The conservative wing of my PoliSci class (i.e. the group of us who went through the major together) would probably have disagreed with you. But then again, I think we had good profs.

I was including maintenance and All-State.

Perhaps you missed it, but that was my whole point. I think both are overblown. There's probably some moving that way on both ends, but they'll cancel themselves out in the end.

i'm sure someone has pointed this out, but I'm 4 pages back. There is ZERO chance that Hillary supporters will flock to Palin. She's pro-life. That alone kills that idea.

I think most people on the conservative side would rather utilize private charities to tackle problems like this, rather than letting bloated government bureaucracies handle it...which seems to be the only approach the donkey party will consider.

Yup I beat you to it my man;)

I don't think McCain is going after Hillary votes with his choice so much as energizing conservatives still sitting on the fence.

Reagan Democrat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We won't see anything on that scale, but the general phenomenon could be relevant.

Unless they realize that a VP's aborition views mean NOTHING. In fact, she could do more harm to aborition rights as governor of Alaska.

Edit: Oh, unless McCain dies. I have to remember that.

Speaking of turning one's stomach, I think the biggest single factor that's turned more more anti-GOP (as opposed to pro-Democrat which is a longer-held stance) over the past few years is the "you're either with us or against us" and "liberals are anti-US and not patriotic" schtick. Given my experience with my brother, all that's served to do is make me more angry, even to the point of just being blanket against the GOP (at times) even though there are plenty of member who I'd normally objectively respect.

So it cuts both ways.

And I've had plenty of people give me shit about the very small peace symbol on the back of my car. Usually questioning my patriotism. When I explain that my brother served in Iraq while they got their fat ass down to Applebees to fill their lazy face they usually back down. I guess they assume liberals won't fight.

On a tangent, then, one of the reasons I do like talking about stuff like politics at FOFC is that there's very few people here who do the stuff above. I respect the conservative posters here, and if I had the chance, I'm sure I'd enjoy talking to them in Real Life. Even Cam. :p

Looks like all of the churches are in a fever over this and are now more motivated than ever to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket. She was the Evangelical favorite.

It's not a good schtick. I think it's faded in use over the last 2-3 years or so though.

Obama would be a fool to bring up experience and I highly doubt you'll hear anything from anyone connected to the campaign. However, what this does is neutralize the experience issue especially for the media types. If experience is off the table as an issue that's a net positive for Obama.

But just to inoculate myself, I still think judgment is far more important than experience.

It's pretty telling about the current state of affairs in the GOP that someone who abuses her office to retaliate against her brother-in-law is still considered a paragon of ethical reform.

The Alaska GOP machine is generally considered to be one of the worst in the country. Almost as corrupt, really, as the Chicago Democratic machine which, ironically, Obama fought against to gain his initial seat to the Illinois Senate. I wonder how McCain's vetting process went, because I hope for his sake there's not a lot more to uncover there in the next two months.

I don't think that's true at all.

She already pandered to the Hillary supporters in her first speech.

Not like Obama or Biden have any ethical skeletons in the closet ... :lol:

[quote=Galaxy;1818946]Why have two kids when your making $30,000 in combined salary? What does $800 in car mean? Is that car payments?

Anyways, as I posted in a previous post:

1)
Isn't being rich the reward? That's the object of the game of capitalism. Hell that's why so many insanely rich people give away so much money. They've already won the game. What other reward is there? Oh yea, the reward of giving back to those less fortunate.


People have a misconception that people actually "want" to be on welfare. That's why I think the idea of driving towards renewable energy is so crucial. The same people that we complain about being on welfare and other government assistance programs would much rather have a job and dignity than ask for a handout.


Please explain further because I don't understand the validity of this statement.




I don't think making continuing tax-breaks for the very wealthy does anything but increase the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

Well, I'm 35, with a house, a new child, and an income which places me in the highest tax bracket and my politics are still as progressive as they were when I was in College (though perhaps better focused).

In fact, it's telling that one of the GOP attacks on Obama is that he's got the support of a lot of rich, elite Democrats. So, is he a friend of the wealthy, or not GOP? Make up your mind. :D

Plus, look at his economics team again (from the free-market University of Chicago). Not a lot of pamby-mamby bleeding heart liberals there.

You're so cute when you pretend to have been the objective observer all along. :lol:

If the GOP gets any Hillary voters, it will be because McCain is already a RINO.

I could be wrong, but I think this VP choice will appeal to a lot of conservative voters who were thinking of sitting this one out. If that wasn't a concern for McCain, he would have chosen someone pro-abortion -- and his campaign did send out feelers to state GOP leaders to find out what reaction would be if he did pick a pro-abortion running mate.

Weren't you one of the people who flipped out in the Jon Edwards thread about people stating things as facts when they weren't?

We don't know the truth (yet). She certainly denies it and has offered an explanation for the dismissal.

I can tell you from my job that government employee terminations are always a tricky thing (one of the reasons government is so wasteful and doesn't work).

If you fire someone, they can come up with a poltical reason for it. That's why paper trials are so important, and you have to develop one for years before you can fire someone who's clearly awful. There's even a chilling effect. If there's some kind of dispute, you immediately think, "shit, now we can never fire that person".

This fired government employee knew he had this in his back pocket, and very well might have assumed he was untouchable and acted accordingly (he wouldn't be the first). Governments are filled with incompetent people (spending your tax dollars, by the way). A lot of that money you want to "liberate" from rich people is just being used to prepare for these termination lawsuits (and then defending them). So guess where that tax money ends up - with the lawyers. Might as well just let Walmart have the money, pre-waste, so they use it in the economy.

McCain's not my guy...never has been. I was seriously considering sitting this one out, and I still might.

But if I do vote, it will be for McCain.

One instance does not a person create. Atleast, those rooting for Biden better hope that's the case. Plus, there's not much substance here. Her husband may have done some questionable things, but she was not involves (it's like punishing Hillary for some things Bill did - I doubt much comes of it).

IMO, when your first act as governor is to put the "governor jet" on ebay and bring in $2.7 million in revenue, I would say that's a pretty powerful image on cutting wasteful spending. Combine that with how she slashed the bloated construction boondoggle and you have someone who has done more against powerful special interests than Obama or Biden combined.

One of the reasons she gained notoriety was going against both "machines" in the legislative branch. She beat former governors with strong machine backing in both the rep primary and general election. Then, she went on to take fiscal stances that hurt legislative members of both parties. Essentially, she went out and did what Obama has been promising he will do for 8 years (but not deliver).


Here's the positives of adding here:

1. It adds life and interest to a very dull campaign.
2. It reinvigorate the conservatives (both social and fiscal).
3. She has a strong background in business and running a very tricky state (esp from a political standpoint).
4. While many are pointing to her pro-life stance, she will still be very attractive to women (esp independents). Her history as a mom, business woman, governor and her persona will attract some women voters. If McCain just get a small portion of the independents (not even the democrats) who voted for Hillary, it could be huge.
5. She is very likable. Once people listen to here and see her make cases for different ideas, she comes across very well.

At the end of the day, this draws a stark comparison with Obama and steals his thunder from the convention. Obama goes out and says he wants to change Washington, then adds a guy who's been in the senate longer than McCain. McCain says he was to change Washington, and he adds a governor from out west with a strong reform background. One could read into this that Obama is more interested in winning the election than sticking to the principles he started his campaign with.

To turn this on its head, if one of the roles of the VP is to attack the other party's Presidential candidate, then would you rather have Biden attacking McCain or Palin attacking Obama?

She's got one week to get really good at public speaking or she's going to crash & burn at the RNC.

Somebody just mentioned John Edwards what the hell happened to him I haven't heard any word about him I was surprised he wasn't asked to be at the convention what happened did the guy go join the Peace Corp or something?

Say it isn't so!!! Not Obama!!!!

It's not that hard to give a prepared speech in front of a friendly crowd.

Biden is going to chew up and spit out Frontier Barbie at the VP deabte(s).

Of course, McCain has ZERO executive experience as well.

He tried to pull off a Clinton...

...but there is only ONE Bill Clinton. He has gone the way of Gary Hart.

So, of the four of them, I guess that makes Palin most qualified to be President.

Maybe you not hear. He get sent into exile for cheeterism.

Maybe. I have no idea if he's a good debater. Debating is a skill that isn't necessarily connected to being old, experienced, and isn't particularly reflective of one's qualifications regarding anything except debating.

Also pretty interesting to see a socially enlightened liberal be so overtly sexist.

To me it comes down to...do you believe there is a fair pathway to increasing your economic status, and if you do, how hard should one have to work to do this without negating what somebody else's hard work has earned them?

If you do not believe it is a fair pathway(i.e. due to discrimination by race, gender, etc.), then what specifically needs to be in place to change the fairness of that pathway?(rhetorical statement mostly)

I think most economic conservatives(this is my view as well) would argue that capitalism isnt intended for everybody to be rich, or to even be within X% of income/standard of living from the top tier. The point is to have a system that allows for anybody to increase their economic status through hard work, intelligent/informed decisions, and a pathway that does not discriminate against them for traits they were born with, and cannot be expected to change to fit a "system", or the people within that "system". But it does not mean the system should change the non-discriminatory rules for every individual that fails to increase their relative economic status, nor reward those who do not try to adhere to the rules of the system, where they are trying to pursue wealth.

There are certainly arguements that can be made for where and how the "system" is unfair, impossible, or otherwise non-optimal. And where those instances occur, they should be addressed, debated, lobbied for, and changed. But the idea of government, rather than doing their job of creating a fair system, deciding to just take more money from the wealthy to give out more to the poor is not only unfair to those who do adhere to the system...but it simply allows for the continued decline of the poor to perform more valuable services to society.

And, depending upon which states he gets them from, it could be completely meaningless too.

Really? How do you figure? The last relatively undistinguished 18 months aside, her resume rests on part-time experience at a very, very low political level.


Alternatively, she has 18 months of working with a friendly state legislature in a very thinly populated State with no current dire issues (aside from the corruption-related ones being engineered by the state GOP).


:lol:

Like Al Gore did to W? Expectations are a big thing here and if Palin can pull a draw out of the debates (not too difficult, IMO), she wins big.

I know youre just pouring Koolaid out and are saying this in jest since she was mayor of a then of less than 10K, governor of Alaska for 2 years earning herself a legislative investigation, etc.

This is all about the pillars of the Religious Right platform, you, I, and everyone else knows it....and that's OK. There is nothing wrong with that. It is what it is and if the people want that than thats great.

To say that she is more qualified to be pres than the other 3 is a very very ridiculous statement.

Nice spin!!! You sure you don't do this for a living?

I work with a lot of libbies, and most of them are kind of nervous about this choice. Just the simple fact that she is a hottie, especially compared to say Geraldine Ferraro or Hillary Clinton has them worried.

You say this:


But every positive you point out about Palin is a political consideration.

Well, she has spent her time in office shaking up government in Alaska and achieving results. Senator Obama has spent the majority of his time in office running for president.

I think that Biden stands a good chance of doing well in the VP debate, though given that he's debating against a woman, he could just as easily say something that he doesn't feel is derogatory towards Palin or women, yet it is perceived as being out of line. You always have to have that in the back of your mind with Biden. He's going to have to be very careful to not talk down to her, as it may be perceived by independents and women as being insensitive or being a bully. He wouldn't have had this issue if McCain would have selected a man.

As mentioned before, McCain should trump Obama in their three debates, which would more than offset any Biden gains.

Everyone should back off the VP debate. Nobody makes their decision because of the VP debate. It's the rhythmic gymnastics of the election.

But Obama's the one who's about change and being above all that.

Yeah, mostly in jest....but if a guy can win who's sole claim to fame is that he was governor of a state like Arkansas....who knows! :)

Do the people who keep saying that this won't get McCain any of Hilary's votes really believe she had 18 million abortionist voting for her?

A large portion of her vote were women who wanted to see another woman in a position of power. Infact, she probably got more votes from women overlooking the pro-choice than she did women voting for it.


And if nothing else, McCain has made a splash. This thread alone has blown up since, and it's definately made things alot more interesting.

Lunchtime. I'll respond in a little bit. Good post by the way.

Yes, and the McCain campaign also realized that the inexperience factor for Obama wasn't having that much of an effect, just as it ultimately didn't have much effect in the Democratic primaries with Clinton. Of course, with the Palin choice, every Republican in the country who believed that experience was important will no longer think so, and that every Democrat who didn’t think it was a big deal will now decide it is absolutely critical.

I think you need to read up on her a little bit (though nothing would ever even temper your opinion).

-She challenged the GOP governor and even defeated him in the primary
-She was not supported by the state GOP - but she won over the people
-She challenged Stevens to come clean about the federal investigation
-Has an approval rating consistently in the 80s and 90s, largely based on her "independent/outsider" views and actions.

Trying to link her with the problems of the Alaska GOP is absolutely ridiculous. Sometimes blind party unity isn't a good thing.

This one is especially impressive. She has nearly statewide support in a time period where most state government GOP leaders suffer from low ratings due to the 'Bush Effect'.

Sorry, to of offended your feminist underpinnings:) Actually, don't be fooled I "ain't" all that socially enlightened just not a racist (not that anyone here is ). But I guess I am a sexist............and proud of it. jk.

Really? All of the rich? Does Paris Hilton do a lot more than the government? What about the uber-rich (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates) who demonstrably do add a lot to the economy and still think they should be taxed more and/or earn less?

Anyway, the concept that the rich aren't being rewarded is ridiculous. You're basically saying that if you raise taxes on the rich just a little bit they'll have no incentive to work harder to earn more money. That just doesn't make sense and isn't (at least in my experience) the remotest bit true.


Thanks, I knew there was an example, but couldn't think of one immediately. I blame sleep deprivation. :D


For the record, I've been saying this for a couple of threads now.


I'm pretty sure that was JPhillips and others, but my memory of events over the past week is pretty hazy.


I'm not talking about the crowd, I'm talking about the TV analysts.


No you don't. The left doesn't objectify women like you right-wing fundies do.


Very true. It's always been basically a side show, good for some one-liners or Admiral Stockdale.

I know you can't be serious...

You know, Palin has a rather feminine, intelligent, calm approach about (she's very different than Hillary in her speaking abilities and the ability to present her issues) her. She doesn't seem like she'll throw down like a guy does, but she does seem to have a different kind of charisma and aggression that could work for her.

I think she does.

When she goes out boozing in NYC, it's a financial windfall for bartenders, cab drivers, waiters. Those people than have more money to spend on TVs, playstations, and groceries.

When she pays too much for a house in Malibu, she has to hire dozens of employees to maintain it. If she buys another, bigger house, she needs more employees.

If she buys 10 cars next month that she doesn't need - she might be sole difference between a luxury auto dealership making a profit and not. That might allow them to keep more employees on.

We hear so much about "consumer spending" being the #1 indicator of the health of our economy. Paris Hilton drives that spending, that indicator.

I'm not saying she shouldn't be taxed at a higher rate than other people, but I don't want to curb her spending. The money that goes to the government escapes into a black hole where it benefits nobody. I'm all for providing her tax incentives to consume and invest rather than save.

$10,000 spent in a drunken NYC haze benefits America more than a $10,000 bill to Uncle Sam. That's where I come down in the end.

It's the 'kill them with kindness' situation. She may get beaten from a policy discussion standpoint, but if Biden does nothing but attack and she keeps an even keel, the perception may even out in the end. It's really hard to tell at this point, but I could see that happening. He's going to have to keep his attack levels in check, which has never been his strong point.

So, larrymcg421, are you going to go after flere-imsaho now or are you a hypocrite, and your criticisms only apply to conservatives?

I never said they weren't rewarded. My point is, when is enough? I don't want to take this into the whole tax debate; however, when do we start getting programs that are already in our system and start pushing people to take advantage of them. Just throwing money (and money we don't have) at problems isn't the answer. If Warren Buffet and Bill Gates believe the government can do more, why are they avoiding the estate tax and giving it through the Gates' private charity (free from government corruption, waste, bureaucracy, and politics) tax-free?

Why do people always bring up Paris Hilton instead of other people? As much as I despite her, she does create jobs and revenue through her name and brand.

Great point, especially with Buffett. One of the smartest financial minds ever knows that the government sucks with money.

Gates' charity does approximately a billion times more good the government would with the equivalent tax revenue.

Now that the VP picks have happened, it is probably a good time for me to mostly check out of this thread. Not really much going to happen going forward to change anyone's mind or provide new insight now that we are in 100% talking points mode. Nothing here for me but a rise in blood pressure. I'll be around, but for my health and sanity, I'm trying to cut back on political talk across the spectrum until November.

All that said, I have one random comment: the more I read about Sarah Palin, the more I like her personally. Smoked pot. Fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Generally pro-gay rights. Is actually pro-life (as opposed to defaulting to it because it pleases the base).

I'm not a fan of the GOP at all. But there are a lot of disgusting and worthless human beings on the GOP bench that they could have recruited for the VP role, and they didn't. They actually picked someone pretty cool, IMO. Good for them. I want Obama to win the presidency, but I wish governor Palin well.

Just got back in...

Hold on a second. By making a statement, and then laying out a reasonable roadmap for achieving that, that is specific. Look at his budget statement. That makes a lot of sense, and is something well within his power as the president to make happen (it might not, but it is a realistic scenario). His statement about nuclear power is a realistic statement. We're going to have more nukes. Why? Because I will spearhead the effort to cut red tape and make permitting easier? Yeah, that could happen. Even if he falls short of the goal, more efforts in that direction can lead to more power plants.

In short, McCain is listing goals that are achieveable and how he will reach them. Some of his statements are not realistic. How is he realistically going to reduce childhood obesity as a President? Force Congress to sign a law forcing kids to eat their broccoli?

Contrast this to Obama. We'll be off oil in 10 years. We'll make America respected in the world community again. Why? How? While you're at it, why not cure cancer and AIDS? The more I look back at this week, the more and more I think that the convention climaxed with the Clintons' speeches and not with Obama's. Plus the fact that McCain's naming of the a running mate is dominating the news today, and I'm not sure that Obama is not in deep trouble, which is the first time I have felt that way this year.

Leaving politics out of it, I have to say this is a remarkable and proud time for our country when you take a look at the four people on the tickets of the two major political parties.

Huh?

Hey now, let's get back on track. Attractive or somewhat attractive women in politics.

The more I find out about her, the more that McCain might turn this into a huge plus for him.

She can play to education since her dad was a teacher. Supposedly her husband and she were union workers. That could play well with Regan Democrats and your middle class union worker. She can play well with women, being one herself. She should fare well with soccer moms since she has five kids, etc., etc.

Plus, as governor of the state of Alaska, she should know something about oil, I would hope. If I was McCain, I would announce that I would give incentives and open up the rockies oil shale, use that tax dollars generated from those efforts and mandate that those dollars should be used to fund research and development of alternative fuels and energy sources.

She could also appeal to people with two legs and those that have or want hair. The VP pick just doesn't matter this much.

First, America needs to rediscover personal responsibility. You are responsible for maintaining your home. You are responsible for managing your money. You are responsible for how you react to the world around you. Etc., etc.

Second, we need to re-establish family values. Where I am from, most of the people that are from single family homes wind up in bad situations. (Just for the record, this is something that is not a government issue, it is a societal issue) We need to figure out some way to encourage people to have a stable home environment for their children. We have to restore ethical values (I am a big believer in some universal truths).

Third, we need to realize in this country that not everyone is cut out for college and encourage people to go to trade schools. We also need to improve our trade schools because many of the people that I have run across from the schools down here were not worth crap. I'm talking about machinists who couldn't read a ruler or tape measure type of stuff.

Finally, we need to revamp our public school system. It is absolute crap. I was lucky enough to have a wonderful kindergarten teacher for my son. Unfortunately, what happens in first grade? They put many of the smart kids in a class with a second year teacher. Bless her heart she is nice. But she does not yet know how to challenge students. The result is that my child is not getting the most out of his education. He can do better, but he is not challenged at all. Compared to last year when his teacher repeatedly challenged him to write and sing songs. The result is that he is used to performing in front of his peers, his hand writing is excellent for his age, and he has a great creative side as far as making up music. (But he doesn't want to be a rock star because then he would have to smoke)

Another thing regarding education is make ethics and civics classes mandatory. Additionally, we need to show kids why they need to develop skills.

But, all that said, we still need trash collectors, janitors, etc. We need to make unskilled labor more profitable so that people will work in those jobs rather than sit on their ass, which I see all too often about a mile from where I live.

I don't post much, but I've long enjoyed reading this forum. I'm particularly reluctant to dive into the political debates, although I recognize and applaud the general civility of those who are engaged in this thread.

However, I found McCain's pick of Palin to be a brilliant move. Risky -- certainly. But all the VP front runners from either party were open to attack for various reasons. This lady brings a lot to the table, and it doesn't hurt to old guys like me that she's easy on the eye. :)

I do have a question (which is the real reason for posting). I've read several of you argue that the Palin choice will not attract HRC's women supporters because Palin is pro-life. I've now heard several Dem TV pundits voice this same position.

Is that really logical? I think those making this argument are whistling through the graveyard.

Polls have said that 21% of the PUMAs were saying they were going to vote for McCain -- and this was obviously before the Palin pick.

McCain is staunchly pro-life, and has been forcefully voicing that position. If PUMAs were saying they were voting for McCain before Palin, isn't it more logical to suggest his position with the PUMAs will now be strengthened by the addition of Palin to the ticket? I mean, do you really think they're going to be saying "well, I could stomach him being pro-life, but not her too"?

By November I just don't think the PUMA types will number enough to matter. The bigger issue will be blue collar Dems that are up for grabs in the industrial midwest. I think the strengths of both VPs are being overhyped. In the end it won't make a bit of difference as we'll see very little of them between now and November.

How about that fact that she named her kids Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig?

But I thought the Biden pick for Obama was huge? I guess that doesn't matter much either?

FTR, I'm not picking on albion one bit here, not even opening up any of these particular things for discussion ... but, taking them as written as all basically true since I definitely haven't looked them up yet, I'm going to quote them as a lead into something else.

Up the thread a bit, there was a comment (and I don't entirely disagree fwiw) that this choice was basically meant to play to the religious right of the GOP base as much as anything else.

Then I read the quoted snippet ... leaving me thinking "Huh? WTF?"

Buffy might be overlooked but the other two don't exactly strike me as playing well with the religious right element of the GOP. And, again just taking these for accurate for discussion purposes, I start to wonder if she might ultimately cost the ticket as many votes from the base as it gains the ticket from outside the base.

Unless of course my usual position still holds & the unhappy parts of the party are still going to make sure they vote against Obama no matter what.
In which case, no harm done I guess.

Just because someone else may have said this doesn't mean I did. No, neither VP pick will matter much.

She is against gay marriage (in fact, Alaska was one of the first states to ban gay marriage, and she supported it), but open to other benefits for them I believe. So I don't think it will cost her much of any affiliation in that area.

I think her staunch pro-life and creationist stances outweigh everything else when it comes to the CHristian Right. As far as I can tell everyone from that faction is thrilled with the pick.

I guess what I'm wondering is how many of them know about the other points yet? (each was definitely news to me I'll admit)

Personally, I'm wondering where she stands on Angel and Firefly.

What's wrong with liking Buffy?

The "Clinton Democrats" are a pretty varied bunch. Palin could appeal to the blue collar voters that were as much anti-Obama as they were pro-Clinton. These people will likely have more conservative social views and a good portion of them are pro-life. However, she has no chance at nabbing pro-choice women, even the ones who are moderate. I don't think her gender is going to play as big a role as people think.

I don't know. IMO, though, with groups like this on both the right and left the biggest issue is if they're "one of us". McCain can lay out all the Christian Right policies he wants, but he'll never be, "one of us". Palin is considered "one of us" at least to the leaders of the Christian Right. She'll probably lose a few people over the witch thing, but not enough to matter.

The two things I think will be positive from this pick will be that she'll energize the Christian Right on election day which may boost turnout and she got the media to stop talking about Obama's speech.

I'd like to know what role Palin played in the scandal on Miranda. Did she know anything about the project? If so, did she do anything to stop it? I mean, she sounds like she'll be pretty tough against the reavers but that doesn't mean much to me if she helped create them.

I had to read this twice. :D

she is incredibly hot for a politician. i can't even think of anything else when i look at her, what a naughty librarian look she has. caliente!

i'm pro-choice and anti-gay marriage and anti-illegal aliens and anti-big government, i don't even know what that makes me in terms of liberal/conservative. isn't there a website that you answer a couple questions and it lets you know where you fall in the political spectrum.

World's Smallest Political Quiz

There are tons of others, of course.

I didn't say naming Palin wasn't a political calculation from McCain as well. But, atleast she fits his "theme" (reformer, goes against the Washington machine, a maverick type politician).

All I've heard from the left on Obama is how he's different and not the normal politician. Yet, from his funding (mostly high-dollar special interests), to his agenda (party line democrat agenda), to his partisanship (very little "across the aisle" efforts in the senate), to his VP candidate (35-year Washington guy) say that he is exactly the same as McCain, Clinton and everyone else that runs.

So, then, you would say that the judgment a VP candidate showed when he voted against the original Iraq war in the early 90s, for the current Iraq war and setup a plan to split up Iraq into three sectors is more important than his 30+ years in the senate of experience, correct?

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 70%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 20%.

I'm LEFT.

Sitting on the edge with Uncle Milty! (Friedman that is)

Arles: Do you think you'll really nail me here? Sure, Biden's made bad decisions including IMO the bankruptcy bill. Obama's made bad decisions as well. DOes that make you happy? I've never tried to argue that Obama is perfect, he's just more in line with what I think is important than McCain.

As to your specific points, I haven't looked, but Obama probably has more money from high dollar bundlers, but he also has far more total donors than any candidate ever has and a lower per donor amount than any nominee. There's too much money in the system IMO, but it's simply fact that Obama has gotten more people at smaller dollar amounts involved than anyone else ever has.

Obama does have more than "very little" bipartisan achievements. He's worked with Republicans and the Independent Democrat on a number of bills.

With Dick Lugar on securing Russian nukes and pandemic preparation

With Joe Lieberman on protecting taxpayer privacy

With Tom Coburn on lobbying reform and no-bid FEMA contracts and making public all government contracts

With Olympia Snow on Veterans Health Care

These may not be the issues you think he should work with Republicans on, but he has a record of working with Republicans when interests align.

I agree that he is another politician, and I'm not likely to see half of the things done I'd like. Obama, though, is a guy I think can push us in the right direction and maybe pull off something big. I'm not looking for rainbows and bunny rabbits, just a President that has priorities more in line with my own.

In more in depth "quizzes" like these I always end up moving over to the democrat/edge of libertarian/democrat side of things.

Pretty much scored exactly where I figured:

Aka bitter bigoted women factory worker types you mean.

alan - that's right about where I scored, except I was slightly more in towards the center (not on the edge of he box)

No, that's not what I mean. Nice try, though.

I don't feel this hardcore libertarian, but hopefully it provides context to my ramblings in this thread.

The RED DOT on the Chart shows where you fit on the political map.


Your PERSONAL issues Score is 60%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 20%.

According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is...



LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal

matters, but tend to support significant government control of the

economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net"
to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation

of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations,

defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action

to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

Wow who would of thought I am born raised from Massacusetts and score as a liberal. I still think I fall more to the center but that quiz is rather short and generalized in nature.

Here's mine:



Your PERSONAL issues Score is 70%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 90%.

I didn't know I was a centrist although I do lean to the left alittle bit. I am still in favor of a third major party for moderates.