McCain shallow like Bush-CNN
 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/...ain/index.html

This article sums it up for me. He suffered as a POW and appears to be a noble man, but that doesn't qualify him to be President in my eyes.

I'm ashamed to have Bush as our President, let's raise the bar in this election

obama sure doesn't set any higher standards.

In this area, Obama seems to have a noticeable edge over McCain.


However,I am concerned about Obama's involvement with that Rizzo guy from Chicago, among a few other things

we are safe with the devil you know-mccain; rather than the devil you don't know-obama.

Why go with another C STUDENT TYPE? He is not brilliant. He is average or below average in ability. Gunna be a tough 1st year transition period for either one though. Either one is a massive upgrade. I think the guy who would probably be the best President is the guy who may be the Democratic V.P.(RICHARDSON= expert negotiator.) Democratic version of the Republican slick back here lawyer that Bush #1 used. From Texas, but can't remember right now.

Obama looks like Urkel after a queer eye for the straight guy makeover.

Which is one of many reasons why he should win.

Obama is a moron too.

Cease and desist with the partisan hackery.

Urkel would be better than either of them!

...and that would be Obama?:zz: now that is funny:tro:

Tell me about it! This shiat cracks me up ... Obama isn't even qualified to run for President of our homeowner's association. LMFAO! :D

Neither is qualified. Obama has very lil seasoning, and McCain has a history of not getting along with authority. It's one thing to be a Maverick Senator, and another thing to be a Maverick President. Didn't we go thru this with Nixon? Always had a chip on his shoulder. Kind of attracted a bunch of freaks around him that he could trust. I'm not saying they would have the same groups of people they don't get along with, but I think they are both Mavericks in their own party. Replace Jews in this discussion below with another group, because that's about the same type conversations McCain will be having about his enemies(he has many.)

"Nixon and his chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, had the following conversation July 1971:

Nixon: Now, point: [Fred] Malek is not Jewish.

Haldeman: No.

Nixon: All right, I want a look at any sensitive areas around where Jews are involved, Bob. See, the Jews are all through the government, and we have got to get in those areas. We've got to get a man in charge who is not Jewish to control the Jewish … do you understand?

Haldeman: I sure do.

Nixon: The government is full of Jews. Second, most Jews are disloyal. You know what I mean? You have a [White House Counsel Leonard] Garment and a [National Security Adviser Henry] Kissinger and, frankly, a [White House speechwriter William] Safire, and, by God, they're exceptions. But Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right?

Haldeman: Their whole orientation is against you. In this administration, anyway. And they are smart. They have the ability to do what they want to do—which—is to hurt us."

To be honest, I'm not a fan of McCain either (he swings too left for me) ... he is the lesser of two evils IMO and that is why I'm voting for him.

Ditto.:)

Me too..looks he's already up by 3 votes..it's a landside!!

nixon was the quintessential insider. the guy was vp for 8 years.

goldwater in 64 was a guy working against party orthodoxy. nixon in 68 was the orthodoxy's revenge.

your example is completely off base.

In some of these Southern States, I got a feeling this is gunna be a story of 10%.


10%- of the Black Vote for McCain

10%-of the White Vote for Obama

Those 3 votes are Cajun, you and me!:D

That's right! :D

what happens to the beulah thread if it closes?

I'm talking about the real person(not some fake persona he had to take on.) Obviously, he set up a White House with his own lil Jew hater society in the Oval Office. He may of had more support from the traditional party loyalists than McCaine has had, but in Nixon's head he obviously didn't think that many people liked him, and he seemed to be constantly thinking even people in his own party were out to ruin him. Although I think McCain is an upgrade, I don't see him as being a leader. I see him being more comfortable as a leader of those against a leader. His nature is to get hot, and do something to make it tough on somebody who did him wrong. That's not that big of a deal when you're a senator. A president looking for revenge against enemies will not be nearly as cute as a moderate Republican Senator "trying to find common ground" with Democrats. He's a leader of opposition to something.The President's job has to be less combative, and it won't be very much fun to a guy like this.

scuds, i'm not sure how you make the leap from a guy who doesn't care what anyone thinks of him and is willing to be his own man even at his own personal detriment (mccain) and one who is so concerned about other's opinion of him that he compiles enemy lists.

mccain is comfortable in his own skin. nixon wanted approval. there is no comparison.

Doesn't care what anyone thinks of him? Are you kid'n me? He has been an attention seeker for a while now. He used to go on IMUS just to be on IMUS.
The guy even went on TVG at Del Mar(again for no particular reason.) He and Nixon aren't uniter types. They are fighter types. Those types do poorly with this job. Those who are most correct for the job(personality-wise) have done best with it. Those who atleast create the illusion of being a negotiator/uniter type have done the best at handling the job.( Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton types. ) For sure, there is one of those here(OBAMA,) and there is the more combative type personality running against him(McCain.) This is primarily a negotiating job, and it suits certain people better than others. To be honest, Hilary wasn't the right personality for the job either(at all.) OBAMA has the right personality for it. Obviously, politics of somebody are a factor, but people need to look at the type of person best equipped for this type of a job. It's a frustrating job..They have the responsibility, but not the power they often would like to have. It, no doubt, would feel like a no-win situation to most who did it. That's the way it's gunna feel to McCain too.

politicians going on public forums is just part of the job. citing examples of that as a disqualifier for public office is like suggesting pets that need attention aren't really good pets.

we both live in california so our votes are meaningless anyways. obama gets 56 electoral votes regardless.

i just hate seeing the continuation of this politics as war paradigm. it's gone way beyond playing to the end of the election. it's full time now and it's hurting the country. i like that both these guys are less partisan than the other options in each party.

i feel optimistic.

It is war. The parties aren't close in position. One wants to give oil companies all the money they possibly can, and the other doesn't. One of them wants us to pay the 40 or 50 cents a gallon to oil companies wallets, and the other doesn't. It's not unimportant stuff. It's a war between evil and good. People want things to be less partisan, but it's impossible because the positions are waaaaay too far apart. We often are giving each oil company 10 bil/ quarter year. ONE PARTY KEEPS SUPPORTING THAT. THAT'S EVIL. PURE EVIL. People who want the parties to come together are ignorant of the vast difference between the 2 parties. They aren't close. The results obtained by the party in charge are close, but that's because nobody can do anything without the other party hindering them. So, ignorant people think the positions of each party are somewhat the same. They aren't. Whenever I see somebody say the members of 2 different parties are about the same, then I know they're ignorant. The thing that hurts the country is people who are too lazy to know what the positions of the 2 parties are on issues. If they knew that, then I think the positions of the parties would be much closer. Ignorance by the electorate allows a party to keep extreme positions in place. The way to get your nice-nice is to change extreme party positions to more moderate ones. That won't happen unless the electorate knows how extreme a certain party is. Unfortunately you brought in Republican /Democrat stuff because I was making a point. The point was about McCaine's personality. The 2 individuals with the personality well equipped for this job happen to be OBAMA and Huckabee. The others would all be in no win type situations, and get worn down. I'm just talkin' bout personality types(not political positions.)

enjoy the war in your head. you and nixon have a lot in common.

I just don't support giving oil companies 40 or 50 cents a gallon. Doesn't take long for them to make 10 bil that way. People who support that are evil. Every time an effort to cut it down is made, they fight it. They want poor people to have to keep giving these incredibly wealthy companies more n' more. They give them zero effort to have competition to reduce it to a reasonable level(nor do they allow a profits tax on it.) It's evil. There's no doubt in my mind that it's evil. OBAMA says he'll do something about it, but I don't expect it to get done. Too many people will fight him on it. He will give it up. He will do the non-partisan stuff you like, and let them continue making 10 bil a quarter. Anyways, I have had it out with you in the past. You're tiring. I don't get paid to answer you. So, you win. Whatever that means. This is a political forum. I think there is an anti-political thing going on in this forum. I don't get it. This is the forum for it.

be honest.

no one really wins with you. if i answer you on the oil companies it'll be just be something else.

you argue a point that has no logical basis and then move on to some other baseless argument.

you can't fire me. i quit.

I Like Ike!!