Ok Medc and ForeverH, I may have blinders on and you may well to. That's why I said to weigh the candidates positives against their negatives. We can go around and around with why one is better than the other. So since we have all made our arguments let's put them side by side and see who fairs better against the other. You said Michelle was saying things you deem to be hateful. In the last debate they asked McCain about his supporters and the hateful things they were saying at his rallies, His reply was he was proud of them. I think this should be more accurate. Now I don't know I could be wrong, but I don't think he said that while he is proud of his supporters he didn't say anything in regards to their comments. How can you be proud of them when they are making such ignorant things, without at least in part agreeing with them. especially if you said nothing to the contrary.

As far as the whole abortion issue. Obama said that no one is ever really for abortion, however he feels they should have a choice. I have a friend of mine that developed a rare heart condition while she was pregnant with her third child. The doctors recommended that she didn't have anymore kids and heart was to weak for her to have her tubes tied. With medicine and time the condition got better. However they her that even the the condition got better because the hormones the body releases when pregnant she could redevelop the condition and this time it would be worse than before. Low and behold the condom broke while she and her DH were having relations and she did get pregnant. The Dr. told her if she had the baby she it die or become a vegetable. Although she wanted her baby she couldn't bare the thought of an abortion but she didn't want to leave her children without a mother or one that was incapacitated. So she had an abortion. In some instances people should have the right to choose. My friend is still eaten up over the abortion yet she knew it was the best thing to do. She said if it were her first child she would've taken the chance. Either I can go back and make a comparison chart to equally compare the two candidates or one of you can. However the only way to see who is the best candidate for the jobs and not be basis is to place the pros and cons against one another and then see.

As far as taking money from the rich and giving to the poor. Not all people who are poor are that way because the choose to be. I watch being black in America. I don't know if any of you seen it. But the did a comparison of a black man with a degree and no prison record to one with no degree and a record and their opportunities were what and what. The had one man that would do several applications online and they would call him in for the position and when he got there and they saw he was black they said sorry we gave the job to someone else. So tell me again if you think does affirmative action still not have a place here?

I will go and make a copy of claims for and and against each candidate for all of our post and compare them to each other and then we will have to prove in black and white. No pun intended.

actually, all I did was correct your information about what Michelle actually said.

As for abortion, I am not in favor of banning abortion in cases where the mother's health, rape or incest have occurred. No position has been taken that would not put the health of the mother first...so your example confuses me.

The FACT is that the vast majority of abortions are done for convenience sake.



It does not. I waited 4 years to get into the police academy. I scored in the top 2% of people taking the test. When I was in the class, affirmative action assured that there were others there that couldn't read beyond a 3rd grade level....people that didn't even pass the test (which was made race neutral) were given affirmative action points. It was and continues to be a sickening process.

That's true, MEDC. I worked as a tax exanminer for IRS for 6 years. We had both quality standards and production standards to meet. I have an accounting degree and did very well in my job.

During my second season on the job, I was assigned the task of performing quality review within our department on one of my co-workers, who had been employed for 20 YEARS. Her error rate was very high, and she barely made production.

I sat there with her and went over her work with her in order to try to determine where she was having the most trouble.

She was a sweet person and not a stupid woman; but, she was lazy as all get out. She simply did not CARE about getting it right. All she was looking for was that paycheck.

Never mind that she was constantly receiving warning notices about her work performance. She'd do just enough to get her error rate down to acceptable levels, and that was it.

I said to her, "You're capable of doing this work well, so why don't you do it? You know, one of these days, you may actually get fired."

She laughed and said, "Well, if they do, I'm going to the Union, and I'll sue the government for racism. I ain't about to work hard, and they ain't about to fire me!"

Now, is that cocky or what?

Medc I said what I did concerning abortion, because while I arbor women that have them because they weren't ready for them. They have something called condoms among many other means of not getting pregnant. I have four kids. I have been pregnant four times. I love all my kids and I wouldn't choose to not have any of them. Obama stance on abortion is not that he feels women should have a choice but in some cases it would be better to abort than to carry the baby to full term. He said as much in the debate.

Sorry if what I said confused you or didn't apply to you or something you said.

As far as you correcting me about what I said regarding Michelle I have no problem with that. If she did indeed mean what she said I have a problem with that as much as I have a problem with the things that were said at the McCain rallies. Two wrongs don't make a right. If Michelle came out and later tried to clean up her slip that is one thing, McCain saying he was proud of his supporters is something completely different.

Regarding affirmative action it is just like anything else it has it's pros as well as it's cons. Does it need to be tweaked yes, but done away? Not until we all can see past the color of someone skin. It really is a non issue. As long as we all can't do that it will forever be an issue.

According to Wiki The primary difference in skin color between blacks and whites is however a minor genetic difference accounting for just one letter in 3.1 billion letters of DNA.

We are not all that different. I have friends of many different races and cultures. I love it that way. If we were all the same the world would be a very boring place indeed. No one person, no matter color,creed, status or belief is better than another. I know that I am good at a lot of things. I however know that there may be people that are better at some of those things then me, but does that discount my talents? No I am still worthy just like anyone else who may not be as good as me at some of the things I do. We are a wasteful society and we are depleting the earth of all it's natural resources because of our wasteful nature. I think that this is the reason for the raise in natural disasters. One way or another the earth will cleanse itself. We can either be more mindful of our actions or we can continue to create our own demise. We are all put here to aid one another and as long as we continue to let petty differences keep us from that goal we are going to continue on our downward spiral.

That is my two cent. I could be wrong and I may well be, but we all make mistakes and I for one like to know of mine so I can correct them. So if I am wrong in my observations feel free to make me aware.

I did not proof read so if you see any mistakes let me know. Thanks

DIG, with all due respect, that is a GROSS, possibly deliberate, misstatement of what was said. But that is what I have come to see is "typical" of Obama supporters.

McCain said no such thing. He said he was proud of his supporters, NOT of any "hateful things" anyone might say.




Why don't you go ahead and make that chart. We can see just how "impartial" you are if need be, and discuss the issues and positions of the candidates.

But I have my doubts about the "impartiality" given Obama is ON RECORD for his radical support of Abortion on Demand for any and all reasons, including letting a baby die who was born alive as a result of a "botched" abortion.




Ya, and I decided not NOT go on to medical school because I wasn't black or female and it would have meant waiting AT LEAST 3-5 years after graduating from college.

So PLEASE don't try to justify "affirmative action." It is bogus and it is designed to GIVE people things at the expense of others who might actually BE more qualified. Just another form of "income redistribution" and using Race to "justify" discrimination.




Okay, I'll be waiting with "bated breath."

DIG, that is NOT Obama's position regarding abortion.

IF you want to think that it is, you certainly can do so, but his REAL position is well documented.

I'm hoping to see that when you complete your "comparison" list.

upon the issues I care about, this post is my effort to evaluate Barack Obama as the Democratic Party’s candidate for president. The last section of this post, The Issues, describes those issues.

Note that this post is incomplete. As time permits and Election Day approaches, I will add additional items. Incomplete items are marked as “To Be Done”.

I have already evaluated the Republican Party’s candidate, John McCain, at this post. For a comparison, please refer to the post on John McCain.
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION?




General Observations

To Be Done
The Candidate on the Issues

Education - Obama unabashedly promises to get the Federal Government fully involved in the education of our children. If Obama fulfills this promise, educational levels will continue their slow decline.

In math and science U.S. 15 year-olds are being outperformed by the majority of their peers around the world according to a recent NCES report Highlights from PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15 Year-Old Students in Science and Mathematics Literacy in an International Context. (from here)

In addition, parents will have less and less control over the values taught to their children.

Consider how Obama defines the problem with the No Child Left Behind Act.

The goal of the law was the right one, but unfulfilled funding promises, inadequate implementation by the Education Department and shortcomings in the design of the law itself have limited its effectiveness and undercut its support. As a result, the law has failed to provide high-quality teachers in every classroom and failed to adequately support and pay those teachers. (from here)

Obama defines the problem as “inadequate implementation”. “Inadequate implementation” is Obama’s euphemism for insufficient funding. That is, Obama wants to spend more of our money. Why? Ostensibly, Obama wants to improve the education system. In practice, Obama is in the service of the most powerful education lobby. Both of the major teacher’s unions (see here and here) endorse Obama.

Because there are so many issues that affect our vote, a powerful minority can hold sway on a single issue. The teachers unions are powerful and they are focused on a single issue, education. The result is that the teacher’s unions, not parents, decide how children are educated.

Consider the irony of this story.

The New York City teachers’ union filed a federal lawsuit on Friday claiming that a policy banning political pins and signs in schools violates teachers’ First Amendment rights by blocking them from political expression.

The lawsuit comes nearly two weeks after the Department of Education sent a memo to principals directing them to enforce the longstanding regulation, which requires that all school staff members show “complete neutrality” while on duty. The policy also prohibits teachers from using school property to promote a candidate. (from here)

You think that a fluke? Consider a story closer to home.

Virginia Republicans are in an uproar after the state teacher’s union sent an e-mail to its members encouraging them to wear blue-colored shirts to school to show their support for Barack Obama.

State Republicans are calling it an undisguised attempt to influence students’ political views.

The Virginia Education Association sponsored “Obama Blue Day” on Tuesday. In an e-mail sent last week, it urged teachers to participate by dressing in blue.

“There are people out there not yet registered. You teach some of them,” the Sept. 25 e-mail reads. “Others, including our members, remain on the fence! Its time for us to come together, voice our unity, because we make a difference!”

“Let’s make Obama Blue Day a day of Action!” the e-mail continues. “Barack the vote!” (from here)

Do you think any teacher’s union would defend bringing religion into the classroom? Of course not. In the blending and homogenizing of a multicultural world, religion just complicates matters. Nonetheless, the teacher’s unions insist upon indoctrinating children in their values and political beliefs.

Let there be no doubt as to why the American educational system frustrates parents. The problem is too much government and not enough parenting. Instead of treating parents and children as the primary customers, our government-run education system treats the teacher’s unions as the primary customers. The result is an administrator top-heavy system that makes teacher’s pay and benefits its primary goal. Instead working to inculcate strong moral values into our children, our government-run education system works to make our nation’s children docile followers of the Democratic Party. If we allow it to continue on this course, our government-run education system will destroy our republican (Note the little “r”.) form of government.

Law - Before anyone votes for Obama, they should do two things.

* Read the U. S. Constitution. This document is surprisingly short. Yet it is still the basic Law of our land. Is the Constitution flawless? No. When it was accepted by the people of America, the Constitution recognized the “right” own slaves. Only a great Civil War ended that evil. Yet when we observe and adhere to the Constitution, the document helps us to protect our freedom and our civil rights.
* Read Obama’s Issues page on Civil Rights. Like most modern Democrats, Obama fails to appreciate the role government plays in denying us our civil rights. So when he sees what he perceives any disparity in civil rights, he reflexively calls for a Federal Government solution. Because people are imperfect, we will always have disagreements over what forms of discrimination are appropriate. Thus we have Obama’s call for a huge expansion of government busybody agencies (see BUSYBODYISM).

The battle over civil rights traces back to the furor over Jim Crow Laws. The roots of this battle go back to the era of slavery. What many have forgotten is that government made slavery possible. State governments in the Old South legalized and supported the “rights” of slave owners to own other people. This evil chapter in our history ended only after a great war and hundreds of thousands of deaths. The Federal Government used the force of arms to deny the “right” of state governments to enforce slavery.

Nonetheless, Southern Whites stubbornly persisted. When the period we call Reconstruction ended, the Southern States instituted Jim Crow Laws. If anything, the efforts of the Northern States to harshly punish the South and force their own views on the citizens of the Southern States exacerbated the viciousness of the Jim Crow Laws. Had the Northern States been content merely to end slavery and put Blacks and Whites on an equal footing before the Law, the Jim Crow Laws might not have been so strongly supported by vengeful citizens Southern States. No one will ever know, but conventional wisdom suggests that history might have been different if Abraham Lincoln had not been assassinated.

Now Obama supports an abusive program of civil rights enforcement. Instead of relying upon existing laws, custom, and the free market to protect our civil rights and differences of opinion, Obama wants us to rely upon his administration and a program of aggressive civil rights enforcement to punish the politically incorrect. Here are some examples.

* Rather than rely upon the “judgement” of a free market, Obama would tell us when pay equity between men and women and minorities has been achieved.
* Rather than recognize the simple fact that all crimes are hate crimes, Obama would give certain privileged groups (especially those who voted for him) special protection.
* Rather rely on state and local governments to run our nation’s polling facilities, Obama would increasingly federalize the process, increasing the possibility of nationwide voter fraud.

Apparently, from Obama’s perspective, every problem is a Federal Problem. Therefore, every problem should be the subject of his intense scrutiny and infinite wisdom.

Obama apparently has great disdain for the Founders’ original intent in the Constitution. His plans certainly leave no doubt he desires to be unfettered by the document. When asked at the Saddleback Civil Forum which of the current judges he would not have appointed to the Supreme Court, he listed conservative judges Thomas and Scalia (see here). He voted against both Roberts and Alito (see here). This (here) CATO Institute article by Robert A. Levy explains how Obama’s judicial vision differs from McCain’s.

National Defense - In his plan for national defense, Obama sums up his approach this way.

As our next president, Barack Obama will:

* End the war in Iraq
* Reestablish the proper leadership role of the commander in chief for the 21st century
* Place ‘people first,’ so our military can recruit and retain the forces it needs and our servicemembers and their families are treated with the respect and appreciation they deserve
* Rebuild our National Guard and Reserves, to be better prepared to respond at home and abroad
* Focus on adapting and building U.S. military capabilities for current, not Cold War, needs
* Restore our global partnerships, to leverage the capabilities of others and win the ‘war of ideas’
* Build civilian capacity to promote stability and tackle security challenges with a ‘whole of government’ approach, so that our troops are not alone in the fight
* Place our troops before CEOs, reigning in military outsourcing and restoring honesty, openness, and economic good sense to our defense contracting and budgeting processes. (from here)

Obama’s plans sounds nice on the surface, but read his plan. Obama thinks of the military as a social program. When Obama sees the military, he sees a jobs and training program. While Obama talks about making the military work better, all the specifics in his plan are about giving military personnel a softer life.

Obama is buying votes, not a more effective military.

Look at Iraq. With respect to Iraq, ending the war, not victory, has always been Obama’s first priority. Consider how he quotes himself.

“I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war.” – Barack Obama, Chicago, October 2, 2007 (from here)

Obama takes great pride in his vote against our invasion of Iraq. He blames the Bush administration, not Saddam Hussein, for starting the war. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming to acknowledge that we have had any successes (something he finally admitted at the Saddleback Civil Forum), and he had to be pressured to extend his call for an immediate withdrawal to 16 months (See here).

What is Obama concerned about? When he talks about Iraq, what is his constant refrain?

Traditionally, foreign policy has been a topic favoring Republicans, while economic issues have tilted toward Democrats, and that seems to be the case again, at least since the pace of American fatalities in Iraq began dropping, said Alec Kirby, associate professor of history and government at UW-Stout in Menomonie.

Obama, however, has tried to tie the two issues together by pointing out that the United States is spending about $10 billion a month in Iraq, money he says could be used instead to provide health care, create jobs and otherwise boost the struggling domestic economy. (from here)

Obama advertises himself as the cool and calm military leader we need. In his world, we only go to war when warfare is absolutely needed. Then he turns on his charm, and all the nations in the world are suppose to wisely follow his leadership. So the war (How could there ever be one?) is instantly over. The enemy acquiesces and apologizes for so rudely disturbing the sacred Obama peace.

In reality, we conduct war in a fog. In reality, because he did not know enough, Obama opposed the surge (see here). In reality, we have a hard time figuring out the minds of enemy. Even when we have good intelligence and when our military operations proceed with greater ease than we expected, peacemaking can be terribly difficult.

So it has been in Iraq. Defeating Iraq’s army turned out to be easy. Pacifying 25 million people traumatized by decades of totalitarian dictatorship and surrounded on all sides by nations hostile to democracy turned out to be extremely difficult. That is a problem few anticipated. What worried everyone is the possibility Saddam Hussein would attack our troops with chemical and biological weapons.

In reality, Obama does not have the will to win against our enemies. Obama too badly wants to spend every cent he can tax on social programs. Obama would like nothing better than to turn the world’s best military into a glorified Peace Corps.

Immigration - Obama has not apologized or backed down from his plans to provide illegal aliens amnesty.

In the most recent immigration debate on the U.S. Senate floor, Obama fought to improve and pass a comprehensive bill. Obama introduced amendments to put greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together and to revisit a controversial new points system that never received a proper public hearing. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will continue to work for a comprehensive bill that fixes our broken immigration system. (from here)

This is the bill that the Senate refused to pass only after the citizenry spoke up and said NO! Obama clearly has no remorse nor regrets for participating in the crafting of legislation of which the public wants no part (see here). After the failure of the bill he supported, McCain at least recognized that to please us, he has to secure the border first (see here).

Two Conservatives has a good post on this subject that explains the difference between the candidate in terms anyone should be able to understand. See here.

Limited Government - Obama promises that only those making over $250,000 will pay for all his innumerable promises. That is absurd. You need proof? Go to Obama’s website (here) and look at the Issues Pages.

* Civil Rights - Do you think even THE ONE can strengthen civil rights enforcement, expand hate crime statutes, cure drug uses, and so forth without hiring cadres of new people? Our nation is already awash with lawyers, and Obama wants to put still more of them to work.
* Disabilities - Obama promises those with disabilities everything they need for happiness.
* Economy - Obama promises ever more meddling in the economy: tax benefits for small businesses, more clout for unions, windfall profit taxes, government investment in manufacturing, job training, and so forth. Since meddling such as what he proposes fouled up the economy in the first place, …..
* Education - See the educaton section above.
* Energy - Obama promises government investment. Do we really want the government to own all our businesses?
* Family - A Making Work Pay tax credit? Go figure that one out. Obama’s idea for making families work is more government spending — and more government mandates imposed on employers, of course. With idiot meddling like this, why should anyone have to wonder why jobs are leaving our country?
* And so forth. Obama has a long list of issues. Even this post is too short to summarize all the ways Obama intends to expand government.

Obama has lots of plans, and his plans will cost us all money. Go read some of Obama’s plans. Then ask yourself a question. Where in the Constitution is Congress authorized to spend money on the things Obama want to fund?

When the English Barons decided that they needed to restrain King John, they forced him to sign the Magna Carta. The provisions of the Magna Carta created a Great Council which eventually evolved into Parliament, a body that now controls taxing and spending in the United Kingdom.

It took awhile, but the English eventually figured out how to control their King. They got control of the King’s budget. That lesson still applies. Just as the King’s power arose from his ability to tax and spend, so does the government’s power as a whole. If we want to retain some control over the conduct our lives, we must restrain taxing and spending by government busybodies. That clearly is not the direction THE ONE wants to take us.

The Environment -The environmental rage this year is clean energy. Everybody has a plan to get us off fossil fuels and onto something else. What does Obama propose? He promises to make us all rich with clean energy (see Obama’s plan here). Here is his basic list of clean energy promises.

* Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump.
* Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
* Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
* Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars — cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon — on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
* Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
* Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. (from here)

Obama promises to make untested technology work economically. That is an outrageous. The tax relief he promises will come from the oil companies. That is stupid. To get this money so that they can pay us back, the oil companies will just raise their prices. So we will just pay our government money to have portion of what we give the oil companies given back to us.

To reduce greenhouse gases, Obama promises to implement a cap and trade program. Obama intends to auction pollution allowances and to use a portion of the funds for environmental projects. He will use the money to:

* Invest in a clean energy economy and create five million jobs!
* Create a green vet initiative.
* Convert manufacturing centers into clean technology centers.
* Create new jobs training programs for clean technologies.

Obama’s plan is nothing more than an empty promise, a blatant attempt to buy votes. What Obama intends to put in place will just be a complicated and wasteful government-run mess. The rich will find loopholes, and we will pay. The money we pay will go into the General Fund. That is, our money will just go into the same black hole as the Social Security Trust Fund.

If it is going to be fair, we must use a system we can all understand. If we want people to use alternative energy sources instead of burning fossil fuels, all we need to do is tax pollution (see here). Taxes are something both government and consumers understand.

Why does Obama need to pay private companies to do something they would do anyway? When pollution affects the bottom line, private industry will work as hard as it can to avoid polluting. When private industry already knows perfectly well how to do research, why do we need government officials picking favorites and skewing the outcome?

The rest of Obama’s plan is a bunch of ridiculous mandates — a bunch of do this or the government will punish you. Just because Obama says industry must make more fuel efficient cars does not mean anyone will be able to afford these cars — assuming they can be made.

What Obama is doing is telling us what we want to hear. He is promising to be the Big Daddy who will take care of us. He telling us there is an easy way out when what is required is hard work.

We cannot make somebody else pay for a clean environment. We cannot make big oil and other big corporations pay for a clean environment. The simple truth is that we all have to pay for a clean environment. Those big corporations get their money from us and so does our government.

Welfare & The Economy - When I first start writing this section, I intended to write two sections: Welfare and The Economy. However, when I start writing the section on Welfare, I could not easily extract Obama’s views on welfare from his views on the economy. Because Obama is a socialist, I do not think he sees much difference between welfare and the economy. Consider Obama’s now infamous comment to Joe the Plumber.

Obama made the remark, caught on camera, after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early.

“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed “more and more for fulfilling the American dream.”

“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,” Obama responded. “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” (from here)

Obama apparently advocates “trickle up economics” to manage the “free market” . How this works is a good question. Even wily Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, finds the matter puzzling.

In the recent debate, Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden said the wealthy would gain by paying higher taxes to lift up the middle class. The theory is that a healthy middle class is necessary for the wealthy class to thrive. Let’s call that Trickle Up Economics.

Viewed in that light, the unwealthy are more like an investment opportunity than a tax burden. If you can make the poor and middle class more educated, healthy, and better employed, everyone wins. That makes sense, to a degree. But would the wealthy gain enough financially to make the extra taxes a good investment? I wonder if that has ever been studied. (from here)

Would Obama’s scheme work? As his response to Joe indicates, Obama proposes to take money from the rich and give it to the middle class. However, as Adam observed and as his website indicates (see here), Obama proposes more than just tax breaks and tax rebates. Obama has many different types of “investments” in mind, “investments” that would significantly increase government spending. Let’s just look at some of the investments on Obama’s Economy Issues webpage.

* In addition to the investments he plans to Create 5 Million New Green Jobs (see the environment section above), Obama intend to invest in the Manufacturing Sector.
* Increase investments in training to “improve efficiency, implement new technology and strengthen company growth” in the manafacturing sector.
* Require 25 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2025. That forces the utilities to make an “investment”.
* Increase spending on our transportation infrastructure. This includes a scheme to create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank. That means increased Federal involvement in the construction of local roads.

Obama has no trouble expanding the Federal Government’s role into areas where it traditionally and Constitutionally has no business. The problem with such an expansion is that the government makes its decisions based upon politics, not sound economics. Without personal incentives, people waste too much and do not work any harder than they have to. Government, in particular, is notorious for wasting money. That is why socialism does not work.

Consider how Karl Marx summarized the ideal work ethic in a communist state.

From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need. (from here)

Ideally, when given the opportunity, each of us would work as hard and as diligently as we ought without any thought of personal reward, except perhaps the thought we were working for the betterment of society. In practice, that rarely seems to happen. At least, no one can point to a society where such idealism has worked in practice. Even the Pilgrims, when they tried a brief adventure into agarian communism at Plymouth Rock, had to give up on the idea in 1623 (see here, here, and here).

Obama’s emphasis on politics at the expense of good economics also extends to two other areas: free trade and labor unions.

In order to meddle in the affairs of other nations, Obama would hold free trade agreements hostage.

Campaigning in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Texas, Obama touted his opposition to NAFTA and pledged to “renegotiate” the 1993 treaty between the United States, Mexico, and Canada that established the largest trading bloc in the world. It was, of course, a president from Obama’s party, Bill Clinton, who signed NAFTA into law over opposition from trade unions and protectionists in the Democratic Congress. But that was then. During last week’s Democratic presidential debate, Obama went so far as to say that, as president, he would use “the hammer” of a “potential opt-out” to “ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced.” His opponent, Hillary Clinton, agreed completely. One of her husband’s signal achievements is now just a bag of sand to jettison from her deflating balloon.

Obama claims that NAFTA was “oversold” and vows to “stand firm” against similar agreements that “undermine our economic security.” The American worker deserves nothing less, we are told. But the American worker actually deserves a great deal more: He deserves a forthright explanation of the tangible benefits of free trade. Even Senator Change-We-Can-Believe-In knows these benefits are real. Obama has explained in the past that it is “not realistic to expect to renegotiate NAFTA” and that Americans “benefit enormously from exports and so .  .  . have an interest in free trade that allows us to move our products overseas.” In a John Kerry-like straddle, he acknowledged in 2005 that a trade deal modeled on NAFTA–the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)–was “probably a net plus for the U.S. economy” .  .  . before voting against it. (from here)

Obama intends to strenghten labor unions. For example, Obama supports the Employee Free Choice Act. See here and here for opposing views. The Heritage Foundation briefly describes the act this way.

Does a ballot cast in private or a card signed in pub­lic better reveal a worker’s true preference about whether to join a union? A private vote is the obvious answer, but organized labor has nonetheless made the misleadingly named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA, H.R. 800) its highest legislative priority. (from here)

Candidate Website - See ELECTION 2008 PRO AND CONS: BARACK OBAMA WEBSITE REVIEW.

Personal Life - To Be Done.
The Issues

* Education - Ostensibly, the Federal Government has no role with respect to education. Unfortunately, the lack of constitutional authority does not seem to stop elected officials from spending money and issuing mandates. I want this abuse of authority to stop.
* Law - Our president should understand the law and be willing to live within the law. Our president should take the lead in protecting our rights, particularly freedom of religion, the cornerstone of American Law. As a conservative, I also think Supreme Court judges such as Anthony Scalia and Clarence Thomas have the best understanding of the Constitution. I want more such judges appointed.
* National Defense - To deter potential aggressors, it is imperative that we have a strong military and an ethical strategy designed to protect our vital national interests. We cannot cavalierly abandon Iraq.
* Immigration - Our nation is being slowly overrun by poor, uneducated, illegal immigrants. Since most of these people come from Spanish speaking nations to the south of us, our nation is being balkanized into different language and economic groups. What that portends for the future is civil strife.
* Limited Government - You will not see a balance budget or low taxes in this list. What I am looking for is a candidate who sees all spending as discretionary and that we have too much government. We do not need a candidate who makes promises to hand us other people’s money. As I see it, anybody who will rob Peter to pay Paul cannot be trusted not to rob Tom too.
* The Environment - A clean environment is a fundamental right. To protect the environment, we need a strong environmental policy. Such a policy cannot depend on the scientific wisdom of politicians. No human being, not even a politician able to make endless promises, has sufficient brain power to figure out how to build a modern industrial society that does not pollute the environment. What our government can do, however, is punish polluters when they dump pollutants into our environment. Thus I want candidate who understands the difference between stopping polluters and trying to run private industry.
* Welfare - The welfare state is a massive scam; welfare is politicians buying us with our own money. Our cradle-to-grave welfare state is also a steadily growing national disaster. Even though the Federal Government has no constitutional authority throw our money into these idiot programs, each year we put a greater percentage of the Federal budget into welfare programs. Eventually, the money must run out.
* The Economy - Because none of us know enough to run everybody else’s business, government must have a limited role in the economy. What government can and must do is regulate economic activity. Government encourages economic activity by ensuring that buyers and sellers are honest. In addition, government encourages economic activity by establishing a currency for exchange and standard weights and measures. Government cannot and does not create jobs.
* Candidate Website - Any candidate fit to run our nation should be able to set up a decent campaign website. That candidate should also be forthcoming about his record and what he intends to do if he is elected.
* Personal Life - Character makes a difference. If we want our nation to strive for high ideals, then the person we select to lead us must honorable and trustworthy. We should not allow a candidate to buy our vote, but people do. By suggesting that those of us who want to vote for a trustworthy politicians are fooling ourselves, some seemingly revel in the fact too many candidates are unworthy of our trust (see here). That makes for a sad state of affairs and says how much we need to pray for our leaders.

I tried to find an unbiased blog that took most of the information straight from candidates websites.

Forever Hers thank you for pointing out the error in my post. If you noticed I said that I didn't not proof read it and if I made a mistake it was for that reason alone. You can read more into it if you like, however to me it is what it is. Just so you won't think I am being basis I will correct my post.

Also on the whole abortion issue what will more than likely happen is no matter who the president is the issue will be handled at the state level just like the whole gay marriage issue. As I said before Bush is very adamant about gays yet how many people under his term have made it legal to have same sex marriages? All though the candidates use these issues among many controversial issues to show their stance for the people they are catering to. Yet when it all comes down to it they have little to or nothing to do with the outcome of how the states choose to handle it.

It's funny to me that you think that just because I support Obama that I am closed to seeing McCain's pros. I am really not. I love to see as many sides as possible in any given sitch. You lose out other wise. Being open minded is the best way to be in most situations and I pride myself on that. That is why I am willing to go through the trouble of finding out which candidate is the lesser of two evils. If I am not willing to be open to see both of their pros and cons how can I honestly do that?

it is customary to cite references for material borrowed from others....that is, unless you are Joe Biden.

DIG - I can only speak for myself, but I really get tired of the "code-speak" use of "open minded." There is a marked difference between "open-mindedness" and refusal to take a principled stance once the "data" has been evaluated.

If you want to "pride yourself" on your ability to be a "fence sitter," you certainly have the right to do that. But "fence sitting" virtually never solves anything. That, of course, is MY opinion, but I think if you took a "survey" of most MB members you might find agreement when you "put into terms that are a bit closer to reality and not some esoteric nice sounding phraseology. It's like a Wayward Spouse who wants "a little bit from my spouse and a little bit from my affair partner, and it's 'right' to not have to choose to be Married or be an Adulterer."




Okay, then if the "last section of this post" is the "most important, perhaps we should dispense with the intervening information that rather clearly points out the Naiveté and political pandering that Obama engages in, as well as the parts where it reveals what Obama REALLY does believe in that, in my opinion, would be DANGEROUS for America and NOT the sort of "change" we can believe in but the sort of "change" that will cause severe damage to our country, if not destroy it, in his desire to move America to a SOCIALIST nation with "Big Daddy" Government deciding what is "best" for us in virtually every facet of our lives. Barack Obama is DANGEROUS in his liberal doctinaire and radical approachs and his extreme inexperience and naiveté. He HAS mastered the art of speaking, of "Smoke" over substance, of telling his listeners what they want to hear.

But he does not want to tell people that sometimes the illness requires some surgery, some "cutting out" of bad, diseased, tissues (and that surgery hurts for a little while). No, Obama wants to tell you that YOUR problem really isn't YOUR problem, it's everyone else's problem and he will "fix" your problem by ADDING more of the "agent of disease" to your body, thinking that MORE of it will make your "body" then "normal" because most of it IS diseased and the "normal" tissues will then be the "bad" tissues." He THINKS that the diseased tissues will NOT eventually kill you, if all he has to do is IGNORE their reality.

When it comes to Obama's "economic plan," it is more of the same sort of "marxist-like" thinking. From those who have money to those who do not "have enough money."

"Consider how Karl Marx summarized the ideal work ethic in a communist state.

From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need."

Nevermind that fact that Obama never says "how much money" is enough money or HOW he will determine who GETS his handout as he uses it to justifiy STEALING from someone else so HE can decide WHO to give it to. Perhaps his idea of "who" is similar to the first "Rescue Bill" that would have "chosen" to give ACORN millions and millions of those stolen dollars?







This IS precisely what Obama thinks. It is also WHY he is against VOUCHERS that would give PARENTS the right of choice as to how and where THEIR children, not the "State's children" would be educated.




You may want to go back and read the post I submitted previously about the Chicago Teacher's Union and how they are "shorting" the children, many of whom WANT a longer teaching day from the WELL PAID teachers.




YEP. The liberal teachers "know best" and they will not allow ANYTHING other than "their idea of what is best for OUR children.




Precisely.




In "Barack Obama's world" it is NOT "we the people" it is "the government tells you what and when, and you jump."




"Conventional wisdom" does not fit well with political ideology, nor does it "enhance" Obama's "electablity."




There is no "apparently" about it. That IS Barack Obama's "VISION" of his sort of "CHANGE."

Centralize power into HIS hands, into LIBERAL hands, into Socialistic hands that uses "Marxian" reasoning to achieve "equality."




To put it succinctly, Obama DOES NOT believe that ANY Supreme Court Justice should support the Consitution when doing so would "get in the way" of his "social engineering" or be "inconvenient" to his plans to CHANGE the USA from a Constitutionally based Republic to a Nation that subservient to a National Government wherein "Daddy Obama, Uncle Liberals, know best" and what YOU want is irrelevant.




That is just one CHANGE that Obama thinks we should "Believe In."

He has NO concept of the military, it's role, and the defense of this country. That IS dangerous.




Obama HAD no vote. He gave a speech AGAINST the war in Iraq, whether or not anyone agrees with his stance against the war. But he DID NOT have a "vote," he had the "luxury" of OPINING from the sidelines.





Obama is NOT interested in protecting our citizens. He is NOT interested in upholding our IMMIGRATION laws, among other laws currently "on the books" that he does not want to uphold.

He is NOT interested in defending this Nation against "all enemies, foreign and domestic."




Oh ya, I forgot for a minute.

Obama is NOT interested in the Constitution. He is interested in Socalism blended with his "rob from the rich and give to the poor" type of "Robin Hood-ism" that camoflages his "Marxist" philosophy.




Of course it's clearly NOT the direction Obama wants. He wants to promote class envy and use that to "dupe" the electorate into think HE has the "answers" to all their problems.




THIS IS "VOODOO" environmentalism, FUNDED by you, me, and all Americans, that may or may not make us "energy independent."

If you look at ETHANOL, which Obama VIGOROUSLY supports, you will SEE the insanity of what he is proposing and "government DOES NOT 'know best'." I posted earlier, on another thread, about the Ethanol scam. If you don't want to go to that thread and read it, let me know and I'll post it again on this thread.




Oh yes, I agree. "TAXES" are the "solution." It's a "silk purse" made out of a "sow's ear". Let Obama decide what IS a silk purse while he takes your taxes from you to use as HE sees fit.




I disagee with this. Private industry MUST have some "common sense" controls with respect to pollution simply because private industry is RUN by "fallable human beings" who may not want to "spend money" to prevent pollution from occurring in the first place, and "clean up" is always more expensive in the long run.




Good question. Why not just "nationalize" all such industries and let the government decide what to spend research money on?

You know, like researching why toilet seats cost 30 million dollars, why we can't just create our own energy supplies and not have to compete for worldwide resources?

Can anyone say "FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina" as a GOOD example of the government's ability to organize anything to be efficient and actually help THE PEOPLE?




REALITY doesn't count in Barack Obama's world, and certainly NOT in his "vision for CHANGE" in our virtually every aspect of our AMERICAN way of life. No, he'd rather we conformed our nation to the way other nations do it who have been SO successful.

That's not ALL bad, but it is bad as a "blanket" approach.

I, for one, would support a more "France-like" approach to Nuclear Energy production as ONE way to address the energy usage and availability in our country.

I would NOT support using many of the African nations, the Russian nation, the Chinese nation, the Iranian nation, etc. as "Models" of who we should do things.

I would NOT support using Canada or Great Britain as "Models" of how our healthcare system should be done.







But Obama is not interested in "what works," just what can get him elected. A "True Politician."




THAT is Obama, say anything to any audience to get elected. Vote "PRESENT" instead of "NO." Nevermind the idiocy of trying to say that a "PRESENT" vote is the same as voting "NO." It isn't the same. Maybe Barack Obama would benefit from a lesson from that Christian Bible he has...."let your yes be yes and your no be no."




Secret ballots? What good are they when Barack can see and hold you accountable for what you DO when voting? If you don't vote the way he wants you to vote, and can HAMMER your means of making a living, what do YOU think the gracious Obama would do? He'd do exactly what he is doing right now....He'd have his "surrogates" smash you with the hammer so he could "appear" to be blameless. He could then "feel your pain," but do nothing about it, because He IS beholden to the unions already.




You did a fair job it would appear.

Given that, WHY do you think that Obama is the "right man" to be President?

It DOES seem "funny" that you support Obama REGARDLESS of whether or not you "see" McCain's "pro's." ANY candidate other than Obama would seem to make sense given Obama's ideas of "Change."




You are welcome.




Perhaps it would be a good idea to spend more time on Barack's beliefs about the most vulnerable of our citizens. I'll consider typing that up for your consideration as part of the "who SHOULD I vote for in the upcoming election" process.

Ok now ForeverHers,

I want you to be just as diligent when you do your evaluation of McCain's pros and Cons. I would love to consider McCain's stance on the issues as well but you have not given me any of his pros or cons you only told me about Obama's. So if you can scrutinize McCain list the way you did Obama's I would be very happy to discuss both of them with you.

Just so you know I am not a fence sitter. I know that complaining about problems doesn't fix them. However if you are only pointing out one of the candidates cons and not the other's how can I see both sides of the issues to make the best choice possible. The more I think I don't know if either of these men should be president.It is why I said I want to choose the lesser of two evils. However love it or hate it, one of them will end up as the next president. I know the best way to make any decision is not to let your emotions aid in your choices. So I am doing my best to use my head to make the best choice.

Citizen Tom

Conservative Politics, A Perspective From Gainesville, Virginia
PRESIDENTIAL PROS AND CONS: JOHN MCCAIN — Updated 18 October 2008

with 27 comments

elephantgop.pngBased upon the issues I care about, this post is my effort to evaluate John McCain as a Republican candidate for president. The last section of this post, The Issues, describes those issues.

This post was first written during the Republican primaries. Nonetheless, it still gets quite a few hits. So I have decided to update it and make certain all the links still work. Please bear with me.

Note that I have also prepared a post on Barack Obama, PRESIDENTIAL PROS AND CONS: BARACK OBAMA.

Much of the data in this post is taken straight from the candidate’s websites. In addition, Wikipedia (from here), OnTheIssues.org (from here), The Club For Growth (from here), and some news articles are cited. In addition, I reviewed candidate’s response to a questionnaire from The American Conservative Union (see here).
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION?

Who won the last debate?
John McCain
Barack Obama
> View Results
PollDaddy.com

See this post for an analysis of the poll results.
General Observations

In his response to the questionnaire from The American Conservative Union, McCain offered up an interesting idea.

I believe we should expand the circle of our democratic community, not by surrendering sovereignty but by strengthening its reach through key partnerships. We should start bringing democratic peoples and nations from around the world into one common organization, a worldwide League of Democracies. Too often, the United Nations has simply failed to act responsibly if it acts at all. This new organization would not be like the universal-membership and failed League of Nations of Woodrow Wilson, but much more like what Theodore Roosevelt envisioned: like-minded nations working together in the cause of peace and freedom. It would be the one organization where the world’s democracies could come together to discuss problems and solutions on the basis of shared principles and a common vision of the future. (see here)

If uniting the world’s democracies is a great ambition, then John McCain has great ambitions, and in many respects that is what we need in a president. However, we must ask if the man is up to the task. We must ask what has he done?

McCain’s experience as POW provided the initial impetus for his political career. While McCain brave behavior as a POW deserves praise, being a former POW does not qualify him to be president. What else has he done? As a senator, McCain’s signature accomplishments are either failures, undesirable, or both failures and undesirable.

McCain does not pay enough attention to the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.

* McCain supported the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. Such a change would clearly change the relationship between the President and Congress as described by the Constitution. McCain tried to make the change the easy way. So the Supreme Court declared the bill unconstitutional.
* Because McCain has promoted such legislation as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, he is a darling of the news media. That is because such legislation would limit your right-to-know to whatever the news media chooses for you to know. In other words, come election time, your fellow citizens would not be able to work together to broadcast a differing view.

McCain’s efforts to promote amnesty for illegal aliens, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, has become a national scandal. That is why the bill he promoted did not make it through the Senate.

Instead of with solid accomplishments, McCain has achieved most of his notoriety as a maverick. McCain most of all enjoys success annoying the members of his own party. With Republicans like McCain, who needs Democrats?
The Candidate on the Issues

Education - McCain’s website implies support school choice and the No Child Left Behind Act (although he voted against the original bill; see here). However, McCain does not explain precisely what he intends to do. Based upon its research, OnTheIssues.org rates McCain as favoring school choice

McCain supports a program of federally financed vouchers, but states would decide individually whether to use standardized tests to make high-stakes decisions about who could get the vouchers.

McCain’s proposal would create the most ambitious voucher experiment yet, spending $5.5 billion over three years to present one million students with vouchers of up to $2,000 annually.

To counter the argument that vouchers siphon money from public schools when students leave, McCain would create a new source of financing: the tax money now spent as corporate subsidies.

The senator has yet to define how the vouchers would be awarded, but he has said the poorest children in the worst schools would be immediately eligible. (from here)

The The Club For Growth provides a more emphatic endorsement of McCain’s position on school choice.

John McCain’s record on school choice is very good. He has consistently supported school choice programs, voting for a Washington D.C. school voucher program in 1997[58] and a trial voucher program in 2001 as an amendment to No Child Left Behind.[59] (from here)

Here is Physics Today’s take on McCain’s position.

During the 9 December 2007 republican primary debate on Univision McCain (http://www.ontheissues.org/2007_Univision_GOP.htm) stated

“Choice and competition is the key to success in education in America. That means charter schools, that means home schooling, it means vouchers, it means rewarding good teachers and finding bad teachers another line of work. It means rewarding good performing schools, and it really means in some cases putting bad performing schools out of business. I want every American parent to have a choice, a choice as to how they want their child educated, and I guarantee you the competition will dramatically increase the level of education in America.”

McCain has also suggested turning education policy back to individual states and offering federal money through unrestricted block grants. He will keep most aspects of No Child Left Behind legalization in place. (from here)

Law - In his response to the questionnaire from The American Conservative Union, McCain said:

I believe true conservative governance means limiting the reach of government because no government should have a right to impose itself between human beings and their lawful aspirations to make of their lives what they will. I believe that government that governs least governs best; that government should do only those things individuals cannot do for themselves, and do them efficiently. (from here)

That sounds good, but from my perspective McCain’s respect for individual rights leaves something to be desired. In the past, I have written about McCain’s support for so-called campaign finance reform, McCain-Feingold (see here). McCain took a lead role in promoting his version campaign finance reform. George Will says McCain-Feingold “licensed government to ration political speech.”

As a member of the Gang of 14, McCain’s support for the appointment of conservative judges is somewhat dubious.

* McCain claims he is pro-life, but he has voted to support stem cell research (here and here).
* McCain says he is against the legalization of same-sex marriage; however, he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment (here and here)

McCain defends second amendment rights (here).

National Defense - McCain is running as the foremost defense hawk. As his website says, McCain unequivocally supports victory in Iraq.

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. (from here)

McCain supports a military modernization and buildup, and he wants a missile defense system. However, he has not quantified his support for these things.

Nonetheless, despite his hawkish stance, maverick McCain has managed to give the Bush administration an extraordinary amount of grief over Iraq. McCain has taken the lead:

* Trying to increase the number of troops in Iraq. He constantly complained about Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the war (here). In December 2004, Rumsfeld responded to a soldier’s comments about inferior military equipment by saying “you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want (here).” Given that our military has not grown significantly, it is quite apparent that neither McCain nor Congress want to understand or admit to the problem they gave Rumsfeld.
* Opposing anything that even remotely looks like the torture or mistreatment of the prisoners our forces have acquired in the war on terror (here, here, and here).
* Opposing the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba (here and here).

Immigration - McCain’s position on immigration contrasts radically with his position on National Defense. On his website McCain promises to secure the border (see here). In practice, McCain is a Senate leader in the amnesty movement for illegal aliens (see here). McCain is in bed with Senator Ted Kennedy. McCain and Kennedy crafted the 2007 Senate bill that effectively would have provided amnesty for illegal aliens (here, here, and here). This bill failed only because it so angered the American public that they would not let it pass (see here, here, and here).

Given how the public hated his horrible bill, why is the McCain campaign still able to make any headway? I can think of only three answers:

* The news media likes him.
* With respect to immigration, his competition does not look that much better.
* Too many of us have short memories.

Limited Government - McCain promises tax cuts and to end pork barrel spending (here). In his response to the questionnaire from The American Conservative Union, McCain said:

To reign in government, I believe we must do many other things with controlling spending a top priority. I believe you cannot achieve limited, smaller government without spending restraint, which is why I voted against the prescription drug benefit that became law a short time ago. Let’s start with pork barrel spending and corporate welfare, eliminate all earmarks, pass the line item veto, employ honest budget accounting, and end emergency spending bills for nonemergencies as a way around budget limits. (from here)

How does McCain’s record compare with his rhetoric? The Club For Growth notes (here) that McCain’s record is mixed. McCain has voted for tax cuts and against tax cuts. Initially (2001 - 2003), McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts. Later, (in 2006), he voted for their extension. However, The Club For Growth is happier with McCain’s position on spending, and they provide a long list of the spending he has voted against (here).

McCain was a major backer of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. Understandably, the Supreme Court declared this law unconstitutional.

The Environment - Does John McCain believe in Global Warming? The answer is yes (see the video here). In addition, McCain offers up the usual argument that reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources is a national security issue. However, McCain opposes the Kyoto Treat unless China and India join it. Instead, McCain offers up a national energy strategy (see here). He says this stragegy “won’t be another grab bag of handouts to this or that industry and a full employment act for lobbyists.” To some extent, McCain can be taken seriously on that score. Although he now supports ethanol production, he still opposes subsidies for corn growers (here).

The centerpiece of McCain’s plan to attack the greenhouse gas problem is a cap-and-trade system for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions; he opposes a carbon tax (here), something that would be much more simple and straight-forward.

Grist.org reviews McCain’s environmental record here.

Welfare - Health Care reform is this year’s welfare issue, and that is what McCain addresses on his website (listen to the video here).

McCain states a bunch of nice goals. The good news is that he advocates keeping Health Care in the private sector, and he would get employers out of the business of health insurance ($2500 tax credit for any individual with health insurance). What is worrisome is the extent McCain would have federal regulation override state regulation and cripple our drug industry’s capacity to recover research cost via patent protection.

This (here) WSJ article describes McCain’s plan.

The Economy - A 2005 WSJ editorial contains a now infamous quote.

On a broader range of economic issues, though, Mr. McCain readily departs from Reaganomics. His philosophy is best described as a work in progress. He is refreshingly blunt when he tell me: “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.” OK, so who does he turn to for advice? His answer is reassuring. His foremost economic guru is former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm (who would almost certainly be Treasury secretary in a McCain administration). He’s also friendly with the godfather of supply-side economics, Arthur Laffer. (from here)

So what is economic plan? McCain website focuses on reducing taxes and spending. We have had presidents with far worse ideas.

Here is McCain’s economic stimulus plan.

Candidate Website -See ELECTION 2008 PRO AND CONS: JOHN MCCAIN WEBSITE REVIEW for a more complete review.

McCain’s website is professional quality. The website highlights is military service, particularly as a POW, and his attractive lady.

The issues pages, the pages of most interest to me, contain a fair amount of content. Nevertheless, McCain simply avoids providing substantive information on those issues where he has proven himself quite unpopular with rank and file Republicans. McCain’s Lobbying & Ethics Reform page provides a slew of platitudes. This page does not say what McCain intends to do nor does it mention that the Supreme Court declared much of McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, unconstitutional because it trespassed on First Amendment rights. To anyone the least bit familiar with McCain role on immigration issues, the Border Security & Immigration Reform page can only be accurately described as pathetically uninformative.

Personal Life - I write this section last because I find it awkward. We cannot judge each other. We can attempt to judge each other, but we do not know enough for any such judgment to be accurate. And in the end, any such judgment becomes a self-judgment. So what use is this section?

We each set a public example for each other. What of John McCain’s public example (see here)? In spite of his shenanigans as a cadet, McCain record of military service was exemplary; his story as a POW is well known. His infidelity to his first wife is also well known.

More disturbing, however, is McCain’s role in the Keating Five scandal. Without a doubt, McCain at gave the appearance of exercising undue political influence on behalf of a contributor.

As citizens we need to keep in mind is that when politicians exercise undue influence on behalf of contributors, they are acting to destroy our society. The Savings and Loans Crisis cost our government well over a 100 billion dollars. Similarly, unscrupulous lenders peddling subprime loans threaten to launch our economy into a recession. Thus as we read the last few lines of this article, we should keep politicians such as John McCain in mind.

The feds really should have known better. Yet they ignored a basic principle—that no level of government has a monopoly on good policy—to brush aside state legislatures’ thoughtful efforts to protect their citizens from rapacious lenders. As the feds move to clean up the subprime mess, it’s worth remembering that they helped create it. Maybe the next time around, they’ll remember that sometimes the states know best. (see here)

The Issues

* Education - Ostensibly, the Federal Government has no role with respect to education. Unfortunately, the lack of constitutional authority does not seem to stop elected officials from spending money and issuing mandates. I want this abuse of authority to stop.
* Law - Our president should understand the law and be willing to live within the law. Our president should take the lead in protecting our rights, particularly freedom of religion, the cornerstone of American Law. As a conservative, I also think Supreme Court judges such as Anthony Scalia and Clarence Thomas have the best understanding of the Constitution. I want more such judges appointed.
* National Defense - To deter potential aggressors, it is imperative that we have a strong military and an ethical strategy designed to protect our vital national interests. We cannot cavalierly abandon Iraq.
* Immigration - Our nation is being slowly overrun by poor, uneducated, illegal immigrants. Since most of these people come from Spanish speaking nations to the south of us, our nation is being balkanized into different language and economic groups. What that portends for the future is civil strife.
* Limited Government - You will not see a balance budget or low taxes in this list. What I am looking for is a candidate who sees all spending as discretionary and that we have too much government. We do not need a candidate who makes promises to hand us other people’s money. As I see it, anybody who will rob Peter to pay Paul cannot be trusted not to rob Tom too.
* The Environment - A clean environment is a fundamental right. To protect the environment, we need a strong environmental policy. Such a policy cannot depend on the scientific wisdom of politicians. No human being, not even a politician able to make endless promises, has sufficient brain power to figure out how to build a modern industrial society that does not pollute the environment. What our government can do, however, is punish polluters when they dump pollutants into our environment. Thus I want candidate who understands the difference between stopping polluters and trying to run private industry.
* Welfare - The welfare state is a massive scam; welfare is politicians buying us with our own money. Our cradle-to-grave welfare state is also a steadily growing national disaster. Even though the Federal Government has no constitutional authority throw our money into these idiot programs, each year we put a greater percentage of the Federal budget into welfare programs. Eventually, the money must run out.
* The Economy - Because none of us know enough to run everybody else’s business, government must have a limited role in the economy. What government can and must do is regulate economic activity. Government encourages economic activity by ensuring that buyers and sellers are honest. In addition, government encourages economic activity by establishing a currency for exchange and standard weights and measures. Government cannot and does not create jobs.
* Candidate Website - Any candidate fit to run our nation should be able to set up a decent campaign website. That candidate should also be forthcoming about his record and what he intends to do if he is elected.
* Personal Life - Character makes a difference. If we want our nation to strive for high ideals, then the person we select to lead us must honorable and trustworthy. We should not allow a candidate to buy our vote, but people do. By suggesting that those of us who want to vote for a trustworthy politicians are fooling ourselves, some seemingly revel in the fact too many candidates are unworthy of our trust (see here). That makes for a sad state of affairs and says how much we need to pray for our leaders.

Why? I am not "undecided" about who I will vote for.

Is there some specific area of "McCain's pros and Cons" that you would like me to comment or opine about?




Obviously, since you stated that you are FOR Obama. However if you are NOT "already decided," then you are sitting on the fence, eh?




There doesn't seem to be any "how can I see both sides of the issues to make the best choice possible," since you already stated that you are FOR Obama.




That is correct, one of the two candidates WILL be the next President of the United States. Whether or not we "think" either one of "should be" the President is irrelevant. THAT issue was decided in the Primaries.




Okay, then are you saying that you are NOT for Obama and that you are still "undecided?" I ask that because I am not undecided. I HAVE evaluated each candidate, regardless of the FACT that neither one of them would have been my "1st choice." The two of them ARE our "only choice" in this election.

Ok Foreverhers you still have not given McCain's list a through once over. If I am sitting on the fence and I can't decide which one to choose how do you convince me that one is better than the other? I have no certain points I want you discuss. I want you to discuss his list in full the way you did Obama's. I would like you to do that to the best of your abilities and honestly with out bias.

I quoted you here.

"I am waiting with Bated Breath."

You are not undecided about who you will vote for and since you don't believe me when I say I am open to my choices. Let's pretend I can't decide who is the better man for the job. What makes McCain best for the job and what about his campaign don't you like? It is clear you are for McCain if not the fact you can go on in great detail about all of Obama's faults yet you can't do the same for McCain but you are dodging questions with the same skill of both McCain and Palin.

Good luck getting a single item from McCain's "Con" list.

I'll tell you what, DIG, why don't you list the issues that you care about, that will be the issues upon which you decide which of the two candidates MOST CLOSELY supports what you think ARE the "correct position" relative to what YOU believe.

Then it will be a lot easier, and perhaps a little less time consuming, to contrast the two candidates and perhaps "nudge" you off the fence in one direction or the other.

As for Krazy's comment, just ignore him for now, he is "Obama no matter what" and not into a rational discussion. Witness his brilliant reparte post as an example of "non-issue related responses."



If you have no list of things you want to discuss what is the point in taking the time (significant for slow typing me) for me to go "point by point" on that list?

I'd much rather focus on what YOU think is important for YOUR consideration of candidates or maybe you could even "rank" them in order of importance to you.

Witness the continuing lack of a single item on McCain's list of cons.

Talk about being for a guy, no matter what...

This is comedy. You are doing the whole avoidance thing just like McCain/Palin. Is that why you are for them? You all have avoiding questions down to a science?

I think you can't answer that question honestly without making McCain not seem as good and wholesome as you are trying to portray him and since you have your mind made up you don't want to start doubting your decision so you dance around the subject.

Seeing as how you want specifics how is this? Can you go into detail about his economic plan, his plans for education, his health care ). His moral character. His rage issues. In general why he would be a better choice for office?

Or maybe you don't know much along these lines because he himself doesn't know. With all his experience and knowledge he seems to have even less of an idea of what to do when/if he get into office then Obama. This is my take on it. I could be wrong and I would like you to fill me in so I can make a better assessment. The only real issues McCain ever really seems to focus on is attacking Obama and deflecting questions he is ill equipped to answer.

Krazy71 it seems getting an answer on the whole cons thing is not all I can't get. He hasn't given me any pros either.

Since you knew he wouldn't answer I can only assume this is not the first time you all have had this discussion.

Your assumption would be correct.

And yet you could say this...


Anyone who was paying the slightest bit of attention to the political discussion here would know that Foreverhers has not had any problems saying what he disagrees w/ McCain about.