A lot of interesting stuff on that web site.

Election result maps

I am voting for Bob Barr. If I had a knife to my throat and had to vote McCain or Obama I would vote McCain. So now let me make a point and not get attacked by the Republicans in this thread...

How can you speak about the last 8 years of Washington doing nothing when it was your party that did nothing? It makes no sense. It's not an Obama talking point, I am not really sure he is fit to lead either.

I am not discounting this poll totally, though I don't care much either way. I do find a couple things interesting about it.

1. It was from Friday morning, very early in the "getting to know Palin" curve.

2. Along with number 1 comes this line from the article... She was just announced, guys thought she was hot for a politician and liked her.

Another article detailing the campaign funds. Republicans are now saying that they should be able to match Obama's spending dollar for dollar over the rest of the campaign. Quite a turnaround from the reports a couple of months ago showing Obama with a major funds advantage.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=worldwide

The amusing (or discouraging) thing about that is there are a lot of registered voters that will vote for her ticket solely for that reason. It's certainly a dumb reason, but it will happen at some level.

I think its fair to hold Obama to a higher standard when it comes to explanation and details.

He's the "change" candidate (and yes, that's somewhat muted by McCain's tricky attempts to go there too). He's the one promising things that have never been done before. I don't believe he can actually execute his "vision". From him, I'd need to hear more plans, more specifics, more examples from his experience that show he can deliver what he promises.

With McCain, you know what you get. His "change" is different than Obama's. It's not a dramatic change, it's the Republican party pre-Bush with some adjustments. I get what a McCain presidency would be (with all its flaws). With Obama, I have no idea.

McCain has never been president, so there is no way to know what a McCain presidency is going produce. Did you expect Bush's 8 years to go this way? A McCain presidency is as big of an unknown as Obama.

That's a flawed way to make a decision.

Could you please stop presenting every instance of Obama's lack of substance.

That's bullshit. The lack of and complete fabrication of explanations and details is how our country got into the clusterfuck we're in.

It's amazing what you can do when you make a mockery of the law you wrote.

Of course you do, because you never had any intention of voting for him.

I agree. Though I hope Obama wins it would be entertaining to have the Clampetts in the White House with the McCains as the Drysdales.

Oh for Christ's sake, are they rolling averages or not and therefore shouldnt be look at or should they?

For fuck sake is it discounted when it's against your side and the high mark when when it benefits your side.

This isn't even a partisan thing, just which one is it?

As I said, if I thought he was the difference between oil dependence and not, I'd donate ever discretinary dollar I had to his campaign. On that issue alone. If I believed he could somehow deliver a health insurance system that worked, that'd be gravy.

McCain can't do any of that either, of course. On most issues, they're a wash in terms of practicality. But McCain wins some tiebreakers for me in terms of foreign policy and security, and the fact that he scares me a lot less than Obama.

Still voting 3rd party though. But I've set myself to enjoy any result. If Obama wins, it will be fun seeing the dissapointment slowly drift into our concious when nothing changes the way they expect. If McCain wins, it will be fun to see the Democratic party implode.

I will correct myself on #1...I just realized today is Friday morning. :D I was thinking last Friday with that comment, being from this morning it is much more up to date then I was thinking.

Bush never governed as a conservative. He never vetoed any spending bill from a Republican Congress. The consequence was that spending increased dramatically. The Congress wanted to do this because how else do you show you're getting stuff done in Washington? Easy, "Hey look at the new bridge I built! Look at the new gleaming roads, those were built with dollars I secured from Washington."

So you had Congress doing what was in their best interest with a President who never questioned anything spendingwise from them. The big problem here is that the Democrats were so antagonistic, the President almost had no choice. If he wanted to get anything done, he had to scratch the Republican Congress' back.

Now, McCain is running on the Republican agenda from 94-96. Reform Washington and cut spending. There is a reason why the later Clinton years were better than the first two. He had a Congress that fought him tooth and nail. They both wound up not getting entirely what they wanted, and the result was a cutting spending and the creation of a nice surplus. The end of the surplus was not from the Bush tax cut, rather it was from the profligate spending that followed.

One thing you can say about McCain is that he does have the best interest of the country at heart. Unlike Obama, who I question every appointment and association, at least McCain hit it out of the park with his VP nomination. She is an anti-establishment Republican. Her roots are closer to Regan and Newt than it is to Bush.

Obama could have been the change candidate, but the more I read about his positions and the more I hear him, the more I see he is a dyed in the wool classic leftist liberal. The only reason why Obama is so appealing is that he speaks well, and he is not a Republican right now.

I want change, but not the change Obama is promising. The government is not the answer to our problems. The answer to our problems is the people of this nation. The change I want, is to limit the power of the government, have it get out of our way and allow the people of this nation to do the great things we have done, when given the chance.

bullshit. they should both be held to the same standards of explaining what it is they want to do and how they intend to do it.

People in Worcester would disagree but they aren't a suburb of Boston metro.

how is mccain talking about limiting the size of government. didn't he say in his speech last night (i didn't watch, but i heard this) something about giving the federal government the power to hire and fire teachers at a local level??

who's going to do that?? the magical teacher-fairy who doesn't get paid?? NOPE...it's going to be an appointed position with a nice cushy salary. that's going to result in an INCREASED bureaucracy, not a decreased one!

:banghead: WAKE UP!

worcester is a cesspool :) 2nd most depressing city in the state (behind springfield)

You feel this way because you're an Obama supporter.

But it's not logical. The change candidate needs to explain more than the conservative candidate. Every time, every election, no matter the party.

If there's a debate between staying in the same house and moving, the person who wants to move needs to make their case about why it's better, and how they can afford the new house, and whether it will be worth it in the long run. The person staying really doesn't need to explain much (except maybe why it's a bad idea to move, that it will be expensive and not really improve their standard of living)

Hi, I live in the nothingness that is known as Wilderness Massachusetts! (I also am 3 minutes from the third largest city in New England) :)

But yeah, I wouldn't call this a suburb of Boston.

This one did.

I don't think Barr is even on the ballot in New York, or else he would get my vote.

And you wanted me to invite you over for a Grill out??? :) If you want to see depressing, drive up 128 every day! That is depressing :)

wrong. they both need to explain how they intend to pay for what they want to do, and what they want to do. it's part of making an informed decision as a voter. because the circumstances are never the same as when the "status quo" candidate or his party's predecessor took office. there's new wrinkles. for instance - in this case - "the war on terror."

We deserve to hear how John McCain would handle the war on terror, just as we deserve to hear how Obama would.

Same thing with the economy - because the economic situation is different (indeed it's different than 1 year ago), we need to know how the candidate will deal with the problems of today, not the challenges that were faced yesterday.

I would laugh if a candidate came out and said to elect him and he will do everything he can to continue the Bush legacy. They probably wouldn't be very successful, but the humor in it would be great.

lol yes it is.

haha -- you're not in springfield though right? I don't think i know what town it is exactly that you live in.

I had a friend go to college in Worcester, and one go out by Springfield, so I'm not hating on western-mass, just saying -- it's economically very hurting.

Same here.

I used to have an hour and half commute every day. Route 2 west for 30 miles, then Route 95 South to Needham.

Idaho is beautiful.

I thought it was pretty funny that last night McCain is telling the crowd that
the special inetrests groups and lobbyists better be ready to get thrown out of washington. It was ironic of course since probably a lot of the crowd there were lobbyists.:crazy:

I'd agree if that was McCain's message. If he was saying four more years of what we've been doing, fine. However, he's also positioning himself as the change candidate. By your own logic he has to present how he's going to change things.

And nearly two hundred lobbyists and former lobbyists work on the McCain campaign.

Needham? I can spit into Needham from my house. Where'd you work?

Fixed that for you.:cool:

Nah, I live in the metro-Worcester area (never heard of a metro-Worcester area, so just made it up maybe?) :) Was just saying that Worcester is the third largest city in New England, and pretty much the same practical population as the second largest one (Providence). So was just having fun with the comment someone said that there was nothing west of Marlborough. I mean it is no Wasilla, Alaska but it is not exactly wilderness. :)

But yeah it is ugly, but I find most of the northern Industrial cities ugly. Never really liked Pitssburgh, Buffalo, Indianapolis, Gary, etc either for the same reason. (Of course last time I mentioned that the entire FOFC Indy gang yelled at me about how the city has improved in the last 10 years). :)

Do you honestly think Palin wants to go on Oprah? If I was a Republican strategist, I wouldn't let her go anywhere near that show. I guarantee you, "Pro-life in the case of rape" will be the most talked about issue.

Also, I can't believe we're giving any validity to the Drudge Report. Hold on while I go get a story from Randi Rhodes and we can discuss it.

I work from home every day. But I couldn't move to Idaho.. I need to have a movie theatre and a billiard hall and sports teams and such within 15 minutes of my house or I'd go crazy.

George Bush talked about those same things in 2000 and look what happened. It's not going to be easy for John McCain to get people to believe that all of a sudden he's the good change candidate and that we should re-elect a Republican because the Republicans screwed up. I voted for Bush in 2000 but I'm not falling for that again. We'll see how the country reacts to it in the polls over the next week.

It's tricky for McCain, no doubt.

He's trying to portray himself as a "change" from Bush. And he's always been a "reform" candidate (whatever that means), even back to 2000. But his party is still "conservative" (or at least it used to be).

I don't see him as a real change candidate. But sure, if you're saying that if he's going to portray himself like that, he has to be held to a higher standard in terms of details and practicality and explanations, and experience, that's fair.

Yup it sure is.

I am shocked and appalled that FOFC's Republican cheerleaders haven't ripped on the lack of substance in McCain's speech last night.

That video makes a great case for Obama being a Supreme Court Justice, it does nothing about making me think he is qualified to be President.

Lawyers are great for understanding what can and what cannot be done. It is my experience, that they are not the best candidates to lead. It also explains why he is such a great speaker. He has had plenty of experience doing that. However, speaking and debating is a different skill from getting the job done. Speaking and debating is a great skill to have in Congress. It would help in the White House, but I want someone who has experience in getting stuff done. He doesn't have it. The closest experience he has to that is his community organizer work, which sounds a lot like a social worker to me (the way he explained it).

To try and look at it from an objective viewpoint, McCain riding on the issue of change is a mistake because it frames the debate in terms that are favorable to Obama.

This was much like 2004 when Kerry decided to run heavily on his Vietnam service, which frames the debate on national security, which was very favorable to Bush.

There's some beautiful rural towns out by Worcester though (Grafton, Southborough, Westborough, etc). I actually enjoy it. Just the city itself is very...bleak.

Boise would be the second biggest city in New England. (though you're absolutely right about the rest of Idaho - its a different world).

But we still won't know anything that truly matters or counts until the curtain closes & the votes are cast.

My point being that, even for a guy who likes numbers like I do, there's only one poll that really matters in the end. Unless you're directly involved in the campaign strategy & are in a position to make adjustments based on the information, it's all just something to talk about to pass the time between now & November.

hahah - small world: i won't post particulars more than this, but molson just told me he used to work for a company that i (unsuccessfully) interviewed with back in like 2004. company in the same building where my dad has worked for the past few years.

smalllllllllll world

Yes, I lived in Grafton for three years and grew up in Shrewsbury before heading out after college on my globetrotting with military/governmnet. Grfaton is a decent town as are some others like Sturbridge, Westborough, Hopkinton, Upton etc.

Who's interests does Obama have at heart? Typical conservative bullshit.

I am awake. Obama's going to do his part to shrink government? That's news to me.

You think Obama is going to bring change, then why did he make a 35 year vet of Congress his running mate? :banghead: WAKE UP!

Let's face it, you want any change you can get and are willing to vote for the least qualified Presidential candidate in history. I on the other hand, want the Republicans to go back to the days of 94-96 and reduce government.

I would much rather have what you described above, than the snake oil that Obama is peddling. Someone who has never had to get anything done in his life. Every single position he has had, none of it was about leadership. The community organizer stuff is the closest he can come, and that sounds just like social work. I have several friends that do that sort of thing, and I don't think any of them are qualified to be President.

Obama is talking about expanding the government much more than McCain is. I believe many of his policies are untenable and are either doomed to failure, or will wind up screwing the country over in the long run. Not to mention his lack of foreign policy experience.

McCain is not my ideal candidate. That said, he showed good judgement in selecting Palin as his running mate. Whatever his reasons may have been to make that choice, she is a strong candidate and I really like what I have found out about her. She is the most qualified EXECUTIVE candidate in the field. She has run a town, and she has run a state. That's more than Biden, Obama, or McCain can say for themselves. Now, don't get me wrong, she has holes in her resume as well, but at least she has run something and has brought change and reform to the state she is from.

Now others have mentioned that Alaska is a small state and that Wasilla is a small town. You're right. But guess who else came from a small state. Bill Clinton. While I might not have liked the guy, he could have done a lot worse.

Today's electoral-vote.com polls

Alaska: McCain 54-35
Indiana: McCain 45-43
North Dakota: Obama 43-40

They currently have Obama with a 301-224 lead.

But wait! I thought it was more important who was at the top of the ticket than who was at the bottom of the ticket. Now it changes?

You guys are so cute.

I heard an interview the other day with a person who claimed to be a community organizer working for the Chicago political machine in the mid 70s. Basically, he canvassed homes and churches, making sure everyone was registered to vote - and worked to get the vote out. Apparently there were certain blue collar jobs you could only be considered for if you had a letter of recommendation from the local ward's alderman. He was the one who submitted recommendations to the alderman on which people in the community he worked should get those letters.

Way to take it out of context...

Statement: I believe most people in Washinton are there not for the good of the country, but for the good of themselves.

Belief: McCain passed McCain-Feingold not for himself, but an attempt to reform campaign financing.

Now, the fact that the bill was not the success he hoped it to be, I think it was an honest effort on his part to effect reform.

Because of that, I think he is different from the other Republicans on the Hill. Not saying I am crazy about him, but I believe him when he talks about change.

Regarding Obama, I have no clue whose interests he has at heart. He doesn't have a long enough record or really developed and pushed through any major legislation that I am aware of.

Never said it didn't matter. My point there is that he is all about change, yet the most important appointment he has had to make to date is all about remaining the same. Do I need to explain everything to you guys?

How do you get past this point and still think continuing the post is a good idea?

Just your hypocrisy.

McCain was all about experience, and then he appointed Palin. However, that was explained away because the top of the ticket is more important than the bottom of the ticket. We got comments like, "We welcome a debate between the Pres nominee and the VP nominee on this issue."

Well, he was a friend of the host who vouched for him and currently is sales manager working in Tampa. However, it WAS a Clear Channel owned station, so that probably blows any credibility he might have with you right there.

It all goes both ways (especially this year).

With Obama supporters, it was "experience is overrated", and then Obama picks Biden and they attack Palin's experience. (Of course they frame it as "you say experience is important and then you pick Palin!")

With McCain supporters, it was "experience is important", and then McCain picks Palin and they criticize Biden being an "insider" (Of course they frame it "you say you're about change and then you pick Biden).

That's why I don't really listen to someone's political opinion unless it goes against their standard broad view. Otherwise it's just a reflex reaction, not really an opinion.

Like when Democrats were suddenly against the electoral college after 2000 (And I have no doubt Republicans would have done the same if the situation were reversed).

I'm surprised that conservatives have taken such a negative view of community organizers, since it seem to fit in nicely with what they view people should do. It's all about people taking responsibility for themselves and working to improve the lives of people in their area. It kind of baffles me that they would attack someone for participating in that, since it seems like that's what they would want someone to do instead of waiting for a government handout.

Who does a community organizer work for? If it's for a charity or a church, rather than the government, than I'm sure Republicans would be all for it (though they may have different opinions on how it qualifies one to be president).

I hadn't heard any direct community-organizer bashing until Palin's speech, which I assumed was just in response to the Obama camp's critisms of her experience.

The whole premise of presidential elections is to find the best candidate for the job. We use a variety of methods to accomplish this. They vary from person to person.

That said, I have issues with McCain and I have issues with Obama. I actually considered voting for Obama at the start of the primary season. I remembered his 04 DNC speech, and I heard his message early on in the races. I looked into what he stood for and realized that he is for most of what I am against.

That was one strike, and a pretty big one at that. But another thing that I look at is who people associate themselves with. Who they appoint, what type of people they surround themselves with, etc. Again, Obama has failed here as well. The whole Jeremiah Wright issue. I'm not crazy about his wife, but I gave him a pass on that. Then we get Biden as his VP pick. Let's put it this way, 3 people that I've seen him make choices to associate himself with, and 3 people I don't like.

So yes, the top of the ticket is more important that what is below it, but it does give some insight into the candidate. Obama took a low risk candidate. McCain took a high risk one. One that I still think was not his best choice, but I have grown to like it the more I have learned about her. For the record, I would have preferred Joe Lieberman, but that would make the far right much less enthusiastic about McCain than they were.

What else do I need to explain to you guys?

Actually, Democrats were against the electoral college before that. It was Republicans who told me that it was all about states rights. And I'm still against the electoral college if Obama loses the popular vote and wins the electoral vote.

Not saying you don't have a good point about how people change their arguments for political reasons, but I don't think this is necessarily a good example of that.

To me, not speaking for anyone else on the right on this, it is not so much that he was a community organizer. It was more that he was listing this as reasons why he should be President. What I find funny is that looking at his resume, this is the most pertinent experience he has in his past. I just don't think it qualifies him as Presidential material.

The speeches given at the RNC were not to bash the profession, because you are right. That is the type of stuff we want to see done in communities. However, that does not mean that he is Presidential material. When that is best job experience you have that pertains to the Presidency, and you attack another candidate because they were only governor for two years, you're asking for a riposte.

EDIT: Again, as I mentioned before, I do not think legislative experience is a prerequisite for the Presidency. It helps, but I prefer a candidate that has executive branch experience. I understand McCain lacks this experience as well.

They may not have been to bash the profession, but that's certainly how they came off. There was no qualifying statement about the good that community organizers do before ripping Obama for his service. It came of as, well, elitist.

Like mocking someone's service as mayor because of the population of the town?

Maybe she should have taken the higher road there and just let the Obama camp attack her because she's "country". It was a calculated risk.

Quote please. I believe you're referring to the bloggers and not the Obama campaign. did anyone from the campaign say anything like this? Did they do it at their national convention? I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

For those who are wondering about why Palin is so appealing to conservatives, this is a pretty good piece.

hxxp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4677799.ece

I disagree that they will not hit Obama on experience. I think they will. Palin will sit there and say that she did more for her state in 2 years in the governor's mansion than Obama has done in his career. She can then sit there and say, "And I'm the part of the ticket that is lacking in experience." She makes two points in one statement.

The other reason why this excites the base is that we have been looking for the next great conservative to come along, and she just might be it. She still has a ways to go, but she might be it.

religious fever has nothing to do with it.

I know she's great on social issues for the base, but how are you with her fiscal record? She left Wasilla with 20 million in debt, enacted a windfall tax on Alaska oil companies and bragged repeatedly about all the earmarks she was bringing in. Does her pro-life, pro-gun stance nullify a pretty poor fiscal record?

You're both going to be severely disappointed.

BTW, If anyone is truly serious about cutting the size of government, they'd start with the 700+ foreign military bases we're currently operating. Maybe that Iraq war thing too.

Of course, no politician is actually going to suggest such a thing.

The guy I want isn't running. I'm going with the best that is offered. There are plenty of other programs besides military which we can cut. Of course we can afford some cuts there as well.

Military cuts in the middle of a war on terror???!!!! Be careful. You don't want to be called unpatriotic.

I wouldn't worry very much. Obama was against Iraq before he was for it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...hRI&refer=home

"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency" said Bill Burton, Obama Campaign Spokesman.

Not as much as a "mocking" as the Obama blogs, yes, but this was the very first response of the Obama campaign to the news (it was quoted in all of the first articles about Palin).

It's like referring to Obama first as a "former community organizer", which while true, is hardly his entire experience.

If the Dems were really serious about ending the war, they could have cut the funding in Congress at any time the past several years. Then they could make a really strong argument that they are the anti-war party.

The fact that they haven't indicates - a) they are gutless, preferring the status quo rather than sticking to their principles, or b) they have internal polling showing that such a move isn't the win-win scenario for their party that they claim it is.

Obama stopped talking about Iraq and withdrawing pretty much immediately after his trip there. Which I give him credit for. Though I think he was tricky about it - he wanted to tell the truth about the realities he came to, without his base figuring out there is now really no difference between him and the Republicans on this.

I admit that I am not crazy with the oil tax, I admit. But, I am not completely against them either, provided, they go towards alternate fuel research.

From what I understand about the earmarks, it was when she was mayor of Wasilla. My view on this is that as mayor, she is responsible for improving the town. It makes a ton of sense that in her role as mayor, she should try and get as many as she can.

The way I look at it is this. If a program is in place, you need to take advantage of it. However, that does not mean that if you are against it you shouldn't seek to change it.

Now before anyone goes nuts and says this is hypocritical, it shows her able to react to the role she is in. I do not think this is any more hypocritical than going to work for a competitor. Especially in sales, you might not have a choice. The greatest thing since sliced bread might be product X, but Monday you might have to sell product Y because you got laid off by X. The other thing is that it shows that she can adapt to her constituents. Her constituents in Wasilla are different from the ones she has in the entire state (well, out side of the 9000 they share in common).

not going to go back and find quotes in the thread to quote, but on the subject of experience: nobody is ever "qualified" or "prepared" to be president of the united states. it's arguably the most stressful, important job in the world (at least from an American POV). The closest you can maybe come is having been VP, or governor of one of the more populous & diverse states (California, New York).

Being a senator doesn't prepare you, although senators try to argue that it does in some ways (and maybe it does in certain ways). Being a former community activist and lawyer doesn't prepare you. Being mayor of a town of 7k people and former governor (for a half-term) of one of the richest & least-diverse & least populated states in the country doesn't perpare you.

As a Democrat the most "prepared" or "qualified" Presidents we have had recently have been Regan and Bush I. Not saying I agreed with either of them, or was happy with them, but if you wanted to look for who was more "prepared" by virtue of their resume, it'd be those two guys.

It's all bullshit. I'm a firm believer that nothing out there can really "prepare" someone for the job.

she got 27 million in earmarks for wasilla...a town of 7k people. that's more per-capita in earmarks than the city of Boise!

I don't think conservatives have a negative view of community organizers, nor did they attack someone for merely participating in that. The mention of it by Palin was just a comparison of her political experience versus Obama's. Sure, it may have been said sarcastically, but the same argument can be said about Burton's comments regarding her time as mayor.

:banghead:

Sometimes I wonder why I get into these threads. Anyway, there are intelligent ways of cutting spending. Do we need the 700 bases around the world? No, I am sure that many can be consolidated without compromising our ability to project power anywhere on the globe.

FYI, Rudy bashed it in his speech earlier the same night.

I didn't like Burton's comments about her time as Mayor, just like I didn't like Rove's comments about Tim Kaine's experience, but I think most people will remember what the VP nominee said in one of the most watched speeches of the campaign than what Rove or Burton said.

My comment was in jest. You're banging your head against the wall? Well, that's what liberals have been doing for a while when conservatives have accused us of being unpatriotic, not supporting the troops, wanting them to fight with spitballs, etc.

If I'm a resident of Wasilla, I think she did a great job. As a resident of Tennessee, that's insane!

It depends on what you're constituency is. In her case, she did a great job as mayor.


You're right to an large extent. However, I am all for being as prepared as you can be. Just because you can't ever be entirely prepared, that doesn't mean we take Joe Blow off the street and give him the job.

Its kind of like minimizing your risk. If I am a creditor, who am I going to give money to, the guy who has successfully started up 5 companies, or the guy who just came in off the street with his latest get rich quick scheme? Do I give it to the guy that has started up 3 companies, or the guy that has been the CFO for 10 successful startups? That is where things get harry. I don't think we are at that point though. This race is one where a guy has been on the board of 5 startups, not all entirely successful (Congresses McCain has been a part of), against a guy that has been one the board of one unsuccessful one (Congresses Obama has been a part of).

I think that this really points to the uniqueness of the current situation. Given the state of the Republican party, Obama, if he was virtually any other candidate, would be crushing them. Conversely, give the candidacy of Obama, if it was any other year, the Republican candidate would be crushing him.

...or humvees made of paper.

And as I recall, it went over very well with the audience in the room.

it was a very good speech.

Don't lump me in with the other conservatives. My only beef regarding the talk about the war is this:

Prior to war, we should discuss, protest, do whatever you deem necessary within the bounds of the law to make yourself heard. Once we are involved in a war, we should all be working towards resolving the war as quickly as possible, by bringing all our forces to bear, keep our mouths shut, and provide a unified front to the world.

War is hell. War is unpleasant. Many people die from war. We should use every set of means short of war to resolve our differences, but if it is necessary to go to war, let's get it done. Once we have talked, we should all be on the same page. When we criticize the manner in which a war is conducted, we are aiding and abetting our enemies. They can use that knowledge to put our boys in worse danger, and ulitmately make their sacrifice in vain.

Additionally, I think it is ridiculous to discuss cutting military funding during a war. Unless it is a specific cut, that is mandate, for example, shutting down all facilities on Christmas Island, etc., etc. Even then, only if it is not essential to the war being fought. That said, most cuts can probably wait until the end of the war anyway.

Interesting non-denial denial by Oprah concerning the Drudge Report rumor. She says they haven't discussed a Palin appearance and they'd be happy to have her on the show after the campaign is over. In other words, she can come on my show when she's not campaigning against my candidate anymore..........

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,417523,00.html

I'd agree with this POV more if Congress actually got off their asses and declared war. As it stands the executive has far too much authority to commit our troops to battle and in your way of thinking all of those decision become immune to criticism once the fighting starts. There has to be room for criticism of the engagement itself, especially when the President can and in many cases since Vietnam, has committed troops without a debate that a declaration of war would force.

I think this excerpt from a recent column addresses your question:

Nobody is mocking community organizers in church basements and community centers across the country working to improve their neighbors' lives. What deserves ridicule is the notion that Obama's brief stint as a South Side rabble-rouser for tax-subsidized, partisan nonprofits qualifies as executive experience you can believe in.

What deserves derision is "community organizing" that relies on a community of homeless people and ex-cons to organize for the purpose of registering dead people to vote, shaking down corporations and using the race card as a bludgeon.

Full Text of Column

Yeah, sorry, but that's ridiculous. If a President has a fucked up military strategy, the people have a duty to to let him know it. If the President is sending people to die for suspect reasons, then the people have a duty to let him know it. I will exercise my duty no matter what kind of accusations people throw at me.


I think we are aiding and abetting our enemies when we stifle dissent, which makes us look like hypocrites when we talk about the "freedom" we want to spread to the rest of the world. I think we are aiding and abetting our enemies when we let a President continue a disastrous military policy without really challenging him on it. I think we are aiding and abetting our enemies when we don't question a President for misdirecting our resources and potentially letting our greatest enemy to get away.

You can't really blame her, as she's obviously got a vested interest and huge investment, since she kicked off Obama's 19 month campaign on her show.

Oprah might have also noted that the ratings for Palin's speech were close to Obama's, despite the fact that it was carried on four fewer networks.

Um, "they haven't discussed a Palin appearance" seems like a direct denial to the Drudge report. Also, "her candidate" was only on the show once, before he was a candidate. None of the four have been or will be on her show during the election. Not sure why people have a problem with that.

That wasn't per capita, it was total value. A city of 7K got as much as one of over 200K.

SI

Well said. And I know my cousin and his friends (ex-West Pointers) would agree privately.

It doesn't mean that we don't support the troops. In fact, if you think about it, questioning the conduct of the war and the rationale for the war, and the handling of the war, is THE MOST patriotic thing you can do. Both from a standpoint of exercising your freedom, and because you are doing it in the hopes of saving the lives (or limbs) of some of these young men+women, instead of just sitting-down and shutting-up.

Shit - I make nowhere near enough money right now, but if I'm out eating/drinking and I come across someone in uniform, you can be damn sure I pick up their check. I support the troops themselves to the fullest -- support them so much I would like to not see another one die.