Thread to (respectfully) discuss/learn about McCain/Palin!

[[michele]]

Thread to (respectfully) discuss/learn about McCain/Palin!

Supporters - Why will you be voting for them?

Non-Supporters - Why will you not be voting for them?

Specifics please and BE POLITE!

:) Michele

[vegaschristina]

I will NOT NOT vote for McCain/Palin because they scare the crap out of me. McCain has changed everything he used to stand for in an effort to win, despite sacrificing his ideals. Palin is the least qualified pick for VP I've seen. She seems to think that winking and saying "you betcha" is more important than substance.

[JCSimon]

On top of that....McCain was the first candidate to say that this would be civil and respectful campaign. He was also the first to start with the extremely negative and half-true or completely false ads.

Whatever happened to the Straight Talk Express????

[Gina.Maria]

I'm not sure whether McCain's desperate to win at all costs or really trying to "throw" the election. His actions seem designed to make people think he's a poor choice.

[kjbstevens]

I believe in what the Republican party stands in with fiscal responsibility and smaller gov'ts. The more our gov't comes in, the more we are going to hurt. Obama promises the moon and it sounds great, but he has no idea what he is promising and the more we crash, the less his plans are going to be able to be implented. If he tries this stuff in our current state we'll crumble because our country can't afford it. Every plan he has is already expensive. Imagine the true price after all of the pork projects added to them. We have to cut the gov't and stabilize ourselves before new things can be added. I encourage his plans later and think he should be a head domestic person, but McCain is far superior to him at anything that doesn't involve rebuilding inner cities which is one weakness of McCain. They are two people that should be running with each other instead of apart because they are polar opposites in what they bring to the table.

McCain's ran a bad campaign, but he himself is a great man that has done great things for the country during his time serving it. I believe he can do more if you get him out of this constant mess of negativity that is constantly being thrown around. Unless we get our gov't reformed and under control none of the stuff that needs to be taken care of is going to prosper or our country. Reform the gov't before you try to let it do anymore damage to itself.

[Glueless Media]

On top of that....McCain was the first candidate to say that this would be civil and respectful campaign. He was also the first to start with the extremely negative and half-true or completely false ads.

Whatever happened to the Straight Talk Express????


http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/obama-and-mccains-ads-equally-negative/

[Scorpiosue1102]

I absolutely cannot vote for them because Sarah Palin does not believe in any kind of stem cell research. That includes bone marrow and umbilical. It is a HUGE issue with me.

I truly liked the man, but the campaign admitting that they were going to go negative has turned me off. The Palin quip about Obama "palling around with terrorists" was the end of my thinking the McCain ticket was not completely bad.

[JCSimon]

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/obama-and-mccains-ads-equally-negative/

Exactly my point.

[Glueless Media]

Exactly my point.
MY point is that the negative comes from both sides, period!
Despite finger-pointing from both sides, Barack Obama and John McCain’s presidential campaigns have run almost the same number of negative local campaign ads, Nielsen Monitor-Plus reported Thursday. From June 3, when the primaries ended, through Sept. 7, the most recent reporting period, the McCain campaign ran 76,192 negative ads against Obama. During the same time period, the Obama campaign placed 75,246 negative commercials against McCain.
Negative advertising by both candidates and the “527” groups that support them has concentrated in the top battleground states, led by Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

[Scorpiosue1102]

I agree to a point. I don't like that use of Paris Hilton or Britney Spears to make a negative ad about Obama. Come on. That was just silly.

[Gina.Maria]

I think we're confusing negative with untrue. Negative can and does mean saying, "Candidate A won't lower your taxes as much as I will," and I don't really have a problem with those as long as they're accurate. They're annoying, true, but they don't make me want to poke out the candidate's eyes for endorsing the commercial.

[Glueless Media]

I agree to a point. I don't like that use of Paris Hilton or Britney Spears to make a negative ad about Obama. Come on. That was just silly.

I am giving you a link to the ratings for negative campaigning, not an actual video. Like it or not the claims are the truth. Both sides are throwing mud at each other, not just the one you are against:). Negative, false, untruths, little white lies, putting in a bad light, WHATEVER wording you call or perceive them to be in is being done by both!

[Scorpiosue1102]

I am giving you a link to the ratings, not an actual video. Like it or not the claims are the truth. Both sides are throwing mud not just the one you are against:)

Oh I know about the link. I went there. I'm saying that yes, both have done negative ads, though today the ads have changed here in IL for Obama. I'm saying using Britney and Paris was silly. If Obama did it, I'd say the same thing.

[snaggletooth75]

Mcain needs to make an ad that some Obama supporters call you racist if you dont vote for him. They try to bully you into thinking Obama is the best for the job. Frankly its annoying and low class to pull out the race card when someone dont agree with the guy.

[NellieRose]

I believe in what the Republican party stands in with fiscal responsibility and smaller gov'ts. The more our gov't comes in, the more we are going to hurt.

Just to touch on this....what has the Bush Administration done to adhere to this platform of fiscal responsibility and smaller government. It's seems that the Republican party may use this as a selling point but no longer adhere to it....I have a sneaking suspicion a McCain administration wouldn't be any different. But, then again, how could anyone know? Or, is this one area where he will remain true to his word and who he appeared to be leading up to this campaign?

Seriously, where did the real John McCain go? Starting think he is The Manchurian Candidate.

[Glueless Media]

I think we're confusing negative with untrue. Negative can and does mean saying, "Candidate A won't lower your taxes as much as I will," and I don't really have a problem with those as long as they're accurate. They're annoying, true, but they don't make me want to poke out the candidate's eyes for endorsing the commercial.

(start with the extremely negative and half-true or completely false ads.)

Gina I am in no way confused. I know the difference. I was providing a link to back up that the extremely negative( as stated in early op) was equally shared.:)

[NellieRose]

Mcain needs to make an ad that some Obama supporters call you racist if you dont vote for him. They try to bully you into thinking Obama is the best for the job. Frankly its annoying and low class to pull out the race card when someone dont agree with the guy.

Examples please. :)

[kjbstevens]

Just to touch on this....what has the Bush Administration done to adhere to this platform of fiscal responsibility and smaller government. It's seems that the Republican party may use this as a selling point but no longer adhere to it....I have a sneaking suspicion a McCain administration wouldn't be any different. But, then again, how could anyone know? Or, is this one area where he will remain true to his word and who he appeared to be leading up to this campaign?

Seriously, where did the real John McCain go? Starting think he is The Manchurian Candidate.

I believe he has no choice. If they don't do this then they aren't going to be able to do any of these other plans either of them have.

[NellieRose]

I believe he has no choice. If they don't do this then they aren't going to be able to do any of these other plans either of them have.

Thank you for answering me.

[Gina.Maria]

(start with the extremely negative and half-true or completely false ads.)

Gina I am in no way confused. I know the difference. I was providing a link to back up that the extremely negative( as stated in early op) was equally shared.:)

No. The link was to an article chronicling the number of occurances of negative ads being aired by each candidate. It did not , in any way, suggest that any of these ads (by either candidate) were untruthful or extremely negative. "Negative" has always been used to define any political ad in which the opposing candidate is the focus rather than the candidate for whom the ad is in support.

That article does nothing to separate the heinous from the ordinary.

[JCSimon]

Mcain needs to make an ad that some Obama supporters call you racist if you dont vote for him. They try to bully you into thinking Obama is the best for the job. Frankly its annoying and low class to pull out the race card when someone dont agree with the guy.

I agree. It's also just as annoying for McCain supporters to pull out the sexist card, which they've done so frequently I'm surprised Sarah Palin even puts up with it.

[JCSimon]

(start with the extremely negative and half-true or completely false ads.)

Gina I am in no way confused. I know the difference. I was providing a link to back up that the extremely negative( as stated in early op) was equally shared.:)

I wasn't arguing that McCain was the only one doing it. My point was that McCain was the one who insisted this was going to be a civil and respectful campaign, yet he was running negative ads several weeks before Obama finally began running them.

They're both going negative now and both using half-truths. I think it's disgusting no matter who is doing it.

[Natalie]

I think the Republican Party was, perhaps, once upon a time, a party which stood for fiscal responsibility and smaller government. I don't really think that's true now, and the saying of it doesn't make it so; as much as they talk about fiscal responsibility, they certainly haven't demonstrated it these last eight years. The current party seems woefully out of step with the rest of America, and IMO, the Republican Convention was as good an indicator of that as anything I could say.

Thanks to George Bush, I am no longer registered as a Republican, and although I know that McCain once was known as a maverick, I don't really think that's an accurate assessment of him now. I really appreciated the thread where someone asked for responders to say something good about the candidate they are NOT supporting, and was heartened that so many saluted McCain's military service and especially what he endured as a POW. I don't, however, think this fact makes him fit for presidency (it doesn't NOT make him fit, either - it's just that this is bandied about as proof of his leadership ability).

Throughout this campaign, I've wanted very much to support McCain, because I did want to believe that he represented the Republican ideals of yore. However, once he chose Palin as his running mate, all bets were off. I can't vote for him, because I can't wrap my mind how he, or anyone, thinks she'd be capable of running this country. Moreover, as someone above mentioned already, her opposition to stem cell research is absolutely counter to my own support of it. That she (and McCain) also does (do) not support abortion, and thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, is another huge point of contention - I profoundly disagree that it should NOT be overturned, and that no matter what each of us might personally believe about the morality of abortion, women have, and will continue, to seek them out, and the process should be safe - there is no reason for a woman to lose her life because someone else disagreed with her choice to abort a pregnancy.

I also have some serious heartache about some of Obama's positions, but that's not for this thread. I'm not sure who I WILL vote for, but it won't be McCain/Palin.

[Glueless Media]

I wasn't arguing that McCain was the only one doing it. My point was that McCain was the one who insisted this was going to be a civil and respectful campaign, yet he was running negative ads several weeks before Obama finally began running them.

They're both going negative now and both using half-truths. I think it's disgusting no matter who is doing it. Agreed!:clap

[Glueless Media]

No. The link was to an article chronicling the number of occurances of negative ads being aired by each candidate. It did not , in any way, suggest that any of these ads (by either candidate) were untruthful or extremely negative. "Negative" has always been used to define any political ad in which the opposing candidate is the focus rather than the candidate for whom the ad is in support.

That article does nothing to separate the heinous from the ordinary.

I never said the article separated anything. NEGATIVE- key word. The mud throwing is by both sides is all I was trying to say and will continue to say.

[snaggletooth75]

I think every party had stuff they do that isnt right. But to me the people that have the biggest issues with Obama being part black is Obama supporters themselves. Cause they always bring it up.
And the sexist thing too thats just as stupid. Can people not like someone without being racist OR sexist. Maybe people acutally disagree with them and not like that they stand for and that has nothing to do with race or sex.

[meganmecrazy]

I think the Republican Party was, perhaps, once upon a time, a party which stood for fiscal responsibility and smaller government. I don't really think that's true now, and the saying of it doesn't make it so; as much as they talk about fiscal responsibility, they certainly haven't demonstrated it these last eight years.

Smaller government is the most important thing for me and I agree with you on what you just said. That's why I so desperately wanted Ron Paul to win...he truely does want that!

I don't like Obama or McCain.

[Gina.Maria]

I never said the article separated anything. NEGATIVE- key word. The mud throwing is by both sides is all I was trying to say and will continue to say.


Negative doesn't mean mud-slinging. It's probably more accurate to characterize them as "counter" ads than negative because there's such a negative connotation to the word "negative." Go figure.:shrug

Anyway, negative ads have their place in a campaign as long as they're used responsibly. They're supposed to highlight the differences between candidates when just telling what you're going to do isn't enough. Sometimes you have to say, "Here's what my opponent will do if elected. Here's the fine print on his plan, in case you couldn't find it yourself."

[Scorpiosue1102]

I do have a question for McCain supporters... not snarky I promise.

Do you believe that Sarah Palin was THE best choice of any man or woman to be Vice President of the United States?

[kjbstevens]

Smaller government is the most important thing for me.

I'm glad to see someone else that agrees with this. I really believe they're one of the reasons we're in spots we are. They are doing things they are not supposed to be doing and meddling in things that are not theirs to be handling. Our gov't is for protection and setting rights. It is not their job to be giving out welfare and healthcare. They should be setting rules on it and and protecting us from bad practices making sure those poor can provide for themselves. That goes back to the seperate but equal junk again that they both have problems with. The federal people are just adding more middlemen taking money from the kids. Sorry I'm just really fed up with all of them. Letting them do more is going to be worse. Our gov't is stepping over the bounds of anything they were ever supposed to be doing. I have no idea where in the Consitution they are picking up they have the right to be in control of our retirement or of our health care or any of these other plans. I do agree Ron Paul does have some great ideas. Let's just start over and go back to the rights the Constitution has actually given these people we elect and pay with our tax dollars. Rant over.

[meganmecrazy]

I'm glad to see someone else that agrees with this. I really believe they're one of the reasons we're in spots we are. They are doing things they are not supposed to be doing and meddling in things that are not theirs to be handling. Our gov't is for protection and setting rights. It is not their job to be giving out welfare and healthcare. They should be setting rules on it and and protecting us from bad practices making sure those poor can provide for themselves. That goes back to the seperate but equal junk again that they both have problems with. The federal people are just adding more middlemen taking money from the kids. Sorry I'm just really fed up with all of them. Letting them do more is going to be worse. Our gov't is stepping over the bounds of anything they were ever supposed to be doing. I have no idea where in the Consitution they are picking up they have the right to be in control of our retirement or of our health care or any of these other plans. I do agree Ron Paul does have some great ideas. Let's just start over and go back to the rights the Constitution has actually given these people we elect and pay with our tax dollars. Rant over.

I am right there with ya!!!

[Glueless Media]

I'm glad to see someone else that agrees with this. I really believe they're one of the reasons we're in spots we are. They are doing things they are not supposed to be doing and meddling in things that are not theirs to be handling. Our gov't is for protection and setting rights. It is not their job to be giving out welfare and healthcare. They should be setting rules on it and and protecting us from bad practices making sure those poor can provide for themselves. That goes back to the seperate but equal junk again that they both have problems with. The federal people are just adding more middlemen taking money from the kids. Sorry I'm just really fed up with all of them. Letting them do more is going to be worse. Our gov't is stepping over the bounds of anything they were ever supposed to be doing. I have no idea where in the Consitution they are picking up they have the right to be in control of our retirement or of our health care or any of these other plans. I do agree Ron Paul does have some great ideas. Let's just start over and go back to the rights the Constitution has actually given these people we elect and pay with our tax dollars. Rant over.

So true, so true!

[tsaria]

Non-Supporters - Why will you not be voting for them?

- Sarah Palin makes me very uncomfortable. I followed a link to factcheck where it talked about the whole censoring books issue. I was relieved to see that that was not what happened, but the explanation of what really happened I think made me much more uncomfortable than if she had really tried to censor books. I believe it said that she was 'testing the loyalty' of the people below her. That just makes me really, really uncomfortable.

- While not related to the race at all, I think that McCain's age is a negative. He might very well live to see the end of the term, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if he did. But I assume that he has children and grandchildren. He is really getting on, and this time in life is supposed to be spent retiring, spending time with grandchildren (and great-grandchildren if he's there already). Enjoying the end of life, not taking on the most stressful job in the country. I would like him to be able to enjoy his life and family and RELAX.

- While I don't necessarily think that national health care is the best option in this country (I'd prefer state health care), I think that McCain's health care suggestion is not helpful and in a huge number of cases would in fact be hurtful.

Another Ron Paul supporter here =)

[Gina.Maria]

I'm glad to see someone else that agrees with this. I really believe they're one of the reasons we're in spots we are. They are doing things they are not supposed to be doing and meddling in things that are not theirs to be handling. Our gov't is for protection and setting rights. It is not their job to be giving out welfare and healthcare. They should be setting rules on it and and protecting us from bad practices making sure those poor can provide for themselves. That goes back to the seperate but equal junk again that they both have problems with. The federal people are just adding more middlemen taking money from the kids. Sorry I'm just really fed up with all of them. Letting them do more is going to be worse. Our gov't is stepping over the bounds of anything they were ever supposed to be doing. I have no idea where in the Consitution they are picking up they have the right to be in control of our retirement or of our health care or any of these other plans. I do agree Ron Paul does have some great ideas. Let's just start over and go back to the rights the Constitution has actually given these people we elect and pay with our tax dollars. Rant over.


In that vein, how about staying out of our wombs? How about staying out of our life partner choices? How about not wasting time and money legislating morality?

[vegaschristina]

Just to touch on this....what has the Bush Administration done to adhere to this platform of fiscal responsibility and smaller government. It's seems that the Republican party may use this as a selling point but no longer adhere to it....I have a sneaking suspicion a McCain administration wouldn't be any different. But, then again, how could anyone know? Or, is this one area where he will remain true to his word and who he appeared to be leading up to this campaign?

Seriously, where did the real John McCain go? Starting think he is The Manchurian Candidate.


I believe he has no choice. If they don't do this then they aren't going to be able to do any of these other plans either of them have.

So, are you ACTUALLY saying that John McCain has no choice but to change his stance on everything he ever said he believed in just to win the election? That it's actually acceptable to win at any cost, including your integrity?

Wow.

[ccouch]

I'm glad to see someone else that agrees with this. I really believe they're one of the reasons we're in spots we are. They are doing things they are not supposed to be doing and meddling in things that are not theirs to be handling. Our gov't is for protection and setting rights. It is not their job to be giving out welfare and healthcare. They should be setting rules on it and and protecting us from bad practices making sure those poor can provide for themselves. That goes back to the seperate but equal junk again that they both have problems with. The federal people are just adding more middlemen taking money from the kids. Sorry I'm just really fed up with all of them. Letting them do more is going to be worse. Our gov't is stepping over the bounds of anything they were ever supposed to be doing. I have no idea where in the Consitution they are picking up they have the right to be in control of our retirement or of our health care or any of these other plans. I do agree Ron Paul does have some great ideas. Let's just start over and go back to the rights the Constitution has actually given these people we elect and pay with our tax dollars. Rant over.

Well put :) I totally agree!

[kjbstevens]

Do you believe that Sarah Palin was THE best choice of any man or woman to be Vice President of the United States?
WAY better than Lieberman or Romney which were the other choices.

I believe staying out of the womb is what they do. I don't believe the gov't has the right to decide whether unborn children should be aborted or not so I'm on the side of not just because I don't believe that child rights of being condeemed by their peers. Hard to explain but basically it's not their job to decide because they can't defend themselves.

Also I'm not agreeing with the gay marriage stuff, but Obama/Biden is not for that either so it's not a valid issue with either.

For the other response - He has no choice but to do smaller gov't or we can't afford any of these plans any of them have presented to us. There is nothign with integrity with that. He is going to have to cut down on gov't spending to keep us afloat.

[Gina.Maria]

Actually, I didn't say anything about gay marriage - the people involved can call it anything they like. McCain (though Palin pretty much blew it in the debate) isn't for civil union, either, which Obama/Biden are okay with. The Democrats categorically do not support a Constitutional Amendement defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

As to abortion. Historically it's been a woman's choice to have an abortion and history shows that there were safe and proven methods available before male doctors (butchers, actually) decided they wanted midwives out of medicine and began a campaign to discredit them. (Midwives assisted in abortion as often as they assisted in childbirth and had much higher safety statistics than doctors of the time.) Reproductive choice has been practiced since the dawn of civilization and men were never included in the decisions until more recently (though, in Ancient Rome, a husband could sue his wife for denying him an heir if he learned of her action.)

[kjbstevens]

Oh I know. That's why I was saying it's not the gov'ts decision to decide it. They should not say they allow or don't. It's not their turf.

[PaulaM]

I was very disappointed that Mitt Romney withdrew and I think he would have been a fabulous choice for VP - much better than Palin.

[4noisyboys]

I was very disappointed that Mitt Romney withdrew and I think he would have been a fabulous choice for VP - much better than Palin.

I personally didn't like him, but he would've been a much better choice than Palin...I agree!! I think that since McCain already saw him as an enemy (how he sees every opponent), it would've been too hard for him. Who knew the economy was going to take such a center stage? (I thought it would...but obviously McCain didn't)

[DirtyFeetDesigns (heb1976)]

I agree to a point. I don't like that use of Paris Hilton or Britney Spears to make a negative ad about Obama. Come on. That was just silly.
A negative ad is a negative ad no matter what it is about.