“Obama’s name on my absentee ballot.”

yes, and check the “Change” left over after his tax increases hit your wallet.

Another Jimmy Carter comming in, its going to be fun saying what a stupid guy he is.

yes, and check the “Change” left over after his tax increases hit your wallet.

I don’t pay U.S. taxes

Well if Bush keeps pushing the dollar into the ground, I soon might qualify to pay U.S. taxes from abroad!

“Bush keeps pushing the dollar into the ground”

Ah, so a tree fell, we blame Bush? He even vetoed the billion billion farm bill no one needs? But the Dems override and spend spend spend.

Funny how its all Bush’s fault.

My guess is that your not going to see sucktion from McCain’s support as happened with Nader and Perot in years before.

First, it is not like McCain is a serious Republican candidate. He is just the least Democrat of those running. Second, Obama is going to take a serious hit after he is nominated because you know that they are going to throw everything including the kitchen sink at him once it is official that he is the Democrat nominee. Watch the press turn on him as well. They have been burying negative stories about him and that is not going to continue.

Then there is this:
Unpopular Bush vs. Popular Gore – Bush wins
More unpopular Bush vs. Savior Kerry – Bush wins bigger
More popular then Bush McCain vs. As popular Obama – ???

I have to say advantage McCain. It is a strong advantage when you consider that Clinton has amassed a large Democrat and independent following what will probably seriously consider voting for McCain instead of just voting blindly for a Democrat.

Fred: the 2000 election was decided in the Supreme Court, Bush sure won but the votes were 5-4, not a huge measure of anyone’s popularity.

2004 was after one term of Republican rule, just like 1996 was after one term of Dem rule and in both cases the incumbent won.

Now that there is no incumbent running, change of parties in the White House is a real possibility. McCain would have easier time running after eight years of Dem rule (he should’ve been nominated in 2000 and he would’ve won handily) but now many people are tired with the Republicans, not just over specific issues but people want change.

I completely agree that McCain is not perceived as a Republican in the same way as Bush and equating him with Bush may not be a very wise thing to do for Obmaa. The voters know that McCain is not Bush. He may represent the same party, his politics are closer to those of Bush than those of Obama, sure, but he just is not Bush. McCain threw Rod Parsley under the bus, Bush could never have done that simply because hanging out with the Evangelical tv preachers comes the most natural to him, more natural than hanging out with politicians. But McCain never was comfortable courting the preachers which he had to do to get the GOP nomination. Yet it is visible for everyone that McCain is not of the Evangelical Christian wing of the Republican Party, no matter how much he is considering converting to Baptism. He may still nominate an Evangelical VP candidate, we’ll see about that. But that person will in that case not be very likely to play a significant role in an eventual McCain Administration.

Bob Barr can absolutely get some votes from disaffected Republicans but those people would most likely have stayed home this year rather than have voted for McCain in any case, had Barr not won the LP nomination. Still, if Obama wins narrowly and Barr manages to get three percentage points, that will make Barr the spoiler in the end version of the history of this election.

Barr will get Republican votes, people who might have voted for some of the other Republican candidates but not for McCain. McCain will get independent votes in key states such as Missouri and Florida, votes that would have not gone to any other Republican candidate. McCain will certainly have to worry about Barr to some extent but there is also the possibility that Obama will have to worry about Nader. My first feeling about Nader was that he will completely flop this year but he might get some Dem votes who think voting Republican is too much for them but who are not that bothered by the idea of McCain winning. You know some of the people who don’t care who the president is as long as he’s an old guy with old school ideas.

I think the election will be pretty close and if Obama ekes out a very narrow win (thanks to his boundless charisma that will offset any dirt thrown at him), Bob Barr could end up being called the spoiler.

“left-leaning libertarians (like me)”

Care to elaborate?

Everyone needs to bring up that the ‘Supreme Court decided 2000.’ take a look at what the newspapers did after the election. They did their own recounts in Florida and every single time the votes were counted, Bush won. Now, lets say it was a tie for argument’s sake. That is a sad outcome for Gore who had just spend 8 years as VP. He should have done much better. He probably would have if he had embraced Clinton as part of his campaign instead of distance him.

Good comments, but still looking at how things are going, I am sure that Obama will not be the next President. (Neither will Barr)

As for being a spoiler, Perot took almost 20% of the vote.

“the 2000 election was decided in the Supreme Court”

yea, after every new recount in Florida, Bush’s numbers grew>>>>

Figure that out. The Dem’s running the election process, could not cover it up, and thier bad counting processes.

The Dems run the voting process here, so Obama will win.

now this should be fun, Bob Barr running for the libertarian party ought to make this interesting, just as he did when he gave a speech on front of a white supremacist group when he was a senator from Georgia.

Let us not forget the time when he discharged a gun during a meeting and then had his henchmen beat up the heckler who showed up to his rallies dressed as Yosemite Sam.

You cant even make up shit funnier than this and now he is running for president to the united states. At least it will make the debates worth watching on tv. They have been boring since Ross Perot and admiral stockdale

“left-leaning libertarians (like me)”

Care to elaborate?

left-leaning libertarians tend to be very socially liberal, but on economic issues they’re not in line with the libertarian platform.

Oh my…if YLE is like our C-SPAN…

“but on economic issues they’re not in line with the libertarian platform”

Like how though? What makes them ‘left’?

What makes them “left?” They want free healthcare to cover pills for their bald spots.

Fred Fry – “I have to say advantage McCain. It is a strong advantage when you consider that Clinton has amassed a large Democrat and independent following what will probably seriously consider voting for McCain instead of just voting blindly for a Democrat.”

I think McCain has it in the bag, especially if Obama gets the nom as that crazy minister is going to get full coverage the minute Obama hits center stage. You don’t attend that dude’s sermons for 20 years and shrug it off as ‘family.’ I’ll likely be voting for the wrinkly old fossil come November….sadly.

I’ve said this here before and I’ll say it one more time: Barack Obama is the next President of The United States of America. And it won’t be close.

If you look at the polls right now, McCain and Obama seem pretty even. Anyone remember how well was Bill Clinton doing in May-June 1992? And there is a very big chunk of Clinton-democrats who are saying basically “If I can’t vote for Hillary, I’ll stay home or vote for McCain”. Most of them are just playing the primarygame and don’t realise yet that their candidate has lost. Come november, especially women will not vote for overturning Roe vs. Wade. As for men, 100 years in Iraq makes them think twice too. And does anyone remember the last time a democratic presidential candidate had the money advantage?

It’s true that McCain was the best choice for republicans. Democrats have to make sure that people understand they’re voting for a republican who probably has an evangelical running mate keeping the base in line. This time though, keeping the base – in my opinion – alienates too many independents and Obama wins.

“I think McCain has it in the bag”, but the Dens control the voting process, so he has no chance.

Look at how they treat Florida in the run off. So much for every vote counts. Thats a joke.

“Look at how they treat Florida in the run off. So much for every vote counts. Thats a joke.”

You mean the thing when republican controlled Florida legislature moved Florida’s state funded primary into January 29, 2008? Or the thing when Florida’s republican governor “hailed the vote and is expected to sign the measure”? http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/florida-legislature-throws-wrench-into-primary-season-2007-05-03.html

Or maybe you mean the thing when Republican National Commitee penalized Florida by cutting Florida’s republican primaryvotes in half? So much for every vote counts.

Oh, but you are forgetting one thing: rules. Specifically rules set to guide the primary process of each party. You know, the rules that were set before the primaries by RNC and DNC. You’d think that floridans (or michigans) wouldn’t be that stupid to break the rules and get penalized? They bluffed and RNC (and DNC) didn’t blink.

All the statements saying “McCain has it in the bag” and “Obama has it in the bag” put together prove that we’re going to see a highly competitive election this year. This is probably why both candidates need to take extra good care when picking their running mate.

hfb: Now that there are no other news, the issue of Obama’s minister may look to be decisive for the election. Even if that issue has already made you choose a candidate, many will remain undecided and people will be interested in even one or two other issues than what Obama’s minister said and when. The bottom line is that neither McCain nor Obama is a religious fundamentalist and come January, White House won’t be ruled from wherever the priest closest to the president happens to be. It’s a juicy issue, especially since Bush has listened so intently to his spiritual advisers. But ultimately it’s going to be a nonissue. Yes, some people may have in the past few weeks made up their minds not to vote for Obama because of Rev. Wright. But you, hfb, were not going to vote for Obama even if he had spent the past 20 years listening to a preacher who speaks nothing but the pure and unadulterated gospel of Jesus Christ without any hint of hatred or intolerance of any kind. Why, because Obama is not going to let any priest run the show. Neither is McCain.

sorry hfb for contradicting myself in my post. Only you know the real reasons for not supporting Obama. Let me guess it this way: a) you were never going to vote for him anyway, b) the appearance of the Rev. Wright issue confirmed your previous position. I hope I made some sense this time.

“Oh, but you are forgetting one thing: rules. Specifically rules set to guide the primary process of each party.”

Right on, the rule of law is most important. So who do the Dem’s continue to gripe over the last 2 elections?

Better yet, when Clinton broke the rule of law, why was he ignored by the Dem’s?

Just 2 answers please.

obama rules

“Right on, the rule of law is most important. So who do the Dem’s continue to gripe over the last 2 elections?”

I don’t know. Tell me.

Though we are not talking about the rule of LAW. We are talking about party rules.

“Better yet, when Clinton broke the rule of law, why was he ignored by the Dem’s?”

Maybe for the same reason as why David Vitter (R-LA) is still a sitting senator.

Umm, let’s see if I can conjure up a few plays on words:

Abomination/Obamanation

Why would anyone in their right minds vote for someone whose first and last initials are B.O.? It literally stinks when you think about it.

Baraka was a cheap shot video game character in Mortal Kombat 2. Any relation?

Clintonian is Draconian

Barr None! He won’t win.

Nader’s Nadir (but what else should we expect?)

McCain’s still selling frozen French Fries in Canada. (Hey, at least he’s not an agent for oranges)

Baldwins because Chuck’s the man!!! (See Baldwin2008.com for more details).

Phil (and everyone else on here), in all seriousness, economic downturns have always been a part of civilized history – ever since the dawn of Creation. We can all complain about the huge hit in our wallets and billfolds due to the soaring cost of fuel and food – not to mention the worldwide wheat and food shortage. We can also complain about the incredibly anemic US dollar. However, we should at least take into consideration that this is not permanent.

Will there ever be an end to all of this “Carteresque malaise?” Sure, there will! Can we see it right now? Admittedly, no. Even Herbert Hoover said that the economic downturn that led to the Great Depression (which would be further aggravated in large part by his successor) would not last forever.

Let’s at least put that in perspective before making B.O. “the savior of the world,” and regretting it in the long run.

At least those of you who have been offended by Obama staying in his church can feel that you have influence on the man who might be the next POTUS. He has quit his church and he wants your votes.

BTW Jason, he’s running for president, not savior and I think most people realize this is a political race. I don’t know of any president who has proven to be savior yet and I don’t think any people really expect such perfection of their president. Presidents of the United States, such as those of other countries, tend to be flawed individuals. Obama and McCain look to me more aware of themselves being flawed and human than many of the previous aspirants to the highest office.

How about Baldwin? What is his goal? Spoiling it for McCain? It might be hard for him to achieve that as he is not as well known as Barr who is the one journalists will more likely point at if Obama wins. At least Baldwin, being a minister, has the superior religious credentials for the presidency. It’s just that being a minister with strong political opinions has never been as impopular as this election season.

Americans are maybe starting to realize that the “tax and spend” democrats are not the ones who are bringing their country’s economy to the ground.

How about some borrow and spend conservatives!

And of course I should’ve written democrats vs. republicans instead of democrats vs. conservatives.

lpktk: Some conservatives with a “love your country, hate your state” attitude might actually even applaud the idea that the federal government gets so debt-ridden thanks to a borrow and spend policy that there won’t be any money for welfare projects. After all, it usually is possible to borrow even more for military expenditures citing national emergency. The whole idea is that building a strong military is how you love your country, while by cutting back on welfare spending the state is kept in check.

Now, however, the problem is that there are no guarantees that the military is growing stronger. That is after all something most conservatives genuinely want to achieve both by taxing and by borrowing.

In comes John McCain as the number one guarantor of a strong military. He also promises to seriously cut back on spending and to get rid of the whole borrow and spend-attitude, back to balanced budgets.

This is where Bob Barr will play the most crucial role. His strategy is going to be to convince spending hawks that McCain, the military man that he is, actually is a big spender who will achieve nominal cutbacks in insignificant areas while actually increasing spending. Since McCain won’t be one to borrow, anti-McCain conservatives and libertarians are assuming he will tax.

Bob Barr and John McCain are both fiscal conservatives who are not happy with the Bush Administration’s fiscal policies. The big difference is in their attitude toward military spending. Barr will be running as an isolationist and McCain as an interventionist. The biggest difference of all between them is that Barr is running to spoil it for McCain, while McCain is genuinely running for office.

Nobody is actually running in order to continue the Bush fiscal policies. Where McCain is closest to Bush is in his Middle Eastern policy.

Helsinkian: I believe even some of those people that you mention at the beginning of your piece are starting to realize that borrowing at current pace might be too much, ie. that there might be a sudden crash waiting some time in the future if China for example loses their trust in the United States. Who are these people voting, I don’t know, but they are not in McCain’s pocket, at least yet.

Second group of people are the “values voters” who vote against their economic interests. Republicans haven’t been able to deliver much to them and now it seems that the republican dominance is over. Do they still vote for a republican – McCain – or do they stay home?

In any case, I believe that this year is so bad for republicans that even “the maverick” can’t win the presidency with an R beside his name. And Bob Barr doesn’t help him at all.

Do you think that Barr is genuinely trying to spoil this election in favor of Obama?

#25

Helsinkian, I know that there are some people who shudder at the thought of having a pastor as POTUS – and some of them frequent this blogsite. They may be afraid that someone like Chuck Baldwin would institute a rule strictly according to the Bible.

Admittedly, there are some theocrats that would scare the living daylights out of a born-again Christian such as myself if they were to be elected. However, Baldwin is not one of those guys. Baldwin is looking to restore American back to her original and firm constitutional moorings. That’s why he belongs to the “Constitution Party,” not some “Christian” political party. That’s why he is looking to do such things as restoring full gun rights to every American citizen. That’s why he is looking to get our troops out of Iraq immediately if he were to become President (and I’m sure that some people in here would fully support that measure). He would also push to close the border to Mexico and deport those who are in the US illegally and have no desire to become citizens (which I fully support. There is a difference between deportation and xenophobia.) There are quite a few others out there, but that is just a sampling.

Be thankful that guys like R.J. Rushdoony, Gary North, and Gary DeMar don’t hold public office. In Rushdoony’s case, he never will since he checked out in 2001. As for North and DeMar, they would never get my vote if they ran for public office. All of them are theocrats, and all of them want to make every part of the Bible the law of the land – and that includes the death penalty for homosexuality.

Hey Jason, if the Constitution Party isn’t some “Christian” political party, can you explain what all this stuff at the top of the Constitution Party’s Preamble means:

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

lpktk #29

Yes, I think Barr would like to spoil it for McCain but I also think he genuinely wants to promote the Libertarian Party. He’s really disappointed with the Republicans. If he could spoil the election for McCain, that would give the Libertarian Party more visibility.

#31,

Cymatic, I am not denying the roots of the Constitution party nor its preamble. Pardon me for missing that and for clarifying that. Nevertheless, they have my vote in November.

To set the record straight, the CP has no agenda to set up any sort of draconian theocratic laws that would have been proposed by men like RJ Rushdoony and Greg Bahnsen. Sure, many people will have this preconceived notion that if they were to get into office, they would establish a theonomy/theocracy. Far from it. They are acknowledging where mankind gets their freedoms and liberties, and that denying this leads to tyranny. One does not have to look far to see what happened in places like all of those communist countries when they totally took God out of the picture. After all, it was Dostoyevsky who said something to the effect that “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted.” The TV show “Big Love” comes to mind, as well as bestiality, etc.

Now, if this will whet your appetite for things political, I read somewhere that Ron Paul plans to endorse Bob Barr for President. He even said that Chuck Baldwin is very, very close to his own views.

In closing, if we were only given the two choices of McCain and Obama, everyone would lose in the long run.

Jason,

By what logic are the fundamentalist LDS’s practices a result of atheism? They are a church. They believe in God, who, in their view, mandates polygyny – a view shared by the mainstream LDS a hundred years ago.

Curiously, polygyny being the norm in the OT, I don’t see it being condemned anywhere in the NT. It seems that the practice was simply abandoned as a result of cultural evolution. No wonder – there’s enough work in one woman.

Being Finnish, I quite like Dostoyevsky. That quote, though, seems to affirm Nietzsche’s view on Christian slave morality.