The Drunken Lizard Pub

I've been concerned about how his words/actions these past few weeks will play with the "disenfranchized voters" who are evidently responsible for making him the party's nominee and might now end up returning to their normal behavior, which is to simply not bother voting. (Not that he really has much chance of losing, anyhow, especially when you add in the Bob Barr factor (he's pulling votes away from McCain not only in on-the-fence Georgia but also Arizona!) ...But it's encouraging to see that a presidential candidate is finally taking on this important issue.

Here's the full speech:
http://www.barackobama.com/2008/07/16/r ... bam_95.php

...and a [typically] weak explanatory excerpt from an AP article :


Obama said two goals of his administration would be to secure all loose nuclear material during his first term, as well as rid the world of nuclear weapons.

He said adhering to nonproliferation treaties would put pressure on nations such as North Korea and Iran. North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon and Iran has an energy program the Bush administration warns could be a precursor to nuclear weapons development.

"As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy," Obama said.

He added, "The danger ... is that we are constantly fighting the last war, responding to the threats that have come to fruition, instead of staying one step ahead of the threats of the 21st century."


...Any thoughts?

simple. It won't happen. China, Russia.....etc. That have Nukes won't get rid of them. We won't either. He can say it all he wants, it just is the same as a lot of other political speaches, empty words that he knows he cannot acomplish. I would be more worried about it if he actually felt he could acomplish it. Oh and it is not a guarantee that he will win. It actually has been shown that 1/3 of clinton supporters will be voting McCain. Also that a large number of those taht voted in the primary won't be voting in the main election.

We have had a Republican leader for 8 years now and quite frankly, he has failed us utterly and completely. That is not my opinion- this is a reflection of Americans' overall approval of his leadership. Bush's ratings are at a historic low and he will be remembered as one of the most incompetent and damaging leaders of all time.

McCain, although trying to separate himself from Bush, is still a Republican. His cabinet members and the other Republican cronies in Washington will naturally follow the same entrenched policies that Bush established. We cannot accept that! We cannot endure another 4 years of warmongering and policies that have led us to $4.00 gasoline, the mortgage crisis, and the US dollar falling rapidly against other world currencies. In four years, the US is going to be a shallow husk of its former self, drained from trillion-dollar war funding, $7.00/gal gas, and a failed health care system.

I don't care about "Republican" or "Democrat". I don't care about age or skin color. We just need to get off this sinking ship and try out some different ideas. Obama offers that, McCain doesn't.

BasiliskWrangler wrote:McCain, although trying to separate himself from Bush, is still a Republican. His cabinet members and the other Republican cronies in Washington will naturally follow the same entrenched policies that Bush established. We cannot accept that! We cannot endure another 4 years of warmongering and policies that have led us to $4.00 gasoline, the mortgage crisis, and the US dollar falling rapidly against other world currencies. In four years, the US is going to be a shallow husk of its former self, drained from trillion-dollar war funding, $7.00/gal gas, and a failed health care system.

http://www.theoildrum.com/

Gas is $4 because oil production has peaked and will fall soon, but demand is rising. This is what caused the Iraq war, not the Iraq war causing the depletion. People get it backwards. We need oil and war is how to get it.

The mortgage crisis resulted from liberal affirmative action policies that forced the banks to make loans to those who couldn't reasonably pay them. The banks raised interest rates to try and make a profit on high risk investments (which makes sense), and ended up causing the unworthy to default, and now the banks are ironically accused of "reverse redlining". Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

The weakening dollar is solely due to the fact that oil is bought in dollars. We have lots of dollars overseas because we need foreign oil and fundamentalist Muslims don't really care for our decadent exports. Soon they'll change their minds about selling us oil, hence the invasions.

As oil prices continue to increase we'll truly begin to see the value of Bush's wars.

Umm... you'll need to explain to me the connection between affirmative action and mortgage companies, because this one is new to me. If you live in a "bad neighborhood" and/or have bad credit then lenders will not risk a loan on you, or else you'll get a loan at a very high interest rate and a contract you don't like (the high interest rate will strain your finances and if you lose your job... good luck), and mortgage companies aren't going to give you a good deal, either. Of course, if you do not pull in a strong, regular salary and you want a home for your family then you're going to have to settle for a contract at a high interest rate with clauses you don't like... such as a permission that your contract be sold to another lender in the event that said lender falls on hard times. Then the new lender can screw you for more money or make whatever other financial demands they decide to make, and you'll have no power whatsoever to argue with them. You're stuck with the mortgage. If you haven't lots of money and resources then you have no leverage with these people.

But... as you say, only certain kinds of people should be allowed to provide homes for their family, so... hell, who cares about people who are not rich, right?

Oh, and... so far as I understand: the weakening dollar is in fact the result of the government having to print more and more money to pay for the Iraq war and tax cuts for corporations and probably for all those earmarks between 2001 and 2006 . . . and now who knows how many banking and loaning institutions that need bailing out.

Necromis:
First: Hillary's people are blowing hot air. If you think her die-hard female supporters will vote for anti-choice McCain who says 1. he'll appoint more Scalias and Thomases and 2. he isn't sure whether or not it's fair that insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control pills... then you're clearly dreaming. Trust me: Hillary's people will eventually get over their bitterness and in the end vote for Obama. Right now they're making threats because they want Hillary on Obama's ticket.

...Which, necessarily, means that they plan to vote for Obama in November. Otherwise they wouldn't be demanding that Obama make her his running mate. Instead, they'd simply endorse McCain.

Now, I'll give you the hard, cruel facts. All states being the same as 2000 (in other words: Dems get all traditionally blue states and Republicans get all traditionally red states, which is being generous because while Obama's leading in all of the former, McCain's behind or just barely tied in many of the latter), and even if we could somehow give New Hampshire to McCain (a state in which Obama is leading by a huge percentage) and also conceded Nevada (in which Obama's leading by two points: a statistical tie): Obama needs to win only Colorado, where he's leading significantly. Then it's an electoral tie, which goes to the Democratic House who will, of course, choose Obama. Even if, somehow, Obama doesn't win Colorado then he can win the election with Missouri, where he is leading just as significantly. But Colorado and Missouri should be clear wins for him and he will almost certainly win NH.

Add in the states in which Obama's been averaging just slightly ahead (a statistical tie): Ohio (large black population, remember, many of whom don't typically vote -- they will this time around), Florida (which has been fluctuating), Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina (moving this past week into Obama's favor), and Georgia.... McCain has a lot of states to worry about.

Then add in those Hillary voters you've been talking about who have almost certainly been telling the pollsters they're undecided or voting for McCain. They'll vote for Obama. They've no other choice. Especially since these are regular voters... they will not stand for another four years of a downward spiral, plus they're Democrats. Duh.

Also: Besides not necessarily polling "unlikely voters": I've heard that pollsters don't poll people without land lines (unless, I assume, you give your cellphone# to one of the campaigns). In other words: this is the urbanite vote. That's Obama's territory.

Then there's the Bob Barr factor: People've been underestimating him. He's averaging 7% now in the latest polls in McCain's home state, which puts Obama just barely ahead (statistical tie). Not that I expect Obama to carry Arizona in Nov., but this should be cause for concern for McCain's people. Same with Georgia, which is Barr's home state. If Barr pulls in a large percentage from his home district: Georgia could very likely tip to Obama.

So, I'm sorry, but just based on these numbers -- not getting into the political and social reasoning which makes the Republicans' scenario even bleaker -- things don't look good for McCain.

The Republicans have been talking big about Michigan and Pennsylvania, but these are blue states, and Obama's already leading in both states by a very significant percentage. Even with Romney's help the Republicans will never take Michigan (especially with the rapidly downspiraling economy). And Pennsylvania? Forget about it.

If you like you can CHECK A FEW OF THE STATE-BY STATE POLLS HERE (not all of them are reliable but, then, it's hard to tell... I haven't been attempting to assess which polls are more reliable and which are more questionable). You can also PLAY WITH THE ELECTORAL MAP HERE. If you don't already have a good idea of which states are reliably red or blue then it will give you each state's voting record between 1988 and 2000. (Remember: Iowa's a blue state, and unlike John Kerry in 2004: Obama has it.)


Anyhow, back to the subject: It's important that somebody's at least raising this issue. Even if he fails: at least by talking about it he's making the issue significant and putting it on American's minds, and the minds of people all over the world. And again, Necromis: I don't think China and Russia are likely to be the stubborn ones.... Probably the most likely stubborn ones: Israel, India and Pakistan. Iran hasn't nukes yet and the international community, including the Mideast (who have been buying more arms from us because of this) is determined to prevent them from getting nukes. North Korea was contained by the Clinton people and with a reasonable and strong Democrat in the White House they can be dealt with again and politically neutralized. Apart from those nations: The international community is not happy with a world filled with nuclear weapons, therefore some strong-arm politics might very well prove quite effective. Nothing miraculous will happen quickly, of course, but small steps will eventually get the world where it wants to be: free of nuclear weapons.

Even regarding OPEC (in other words: the price of an oil barrel): a good president might be able to negotiate with Mideast nations who've been buying our missiles to protect themselves from an unstable Iraq and a hostile [Shiite] Iran. To be honest, this is only speculation on my part: I haven't heard any solid information on this matter, and honestly: If Obama knows what he's going to do about it, I haven't heard him say anything. He's a smart man, but like all politicians he's occasionally disappointing.

Perhaps somebody else here has some ides on how OPEC might be dealt with. Restraining the price-gouging activities of our own energy companies, after all, will only have a small effect on the price of gasoline or heating.

On Iraq and Oil, no we didn't go there for that reason.

On mortages and affirmative action. Not exactly how it was put, but close. What was done was lenders were encouraged to lend to less credit worthy risky borrowers. They would offer people the opportunity for a low rate even with bad credit, they would get this great low rate for the first 2 years, could take those 2 years to clean up their credit and refinance to stay at that low rate. If they didn't fix up their credit their rate would jump by 8 points. Then the banks sold these packages to investors. The people rather than fix up their credit tanked it, so when the rate jumped they could not afford the new mortage payment and the homes started going into foreclosure. There were also some criminal boardering actions done by some lenders that gave out loans to people the knew could never keep them, just for the fees. So yes, to some extent this was due to government pushing for it, and also some extent to bad practieces by some shady lenders.

Approval ratings. First Bush is low, but not still MUCH higher than congress. Congress has the all time record low, and imagine that, it is being ran by the Democrats.

Oil prices are coming down currently, not sure if it will last. However, one thing that would help is if the Democrats would vote to allow off shore drilling. This would help Detroit, and the US economy as well as bring down oil prices. First by causing OPEC to increas production to stop us from drilling, and later by actually having the increased oil on the market. Yes we need to be off of oil, but untill we have something else to use for fuel we need to starte procducing more. Something mentioned up above that brings to light, what happens if there is another oil embargo? You gonna start walking the 10-15 miles to work each day?

Congress's approval rating is low for two reasons: 1. The Democrats have such a narrow majority (50-49) that they are literally not able to accomplish anything more than hold hearings without Republican approval. Whenever the Democrats try to do anything that gains more than 50 votes, the Republicans filibuster. Blame the Republicans for our lousy Congress, not the Democrats... and 2. There are too many centrist wimps among the Democrats. I don't have a high opinion of a lot of the Democrats in office. They need a new leader -- in both the House and Senate -- to whip them into shape. Barbara Boxer would be a good choice for the Senate. In the House... maybe Wexler.

As for energy: We don't need gimmicks to mask a lack of intent to solve the problem, we need immediate, viable solutions. A viable solution includes wind-power, possibly nuclear plants as a short-term solution until we find better alternative sources of energy, possibly cleaner-burning coal plants (since they currently exist), and even solar and hydro. The problem of energy consumption isn't going to be solved right away, but by small increments. Instead of talking about it, we should start right away by building wind turbines, which do generate significant electricity, and putting money into research for alternative energies to replace gasoline.

Oh, and by the way: I live in the city, so the answer is that I ride my bike to work. In fact: I also walk, sometimes.

And remember: OPEC wants us to buy oil from them, and we're good, reliable customers. Basic economics.

oh yeah it is the Republicans causing this low approval rating. Funny, when the narrow margine was in the Republican favor their was a much higher approval rating. The democrats are doing nothing except empty promises. Nancy Polosey(sp?) said there were going to be major changes with the Dems in power and did nothing. The only thing that Dems have been doing is trying to put time tables on the war in Iraq and looking for ways to attack the Repubs. If the Dems were so against the war they could have simply made a vote to defund it totally and force Bush to pull them out. They want to tax Oil companies which in turn will tax us.

In regards to energy and wind, blame another Dem for blocking that. They want to build wind turbines up near Martha's Vineyards but the Democrat senator there, Kennedy I believe, is blocking it because it would be an *eye sore.* Dems are against Nuke plants and clean coal and increased Oil drilling. I completely agree with you that we need to invest and develope these alternatives. I have even seen that most Republicans want this as well. However, when the Democrats are cattering to the environmental left of their party rather than addressing the problems we won't get anywhere. We need to be drilling what we have in the mean time to lower prices while these are being developed. Did you know we could have drilling up and running on over 1 billion barrels of oil up in Alaska if it was approved?

Oh and just to let you know I am not a republican. I am an independant. I have leanings both ways. I just see the crap being done, by both parties, and it pisses me off. If we could vote them all out of office and start over I would be soooooo happy.

This is getting tiresome.

The Republicans had a rather a few more seats in the Senate than the narrow majority you are misremembering. I think it was somewhere around 57 seats... no, I think 58, because I think the magic # during the election was 9 seats in order for the Dems to at least symbolically retake the Senate. The Democrats, I see you've forgotten, overtook the Senate in a wave because of extremely low approval ratings in regard to the Republican Congress who was doing nothing but wasting taxpayer money on earmarks and trying to remove the Democrats' legislative power to filibuster. I don't think it helped that the Republicans were trying to take retirees' Social Security insurance away from them. Now it's the Republicans who're doing all the filibustering, and nothing can get done.

And the woman's name is spelled Nancy Pelosi. She's another spineless Centrist. I hope she's booted out in 2009. Barbara Boxer would be a good replacement. I like her. Tough, sharp, and principled.

And the Democrats, because half of them are spineless fools, have been afraid to hold the Bush/Cheney administration to account. Therefore: No impeachment papers.

I do not, myself, understand the logic behind the oil-company tax, unless perhaps the companies are also strictly regulated so that the tax is not passed on to consumers. Otherwise I'd agree it makes no sense.

Martha's Vineyard: The windmills were blocked by the wealthy NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) locals. The locals complained that the windmills would be an eyesore and too noisy. Damn fools.

The Democrats, as I've said before (how many times do I need to repeat this?) are mostly in favor of nuclear energy and "clean coal". Including Senator Obama who's repeatedly stated, all throughout the primaries, that he's open to nuclear energy as a short-term solution (even though it hasn't been stated explicitly in his energy policy, as far as I've read). Dennis Kucinich was the only one who argued against him because of the problems of storing nuclear waste containment (which still concerns me). Also: Obama's stated plan includes tightening fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, which is progressive and effective and will have immediate (though gradual) results.

And don't get me started on ANWR... besides the meager supply up there: I'm a PETA member. Offshore drilling also sounds very nice to me (assuming the drilling companies are properly regulated, except that the estimates for our oil reserves we might gain access to are notably smaller, and it'll take years to even begin drilling, so it's neither a short term solution nor long term and is likely to cost the gov't more money than it's worth.

Finally as for your leanings: You might not be a Republican but you talk like a conservative all the way through. If you're truly so reasonable and thoughtful then why are you eating up all these talking points and looking for reasons to discount Obama, the Democrats and liberals, and reasons to like and agree with whatever McCain and other Republicans and conservatives contend. This is all pretty transparent.

I didn't like John Kerry and I thought he'd make a poor president. Unfortunately his opponent was Bush.

Perhaps we have something we agree upon... I just wish you'd stop eating up and regurgitating all this propaganda and nonsense, and start balancing what you're reading/hearing with some legitimate news sources.


EDIT: Correction: Since Pelosi's the House leader not the Senate leader (whoops): she should be replaced by somebody like Robert Wexler. Sen. Barbara Boxer should replace Sen. Harry Reid.

I am not taking talking points. I am taking facts. if you are a member of PETA then you should encourage the drilling. First, if you remember the worries about the oil pipeline in Alaska, they thought the population would decrease, it actually increased around the pipeline. Secondly, we are already drilling in a similar bay just 100 miles away, and the population there has also increased. The reason for the voting out at the time of the Republicans was not over overall approval ratings, it was specifically over the war in Iraq and how it was going at that time. This is the first *real* war that actually allows realtime media coverage and so people were upset with the casualties, understandably. Also 9 members is still a small majority. On Social security, you are obviously misunderstanding things. What was being suggested was allowing people to invest their SSI contributions into private plans rather than the government. I personally know that my 401K investment will give me more return when I retire than my SSI will supply me. No one is talking about taking away SSI. Personally, I think the filibuster should be taken away. It allows an up/down vote on items. It would be working for the Dems currently, so what is the problem with that. Also there really has not been any major filibustering going on. After all Pelosi is saying ther won't be a vote on Oil Drilling. So that is the Dems causing there to be no vote. Impeachment, won't happen. There has been nothing done illegally by the administration to impeach them. I hear all the time about *illegal war* in Iraq. Since the house and the senate in full unity of both parties agreed we should conduct this war the President had full legal authority to do so and still does.

You are right, I do lean more towards conservative than liberal thinking, though I am pro-choice to give you one example of my left leanings. However, the reason I am more conservative is because I think there should be less government than more. It is not the governments job to baby sit me, to give me hand outs and hold my hand. The private sector usually does a better job dealing with issues than the goverment. Why, because consumers have the ability to *vote* them out every day but shopping somwhere else. Most politicians don't really care, on both sides, about doing the right thing, just keeping themselves in office.

Obama worries me, McCain does not. I have proven track record with McCain. I have lies and empty words with Obama. Look at Obama's own words after he won his senate race. He was asked if he would be thinking of running for president. He said he would not due to his lack of experience and planned on fufilling his full 6 year term before even thinking about it. Then again in April of 2006 he again refers to just getting his new job and having no plans for it. However, the rest of his speach is all president campaign talk. Meaning he was laying out a platform for running. Obama just a few months later says yep I am thinking about it. I believe that was October. McCain has an actual history of reaching across the isle to work hand in hand with Dems.

More currently, Gallop and Rasmusen Polls have the race actually very tight. I am actually impressed by this since currently the media is acting like Obamas press core.

I should've mentioned being a member of the NRDC as well, since they've been the truly vocal group on the ANWR issue in the past.

ANWR's one of those touchy issues that are very much dependent on perspective in regard to how people respond to the issue, so I don't really want to get into a discussion/argument on it. I'll only point out that the issue that conservationists are concerned with is that it's a nearly pristine wilderness area that is both home and migratory path to a number of animal species, and therefore also an indispensable area for scientific study, and that although promoters of the drilling plan have tried to suggest that the drilling will be specific: in fact it will necessitate a network of roads and pipelines throughout the entire region which will destroy the area and obviously dramatically effect the wildlife. Keep in mind, also, that the ecosystem in regions such as ANWR tends to be very delicate, because it's notably tougher for plants and wildlife to survive there. The wikipedia article on ANWR, of course, explains, to an extent, the area's ecological makeup.

I understand, of course, the desire for non-conservationist conservatives to drill drill drill, but before jumping in we must check the balance on the positives and negatives -- damage & scientific loss vs. economic benefit -- in order to decide whether or not it's really "worth it".

Moving on....

The Iraq War was the speculated reason for the congressional turnover in 2006. Because of such speculation by pollsters and analysts, it was decided and then became "understood" that the vote was a referendum on Iraq, whereas in fact we do not know the full reasoning behind most voters who decided to throw out their Republican congressperson or senator in favor of the Democratic candidate... much of it could have been the candidates themselves. I can tell you, though, that the issue wasn't just Iraq, it was also Social Security, and it was disappointment with a power-crazed Republican-controlled Congress and Senate that could not control its spending habits and then tried to remove their opponents' rights to filibuster, and it was also all the scandals that'd began to come out. It was all of this stuff together. I don't remember if the Medicare legislation fiasco had taken effect by that point....

59 votes is not a narrow majority, it's a solid majority. 8 more seats and you have a supermajority, which can override any filibuster.

The filibuster protects the minority's constitutional right to oppose any legislation trying to be rammed through by the Majority. Without it: The Majority can pass any legislation it likes. That's not wise government. Imagine the Dems with that sort of power. Make you happy?

Impeachment: Of course it won't happen because Pelosi and Reid ruled it out in 2006. But there actually is substantial cause for impeachment, which essentially comes down to Abuse of Power: this being a criminal offense. Possibly also Obstruction of Justice. The Abuse of Power covers the falsified intelligence leading us into war, wiretapping, detaining foreigners without charges and without the right to a trial, torture, and the politicization of the legal system.

On the government's responsibilities: While I think we can all agree that we don't want the government baby-sitting us (including telling us who can marry whom, and so forth), as far as I understand it, the purpose of a nation's government is to ensure the safety, health, prosperity and well-being of its people. While I do not believe the gov't should extend its hand beyond that (including the arts: I'm an artist but I do not believe that art should be funded by the government)... it just so happens that the definition I've given above covers a whole range of areas. Including guaranteed, affordable health coverage, and strict corporate regulation.

Now, the "free market": Unfortunately, the notion that you can "vote out" a company by not shopping there is insupportable. When companies are permitted to buy out a town or region: they limit buyer choices and they limit worker choices.

The conservatives' claim that the press is "in love with Obama" is desperate and not accurate. The fact is that Obama is media savvy and interesting and provides a good story. He's much more interesting to cover, and the networks want viewers. Americans are interested in Obama, much less in McCain. Obama's young, interesting and not well known; people want to know more about him. McCain is old, known and dull. When Obama draws huge crowds, it's news. To charge media bias is to ignore one really critical matter: McCain is boring. And he and his people do not know how to play the media. So the media response is not bias, it's marketing. And you're arguing in favor of the "free market", right?

If McCain wants to compete with Obama, then he needs to do a better job hiring skilled, media-savvy people for his campaign. This reflects on his management capability, too.

However -- and this happened when Sen. Hillarious protested as well when she started to become less "inevitable" and people became less interested in her and more interested in the new face -- reporters and pundits who are concerned about their integrity become sensitive when they feel that they might be coming across as biased. So... because the media thinks it's biased, it has ended up going pretty easy on McCain. If Obama had been making the kinds of gaffes McCain's been making, the media would be giving us the clips in 24 hour loops, as it has in the past.

Well I can see this is a pointless discussion. As you obviously are infatuated with this man. I have listened to all of the major networks, and also have listened to an interview of one of the anchors who was in israel being interviewed, while he was there following Obama. The statements and coverage by the liberal press is as close as you can get to being his own personal press corp. The interview given by Chris Matthews in Israel sounded like he was trying to be Obama's press secratary. Even a recent poll thought that by 70% that the media is trying to get Obama elected president.


One thing I want to contradict you strongly on is that conservatives are not conservationists. This is an out and out falsehood, and boarders on a lie. I am a conservationist, and the majority of conservatives are as well. Those that want to drill want to do it with the least impact on the environment, and with hopefully none whatsoever. The concerns you have regarding roads around the drill site are legtimate. That is why in Alaska they actually do the driving during the ice months and use ice roads. There is no foot print of mans trucks when done this way. Have you seen pictures of those ice roads when they melt?

I didn't mean to suggest that all conservatives are anti-conservation (in fact I thought I'd made a point in my last post in specifying non-conservationalist conservatives). I know very well that there are a good number of conservatives who love the environment. There are supposedly plenty of evangelicals who're concerned about preserving the Earth and have been coming forward lately in favor of environmentalist policies. Liberals are encouraged by this because it's a sign that the eminently dangerous propaganda by the oil companies and their stockholders is thawing... no pun intended.

I don't want to attack you for liking McCain... I'm mostly trying to correct your accusations against Obama which I know are patently false.

For example: The "liberal media" claim, which is misleading at best and a lie at worst. It might be true that at least a simple majority of true journalists lean liberal -- writers, I think, tend to lean liberal... but there's such a thing as "journalistic integrity". Brian Williams has journalistic integrity. He gives analysis, not political opinion. He was invited by Obama's campaign to observe and ask questions, which is what he did. I suppose what you wanted was for him to be outright critical. You seem to want the media to trash the candidate in any possible way they can manage -- simply because he's a Democrat -- even if it means making things up, or scaring people with bigotry . . . like Fox News does. That sort of attitude pisses me off.

I respect conservatives who are honest. Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough (except when he goes off on his Christian tangents that border on bigotry), Pat Buchanan for example. I even respected McCain to a limited extent when once upon a time he was critical of overspending in Washington and when he tried to reform campaigning and when he was [somewhat] critical of the way the Iraq War was being handled. What I hate is people who willfully lie -- and this includes jerks on the left like James Carville, Paul Begala, Bill Press, Terry McCauliffe and so forth. Blind partisans, in other words.

I hope this makes my point, to some extent. I'm no partisan, but I hate hearing people popularizing the sorts of lies and misinformation being spread by propagandists who would have us believe that terrorists are running Obama's campaign and that giving up our freedoms is necessary to keep us safe (because, of course, the Terrorists are only attacking us for our freedoms).

First, my opinions on Obama are based on facts. Secondly, the media is point blank trying to get Obama elected. I see it in every news cast about him. It was even clear while he was running against Clinton. I am not seeking the media to attack Obama. However, it would be nice to actually see some tough questions asked of him. The man has the worst policy on the Iraq war. I mean his answer to whether he would have still not supported the surge knowing how successful it was. The man would rather lose over there and have more people killed to just prove a point that it was wrong to be there in the first place. Whether we went in there under the right reasons or not is pointless at this time. The fact is we must complete the mission and establish a stable government.

From McCain's website:

"I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there. Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership."

So... since McCain will not try to do what he cannot deliver, he's promising an indefinite occupation of mostly Christian forces in Muslim territory. McCain doesn't seem to understand that the Iraqi invasion broke Iraq forever. The only thing holding the Sunnis and Shiites together, as horrible as he was, was Saddam Hussein. When the U.S. leaves they will resume fighting each other over the oil fields until the desert turns red. If the U.S. doesn't leave, they will resume fighting each other until the desert turns red. (And therefore, from McCain's rhetoric: You can expect a renewed insurgency should McCain be elected.)

Keep in mind, of course, that Obama has never said that he would pull the troops out of Iraq "regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests [oil], and the future of the Middle East".

Now read Obama's plan.

Personally, although Obama seems to understand fully well that we cannot afford, monetarily (at the threshold of economic crisis and now overseeing a new record budget deficit) or militarily, to keep our overworked troops in Iraq indefinitely, unfortunately his plan is not one that I am perfectly comfortable with, either. Personally, I prefer Joe Biden's idea, which is to divide all three factions and arrange an oversight committee in order to equitably divide the oil between the Shiites and Sunnis. Didn't I mention this already? However... I'm more confident with Obama's plan than with no plan at all, and I'm more confident with a smart, thoughtful, coolheaded, intellectually curious man who's well-liked across seas than with one who, unfortunately, appears to reflect quite the opposite of all those descriptions.

Focusing more attention on Afghanistan and Pakistan, where it belongs, will of course necessitate convincing our allies to help us out. Despite their huge and growing Muslim problem, Europe does not want to get their own soldiers and tax money bogged down in endless war that could very well inflame the problems they have at home. They're going to demand a plan with realistic timetables, and even before then they're going to need some strong convincing. Does McCain have such a plan? Does he have the diplomatic talent to convince them to help? Hell, has he even tried? (Canada is not enough.)

Now... if McCain can go abroad and get 200,000 Germans waving American flags in his honor... perhaps I will begin to lose my skepticism. If he can tell 200,000 Germans what they don't want to hear -- that America needs Germany's support in fighting terrorism -- without receiving any hisses or boos, then I will give credit where credit's due.

I still don't know what you see in this man, except perhaps for unrealistic and/or cruel conservative economic ideals. Perhaps you can clue me in?