<p>
</p>
<p>Actually the funny thing is that the American electorate generally polls a lot more liberal on particular policy issues (meaning they are much more liberal) than they describe themselves as being generally. So what you are saying is about 180 degrees from the truth. The funny thing is they’ll often say they support liberal positions but describe themselves as being more conservative. This is an oft-noted conundrum.</p>
<p>According to wikipedia, Schieffer was a captain and an “information officer” in the
Air Force, so it sounds like he was riding a desk during his tour of duty. It would have been in the early 1960’s, in peacetime – before the escalation of the Vietnam war.</p>
<p>
Source: [Campaigns</a> quickly answer each perceived slight](<a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/01/MNUP11I49M.DTL]Campaigns”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/01/MNUP11I49M.DTL)</p>
<p>Yes, MM…I am often quite provocative with my threads. You folks would be bored otherwise. ;)</p>
<p>I do like to challenge the conventional wisdom of the Parent section of the CC from time to time. It’s more interesting. Suffice to say this is all recreational.</p>
<p>McCain is beyond being merely patriotic. He lives for the conflict. He’s been there all his life. Perhaps we need this attitude now as POTUS. In a way, he matches the opposition which will willingly die for its cause.</p>
<p>Obama is conveniently black, though he’s half white. His novelty makes this a horse race. I suspect this will fade over time. He’s more academic than warrior.</p>
<p>
He voted according to the intelligence offered at the time, as did the VAST majority of Congress/Senate. Ultimately he was a lone voice against the way the war was being fought & called for Rumsfeld’s firing. That ought to be at least a good as not voting for it in the first place (actually, what they voted for was to give the Prez the authority to declare war, right? Couldn’t a distinction be drawn there?).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One could certainly argue that, given McCain’s wartime experiences & the fact that he is a father to two active duty sons, he would be the least likely of all candidates this election cycle who would take unnecessary military action. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Check it out:
[John</a> McCain 2008 - John McCain for President](<a href=“http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4dbd2cc7-890e-47f1-882f-b8fc4cfecc78.htm]John”>http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4dbd2cc7-890e-47f1-882f-b8fc4cfecc78.htm)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure why you object to an act that was created in 1978 and was designed to monitor Overseas communications specifically as outlined below:</p>
<p>The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information; targeting foreign powers or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.</p>
<p>Alternatively, the government may seek a court order permitting the surveillance using the FISA court. Approval of a FISA application requires the court find probable cause that the target of the surveillance be a “foreign power” or an “agent of a foreign power”, and that the places at which surveillance is requested is used or will be used by that foreign power or its agent. In addition, the court must find that the proposed surveillance meet certain “minimization requirements” for information pertaining to US persons.</p>
<p>Check out wikipedia for a simplified explanation:
[Foreign</a> Intelligence Surveillance Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978]Foreign”>Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>If it’s the 2008 Amendments to which you object (providing retroactive protection from lawsuits for communications companies for helping to carry aout the above outlined surveilance), perhaps reading the provisions will help clarify the fact that it really isn’t a great offense to have supported the Amendments - especially if it is agreed that the act is necessary in the first place, particularly when terrorists could be operating from within the U.S.</p>
<p>[FISA</a> Amendments Act of 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Amendments_Act_of_2008]FISA”>Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008 - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He DID support it, just wanted benefits to increase as time-in-service increased, which was not the original form of the bill.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He’s in Columbia right now investigating that very thing, and has addressed this issue frequently as a supporter of NAFTA, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See you at the polls, Mudder’smudder!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Appreciate it! 
Here’s some info for you:
Donations:
<a href=“https://www.johnmccain.com/Contribute/ContributeA.aspx[/url]”>https://www.johnmccain.com/Contribute/ContributeA.aspx</a>
Volunteering:
<a href=“https://www.johnmccain.com/Secure/Signup.aspx[/url]”>https://www.johnmccain.com/Secure/Signup.aspx</a></p>
<p>bz - I don’t know what you do for a living, but you should seriously consider becoming someone’s press secretary. Seriously.</p>
<p>Tomorrow’s Scott McClelland?</p>
<p>Tomorrow’s Uncle Walter, but conseravtive. :D</p>
<p>Tomorrow’s Rush Limbaugh would be more lucrative. I just heard that he cut a new deal for $400m over the next 8 years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn’t America great? Rush should have plans to leave the country if Obama becomes the president because he will be turning over 50% of his income to uncle sam.</p>
<p>(I don’t even like Rush, but I am happy for him)</p>
<p>lol - I’m flattered!
(I’ll take both posts as compliments - even tho’ the McClelland comment is clearly “backhanded” - I take compliments however I can get 'em!).</p>
<p>Yeah, I’d love to get on w/ McCain now - can’t you tell?</p>
<p>CC doesn’t pay much!</p>
<p>Rush should definitely be subject to the unfair windfall tax.</p>
<p>How about a Windbag tax?</p>
<p>OMG - he does stand up too!! You’re the next Tony Snow.</p>
<p>Thank you, thank you.
I’m here all week.
Try the veal.</p>
<p>I boycott veal -wouldn’t you have guessed?</p>
<p>Ah yes, it’s an old line.
Guess I should’ve gone with, “Please tip your waiter”.</p>
<p>Anyway, there is this:
[Veal</a> to Love, Without the Guilt - New York Times](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/dining/18veal.html?ei=5088&en=4f509f19fd7c30c4&ex=1334548800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print]Veal”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/dining/18veal.html?ei=5088&en=4f509f19fd7c30c4&ex=1334548800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)</p>
<p>“Yes, MM…I am often quite provocative with my threads. You folks would be bored otherwise.”</p>
<p>So you think it would be jolly, for example, to talk about McCain’s suicide attempts?</p>
<p>I also boycott veal! … But right about now, I’m a liberal without a candidate to love. Barak is making me mad. … What about McCain’s suicide attempts?</p>
<p>Take a deep breath Hindoo. Repeat to yourself. “We must not give more control to Scalia and his lap dog. We must not give more power to Scalia and his lap dog.” And word has it that McCain eats baby cows for breakfast.</p>