Convince me

Why in the world would GWBII have any sort of impact upon your opinion on GWI? That doesn't compute to me.

I guess it's like when my parents used to say, "You can't go out looking like some homeless ragamuffin! Can you imagine what the neighbors would think of us?"

Stew, I'd take a peek at the candidate's websites. I haven't seen McCain's, but Obama's is well-thought out, easy to navigate, and outlines all his plans in detail. I think he's got good plans on healthcare and especially education. But that's me - I can't vote for you.

Take your time and peruse the sites at your leisure, then think about which appeals to you.

mscelina said:

Why in the world would GWBII have any sort of impact upon your opinion on GWI? That doesn't compute to me.

Click to expand...

FWIW, I'm the same way. I despise W so deeply and sincerely that it's impacted my perception of his parents. I never actually liked GHWB, but I used to sort of respect him. Now I get ill when I see pictures of him.

I have absolutely no problem with GHWB. I thought and still think he was a decent enough President, and a dutiful VP for Reagan. Don't know him personally so I can only judge from his public persona and record. GW is another matter. But the "apple doesn't fall far from tree" thing doesn't really hold up here -- GW had always been a problem child anyway (incidentally, I can't wait to see W).

Well, I've removed my holding GHWB responsible for GWB.

maestrowork said:

And the appointment of future Supreme Court justices -- that's a biggie for me.

Click to expand...

Which is the single biggest reason why I'm having a hard time deciding. Minus this issue, I would be voting for Obama.

There was no need to do that Victoria. I was just curious as to why. In my view, the differences between the two men as President are so polarized that I was honestly wondering why people would have that sort of reaction. But, as you can see you're not the only one. shawkins agrees with you and I'm sure other people do as well.

I was just curious. Honest.

mscelina said:

There was no need to do that Victoria. I was just curious as to why. In my view, the differences between the two men as President are so polarized that I was honestly wondering why people would have that sort of reaction. But, as you can see you're not the only one. shawkins agrees with you and I'm sure other people do as well.

I was just curious. Honest.

Click to expand...

Why? Well, in most cultures, over history, the sense of family pride/belonging was much greater than it is now. People would take credit for the deeds of their grandfathers - or their grandsons, as the case may be. I believe the Bible has a verse about a sin affecting a family for three or four generations - and in a way that's valid, for it can take that long for a memory to die out.

So it is an attitude, even if not one that we subscribe to today.

I did read a book about the Bushes that soured me a bit on GHWB - his example certainly influenced GWB in ways that I had not realized. However, GHWB's presidency was good enough - and because of that, I think many people assumed that GWB would be of a similar ilk and did not get all that excited.

I see. Thanks for the clarification!

I thought GHWB stunk on ice. I was more than happy to vote for Clinton in '92.

Why are you concerned about an Obama presidency appointing Supremes?

Because I want strict constructionists, not Judges given to reinterpreting the Constitution to serve an agenda. While I may not get such a thing under McCain (see Alito), I sure as hell won't get it from Obama.

You'd rather have justices who would gladly repeal Roe v. Wade? I know it's a woman's issue, so maybe you don't consider it within your plans (just saying, not judging) but the judges McCain would pick would MORE LIKELY be willing and able to do something of that sort. Which is kinda scary.

I'd rather have Judges that followed the Constitution. Period.

I have not read the entire thread so please excuse me if I repeat people. Thanks for the opportunity to present my views. I'll try to break it down into various issues.

1. Economy.

It's easy to see, and we all agree, that the economy is tanking and it's very scary right now. So, as a voter, you have to do your best to figure out why--whose ideas are right? Do Republican economic ideas work, or Democratic?

In the modern era, the core difference is that Republican economic ideas are top-down, and Democratic are bottom-up. (recognizing that this is a huge oversimplification.) I think history shows us, and economics explain, that top-down economics don't work. That's why the economy steamed under Clinton and tanked under Bush. I mean, I don't think I need to go through or remind you that virtually every economic indicator was rocking at the end of Clinton, and now we are (so they tell us) teetering on the brink of a Great Depression.

Bottom-up economics works better for several reasons. One is that our economy is consumer driven, and needs consumers with money to buy things. Top-down economics tends to leave more money in the hands of people who use it to buy real estate in Dubai, or whatever. Doesn't create jobs here.

Another big difference is that Democrats spend money on investing in people and infrastructure, while Republicans spend it on "defense," which recently is a euphemism for attacking the wrong country. When you spend money on dams or education, if you do it right, it improves the regional, national or individual economy, so that you then get it back later. Its essentially an investment. When you spend money on bombs, you blow it up, and never get it back. This is the main reason we are worse than broke right now. This is (one of the reasons) why Clinton had a huge surplus, and Bush a record-breaking deficit.

Now, McCain is trying to depict himself as a rebel against the establishment, but if you listen to his speeches and his ads, he has made it clear that he endorses modern Republican economic theory, which I think history has discredited, so Obama is the clear winner there.

More later.

2. Iraq

For me, this is a huge disaster, just a massive screw-up. O.K., I get that its in the past and we can't unscramble the egg. But the result is that we have this absolute mess, this expensive, dangerous, deadly mess that we have to get out of somehow.

Couple of things:
a. Who do you better trust to get us out of this hole, the schmucks who got us in in the first place, or the people who have been screaming bloody murder the whole time?
b. Judgment. McCain was and remains gung-ho in favor of this debacle. Obama was one of the few politicians in the entire country who was against it from the get-go. That's smart, sound judgment and integrity. That's the kind of person we want leading the country. McCain says he has the experience, but what's the point if you still make dumb mistakes like this? He's "too soon old; too late smart." The purpose of experience is to help you make the right decisions. On this one, the biggie of the decade, Obama got it right and McCain blew it.

Integrity. Obama's got it.

O.K., Stew, I hope you're still there, as I'm taking you at your word. Regarding health care. For me, I'm looking to move to Universal Health Care, because it's simply more practical. Those countries that have it spend around 1/2 of what we do, and everybody gets covered. So this imbecilic "market-based" system we have is just too expensive. In fact, not many people realize that of all the countries in the world, we spend more tax dollars in health care than all but one. So we could spend less than we do now by the government alone and have better, more comprehensive coverage. That's without going into the many obvious advantages of providing universal health care, both to individuals and to us as a country, on an economic level. Basically, we're diverting dollars into insurance companies, which don't provide any care, they're just parasitic, basically. It's tremendously wasteful, and results in so much suffering and worry for so many people. It causes bankruptcy, it leads to foreclosure, it's just really hurting all of us.

What I would like to see is a pure, true, universal health care system, with no insurance industry. This is not what Obama is proposing yet. But his proposal moves us much further in this direction than McCain's, which really does very little. The idea that he would add a tax on our health benefits is ridiculous. How can he say he's about cutting taxes, and then add this radical new tax in the area we're most vulnerable?

We need to drill for oil on US soil. End of story. Caribou can move 100 yards East, West, North or South from the airport sized proposed site in Alaska.
We need to drill off our shores.
We need to allow refineries to accomodate this.
McCain has a better policy for the energy crisis, and a better environmental policy.
Affordable fuel will affect all aspects of our economy for the better.

Hmmm....

When you catch a Democrat in a lie or with his hand in the till, at least he has the good grace to act sheepish. (and sometimes will get censured if it was outright stupidity)

When you catch a Republican in a lie or with his hand in the till, he becomes indignant with you because you caught him. (and his (-R)buddies give him hell for getting caught.) (sorry, robeiae)

I want liberal and just when it comes to human policy making.
I want conservative when it comes to economic decisions.

".... even the dogs get crumbs from the Master's table ...."

Quit stealing my crumbs!
How's that Stew?

Don said:

People voting for the lesser of two evils for the last 40 years has gotten us where we are today. .

Click to expand...

Tell me about it. Since I've started voting. Once - just once ...

robeiae said:

No Child Left Behind was written by TED KENNEDY. How is that, for starters? How about the prescription drug program? What a crock.

Click to expand...

What Sen. Kennedy introduced was radically changed before it hit the floor - they kept the name and gutted the good stuff.
(rat bastards)

YMMV
)

We need to drill for oil on US soil. We need to drill off our shores

Click to expand...

I think we need to save this for strategic reserve. I think it's much worse than we've been told. Hell - they've been lying to us for years! Both sides. There's $$ in that oil and oil is in everything.

I want the first car that runs on converted hog waste. They're working on it!!

Stew21 said:

I'm completely serious. I'm a swing voter - my voting history over the last twenty years has been on both sides - and once I voted independent.
Now I have to say that I HONESTLY do not know who I will vote for in this Presidential Election.

I can be swayed. Now's your chance to swing a vote.

Issues of importance to me (I don't consider these the only issues of importance, this is a selfish list):

Healthcare - I have young children. I need affordable healthcare. With an uncertain job market, I need to make sure that in a crisis situation, (if God Forbid, I lost my job) I will still be able to have affordable insurance for my kids. For a while, I had a lot of difficulty with insurance. I was a contract employee for a while and in some places didn't have the option of getting on an employer healthcare plan. (I took the jobs I had to though to keep us afloat). We went months without insurance and with small children, you can just imagine the amount of money out of pocket we paid for regular dr. visits, and the constant fear of something major. Thank Heaven there was no major illness. At the one point in that time, I had just gotten coverage the week before one of my kids got very sick - the hospital bill was over $100K. I know the importance of insurance. And it scares me to think of so many people without it.

Fuel - Currently I pay almost $400/month in gas.
I work closely with the utilities industry and there is a big push for conservation and smart technologies.
With respect to the environment, I have an interest in examining the use of alternative fuels and alternative energy.
I don't think there is anything wrong with drilling in Alaska so we can stop the Middle East dependence.

Education - My kids go to public schools - this is important to me.

Economic Crisis - I'm almost 38. I have two small kids. I need to be sure the money I put into funds for my children's educations and our retirement are safe.

Gun rights - my husband is a hunter. We fill our freezer with venison and other game and use it to feed our family.

Foreign Policies - who's going to get us out of the war the RIGHT way? Who's best at sitting down with foreign leaders to reach agreements?



I may be ignorant on some issues (and feel free to educate me), but these are the things that are important to me.


I'm liberal on some issues and conservative on others. I don't fit the mold of either party perfectly. In the last two elections I have voted for what I consider a lesser evil.

Where should my vote go this time?

Click to expand...

We have two options-- something different, or something identical. If you think we're doing OK right now, vote for McCain.

Right now, our oil EXPORTS are up.

Oil companies have leases to drill in areas and ARE NOT using them.

Oil companies are raking in the dough, but gas prices are through the roof.

And we're being told that the problem will be fixed if we give the oil companies free reign to drill in more places and give them some tax breaks.

I'm not buying it. Especially if you look at how much oil we consume vs how much we can produce and if you look at how long it takes to get an oil rig up and producing.

Palin talks about "taking on the oil companies", and yeah, she imposed a windfall tax in Alaska (which Obama's been calling for on a national level) but she's right there with McCain chanting "Drill, Baby, Drill". She disagrees with McCain about drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. He believes the studies that show that the place they want to drill is critical to native wildlife and the roads and traffic going to and from the rigs would be additionally disruptive. She says, "Drill, Baby, Drill".

And I live near Corpus Christi, Tx, where you can see the oil rigs off in the distance when you're at the beach. I don't dig too deeply in the sand... if you dig down where the sand is wet, you often find nasty black silt that reeks. The beaches are rated for seaweed, tide, undercurrent, and tar.

And yet, Obama says he's not against allowing states to decide if they want drilling off their shores, so long as such drilling is accompanied by a renewed push for solar, wind, and other renewable sources of energy.

So it's an "all of the above" approach, just like McCain/Palin's, but in his the push is for renewable, clean energy while McCain/Palin are still more focused on oil.

We simply CAN NOT produce enough oil to be energy independent. We HAVE to focus on other avenues. And as someone currently using solar, I can tell you it is completely feasible with the technology we have right now.

As a side note, I'm not overly fond of nuclear. We currently have no way of disposing of the nuclear waste that is satisfactory, IMO. Ask the people near Yucca Mountain, New Mexico how they feel about nuclear. I'm not saying it shouldn't be part of the answer, but McCain seems focused on 1) oil and as a distant 2), nuclear, and then faaar behind that wind and solar. Obama seems focused on 1) wind and solar, followed by a close 2) oil, followed more distantly by 3)nuclear. This is one issue where I'm with Obama all the way.

Also, check any environmental group that scores candidates, and you'll see that the concensus is that Obama is leap years ahead of McCain on environmental issues.

More info and links on the issues I mentioned above.

Environmental Records:
http://www.lcv.org/obama/mccain-facts.html

(From above links)

Where does McCain stand on solar and wind?

McCain has rejected even the weakest renewable energy programs. Sen. McCain voted against giving increased funding to solar and renewable energy programs in 1994 and 1999.3 In 2005, he voted against a national renewable electricity standard (RES) that would have required utilities to get 10 percent of their electricity from alternative energy.4 Last year, he missed all of the renewable electricity votes.5 Sen. McCain supports giving billions of dollars in subsidies to the nuclear industry while actively opposing similar support for wind and solar energy.6 Renewable energy must be an essential part of any global warming plan, yet Sen. McCain has stood in the way of such progress throughout his career.

Click to expand...

Does McCain really believe in the safety of nuclear energy?

McCain insists nuclear energy is a safe form of clean energy—as a long as it’s not in his backyard. Sen. McCain has adamantly expressed his support for storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.14 However, when asked in an interview if he would be comfortable with nuclear waste traveling through Arizona to get to Yucca Mountain, he responded, “No, I would not.”15

Click to expand...

As I said: Oil, then a distant nuclear, then faaar behind, wind and solar...

McCain’s support for tax breaks to Big Oil and nuclear show disdain for renewables. Sen. McCain has failed to vote for opportunities to repeal at least $13 billion in subsidies for Big Oil implemented by Bush-Cheney, including a 2007 version to create a clean energy fund that failed by just one vote.16 His tax plan would generate an additional $3.8 billion in tax breaks for the five largest oil companies.17 He supports increasing massive subsidies for the nuclear power industry.18 He opposes any tax breaks for wind, solar and other forms of clean energy.19

Click to expand...

Even if you don't care about the environment, fuel efficient vehicles is an important matter. So where does McCain stand on fuel efficiency?

McCain has blown many opportunities to improve fuel efficiency standards. Although increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles would decrease our dependence on foreign oil and help consumers save money at the pump, Sen. McCain has repeatedly voted against raising efficiency standards.8 Even today, with record oil and gas prices, Sen. McCain still opposes setting a specific target for an increase in fuel efficiency standards.9 Further, Sen. McCain has proposed extending the Bush administration’s policy of rewarding Big Oil, even at a time when they are enjoying record profits, by proposing $3.8 billion in new tax breaks to oil companies.10

Click to expand...

Obama did much better.

Obama proved his support for raising CAFE standards by voting to support new, higher standards, and by discussing the issue in speeches to special interest groups. Sen. Obama has voted purposefully and persistently to raise fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, and gave a bold speech to the Detroit Economic Club about the need to raise auto efficiency standards.7 He has set a strong goal of doubling the fuel efficiency of our cars in 18 years, which would reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day.8 Sen. Obama has not pandered to Big Oil with a gimmicky gas tax holiday.

Click to expand...

And then there's the issue of drinking water. Who do you agree with?

McCain:

McCain opposes major efforts to protect clean water. In Congress, Sen. McCain cast 10 votes against clean water, including against drinking water protection and enforcement, controlling microbes in water, and funds for water pollution control, and in favor of delaying funds for leaking underground storage tanks and allowing municipalities to set their own standards for toxic waste.20

Click to expand...

OR

Obama:

In 2005, Sen. Obama voted in favor of an amendment that would include $900 million over six years to manage flooding and pollution caused by runoff from roads and highways in the transportation bill.11 He also voted to reject an EPA rule that would delay enforcing meaningful reductions in mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants.12

Click to expand...

You may also be interested in these:

Obama and McCain answer 14 Science Questions
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2008/2008-09-16-02.asp

Oil Exports from US
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080819/us-oil-exports-hit-record-pace-thats-right-exports

Impacts on the Arctic Wildlife Refuge
http://www.sierraclub.org/arctic/myths/