<p>Yes, as do I, but it seems most candidates follow their “party line,” whichever party it is.</p>
<p>For example, why can’t Hillary be fiscally conservative, or McCain believe in gay marriage?</p>
<p>The only thing that allows me to choose anyone, is that usually the congress keeps them from going crazy! And the Supreme Court. So Hillary can’t spend ALL of our money, and McCain can’t make gay marriage illegal.</p>
<p>That’s true. But in the case of the Republicans, only ONE candidate is following the party’s traditional platform. The rest have defected.</p>
<p>None of them support gay marriage or abortion rights…they all scare me for different other reasons: McCain immigration; Huckabee religion; Romney ditto (I can’t get the picture of him in his Mormon undergarments out of my head…)</p>
<p>I challenge Post #142. cgarrett@aol has no basis to claim this.</p>
<p>To claim what? Perhaps you know something I don’t?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why are you trying to? Do you need to get the image of huckabee at the pulpit out of your mind? What if there were a candidate who was a Catholic priest? Would you feel the same? What if the candidate were Jewish? Would you try to erase the image of the Jewish cap? Why does it matter?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ron Paul comes the closest - he supports civil unions. He believes marriage should be a religious issue, not a legal one. So in that sense, he does support gay marriage as much as heterosexual marriage - meaning that he really does not support either one - he believes that any voluntary association between consenting adults (provided no one else is violated) should be legal. So in other words if the religion says it’s ok, then that’s a religious issue not a state issue.</p>
<p>Re abortion: well, he supports freedom and liberty for ALL so obviously that would include the least among us: the unborn. No discrepancy there. (though Romney seems to have struggled with it.) Supporting the ‘right’ to harm another, to take away someone else’s liberty, would be inconsistent with his Libertarian values.</p>
<p>I also challenge post #143. cgarrett101@aol has no basis to claim this also. The biggest spenders have for the last 7 years have been Republicans. Even this year fiscal, 2007-2008, we are still under a Republican budget. </p>
<p>It is ironic that when the Republicans controlled Congress that they authorized and spent more than the collected revenue and thus greatly fueling the deficit. Now with the reversal of party in control in Congress, this same party is voicing fiscal restraint. two faced.</p>
<p>
Kippah or Yamika is the proper word. Just saying especially considering the topic of your comment.</p>
<p>Well, obviously there is the checks and balances of our system that do prevent a president from doing certain things. But with the influence and support of the other branches, it is possible to overturn Roe v. Wade (through the Supreme Court) and have a balanced budget (through Congress).</p>
<p>Yes, you do have a point thisoldman. But, nothing is being done to increase the revenue flow. It’s one thing to complain. Another to act.</p>
<p>lealdragon: about Romney, it’s only my opinion based on the Mormon religion…it always has seemed a bit cultish to me…I have some relatives who are Mormon (one converted), and it seems odd to me to need to wear special underwear to church…for some reason I don’t react the same to the others…</p>
<p>And thisoldman: why don’t you educate me as to the bases for your opinions rather than “challenging” my posts. This is a forum, after all- it’s just my opinion.</p>
<p>and we all know the primary reason for the current budget issues is the war (or whatever you want to call it), which funding has continually been approved by our congress.</p>
<p>On the Oprah endorsement, has everyone seen how she has taken a back seat, no longer are you seeing them together in pictures, reading about them doing this or that, speculation is that she experienced such backlash from her endorsement (fair or not) that she has backed off, I read in a local paper that he too experienced it to some degree and as he did with Rev.Wright, due to his sometimes radical and divisive comments, has done the same. He is treading lightly with any kind of association that could be remotely criticized in the mainstream press.
One other thing for all of you who like Edward’s, I don’t mind him but I think his days are numbered. If he does bow out and I think it is inevitable, I would guess that most if not all of his votes will go to Obama,and the Clinton camp certainly knows this, it will be interesting in the days ahead to see if she may consider him as a running mate if not just to keep the votes in her corner.
On a different note, for me personally the war is a big factor and how the candidate views what we have done so far…one thing is glaringly clear, In ending the war, we must act with more wisdom than we started it. On that Obama’s words excite me in that he has a vision and its short term to end, but it sounds too good to be true, his bill that he introduced to congress in Jan. has the troops being pulled out by Mar 09, to make aid to Pakistan conditional. to continue and step up aid to Afghanistan while concentrating our anti terrorist campaign there and in Pakistan, and importantly for this to be a unified effort with our European allies. It sounds good on paper and to his benefit, I like this aggressive idea more than I think I like any other but it does sound idealistic and perhaps too hopeful.
I am a little skeptical about his strong support of Israel, at least on paper…his initial support of a progressive ProPalestine agenda were somewhat toned down in an effort to gain more votes/funding from Jewish democrats…that bothers me and further supports rumors of “flip flopping”</p>
<p>He is strong on Iran not being able to develop a nuclear plan, but is quick to add that he does want to rush to war with Iran but would instead exhaust all diplomatic relations before resorting to the mistakes we have made in Iraq.
So I will be paying closer attention to what he is saying NOW competed to what he said THEN. I am still open and we have months to go to educate ourselves about these potentials who will one day ultimately face the daunting task of running our country.</p>
<p>ctmomof3: Edwards has been talking about his detailed plans to end the Iraq war-- withdrawing troops and how he would go about doing that-- for a very long time now. As I remember, neither Obama nor Clinton was very forthcoming about what they would do, until much later. Neither one would answer a direct question about that for the longest time. Edwards always had a plan. Obama was definitely slow on the uptake on the war (along with all the other issues). Frankly, I think he waits to see what everybody else is doing, and then he takes bits and pieces from their plans, and retools them as his own. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, I guess, but considering everyone views him as the messiah for change, I wish people would actually look to see who has been talking about change, and offering detailed plans on the issues (Edwards) long before either of those two.</p>
<p>I know that the media believes that all Edwards’ voters would swiftly move to support Obama, which is where you must be getting your information, too (unless you’ve canvassed all the Edwards’ supporters out there), but we know how accurate the media has been lately. I, for one, am sick of the media telling me how I, and everyone else, will vote. Not only do they keep getting it wrong, I find their attempt at control and their pomposity scary, annoying, and just a little bit insulting. The voters do have minds of their own, as clearly shown in NH and Iowa. </p>
<p>Well, this Edwards’ supporter will not be voting for Obama, unless he’s the only Democrat left standing.</p>
<p>what about the social security issue? i believe obama would like to tax everyone on all earnings–not limiting the tax to the only the first 90,000 or so…that’s a 15% tax on all earnings over 90,000…i think that would be a big blow to employers and some employees…and i apologize if this has been mentioned before, i only briefly skimmed through the posts</p>
<p>Marite, I completely agree with your post #131. I’m also not anxious for a reprisal of the 90s.</p>
<p>wbow:</p>
<p>Here is a link to a website that contains a snapshot of the platforms of all the candidates on social security. Obama proposes to “consider a cap on earnings over $97k, not all earnings.” There are links to more information.</p>
<p>[Social</a> Security: 2008 contenders’ views](<a href=“http://www.issues2000.org/Social_Security.htm]Social”>Social Security: 2020 contenders' views)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, thanks. I didn’t know what it was called.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You found it offensive that I compared choosing a candidate based on his tone of voice and other personality characteristics to choosing him based on his physical characteristics? Sorry, didn’t mean to offend you. My point was that in both cases, you’d be choosing him on some aspect of personality or looks, rather than his stance on the issues.</p>
<p>Just for the record, in post #135 you did claim that I said you supported Obama, and I did not ever say that.</p>
<p>Character is not the same thing as physical characteristics. If you don’t think character counts, then so be it. But please don’t confuse character with physical characteristics. And please do me the favor of not thinking me so very superficial.</p>