Why John McCain will win in November

The "Bush Doctrine question" was BS because there are 4 Bush doctrines. It was a trick question and Charlie Gibson was trying to throw a curveball.

Palin could have said that.

Actually, Charlie Gibson gave her a soft-ball question; She could have stated any one of the four versions. She had four chances of getting it right.

The "Bush Doctrine question" was BS because there are 4 Bush doctrines.

What are the other ones? Preemptive war is the only policy I've ever heard that term used for. It was a radical change in foreign policy, and will probably the lasting legacy of Bush's time in office. Anyone who pays even casual attention to the new should have known that.

That's the only one I've ever heard too, badkungfu. And you'd thing a vice presidential candidate would be aware of a doctrine that took us to war.

sorry but I can't give her a pass if she didn't know it was a BS question - I read the washington post article that explained the 4 versions.. The author also mentions she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is (and he says Gibson didn't either).

If Gibson were a candidate for VP or President I would expect him to know our current foreign policy too - but he isn't so she doesn't get a free pass for his ignorance.

It's her Job, as one of fifty Governers, to know what our country is doing but nationally and internationally. It is her job to understand our foreign policy and to be able to answer these types of questions. She couldn't.

If it was a BS question she should have said so instead of giving me a BS answer. This isn't high school where you BS your way through tricky questions. This is our future as a nation and I'd prefer a candidate who had a grasp on the current situation. She doesn't seem to.

I'm a Vietnam Vet, and like the Vietnam War, I support the troops but disapprove of the war. You're right - where is the discussion? Where do you stand?

I believe the Colin Powell doctrine....no preemptive war, must be moral, and like General Powell said before we entered Iraq;"If you break it you must buy it". Afghanistan- moral and correct. Iraq- emotional reaction by Bush because we had been sucker punched.Opportunistic bull by the Neocons who saw this as a way to also help protect Israel ( wolfowitz especially)

You're my hero.

Obama has run ona word 'Change' he has based his campaign on a word with an indeterminate meaning.

Yeah right.

OBAMA's PLan for Change

Shine the Light on Washington Lobbying

* Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters: Obama will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format. * Require Independent Monitoring of Lobbying Laws and Ethics Rules: Obama will use the power of the presidency to fight for an independent watchdog agency to oversee the investigation of congressional ethics violations so that the public can be assured that ethics complaints will be investigated.

Shine the Light on Federal Contracts, Tax Breaks and Earmarks

* Create a Public "Contracts and Influence" Database: As president, Obama will create a "contracts and influence" database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them. * Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny: Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients — or tax earmarks — are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format. * End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts: Barack Obama will end abuse of no-bid contracts by requiring that nearly all contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded. * Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days. * Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama's Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.

Bring Americans Back into their Government

* Hold 21st Century Fireside Chats: Obama will bring democracy and policy directly to the people by requiring his Cabinet officials to have periodic national broadband townhall meetings to discuss issues before their agencies. * Make White House Communications Public: Obama will amend executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public. * Conduct Regulatory Agency Business in Public: Obama will require his appointees who lead the executive branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can see in person or watch on the Internet these debates. * Release Presidential Records: Obama will nullify the Bush attempts to make the timely release of presidential records more difficult.

Free the Executive Branch from Special Interest Influence

* Close the Revolving Door on Former and Future Employers: No political appointees in an Obama administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration. * Free Career Officials from the Influence of Politics: Obama will issue an executive order asking all new hires at the agencies to sign a form affirming that no political appointee offered them the job solely on the basis of political affiliation or contribution. * Reform the Political Appointee Process: FEMA Director Michael Brown was not qualified to head the agency, and the result was a disaster for the people of the Gulf Coast. But in an Obama administration, every official will have to rise to the standard of proven excellence in the agency's mission.

Barack Obama's Record:

* Federal Ethics Reform: Obama and Senator Feingold (D-WI) took on both parties and proposed ethics legislation that was described as the "gold standard" for reform. It was because of their leadership that ending subsidized corporate jet travel, mandating disclosure of lobbyists' bundling of contributions, and enacting strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips became part of the final ethics bill that was signed into law. The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, "The final package is the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet." * Google for Government: Americans have the right to know how their tax dollars are spent, but that information has been hidden from public view for too long. That's why Barack Obama and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) passed a law to create a Google-like search engine to allow regular people to approximately track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and loans online. The Chicago Sun-Times wrote, "It would enable the public to see where federal money goes and how it is spent. It's a brilliant idea." * Illinois Reform: In 1998, Obama joined forces with former U.S. Sen. Paul Simon (D-IL) to pass the toughest campaign finance law in Illinois history. The legislation banned the personal use of campaign money by Illinois legislators and banned most gifts from lobbyists. Before the law was passed, one organization ranked Illinois worst among 50 states for its campaign finance regulations. * A High Standard: Unlike other candidates Obama's campaign refuses to accept contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees.

Also, basing your predictions on polls using likely voters is very misleading since the drive for Obama is mostly new registrations.

Follow the money. The money points to Obama winning.

Sen. Barack Obama broke his monthly fundraising record of $55 million in August, sources said today, but the campaign remains tight lipped about its total haul.

Sen. John McCain's campaign already released its August totals, announcing he raised $47 million -- by far his best fundraising month to date. Washington Post 9/9/2008

You lost me when you said Barack Obama is not a lawyer. He taught in freaking law school for Pete's sake. Next.

Ditto.

Although, I didn't want to say he went off the deep end. The Independents who just fell in love with Sarah are the ones who have gone off the deep end.

teaching law and practicing law are quite different things

He's a lawyer. The article says he is not a lawyer. Case closed.

I can go to school for engineering but then decide to be a chef. doesn't make me an engineer. how many cases has he tried? what law firm did/does he belong to?

or i can go to school for law and then be a politican... same thing

He practiced law at a law firm when he first went into politics....or at least that's what he says in his book. I'd say that makes him a lawyer!

Lawyer, a person with a law degree
Attorney, a person who practices law
Thats how I see it.

Maybe they should be called "tabloid voters".

Hello,
I happen to be, and am Proud of, being an Independent Voter with a capital "I".

I see the real problem with this election as voters allowing the Media and Bloggers to make judgement for them.

Read my article, "The Second Civil War in America" to learn more.

The term "Tabloid Voter" BTW, is a perfect description.

Is it copyrighted?
hehe.

btw..."The Whiz" is Dead On.

Frederick of Woodbury, MN -

I think many share your lack of enthusiasm for both tickets. As an small 'i' independent I have thought how much more representative and exciting a match-up between say, Ron Paul(R) and Dennis Kucinich(D) would have been. There would have been a real and dramatic choice to be made.

That is not to say that the choice between McCain and Obama is not an important one, because the outcome could make a very big difference in the lives of all of us. To see all of this come down to a personality contest, gut feelings, and susceptibility to the mud slinging and spin doctors is so disappointing.

Dude,
Listen........do you *really believe you are going to get change by switching back and forth between the Dems and the Repubs every 4 to 8 years?????? It's like chewing a lump of fat....4 chews on the left side of your mouth, 8 chews on the right side of your mouth. By doing that....do you really believe you can change the FAT to a Strawberry????? You People need to wake up. For Real.

if you're suggesting the alternative is to stick with one of the two parties for a prolonged period of time I doubt anyone would be happy.

If you only chewed on one side of your mouth for eternity....would you still get a strawberry?

I don't know. But I would get jaw cramps and severely unbalanced tooth decay most likely.

The sound of one jaw chewing...

While this age group has been notorious for no shows, Obama has definitely invigorated them.

Additionally, a large number of Americans, especially young people, are now cell-phone-only, and as such don't participate in conventional polling. If the cell-vote is substantially different from the voter who get polled, the election results could come as a bit of a surprise.

From a report by the Pew Research Center to gauge the affects of the "cellphone only" crowd:

...those who rely solely on cellphones were also significantly less likely to be registered to vote than their "cellphone mostly" counterparts and the public at large. Thus, in pre-election polls that are looking to gauge the opinions of voters, there is less of a chance that the "cellphone only" group would be underrepresented.

The report is here, BTW. What you say is absolutely correct: there's no proof it will matter, but with the Democrats engaging in an uncommonly thorough drive to register voters, I still maintain that there is a chance that it could. The Pew data certainly support the notion that cellphone-only Americans are more likely to vote Democrats (showing a greater Democratic lean in every category), making them a choice demographic to target for registration.

Rita, that's exactly what I believe. For Dems to win voters must start thinking. Otherwise, it will be the same people in power who brought us to where we are today.

Does Rev. Wright's church have a tax exempt status. How does that work exactly with him repeatedly endorsing a political candidate from the pulpit?

I would think Wright's church has a tax-exempt status but he was talking about 9-11 and not endorsing a political candidate. The taped sermon was several years old and Rev Wright has retired. I was referring to Dr. James Dobson, Rev Hagee, etc.

Rev. T.J. Jakes told these other Preachers they were walking on a very thin line by endorsing any political candidate because doing so violates IRS rules in regards to tax-exemption. The Catholic Church also made a similar statement. I would think the Mormon Church would too because that church would never want the IRS going though its financial records because the records would then become public.

The Democrats lie, cheat and steal just as much as the Repubs.
There is no difference.

The Democrats lie, cheat and steal just as much as the Repubs.

I actually have some data on that first point, if you're interested.

So does this mean you want eight more years of people losing their homes, losing their jobs, and losing their kids. With all the wars McCain/Palin are planning on fighting , they would have to reinstate the draft and that would include women as well, which is ironic because Palin doesn't supports women's rights. Someone should ask her if she would draft women.

The CLintons should be in jail.
period.

That's a different question.

A lot of people should be in jail!
Which crimes do you think they should be jailed for?

McCain should probably be in jail for napalming babies, actually, come to think of it...BTW liked your other comment about the chewing, fat, and strawberries!

This is from last night's service forum:

McCain continued, "I admire mayors. Listen, mayors have the toughest job, I think, in America. It's easy for me to go to Washington and, frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have."

Then Barack says:
"Mayors have some of the toughest jobs in the country, because that's where the rubber hits the road. We yak in the Senate. They actually have to fill potholes and trim trees and make sure the garbage is taken away."

And I agree with him, a mayor has to get the job done.

A may does have a tough job - I don't envy any of them; especially with so many city councils laden with fools. Our mayor took over a city on the verge of bankruptcy and and old-boys-club city council that was pretty much opposed to change and that has attempted to mock and humilate the new mayor from day one.

It's amazing he has gotten anything done.

But then he walks a slippery slope. He risks the chance of losing some of his support if he leans too far to the left. Oh, never mind, that would infer that people are actually paying attention. You may be right on this one.

You must be very young. I'm guessing this may even be your first presidential election. No one who has been around for a while would make such a naive statement. Both parties have had successes and both have had failures. However, there may never have been more failures than what we have seen over the past seven years. I'm sorry, I like McCain, but he will not be able to deliver. His Party won't let him. Now, if your a rich kid with daddy paying all your bills, certainly vote for McCain because it will continue to be in your best interests. On the other hand, if you care about your country and your fellow man, Obama is the way to go.

I don't think you're giving Obama enough credit. He's smart, and once in office will do the right thing. An election always tries to pinhole candidates, but neither of these guys can or will do everything that is being said or promised. What I'm banking on is that Obama and Congress will establish policies that will pull us out of the economic slump we are in. And, part of that is getting us out of this war. The economy is not just about taxes, it's about improving international relations, cutting wasteful spending, and improving our health care and educational systems. I trust the Dems way more on these issues.

BTW - My comment about being a rich young kid was directed at DBE. And I don't have anything against them unless they can't think for themselves. Actually, I wish I was a young rich kid.

Both sides here have made some valid points, the best of which is that it is too early to bet any money. This election can go either way, and there are still things out there that could sway it one way or another. If nothing else we can all agree this will be a neck and neck horse race. Of course I am bias toward Obama, and I at least want to hope women, college students, minorities and all those on the fence will see the historic support the Dems have offered them, not the flash in the "pandering" type support being promised by the Repubs.

I've not heard anyone say three major positive Things McCain has done in the Senate that qualify him for the President either.

I'm not saying they don't exist I'm just saying I haven't heard them mentioned.

I have heard about 1; the campaign finance reform bill.

I have heard about 1 negative: The Keating Five Scandal

I have heard about him being a POW and a war hero but, sorry, for me that is not enough to get my vote. So, what has McCain done; please tell me three major things he has done in the Senate (preferably positive things). He's had 26 years so this should be pretty easy.

There are tons of things in McCain's record of accomplishments which you can find pretty easily. There are many fewer accomplishments in the Obama column, but a lot of ideas and positions. You can also find these easily on their campaign websites and on many news sites. But, if you have to pick one of the two, it will come down to trust and brand. Which brand do you trust, the Dems with Obama or the GOP with McCain? The campaigns are working feverishly on their brand campaigns onn both sides, with the added sub-brands of Palin and Biden, and we'll see in November.

DBE - On this comment I mostly agree with you. I would add that this branding must and will include each candidate's and each party's unique ideologies. Ultimately we will vote pro war/anti war, pro big business/pro working class, protecting women's rights or restricting them, etc, etc. I know these are not mutually exclusive, but the parties do lean one way or the other. And we must separate out what is election pandering and what is truth.

Politically speaking, by definition conservatism is a reaction, a status quo, a protectivism and not typically a change.

When considering the 20th century since Dwight Eisenhower it is pretty clear that Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton leave the only democratic imprint on the period. Kennedy, by many reputable historians did not live long enough nor serve long enough to put a firm fingerprint on his legacy. Carter was bombarded with issues that constantly knocked him off pace to ensure his own preferred fingerprint. So, between Johnson and Clinton is a wide sea change of policy and ideas. Johnson, an FDR democrat, vs. Clinton a Reagan democrat.

When you speak of the preferred "brand" in the context of "CHANGE", democrats really have a problem defining that brand. Is it FDR or is it Reagan democrats. Clearly both represent, like the party has always represented, change. The problem then is more complex than defining themselves. It is a problem of Republicans also trying to redefine themselves.

It was, in fact, Reagan who said "we ARE the change" and the conversation ended. Republicans were given a new life with the potential for a new direction. That was squandered by Bush and Bush. Punchlines never translated into policy shifts.

McCain, at the last minute, is attempting (rather successfully) in rebranding the republican party as the Reagan party of change. His appeal, like Reagan, is to the more economically and militarily conservative democrat.

In my own mind, the question of the Brand is being lost on a generation of voters (many first time voters) who do not know the Brand and have no basis to assess whether the Brand itself will be sufficient to make the change. For a moment in time, both brands seek the same message and first time voters will be left to determine solely on the basis of personality.

If this is solely a question of branding, I suggest a small voter turnout and a McCain victory. If it is possible to keep this a question of personality, I foresee a large turnout and a troubled but possible Obama victory. At that point, it falls to Obama to define for the next 20 years a brand that will retain the electorate.