What will you like most about the McCain Presidency?

There is no disconnect on part of intelligent voters.

They can clearly see that Obama has no experience nor credibility in areas that are important to this country and Mrs. Bill Clinton is a liar an a fraud.

McCain, regardless of your agreement with his positions or not, is a honest man and a viable candidate and the best choice of the 3 for Commander in Chief.

revel wrote:

woiyo wrote:

There is no disconnect on part of intelligent voters.

They can clearly see that Obama has no experience nor credibility in areas that are important to this country and Mrs. Bill Clinton is a liar an a fraud.

McCain, regardless of your agreement with his positions or not, is a honest man and a viable candidate and the best choice of the 3 for Commander in Chief.

Hopefully things will turn around before the general election comes around. I think (my own particular opinion) when or if Obama and McCain debate side by side; Obama will come off the better hands down.

But there is a disconnect between voters voting for McCain while at the same time wanting troops home.

EVERYBODY wants the soldiers home. However, common sense must dictate HOW and WHEN the soldiers are brought home.

From what I recall, recent polls show McCain being favored as CIC over both Obama and Mrs. Bill Clinton. So there really is no disconnect with intelligent voters IMO.

Unfortunately, I do not believe we can remove all troops within 1 year and those who say that are pandering to the ignorant left wing pacifists.

Here is a poll taken recently regarding CIC.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200804/POL20080408a.html

Americans say Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the presumed Republican presidential nominee, would be a better commander-in-chief than the Democratic candidates: Sens. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) or Barack Obama (Ill.), according to a new poll.

The Cybercast News Service was launched on June 16, 1998 as a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin and seek news that's ignored or under-reported as a result of media bias by omission.

Study after study by the Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com, clearly demonstrate a liberal bias in many news outlets - bias by commission and bias by omission - that results in a frequent double-standard in editorial decisions on what constitutes "news."

The poll did not ask a general election trial-heat question.
Americans' views about McCain's and the Democrats generally falls along party
lines, but Republicans more solidly side with McCain than Democrats side with either
Clinton or Obama. The poll asked two separate questions:

• "Do you think John McCain or Hillary Clinton would make the best commander
in chief for the nation's armed forces?"

• "Do you think Barack Obama or John McCain would make the best commander
in chief for the nation's armed forces?"

Newsmax? pot calling the kettle black. If I was to bring a poll by Think Progress or some such you would be in your rights to call me on it. Try bringing a poll conducted by Rassmussen and gallop and such recongnized polling sources.

The following is from the poll source you cited:

Quote:

The poll did not ask a general election trial-heat question.
Americans' views about McCain's and the Democrats generally falls along party
lines, but Republicans more solidly side with McCain than Democrats side with either
Clinton or Obama. The poll asked two separate questions:

• "Do you think John McCain or Hillary Clinton would make the best commander
in chief for the nation's armed forces?"

• "Do you think Barack Obama or John McCain would make the best commander
in chief for the nation's armed forces?"

http://www.everettgroup.com/Commander-in-Chief_Preference.pdf

I am just saying on the whole this question has not been asked in the more used polling places.

Also I concede Obama has more to work on in convincing these that were polled by this group that merely being in the military does not make you qualified for being a commander in chief. It helps if you know a little something about the areas of concern in which you want to advocate war in.

The poll was taken by the Everrett Group and reported by DistortNewsmax as well as other new organizations.

...

That is not a good feeling. We just went through 16 years of Presidents who had no military and foreign policy experience and look at the positions both Clinton and Bush have left this Nation.

I would think that rational, reasonable voters would be looking for experience this time and stop electing inexpierenced people to the highest office.

Ahh, want another poll to criticize because the facts are contrarty to your wish?

Americans say Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the presumed Republican presidential nominee, would be a better commander-in-chief than the Democratic candidates: Sens. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) or Barack Obama (Ill.), according to a new poll.

The poll by the Everett Group found that 51 percent of Americans think McCain would be a better commander-in-chief than Clinton, at 32 percent. When asked about Obama and McCain, the survey found that 53 percent favored McCain while 35 percent viewed Obama as a better commander-in-chief.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/McCain_Best_commander/2008/04/08/86281.html

Try being objective for once. The facts are quite apparent. Obama has no National Security experience and Mrs. Bill Clinton can not be trusted to lead the military. She can not tell the difference between sniper fire and a welcoming reception.

Dr. Steve Everett is the founder and principal of The Everett Group.

Steve has been designing and conducting research studies for clients for more than 15 years. As a civilian contractor, he has performed nearly all internal and external audience research for the U.S. Air Force since 1999 -- that's dozens of surveys and focus groups. He also has designed and fielded research for the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps.

Before joining the Air Force's Pentagon team, Steve represented the broadcasting industry in quality control, oversight and accreditation of syndicated research providers, such as Nielsen Media, Arbitron, Scarborough Research and others. He served as Director of Audience Measurement and Policy Research for the National Association of Broadcasters, Washington.

Steve has consulted extensively with the Council for Marketing and Opinion Research, and he's conducted several survey projects for CMOR. He's a long-time member of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) and recently completed a two-year term on its Executive Council as Communications Chair. He's also a past president of the Midwest Association for Public Opinion Research (MAPOR).

Steve earned his Ph.D. in Marketing Communication and Applied Statistics (1989) from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Before moving to Washington, DC, he taught quantitative research methods at the undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels on the faculty of the University of Colorado, Boulder. He's spoken to professional organizations across the country and continues to be in demand as a guest lecturer for educational institutions.

Bloomberg News reports this week that a government study has found that current or former U.S. military personnel make up fully 20% of suicides in this country.

stuff

But I just did.

However, you could go back over my posts from, say, the last two or three weeks and count the number of links I've provided to the Washington Times or the National Review or the Weekly Standard or to Fox and then you could count the links you've provided to Salon in that same period. That would be interesting.

blatham wrote:

But I just did.

However, you could go back over my posts from, say, the last two or three weeks and count the number of links I've provided to the Washington Times or the National Review or the Weekly Standard or to Fox and then you could count the links you've provided to Salon in that same period. That would be interesting.

No it wouldn't. I make no claim of being unbiased.

McGentrix wrote:

blatham wrote:

But I just did.

However, you could go back over my posts from, say, the last two or three weeks and count the number of links I've provided to the Washington Times or the National Review or the Weekly Standard or to Fox and then you could count the links you've provided to Salon in that same period. That would be interesting.

No it wouldn't. I make no claim of being unbiased.

Actually, you used to make that claim. What does that make you now?

blatham wrote:

But I just did.

However, you could go back over my posts from, say, the last two or three weeks and count the number of links I've provided to the Washington Times or the National Review or the Weekly Standard or to Fox and then you could count the links you've provided to Salon in that same period. That would be interesting.

No it wouldn't. I make no claim of being unbiased.

McGentrix wrote:

blatham wrote:

But I just did.

However, you could go back over my posts from, say, the last two or three weeks and count the number of links I've provided to the Washington Times or the National Review or the Weekly Standard or to Fox and then you could count the links you've provided to Salon in that same period. That would be interesting.

No it wouldn't. I make no claim of being unbiased.

Golly. Me neither.

On the other hand, I do make the claim to a broad range of data/opinion sources. And may your mother get blackbug.

blatham wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

blatham wrote:

But I just did.

However, you could go back over my posts from, say, the last two or three weeks and count the number of links I've provided to the Washington Times or the National Review or the Weekly Standard or to Fox and then you could count the links you've provided to Salon in that same period. That would be interesting.

No it wouldn't. I make no claim of being unbiased.

Golly. Me neither.

On the other hand, I do make the claim to a broad range of data/opinion sources. And may your mother get blackbug.

Alright, fair enough then. For some reason, I had it in my mind you had claimed once to be and i guess I was wrong. So say we all...