Final Presidential Debate

thanks for the reminder basket, I get a bit carried away sometimes.

I loved this blog entry:

Arianna Huffington: McCain scored the zinger of the night with, "I am not President Bush. If you wanted to
run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago." But his performance was, in fact, incredibly Bush-like, mirroring Bush's signature stubbornness -- especially on Iraq -- by doubling down on a failed strategy. McCain's reliance on angry attacks on Obama has beenan unequivocal failure. But instead of course-correcting, he doubled down -- coming across as angrier and meaner than ever before. This
debate was won on the reaction shots. Every time Obama spoke, McCain grimaced, sneered, or rolled his eyes. By contrast, every time McCain was on the attack, Obama smiled. It was like watching a split-screen double feature -- Grumpy Old Men playing side by side with Cool Hand Luke.

CinC wrote:

I loved this blog entry:

Arianna Huffington: McCain scored the zinger of the night with, "I am not President Bush. If you wanted to
run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago." But his performance was, in fact, incredibly Bush-like, mirroring Bush's signature stubbornness -- especially on Iraq -- by doubling down on a failed strategy. McCain's reliance on angry attacks on Obama has beenan unequivocal failure. But instead of course-correcting, he doubled down -- coming across as angrier and meaner than ever before. This
debate was won on the reaction shots. Every time Obama spoke, McCain grimaced, sneered, or rolled his eyes. By contrast, every time McCain was on the attack, Obama smiled. It was like watching a split-screen double feature -- Grumpy Old Men playing side by side with Cool Hand Luke.

I noticed that too...but all I kept thinking was that most Americans are going to get just what they deserve. When you choose form over substance, you know what you get? All form and no substance!

Renee wrote:

CinC wrote:

I loved this blog entry:

Arianna Huffington: McCain scored the zinger of the night with, "I am not President Bush. If you wanted to
run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago." But his performance was, in fact, incredibly Bush-like, mirroring Bush's signature stubbornness -- especially on Iraq -- by doubling down on a failed strategy. McCain's reliance on angry attacks on Obama has beenan unequivocal failure. But instead of course-correcting, he doubled down -- coming across as angrier and meaner than ever before. This
debate was won on the reaction shots. Every time Obama spoke, McCain grimaced, sneered, or rolled his eyes. By contrast, every time McCain was on the attack, Obama smiled. It was like watching a split-screen double feature -- Grumpy Old Men playing side by side with Cool Hand Luke.

I noticed that too...but all I kept thinking was that most Americans are going to get just what they deserve. When you choose form over substance, you know what you get? All form and no substance!

We are all going to get what we deserve! Obama has a lot of substance...it's not his fault he also has style, class and form. McCain is not able to control his anger...that is becoming more apparent to most Americans. And due to the reports the past couple of weeks about his temper, he did not project well last night. CNN had the split camera (while I hear some other networks did not.) McCain needed to make points last night but he really hurt his own cause.

At this point I am just going to pray Obama is not as bad for America as I think he is and he doesn't bring us into a depression, cause major instability in the middle east, lose the war, make us vulnerable to a terrorist attack, spread socialism, and change this county to a place people would consider leaving.

A customer called me this morning and said he was watching a show today that was talking about the debate.
He said they said that under Obama that all of the abortion protection that is placed right now would be wiped out. That right now an underaged girl has to have parental permission to have an abortion and that would be gone. Also the partial abortions where an instrument is pushed in the back of the head during the abortion will not be outlawed.

This really scares me.

Did any of you see this show? I want to find out what the name of it was. He had to hang up on me and I did not find out what it was.

Quote :

At this point I am just going to pray Obama is not as bad for America as I think he is and he doesn't bring us into a depression, cause major instability in the middle east, lose the war, make us vulnerable to a terrorist attack, spread socialism, and change this county to a place people would consider leaving.

Well, we are already sinking into a depression, have major instability in the middle east, are losing the war, are vulnerable to a terrorist attack, and are a county people consider leaving.

I gotta think that a change in any direction would be for the better. Fortunately, I think Obama is an intellegent man who has surrounded himself with good people. I don't know why anyone would want to commend the current US with historic national debts, a war in the Middle East, and the entire country (as well as the entire WORLD!) on the brink of a major recession, if not a depression, but if I trust anyone to steer this country out of this mess, it's Obama.

spongie wrote:

Well, we are already sinking into a depression, have major instability in the middle east, are losing the war, are vulnerable to a terrorist attack, and are a county people consider leaving.

Whoa Spongie! We are NOT losing the war. Where did you get that? Even Obama admits the surge worked better than his wildest dreams, the government is stabilizing...

The middle east has been unstable since the dawn of time. You can't really put that on America's doorstep.

The depression? Let's hope not. I fear Obama's plan will take us there more than McCain's.

Vulnerable to terrorist attack? Perhaps...but under George Bush, we've gone the longest stretch without an attack in over 20 years. And isn't protecting US Citizens the primary job of the President? Here's a timeline:

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/chronology.html

President Bush has been vilified for many things, and I'm not going to defend them all, but this is one area he's done it right, for God's sakes. Give the man his due. The Bush Doctrine is to take the fight to them, so they can't bring the fight here. He's done that. Good for him!

A country worth leaving? Hardly. But I'm of the belief that anyone who wants to leave for whining can go with my blessing, and that goes for whichever man is elected. I didn't leave during the Clinton years, I won't leave if Obama is elected. I'll fight to the bitter end to save my country, and if Obama is elected, I just hope and pray I'm wrong about him.

jbdramey,

This is Obama's position:

"Obama did not suggest that the only rights that matter are a woman's over her body. He also affirmed his moral dimensions of the issue: he noted his willingness to limit late-term abortions, provided there is an exception if a woman's health is at risk; and he talked about finding the resources to help women who choose to keep their baby, and about trying to reduce the need for abortions in the first place."

....Nothing about changing parental rights as they currently stand. The partial birth abortion procedure as you discribe is done so very rarely, and as stated above, Obama limits it to be used only if a womans health is at risk.

Okay, Renee..... I'll give you the surge.

(Although I personally don't think we needed to go into the war with Iraq in the first place, but that's another discussion....)

spongie wrote:

Okay, Renee..... I'll give you the surge.

(Although I personally don't think we needed to go into the war with Iraq in the first place, but that's another discussion....)

Echoing Spongie and adding that the destruction of international goodwill under the Bush Administration, coupled with America's lack of trust as evidenced by his approval rating, due to our involvement in Iraq have placed us in a more vulnerable position toward terrorists' attacks than before 9/11.

spongie wrote:

jbdramey,

This is Obama's position:

"Obama did not suggest that the only rights that matter are a woman's over her body. He also affirmed his moral dimensions of the issue: he noted his willingness to limit late-term abortions, provided there is an exception if a woman's health is at risk; and he talked about finding the resources to help women who choose to keep their baby, and about trying to reduce the need for abortions in the first place."

....Nothing about changing parental rights as they currently stand. The partial birth abortion procedure as you discribe is done so very rarely, and as stated above, Obama limits it to be used only if a womans health is at risk.

The problem with Obama's "moral stand" is that there isn't one. The exception to the "mother's health" has been stretched to include inconveniencing her mental well being. Give me a freaking break. I wish he would speak plainly, and either say only to save the woman's life or to give it no condition.

As to the partial birth abortions, there has never been any scientific evidence that it's more beneficial to the woman's health to partially deliver a child then murder it, than to delivery the child completely. No evidence whatsoever.

My problem with the second part of his statement...needing to find resources to help a single mother (no problem with that) but the final part (trying to reduce the need) is that we're back into fairy dust land. Just saying we need to find a way isn't going to find us a way, and we need to deal with the reality of the situation. I hear that argument often from the pro-abortion side. It's classic deflect and dodge. YES we need to find a way to reduce unwanted pregnancies (which we probably will never do until a moral stand is taken, something few people have the courage to take) but providing irresponsible women (and let's be honest, with 800,000 abortions performed last year, you know it's not all the much feared rape and incest victims) a way out of responsibility is not the answer.

Since we'll never agree on the abortion issue as a whole, I would hope that agreement could at least be found with the heinous partial birth abortion procedure. I find it shameful that Obama couldn't even do that.

Well the fact of the matter is there hasn't been any thank the lord so somebody is doing something right.

Obama does not support partial birth abortions. He stated that they are an option when a mother's life is at risk. That is a determination a doctor will make...not the mother. And certainly not a politician or pro-life advocate.

CinC wrote:

spongie wrote:

Okay, Renee..... I'll give you the surge.

(Although I personally don't think we needed to go into the war with Iraq in the first place, but that's another discussion....)

Echoing Spongie and adding that the destruction of international goodwill under the Bush Administration, coupled with America's lack of trust as evidenced by his approval rating, due to our involvement in Iraq have placed us in a more vulnerable position toward terrorists' attacks than before 9/11.

The fact of the matter is that America's loss of "international goodwill" came because we dared to defend ourselves in this war on terror. Let the terrorists come knocking on their door and who do you think will be the first they turn to for help? We have the right to defend ourselves, and no president should ever run this country to please other people. The president's first responsibility is the protection of the people. You may not like the way he did it, but he's done that job admirably.

President Bush had the cajones to finally fight back in a war that began in the 1970s. Islamic extremists have been a cancer on the face of the earth, growing unchecked for decades. Both parties have failed in fighting them, until now. So the rest of the world doesn't like President Bush? So what. We give more money to the rest of the world than any nation on earth. Still doesn't make them like us. So we might as well take care of ourselves!

The rest of the world cowers before the face of the Extremists. Governments quake and give in. Even Great Britain, our strongest ally, just allowed islamic rule in one of their courts. This is the same law that provides for decency police and honor killings. Spain bowed before them; one attack and they pulled their forces from Iraq. Thank God the Australian Prime Minister still has a pair!

Know thy enemy. These extremists do not want to make friends with us. They want to destroy us. And right now, President Bush seems to be one of the few who recognize that fact.

Sorry to get so het up, but this is one area that I feel passionately about! President Bush said from the get go that this war on terror would be long fought without many visible victories. We're dealing with the slow unraveling of a 40 year cancer. I just thank God he had the courage to do what must be done. I truly believe that history will prove him right.

CinC wrote:

Obama does not support partial birth abortions. He stated that they are an option when a mother's life is at risk. That is a determination a doctor will make...not the mother. And certainly not a politician or pro-life advocate.

Cincy, please read this information from the NRLC. You may not like the group, but there are facts here that are important, including:

http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/pba/keyfactsPBA.htm

Quote :

In September, 1996, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other PHACT members said that “partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.”

Quote :

In Kansas, the only state in which the law requires separate reporting of partial-birth abortions, abortionists reported in 1999 they had performed 182 partial-birth abortions on babies who were defined by the abortionists themselves as “viable,” and they also reported that all 182 of these were performed for “mental” (as opposed to “physical”) health reasons.

These are just two of the facts in this article. Just because someone is a doctor doesn't given him any higher moral ground. Believe me, just in my battle with Hannah, I can categorically state that many doctors seem much more motivated by money than by morals.

And truly, Cincy, I'm not about to try to change your mind on abortion; I would hope that we as a society, however, could agree on this horrifying procedure.

Interesting read from a woman who had a late term abortion.

http://www.democraticwings.com/democraticwings/archives/womens_rights/003476.php

These are real people with real problems. I had a friend whose baby died in utero, and the doctor thought it best for her to go into labor and deliver the baby instead of having a c-section. She carried the baby for another week, and I thought she would go off the deep end. I think the doctor made a mistake in having her wait to deliver, but this was a decision made between a doctor and his patient. This is who should be making all of these sorts fo decisions, not the government.

spongie wrote:

Interesting read from a woman who had a late term abortion.

http://www.democraticwings.com/democraticwings/archives/womens_rights/003476.php

These are real people with real problems. I had a friend whose baby died in utero, and the doctor thought it best for her to go into labor and deliver the baby instead of having a c-section. She carried the baby for another week, and I thought she would go off the deep end. I think the doctor made a mistake in having her wait to deliver, but this was a decision made between a doctor and his patient. This is who should be making all of these sorts fo decisions, not the government.

These cases are very sad, but she is mistaken. I'm not sure what information she's been given, but partial birth abortions are, by definition, applied to living babies only. What happens to a child who has died in utero is a different case entirely. If the child has died, then there is no need to perform the grotesque steps described.

As to your friend. I'm so sorry. That happened to my cousin, also. Bradley, her first son, died in utero for no apparent reason. She had to wait a week to deliver, but the doctor explained it was absolutely more healthy for her to deliver naturally, that her body had a better chance of healing. She's had three beautiful children since, and is expecting yet another, so perhaps he was right. I am sorry for your friend's loss.

The cases where the child is deformed....this is so heartbreaking. There's just nothing to say, but if you approach it from a respect for life position, there really is no choice. It's still not better to kill the child during delivery.

I understand your comments about this decision should be between doctor and patient; I do, however, think that as a nation, we have a right to draw a line on some procedures.

In Barack's own words on partial birth abortion:


All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.
Part of the reason they didn't have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.

As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don't think that's any Republican out there who I've worked with who would say that I don't listen to them, I don't respect their ideas, I don't understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.

Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008

We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life
Q: The terms pro-choice and pro-life, do they encapsulate that reality in our 21st Century setting and can we find common ground?
A: I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. It requires us to acknowledge that..

There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.
People of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.
And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion.
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008

Undecided on whether life begins at conception
Q: Do you personally believe that life begins at conception?
A: This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.

Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008

Teach teens about abstinence and also about contraception
We've actually made progress over the last several years in reducing teen pregnancies, for example. And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.
But we also recognize the importance of good medical care for women, that we're also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process.

And if we do those things, then I think that we can reduce abortions and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there. If we put all of those things in place, then I think we will take some of the edge off the debate.

We're not going to completely resolve it. At some point, there may just be an irreconcilable difference. And those who are opposed to abortion, I think, should continue to be able to lawfully object and try to change the laws.

Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008

CinC wrote:

I loved this blog entry:

. Every time Obama spoke, McCain grimaced, sneered, or rolled his eyes. By contrast, every time McCain was on the attack, Obama smiled. It was like watching a split-screen double feature -- Grumpy Old Men playing side by side with Cool Hand Luke.

Obama did his fair share of sneering, smiling, shaking his head from side to side and laughing that came across very condescending while McCain was speaking.
I spoke with some friends and they also noticed it. And they are leaning towards Obama.

And why does Obama continue to speak so slow? He just can't seem to get out a sentence without pausing between words.

He begins to say something, a couple of words come out, pause, another word or two, pause.....It takes him forever to complete a sentence.

He also stammers, stutters, hmmms, haaaa's and bu, bu, bu, but's constantly. It honestly drives me crazy. I don't mean that as an attack or to be mean, it just annoys me. Michelle does the same thing.

Just be objectionable next time you listen to Obama and pay attention to how he pauses and speaks so slowly, and does all the other things I mentioned. I know it has nothing to do with his run for President, but to me it always makes me wonder if he is stalling for time to come up with the correct answer. It does make him look unsure of himself.

I have noticed the speech patterns you mention, Jane. As you say, it has nothing to do with his run for President.

Last night though, I worried that his smile and head shaking could be seen as condescending, but I took it as frustration that McCain continued to double talk and promote the Ayers and Acorn red herrings and to constantly misquote Obama. And every time he (McCain) tried to do so, he would back himself in a corner. It was kinda amusing to me, so I can only imagine how it was to Obama. But rather than react, Obama kept his composure. Even when McCain went on the attack against Joe Biden and totally misrepresented his position and experience, did Obama respond with anything derogatory about Sarah Palin, someone who has viciously attacked and lied about him? No, and he certainly could have. He showed class and grace under fire.

So, I'm good with it.

I was watching CNN the other day and Dr. Sanji Gupta was discussing the fact that Obama has refused to release his medical records.

McCain has released everything. The Doctor actually had them on his desk.

All Obama has released is a one page letter from his Doctor saying he is in good health.

I know he is a smoker, he was supposed to have quit, but he recently said in an interview that he has continued to smoke, he said he has been bumming cigarettes.

Why do you think he has refused to release his medical records? Is he hiding something?

Ah, Jane, there may be many things that put McCain and Obama on an even playing ground, but you don't want to put Obama's health record up against McCain's.

The one page letter included the results of the following tests.

Quote :

Senator Obama’s last medical checkup was on January 15, 2007; he had no complaints. He exercised regularly often jogging three miles. His diet was balanced with good intake of roughage and fluids. A complete review of systems was unremarkable. On physical examination, his blood pressure was 90/60 and pulse 60/minute. His build was lean and muscular with no excess body fat. His physical examination was completely normal.

Laboratory studies included triglycerides of 44(normal under 150), cholesterol 173 (normal under 200), HDL 68 (normal over 40), and LDL 96 (normal under 130). Chem 24, urinalysis and CBC were normal, PSA was 0.6, very good. An EKG was normal.

.

McCain released over 1500 pages of medical records, and give a small handful of physicians a few hours to go over everything. He did not allow the records to be gone over extensively, but the physicians felt that while they didn't have time to look at everything, they had an idea of McCain's health.

The fact is that McCain is a 70 yo man with a history of melanoma (cancer.) Obama is a 44 yo man in very good health. I'm giving this one to Obama......

spongie wrote:

Ah, Jane, there may be many things that put McCain and Obama on an even playing ground, but you don't want to put Obama's health record up against McCain's.

The one page letter included the results of the following tests.

Quote :

Senator Obama’s last medical checkup was on January 15, 2007; he had no complaints. He exercised regularly often jogging three miles. His diet was balanced with good intake of roughage and fluids. A complete review of systems was unremarkable. On physical examination, his blood pressure was 90/60 and pulse 60/minute. His build was lean and muscular with no excess body fat. His physical examination was completely normal.

Laboratory studies included triglycerides of 44(normal under 150), cholesterol 173 (normal under 200), HDL 68 (normal over 40), and LDL 96 (normal under 130). Chem 24, urinalysis and CBC were normal, PSA was 0.6, very good. An EKG was normal.

.

McCain released over 1500 pages of medical records, and give a small handful of physicians a few hours to go over everything. He did not allow the records to be gone over extensively, but the physicians felt that while they didn't have time to look at everything, they had an idea of McCain's health.

The fact is that McCain is a 70 yo man with a history of melanoma (cancer.) Obama is a 44 yo man in very good health. I'm giving this one to Obama......

You are giving what to Obama? A letter from a Doctor does not equal Medical Records.

Before I could join Pete in Saudi Arabia I had to have a complete medical, a letter from my Doctor was not acceptable, the Embassy had to have the actual results from each test before I could get my Visa.

The same was true when I applied for my Residency to live in the United States.

Would have been very nice and convenient if a "Letter" would have been acceptable.