Might be a Reason to Vote for McCain

Parent Cafe
41

<p>ff,</p>

<p>:)
What’s the point of going round and round with you? What do we gain? I was going to respond to your post, but you honestly already know the answer don’t you? And that’s part of the problem, you’ve already assumed that certain interference in personal issues are just “fine”. Choice is a funny thing, it CAN mean the choice to do or NOT do something. That’s why it’s called freedom of choice. </p>

<p>now things are going to get all pro and anti abortion and the thread will get pulled.</p>

<p>But if can agree to disagree on that subject… </p>

<p>The first issue that is a front of the pants is sex education in schools. While abstinence is fine, so are other choices and they simply should not be shuttered out of the conversation because it makes somebody’s cackles rise.</p>

<p>Domestic partnership is another… Gays should have the blessing of divorce and support that hetros have. :wink: They should be allowed the same rights as a spouse if they are willing to legally commit to each other (license).</p>

<p>I don’t care if they call it wedding, they can call it DAVE for all I care…</p>

42

<p>

</p>

<p>I can’t stand when this happens. Whether it’s republicans screaming about religion=morality, all dems being america haters, and all abortion=murder or dems screaming about widespread torture of US citizens by the patriot act, “faux” news, or bush being the worst thing on this earth since hitler. The herd mentality is sickening…</p>

43

<p>Fundingfather, if you go back to the post I was answering, the specific reference was to “government” not “republican” and I stand by that.</p>

44

<p>Politicians can never be fiscally prudent- because they would not get elected. You see we get the government, at all levels we deserve. We know they lie but we hear what we want. They all run phony fiscal numbers and hope the problems do not surface until they are out of office. The lucky ones get an unforeseen uptick in the economy, which they take credit for, and that uptick covers the fiscal mess for awhile. Bottom linr there is no free lunch- budgets can not be balanced on " waste". I would love to see every politico at every level make cuts only in their voting districts.</p>

45

<p>Didn’t Clinton balance the budget while in office, and even generate a budget surplus? I’ve not heard of anyone (not even the Republicans) say that phony numbers were used to make that claim.</p>

46

<p>Clinton did balance the budget while he was in office but did so with a dramatic raise in taxes. Spending during the clinton presidency was up 30% while tax revenue increased 86%</p>

<p><a href=“http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3931/1521/1600/2006-04-02%20Did%20Bill%20Clinton%20Really%20Create%20a%20Budget%20Surplus,%20Table%202.1.jpg[/url]”>http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3931/1521/1600/2006-04-02%20Did%20Bill%20Clinton%20Really%20Create%20a%20Budget%20Surplus,%20Table%202.1.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

47

<p>Back to McCain…</p>

<p>He seems to be in a bit of a “Catch-22”:
The dems don’t like him because they think he’s in lockstep w/ the Bush Administration.
The reps don’t like him because they think he’s NOT in lockstep w/ the Bush administration!</p>

<p>Now, if he can just get the dems to vote for him b/c of reason #2 and reps to vote for him b/c of reason # 1, he’d do alright!</p>

<p>It’s obvious he has the best resume for the job! He’s the only one I’ve seen to take a hardline stand against pork-barrel spending (that certainly hasn’t won him iny friends in either party, but it is principled & responsible - gotta give him credit for that). I don’t think age is an issue as he seemed to be more on the ball & less flustered than some of the other candidates in the recent debate.</p>

<p>He’s got the best personality of ANY of the candidates (have you seen the video of him “doing Streisand”? Check out youtube. Not that personality or sense of humor is everything, but it is SOMETHING.</p>

<p>He’s pragmatic, well-versed in the issues, and the most experienced. And after over five years in the Hanoi Hilton, you know he’s done a lot of soul-searching.</p>

<p>Don’t write him off, people! VOTE for him!</p>

48

<p>McCain is pro-Bushevik in Iraq policy and anti-Choice. I really don’t need any more information to not only not vote for him but to actively work against him.
Throwing McCain, Giuliani, Romney, and Fred-boy into a barrel and then reaching in to pick one out is like a contest to find a skunk the stinks the least. For all the Dems except for Kucinich and Gravel, there are many reasons to vote for. My own ranked preference is probably something like Clinton/Obama/Edwards/Richardson/Dodd/Biden but any of that lot are better on the issues than any of the Republican choices.</p>

49

<p>Age and state of health cannot be dismissed when considering a prez candidate. That’s a job that destroys people…even young(er) people. Compare any photo of a prez before and after 4 yrs in the job and even more so after 8. Between the hours, the stress, and the ceaseless mental demands, it’s a physically wearing position. I don’t think anyone who is already suffering from some sort of physical ailment is wise to seek that golden ring. I’m not saying it’s the only make-or-break consideration but it must be thought about carefully before making that decision…or at least, take an extra hard look at the running mate of any such candidate.</p>

50

<p>Good point Novelisto - </p>

<p>Just another reason why McCain has it over Thompson.</p>

<p>He seems more vigorous than Giuliani too I think.</p>

<p>Romney’s just plastic & probably wouldn’t age anyway (kidding of course), but he just doesn’t have the experience on the global issues.</p>

<p>McCain’s been up on everything going on in the middle east since he was a Navy Liason back in the 70’s. He understands more than anyone the nature of the struggle we’re facing.</p>

<p>I agree w/ you - the running mate is very very important. No matter the age, health or politics of the presidential candidate!</p>

51

<p>Think about this - who’s got the “gonads” for the job??</p>

52

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes. And Senator Clinton is campaigning on a commitment to pay-as-you-go budgeting and movement towards a balanced budget. The cost of the Iraq fiasco and resetting a decimated military makes balancing the federal budget in the short term very unlikely.</p>

53

<p>

</p>

<p>In the 2004 election:</p>

<p>Married women (white) with children: 8% of the electorate and voted for Bush by 31%</p>

<p>Married women (non-white) with children: 7% of the electorate and voted for Kerry by 5%</p>

<p>Unmarried women with children: 5% of the electorate and voted for Kerry by 33%.</p>

<hr>

<p>Unmarried women are the key to the election. They are the fastest growing segment of the voters, increasing from 19% of the voters in 2000 to 22% of the voters in 2004. They voted for Gore by 31% and Kerry (who underperformed with all women) by 25%. </p>

<p>The Clinton folk are involved in an “independent” voter turnout group targeted at unmarried women. They ran heavy test marketing of their get-out-the vote efforts in 16 states in 2004, testing various TV ads, print ads, direct mail, phone calls, etc. They made mail or phone contact with over 2 million unmarried women in those states. An example of a low-effort test market state was direct mail voter registration advertising to every woman in the state turning 18 in 2004. High effort test market states included direct mail and multiple phone calls to unmarrried women.</p>

<p>In the states where they were testing modest efforts, they increased turnout of unmarried women by 5%. In their most aggressive test-market states, they increased the turnout of unmarried women by 13%. Their goal was to find out which methods produced the best results: which contacts, which of four different ads, which of four different direct mail messages. </p>

<p>Here are two examples of the TV public service ads they ran for the 2006 race: </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkAjIy0D6uY[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkAjIy0D6uY&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjX9ZfPugrY[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjX9ZfPugrY&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>This was all setting the table for the 2008 election. Remember, independent groups are not subject to donation limits. George Soros can give $10 million to this organization, but only $2300 to the Clinton campaign for the general election.</p>

<p>The other piece of the puzzle is the private voter database that Clinton apparatchnik Harold Ickes as been building (with $8 million in seed money from Soros and tech gurus from amazon.com). Ickes and Clinton pollster Mark Penn know where every unmarried woman in the country lives, what they buy, etc. </p>

<p>Why do you think one of the lines in Clinton’s first ad was, “If you’re a single mother trying to find affordable childcare so you can go to work, you’re invisible, too.”</p>

<p>The beauty of it is that the grumpy old white dudes in the Republican race don’t even make an effort to address most of the issues important to these voters or how to reach them. The top issues to unmarried women, in order, are:</p>

<p>Get out of iraq
Make health care more affordable
Keep America safe from terrorism
Improve education
Raise minimum wage
Make taxes fair for the middle class</p>

<p>Unmarried women are more likely to watch their local news coverage. Only 1 in 10 listens to talk radio.</p>

<p><a href=“Wealth & Value – The Truth About Online Brokers”>Wealth & Value – The Truth About Online Brokers;

<p>If the Clinton campaign for the first female President can increase turnout among unmarried women by 10% (matching the increase from 2000 to 2004), the general election will be a blowout. BTW, for reference, Clinton got 75% of the entire women’s vote in her 2006 NY re-election race.</p>

54

<p>In addition to all of the important issues, it will be nice to have a president, come January 2009, who doesn’t continually embarrass himself, and the rest of the country, with the way he mis-communicates. Watching and listening to GWB at the APEC Business Summit this week was cringe-worthy.</p>

55

<p>I liked JM during the 2000 primary season, however I do not think that his statement made in the OP would encourage me to even consider voting for him.</p>

56

<p>How can an elected official in 2007 not have heard the phrase “LGBT”? It just shows how out of the touch the grumpy old white dude Republicans are with the 21st century.</p>

57

<p>Yeah, that’s the problem w/ wisecracks - some folks appreciate them, some folks don’t.</p>

<p>McCain does keep things interesting tho’.</p>

<p>I’d love to see a president who made me actually WANT to hear what he has to say. Where’s a good Reagan when you need 'im?? :)</p>

<p>Thanks goodness w/ McCain we don’t get all those “canned” answers like we do with everyone else!</p>

<p>Haven’t heard anyone dispute the fact that McCain has the resume / experience for the job. No one, repeat No one in either party even comes close.</p>

<p>Let’s hope he proves to be the dark horse candidate & has some “sprint” left in him in the end.</p>

58

<p>Interestedad, I don’t think Hillary’s performance here is representative of the entire country in a presidential election.</p>

59

<p>I’m not sure where “here” is?</p>

<p>Clinton does well in the states the Democrats need to win: the Kerry states plus Ohio and Florida.</p>

<p>She also is doing well in some surprising places. The 18% lead over the Republican’s strongest horse in Arkansas surprised the heck out of me. Likewise polling leads in Kentucky and Virginia are surprising.</p>

<p>It’s way too early, but as of right now, I think she would carry the Kerry states plus Ohio, Florida, West Virginia (if Byrd is still alive), Iowa, Arkansas, Nevada, and New Mexico.</p>

<p>That would be 327 to 211 in the electoral college. </p>

<p>Having to carry both Ohio and Florida is a very high hurdle for the Republicans in 2008.</p>

60

<p>If JMC can go back to where he was a couple elections ago, he might carry the day. If he can be trusted to work on the fiscal and return the science back to the scientists (not fliter and edit research) and leave reproductive issues exactly where they are. He’d get my vote. </p>

<p>He doesn’t have to agree with choice, but he should agree that it is the law of the land. His job should be to end this fiscal mess that really is getting worse everyday. You really can’t do both successfully, just ask gw. So if he commits to focus on the one that is a real country problem, he’ll get demo votes.</p>