Truth

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

None of these are qualified. Of course McCain doesn't but he's OLD, so that must count for something. So it's laughable to hear us debating which is the least unqualified for the job.

I agree that Governors make much better Presidents than Senators for the reasons you state (and this is why Governors get elected so much more often), but at least McCain has 20+ years of experience as a Senator. Mutiple business cycles, administratrions, both sides controlling Congress, etc.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

I agree that Governors make much better Presidents than Senators for the reasons you state (and this is why Governors get elected so much more often), but at least McCain has 20+ years of experience as a Senator. Mutiple business cycles, administratrions, both sides controlling Congress, etc.

The men or women who would do the best job are not able to get elected.

Governors are probably trained better to receive the job, but not every Governor could get elected on a large scale.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

She has for 18 months. Is Jesse Ventura qualified to be president? He ran a state bigger than Alaska. How about Arnold? How do you think Carter did after being president of Georgia? How about Bush after being governor of Texas?

You keep wanting to say that the discussion should just stop after knowing that she is governor. How can you even think that is a reasonable position? WHAT ARE HER BELIEFS? That is infinitely more important to me than whether or not she has been governor in Alaska for less than 2 years.

"Cluck, cluck, cluck, cluck, cluck."

[Tex]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

"Cluck, cluck, cluck, cluck, cluck."

Cali's like the fan who watches his QB throw a stunning 45 yard pass, only to get intercepted on the next play and run back for a touchdown.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I am diametrically opposed to Obama on almost all fronts.

I oppose his desire to construct another federal bureaucracy on health care.

I oppose his general direction on health care.

I oppose infanticide, but am generally more tolerant of the abortion debate than most. Yet Obama's Illinois record on this issue is embarrassing. He took money from abortion doctors voting to kill infants sustainable after the abortion failed. That is probably the most extreme abortion position which I've ever heard of.

I oppose his drastic taxation schemes. I oppose his desire to secretly raise the payroll taxes, to increase the capital gains tax and to generally drain business of capital and access to capital. He will conduct a war against business which will devastate our economy.

I oppose immediate withdrawal from Iraq, even though the decision to enter Iraq was wrong.

I oppose his failure to reduce spending on anything but the military. I do favor a more balanced budget focusing upon reduced domestic spending, less handouts to foreign nations

I'm not in favor of the current devaluation of the dollar, but his proposals are diametrically opposed to what I favor, i.e., just increase taxes to decrease bonds issued, is not the answer. We need to increase production, productivity and saleability of our products. Infrastructure needs improvement.

I am in favor of reasonable exploration for oil, drilling in ANWAR. Just blocking access to domestic oil is not the answer.

I am in favor of alternative fuels, including NUCLEAR power. The left invariably opposes reasonable regulations to allow nuclear power, even though it can free our reliance upon foreign oil.

In general, I cannot think of a single major policy which comports with my beliefs.

McCain Palin is not the Republican ticket I would have selected but it has a few of the policies I favor, whereas Obama has none. Hence the choice is easy. McCain is not my first presidential choice and Palin is not my first VP choice.

Obama is too radical, and Biden has really few redeeming qualities, which lack thereof he exposed during the Bork hearings.

I agree with this post in its entirety.

I am pro-choice but Obama's vote in the Illinois State Senate to allow infanticide was truly bizarre.

My vote for McCain is a vote for the lesser of two evils. Bob Barr is my favorite candidate for president, but I don't throw away my vote (not that it matters in Texas that much).

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

I agree with this post in its entirety.

I am pro-choice but Obama's vote in the Illinois State Senate to allow infanticide was truly bizarre.

My vote for McCain is a vote for the lesser of two evils. Bob Barr is my favorite candidate for president, but I don't throw away my vote (not that it matters in Texas that much).

Supporting infanticide is not bizarre. It is evil.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Supporting infanticide is not bizarre. It is evil.

Yeah, but the bizarre part to me is that he stood all alone in his vote, if I understand correctly. I can only assume he wanted to maintain his 100% pro-choice "rating" or something.

People who hold unwaveringly to specific ideologies (on the right or the left) even when they fly in the face of all logic are scary, and this vote makes me wonder if Obama is one of those people.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

Yeah, but the bizarre part to me is that he stood all alone in his vote, if I understand correctly. I can only assume he wanted to maintain his 100% pro-choice "rating" or something.

Exactly. CC is not trying to suggest that post-delivery "termination" (or whatever they hell they call it) itself is bizarre. He's trying to suggest that Obama's decision/action/reasoning is bizarre.

Let's say you're a young politician with a bright career ahead of you. Even if you're pro-choice you should be able to see the long-term ramifications of being the SOLE opponent of legislation to provide life-sustaining care for infants who accidentally survive abortion procedures, without even NARAL to back you up. There's nothing to be gained from that vote.

CC infers that Obama is likely one of those zealous adherents to a certain position. After reading the original floor transcripts and other primary sources, I don't think that's exactly it. But no matter the motivation, his vote and position is absolutely inexcusable, and he can play as many word games as he wants but he'll never be able to justify this one.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

Yeah, but the bizarre part to me is that he stood all alone in his vote, if I understand correctly. I can only assume he wanted to maintain his 100% pro-choice "rating" or something.

People who hold unwaveringly to specific ideologies (on the right or the left) even when they fly in the face of all logic are scary, and this vote makes me wonder if Obama is one of those people.

Understood and yes, Obama is one of these people. That he would support infanticide should confirm it.

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Let's say you're a young politician with a bright career ahead of you. Even if you're pro-choice you should be able to see the long-term ramifications of being the SOLE opponent of legislation to provide life-sustaining care for infants who accidentally survive abortion procedures, without even NARAL to back you up. There's nothing to be gained from that vote.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but isn't NARAL a one issue political group? If even this group that seems to only care about a woman's right to abort a pregnancy doesn't agree with Obama on this, you are correct that it is indefensible.

Or should I again say evil?