<p>Does McCain have a history of helping the middle and lower class?</p>
<p>I am a registered republican and I think I am going to vote for Romney next week. </p>
<p>McCain was so egotistical, condescending, and mean yesterday…I was just so turned off.</p>
<p>I support John McCain for President, but I also agree that he needs to act more presidential. McCain’s nastiness is a tactic to encourage Romney to drop out or to trigger Romney’s explosive temper. McCain is a brilliant and experienced politician who knows precisely what he is doing. McCain needs Romney out to save and raise money while Hillary and Obama spend each other into the “poorhouse” during this period of economic downturn. Come Sept., October & November all will be forgotten and there will be a unified Republican Party prepared for another 50/50 vote election.</p>
<p>That tactic didn’t work for me.</p>
<p>I understand;but McCain will be the Republican nominee and Romney will drop out in February and endorse McCain. Then each voter has to decide whether or not to vote, and,then, for whom to vote. This election will likely be decided by events in the MiddleEast. Increased terrorist activity bodes well for McCain as does increased peace in the MiddleEast due to a troop surge. Just need the right type of press coverage. An interesting sidenote to this election is whether or not many Jewish voters will support McCain as he is most likely to aggressively protect American & Isreali interests in the MiddleEast. Probably will order a surgical bombing strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities if Bush doesn’t do it before leaving office.</p>
<p>The more I think about it, the more I can’t support McCain.</p>
<p>I know this is heresy but I am not worried about terrorism.</p>
<p>“An interesting sidenote to this election is whether or not many Jewish voters will support McCain as he is most likely to aggressively protect American & Isreali interests in the MiddleEast. Probably will order a surgical bombing strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities if Bush doesn’t do it before leaving office.”</p>
<p>Well, here is one Jew who won’t. (I reserve the opportunity to change my mind. 
)</p>
<p>Well I fault former President Jimmy Carter for the MiddleEast mess due to his failure to support the Shah of Iran as the U.S. had pledged. I’m surprised Carter didn’t give back the Statue of Liberty while giving away the Panama Canal. We are lucky that President Jimmy Carter didn’t return Alaska to the Soviets and Louisiana to the French. To be fair, I think that Dick Chaney and Jimmy Carter are tied as the two worst Presidents in U.S. history.</p>
<p>I’m not a big fan of Jimmy Carter. He is why I am a registered republican today. Plus, I am too lazy to change. :)</p>
<p>I’m not fond of Dick Cheney either. :)</p>
<p>I wonder if Barack Obama would be the second coming of Jimmy Carter if elected. Haven’t they run similar campaigns?</p>
<p>“I’m not a big fan of Jimmy Carter”</p>
<p>Carter orchestrated one beneficial piece of legislation; he deregulated the airlines. Flying is no longer only for the upper-middle/upper class.</p>
<p>“Actually, even though I am leaning toward McCain for strategic reasons, I think Romney has proven to be a pretty above-board campaigner and McCain has been a whiner about Romney’s “attack ads”. The only attack ads that I have seen from Romney have correctly stated McCain’s positions. Certainly there is nothing dirty about that.”</p>
<p>I think Romney was very gracious in his conduct toward McCain last night. I would have had a few choice words for McCain myself</p>
<p>Well, I watched the debate…and she told a baldfaced lie in her attempt to rewrite history.</p>
<p>She said that Saddam Hussein kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Saddam Hussein NEVER kicked the U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq - BILL CLINTON DID. </p>
<p>I would have trouble believing she is that ignorant - she doesn’t strike me that way. Instead, she decided to try to rewrite history to fit her own devices.</p>
<p>I am betting that not a single U.S. television commentator will note the lie (and it is a whopper).</p>
<p>easy explanation, mini. Saddam Hussein is her pillow-talk nickname for Bill.</p>
<p>dstark, thanks for that precise list [#499] of policies. Is personality the significant difference between Romney and McCain?
Is personality the significant difference between Obama and Hillary?</p>
<p>and why do we refer to democrats by their first names and republicans by their last names? are dems just more friendly? are repubs more formal? Is this all really a personality thing? Is it? Huh?</p>
<p>Oh, wait. Obama is a last name. never mind,…</p>
<p>mini: Well, I think we can thank Daddy Bush for our policies in Iraq. Clinton inherited a mess from him, and the Shrub just picked up where Daddy left off.</p>
<p>Some interesting poll data posted today:</p>
<p>Democratic Candidate MA MA MA GA AL MN TN
Pollster SUSA Rass WNEC IADV AEA MPR IADV
Date 1/30 1/28 1/20-26 1/30 1/23-24,28-29 1/18-27 1/30
Hillary Clinton 57% 43% 43% 36% 35% 40% 59%
Barack Obama 33% 37% 15% 52% 40% 33% 26%
John Edwards - 11% 8% - 9% 12% -
Other(vol.) 10% 9% 31% 12% 16% 15% 15% </p>
<p>Sorry. It was lined up in columns on the polling site, buy didn’t cut and paste that way. If you can read it, it compares democratic candidates by states.</p>
<p>(Actually, I think you can date it to Jimmy Carter, but that’s another story.)</p>
<p>Hillary practiced deception a second time when she said her vote really wasn’t for the War but to get Saddam Hussein to allow the inspectors back in. Only trouble is the inspectors had returned to Iraq one month BEFORE Hillary voted for the War.</p>
<p>Was that the same question that Obama questioned her on (well, questioned her on her answer)? If so, yes-- I thought she fumbled a bit on that one. I thought she actually looked/sounded like she was lying then. But maybe we’re talking about 2 different questions; it’s hard to keep them straight.</p>
<p>On the upside, I really liked her necklace and earrings last night. They went well with the brown suit. ;)</p>
<p>“Her Way” on the Hillary vote:</p>
<p><a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
<p>Thanks for the link. I remember now-- it was when Obama pointed out that the legislation she voted for was called “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq,” so how could she be confused about what she was casting her vote for. . </p>
<p>Also, last night was the first time I have ever heard her say that within 60 days she would start withdrawing troops. In the past, she has always stated (and it’s written on her website) that in 60 days she would start drawing up a plan to begin to withdraw troops. That is such an ambiguous statement, but for the first time (that I’ve ever heard), she actually said she’d start withdrawing troops within 60 days of taking office. I wonder if that was a slip-up?</p>
<p>“Hillary practiced deception a second time when she said her vote really wasn’t for the War but to get Saddam Hussein to allow the inspectors back in. Only trouble is the inspectors had returned to Iraq one month BEFORE Hillary voted for the War.”</p>
<p>The other thing is that neither she nor Obama have provided an answer to the question of: "what if the inspectors had been allowed to complete their (limited) inspections and found nothing. What then? Bring all the troops that were necessary to force the inspections home, only to let Saddam start the whole process all over again - this time with a rightful claim that there should be no more legal authority for any sanctions and hence giving him the clear road to rebuild his chem/bio stockpiles and race with Iran to be the first with nuclear capability. This is exactly the strategy that the Duelfer team found when interviewing Saddam’s leading officials.</p>
<p>Al Gore, in one of his more candid and honest moments, had it right in 2002 when he said that it was time for a “final resolution” to the Saddam threat.</p>
<p>“Al Gore, in one of his more candid and honest moments, had it right in 2002 when he said that it was time for a “final resolution” to the Saddam threat.”</p>
<p>Well, that we got, FF. Saddam’s dead. Question is, are we any more secure? The truth is that Iraq has never been LESS secure, with ethnic conflicts creating blood baths in the streets, and people jobless, homeless, displaced, and mightily non-disposed to view us as “liberators”. Al Quiada, which prior to our invasion, had never had any presence in Iraq, became well entrenched there soon after our arrival. Iran, knowing that we are up to our necks in the mess we created in Iraq, has never felt more emboldened, and the successes which we’d achieved in Afghanistan have rapidly eroded, such that the Taliban AND Al Quaida are renewing their presence and influence there with a vengeance. Yeah, we’ve really “resolved” the Saddam threat…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>"The other thing is that neither she nor Obama have provided an answer to the question of: “what if the inspectors had been allowed to complete their (limited) inspections and found nothing. What then? Bring all the troops that were necessary to force the inspections home, only to let Saddam start the whole process all over again - this time with a rightful claim that there should be no more legal authority for any sanctions and hence giving him the clear road to rebuild his chem/bio stockpiles and race with Iran to be the first with nuclear capability. This is exactly the strategy that the Duelfer team found when interviewing Saddam’s leading officials.”</p>
<p>Oh there’s an easy answer to that one. The answer is, most likely nothing would have happened! Every bit of evidence we currently possess proves that both, Saddams’s Chemical/Biological, and Nuclear programs had been dismantled years before our invasion. There was NOTING THERE! Are we are supposed to feel justified about our invasion of Iraq, a sovereign country, even knowing what we do now, because even though Saddam had no WMD program at the time, he MIGHT have started to develop one sometime in the misty furture?</p>
<p>Riiiiiiiiiiiiight…:rolleyes:</p>