JOHN McCAIN AN ENERGY HYPOCRITE?

That is usually the case for any candidate.


Right. Because the Republicans did a great job with the economy.

I never expressed satisfaction with the way the Republicans have treated the economy, but it's hardly entirely their fault. There is enough blame to go around, but lets worry about the future instead of dreading the past.

The Dem's do not have a stellar reputation of fiscal responsibility.

My point is, neither do the Republicans. Hence my wonder at your belief not only that the Democrats are going to somehow do even worse and that the Republicans could possibly be the ones to fix it. It sounds a lot like a leap of faith to me. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. And for that, the Republicans, regardless of whose name is on their ticket, don't look very good to me.

It's not only about "energy," it's about our whole economy! It's obvious the conservatives believe Palin can fix all the problems of Bush Jr; she's the new darling of the GOP.

My point is, neither do the Democrats. Hence my wonder at your belief not only that the Republicans are going to somehow do even worse and that the Democrats could possibly be the ones to fix it. It sounds a lot like a leap of faith to me. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. And for that, the Democrats, regardless of whose name is on their ticket, don't look very good to me.

The problem with this whole thread is that neither party has ever shown constraint in spending or anything else, when they get too much control. Folks who talk about "change" if Obama is elected are fooling themselves. With a Democratic Congress and Democratic president, there will be no need to "change". Why strive for bipartisanship when you hold the reins of both the executive and legislative bodies of Government? The only way to prevent Democrats from running amok will be the bureaucratic obstructionist tactics of the Republicans in Congress. Therefore, under an Obama presidency, we will continue to see more of the in-fighting, frivoulous investigations and questionable power plays that we've seen going on for the past twenty years, from both parties.

If you really want "change" of the way Government has operated...to get rid of the partisan slurs, frivolous calls for impreachment, and other childishness constantly displayed by our Senators and Representatives, then we need someone who has demonstrated he's willing to face the music from both his party and, of course, the opposing party.

While either Obama or McCain might be willing to do this, only McCain has both the history and motivation. If Obama wins, we have very little reason or history to think he'll fight his own party, and he'll certainly have none of the motivation.

Cute. Just when I thought you were not really all that juvenile.

I never said I thought the Republicans would do worse, but isn't just as bad also problematic? If the party in power is ******* the country, whether or not you believe the other party can fix it, shouldn't you stop them from continuing to **** the country? Isn't booting them from power the only way to do that? And if you don't do that, what message do you send? That of a battered wife -- it's ok to beat me as long as you say you're sorry? They have no incentive to change their behavior.

It's gotten to the point they love being raped of their jobs, homes, cost of fuel, food, health insurance, the value of the US dollar, and all those banks going bankrupt. They want four more years of the same.

I think the issue is not the party in power, but where it is in power. I believe Congress to be the main problem in our country, not the president. rCongress spends the money, the President just says whether they can or not. Obviously the pres can't veto every bill as there is far too much compromise behind the scenes. I sincerely dread the thought of a veto proof Dem majority in congress. I really do. I hope enough people realize the true calamity that awaits the US if this should happen. Especially without an opposing force on the executive side of things.

The president is the leadership. He/she proposes the budget and sets the agenda. Congress controls the purse strings. I'm not crazy about a veto proof majority either, but the fact is that the pendulum has to swing. Somebody pulled it hard all the way to left, now we're all along for the ride.

I don't necessarily believe that Congress is the main problem right now. For the reason above, but also because I think the things I would most like to see undone are things that Bush did (yes, Congress let him do it): politicizing the justice department, undermining civil liberties, torture, guantanamo, overreaching executive power, big bloated and incompetent federal agencies, etc...

All Congress had to do was stop funding the "war". They did not. They are just as guilty as Bush.

You got that right!
If you want change - re elect none of them.

And who was in charge of that Congress for 6 of the last 8 years?

Look, I'm not thrilled with the Democrats in Congress either, but this country needs leadership. The leader is not absolved of responsibility because somebody else, whose job is not to lead, let them lead us in the wrong direction. Where does that buck stop again?

Pelosi

Then I'd think you would want someone with leadership experience and a record that supports his words. I didn't figure that you'd be a McCain supporter. Imagine my surprise!

Experience and leadership are not synonymous. And even if they were, I don't think getting someone in there to continue leading us (or not) in the wrong direction is a good solution.

I totally agree. That's why I plan to vote McCain! He has both the experience and leadership skills to lead in the correct direction. I am so glad to see you finally getting on the right side of this topic.

Clearly we disagree on which direction is the right direction. We also disagree on what constitutes leadership. Add to the list of things not synonymous with leadership: rebellion. McCain may be a maverick, a rebel even, in some sense. But nobody follows rebels and mavericks, they follow leaders. Mavericks and rebels are good in the Senate because they push back and go against. But what does someone like that do without a counter force to push against?

Besides the Harvard Law Review, what leadership positions has Obama had?

I think that's a bit of a red herring. Holding a position of leadership, as in a job with an executive title, is not the only ways to show that you have the qualities of leadership, but I would argue that most of his work has required some form of leadership. Organizing communities requires leadership. Teaching students requires leadership. Staking out positions that other people eventually come around to (like the Iraq war and targeted attacks on Pakistan) -- that's leadership. Leading his campaign to defeat a well-entrenched party establishment favorite, inspiring people to get off their duffs and get involved. Leadership isn't necessarily the same thing as running things. It's setting the agenda and convincing people to go to work to get it accomplished. So far, he's done that in quite a few instances. In short, you're not a leader if no-one follows you. And if people are following you and you're not a leader, they won't follow for long.