Check this out....

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

I would disagree about a good manager not having to know how to do a job.  Every good manager I have ever had has been able to do my job, and, in fact, did do my job at some point.  This includes working in multiple state positions (for example, I worked for several months as a member of the Americorps programs hand in hand with my state's Department of Natural Resources).  Any manager who deals with anything technical, whether it be law, engineering, medicine, etc. needs to have a deep understanding of the field he or she works in, because without it you can't be expected to understand how things need to get done, just what needs to get done.  And that leads to the wrong people being blamed for things not getting done and the wrong people being assigned to certain jobs.

Alaska has a different culture from the rest of the US.  That being said, Michigan has a different culture than Indiana, Detroit has a different culture than Lansing.  Alaska has many similarities to other conservative states, like the ones you've listed off, but also many differences.  These stem from the severely different job market from the rest of the union, the different environment and living conditions, the different types of people who are attracted to that sort of life. 

I didn't say that a poli-sci degree is necessary.  Or I didn't mean to.  Rather, I meant to say that a journalism degree is rather inadequate.  There are plenty of leaders who are capable of leading with NO educational background, or an unrelated one.  But all the people you listed off have a related background, and as it is many of our leaders do.  Law, economics, political science--even sociology or psychology are highly qualified backgrounds when dealing in social services.  She does NOT strike me as somebody who is naturally a qualified individual.  I think if she was, her party would flaunt her around more and have her do a lot of interviews, so everybody KNEW she was a natural born leader.

I did not distort the truth.  I said she used her basketball experience as an example of her character.  She did just that.  Analogy or not, I would expect her to use stronger and more applicable examples/analogies if she had them.

Judging people by an associate they have is ridiculous.  Period.  I've known racists before, I've been friends with racists before.  Somebody who had a LARGE part in raising me for my entire childhood is a racist.  I'm not racist.  Why wouldn't we convict somebody on the things HE has said, rather than the things he has been told?  He can't help what family he was born into, or what church he was raised by.  Lets be honest, people go to the same churches as adults that they go to as children a majority of the time (those that do go to church as adult and child).  I bet you did, if you go to church (unless you moved).

I didn't bring up her experience, I was defending that she does not have more applicable of a background than Obama, which is something you said.  All I said was that Biden wasn't planning on attacking her experience.  I'm not "on the experience" anything.  I would rather look at what McCain has to say, what Obama has to say, what Palin has to say, and what Biden is going to make up...err...has to say.

That being said, I agree with the democratic ticket more often than the republican ticket this election.  I don't really feel confident in either, it's just a matter of which is the less of two risks?  I feel it is Obama, especially since I do not want to see Roe V Wade repealed and this election could be very important to the layout of the Supreme Court.  I also do not want to see somebody who agreed with this president so often in power, because of how often I've seen this president act incompetently, uninformed, and how often I have been lied to by him.  I'd rather vote in fresh ideas that haven't yet been proven than vote in old ideas that have been proven...to be a negative.  I'm not super excited about Obama, I'm not super excited about McCain.  I REALLY dislike Palin, and I'm more or less neutral on Biden.

[darxbane]

You seem to be comparing a direct supervisor to a Manager or Director.  A good manager can't be bogged down by every detail, that is the point of delegation.  Why do you think the term Micromanager is considered a slight? A good manager makes informed decisions and stick by those decisions, has to trust the people that work for him to do their jobs, and hold them accountable if they don't.  If they could do it all, they wouldn't need anybody working for them, would they?  Your fear of Roe v Wade being overturned means that you agree with the democratic ticket more in every election, not just this one.  The Supreme Court could overturn Roe v Wade right now, but they won't, and they won't even if all nine justices are Conservatives.  A compromise must be reached, and unlike the judges in your party, conservatives rarely get accused of legislating from the bench.  You spew the "he lied" spin when you talk about Bush.  If there was really any factual evidence to support these claims, he would have been impeached when the dems took over congress, period.
You forget that the economy was improving 2 years ago, right about the time the Republicans called for Fannie and Freddie oversight.  Bush called for it a few times, but got nowhere, and you didn't hear about it until days after the collapse.  Despite this, voters are still placing the majority of blame on Bush and McCain.  Even Bill Clinton agrees the Dems screwed up.  Is anybody really paying attention?

If you think Obama's plans are new, you haven't looked into them very closely.  Nothing he is proposing is new or fresh.  He is full of empty promises to get elected.   Do you honestly believe that increasing taxes on Corporations that are losing money and cutting jobs will help create new jobs?  How can taking more money from an already struggling system make it better?  The feds gave Chrysler, GM, and Ford a 28 BILLION dollar loan two weeks ago.  Why?  because they employ over a million american workers, and for them to go under would be a disaster.  You can't raise taxes when the target can't afford to run things now.  That is assinine!  Worse than that, Obama wants to give the Federal government, who even he admits is irresponsible, MORE MONEY!  If you had a friend that asked you for 100 bucks to help pay his rent, and you found out that he used sixty of it to buy a video game, would you continue to loan him money?  Of course not!  We need to get control of government before they get more money, not after.  There may be greedy rich people out there, but they still do much more to help this country investing it themselves than giving it to the government, and if companies fell they are getting shafted, they will move their plants to more tax-friendly countries.  We already saw this happen as a result of the dot com implosion.  Companies began outsourcing to other countries in order to remain competitive.  As for his health care plan; we tried this already with car insurance.  "If everyone has car insurance, more money will be in the system and we won't have to worry about paying for uninsured motorists".  Did anyone's insurance rates go down? Nope!  It was allowing competition between all the insurance companies that helped auto insurance.  So if you did actually look past your Pro-Choice hazed perspective, you would see that Obama's plans have already been tried before, and the last thing we should want right now is increased Government control over anything.  Obama said that Earmarks only accounted for 17 billion dollars of the budget, but how many votes were bought with those earmarks, and how much money did those bills end up costing us?

[Peter Ahlstrom]

darxbane, I think it likely that nine conservative judges would overturn Roe v. Wade in short order. Two or three more conservative judge might get it done. A couple more strict constructionists like Thomas, and it would be gone. Roberts talked about super-stare-decesis, but Alito declined to and Scalia's and Thomas's beliefs it should be overturned are well documented.

Of course, I agree it should be overturned, but there was a whole thread about abortion.

In general, though, I think that reading into the constitution things that aren't there is a bad idea.

[SarahG]

Judging people by an associate they have is ridiculous.  Period.  I've known racists before, I've been friends with racists before.  Somebody who had a LARGE part in raising me for my entire childhood is a racist.  I'm not racist.  Why wouldn't we convict somebody on the things HE has said, rather than the things he has been told?  He can't help what family he was born into, or what church he was raised by.  Lets be honest, people go to the same churches as adults that they go to as children a majority of the time (those that do go to church as adult and child).  I bet you did, if you go to church (unless you moved).

I disagree.  I believe that it is ridiculous to judge people by an associate they didn't choose - e.g. a relative - but an association freely made in adult life can certainly illustrate a person's character and values.  This is particularly true when the person maintains and defends the association over a long period of time.

In Obama's case, it is my understanding that the church he chose to attend as an adult has little to do with the way he was raised.  I believe his mother and grandmother did not encourage regular attendance at any particular church, but rather fostered religious open-mindedness or perhaps atheism.  If anything, I believe his ancestral roots were Methodist on one side and Muslim on the other.  As far as I know, his childhood religion had no direct correlation with his later choice to affiliate with a black United Church of Christ with a tendency towards liberation theology.  I'm certainly no expert on Obama's biography, so please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.

In my opinion the choice of a church, as an adult, should be made primarily based on agreement with that church's teachings rather than on a feeling of familiarity or inertia from childhood.  I, personally, have always chosen churches on that basis whenever I have moved, and I currently attend a different church than my parents do, even though we live in the same town.  However, I understand and agree with your point that statistically this does not tend to be the case; most people end up believing what their parents believed and attending the church (if any) that their parents attended.  But if what I said above of Obama is true, he (like me) bucked that trend and made an independent choice for his adult religious affiliation.  Thus, I think it is fair to hold him accountable for that choice.

I would likewise hold accountable a politician who joined the KKK while arguing that he disagreed with the racism expressed by other KKK members; he simply joined because the leader was an old family friend and mentor.  Now, this is obviously an extreme and imperfect analogy.  I realize that the KKK is pretty much all about racism and nothing else, while the same is not true of the UCC or even of Jeremiah Wright's particular congregation - I'm sure that the majority of the time Wright preaches about other things than white hatred.  Obama could argue that he affiliated himself with Wright because of these other things he preaches; however, he didn't argue this - he just argued that Wright was an old friend and mentor and Obama felt the same loyalty toward him as toward his white grandmother.  I bought this argument and was filled with admiration for Obama's wisdom and strength of character, standing up for a friend even when it hurt him politically - right up until a week later, when he switched course and threw Wright under the bus.  It wasn't that Wright was saying anything new or different than what Obama had already excused him for saying, it was just that he hadn't let the issue die like Obama apparently hoped he would.  That was my moment of disillusionment in this campaign, when I became convinced that Obama was just another politician.

[darxbane]

I suppose you're right.  While I would like to see some restrictions placed on abortions, I don't think it can made completely illegal.  However, I agree that the Supreme Court stretched itself pretty thin by attaching it to Right to Privacy.  


Here, Here, Sarah.  You can't choose your family, but you can choose your friends.  I rarely attend church, but I have never heard either myself, nor from anyone else, that any Priest in my church has ever spoken ill of another human being during  church service.  If a priest did start touting racial bigotry, he would not be in that church for long.

[SarahG]

Thanks, darx.  I would also add that actually joining an organization (such as a church) shows even more about someone's character, beliefs, and values than simply being friends or business associates with someone questionable.  Many of us don't agree with all of our friends on every issue, nor should we, but when we make the conscious decision to become members of a given group, we'd better think carefully about that group's purpose and teachings.  That's what membership is all about - choosing to align yourself with, to be identified with, a particular group and its beliefs.

[darxbane]

I am in complete agreement.  Unfortunately, none of that seems to matter as long as you tell people what they want to hear and play on their fears and weaknesses.  Between his quite poor judgement of character and his inability to make a choice whenever it is not politically convenient, I don't see how anyone can think he is more presidential or more fit to lead than McCain.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

First of all, this election seems more important, to my understanding, than elections in general to the nature of Roe V Wade and the Supreme Court.  Secondly, yes, abortion is an important issue to me because I feel that a part of this nation wants to take away what I see as a natural right, and on the basis (in majority) of religion.  You can call me whatever names you would like because I've taken the opposite stance on an issue than you, and strongly so, but it doesn't change the fact that I am justified in every way to be willing to vote one way or another in an election based on what I see as an important issue.  You are also wrong if you think that there aren't republicans who want to just overturn Roe V Wade--there are a lot of them.  I'd be perfectly willing to make an agreement somewhere in the middle of the road, and happily, as I've expressed on the board before.   But there's an entire other thread for this.

I would agree Obama didn't handle the press' assaults well when he eventually abandoned Wright.  But I still think it is ridiculous that Wright says occasional remarks, and a is known to have a generally strong congregation and positive message, and use it to assault a congregation member.  Do I assault Catholic politicians because they remained Catholic after the scandals with children?  No, because that would be ridiculous.  If they were involved, that would be different.  Obama wasn't the one spouting off unacceptable speech, and there are many reasons for him to stay with a long time friend and mentor, even if he doesn't always agree with him.

Bush did lie, he has lied, and he probably should have been impeached.  He has lied or distorted the truth throughout his presidency.   His administration oversaw the largest surplus and turned it into the largest deficit.  I have agree with few of the policies Bush has supported that I have heard of.  Just because you support a president, which you have every right to do, does not mean I can't disagree with him.  You're also right when you say that I generally will side with democrats, because I am a liberal.  I, in fact, do not like democrats and republicans primarily because they agree on too many issues and do not give me enough options for many issues in which I disagree with both.  I'm liberal, I never denied that.  I'm also an independent, and do not/will not always agree/vote for democrats.  I will be MUCH more likely to vote democrat than republican because I disagree with republicans more often.  I wish there were more major parties so I could find one that agreed with me on more issues that I find to be important civil liberty issues.  These are the issues that I find most important.

[SarahG]

Do I assault Catholic politicians because they remained Catholic after the scandals with children?  No, because that would be ridiculous.  If they were involved, that would be different.  Obama wasn't the one spouting off unacceptable speech, and there are many reasons for him to stay with a long time friend and mentor, even if he doesn't always agree with him.

Surely, though, you would assault a Catholic politician whose old friend and mentor was a priest found guilty of molesting children - if that politician remained friends with that priest, and continued to consider him a mentor, and remained a member of the priest's congregation without calling for the priest's dismissal.

The Catholic church as a whole does not condone child molestation, so membership in the Catholic church as a whole does not imply agreement with child molesters.  However, knowingly remaining under the spiritual leadership of an individual priest who is a molester is another matter.

[darxbane]

Let's put the whole "surplus" argument to bed, shall we?  Copy and paste the below link.  the information is taken directly from US Treasury archives.  I know, you were young then, and weren't paying attention.  Whatever.  You still have failed to provide a specific example of how Bush lied that is in any way more grievous than any other politician who has held office in the last 20 years.

http://HTTP://www/letxa.com/articles/16


Surprised you've never heard this before?  Don't be.  While I will be the first to admit that Bush made some mistakes, he had issues to deal with that no president had had to deal with sinceWWII.  He was over-focused on National Security and the war, but that is a natural reaction to being attacked, especially when the Feds ignored 8 years of hints, and even reduced Defense and Security spending to aid in their "surplus".  Because of this, we were attacked, and had to jack up spending for defense.  At the same time, the dot com bubble evaporate (before Bush even set up his first budget, as the article states), and the economy is sent spiraling.  In addition to the obvious impact to the attack, the economic impact caused by the loss of those two buildings greatly exacerbated the problem.  People became afraid that more economic institutions would be attacked, so they started pulling out their money.  What you, and most other liberal-leaning people don't take into account is that the media is on your side, and they have never gotten over the 2000 election.  They were determined to undermine Bush any chance they got.  They have been utterly unable to contain their vitriole and bias to this day.  So, you have been receiving filtered information from teachers and the media through your entire adult life.  Crazy, isnt it?

Of course I know there are Reps that want to completely ban abortion, just like their are Libs who want it completely unrestricted.  However, McCain does not support a ban, and any judge he picks has to get by the Senate.  So if I were you, I would be much more concerned that the Dems in the Senate are schrooing the pooch to the point where they may lose control again in the next 4 years if they are not careful.  

Now, an almost completely unrelated question:  Do you feel that Barney Frank should lose his House seat due to his comments and conflict of interest regarding Fannie and Freddie?  He'll get reelected in Mass, probably by an 80% margin, but even a murderer can get elected in Mass if he/she is a democrat.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "

http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/?gclid=CKaa6bPHmpYCFRfAQAodCBuB6w

There's a list of times his administration lied about weapons of mass destruction.  There's also quite a few times we've been mislead or lied to about the nature of Iraq's "civil war" status, the nature of the cost of the war, the nature of our success in the war, the nature of Iraw's links to Al Queda, American sanctioned torture, the firing of judicial officials and other officials under his administration, and more.  Lots of politicians lie or misrepresent the truth on purpose on issues just as important just as often, and each and every one of them should also be removed from office.

That link doesn't bring me anywhere.  Yes, I was surprised I was sent to a link of random other links, each of which is a sponsored advertisement.

Yeah, Bush didn't have it easy.  Nobody says he did.  He didn't completely screw everything up.  He screwed up enough throughout his presidency (starting with being elected without the popular vote--before he was even president coming into office dishonestly) that I don't want to bring in anybody like him, although admittedly McCain would probably be better.

Like I said, not all media is on our side.  As I showed you earlier, the largest media corporation in the world has a conservative bias (the extent of that bias depends on what angle you look at it, it appears.  Ironically, I have FOX on right now).  Bush was elected in 2000, for example, partially because he had a cousin in high places within conservative media who said Bush won before the results are in, leading to all media doing so, and thus putting pressure on the system to see Bush as the victor.  The democratic politicians, just like the Republican politicians, in Washington are childish.  They always are.

Yeah, the democratic congregation isn't really doing anything.  That also angers me.  I only have two parties to choose from, and like I've said, I don't really like either one.  I see Obama as the lesser of two poor choices.

I'm going to be honest, I am not really knowledgable of the Barney Frank situation.  I think if he lied, or ESPECIALLY if he performed poorly in overseeing the agencies because of conflict of interest (sleeping with corporations is one of the lowest things I think a politician can do), he should be removed from office.  I don't know enough about the situation to truly give you a good answer, but I hope that gives you a decent idea where I stand.

Oh, and I meant to say something in my last post that I didn't: I said Obama was fresh blood, and you said he doesn't have new ideas.  But he does have a fresh point of view, and a fresh means of coming to his conclusions--more so than McCain.  If you get a great new basketball player on your local team, he's using the same fundamentals.  It's an imperfect analogy, but I'd rather see some new perspective.  Another reason I dislike McCain's campaign right now is it seem more blatantly focused on the negative, rather than the issues (which McCain admitted in a way, saying, "this campaign would be different if Obama had agreed to going around in town halls as I requested"), not that Obama's campaign has been all tulips and roses.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  I wish there were more major parties so I wasn't stuck choosing one of these guys.  I think Obama will do a better job, I'd hardly describe myself as an Obama supporter (although I am supporting him...I hope that makes sense).

[darxbane]

I will find a way to make that link work.  Obviously, you need to look into your civics, because the populare vote is not needed to elect a president, and it hasn't for 150 years.  The electoral vote is what counts.  Why?  Because people in close groups (like cities) tend to share viewpoints, and also have bias towards candidates from their area.  If you believe that Bush one because one alleged Conservative media person declared him the winner early, then how come Kerry didn't win in '04, when all but 1 media outlet (I won't keep bringing up the name) projected Kerry as the winner because of exit polls?  More to the point, how come Bush ended up winning Florida when everyone projected Gore as the winner?  You are wrong about Bush lying about Iraq, you are definitely wrong about him and his administration lying about a civil war in Iraq.  There has never been one.  Iran and Syria born insurgents were trying to send Iraq into Civil War, but it was prevented.  Most of the people I work with have done tours in Iraq, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that what you have been hearing on TV every day for the past 5 years is a complete misrepresentation of what was and is happening over there.  I will not repeat myself, but I have already told you about how 3 countries in addition to the US had similar intelligence about WMD's, so if Bush lied, he found a way to dupe 4 different intelligence agencies.  How foolish is that to believe?  You want to know the mistakes Bush made in Iraq?  He tried to appease the doves by keeping troop levels the same when his generals were asking for more.  He didn't get on TV Every Day to tell people that the war would take 5-10 years, and that an insurgency was possible (he said it once at first, but didn't repeat it, and of course no one else brings it up).    Also, seeing as the official reports all conclude that Hussein could have been producing WMD's within 1 year of the lifting of sanctions, the first paragraph of that article you attached proves that he didn't lie, as it states that the Bush admin believed he either had WMD's OR was trying to produce them.  In my opinion, bribing UN officials with Oil and keeping the money that is supposed to feed his people shows he was trying to do just that.

www.letxa.com/articles/16

There, it should work this time. I like backing things up with facts when I can.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

Link did work this time.  "While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus."  I believe I said earlier, accompanied with a link to a US treasury page, or some such sort, that the surplus was according to some financial mumbo-jumbo talk, using different words, of United States accountants/treasury, but these are the same terms that are used to measure Bush's financial responsibility, which means I see them as accurate, professional definitions of terms as they are used in accordance with the way national deficit is measured.  I can understand how you might get tired of hearing this argument from people who don't understand what was meant by "surplus", but I assure you I do understand that it is not being used in the way we may expect in everyday language, but I continue to use it not to distort the truth; I continue to use the term because that is the term that was used professionally by the persons evaluating the national monetary situation, and thus I see them as accurate terms.  Especially since the same system is being used to measure Bush's administration, and every other administration after-the-fact.

You're right, our system isn't based directly on the popular vote because it is ridiculously outdated.  But it is run based on the assumption that the electoral college will vote with the popular vote.  Predictions and declarations are different, and it didn't work out in Kerry's favor because the situation was different, plain and simple.  As far as I see it, using loopholes in the system to gain control of the country is despicable, and I would immediately dislike any candidate who did so, Republican, Democrat or otherwise.  I think the system needs a major overhaul in nearly every aspect, and I don't see Democrats or Republicans doing enough to change it--I just see them becoming more and more like each other as time passes.

And I don't want to go back into the Iraq War lie argument any more than you do, so I not repeat myself.  I just think it stands to say that after the testimonies of intelligence officials and government officials, it is pretty obvious to me that Bush misrepresented the truth at BEST.  He was even quoted as to saying, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."  Whoops.

And so negating the Iraq War misrepresentation argument, as to not repeat ourselves, you've still ignore all the other categories in which Bush's administration has regularly refused to testify, purposefully distorted or misrepresented the truth or flat out lied.

Like I said before, you can continue to like, or admire, or whatever this president if you wish.  I do not.  There is very little about his presidency that I have respected, and there has been a lot of I have disliked.  This is difference of opinion--you always rag on me about how I have this liberal bias and it makes me see things distorted, but it's not like you don't also have a bias.  Our biases are really just a compilation of our opinions on events, which frame the world for us.  I respect the fact that your world-view allows you to like a president that I cannot fathom respecting.  I have given plenty of reasons why I dislike Bush, many of which have not been countered or even mentioned, and many others of which have been countered with reasons or logic that I do not find more compelling than the ones on the side that I have taken.  A few points you have made have hit home, but certainly not enough to change my opinion of the administration. 

[darxbane]

And that is fine.  I am not out to convince you that you should run around chanting "W Rules!".  I am simply pointing out that some reasons you have given are themselves the result of misrepresentation, and even lies.  The only reason I go after you so strongly is that some of your arguments are full of misplaced dislike.  Bush did not create the electoral college, nor did he have a secret task force running around hiding votes or holding people at gunpoint so they couldn't vote.  He was the legal winner of both elections.  Had the roles been reversed, you would not feel so strongly opposed to this event (and I quite possibly could be the one upset about it).  However, the electoral college was created specifically to prevent the tyranny of the majority, not to mirror the popular vote.  By your own admission, each state has cultural differences, as well as different needs.  Ironically, this system supports what you believe by preventing the populous from too much power.  If every decision was made by a majority vote, there would be no gay marriage, no abortion, the civil rights movement may not have happened, etc.  Just because it didn't work out in your favor doesn't mean it is outdated.  It is a control. 

I attached that link in response to your criticism that we went from the largest surplus to the biggest deficit.  It doesn't matter if you admitted earlier that it was due to financial double-speak.  You still used it as a criticism.  If you don't agree with how Bush handled situations, that's fine.  We will agree in some cases and disagree in others.  However, if you use arguments to justify your position that are based on conjecture and manipulated facts, it weakens the rest of your reasoning.  I may be a little too much of a Bush defender, but it is only because I have seen repeated and well organized campaigns to smear him and Republicans in general.  This has become personal for the Left, and when I catch somebody in enough lies (and when I say lies I mean absolute unequivicable non-truths), personal attacks, and one-sided arguments, I begin to stop listening.  Whether we went to war in Iraq will always be a point of contention.  However, the media coverage of the war was despicable, and the Dems  were so intent on taking over the White House that they ignored anything positive, and all but ensured we would lose no matter what (ironically, this type of behavior is exactly what they condemn Bush for during the decision to go to war in the first place). 

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

Had the roles been reversed, I would be JUST as angry about a candidate who did not win the election's popular vote taking advantage of a legal loophole.  Whether he be third party, or EITHER main party.  I wasn't blaming Bush for the electoral college, I'm upset at the system that allowed a person who did not win the popular vote take a position.  I dislike Bush for a slew of other reasons, such as taking advantage of the system.  The Electoral College was created because people used to be uneducated, and the educated feared the decisions they made.  It was wrong when it was made to tout being a democracy but have systems in place to keep an elite, be it the intellectual, the economic or the political, or others elite, with an edge.  And it is still wrong today.

The Judicial system is a control for moral reasons, to keep the majority from getting out of control with immoral laws.  And nobody was complaining about having that check and balance--the judicial system wasn't enacted, nor was it intended, to keep one group of people in front of another.

Yeah, the democrats are disgusting too.  Politicians are.  Right now, I have a largest complaint with Bush's administration because it is the longest living and most powerful example of this crap.  Maybe if Obama is put into presidency, I'll like what he does.  Maybe he'll be just like Bush and I'll have problems with him, too.  But I can rest almost assured that McCain will be more like Bush than Obama.