McCain finally had the cojones to take up the issues dogmatic talk show hosts and listeners yearned for him to grab on to and HIT HIT HIT, but it looked rather petty after McCain has been seen chastising, even taking the microphone from his own campaign rally attendees, when they have by intent, or ignorance, sought to promote myths and fairy tales about Obama (he's an Arab, he's a Muslim, he isn't a Unites States citizen, etc.) that have saturated the group of rabid right zealots who are so susceptible to conspiracy theories.
Obama on the other hand, while forced to respond to empty accusations, returned time and time again to the ISSUES.
Obama also did a far better job refuting and explaining his past votes, such as "present" rather than for a bill or against it. McCain didn't bother to even deny the fact he intends to give "massive tax breaks" to "Big Oil."
Even when Obama himself used tired, easily refuted "facts," they were mostly left to fester, as McCain seemed unable to effectively deny anything Obama had to say.
Lastly, someone should tell McCain he doesn't have a sense of humor, and should quit trying to make light of important issues.
Better yet, they should just tell him to go buy one, and get a staff writer. May I suggest Dennis Miller.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 37
How can Obama present himself as the candidate of change, when he went to Reverend Wright's church for 20 years, when he is pals with William Ayers and supports Acorn?
I agree, voter fraud is a real issue. So what ?? When the liberals were yelling "selected not elected" in 2000, I was calling them a bit wacko too. Hanging chads anyone?
Obama's main connection to the A-corny ones, is limited to the one case where he stood alongside the US Justice Department, in forcing a "motor voter law," into existence. I find nothing wrong with this position, even if it did seem to benefit Acorn's agenda.
Ayers is another story, and Obama hasn't done a good enough job of explaining why this issue is a red herring. Obama should be more forthcoming about how much time he has spent with this man, and how much of his political philosophy aligns with Ayers' philosophy.
As for the Reverend Wright, it is a mistake to judge a black man's words, with a white man's mind. Jeremy Wright comes from a time and a place far removed from the hip hop America we know today. I understand Obama's loyalties to the man, and understand what drives that loyalty. Once again, I find nothing amiss, and fail to perceive the mentioning of Wright's name.
I have a number of relatives, close relatives, old enough to have been affected by the same group think disease of bigotry afflicting the Reverend Wright, and I am as loyal to them, as Obama has been to Wright for one simple reason: they are a product of their times, and I am not going to sit in judgement of societal ills that have infected so many individuals of their day.
In large measure, they are a merely a microcosm of the past, and will soon enough be silenced by the grave.
IMO McCain contiunes to make the same mistake that has characterized the RW movement since Newt and Ronnie: failure to respect the legitimate values and concerns of characterized as "liberal" or "progressive." McCain does not respect Obama as a peer and a valid voice of an enormous and growing segment of the populace. It is the same oozing of contempt that characterized the Repub leadership in the Congress and obstruction since they lost control. It is the same distain Bush has shown since 2000. It might have been "excusable" in a perverse sort of way when the there was perchance a legitimate reason to support the RW ideology but when it is discreditied and proven a disaster it amount to calling the people "whiners." Don't work.
He's infected with the same disease, the whole "I know how to reach across the aisle," makes me SICK.
I voted for Obama, because there is no conservative to vote for. I opted to vote on the side of history, and make the color of Obama's skin, the "reason" to vote this time around.
The scariest part of this election is the very strong possibility that the Democrats will obtain the presidency AND a 60 seat majority of the senate. Talk about the chances of a stacked Supreme Court!
I see no way that the Republicans can do well with the senate elections. I would almost...almost be willing to have McCain as a president in order to balance the President/Senate power scale except for one thing...Sarah Palin.
I'll most likely vote for Bob Barr...although I don't like him and I think he is simply an opportunist who saw the shift of our country's support for the two party system failing before the shift (the disguist) was so apparent. I do endorse most of the Libertarian Party's agenda and I hope my third party vote will be counted as my protest to the current lack of leadership by both the Democrats and the Republicans and I hope to help strengthen the Libertarian Party's presence as a meaningful force and contender in future elections, both at the federal and the state level.
I cannot support most of the social issues near and dear to evangelicals and charismatics. It boggles the mind how any freedom loving person could agree to support the overturning of Roe Vs. Wade, how anyone could support the denial of civil unions (not marriage) to the homosexuals. It is idiotic in the extreme to suggest the 2nd Amendment does not allow for some forms of gun control ( must take a class and register your gun for example.)
Sure, Roe Vs. Wade was a bad decision, creating a bad law that usurped the rights, and the authority of the State, versus the federal government. But it is now the law of the land, and a precedent has been set. As a conservative I can tell you I believe it is a foolish waste of time in seeking to change a law that has been the law of the land for over thirty years.
But are there enough people to generate a viable third party??? I personally doubt it. There aren't really enough people watching and engaged in politics period, to make it a reality.
John Anderson and Ross Perot are the only people to make a "successful" bid for the presidency, and neither one of them surpassed the 20% threshold of American voters, and neither one of them was a libertarian, they built their support from scratch out of whole cloth.
As for Sarah Palin, it is my greatest hope McCain IS elected, and dies in the first year of office. I'd vote for Sarah Palin in a heartbeat, were she at the top of the ticket.
I don't give a rat's ass about "experience," just show me the character of the person. Sarah Palin has shown me she has the kind of character I'm looking for. Yes, she seems rather strident about abortion--- I couldn't care less. The most any conservative could ever do is send the authority to regulate abortions back to where it belongs, the State, and that's fine by me, as Roe Vs. Wade really should never have been heard, much less decided in favor of a federal role.
Palin is the kind of "every day American" that should be in politics, someone that has nothing to do with Washington, and everything to do with a grassroots effort to govern the country under the rubric of "we the people."
I sick and tired of "professional" politicians that do nothing but expand the reach and role of the federal government in areas they have no business meddling in.
A poll was taken recently suggesting a full 60% of all Americans believe someone picked at random, could do the job just as well as a "real" politician.
That should tell us something about the electorate that most politicians seem to be unable to grasp.
She hasn't the kind of character I'm looking for. My objections are to her religious agenda...Dominionism, she stated her support for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public school science classes during her bid for governor of Alaska, she has actively opposed the legal union of gay couples, she has described the war in Iraq as "a task from god", her literal interpretation of the Bible condemns homosexuality "an abomination", she is against stem-cell research...I could go on with this but my point is that Palin has repeatedly melded her ultraconservative religious agenda with her political aspirations and goals.
I have no problem with the assertion that our ""professional" politicians that do nothing but expand the reach and role of the federal government in areas they have no business meddling in" but I fail to see any indications that Palin would avoid meddling in affairs that she has no business meddling in...including the violation of the doctrine of the separation of church and state.
I disagree that abortion should be "regulated" at the state level. The policy of state by state abortion laws would only serve to accomplish two things, force interstate travel for legal abortions and force illegal and dangerous non-professionally practiced abortions.
Palin is not an everyday American...at least I hope she doesn't represent the everyday American. I hope the everyday American isn't as irrational and delusional as Sarah Palin.
If you don't agree abortion is a State authority/power issue, you don't understand the Constitution, which states very clearly, any authority/power not SPECIFICALLY GRANTED to the federal government, is left to the States.
The Cosntitution is basically a list of powers the federal government shall have, and a bill of rights, protecting the individual. The Constitution is SILENT about abortion, and therefore, Constitutionally, a State authority/power issue.
This is basic Constitutional law.
Since you state that disqualifies Obama from talking about change, then I assume that you are saying that ACORN, Ayers and Wright were all preaching against change in this nation? Butter read a bit more on these people, you might no like their change but they were definitely for a change.
Ayers was active at a time when we were involved in a previous unpopular war and the nation was split. Ayers took a side and pursued it to extremes of which most people do not approve.
I find it incredible that you link those three into the message of change in America! The discussion of these people is really an effort on the part of those submitting the subject, to obfuscate the issues and make them devolve into simple personal attacks and slander. I also believe the American people, watching the debate, viewed McCain's grasping for these negative aspects as being desperate and ill founded for the best interests of his candidacy or his party. He began to appear that he was flogging a dead horse and couldn't respond with new and meaningful arguments.
Obama, on the other hand, remained cool and composed, eschewing the opportunity to respond in kind to McCain's claims and allegations. He tried to keep the conversation focused on the issues and was clearly addressing the American people in a more positive manner.
I watch very little television and I have probably seen far fewer campaign commercials than most.
But as far the Constitutional authority and abortion...there are several arguments FOR the right to abortion based upon the Constitution. The "authority/power" of the Constitution is broader that the specifics of a particular issue. Issues and decisions based upon the Constitution use the Constitution as a framework of principals, not as the specifics of certain points of contention.
In Roe v Wade, SCOTUS considered several arguments based upon amendments which are exclusive of the specific topic of abortion. One argument was abortion bans are a violation of the 9th amendment, which states that the first eight amendments are reserved to the people. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, the framers of the Constitution understood that there is no way that all the issues of rights and privateness of the people could be specifically addressed.
SCOTUS chose to base the Roe v Wade decision on the 14th amendment...the right of privacy which was partially defined by the previous ruling of Griswold v Conn. (struck down a ban of the sale, use and distribution of contraceptives).
Your Constitutional argument about abortion is acknowledged jJack, but it is not accurate. Your argument is not "basic Constitutional law".
Even many liberals acknowledge Roe Vs. Wade was a bad decision. It was a power grab by the court, plan and simple.
Only the most obdurate, intractable liberals continue to maintain it was "a good decision," even though they believe, as do I, it should remain the law of the land.
White's dissent used strong language, suggesting Roe was "an exercise in raw judicial power" and criticizing the decision for "interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life." White, who usually adhered firmly to the doctrine of stari decisis, remained a critic of Roe throughout his term on the bench. (See Thornburg v. American College of OBGYN from 1986 )
Confused about stari decisis?
In the United States and England, the Common Law has traditionally adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle, known as stare decisis, distinguishes the common law from civil-law systems, which give great weight to codes of laws and the opinions of scholars explaining them. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered a question, the same question in other cases must elicit the same response from the same court or lower courts in that jurisdiction
Any real conservative will adhere to the spirit and letter of the law, as percieved through the prism of stari decisis. This is precisely why I deny the legal basis for Roe Vs. Wade, while accepting the fact it is now the law of the land, and such a precedent should remove any possibility for Roe to be overturned.
What about Alan Dershowitz ?? Would you like to hear from this liberal as well ???
I can name many others that agree with me. Roe Vs. Wade was bad law, using INTERPRETATIONS of what old men in black robes merely BELIEVED THEY KNEW what the founding fathers meant by what they DIDN'T EVEN SAY.
As the Constitution is our only REAL INSIGHT into the LEGALLY BINDING ideas our founders held, it should be strictly ENFORCED and NEVER interpretate to fit current popular ideas about what is wrong and what is right.
The Constitution is not a "living document," at all, it is SET IN STONE and does not change with the whim of the populace.
If the public opinion counted for anything, we'd still have slavery, women wouldn't be allowed to vote, and prohibition would never have been enacted.
These issues are in fact BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, and are only refuted by activists on both sides of the aisle.
" This (stari decisis) is precisely why I deny the legal basis for Roe Vs. Wade, while accepting the fact it is now the law of the land, and such a precedent should remove any possibility for Roe to be overturned."
Not if the definition of when life beings is changed. The legal basis if the R v W decision is an endorsement of our rights to privacy against state action. The state must have some interest in interfering in our private matters and an unborn fetus hasn't the rights of protection until they have reached the point at which they can survive birth. The fetus doesn't have the "right" to live in the body of another. There is no "right", even for an adult, to be supported by the efforts of someone else.
"The Constitution is not a "living document," at all, it is SET IN STONE and does not change with the whim of the populace."
No the Constitution does not change. But it is used as guidance for specific circumstances that must be decided.
"If the public opinion counted for anything, we'd still have slavery, women wouldn't be allowed to vote, and prohibition would never have been enacted."
Right jJack.... and if left to the states...many would still allow slavery, in many states women wouldn't be able to vote and prohibition would never have been enacted. In fact...the initiative of the unification or melding of church and state is alive in some states...as is the effort to restrict gay rights and other violations of our freedoms and rights.
I don't know.
I stated that in the first sentence.
The legal basis if the R v W decision is an endorsement of our rights to privacy against state action
That's NOT a "legal basis," as there is no precedent to connect abortion to "privacy rights" which aren't stated in the Constitution either. It isn't a "legal basis" on which Roe was decided, it was an INTERPRETATION of the Constitution, not an ENFORCEMENT of the Constitution---- big difference sports fan.
The fetus doesn't have the "right" to live in the body of another.
It doesn't ??? If the woman puts that fetus in her womb, where else should the fetus go ??? Spreading your legs without facing the consequences isn't a "privacy" issue, it is a SELFISH, ARROGANT ISSUE.
There is no "right", even for an adult, to be supported by the efforts of someone else.
Oh really ??? You mean a parent isn't obliged to support his own offspring ??? Why is child support strictly enforced around the country? ???
There is a legal basis is if one accepts that there is a right to privacy against state action...that some justification must accompany any intrusion. The obstacle for the anti abortionist or the anti Rove v Wade advocate is that if the intrusion to save an unborn fetus IS justified ...it hinges upon the definition of the rights of a fetus vs the rights of the mother. The legal definition for the rights of the fetus don't exist until the fetus is considered to be a person. (I happen to believe that life begins at conception, but this is not consistent with the current legal definition.)
"There is no "right", even for an adult, to be supported by the efforts of someone else.
Oh really ??? You mean a parent isn't obliged to support his own offspring ??? Why is child support strictly enforced around the country? ???
I said "even for an adult"...
"Spreading your legs without facing the consequences isn't a "privacy" issue, it is a SELFISH, ARROGANT ISSUE." It may very well be that "it is a SELFISH, ARROGANT ISSUE", but the issue of privacy and the right to "spread one's legs" have been established.
I do see a contradiction in the definition of when life begins...a legal issue. This would be the double murder charge when a pregnant woman is killed. The line is blurry as to when the child has achieved the legal status of "citizenship"...could the unborn child have survived if born prematurely at the time of the murder? The law is all over the map about this definition and the parallel of the comparison to an aborted fetus is legitimate.
JJack...I hope you haven't drawn the conclusion that I am pro abortion. I am only arguing the principal of the Roe v Wade ruling...not the moral issue.
Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but doesn't the legal definition of life correspond with the biblical where God says that life begins at first breath?
I am an atheist. I don't accept the existence of a god to describe when life begins. But...I think the legal definition has been the acceptance that a fetus isn't given the status of a person until birth. This is sometimes contradicted by the charge of double homicide...as I have mentioned...when a pregnant woman is killed.
The legal definition is as Slim said--- a fetus is considered a blob of flesh, and not to be considered viable, or "human" outside of the womb. Nevermind the SCIENCE that denies such a claim.
Hence, the morally bankrupt, seek to graduate life, by trimester, with a human being pretending to be G-d, deciding at what point a "human being" is considered "viable."
Most states do not allow third trimester abortions, except of course under the misleading rubric of "the mother's health."
the issue of privacy and the right to "spread one's legs" have been established.
Of course, and it was the BAD DECISION of Roe Vs. Wade that "established this monstrousity of a LEGAL DECISION ! ! ! !
Though the majority decision denied Roe offered up "abortion on demand," that is PRECISELY the effect the irrational ruling had in the free world.
The confession of atheism explains much about your humanistic tendency to place ourselves, human beings as the final word on morality--- too bad that assumption is sadly misplaced.
"Hence, the morally bankrupt, seek to graduate life, by trimester, with a human being pretending to be G-d, deciding at what point a "human being" is considered "viable."
I have said previously that I personally believe that life begins at conception. My personal definition of life is not the topic of conversation here. We have been talking about a Constitutional issue and a SCOTUS ruling which is not concerned with the beginning of life, but the point at which "personhood" begins. But interestingly, the Christian Bible does define life as beginning at the first breath....
Genesis 2:7 states that God made Adam's body from the dust of the ground. But it was only after God "breathed into it the breath of life" that Adam "became a living person."
but it does contain the contradiction that life begins at conception....
"Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb?" (Job 31:15)
"Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb… Thou hast been my God from my mother's womb." (Psalms 22:9-10)
"For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalms 139:13-16)
Jewish law says.... "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life."
Catholics believe "An embryo is an individual, no matter how small. While the embryo receives cells from the mother and the father, it is neither the mother nor the father." Pope John Paul II 3 (1995).
As I said...I believe that life begins at conception...but I also believe that personhood begins later...when the fetus is capable of breathing on its own. I don't accept the notion of a "soul" (being an atheist and all) so I don't have an opinion as to the time the soul enters the life of the united cells...at the time of conception or at some later point.
"The confession of atheism explains much about your humanistic tendency to place ourselves, human beings as the final word on morality--- too bad that assumption is sadly misplaced."
Yes, I believe that we humans are the final word on morality and I also believe that the specifics of morality are subjective to one's point of view and one's heritage and environment. It is therefore not for the individual to decide what the morals (value system) of his neighbor should be...especially if those judgments are based upon an interpretation of a religious doctrine.
The yardstick of tolerable behavior can be defined as ending when that behavior harms another person....live and let live. You may very well point out the contradiction of this opinion as being the harm one does to another when an abortion is performed...particularly because I believe that life begins at conception. You would be correct. But this is the paradox of having to place a personal judgment aside as not to interfere with a personal judgment of another.
The issue becomes one of the distinction between the definition of basic life and the personhood of a living being.
Other violations of tolerable behavior are more clearly identifiable...murder, rape, theft, assault...etc. There is little about which we can differ. For abortion, this is not the case.
The word of G-d is a dichotomy human beings have never been able to fully understand, and probably never will. Such "contradictions" are only contradictions when one is not fully possessed of the proper knowledge. Any attempt to make sense, or logic, from the word of G-d is an exercise in futility, unless you are in a positive state of grace (achieved from the moment by moment scrutiny of your thoughts and actions, looking for any lapses and confessing your flaws as they occur.)
As you seek your counsel, and I seek my own as well, and while you might define "tolerable behavior" with societal norms of the day, I find solace in the rigid message of John 3:16 --- and willingly accept the dogma offered by my Savior.
Such diametrically opposed belief sets are incompatible for a real dialogue, as they speak from very different vernacular.
As for the "protection" of either the mother or the fetus, I do not bother with either sentiment, other than to point out the fetus needs no real protection from the evil of abortion. Since 1973, nearly forty million abortions have been performed, with each and everyone of them (would be human beings) given the blessings of grace, without ever knowing why. These are special circumstances requiring special attention, and I have no doubt whatsoever our benevolent Creator bestows these spiritual riches upon the victims of abortion.
It is the woman that should be looking for the wrath of G-d when they attempt to enter Heaven. Such a sin surely will not prevent these women from entering Heaven, but their actions carried out by free will during their mortal life, must be answered for, or rewarded.
It is the woman that scars her immortal soul when she enters into the evil act of abortion, but as a conservative that believes in limited government, I understand this decision is for the woman to make, without any sort of interference.
Such behavior is none of my business, and we are all free to commit sins as we see fit.
I understand your position here jJack and I agree with you in principal although we differ as to the acceptance of the "dogma offered by my (your) Savior". (I don't believe in everlasting life)
it's just a matter of WHERE you'll spend eternity.....
My belief or your belief has nothing to do with the reality of everlasting life... whether we have a spirit or a soul...one of us is wrong.
I could make Pascal's wager I suppose... :-)
Please, don't tell me what I know.....
HEY MOGGY ! ! ! ! ! ! !