Lucky...

See how it worked for the Democrats in 72. The only way he gets out of this mess is to have her go hunting with Chaney. OK, that would dispose of Cheney, what about her?

Yeah, like if he were to dump her and pick Colin Powell... Oh, nevermind. Never work, McCain = Bush; Powell = anti Bush....it would be purely confusing for the GOP.

I agree with Bill on this one, it shows flexibility rather than riding the ship to the bottom of the ocean as the R's do so well. He could claim the troopergate issue makes him rethink his choice, of course it would have been good last week when it was discovered she did abuse her power. He has a record as an honest guy, he could say he erred and he wants to make a better choice / tight ship / no corruption here..... besides, what does he have to lose?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm not sure that made any sense. But I'll try to respond. What doesn't makes sense of it? I'll break it down: 1) you denounce Bush 2) probably think Palin is underqualifid/unfit to be pres 3) you want McCain, a guy that is 90% that of Bush 1 and 2 establish your logic/position, 3 establishes a contradiction to that logic. I realize you were just posturing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I will vote McCain because he is not Obama. I think McCain has many flaws that I REALLY don't like. I think Obama has way more. There's the third option; don't vote. Abstanence is teh act of saying,"I don't like anything, hence I won't vote." By voting for McCain, you are proactively trying to get the senile guy in, quit apologizing for your choise; wear it like a badge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>See, I can and will criticize republicans in whatever office when they do stupid things I don't agree with, like voting FOR the bailout. But cutting taxes, going into Iraq, etc are nto screw-ups, right. Didn't hear ya yalkin about those. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Will you get all over Obama when he screws up? Yes, as I did Clinton or other presidents I liked. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think Bush has made many mistakes and it makes me mad that his being a republican has hurt conservatism as a whole. truth be it, your own party, as in the electorate, hurt themselves. It's not as Bush misrepresented himself. You could have nominated McCain, but your party did not so blame them/yourself. The neo-cons hurt themselves and now they pay. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think Palin is pretty damn wet behind the ears. I think Obama is just as much so. Obama: > obtained early education in Jakarta, Indonesia, and Hawaii; continued education at Occidental College, Los Angeles, Calif.; received a B.A. in 1983 from Columbia University, New York City; > worked as a community organizer in Chicago, Ill.; > studied law at Harvard University, where he became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review, and received J.D. in 1991; > lecturer on constitutional law, University of Chicago; > member, Illinois State senate 1997-2004; > elected as a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in 2004 for term beginning January 3, 2005. PALIN: > Palin attended several colleges and universities. In 1982, she enrolled at Hawaii Pacific College but left after her first semester. She transferred to North Idaho community college, where she spent two semesters as a general studies major. From there, she transferred to the University of Idaho for two semesters. She then attended the Matanuska-Susitna community college in Alaska for one term. The next year she returned to the University of Idaho where she spent three semesters completing her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987. > Palin won the Miss Wasilla Pageant then finished third in the 1984 Miss Alaska pageant > In 1988, she worked as a sports reporter for KTUU-TV and KTVA-TV in Anchorage, Alaska, and for the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman as a sports reporter > Sarah Palin was elected twice to the city council of Wasilla, in 1992 and 1995. > Mayor of Wasilla for 8 years > Gov of Alaska for 20 months _____________________________________________ So let's be real, beauty queen 2nd runner up, city council member, mayor of a town of 7k, gov of a state with a puny population doesn't make a VP candidate or compare to Obama in any way, again, after your comparison to a pres nominee and a VP nominee. And I didn't even bring up her transient college path that ended up with one of the easiest degrees possible. >>>>>>>>>>>>>I do think that for the party that claims to be for "the little guy", you sure do have problems with a "little guy" getting into office. Palin is not really the little guy. Just because she lacks experiene or education doesn't make her little. If this http://www.northjersey.com/news/nationalpolitics/30239644.html is little, I wanna be little. Nice try tho, she come soff as country stupid, hence little, but she is not.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That's because most people understand that what both candidates are saying on the issues is a load of crap. No, your party has fucked things up and is blamed, hence you want to pull the other side in. Age-old. Just let it go and go fix your party. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>W. "I will restore honor and integrity to the White House" Bill Clinton "I will streamline the federal government and change the way it works, cut 100,000 bureaucrats and put 100,000 new police officers on your streets of American cities" H.W. "Read my lips..." And so on ad nauseum As much as I usually hate ends-justify-means, let's look at the net result and then judge.

Can you point out the Republican ads talking about McCain's cancer, his divorce, the number of houses he owns and his age? Thanks. FWIW, if there have been any pro-Dem ads on radio or TV saying that in particular about JM, I haven't seen/heard them. Yeah, I completely screwed that one up - I meant to point out all the posts here (many by Lucky) talking about McCain's age, cancer, divorce, etc etc etc. That's OK,. there'll be other threads

Can you point out the Republican ads talking about McCain's cancer, his divorce, the number of houses he owns and his age? Thanks. No, and the Dems are proud enough not to either

what's to remark about? A selective misreading by some doesn't warrant much of a response. So.....what about his remarks do you find positive, thoughtful, reformist, or at least vice presidential? What vision for a hopeful or changed America did he convey? What was the REAL vision that we are selectively misreading? He said the next President will have to show some leadership. Duh. I have no idea how this surprises you - if the situation wasn't FUBAR'd, a junior black senator wouldn't have had a chance in this election. Good thing I live in an uncontested state - listening to two more weeks of this sort of lame BS would be tiring. You mean an uncontested blue state, try an uncontested red state

Yet you denounce Bush, probably think Palin is underqualifid/unfit to be pres one day, and you want McCain, a guy that is 90% that of Bush. Fix your own house first.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ok, he has experience being a lawyer and a senator - where has he RAN anything? (Other than Annenberg Challenge and Wood Fund with Ayers, that is) Teaching a law class is running something. Organizing various foundations is running something. You might find it trivial because poor people must suck, but he has constantly and selflessly organized/ran things in a very meritorious way. OTOH, what has McCain ran or organized? The guy is a war hero, served his country, but what has he ran/organized? If Obama's 12 years between the state senate and the US Senate is not running anything, then McCain's is the same; what's your point? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Funny how you keep comparing Obama's experience against Palin - is that the only way you can show him as experienced? Still and all, Palin has several years more EXECUTIVE experience than Obama has. Not at all, I'm just cutting you off before you go there, I'd rather compare Obama to McCain, they have the same experoence within the gov, Obama far more outside the gov. Love it, then at the end of your post you DO GO WHERE I KNEW YOU WOULD and make a comparison between Obama and Palin. This si teh reason McCaone chose her, to distratc from McCain's limited experience, connections to Bush, old senile crustiness, etc. I mean it can't be reasoned for anything else, hell, they can't even let a reporter near her, she's an embarassment. And executive of a town of 8k is a joke as well. Governor for 20 months is still very inexperienced. And her education is less impresssive than mine and hers took several years jumoing from school to school. If she is the new VP she will be the least educated for decades I would venture to say.

That's what I thought. Excuse and more excuses, why try to discuss it with you? It's all done by the Reps and the Dems are innocent angels. As the result seems more and more obvious, you guys are getting testy . You should put it in perspective and realize that you've held the WH for 5 of 7 terms and congress most of that time. You don't have to like it, but understand that it's our turn for easily a decade or 2, altho it may not come to that, it could be 1 term, but understand that you've had your piece of the pie.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think it's one questionable affiliation in a line of questionable affiliations. His judgement on who he chooses to surround himself with is just another thing that bothers me. We could say this about Bush and McCain, bush is considered a very harmful person to the US and McCain seems to love the guy. But when, as applies to the R's, you run on an undesireable platform, then you seem to misdirect to issue not related to performance.....this descreibes the RW.

You guys crack me up, your MO is not to brag your guy's potential performance, but to try to make the other guy personally undesireable. Sad thing is that it works in some cases, look at the last 28 years, 5 of 7 elections it worked. I think American's tolerance has passed and they're done listening to slander, esp slander not related to performance but to personal matters. Look how Obama reacted when news of Palin's unwed daughter came out that she was pregnant; he said it was off limits. If that was the R's, they would be all over that.

Yep. Nor did Michelle's thesis ease any of the discomfort I'm feeling. I see Obama as a left wing radical racist. And that's my point, rather than reviewing his performance in the Senate, state and federal, the RW trys to ad hominem attack him.

If you notice, RW political slander has to do with trying to discredit issues not about that politician's performance, but other generally fabricated or exacerbated issues. Notice that the Dems generally concentrate on issues of performance, past and potentially future if elected. IOW's, will McCain be another Bush fiscally, not will he be fucking some woman or he cheated on his ailing wife, etc.... As time goes on, people see that the R's are politicians, not performers; look at data and you see that is reflected in their results.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081021/ap_on_re_us/death_row_cellphone_4 Texas searches prisons after death row phone found Prison officials said the inmates involved in the cell phone use will face criminal charges or disciplinary actions. Bahahahaha ... Damn, a criminal charge like that could ruin a guy's future. And disciplinary actions, yea, no blended fruit cup for you and your last meal comes from McDonald's. Do these prison officials listen to themselves?

>>>>>>>>>>>>I have an Economist subscription mostly because they're not an American magazine with American biases. Moat things have bias, why not post a citation to your article? If it's in print it s/b on their site. Kinda hard for us to take even a Euro paper seriously from an interpretation from a biased guy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>While Obama might not lie about there being WMDs in Iraq, he shares other politician's propensity to stretch the truth when campaigning. Ok but Obama has thrown the number, 250k out there, McCain, just more fluff blown up our asses about how great things will be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Obama voted "Yea" on 3-14-08 and 6-4-08 to allow expiration of the Bush 28% to 25% rate reduction. Rate reduction? You're not real big on posting citations are you? Kinda helps to support your points, unless you want a mulligan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..Our budget is unbalanced and going increasingly towards interest on the debt. When need to cut spending and/or increase taxes. This is an increase. Clinton increased taxes on the MC ever so slightly and a lot on the rich, Obama will do something like that, basically leave ours alone, slight increase/decrease and hammer the rich. Worked for Clinton, it'll work for Obama - just have to cut ties with the rich which the neo-cons can't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's probably a good increase. As long as people are going to be supporting a government with out of control spending they should be paying a fraction of the price. We'll just have to watch, but Obama is waaaaay above board, esp as compared to crusty.

According to the Economist, Obama is going to raise taxes on people making over $42,000 a yaer. Allowing tax cuts to expire when your oponent doesn't is the same thing as raising taxes. I looked at it and I can't really get a grasp of their stance, they're kinda all over the place. Either way, post the citation of their saying that. Do understand that they're a London-based paper. If we go by what Obama says, there will be no tax increase and he seems pretty honest and forthright of his plans, unlike McCain who hasn't thrown out numbers as to what he plans.

Yea, and liking girls makes me gay (I'm obviously a guy). Liking skydiving makes me a whuffo. And voting for Obama makes me a Republican. So you are voting for McCain but refuse the party.... can't blame ya for the latter.

Who are you voting for?

Very astute of you to notice that. When are they going to realize they're busting their own balls by continuing to say how worthless Obama is, yet acknowledging people are going that way? The back end of that says that their party is worse..... they'll quietly come to that conclusion and quit clammering the rhetoric.

I don't get it either. Here we have a candidate with very limited experience, no accomplishments as a politician, and associations with extremists...yet people are going to vote for him because he's not a Republican. Hypothetically going with you, it shows the decay of the RW....fix your own house and quit trying to win by default by fabricating these fantasies about Obama and terrorists. Remember, you guys did the same thing with Clinton and Jane Fonda? WOrked pretty well then too, huh? Amazing As for inexperienced, Ivy League law school, top of class, taught const law for 12 years, state senator for 8 years, US Senator for 4..... yea, no experience. Then, as the right compared him to Palin, they act as if she's experienced. Several years as mayor of 8000 people, 20 months as governor and she's ready to be pres with the proverbial heartbeat away? Please, organize your own party.

You always were. I could have been persuaded to vote for some other Democratic candidate, even Hillary instead. But not Obama. I just don't trust him. Too many questionable Islamic/Muslim/anti-American connections and he's been trying to cover them up or make them like they're not a big deal. Hehe, heh, heh.... you know, for a minute there you really had me going .... My God. You're really serious. Well yeah, duh. Just look at his background. Associating with certain shady middle easterns, home grown ex-terrorists, radical black activists, etc. Even his own wife wrote a college paper with questionable content in it that I don't think makes her a good first lady for the country. Oh and by the way, the economy was pretty good (maybe not great) the first 6 years of Bush's presidency. It started going to shit soon after the Democrats took control of Congress two years ago. Then the perception is that we would rather have an Islamist terrorist than a Republican.... keep things in perspective. Yea, we had runaway inflation, the housing bubble had already burst in Jan 07, would you like evidence of that? Furthermore, if 911 wasn't Bush's fault per you, even tho he was in office for almost 8 months, then how is it the fault of the Dem House the day after they take office? BTW, the Senate is really a push, as it is 49/49 with 2 indep's, 1 of which goes Repub, Cheney is the tie breaker.

You always were. I could have been persuaded to vote for some other Democratic candidate, even Hillary instead. But not Obama. I just don't trust him. Too many questionable Islamic/Muslim/anti-American connections and he's been trying to cover them up or make them like they're not a big deal. >>>>>>>>>>>I just don't trust him. Yea, and he's gonna turn the WH into an egyptian pyramid!....I think I saw that vid

Ah, I see - so the whole "voted with Bush" thing is just a miscommunication, I'm sure. What McCain means, in his senile way, is that of the bills Bush signed, he voted for 90% them in congress. Or the other way, of the bills McCain voted for in congress, Bush signed 90% of them. That's what the ole crusty dude means with his ramble..... and BTW, it is his ramble not ours.