I have heard (and read)throught the vitriol of some of the moderates-wannabe leftist here and elsewhere about their thougths on Palin…cosidering arguments against her because she's inexperienced is a total hypocrisy. Most of the people critiquing her because she has “no experience” will vote for Obama with 141 days worth of senatorial experience.

Futhermore, Obama has completly lied about his little to no experience as community activist, and has never commanded anything. If anyone wants to put him on the nuclear button, go right ahead, but I rather have experience than no-experince and lies. Palin has more experience as VP than Obama as POTUS.

Additionally, I think most people who are simply voting him on the the fact that he's half black are doing so because they want to give the chance to someone that is not white to represent them, in a seek-twisted desire of seing him succeed disregarding the obvious elements of his lack of any qualifications for the job whatsoever.

Finally, let me add that I think that McCain is not the bst guy for the job. Maybe we need an honest version of Bill Clinton or something…but he/she is not running. Obama is. And his twisted lies…like McCain voted with POTUS 90% of the time…well, biden voted with Bush 50% of the time and Obama 40%. Does that make them 1/2 of Bush?, all these is making me go the McCain route…maybe Hillary will be able to run in 4 years and the mess will be over then.

This statistic says more about the lack of understanding of most Americans about the Supreme Court's decision-making than anything else. Every justice votes according to “what is written in the constitution.” They may differ on what various constitutional provisions mean, but not on whether to follow the Constitution. The characterization that decisions republicans oppose are due to not justices not making decisions based on the Constitution is just Kool-Aid. And apparently 60% of Americans are drinking it.

“Why are you worried about Roe v Wade. Even if it was overturned, it would not outlaw abortions, just turn it over to the states, and most abortions are in blue states where it would still be legal.”

People are worried because Roe v. Wade is about whether individuals should make the decision regarding this highly private matter closely related to personal beliefs in religion and morality or whether government should. Given our commitments to individual freedom and less government, opposition to turning over an individual private decision to government is an understandable position.

The reason the right wants legislatures to decide instead of individuals is because they believe they would have sufficient votes in most states to force their individual choices through state coercion on others. Other than the libertarians, the idea that republicans are all about less government is a farce.

I agree with you that Obama voted the wrong way here. To echo 8isEnough though, you are going to have to vote 3rd party this year if this is a fundamental issue for you, because McCain clearly supports all of these changes and more. He's voted in support of numerous similar and stronger bills.

L, your concern of not having the US Constitution upheld: he was a professor in Constitutional law. He knows it inside and out — I'd say that's more than the current crew leads us to believe. And again, where does McCain come out in this? You would trust him more to uphold the Constitution than Obama? And if yes, based on what?

The direction of his shifts don't bother me too much, its the nature of them. I mean how can we, the voter, trust a man who was willing to give up his principles and vote for FISA for political convienience? We aren't talking a minor item here, we are talking about trashing the US Constitution and granting retroactive immunity to telecoms who assist in warrantless wiretapping.

The President swears an oath to uphold the US Constitution, I don't trust Obama to ba able to do that.

As for SCOTUS consent in the Senate, it's still true that Presidents, of either party, get the justices they want. My comment was in reply to your earlier remark that “it doesn't work like that”. In fact, it DOES work like that, irrespective of where the “problem” lies.

But I think you're ignoring something incredibly fundamental to American life, and that is the desire to be better off than the previous generation. In modern times, that often means getting an education. You may look down on the “ivory tower” of academia, but I and most other college graduates are incredibly proud of our achievements and our education. Would you prefer that we wallow in ignorance? That we allow the mediocre to lead us further away from progress? The Ivy League alum is every bit as American as the high school drop out. The chemical engineer is every bit as representative of American values as a soccer mom.

If we put aside all the minutia for the moment, the question is this: Do we want to reward the Bush administration and its catastrophic follies by ushering in McCain, a man whose policies (and campaigning strategies) echo the current villains in power? If the past 8 years had yielded American prosperity and pride, I would say there would be some real decision making to do. But today? The choice to me is blindingly clear.

Re: small town mayors: haven't been in a position to observe any mayors first hand. I have, however, watched any number of elected officials in other capacities (such as Sheriffs) fire the entire leadership from the prior office holder.

And if you truly feel the SCOTUS nominees are a walk-through in the Senate, then the problem there isn't actually with the executive branch, is it?

I presume that you have positions on a variety of public policy issues. I make the ASSUMPTION that while you were leaning towards Obama, you felt that his policy views were, on balance, preferable to those of McCain. If that assumption is correct, would you be willing to give a couple of examples of how that situation has changed for you because of McCain's selection of Palin?

“Newness to Washington”, or outsider status, is a characteristic that American voters love to fall for. Dubya, Slick, the Gipper, Jimmeh — all outsiders. The only “insider” we've elected since Nixon was Poppy Bush, and he was running against Dukakis. Outsider == no national track record == relatively little baggage. I fully realize that this was a big factor in Obama's decision to run this time around, but I don't really consider it as a positive factor for him, or Palin. I also know I'm in the minority on this point. All I can say is “outsider status” ended up having very little to do with how recent Presidents have governed — what has mattered is ideology.

SCOTUS nominees: I'm sorry, but you're just wrong about this. I'm sixty. The only nominee that has been borked in my lifetime was Bork. The Senate defers to the executive on almost all appointments, and all a prospective justice has to do is plead “I can't tell you my opinion on possible future issues” and Bob's your uncle.

Palin hasn't done anything to impose her hard-right views on anybody: Well, she hasn't been in a position to, has she? I mean, this could be natural restraint; or it could be that a small-town mayor — or the 21-month governor of the only really libertarian state — just doesn't have a lot of opportunities for social engineering. How would we know? One of the problems with no track record, eh?

Just as a BTW: how many small-town mayors, do you think, start off their tenure in office by requesting the resignation of most of their direct staff as a loyalty test?

Anyhow, cheers. It's America. Sooner or later we'll find out what we voted for.

McCain is not pro-choice. He's been anti-choice for years.

So, I thought I would lay out my thoughts:

Economy: Advantage Obama – McCain has no clue on the economy. If I had a net worth of $5 Million, I would be elite. If I made $5 Million a year, I would be rich beyond my wildest dreams, and he has said that I would be a middle class american? Wow! I seriously pause at this.

Foreign Policy: Advantage Obama – Sure, McCain has all the experience in the world, but what does that do for us? Nothing. What did he say about IRAN? BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN. We don't need another stinking war! We need to chase Afghanistan, get in those hills, and use the insurgency to topple the culprits of 9/11. They weren't in Iraq… they were in Afghanistan, Kuwait, etc. Further, we need a leader that is pined after by the whole world. There isn't a country out there that would choose McCain over Obama… Diplomacy is where we need to go, even with Russia. Obama said he would talk to the the leaders of countries… McCain said that was a horrible idea, and then Bush went and talked to the leaders of Iran. Funny how Bush even came around to that idea. We need a leader that can be respected not just here, but everywhere.

Choices: Advantage Obama – Did McCain really vet Palin? No matter where you turn, the answer is no. It's not that Palin is a bad choice, it's that she is a quick choice. But, she's a bad choice for me due to the following reasons:
She's pro-family, but if elected, has said her family will live in Alaska and she will live in Washington DC. She has five children that need her more than America needs her. She has a down syndrome baby and putting her political ambitions in front of her child proves me to me that she doesn't have what it takes to be a leader in this free world. I would say the same thing about Obama if he had five children, or Biden if he had five (But remember, he takes the train back to Scranton every night to be an influence on his children).
She has a child that is pregnant at 17. She teaches that you shouldn't talk about sex education, yet if she had done such, we might see a decrease in teenage pregnancies. Obama spoke about this, but directed it to the black man. Responsibility. Sarah Palin can't even show it in her own family.
The Bridge to Nowhere – For it, before it was vetoed in Washington.
Troopergate – regardless of the outcome, it was poor judgement on her behalf to try to fire her brother-in-law. She should have gone through proper channels.
The Sports Complex: Alaska didn't even own free and clear title to the land before she started building her complex which cost taxpayers millions!
Fiscal responsibility: Her state receives a C- as states go in doing business. It's now riddled with debt, while she cuts checks to Alaskans. Mortgage your future for today's hedonistic acts. Does it remind you of Bush's tax cuts?
I'll stop there… She's not my choice.

Education: Advantage Obama – McCain doesn't know education, never has. Obama fought his way through rigerous studies, and then voluneteered that knowledge to people that were less priveledged. Obama wants to focus his policies on America, not the world around us.

Veterans: Advantage Obama – He wants to increase VA benefits, increase schooling, and increase the reasons to join the military.

Taxes: Advantage Obama – His tax plans call for 3.1 Trillion, whereas McCains call for 5 Trillion

Fiscal Responsibility: I want a balanced budget and to pay off debt. This is a hard call, but I think Obama has this as well.

Courts: Advantage Obama – I want judges that interpret law, but are also smart enough to understand that the black and white of the law doesn't always fit Americans. We have too many horrible judges, and for Bush to name Harriet Miers was a joke. McCain will continue that tradition… a joke.

Abortion: Advantage Obama – McCain is pro-choice, but the reason we have separation of church and state is to keep the religious fanatics out of dictating what we can and can not do to ourselves. Scientific evidence proves, without a doubt, that a viable fetus isn't at conception. Palin, in McCain's absence, would outlaw abortion, even in the most extreme cases, such as a father raping his daughter and getting her pregnant. That's not just socially wrong, that's morally wrong. Birth control, such as progestrone, is not abortion either.

Experience: Advantage McCain – But this election is about change. JFK was about change, and hope. JFK stood high and set a goal to be on the moon by the end of the decade. We acheived it. Obama set a goal of being energy independent in 10 years. If we elect McCain, no such vision will be in place.

Oil: Advantage Obama – I don't want to drill off shore, but that is when McCain's numbers started to bounce… when he SWITCHED HIS POSITION and PANDERED to the far right to DRILL NOW. Drilling is not the answer, alternative energy is.

Hope: Advantage Obama – This isn't even close.

Temperment: Advantage Obama – This isn't even close. People close to McCain have said for years his temper is fast and furious. So if Russia irritates him… watch out, we may be in a nuclear war.

Spokesman for America: Advantage Obama – Let's prove we are the country of opportunity, no matter what color your skin, what sex you are born, what religion you practice. Let's prove that we are a leader, not a follower, a gentle and diplomatic nation. McCain is more of the same, the exact opposite of where our country, where our world, needs to go.

Respectfully,

Jon

Points well taken. But the McCain campaign isn't just spinning — they are lying.

I supported McCain back in 2000, and I am genuinely dismayed at what he is doing — and the positions he has adopted during this election.

To me, any candidate that will lie as blatantly and this viciously and this boldly as McCain has been doing isn't just imperfect — it exposes that they are both reckless and untrustworthy, and are willing to sacrifice everything for power. And it also shows that McCain's campaign has complete contempt for the American voting public. I hated it when Bush used these tactics back in 2000 and 2004, and it is chilling to see it happen all over again. McCain has morphed into his old enemies.

I used to work in politics, and I've always accepted that politicians are imperfect and disappointing. But I can accept Obama's shifts and changes as normal politics. What McCain is doing is something truly scary and malignant, and bodes ill for the way he would behave in office. You can't lead a nation through lies. At least not forever. And that is where we are right now with Bush.

And absolutely yes — the Bridge to Nowhere is being spun into an unrecognizable parody by the McCain camp. I've voiced my problem with this (and the earmarks spin) repeatedly.

If it helps you see my point of view — I was also extremely peeved at Obama when he started over the cliff about NAFTA. He not only shifted his position and pandered, he took advantage of low-information voters on the entire subject.

So many imperfections, so little time.

Shouldn't the fact that McCain's campaign is lying to your face about Palin's signature issue — her claim that she opposed the Ketchikan bridge — raise any red flags for you?

McCain has jettisoned his old political beliefs and has gleefully adopted a new set handed to him by the GOP's most right-wing members. Does that concern you?

You seem to be very concerned that Obama has turned towards the center, and is being more cautious. Will embracing a ticket that features Sarah Palin — who occupies a space on the furthest right part of the American political spectrum?

And how can you wonder for a moment that a candidate's personal views WON'T be translated into their policies when in office? Look at the last seven years!

I could go on and on like this, but my point is simple — this isn't just about Obama. This is also about Obama's opponents. Who happen to be lying, viciously and gleefully, with a big grin, while tacking to their party's far right and viciously attacking their opposition What is past is prologue — and the way that people campaign for political office is a good indicator of how they will govern. And what we are seeing here is downright scary.

Instead of bending over backwards to give McCain and Palin the benefit of the doubt, you should be holding them accountable – and getting very, very concerned.

And this is probably as good a place as any to dispute Don Singleton's claim about the public opinion on Roe v. Wade. (link)