I think we all agree that we support the troops. Rational people do, as we can't fathom a world without a military, John Lennon aside.
Specifically, Chris33 has had some things to say (repeat) but his were more anti-McCain than anti-troops.
There is a guy (the archives would reveal this) who was here about a month ago and seems to have vanished under the "ignore the trolls" rule--he said that everyone in uniform, military and police, were parasites collecting money that should be used to level the housing playing field for the entire country. He was way, way out there and I am glad he seems to be gone.
TR, since I know my own motivations and that I was *not* trying to ignore anyone's point (and AE knows that about me as well), I am just gonna conclude that you got me wrong with your statements this time and let it go. Cheers, MGM (there are *lots* of BO supporters in Iraq and Afghanistan, really!!!)

Mary, who are these radical posters you are referring to? I visit the site regularly, and do not recall seeing this charge leveled regarding vets in general and Iraq / Afghanistan vets in particular. In fact, I would say that if there seems to be a common thread through all the discourse and arguments we all get into, it is a respect for our service members. Even someone such as myself who does not support Senator McCain, honors his service and sacrifice...am I missing something?

I think you missed Len's point, perhaps intentionally in order to make the very tired and shrill point that the "other party" is "not aware" or "doesnt support the troops" or any incarnation of the same smear. I appreciate you mentioning herioc Dems in your reply. But you again cant stay out of the "owning the troops" argument of trying to label the party your oppose as anti troops. Who are these "several others" who "dont want a military" and who "equate military service with collecting a government welfare check"? And where are these posts to this affect? Its more of VABEACH757's "talking Farsi" wild claims that are concocted and projected against the other party in order to bolster their own position.

You missed the context. I was objecting to John McCain's military service being thrown in under the label "has collected a steady government check since he was 17 years old." I was pointing out that that is a rather dismissive way of speaking of someone's military service. I still hold that that is true. I wish I didn't need to point out that service in Iraq and Afghanistan is heroic, but there are certainly posters on this site who regularly seem to equate it with collecting a government welfare check (not AM, but several of the other more radical folks who want no military at all). Cheers, MGM, who knows there are heroic Democrats there, too, so the point isn't partisan at all

We all know the polls are worthless. Always. Even exit polls are wrong. I noted this weeks ago and confronted you and your gang when McCains numbers were going up. You had no comment then. Why not show us what polls show Obama has having 70% of the vote? Did it come from CNN? The Poll right above their media partner Opah's site?

President John McCain.

It has a nice ring to it.

Do you think that people are not aware of this?

"There are some truly heroic people there right now in my place."

This reminds me of an email i received 6+ months ago from a vehement Bush/Cheney (and now McCain) backer who, during a plea to vote for the GOP ticket, found it necessary to inform the less informed that "there are terrorists out there that want to kill us". Now, how uninformed does a person have to be and how skewed does a person's opinion of the other party have to be to find it necessary to state such 'informative' information? VABEACH757 does a good job of carrying the water too when he offers his 'speak Farsi' nonsense. For way too many, the equivalency of opposing a GOP ticket & its policies (which is 70% in latest polls) is to is demonstrate a desire to hug terrorists. Sad stuff.

Just to not discount the military's contributions due to the fact that a government paycheck (and health care system) is behind them. As I have said before, I was stopped from going to the Global War on Terror by breast cancer. There are some truly heroic people there right now in my place. Not to take away from *everyone's* contributions in their own areas of our great nation and its economy, of course. Cheers, MGM

Many of your gripes are valid Len. Many I agree with as well. It's just a problem for me to promote an inexperienced person whose record conflicts w/ their words. The fact that this person has very little record bothers me more. The fact this person could have been much more active in the Senate bothers me the msot.

Your asking us to support Obama jsut because he makes promises. Some he has already broke. His behaivor in the Senate shows he has nothing new to offer and is a partisan hack.

I believe your motives are great. Your solution stinks.

about McCain. We know he was acting heroically and certainly withstood more hardship than probably most people could ever do. But contributions to our country come in many different forms. His job, and yours, is to protect the country from our enemies. Mine, which included a 4 year stint in the military, is to be an economically productive member of society, contribute to the GDP and, incidentally, but not with any regret, pay for those who do protect us.
Equal contributions I would think. But the comment was directed at qualifications for President. McCain's been a government employee all of his life, and that may shield him from the realities of having to make a living in our economies ups and downs. I don't think he grasps what is happening to most, if not all, of our middle class. Wages have stagnated for decades, but all costs have risen dramatically. Productivity has only been rewarded at the very top of our income scale. Our economic values have been turned around and distorted, and now we have a meltdown that is going to fall hard on the middle class.

You don't think willingly going to the unpopular Viet Nam war and serving with honor (though broken, as many were) during half a decade as a POW amounts to more than "collecting a government paycheck since age 17"??? Cheers, MGM, who is sure you are using hyperbole here, right?

Just checking. Sometimes your signals are a tad subtle, but I detect that you are leaning towards McCain.
Sorry, but I see better leadership, stability, critical thinking, ability to handle pressure, drive, and the qualities of someone who had to work hard to get where he is. McCain's sleepwalk through Annapolis, where he got through family connections, collecting a government paycheck since he was 18 years old and sleeping with lobbyists to a degree that is almost an indictment of what he says he is fighting against are not positives in my book. He is probably a good man with a decent heart and might be fun in a casino, but I don't think he is what we need to lead this country.
Obama is not perfect, but then neither am I, I will humbly admit. If you feel strongly enough about McCain, the you might consider ordering the "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for McCain" bumper sticker. I think you might need it.

First, I do not care what our founding fathers did or dod not do. They had wooden teeth as well. I will never understand why people invoke our early leaders. I think it is trying to create an academic suspension of belief. It's stupid.

"I want my president to have knowledge and lots of it, in addition to leadership skills."

Welcome aboard Len. There is no reasoning available that could get you back to Obama after that statement. The man doesn't even show up for work. His only skill is the gift of gab.

Your comments are indicative of the twisted thinking caused by the search for the most populist person we can find. Of course education isn't the end all of good leadership. But that does not mean we shouldn't value education in our leaders. Almost to a family, the immigrants who came here over the last century would work hard at often menial jobs to ensure a college education for their children because they knew the value of knowledge in the real world. Whether you vote for Obama, McCain or Barr, don't be suckered by the homespun garbage of images like Reagan's celluloid cowboy or Bush's bogus Texas roots on the ranch. Good leadership is a social IQ gift that some people have, but with a good education behind it, it can be even more valuable. I want my president to have knowledge and lots of it, in addition to leadership skills.
And the harder he had to work to get it, fine. Remember, the founding fathers were will educated, well rounded "elitists" and they did a pretty good job in setting what has been a grand experiment in democracy.

"Are you trying to say that people who are intelligent or who do well in school cannot make it in the real world?"

I am saying that grades in college are not the end all wayto judge a persons intellect. In fact, academics often fail in the real world. They do better in controlled settings like being goverment employees or teachers. Doing well on tests rarely means some one will excell at anything except tests.

It would be illogical to say ANY of any group behave a certain way. In my business it is a running joke to check the test scores of new people. We want the 75%-85% correct group in the sales force. The provide the most results.

Either way, IQ is the measure of problem solving. Neither candidates education was to be president. It is a non-issue.

Elitism is mediocre intellect combined with arrogance and lacking in wisdom.

Are you trying to say that people who are intelligent or who do well in school cannot make it in the real world? I can only comment on my personal experiences, which I believe you are as well, in saying that intelligence in the workplaces I have been in has been valued; now admittedly that is totally anecdotal; the same as my relating that my wife, who was top of her class in undergrad and grad school and received top scores on her P.E, is a successful engineer in the private sector. Her intelligence and standing in school and ability to take tests quickly has not been an impediment in her career. Myself, I confess to being the one who took just about every bit of time to finish a test...

"it was never valued over actual performance in the workplace, but it was certainly valued."

Please describe 'how' it was valued. IQ is the real measure to be used instead of grades. The person from college that knew to have the best grades cannot effectively manage her life and lives in poverty. She could sit through the toughest lectures and not take notes and then finish test in a 5th of my time.

John McCain's IQ is 138. That is not a bad number when problem solving is needed. Our next president will need to think on their feet. Each decision will take Obama 10X's longer to wrap w/ political Teflon.

My problem with this whole elitist nonsense is that somehow being well educated is turned into a negative. I would think that being well educated and intelligent would be a good thing, I know that it certainly seems to have been valued in every place I have ever worked. It was never valued over actual performance in the workplace, but it was certainly valued.

A college education does not make an individual smarter.
Over the years, I met many in that category... used to call them Ensign.

I am female, white, conservative, evangelical, and certainly finished college (working on the Master's right now).
But what are we saying when we imply that "non-college grads" wish that Sarah Palin were running for president vs. vice-president? She could be in four years and I would probably support her then.
Used to be the R's were called the "elite" party. Supposedly all of the college grads clustered there. Isn't it nice to see that we are spread about a bit more now--that there are D's who are at least as elitist as the R's have been made out to be these last two or three elections? Cheers, MGM, who doesn't think a college degree conveys the ability to think

Survey says:

About a fifth of John McCain supporters (22%) say that they "almost wish Sarah Palin was the Republican nominee instead of McCain." White evangelical Protestant (27%) and white voters who have not completed college (25%) are the most likely of McCain's supporters to almost wish Palin was leading the GOP ticket.

The GOP apparently picked the wrong man.

since they will only garner about 6% of the vote, more or less, they will never hear from Palin that they are waving the white flag of surrender in Iraq. After all, Barr's campaign statement, "The next president should commit to a speedy and complete withdrawal from Iraq, and tell the Iraqi people that the U.S. troops will be going home", is certainly more immediate than Obama's. I agree with Barr, and Obama, that Iraq should learn to fend for itself now, and the longer we stay, the more money we spend in that country, the less prepared the Iraqi's will be to run their own country.
We have freed them from Saddam and we now have a few things to tend to at home. We'll bill them later.

I concur and respect him for that. Once you enter that quagmire, it seems that there can be no greater sin than to admit you were wrong, even when everyone else can see it plain as day.

from the mouth of a politician was Barr saying "I was wrong."

You don't hear that very often.

Must respectfully disagree on Barr being far ahead in intellect and character over the two nominees. My recollection of him was his wrongheaded stances on medical use marijuana and his hypocrisy during the Clinton years, attacking him on moral grounds, he of the three wives and sealed divorce records and stripper parties. I do appreciate his reversal on some of his past stands, however, and honestly do not believe they are politically motivated.

Bob Barr was not my first choice for our nominee, but he is far ahead of both of the major party nominees in both attributes.

To some extent, I was poking fun at my partisan friends here, but I would suggest that the natures of the major parties make it almost impossible for a candidate of both intellect and character to get their nomination, while those traits would be no obstacle for a Libertarian.

To be an honest Democrat, one must believe you can punish success and reward failure and still have prosperity. To be an honest Republican, you must believe its OK make other people's private choices for them and then speak about Liberty. Either of these beliefs rule out intellect. But a smart Dem or GOP candidate must pander to those beliefs to get the nomination, knowing them to be false, thus ruling out character.

Libertarians can simply assert that Liberty works. Smart and true.

But not in this election, right? Bob Barr? Seriously? High IQ and character?

In my lifetime, we have had one President said to have an IQ in the recognized "Genius" level of 159.

It was Richard Nixon.

We had another who was of admittedly "average" IQ, at 105

That was Ronald Reagan.

Sure, I'd like to have a President with Nixon's IQ and Reagan's character, but if I had to choose between the two, I'd take the man of character and let him hire geniuses for his advisers.

If you really want Presidents with both intelligence and character, you'll have to start electing Libertarians.

Been there done that. And the US is stuck w/ a hangover of epic proportions. Besides the inability to distinguish between a McCain/Palin admin and a Bush/Cheney admin, Sarah alone is a scary wildcard. Her speaking-in-tongues church, the attempted book banning, the firing of the Safety Commissioner for not firing the trooper, rape-kit banning due to the kit's emergency contraception, the work-at-home perdiems, Todd Palin's membership with the Alaska Independence Party with its ultimate goal of seceding from the union (and whose founder stated in 1991 "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government." and "And I won't be buried under their flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home.", her incessant lying, the vapid interviews with Couric, and her hiding from the media.

My vote will cancel out Barry's.