If things are really SO bad ... then why an inexperienced guy?

[96Qowner]

McCain has been doing his best to reassure the American people - "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" - while Obama and the Democrats have been busy for the past year telling Americans how bad things REALLY are - "Two Americas", "worst economy in x number of years", etc.

This always happens in an election cycle. The Party out of power has to convince the electorate that there's a reason to Change. So they claim EVERYTHING is awful, sort of a shotgun approach. The media join this effort because bad news makes people watch more commercials. The economy grew a healthy 3.3% in the 2nd quarter, but the media and the Democrats made sure everyone stayed nervous and uncertain, otherwise there'd be no good reason for a Change.

So, here we are. Everyone is hesitant to spend, driving down retail sales and destroying jobs. Gas costs a buck more than it did last year and people are encouraged to think that's a crisis. Our financial system is close to meltdown because so many people borrowed more than they could pay back.

But ... if things are really so awful, is now the time to elect an inexperienced guy for President? If things are so bad, don't we want someone who knows what he's doing, instead of a guy who talks pretty and has a bunch of "new" Socialist plans? If things are so bad, why would we want the government to confiscate MORE of our money?

If things are so bad, we want the most experienced guy, not the least experienced guy. If the Democrats keep saying the sky is falling, I don't see how it keeps working for Obama. Eventually, people will get anxious enough to go with McCain, instead of some Chicago political organizer with no record of accomplishment.

How is my logic faulty? And save the crap about Bush=McCain, unless you really think everyone can be fooled into thinking that's true. McCain has been a pain in Bush's azz for more than 8 years. McCain can get the Senators organized across Party lines and get stuff done. He's done it several times in the past, something Obama has never even attempted.

So, if things are so bad, why would we want an inexperienced guy to try to fix them?

[srellim234]

I'm not voting for Obama, but I'll talk about why I'm not voting for MCain in the context you ask.

For some of us, the fundamentals of the economy are NOT strong. Our personal situations have benefitted more during Democratic administrations than during Republican ones during our lifetimes.

Spare me the bogus McCain backtrack that by "fundamentals" he meant "workers." Experienced does not mean that you have a clue or a solution. Face it, the meltdown of major corporations on wall street was accomplished under the wealth of experience sitting in board rooms, Senators like McCain and Biden who have been sitting in Washington for too long, etc.

We have a proven record by McCain that he is in favor of deregulation. He is fine with the ripoff of the average American worker that is being perpetrated by the wealthy that McCain protects and wants even more.

McCain is a big proponent of privatizing Social Security into the stock market. I hate to think what would happen when the leaders of Wall Street, blinded by greed, get their hands on that much money. When the market finally tanks, they grab their millions and run, leaving millions of American people on fixed incomes struggling with even less.

McCain has admitted that he doesn't understand the economy. He proved it again when he said yesterday that as President he would fire the head of the SEC. If you saw it on TV, he was reading that speech from note cards when he said it. That means that not only he doesn't understand what he's saying, his speech writers and advisers don't either. The President does not have that power, a decision that has been confirmed by the Supreme Court!

McCain has sold his soul to become President and will do or say anything to get there.

[96Qowner]

Who is the experienced guy you want to be President during these awful times?

[S13_love]

There are none... sure i already made up my mind in that im voting for obama...not so much on the stuff that he says that he's going to do

Some reasons that im not voting for mccain is...well

1) I dont want to see another vietnam era person in the white house

2) The republicans for the past 8 years have done such a great job! (sarcasm) I dont see what will exactly change if another republican is in the executive branch for another term

[WDRacing]

There are none... sure i already made up my mind in that im voting for obama...not so much on the stuff that he says that he's going to do

Some reasons that im not voting for mccain is...well

1) I dont want to see another vietnam era person in the white house

2) The republicans for the past 8 years have done such a great job! (sarcasm) I dont see what will exactly change if another republican is in the executive branch for another term

I was kinda like you a few months back. I have never been a Democrat fan, but I couldn't stomach another stinking Republican president. My main thing was the war...I'm tired of it. I'm Ex-Military, my wife is still active...so it's something that is a real issue for me. Obama was all about getting out...

McCain is also about getting out, but under a far more controlled withdrawal. So I was still leaning towards Obama...until that floundering idiot started mixing words and talking out the side of his face. Once I realized that he was just saying what the popular thing was at the time, I lost ALL faith in anything he said.

He wants to take more of my taxes and give them away so others can have more stuff that they "deserve". Um...how about they work for it like I did and still do. Free health care? How can it be free if someone else is paying for it?

The economy is hurting, so this dude says he is the best guy to fix it...because he wants to CHANGE things. Well when things are bad, everyone wants change...so he preaches change. Simple and effective campaign...but it's only words.

McCain isn't Bush...

McCain isn't jumping into the capts chair without experience.

The time isn't right for a Socialist style Gov to take the wheel. We don't need more spending on things, we need reform of the current budget. Obama is one of the worst people you could place in office right now...period.

The people that say different are simply blinded by partisanship.

Don't drink the coolaide friend...

[mtcookson]

Crap... I think they're starting to figure out that all republicans are actually clones.

The time isn't right for a Socialist style Gov to take the wheel.

Correction... the time is NEVER right for a Socialist style government.

[Jesda]

Experience is a funny thing. Based on media reporting, its good for Obama not to have it, its bad for Palin not to have it.

It doesn't sway my vote, and McCain hasn't sold me on it.

[Jesda]

2) The republicans for the past 8 years have done such a great job! (sarcasm) I dont see what will exactly change if another republican is in the executive branch for another term

The Republicans have done a terrible job, but the Democrats have done as poorly. The Democrat congress and Senate have achieved nothing since taking over, and the same old nonsense will continue after they win back the White House.

You want change... so do I. But what you propose is repairing a sinking ship by firing cannons at it. Obama and McCain aren't offering change. They're offering WASTEFUL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS FUNDED BY YOU AND ME.

Its funny how two candidates speaking non-stop about Change are the least capable of offering any.

[96Qowner]

Just read your last group of posts, Jesda, and I'd like to propose something for you to think about.

You clearly see the hypocrisy in the Democratic and Republican Parties and their candidates for President. I'm also quite sure you know the difference between the Legislative and Executive branches, and understand the limitations of the Presidency and the inherent vote-trading process in House and Senate.

You've said that you participate in other political forums, so I'm also sure you've noticed that there is a group of posters who call themselves Independents because they find intolerable faults in both Parties. This allows them to criticize both Parties without having to defend either one. They support a 3rd Party candidate that no one takes the effort to attack because the candidate has absolutely no chance of winning. This means they also don't have to defend their candidate. Nice position - they can criticize everyone and everything without having to defend anything.

So the question is ... if neither McCain nor Obama can make Change, how could Bob Barr do it? How does Bob Barr have ANY power whatsoever, as a 3rd Party candidate? I encourage you to take a look at what happened to Jesse Ventura in Minnesota. No one in the legislature paid any attention to him, because he had no Party to pass his legislation. In this case, though, one MIGHT think that Republicans would support some of his goals, but if they wouldn't follow McCain, I doubt they'd follow Barr.

I propose that supporters of 3rd Party candidates simply aren't participating in the process, but are instead just standing outside and criticizing.

[Jesda]

I voted Republican for President, Governor, House, and Senate in 2004. I recognize the differences, but few are significant enough anymore to change real-world results.

In 1980 and 1994 you had a GOP that was staunchly in favor of lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, and foreign non-intervention. As demographics have changed, the GOP moved to the left to appease the media and a new group of minority voters. Republicans in congress don't even think twice anymore (except for Ron Paul and a handful of others) when it comes to creating new departments and spending federal money on useless projects.

As for Bob Barr, I -did- criticize him here on NICO. See previous threads. I mentioned his voting record in congress during his years as a Republican. While he has changed his mind on many important issues (Patriot Act, marijuana legalization, Iraq) and discarded his old beliefs, its still a blemish on his record. He is not perfect.

Today's GOP isn't what it was 10 or 20 years ago. They're simply Democrats who disfavor abortion.

Its an idiotic notion that to "participate" you have to choose from Evil A or Evil B. Participation comes in the form of campaign donations, debating, arguing, running for office, and finally voting -- all of which I have done. I'm politically very busy and quite spendy, so I'd argue I "participate" more than most.

[96Qowner]

As for Bob Barr, I -did- criticize him here on NICO. See previous threads. I mentioned his voting record in congress during his years as a Republican. While he has changed his mind on many important issues (Patriot Act, marijuana legalization, Iraq) and discarded his old beliefs, its still a blemish on his record. He is not perfect.

Its an idiotic notion that to "participate" you have to choose from Evil A or Evil B. Participation comes in the form of campaign donations, debating, arguing, running for office, and finally voting -- all of which I have done. I'm politically very busy and quite spendy, so I'd argue I "participate" more than most.

I fear you've entirely missed my point - it's not idiotic at all. So you also criticize Barr. Do you defend him? I don't understand how contributing to Barr or campaigning for Barr or voting for Barr makes any difference at all. If, somehow, Barr received enough votes to win as a 3rd Party candidate, how does Barr's experience make him a President who can make Change? Would you expect him to wield the veto pen? Would you expect him to issue Executive orders to eliminate or downsize Departments?

It's a valid principle to vote for the candidate that you truly think is the best. I take nothing away from you in that regard - good for you. But how can you not acknowledge that Barr or any other 3rd party candidate is irrelevant? Haven't you noticed that many people who vote 3rd Party defend nothing and stand for nothing, and only bash the Democratic and Republican candidates - one of which will actually win? 3rd Party Presidential candidates have no legislators - no allies. They can only block what the two Parties work for. That doesn't sound much like a constructive effort - purely negative.

If things are truly awful, how does Barr's legislative experience make him a President who can accomplish anything? Do you think more Senators would listen to Barr or McCain, who has made his reputation by forging alliances across Party lines. Has Barr ever done that?

And, of course, if enough people vote for Barr, Obama will win. Again, the principle of voting for the candidate you think is best for the job is great. But how is that constructive if that vote elects the greater of the two evils? Isn't it merely a counterproductive protest, and not constructive participation?

The choice is "A" or "B". All others are simply duly noted and make no difference.

I, for instance am NOT a Democrat. Democrats will NOT abandon Socialism, and I cannot ABIDE Socialism. Republicans have their problems, too, but at least by voting for them I fight the efforts of the Democrats. Voting for Barr makes the Democrats more likely to win - unfortunate, but true.

[smockers83]

...while Obama and the Democrats have been busy for the past year telling Americans how bad things REALLY are - "Two Americas", "worst economy in x number of years", etc.

The economy grew a healthy 3.3% in the 2nd quarter, but the media and the Democrats made sure everyone stayed nervous and uncertain, otherwise there'd be no good reason for a Change.

So, here we are. Everyone is hesitant to spend, driving down retail sales and destroying jobs.

There are two Americas right now, just not in the sense of the Democrats' POV. There is a dual economy out there that is very troublesome.

The 2nd quarter growth was very good, however, one needs to take into account inflation, the effect of tax rebates, etc. 3.3% is a nominal annualized number. If we were to put that into real terms and accounting for inflation, spending did actually increase, however only due to inflation as GDP is measured in a $ amount. Inflation caused more people to spend more money but they bought less goods and services. So there is need for concern in this area.

People being hesitant is a form of expectations. In the economy, if something is expected to happen, it'll happen. If inflation is expected, inflation will happen and its actually computed into the numbers. So if people expect a recession/depression, a recession/depression will occur just because of that expectation. Inflation/deflation will occur because of those expectations. This how people can say we are in a mental recession and that the fundamentals are strong.

[Jesda]

I fear you've entirely missed my point - it's not idiotic at all. So you also criticize Barr. Do you defend him? I don't understand how contributing to Barr or campaigning for Barr or voting for Barr makes any difference at all. If, somehow, Barr received enough votes to win as a 3rd Party candidate, how does Barr's experience make him a President who can make Change? Would you expect him to wield the veto pen? Would you expect him to issue Executive orders to eliminate or downsize Departments?

It's a valid principle to vote for the candidate that you truly think is the best. I take nothing away from you in that regard - good for you. But how can you not acknowledge that Barr or any other 3rd party candidate is irrelevant?

You are under the impression that the Republican Party at the federal level is in favor of smaller government. It is not. This has been proven through the entirety of this decade, particularly when the GOP had both houses of congress and the executive branch. The GOP even picked most of the supreme court!

End result is more spending, more regulation, larger bureaucracies.

Sorry, Choice B is simply "A-lite". Coke or Pepsi -- still cola.

I suggest studying some 20th-century history and studying up on The Progressive Party. The role of a third party is to grow enough in popularity not necessarily to win races, but to force one of the larger parties to adopt much of its platform. The Republican Party desperately needs to adopt more libertarian economic policies before it sells itself out of existence to socialism, before it turns America into a padded room for the stupid and lazy.

Rewarding today's GOP with my vote would encourage the way the party has conducted itself. It would tell the RNC that I want MORE spending, MORE federal power, LESS personal freedom, and less prosperity.

Today's Republicans are lightweight Democrats, and they feel this need to sell themselves as better purveyors of Big Government to win the approval of retards in the media. Its an intellectually lazy and destructive approach to winning over the electorate. The Republican Party had no trouble in 1980, 1984, and 1994 selling economic freedom and limited government as solutions to greater challenges, as ways to spread prosperity and maintain peace.

[96Qowner]

The role of a third party is to grow enough in popularity not necessarily to win races, but to force one of the larger parties to adopt much of its platform. The Republican Party desperately needs to adopt more libertarian economic policies before it sells itself out of existence to socialism, before it turns America into a padded room for the stupid and lazy.

Rewarding today's GOP with my vote would encourage the way the party has conducted itself. It would tell the RNC that I want MORE spending, MORE federal power, LESS personal freedom, and less prosperity.

Today's Republicans are lightweight Democrats, and they feel this need to sell themselves as better purveyors of Big Government to win the approval of retards in the media. Its an intellectually lazy and destructive approach to winning over the electorate. The Republican Party had no trouble in 1980, 1984, and 1994 selling economic freedom and limited government as solutions to greater challenges, as ways to spread prosperity and maintain peace.

OK, good - valid point. I have actually voted 3rd Party - voted for Anderson in 1980. But now, especially after Perot's two runs, I realize that no 3rd Party will ever be created as long as the 2, Democrats and Republicans, remain. A 3rd Party will be have to be created out of the ashes of one of the 2. I would LOVE to see the Republicans become a Libertarian Party. If voting for Barr contributes to that change, I will thank you for it.

Of course, in the spirit of the thread subject, you still didn't say how Barr's experience would be helpful if things are really SO awful. If enough people vote for Barr, Obama the Inexperienced will be elected, just as Perot got Clinton elected and Nader got Bush elected.

There are two Americas right now, just not in the sense of the Democrats' POV. There is a dual economy out there that is very troublesome.

I still deny that's true. If it is, I suggest it's because there is a large segment of the population that believes it's the duty of the Federal government to solve their problems for them. They believe this because the Democrats have been telling them so for years. I don't believe US citizens are entitled to 2 cars, a HDTV, a couple cell phones, cable TV, etc.

So, anyway, back to the topic. If things are SO awful, why elect an inexperienced guy? Doesn't it help McCain's case? If the Democrats continue to damage this economy by talking down confidence, won't it backfire on them?

[Jesda]

Of course, in the spirit of the thread subject, you still didn't say how Barr's experience would be helpful if things are really SO awful. If enough people vote for Barr, Obama the Inexperienced will be elected, just as Perot got Clinton elected and Nader got Bush elected.

Experience comes into play when it comes to knowing how to negotiate and appease congress, knowing rules and procedures, and knowing how federal budgets are proposed and approved. There's also a tremendous need for management skills, knowing how to think and function like a CEO.

Barr worked for the CIA, served as a prosecutor, and served in congress for 8 years. Professionally, legally, and politically, he out-experiences Obama and Palin.

He knows the system and despises it, thus his candidacy. He's an outsider who came from the inside.

[96Qowner]

Experience comes into play when it comes to knowing how to negotiate and appease congress, knowing rules and procedures, and knowing how federal budgets are proposed and approved. There's also a tremendous need for management skills, knowing how to think and function like a CEO.

He knows the system and despises it, thus his candidacy. He's an outsider who came from the inside.

Sounds like McCain. But we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree.

Thanks for the constructive debate.

[wingFeather]

The Democrat congress and Senate have achieved nothing since taking over, and the same old nonsense will continue after they win back the White House.

BINGO! Things have gone down hill since the Democrats took over.

Here is the real problem... Democrats in office

[AZhitman]

I'd like to address Obama's contention of "two Americas":

If he has such a problem with racial disparities (that's what he's getting at, folks, don't be misled), then I'd propose the following:

Abolition of the NAACP. Abolition of the United Negro College Fund.Abolition of anything remotely resembling "preference points" for college admissions or job preferences.Abolition of the Black Entertainment Network.Abolition of Affirmative Action.Abolition of Black fraternities and sororities.Abolition of HBCU's.

We can go on and on about this, but there will always be "two Americas" until the Black community steps up and recognizes that these entities simply foster "different-ness" and serve only to divide Americans.

Go ahead and ignore it, or worse yet, support his contention that there are "two Americas".

Because the Hispanic / Latino population is about to make BOTH Whites and Blacks a minority in the US, and at that point, you'll have to admit that race-based programs of ANY kind are more responsible for the problem than the solution.

[SmithSR]

If he has such a problem with racial disparities (that's what he's getting at, folks, don't be misled), then I'd propose the following:

Abolition of the NAACP. Abolition of the United Negro College Fund.Abolition of anything remotely resembling "preference points" for college admissions or job preferences.Abolition of the Black Entertainment Network.Abolition of Affirmative Action.Abolition of Black fraternities and sororities.Abolition of HBCU's.

I support this message.

[Jesda]

Sounds like McCain. But we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree.

Thanks for the constructive debate.

I certainly don't doubt McCain's experience. He's been around and knows how to work the system. He knows all the nuances of dealing with Democrats and Republicans and is probably a pretty good manager of people and resources.

Plus, he served as a commanding officer (with positive results) and as the navy's liason to the Senate. Right there you have years of management and communications experience.

Experience is definitely in his favor, particularly over Barack Obama.

For Palin and Biden, their experience matters less, as their primary role is to serve as tie-breaker in the senate and sometimes as negotiator and communicator for the president's agenda. Day to day management functions belong primarily to the president.

As for his politics, McCain was more conservative in the 80s, and I believe he sold out in the 90s and 2000s to make up for being part of the Keating Five. That's a huge reason behind why I am not supporting him. That and the GOP's failure to adhere to principles of small government as of late.

[96Qowner]

I fully agree, Jesda.

If I had my way, we'd dissolve a few Federal Departments, privatize Social Security, convert Medicare to tax credits or something, pass a law against employers bundling health insurance into employee compensation, lay off a few million Federal employees, etc.

But either Obama or McCain will be the next President, and Obama just ain' the man for the job.

[AZhitman]

I agree with J 1000% (using a little Democrat math, there )...

The function of the VP during the campaign is to be the "tunnel rat", the wedgebuster, the one who throws their body into the fight as an expendable "weapon" against the opponent.

I don't see Biden fulfilling his role very well - He's attacking his own running mate, not John McCain.

[Jesda]

I suspect Biden's probably pissed at his party. The two candidates with the least experience and the most scandalous histories, Clinton and Obama, got the most votes and the largest fundraising.

And God only knows why Edwards raised more money than Biden. Nice hair?

[AZhitman]

...well, we know the American Cancer Society isn't one of his contributors.