1. he promises to raise my taxes;
2. he basically a socialist and I am not; and
3. I think his foreign policy ideas are dangerous.

I think that Obama will be worse for the country that Carter.

I would have considered Hillary although I really really like McCain as a candidate.

Obama was selected by the far left of the democratic party and is simply unacceptable. Again, why can’t the dems select someone like Phil Bredeson? I would vote for him for sure and he would win this election by 15%.

The answer to the above question is because the people that selected Obama are left wing types that want to redistribute wealth.

It is simple as that.

I cited to the above article not for what is said. That is just politics and that game has been played for 100′s of years. The ad was fine and the response to it was fine also. My point is that Obama steps in it over and over again. His only experience is this campaign and he runs it like crap.

I’m not a partisan. I was for McCain in ’00. I don’t form my opinion based on what Time, Newsweek, or any other news outlet tells me to think. McCain flip flopped on the Bush tax cuts, he pandered to religious fundamentalists in ’08 after calling them “agents of intolerance” in ’00, he did flip flop on torture — it was before 2005, which is the date mentioned in that article, he flip flopped on the justice system — in ’00, he talked about how he didn’t like trial lawyers, but they were the only ones who would hold corporations accountable b/c Congress sure wouldn’t and now in ’08 he has ads talking about the need for “legal reform.”

It is simply untrue to call McCain ’08 “the Maverick” that we saw in ’00. The Maverick died in South Carolina in 2000 thanks to Karl Rove’s slimy schemes. Now we have McCain ’08, who scares me less than Bush, but still far too much to get my vote.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/27/mccain/

I’ll see your link and raise you two.

I must say, I appreciate an argument that cites sources and I check them. I also take no position here that can’t be backed up, which I’m sure surprises you not at all.

It is about time for this thread to end, especially considering the original post was pretty non-partisan. However, I’ll add some political content once a week or so and hope you and MD and TKH and everybody else will weigh in. I’m thinking of adding an issues page and taking the ones that matter to me, as blogmeiseter, one by one leading up to the election. That way, the folks who really can’t stand this political business can avoid our bluster a bit easier, and enjoy the wit and wisdom that TB is so happy to impart.

Finally, as papa bear says, I’ll give you (or MD) the last word. (depending on what that word happens to be.)

I guess that’s what it needs to be about if you want McCain to win considering he’s lied about Obama’s sex education program. He’s lied about Obama’s use of the ages-old lipstick on a pig comment — as if this lie even if true really mattered.

Palin has lied about the Bridge To Nowhere. She had to ask what the VP does, she thinks living next to Russia gives her national security experience (I guess that makes Haley Barbour an expert on Cuba), she shotgunned her daughter’s boyfriend into a marriage at 17 to prove her “family values,” she believes Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (which even Bush has now denied) and we’re talking about pigs wearing lipstick and now a computer skills smear.

Stone, I know you weren’t posting that link as the end all be all of why you’re not supporting Obama. My question is why is this minor, irrelevant, immature type of crack even newsworthy when we’re weeks away from yet another historic, all-important presidential election. This is 2000 all over again in terms of the monumental differences between the candidates.

The point is you ought to goggle that before running your attack add. Not smart. Not something supposed geniuses and their geniuses advisors should do.

I have never seen McCain flip flop on torture. I do not get that.

Here is some research from Time magazine/CNN on that.

But on this latest piece of legislation, which arose during the heat of the primary campaign and may surface again later this month, McCain sided with Bush in opposing a further restriction of CIA techniques. Despite the claims of some partisans, McCain’s decision was not a flip-flop, but rather the continuation of a position he took in 2005 when he first championed a bill to restrict the Bush Administration’s ability to mistreat detainees.

link to full article: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1729891,00.html

The idea that he flipped on that is a partisan hit job so says Time. From what I have seen the entire line of old v. new McCain is largely a fiction created by partisans to destroy McCain’s appeal to independents.

That is my final political word for a long while as I do not intend to high jack your blog.

Stone…let me summarize my feelings on McCain’s inability to use the computer because he was tortured: Baaaaahaaaaaaa. Dude, that’s spin and you know it. The sumbitch has bragged about his technological inadequacies, now its a disability? Has he tried voice recognition software? Weak dude. Besides, I thought he’d flip flopped on what torture was?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTliMTNiZjg5ZDEwZWNiZDYwZWFjN2JlNjNjNjkxZmM=

Attack a guy for not being able to use a computer when, if you could use a computer, you would have figured out he can’t use his because he was tortured as a POW.

Again the guy cites to his campaign as his qualification but falls on his face when the pressure rises.

I don’t underestimate Palin at all. I think I have a very good handle on what she is and what she will be. That’s what scares me. And I’m also sad to admit that you’re right — we are going to see what a VP Palin will act like. I’m off to a candlelight vigil for McCain’s health and a seance to resurrect McCain ’00.

I love that some people continue to underestimate Palin. My gut (see criteria #4 above) tells me that she’s going to do just fine as VP. I am considering chalking it up…..