sanctions? Would you have just let him continue to blow of the sanctions that were set forth to him by the UN to end the first Gulf War? He had 12 years to comply and the talking didn't have any effect on him. As it was uncovered a while ago Saddam was using the UN sanctions in a scam the UN oil for food scandal. If we did nothing this would have continued to use the sanctions and hurt his people. You can only talk so much before you need to take another route. I believe that Hillary would be better in National Security than Obama. But, her domestic agenda is scary.

wait a second...who said I'm a pessimist? and who said I was an Obama supporter? For starters, I want Hillary Clinton to be the next American President. It doesn't appear she will be, but I am not an Obama supporter. I see holes in his campaign. But the holes aren't as big as McCain's. I am someone that believes if Hillary is out of the process we won't have much to choose from in the upcoming election.

That said, I am NOT someone who thinks "cut and run" is the best way out of Iraq. I just think it's kind of radical for McCain to talk about "victory" when there is no indication that this war is anywhere close to being won. Currently, the only victory I see in the near future is to bomb anyone who disagrees with us. THAT'S productive. When will it end? A lot of people disagree with me, but that doesn't give me permission to blow them up...or does it? Not that I agree with Iraqi's, but how does one say don't be violent and then blow them up? Isn't that the epitome of "do as I say, not as I do"? Sounds a little too much like an ex of mine...

And quite frankly I'm tired of terrorism too. I'm tired of the United States portraying to Iraq and Iran that we are "afraid" of terrorists. Putting the idea of fear into the citizens of the US makes us look weak and makes us look like bafoons to the rest of the world, especially the terrorists. I'm tired of being lied to by the government that is supposed to be on the up and up. After all, don't we live in a peaceful democracy?

Saddam was a good person. Read this:
http://www.regimeofterror.com/

Victory isn't in Obama's vocabulary. Ms. Sassy not all Iraqi's are fleeing the country as you are lead to believe. They are sick of terrorists and they are sticking up and trying to have a democracy. It's pessimism like you that are the true letdown of these people wanting a better life for themselves. You Obama supporters relish in the fact that there will be change and hope from this guy but, you don't want to give that to the Iraqi people. I thought you were the "compassionate" liberals. Cut and run is not compassionate and it isn't a military plan either.

Everyone in Iraq is either a suicide bomber, a soldier, or trying their damnedest to get out of there safely with their kids.

"It's not a timetable; it's victory. It's victory, which I have always predicted. I didn't know when we were going to win World War II; I just knew we were going to win," McCain said."

It's easy to claim a victory when there is no one in the country left to kill...just a thought.

I'm not a fan of any three of these candidates. I think it won't matter who gets in. It's going to be a long 4 years. We can pretty much figure on paying more taxes.

whybesad:
Yeah; it's all kind of moot now. Like I said earlier, we are there now, and you have to deal with the problems/solution that lie ahead. Cutting and running is simply a HORRIBLE plan at this point.
Powell, and many others, believed there was serious concerns about WMD's, but they also cautioned about the accuracy of the intel, and also detailed the many problems we would face by an invasion (with insurgents, sunni/shei/kurd factions, ext). I could find all the links to that, but I admit I'm just to lazy to do it right now, haha.

Kiowamohican- Everybody thought they had WMD's along with Collin Powell. Most said we had to act sooner than later and after September eleventh we couldn't really take the wait and see route. Watch these videos to refresh your memory of what was said and by whom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjcofMFH......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDitSbkQK...

Spanky:
I think you misread what I was trying to say. I never said Bush went in as part of the war on terror. However; we were fighting the war on terror in Afganistan, and the decision to go into Iraq, took many of or troops away from the war on terror. Our troops are now spread out between the two places, and you now have soldiers serving tour after tour.
.
The reason we went in was of course because of the violation of sanctions. However; a large part of the argument was because of the WMD's that Saddam supposedly had. An argument that was based off bad intel. Intel that Powell, and others, cautioned may likely have been bad.
.
I totally agree with you that Saddam was an evil, miserable, murdering, thug, and ultimately brought on his own fate. I just don't think we had any real good reason to go in there, with the costs being so great to us in lives and money. If we are the worlds policeman and take out all evil dictatorships, we'll be in countless countries across the world (look at half of Africa). While the threat that Saddam posed to us was minimal. He had no WMD's, had no air force, and no serious military forces that would pose any threat. I simply think it was a very poor calculation to invade them. It's costing us many lives, and lots of money, that is putting us in huge debt.

Bring back the good old days, when we could wipe out big bad Germany and Japan in 3+ years, not have to dink around in Iraq and Afghanistan for 10....

They all scare me in on way or another.

War is always undesirable but sometimes necessary. There are reasonable arguments on both sides as to whether or not the war in Iraq was necessary. Quoting Hermann Goering is not one of them. The man was a willing participant in one of the largest scale mass murders in history. His thought processes were warped and his reasoning, therefore, discredited. History books are loaded with quotable people who hate war that don't have the disqualifications of Goering. Consider quoting one of them instead.

The following is a quote by Hermann Goering regarding war in general terms:
.
“Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” (Hermann Goering)
.
Yes the man was a Nazi. Yes he was convicted of war crimes and sentenced to to death. But that quote sums up the basic operating procedure of our government over the last seven years. I think a change in direction is needed. This politic of fear mongering has had an affect on every facet of our lives; private, public & political. We've become so consumed by the "Us vs Them. If you're not with us you're against us" mentality, that it's affecting our everyday lives.
.
We, as a country and as individuals, need hope, compassion and love to guide our actions. If this seems weak or ineffective, look at the lessons and teachings of Christ. His promise to die for our sins and forgive us of them should be a model for us all.

kiowamohican I don't think President Bush every stated that Iraq was a part of the war on terror. I believe we went in because of the 12 years of failed UN resolutions that Saddam signed to end the first Iraq war. Saddam made the choice. All he had to do was comply.

whybesad:
I totally agree with you. Now that we are there, it's obviously madness to cut and run. The prime reason is because or IRAN. If we leave, and Iran decides to move in a taken over a weakened Iraq, you are left with FAR worse problems then anything you have now.
.
I personally was just never a supporter of going into Iraq. The country had nothing to do with the war on terror, and there was SERIOUS questions about the intel about WMD's. The fact that is rarely mentioned is how brilliant Colin Powell looked afterward; as he seriously questioned rushing to go into Iraq. All his concerns were later found to be dead on; as the intel was wrong, and he warned of all the possible chaos, with the various Iraqi factions that were likely to break out by a US invasion. Not only has this war seen many of are brave soldiers fall, but is also costing us a TON of $$$ every day it goes on.
.
That is all moot now; as we are there, and I think it's clear we should win the thing. Winning would be defined as a stable government in place, and and a military/police that is capable of defending the country on their own, and keeping law and order. Much progress has been made in doing exactly that. Most objective reports (from sources that don't have a liberal, or conservative, bias)have reported the "surge" has been working, and much progress is being made. Cutting and running would pose many dangers to US security, and could evolve into all sorts of major world term oil, with Iran being next door.
.
I know I'd be pretty worried if Obama won the election, and just pulled all of our troops. I think that is a very dangerous course of action, that is just giving into the anti war base, and not looking at the complexness of the situation.

Obama has never once crossed party lines while in the senate. But, yet we are suppose to believe that he is this uniter? Come on Obama just run as the person you are the most liberal senator in the senate. Why be afraid of who you are?

I'm not sure how pulling out of Iraq is going to make things better. We will simply tell the world and the terrorists that we are losers. We will send a strong message to the Taliban and Al Queda that we are what they thought we were. It's only going to help terrorism. It's going to help with the recruitment of terrorist and it's going to give them a place to carry out their operations.

ms_Sassy:
No offense, but trust me, when I say Russia has problems FAR FAR worse then anything you'll see in the US. I still talk with many Russians I met back from the days when I played competitive chess. Russia is basically a dictatorship now. They recently "elected" a new "president" in; Dmitry Medvedev, but he is only a figurehead who immediately proceeded to appointed back good old ex KGB; Vladimir Putin, as Prime minister, who will hold all the power. So the country is basically a total dictatorship run by Putin and his minions, and anyone who opposes them is putting their own life, and family in jepordy. Former world chess champion; Gary Kasparov (now retired from chess and very active in politics, ran against Medvedev. The elections were very shady, and most believe rigged by the old KGB agents who Putin still controls).
Kasparov recently wrote a very good article about the current state of Russia. Here is the link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-o...

Believe me when I say the level of corruption, and problems in Russia, is not even remotely comparable to anything you see in the US. Some of the stories I could tell you (from people living there) would blow your mind.

I don't want to "argue" with you, kiowamohican, because I know that you have a lot of knowledge in world politics, but I don't see much difference between the US and the Russia that you describe in your post: "Russia (or the old Soviet union) was once considered the other world super power (next to us). Their country is now a political mess that is mired in corruption and scandal, while the average citizen lives in very poor economic conditions, and organized crime rules the streets."

US-Political Mess...the Republican party is calling for gut checks and admitting to brand problems, fraud, lobbyists

US-poor economic conditions...poverty, unemployment, homelessness, social security

US-organized crime...drug dealers, border patrol corruption, gangs

Don't get me wrong, I value my freedoms and I know I have it much better than many and am embarrassingly wealthy compared to many in third world countries; however, the United States of America is not progressive in the way our forefathers would have wanted. Our technology is good, but we are being overtaken by Japan and their advancements. That's just my opinion.

Ms-sassy:
For all the problems that do exist in this country; I think it's still very hard to deny this is the greatest country in the world. Our advancements in science, technology, construction, architecture, medicine, are things of amazement when you think about them. The average working class person in this country lives like a sultan compared to that of many countries around the world. I have many international friends; and always find it rather stunning how good we have it here, after I talk to some of them. Russia (or the old Soviet union) was once considered the other world super power (next to us). Their country is now a political mess that is mired in corruption and scandal, while the average citizen lives in very poor economic conditions, and organized crime rules the streets.
.

China; is the "emerging" super power, and if you want to talk about a country where the "rich get richer, and the poor get poorer" just talk to anyone there. You have a super rich class in business who are reaping all the benefits of the economic boom, while the average working class person (and there are over 1.4 billion there) is still ultra poor, and working for practical slave labor wages.
.

Most of Europe is a Socialistic mess; with ultra high taxes, and big unemployment problems. France became so bad, that they practically overthrew the ultra Socialist government a few years ago. Talk to the average European. Your toilet gets plugged; LOL..Good luck getting someone to come and fix it within a month!
.
We really have it pretty darn good here. That does not mean we don't have our share of social, and economic problems, but compared to other places, I'll take the USA any day.

imo, it's pretty hard to tell another country how to live, when our country is as mixed up as Iraq. We have people shooting up schools which is no different than the suicide bombers, drunk drivers killing thousands of innocent people, poor people who live in what should be condemned buildings...I think it's time to unite as a country and keep an eye on the rest of the world, but, like they say: it's easier to point out other people's problems than to look in the mirror and take a hard, long look at your own.

The next President of the United States needs to focus on the United States, not how we can "fix" the rest of the world.

whybesad:
Come on over to the dark side, and support the Ron Paul revolution. The only candidate who understands economics, and business. The only Republican who was against the starting of an endless war in Iraq that had nothing to do with the war on terror. A guy who is a huge believer in individual freedom, buy LIMITING the endless expansion of the government stranglehold over it's citizenry via getting rid of the income tax, and actually CUTTING the endless government spending.
.

It's to bad, we are left with what we have now, and that the media never covered Paul, who was far and away the best candidate running, IMO.

What has Obama done to make a difference in this Country? Why did he keep going to the church and listen to the hate speech for 20 years? Why did he have a relationship with a know terrorist? He is a terrible candidate for any party. If he was a green party candidate or a republican candidate he would still be a terrible choice for President. I don't like any of the candidates in this race to be honest with you. They seem to be all pretty much the same. The only thing they really differ on is the war. One wants to win the war and the other two just want to get out and play the wait and see approach. Hillary's only qualifications are she was the first lady for eight years and a senator for a while. Macain is a career politician and has very liberal views. I like a candidate who has actually had to balance a budget. I like people with business backgrounds and know what the value of a dollar is and how hard it is to make money and someone who has had to make tough choices and had live by what decisions they made. Senators don't have that. They use taxpayers money so, it's much easier to spend it and not have to worry about the consequences of your votes until it's time for re-election. Give me somebody that is willing to stand up for what they think is right for the country and not worry about poll numbers. Someone who stands behind the decisions they have made. Someone who isn't afraid of what others think. Who cares what other countries think of us. We have to worry about what is best for The United States Of America. Say what you want about George W. Bush but, he stands by his morals and values and what he thinks is best for the people of this great nation. He doesn't care about poll numbers and isn't going to do some irrational things because his poll numbers are down. His dad did that and we are in Iraq because his dad didn't finish the job. He took Saddam for his word and thought Saddam would follow the UN resolutions.

That is why Ryan voted "present" to protest the bill. I wasn't talking about the Illinois senate in my previous post.

I love to read history, and the fact is Kennedy came within MINUTES of starting WWIII. It ended up working out (the Cuban missile crisis) but if it wasn't for the urging of a few of Khrushchev's advisor's, you would have had nukes flying. If that were to have happened, would he still be the greatest foreign policy President ever? I guess being lucky gets you the title.

thekai:
History is what it is. What I wrote is true. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

whybesad,
In the Illinois Senate, there can be strategic reasons for voting “present” rather than simply no. A member might approve the intent of legislation, but not its scope or the way it has been drafted. A “present” vote can send a signal to a bill’s sponsors that the legislator might support an amended version. Voting “present” can also be a way to exercise fiscal restraint, without opposing the subject of the bill.

whybesad: Could that be why Rep. Paul Ryan just voted "present" yesterday when the vote confirming the Senate approved bill for war funding came up in the House?

The reason they vote "present" is to protest a vote or to be able to say they were for or against the bill. Works well you your running for office. Obama had his sights set on the Presidency and voting "present" was a strategy that he used. He didn't want to be on record as voting for a unpopular bill or vice versa. He's a politician bottom line. And he's a Lawyer to boot so he knows loopholes.

thekai over 20 years ago when I was in the service we were hated just as much as we are now and twenty years from now we will still be hated. But since you said you were a marine I want to thank you for the job you do.

Peechy,
Going to let you in on a little secret about America being hated. I'm a Marine, you have nothing to teach me on that subject.

thekai going to let you in on a little secret about america being hated. It's been going on a lot longer than before Iraq.

proartist if you look at a thing called history you will see that the first terror attack happened in 1993 at the world trade center. A truck full of explosives during whose watch. It was a guy who came between bush1 and bush2.

Unlike Congress and the legislatures of most other states, each chamber of the Illinois Legislature requires a “constitutional majority” to pass a bill. The state Senate has 59 members, so it takes 30 affirmative votes. This makes a “present” vote the same as a no. If a bill receives 29 votes, but the rest of the senators vote “present,” it fails.

In Congress, in contrast, a bill can pass in either the House or the Senate as long as more people vote for it than against it. If 10 people vote in favor and nine against, and the rest either vote “present” or don’t vote at all, the bill passes. It can actually pass with just one vote, as long as no one votes no.

In the Illinois Senate, there can be strategic reasons for voting “present” rather than simply no. A member might approve the intent of legislation, but not its scope or the way it has been drafted. A “present” vote can send a signal to a bill’s sponsors that the legislator might support an amended version. Voting “present” can also be a way to exercise fiscal restraint, without opposing the subject of the bill.

Kennedy was one of the best presidents that we ever had, as far as foreign policy goes. I think someone needs to re-read their history books.
°
The war in Iraq has made even more enemies than we had before, and it hasn't really solved anything. We got Saddam out, sure, but now what do we do? The country is in shambles. We need to bring the troops home now. The idea of a good exit strategy doesn't exist in the real world. Bush screwed up. We screwed up. It's time to go home.
°
Some people claim that diplomatic talks with leaders in the mid-east accomplish nothing, but I would counter that in the very worst way to look at it, it cost us no lives and we didn't make negative progress. We've lost nearly 4,100 servicemen and women in Iraq so far, and the only thing we've managed to do is fuel hatred for America and spark a civil war.

What a pathetic set of candidates. How did we end up with this? I bet you will see record low turnout in November. No one wants to waste even 5 minutes out of their life to make a choice between these two/three. I'll sit home and watch Seinfeld re-runs for the 10th time before I go vote for any of these.

It's nice to have "visions" and wishes, but winning a war doesn't simply happen by wanting it to. It's about time to come up with a plan to either win the war or begin pulling troops out until there is a more comprehensive plan to win the "fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em here" war. If I could "see" a victory in my mind's eye and it actually meant that there would be a victory, that would be fantastic. If that could happen, then the Cubs would've won the World Series again by now, and the Packers would win the Super Bowl every year. It doesn't work that way. You can't win anything without a plan of action, a plan that has been conspicuously absent since the beginning of this ill-fated war.

Some say that personal experience has little weight in a campaign. They may very well want to think so as their favorite candidate may be woefully lacking in same.
We've tried Presidents with little experience, especially in foreign policy. John F. Kennedy nearly started World War 3 with the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the Cuban missile crisis while starting our involvement in the war in Vietnam. Jimmy Carter summited with the Arabs and Israelis until he thought he had that age old conflict solved (outstanding results for that neophyte), then he handled diplomacy with Iran right into a hostage situation and botched rescue that we still are paying for to say nothing of the economic mess he left. Bill Clinton bombed baby food factories into submission to distract from bimbo eruptions and held yet more mid-east summits with yet the same outstanding results, while making pacts with the North Koreans which they bragged about violating right under his nose. George W. Bush screwed up in Iraq which has taken too long and cost too much. Electing yet another neophyte as President is a huge risk. All those blunders I mentioned have consequences that we still are paying for. What are we willing to risk, and pay for now? Will it be better or worse? History is not on the neophyte’s side.

I know where David Duke stands on issues, but that doesn't mean I'd want to elect him as President. I think some people confuse one-dimensional thinking with integrity. Those are two completely separate things. You can have a very nuanced, sophisticated response to a complicated issue and be completed sincere and committed in your belief. You can't solve a 2,000 year religious conflict with a sledgehammer.

peechy: "the thing people will forget is kept us safe and since 9/11 "....it's impossible to PROVE a negative. Do you feel safer now? The war has created far more enemies now than the US had before. We've also created a new generation of children who will grow to seek retaliation for what was done to their families and countries. What we DO know is that 9/11 happened ON BUSH'S WATCH. Regardless of what some might retroactively think about the previous President's actions regarding the terrorist threat, 9/11 was the FIRST EVER foreign terrorist attack on our mainland nation and this was DURING SHRUBS term in office. Safe? HA!

Whybesad I agree that all three of these are one term. Also Bush may not be the best president, but atleast he doesn't use the political correct thinking. You may not agree with him, but yes you do know where he stands. One thing Bush will be remembered for is the war, but the thing people will forget is kept us safe and since 9/11 there has been no terrorist attacks on american soil and there has been terrorist captured here in america who were planning them. I hope whoever takes over will keep it the same.

It's hard to believe that these three candidates are the "cream of the crop" in their respective parties. All three are pretty much the same. Whoever wins will be a one term President. This isn't the eighteen hundreds and experience does matter. Words also matter. listen to what the candidates say and how they say them and what audience they are talking to. At least with GW you know where he stands on all issues. Yes he has had some problems but, what President hasn't?

Billnewbie, since My Lai was 40 years ago, McCain's service record was about 40 years ago. Guess that isn't really relevant now, either, is it? We won't have to hear about that now since it isn't germane. It really doesn't have anything to do with complex sociopolitical and religious conflict in the Middle East, the state of the economy or immigration.

Let vote for a democrat. It's there policy's that have put us in the economic mess we are in (no we can't drill in alaska, no we need tighter regs on refineries and nuclear plants and NAFTA is awesome, oh yeah lets increase taxes). We pull out of IRAQ to quick, where do you people think these terrorist are going to go to kill americans (because that is what they live for or should I say die for) right here. I want us out to, but I want to make sure that it's done right. Who is going to know more about what being in a war Obama (who has ties to fanatics, Hillary that has never broken a nail or McCain who not only has more experience and wisdom, but oh yeah he was a prisoner of war. One other good reason for McCain is he has and will continue to cross party lines of the have an idea that makes since. For the record I'm not a democrat or republican just an american who votes for the most qualified person.

From a military stand point...
McCain is going to keep us over there. There is no doubt that his "plan for victory" hardly differs from Bush's. Bush thought we would be out of there by now. Bush was hoping to be "victorious" while he was still president. Hillary would get us out quicker than McCain, and I think that Obama would get us out the quickest. I honestly believe that there is almost no way that we can leave that country better than when we got there, as sad as that is.
°
I've had a family emergency since I've joined. I want to finish my enlistment, go to college, and take care of my family. So long as we're still in Iraq, there's a huge chance that I'll get recalled and sent to Iraq. I don't want to be activated for a war that I don't even agree with. I don't want to fight for a victory in 2012, which wouldn't happen anyways. My vote is for Obama, but should Hillary be the opponent of McCain, then she has my full support.

I can't believe McCain is dumb enough to think any war can be won, much less the whole Iraq mess. It isn't our 'war' to win. It's time to withdraw and take care of our own. I was on the fence as to whom I would vote for in November, well Senator...you made the decision much easier....

NVgrf:
I have yet to decide who I will vote for. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary election, and if he decides to run as a 3rd party candidate, I will vote for him. I know many will say that's a wasted vote, but it's a principal vote to me; as I feel that he is far and away best represents the views that I have; especially on economic issues.

If Paul does not run, then it's a tough choice. I may go with Bob Barr, on principal. However; the cynical side may get the best of me, and I'll just vote Obama, because I truly believe that he will be another Jimmy Carter, and you will have an economic disaster. Which is bad for the country, but as a stock trader, it's really easy $$$; as you just heavily short (and play put options) in the health care, and energy sectors, as those industries would be hammered down the hardest of all in an Obama administration with a Democratic congress. And, of course, playing them short, you profit by them going down. Many don't understand that concept. You can make just as much money by a companies collapse as you can by one prospering. Trust me when I say many got rich by the Enron, MCI, Dot coms collapsing.
.
I really don't have any problem with Obama as a person, and don't buy into any of the nonsense that is being dug up on him. On personality, I think he's far and away the most colorful of them all, and a very inspiring speaker. I just strongly disagree with his stances on the issues that are important to me.

I haven't heard one word from the McCain Lil' Bush people as to WHY they support him. It's all about being critical of Barak Obama. Typical Republican tatics!!!

"Obama is the most unqualified Presidential candidate out there. He hasn't done anything that would qualify him for being President Of The United States."
.
Interesting statement.
.
Here's an amusing bit of history.
.
In 1800, critics warned that if Thomas Jefferson were elected president, adultery and incest would be practiced openly.
That was the same year John Adams was accused of sending his running mate to procure a pair of pretty girls as mistresses for each of them.
During his 1864 re-election campaign, Abraham Lincoln was derided as a thief, a monster and a butcher.
It should also be noted, as the current candidates debate "experience," that when he first ran in 1860, Lincoln was a tall, one-term congressman from Illinois who had openly opposed the Mexican-American War.
Some things never change

It was about the time that Clinton dodged the draft.

billnewbie: You're right. Can't blame Bush for My Lai...wasn't that about the time he went AWOL?

im votin for president obama cuz i think its time for a black man to lead this country. and im a skinny lil white boy from the hills;)

kio...so who will you vote for?

Saying McCain will be another 4 year of Bush is laughable. McCain has a very center-liberal stance on most all the issues. He opposed the Bush tax cuts, he sided with some of the very most liberal members of congress in the failed McCain/Kennedy immigration bill. Joined up with our very own Russ Feingold in the McCain/Feingold campaign finance bill that has lead to huge $$$ pacts (like the swift boaters) having the biggest say in elections . He created the "gang of 14" to approve federal judges. Hell, he was even asked to be the VP running mate of John Kerry in 04, don't forget.
.
You can play the DNC spin of 4 more year of Bush, but all your doing is buying into political spin. The fact is, McCain is no different then most liberal democrats. And it is the reason why many conservatives and libertarians (such as myself) will go no where near voting for McCain.

What did Bush do besides screw up the nation and a great deal of the world? What has McCain done? Let's see your top ten reasons to support McCain. I promise I won't laugh! Out loud that is.

Obama is the most unqualified Presidential candidate out there. He hasn't done anything that would qualify him for being President Of The United States.

There are many reasons that I support Barak Obama over more years of George W. Bush in the body of John McCain. Here are ten.

1. Barack Obama has personal experience with poverty and the growing income gap, having grown up abroad in Indonesia and working as a community organizer in the south side of Chicago.

2. After graduating Harvard Law, Magna Cum Laude and president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama could have become a wealthy corporate or trial lawyer but returned to Chicago to practice civil rights law.

3. He taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, so he knows how our government is supposed to work.

4. He has the experience as an elected official and legislator with over 10 years in state and federal public service. He understands both state and federal government as an elected legislator.

5. He opposed the Iraq war before it started.

6. He has received an A+ score from the Genocide Intervention Network for being a "champion" and taking crucial action to end the genocide in Darfur, co-sponsoring and voting for all significant Darfur legislation.

7. He is committed to universal health care by the end of his first term.

8. He has sponsored, co-sponsored and advocated for significant and realistic legislation to end global warming by capturing and safely disposing carbon dioxide, raising vehicle fuel economy standards and replacing petroleum with home-grown biofuels like cellulosic ethanol.

9. He has the broadest base of supporters, has not accepted PAC money and is not compromised by big money special interests.

10. Barack Obama has the intellect, natural talent and charisma to communicate effectively to the entire world, bring people together, change the status quo and move our country forward.

If you think McCain is the wrong man, offer a competent argument and drop the ridicule. That's what Obama has been saying, that we need to change the political landscape. Stop the character assassination and talk issues.

My Lai is 40 years ago. Can't blame that on Bush.

I'm not asking for perfect recall, but after Dubya, I do hope for some minimum levels of competency.

The military attempted a coverup. In the end, one soldier served 4.5 months in a military prison during which he had daily, unrestricted visits from his girlfriend. Between 350 and 500 civilians were killed, many women and children. There was widespread rape and torture.

You are painting US military policy with broad brushstrokes, saying that generally what they do is "ok" therefore what is happening in Afghanistan/Iraq is "ok". I am pointing out merely one example where US military policy is clearly not "ok". I'm not up for giving a free pass to our Commander-in-Chief.

INVgrf:
Isn't a counrty allowed to learn over time? Things have changed a lot since then.

bill......I'm not sure that Native Americans would agree with your first line.

JSM:
As I recall, we court marshaled a man for that. We still recruit from the human race with all of its strengths and weaknesses. Would you condemn all American soldiers for the atrocities of a few?

JSM:
If you expect perfect recall from any candidate, you expect too much. Mixing up a name is not evidence of incompetence. Who among us has never made such a mistake? Ridicule who you will, but don't mistake that as effective rebuttal. It may delight the like minded but it will not persuade anyone.

Hey billnewbie, did we carefully avoid civilian casualties in My Lai? I missed that part.

I have the right to ridicule someone who will be Commander-in-Chief and responsible for our national security when he cannot correctly identify mid-East countries or international political bodies. That gives me serious pause. It appears to be caused by senility. Either that or he is extremely ignorant. Take your pick.

This is a unique country when it comes to war. We don't keep the territory we win in battle, but return it to its citizens. We repair what we destroy in battle, and we carefully avoid civilian casualties as much as we can. Some can argue that the circumstances in Iraq did not warrant military action. Some say they did. But to equate what we did in Iraq with those who hijack planes, or recruit young people to strap on bombs, or launch missiles from civilian neighborhoods to kill the unwary without warning is an intentional distortion of history to promote a political purpose.
When we withdrew from Vietnam, the Viet Cong killed everyone with even the slightest link to our presence. Show trials, re-education camps, starvation and deprivation were the plight of those we abandoned. If we leave Iraq too soon, expect the same for those we leave behind there as well.
JSM ridicules McCain for his age. Ageism is just as wrong as racism, whether you think that McCain is too old or Obama is too young.

Why, because McCain can simply ask Cindy for a loan? McCain is almost worse than Bush in that we aren't just dealing with incompetence here but actual senility and complete selling out. McCain cashed in his "maverick" title a long time ago. I would love to see a debate between McCain and *any* other candidate, whether that candidate is a Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Mugwump, Know-Nothing, alien... it doesn't matter. McCain is an old, belligerent fool.

What "experience" is McCain talking about when it comes to the danger of deadlines for withdrawal from war? Seems to me the experience of withdrawal from VietNam ended the war and created, today, a nation with whom we've resumed a "friendly" relationship. War is terrorism...PERIOD. No one ever said peace vs. war is easy, quick, or safe but it is the only way our species will ever survive extinction. We MUST end the madness NOW and return to being an example for other cultures to emulate rather than hold in disgrace.

jackson........How could you possibly call yourself a Democrat and vote for Lil' Bush? INCREDIBLE!!