Does it really matter how moderate the running mate is since McCain himself is doing everything he can to cozy up to the religious right?  He may have publicly rejected the endorsements of hate mongers Parsley and Hagee after people started questioning, but that doesn't change the fact that he met with them, sought their support and must have offered something they liked to get those endorsements, especially after 2000.  And, he did just give the graduation address at Jerry Falwell's indoctrination camp college....

Well, Leah, you know how i feel about these interests, as well as the interests that are polar opposites that Obama is in bed with.  And yes, McCain has many other weaknesses in addition to this, what candidate doesn't?  But what republican president hasn't pandered to the religious right?  Reagan was way worse about this, actually preached the gospel to the Soviets a few times .  I still loved Reagan, and that's coming from an atheist .   

As far as simply "meeting" with them though, discussing issues, the more of that - the better, imho.  They are Americans too, and one of the problems of moderate candidates is that they stand to lose the base of their party.  Since I tend to like moderate candidates, and I want them to win, I don't want them to lose that base either, even if I disagree with it.  There is no reason the religios right shoudn't vote for a republican who is moderate versus a liberal democrat, its self defeating to them, and McCain is right to tell them this, outline where he agrees with them on the issues they hold dear, etc.  And yes, even to ease their fears that he is not really as liberal as talk radio makes him out to be.  Because he isn't.  He should be their choice, and he needs to fight for this.

Obama, conversely, is too close to his extremists.  The Farrakhan crowd, the black racists, NAACP, the ultra-liberal extremists and socialists of all sorts (so much for CHANGE, btw )  He doesn't have to fight - he's got them.  In that sense, the fact that McCain does, says that he is farther from his extremists.

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

Egor:

Well, Leah, you know how i feel about these interests, as well as the interests that are polar opposites that Obama is in bed with.  And yes, McCain has many other weaknesses in addition to this, what candidate doesn't?  But what republican president hasn't pandered to the religious right? 

As far as simply "meeting" with them though, discussing issues, the more of that - the better, imho.  They are Americans too, and one of the problems of moderate candidates is that they stand to lose the base of their party.  Since I tend to like moderate candidates, and I want them to win, I don't want them to lose that base either, even if I disagree with it.  There is no reason the religios right shoudn't vote for a republican who is moderate versus a liberal democrat, its self defeating to them, and McCain is right to tell them this, outline where he agrees with them on the issues they hold dear, etc.  And yes, even to ease their fears that he is not really as liberal as talk radio makes him out to be.  Because he isn't.  He should be their choice, and he needs to fight for this.

Well, no, maybe not, but my point wasn't whether or not it is in McCain's best interest to meet with these people to find common ground.  My point was to wonder if it is in this country's best interest to have a president who would pander to those people, no matter how moderate he may have seemed in the past.

Leah, as usual, i've already edited my post in delayed anticipation of these concerns

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

I'm a Reagan fan too, regardless of whether I agreed with him on every single issue.  But, under Reagan, we weren't entering post-Bush, post-Patriot act territory and I didn't fear a church run police state.  I still say we need an anti-Bush, no matter how flawed, just to undo the damage and I don't see how that can happen with any president who has obligations to the Republican party or any of the extreme groups therein.

Egor:

Leah, as usual, i've already edited my post in delayed anticipation of these concerns

how nice it must be to be omniscient... 

Wait a second..... so Bushes worst is Patriot Act ??

OMG....

 

 

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....

KGBMan:

Wait a second..... so Bushes worst is Patriot Act ??

OMG....

 

 

 

No, of course not.  But the Patriot Act can be undone.  His worst cannot. 

Nothing can be reversed without a time machine.  Even the Patriot Act (the bad parts of it that make headlines, anyway) was going to be repealed no matter what - no one supports it anymore, we havent beern attacked recently enough.   What can't be reversed, is that we effectively showed that a small (on a scale of what is possible) terrorist attack will not only turn liberty's staunchest patriots into its worst enemies, but will immediately solidify these people's grip on power for a few years.  These laws, moving forward, are going to be a function of balance between security and freedom for as long as terrorism is feared by the electorate. Elevating post-attack, and subsiding when it's calmer.

May I remind you, that the Patriot Act, at its inception, had enough support to override any veto, I don't care if Thomas Jefferson was president. 

Now it has enough opposition, for the reverse to be true. 

Other, worse things, as you said, cannot be reversed either. 

Unconditional withdrawal without considerations takes away our very freedom to reason. Superimposed on an ill-advised war, this is not a reversal of the war, it is simply the NEXT error.  The consequences of having begun the war do not disappear, but new ones are added.  Effective commander-in-chief does not set military strategy with dates and freaky promises, to take place regardless of circumstances and consequences.  Thats how we got here in the first place.  Options MUST be weighed at all times, and in any situation - benefits and consequences analyzed, and weighed.  McCain does this instinctively, a very rare trait in a politician.  If withdrawal is convincingly beneficial, he will actually do it.  Just ask his party, that's his reputation, which is why he was so feared by his own base.  Among other things, they do not trust him to unconditionally press on with Iraq and current strategy.

Other things - reversing tax cuts, for example - leaves all of the consequences in place, and adds a strain on the economy.  Why, In borderline recession would anyone add any kind of strain?  It's not like you are undoing any damage, paying off the national debt now requires a century of tax rates so high, free market capitalism cannot exist at all.  Realistically, it can only be achieved by stimulating growth.  And the deficit is still there - look at the costs of Obama's promises.  So no benefit exists at all, we'd be paying higher taxes, which get sucked into the new welfare state, and are STILL not covering the federal budget.

Examples go on and on.  Change in direction will never equal "reversal" until we have a time machine.  Abstract idea of "change" only appears positive after a really, really bad f*ckup.  But this does not make it so.

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

Ok, "reversed" wasn't the greatest word to use, but I had already edited it out for another before you posted your reply.  The new one isn't much different, I guess.

Your post is good, but I just think we need anyone other than a Republican this time.  There has to be a break if we are to restore civil liberties.  It isn't as though I particularly care for the alternative. 

(Edited to say that I realize you are going to nail me to the wall for posting that I basically "feel" that we need a change in a political topic.  I am not at my best just at the moment.)

 

Statement "I basically 'feel' that we need a change", is obviously a valid and respectable political opinion even in good times.  Times like now, its validity is demonstrated by the sheer numbers of people who feel this way.  Republicans even

Despite letting the left side of my brain do most of the writing here, I "feel" things too. Like the danger of such a percentage of people feeling this way in a democracy.  This is how democracies fail in some societies. Times like this is when that population is used to drive hidden agendas having nothing to with resolving the original problems that caused the "feeling", simply because the longing for the prospect of change, even in the abstract sense, is fulfilled.  (who says Psychology is not a science? )

The passage of The Patriot Act, by the way, is where this same phenomenon was used by the opposing forces to their advantage.

I think - this phenomenon cannot be positive in any circumstance.  We are drugged by a feeling.   And in pretty dangerous times to boot, on so many fronts.  Not good.  That's how I *feel*

 

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

Egor:

The passage of The Patriot Act, by the way, is where this same phenomenon was used by the opposing forces to their advantage.

Well, sure.  Most people are sheep who can't think or read it for themselves before jumping on board. 

Leah:

Egor:

The passage of The Patriot Act, by the way, is where this same phenomenon was used by the opposing forces to their advantage.

Well, sure.  Most people are sheep who can't think or read it for themselves before jumping on board. 

No one reads any bill completely.   We just expect that stuff like this, when exposed by detractors (who in a democracy exist in every situation meriting an outcry), would resonate with the public, and consequentially - the media.

Same problem I have with the "change" stuff.  I expect reason to appear. What change?  just ask a simple question - what change?  Aren't you interested? 

Since you brought up trekkies, there were many situations on the enterprise where everyone changed by some force - minds taken over by alien influence, memories of people who disappeared into a time warp vanishing, or whatever..  The change in James Bond, alone, could only be caused by an anti-matter explosion of some sort.  Throughout all this, usually one person remained and watched everyone go completely insane, unable to stop it, or even communicate with them using reason.  In some sense - it was that character, who was truly insane

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

Bond changed?  Into what?

 

*extremely edited because one really shouldn't drink & type* 

I changed into an Independent.
Lou Dobbs to good at converting us Republicans to Independents by reminding us, every single day, about the dysfunction in Washington. 
I have ALWAYS voted for the candidate I thought was best - Republican or Democrat.  I have always voted for the President that won.  In that sense, I am main-stream.
Only 6 months ago I joked about voting for Obama.  6 months ago it was sarcasm.  No longer.  Obama's  appeal is simple:  change.  

Nothing new about people wanting change, but if you look at how everybody is jumping on the Independent bandwagon it's in part a vote for what Obama can do but it's also a vote against the Establishment.  

---

"Hearts will never be practical until they can be made unbreakable."