You wrote, “Stockboy- you write of concern about how McCain speaks, in that he's firmly rooted in certain positions like the prolife position. Yet when you look at each man's record, Obama is the one who is more extreme on abortion…”

On the issue of abortion Obama's pro-choice position leaves the decision on whether or not to have an abortion in the hands of the woman, doctor, pastro, family, etc. McCain's position would make abortion illegal, giving no one a choice. When abortion is illegal the rich will fly off to other countries to have it done and the poor will use coat hangers, putting their own lives at risk.

I've posted on here several times before that I'm pro-life, but the decision should be in the hands of the woman. I think any abortion is wrong, but the decision isn't mine to make for anyone else.

You also said, “If the actions of the men don't match the rhetoric, in terms of how willing they are to compromise, then why do you trust the words instead of the deeds?” Again, with regards to abortion, Obama supports pro-choice. He isn't forcing anyone to actually have an abortion who doesn't want it. i think that's compromise. Just like the right to guns…. he has reached out his hand to have a dialogue with the pro-gun people. Obama knows that if he wants to keep military weapons out of the hands of criminals he will need bipartisan support because many lawmakers will not want anything to do with passing legislation restricting guns to criminals….

Somehow DLS, I doubt this would fly with roughly 70% (or more) of the country who feel that we're on the wrong track.

Actually, I disagree. Elitist is being used entirely as a personal smear here. There's no evidence that Obama doesn't understand what goes on in everyday life. There's no evidence that he is particularly inept at knowing many of their troubles. There's no evidence that he doesn't care about others. Just like McCain, he's spent the last 20 years in various legislative venues, typically designing programs to help those people he supposedly doesn't understand. Elitist is being used as a cultural attack. Let's pretend he eats the wrong foods, lives in the wrong cities, doesn't watch the right sports…. I know someone's going to pull out the “clinging” line, but that is not evidence of much of anything. If you take one sentence out of the man's entire life, it sounds oh so meaningful and revealing. But you then have to disregard everything else about the man to make it work. It's only revealing if you already believe what it's supposed to reveal. It's the same thing people were doing with the Palin/Trig pregnancy rumor: pull out 2 or 3 facts and ignore all the others or squeeze and push them to make it fit your favorite story.

Anyway, despite my botching the experience goal thing earlier, I hope the point is clear. Experience is like a a high quality engine pulling a train. Its function is to get you somewhere. If my hopes for the nation are represented by Georgia on a map, then McCain's headed toward Texas. No matter how excellent the train is, that's not where I wanted to go.

Remember that the GOP has been dysfunctional and is on the defensive this year. Many conservatives and Republicans don't like “Juan McCain's” amnesty moves, no more than McCain's defiance of conservatives and the GOP on certain issues from time to time (or just limelight seeking, which may have paid off at least to the point of nomination for GOP Presidential candidate as of this week). McCain has never been a very appealing candidate and I consider him still to be dull and weak (I had no idea how well or poorly he would have spoken last night; he did surprisingly well). The audience was _surprisingly_ united — to me last night this was union at a surreal level. All the dissension and controversy frequently associated with McCain was absent — deliberate denial, for the election's sake. It's perfectly understandable: at least a Republican of some kind, at least nominal (RINO), will be in the White House rather than a Democrat. That, and of course the Palin popularity that really has revitalized the party this week, is what is at issue.

McCain gave a good speech. (There was no guarantee of this and we didn't know what to expect.) He successfully ended the convention on a high note, boosting the GOP's momentum, and now we have to wait a week or longer to see the afterglow subside (and the idiocy from the Left such as I already heard on the Stephanie Miller show this morning, and have seen in more demented post-speech postings on this site, for example) subside and interest in McCain-Palin be “rebalanced” at a new natural level with respect to Obama-Biden (interest in which will now resume).

What I disagree with you on is the extent to which Obama will do that on hard issues. I have seen some people cite evidence of his early experience in the state legislature, where he was able to develop some consensus among people who'd previously disagreed. But those local issues generally aren't ideological- plus, there really isn't much of a conservative contingency in Chicago so you're basically talking about compromise between the far left and the moderate left, or different factions of the Democratic party (I see that situation as the mirror image of GWB in Texas, working with moderate Democrats- and we all know how that worked out when he got to DC.) I haven't really seen any evidence of Obama reaching across the aisle to Republicans, except where it was the Republicans who were breaking with their own party.

On a side note, what point was made by the crowd going through their “USA” chants whenever protestors appeared?

CONSERVATIVES FIRED UP

And that renewed zeal has one cause: Sarah Palin. While we're at it, don't think for one minute that the images of Palin family solidarity, even through personal crises, won't resonate with the average voter.

As for McCain, expect more of the “We blew it, but we will change” rhetoric. It's endearing, and appeals to most people's inclination to give others a second chance.

Bottom line? Americans understand that having both the legislative and the executive under one party's control is not in the nation's best interest, period. It's too strong a temptation to corruption for the party that controls both the legislative and executive levers of power.

I wonder how history might have been different if the Dems controlled Congress in 2000 and President Bush had been forced to work with them in the same way he'd worked with the Democratically controlled legislature in Texas?

As for Bob Barr: Yikes! No thanks, T_Steel.

We will have to agree to disagree on bipartisanship, it sounds like. What you view as a sham, I view as the best way to govern. Very likely I expressed it poorly since your last paragraph talks about the problem of taking credit. What I have in mind is working with people who have all sorts of ideas to find the best plan to accomplish goals. What if he were to work on education reform and ideas of vouchers came up as well as, say, programs to reduce classroom size and a graduation retention program which are federally funded. What happens today is that Republicans scream, “Vouchers!” and Democrats scream “No, increase funding!” And they scream and nothing ever happens. The only thing they can take credit for is stopping the bad guy from implementing their horrible plan. The children of course then receive no help.

A decent idea to get around nothing happening would be to pilot models of each program in different places for two years and re-assess. Would that be a sham and co-opting others ideas or would that be seeking common ground to get something done? I choose the latter.

A different idea I did a guest post on a year or two ago was about fighting poverty by combining tax incentive ideas, which at least once were the primary method that Republicans offered, with things like educational assistance and increase community policing, which Dems often favor. Instead of debating which of these is the best, forever, try using both, but use them for a limited area… Again, is that stealing or finding solutions? (Of course, that particular idea may be lousy; the point is to implement the best ideas you can find no matter which party came up with them.)

On the styles of bipartisanship, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. What you praise in Obama's style is a sham as far as I'm concerned- that's not compromise, that's coapting the good ideas of the other party as long as they're compatible with your own party's plans, and then claiming credit for them (of course, Obama has a record of that, too, as when he steps in before a news conference and claims that he worked on a bipartisan bill when he really had little to do with it.)

I felt that McCain made an excellent point last night- that the politicians in Washington need to stop worrying about who gets credit for solving problems, and just focus on getting the job done. I believe his record indicates that he really means it, too.

Seriously? I find that hard to believe. I'm quite conservative and disagree with a lot of Obama's plans, but I wouldn't even put my level of discordance with him nearly that high.

Of course, when I see that you are then attributing things to McCain as his 'goals' which are nonsensical (he has the 'goal' of warmongering and black and white foreign relations? That's absurd) then I guess I can see why you are putting your disagreement level so high. I think it would be far more accurate to say that you believe that his approach will result in certain negative things, rather than to say that you disagree with his goals. For instance, I agree with McCain's assessment that some of Obama's plans will lead to loss of jobs- but I certainly wouldn't say that Obama has the goal of increasing unemployment!

At least that's my take on the two men. It's got problems. For instance, Obama's interest in faith-based programs is McCain-esque in that it's not a typical Democratic position right now.

“I don't mind a good fight. For reasons known only to God, I've had quite a few tough ones in my life. But I learned an important lesson along the way: In the end, it matters less that you can fight. What you fight for is the real test.”

He is right and this is exactly why I cannot vote for McCain. I value experience, but the usefulness of experience is how it helps you reach your goals. Unfortunately, I disagree with 80% of McCain's goals, and so his experience only helps make things worse (in my opinion). So, yes, the real test is in what you fight for. McCain has been displaying far too much interest in goals of war mongering, black and white foreign relations, supporting same sex marriage amendments, limited interest in alternative energy, and much more.

By the way, eltitist, snob, and arrogant are simple name calling, based upon nothing, other than some random personal dislike. But have at it. That way I can copy that up next time you get angry at someone else name-calling McCain or Palin. (”Oh, but it's a simple fact that he's a snob because I heard he may or may not like arugula lettuce. And you can see it on his face.” Sigh.)