BREAKING!
Fitfit stock up 15pts!

One thing you don’t hear McCain do, is “exploit” the military service of his sons. It certainly takes the chickenhawk charge off the table, about not having a personal stake in the war(s).

I agree 100% there.

I disagree on him using his own past though. To me, he’s worse than Kerry. Much worse than in 2000 or in his senate campaigns.

Basically, this was it…

Dave, the point I was trying to make was that in 2000 (really post 12/98), Americans wanted a bland President-not one with a resume. Even Bill Bradley was too exciting back then. McCain probably should’ve won the nomination then, but hey, that’s the Republican Party, and I’m not a Republican. In 2004, I don’t think anyone wanted to inherit the world situation, so the party let GWB go it alone.

re the gaffe-a-thon, again, I should’ve been more clear. Sorry. Everyone-EVERYONE-has accidentally said Iraq instead of Iran or vice versa at one time or another. That’s a gaffe. However, Sen Obama’s “we took our eye off the ball” schtick is a lie. It’s a deliberate distortion of the truth; a deliberate misleading of Americans…OR he’s ignorant because events in 2003 don’t impact events in Dec01. He might as well say that if we hadn’t had The Surge, the USS Cole wouldn’t have been attacked because we took our eye off the ball w The Surge and let Al Queda attack the ship.

Yeah, Lincoln was a backwoods lawyer, and a failure up until he won the Presidency and thus set in motion session which divided the union. It’s worth noting that his lack of military understanding and learn-on-the-job performance needlessly let hundreds of thousands of Americans die and extended the civil war he started by being elected. For example, if Lincoln hadn’t won, but instead a hero from the Mexican War who had been shot at, had an outstanding record in the most battle-hardened unit of its type, and who had rolled through flames, been injured several times, been captured, tortured, and imprisoned…if such a man had been President…do you think McClellan, Hooker, Burnside, or other political generals would have been running the show early on, or would the best generals have been appointed, led, and fought the war successfully? Would the war have happened at all or would it have been deterred by such a man with a warrior history?

Oh yeah…that’s right-I forgot.
Senator Obama was a community organizer.

Surely during his time as a local organizer in Reverand Wright’s community he:
was shot at by large caliber heavy artillery
blown up
rolled through burning fuel
blown up again
was injured
shot at several more times by big automatic artillery
blown up again
parachuted into a Chicago combat area
was injured badly
was beaten by a mob
was tortured
and was imprisoned

I mean…being a community organizer is one helluva experience. It strengthens one’s resolve as if…well as if it were combat over Vietnam. Right?

Military experience there is no question someone who has served has more experience than someone who did not.

One of my biggest disapointments with Candidate McCain was the realization that he is willing to use his “honorable” past as a pandering device, as evidenced in the Packers/Steelers gaffe. Still as I said earlier, I guess you do what’s needed when running for office.

I don’t think McCain has exploited his military service as extensively as he could be doing. That alone, which I think everyone acknowledges, doesn’t qualify one for leading a nation. But the contrast in past experience couldn’t be more stark. In part, it’s also related to age, as McCain has simply been around longer to gather more worldly experience (23 years service in the Senate vs. 2 years, with half of that spent on the presidential campaign trail?). I feel like Obama’s nomination is so ill-deserved.

Don’t think for one moment Obama wouldn’t love to be able to claim past military service, if he could, to beef up his presidential bid (all he can do is channel his uncle’s military service on his behalf).

One thing you don’t hear McCain do, is “exploit” the military service of his sons. It certainly takes the chickenhawk charge off the table, about not having a personal stake in the war(s).

And as far as it having been eight years, it’s been a horrible eight years.

Let me guess: Because of Bush?

If for nothing else, be thankful that W. Bush prevented an Al Gore presidency and a John Kerry presidency.

Think of it that way, Dave, and I’m sure you’ll have a more restful sleep at night.

One of my biggest disapointments with Candidate McCain was the realization that he is willing to use his “honorable” past as a pandering device, as evidenced in the Packers/Steelers gaffe. Still as I said earlier, I guess you do what’s needed when running for office.

That doesn’t begin to answer my question. Al Gore has nothing to do with why the Republicans chose Bush over McCain. And what about in 2004? My point isn’t that a Republican was elected. It is that a totally incompetent Republican with mediocre intelligence, ineffective leadership skills, and no strong character to compensate for those lackings, was chosen as the Republican candidate. And as far as it having been eight years, it’s been a horrible eight years.
Morning in America it ain’t.

“America is divided-does the candidate have the ability to appeal to moderates rather than just a party base?”

That’s what the general election is for Scott. We’ll see.

“Does the candidate even know what the hell he’s talking about (Obama’s running a historical gaffe-a-day lately with my favorite still his claim that by invading Iraq in 2003, the US somehow “took it’s eye off the ball” re UBL and AQ and let them escape into Pakistan in 2001)”

And I’ll gladly put that up against the “Iraq-Pakistan border” in a gaffe-a-thon (where’s Joe Lieberman when you need him?)

BTW, Abraham Lincoln was a traveling backwoods lawyer, was a member of Illinois State House of Representatives and had only one term in the United States House of Representives during which he opposed the Mexican-American War (defeatocrat).
Who knew?

America is divided-does the candidate have the ability to appeal to moderates rather than just a party base?

Congress is incredibly stalled-does the candidate know how to work with Congress, and can he do so in a bi-partisan manner rather than just cram a party agenda down the throats of all Americans?

Does the candidate even know what the hell he’s talking about (Obama’s running a historical gaffe-a-day lately with my favorite still his claim that by invading Iraq in 2003, the US somehow “took it’s eye off the ball” re UBL and AQ and let them escape into Pakistan in 2001)

Does the candidate have a history of taking a stand and demonstrating resolve under pressure (say…like being tortured but still refusing to go home, or even show a willingness to dare and vote against the political party line?)

It’s really simple, but Obama’s charisma and his ability to present other people’s speeches as if they were his own makes him very lucrative.

Remember, we’re looking for the President of the UNITED States…not a nominee anymore; not just President of the Democrats or of the Republicans.

Objectivity doesn’t work when the subject proves themselves over and over to be a loser.