I'm sorry, but I couldn't get past the first sentence of your post. So admittedly, I didn't even read what else you had to say.

There is absolutely nothing honorable with thinking it's acceptable and ok to murder innocent babies.
Yes, I did say "murder".. because after you've become a parent, and seen that tiny heartbeat at 7 weeks gestation, there is absolutely no denying that it is a life.

I'm sure that you are going to fire back at me about how Republicans think it's acceptable and ok to torture (waterboard)... use capital punishment, invade "innocent" countries, etc. All that I will say to that is... at least those who will be *affected (meaning murderers, terrorists, etc.) had the opportunity to make decisions for themselves and even take their first breath of life. So I don't believe that they can be held in the same argument as abortion.

ready, aim, fire back at me now... i'm ready!

Btw, I love how this family can absolutely disagree with one another... yet still love and respect our differences. Please take this comment in the way that it was intended... as a peaceful (liberals LOVE peace, right? hee hee) conversation between cousins!

*note: i do agree that it is terrible for the civilians of these countries, who have done no wrong. i won't deny that.
 

I agree with everything you said, as long as you replace “Republicans” with “all American politicians.” Politics is a business run by liars and fueled by fear.
Fear of death (from Islamic whackos bent on blowing us up … or from big, bad healthcare companies who want to collect your premiums and leave you for dead with no coverage). Fear of destruction (from melting polar caps). Fear of losing money (from higher taxes). Fear of losing your government bennies (education, welfare). Fear of change (“Nobama”). Fear of the status quo (“eight is enough”).
Whatever your fear may be, come one … come all. We have the answers. We can help.
Respect for the truth? Give me a break. We’re all smarter than that.
Lack of civility in politics? Please tell the last time politics was civil (and do it with a straight face). They’ve been stabbing each other in the back – literally – since Caesar and Brutus.
The idea that Democrats have somehow taken the high road in all this is – at best – disillusioned. At worst, laughable.
 

Crit... since we're talking policy, I'll ask one question: When does life begin?
 

tom: Please find me one instance this year in which a leading Democrat, with the approval of the Party, questioned John McCain's patriotism or love of his country.

Please find me one instance this year in which a leading Democrat, with the approval of the Party, told an absolute, provable falsehood about John McCain's policy plans.

Please find me one instance this year in which a leading Democrat, with the approval of the Party, told an absolute, provable falsehood about his or her own record, and even after being called on it continued to repeat the lie, over and over again, as Sarah Palin does.

(As an aside - what does it do to Christianity in America that one of its now most prominent representatives, Sarah Palin, who was chosen partially because of her Christian faith, seems to have no problem at all with telling blatant and bald-faced lies to the American public, speaking with utter disdain and contempt for those who disagree with her politically, and using the power of her office to settle personal vendettas? As Christians whose religion and Savior are being poorly represented by her apparently rather flexible views on things like truth-telling, loving her neighbors, and responsibility in a position of authority, shouldn't we demand more of her?)
 

Any other conditions before I begin my search? Maybe time of day? Or can we just agree that lies come from both sides of the aisle?

I assume you do not honestly believe the Democratic Party does not lie about Republicans during elections, do you? Correct me if I’m wrong. Do you really think both sides don’t hand down unofficial directives every day … which are then carried out by the faithful few, far-removed from the candidates themselves (or in some cases, not-so-far-removed) … thereby allowing “the Party” to claim its innocence?

You really believe that? If so, I can’t continue the conversation.

Regarding your aside, is it wrong for a Christian to lie? Of course. (Although you’ll have a hard time convincing me Palin is one of Christianity’s “most prominent representatives.” C’mon now. But that’s beside the point.)

Regardless, should we demand more of her? Yes. And of McCain, Obama, Biden and all the rest.

Should we expect more? No. After all, they’re only human. (Even though some are revered like gods.)

I’ll leave you with a quote, which I believe applies to all the candidates:

“Anybody that wants the presidency so much that he’ll spend two years organizing and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office.” – David Broder (1973)

Ambition blinds. Both the individual and the truth.
 

I have to say you make some very interesting points here. I am a man who places a high value on civility, so I'm sickened frequently by what has become our national discourse. However, I have many problems with your rank-and-file opinion, and I'm afraid I'm out of civility as I've been called a war-monger for so long. So before I go any further, I will stipulate to my hypocrisy.

I don't believe it is the candidates (usually) or other sitting politicians who actually do the dirty work in these unholy attacks. It is the same people who hide their money in Holland then beg for higher taxes and social conscience that do it for them. The same people host $3,000 per plate dinners for Obama, then slander the other party with the pulpit they're afforded because they can sing (or have some other meaningless talent). When the religious right attacks Obama, I post to blogs, I speak out and quite frankly, so does John McCain. To sit back and say that the liberal media and the Hollywood left aren't surrogates for Obama is just disingenuous. To say they don't throw an in-your-face party every time a microphone is within shouting distance would be an out-and-out lie. It is sort of like sending a hit-man to kill, then claiming your hands are free of blood because they didn't actually pull the trigger. Your party has some great ideas, but you all keep company that is so utterly repugnant it makes it nearly impossible for any reasonable person to even try to see your point.

More about associations.
A large part of your base is women and women's groups. The National Organization for Women (NOW), the American Association of University Women (AAUW) and other prominent women's groups... when asked what they were doing about women's rights in Iraq said (this is not a quote), that the issue was on their radar. They said this just after the ink dried on Speaker Pelosi's and Senator Clinton's fingers on the first day women could vote in Iraq. (you remember, when the Speaker and the Senator did their photo opp showing solidarity with the women of Iraq) How is it that the only people who have made any difference in the quality of women's rights in Iraq are U.S Marines? The same Marines your party seeks to shun from college campuses and strip malls in San Francisco.

A rather sharp correction that must be made: Your party is not the party of morality. You are the party of abortions for underage girls who don't have to notify their parents. You are the party of protesting the execution of the cofounder of one of America's most destructive street gangs (Crips) and not lifting a finger to stop women in Arab countries from being raped, murdered and otherwise treated inhumanely. You are the party of splitting hairs and political correctness. You are the party of "Saturday Night Live mockery" of anything that isn't creative and new. You are the party of "you're going to vote for me or you must be a sexist or a bigot." You are the party of disrespect. You are the party of fecklessness and whiners (I'm speaking of Al Gore ("The former, Next President of the United States")).

I am a down the middle independent. That's why I love McCain. Quite frankly, he's as Republican as I am. I think your party makes a very good point about abortion. Republicans wish to outlaw abortion, but do nothing to help a girl have a future for herself and her child should she keep it. I believe following the democrats on this idea could save a lot of children, and keep many women out of therapy when they're older. A woman killing her young is simply barbaric and unnatural. I vote we give aid to pregnant women seeking an abortion, ban abortion in any case where the mother's life isn't at risk or conception violated a law, ban the death penalty while we're at it and we can call it a pretty good day for God. And not for nothing, I just don't get people who protest hunting deer yet support abortion. This not only flies in the face of reason, it demonstrates a willful suspension of decency.

But back to why you lose. You tell people they're stupid and hope they don't notice. I'm sorry, I'll put that in more country terms given I'm not a Democrat and shouldn't speak above my station. You piss on peoples' necks and tell them it's raining. Perhaps a better idea would be to tell non-democrats they're smart, and then tell your friends you were just kidding.

On a more personal note... I'm disappointed in what you're doing here. I don't come by my opinions without a great deal of thought and I'm not persuaded easily. Some time back you wrote about the government getting out of the marriage business and have civil unions for everyone(gay and strait). You actually changed my opinion on the topic and I've quoted you several times. You clearly are a smart man, your opinion on that matter made more sense to me than anything I'd ever read, even my own.

I see you have a link to the Huffington Post on your site. This is the same gutter whore who published a piece that said they wished Nancy Reagan would slip in the shower and die.

Is this the honor in your party you speak of? Is this the honor in your party you're so proud of?

An idiot in a hurry sees through your party, sir. Intelligent? Yes.
Honorable? Not even close.
 

When the religious right attacks Obama, I post to blogs, I speak out and quite frankly, so does John McCain.

Show me one instance of John McCain speaking out against the Christian Right since he started running for the nomination this year. On the contrary, he's made every effort to buddy up with them - including his selection of a corrupt and completely inadequate running mate simply because her extreme religious views would placate the fundamentalists.

To sit back and say that the liberal media and the Hollywood left aren't surrogates for Obama is just disingenuous.

First, I'm going to call you out on your lie: There is no liberal media. This idea that the media is liberal is one of the great lies of our age, and has spawned all kinds of evil in the name of false equivalency.

Second, they aren't surrogates for the Obama campaign, and the way you can tell is that they aren't labeled as such. They cannot speak for the campaign or the party, and neither the campaign nor the party is responsible for what they say. Yet people who do speak for the McCain campaign and the Republican Party are engaging in the worst kind of slander and the most brazen lies against Democrats and against Barack Obama in particular. Since there is no voice rising up from the rank and file of the Republican Party demanding that their party and its banner-carriers stop lying, I am forced to conclude that anyone who identifies as a Republican is okay with lying if it means they'll win. If any Republican would like to prove me wrong, he/she is free to post the letter he/she wrote to the party demanding that the lies stop.

I am a down the middle independent. That's why I love McCain. Quite frankly, he's as Republican as I am.

That's a joke, right? John McCain, who proudly claimed that he voted with Bush 90% of the time? John McCain, who abandoned every single position that opposed the far-right-wing in order to get the nomination? If you are, as you claim, a "down the middle independent," John McCain is significantly more Republican than you. He's a right-wing extremist whose temperament and judgment make him completely unfit for public life in general, to say nothing of the presidency.

The same Marines your party seeks to shun from college campuses and strip malls in San Francisco.

You listen to a lot of right-wing radio, don't you? That you think the San Francisco extremists represent the Democratic Party, when in reality they have very little if any power in the party and likely don't identify themselves as Democrats, is laughable. Compare this to the Republican Party, where the far-right extremists have taken over and driven all the reasonable people (like Lincoln Chaffee, Jim Jeffords, and Chuck Hagel) away.

And not for nothing, I just don't get people who protest hunting deer yet support abortion. This not only flies in the face of reason, it demonstrates a willful suspension of decency.

Again, you make the rather intellectually dishonest argument that the Democratic Party is monolithic. It is the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party, that has been taken over by its militant and extremist wing. The Democratic Party is run mostly by centrists.

But back to why you lose. You tell people they're stupid and hope they don't notice.

On the contrary. We talk to the American people like adults. Watch Sen. Obama speak sometime and tell me he's telling his audience they're stupid. Far from it; he presumes that his audience is capable of understanding nuance and seeing issues from a multiplicity of views.

The Republicans, on the other hand, do think voters are stupid. They speak in pablum and fortune cookies and pretend to address trivial things instead of focusing on the very real challenges this country faces. Tell me, please, exactly how many times the economy was mentioned at the RNC before John McCain's speech last Thursday? Millions of Americans are undergoing economic stress, and the Republicans think that by making this election about guns, gays, and God they'll be able to hoodwink the people into forgetting that. It's the Republicans, not the Democrats, who continue to embrace Phil Gramm, who called us "a nation of whiners" for experiencing economic hardship. The Republicans think you're too stupid to notice that they have no interest in working for anyone who doesn't make over $5 million a year.

I see you have a link to the Huffington Post on your site. This is the same gutter whore who published a piece that said they wished Nancy Reagan would slip in the shower and die.

And yet, they also report news. I could list a number of repugnant things said by the right-wing blowhards who post opinions in the Wall Street Journal, but that doesn't mean that their financial analysis sucks. I never link to an outfit like the Huffington Post unless they've got a respectable organization backing them up.

Oh, and please don't use sexist insults like "gutter whore" around here. Next time, the comment gets deleted.
 

Slight addendum: When I asked for one example of McCain repudiating the Christian Right, I did indeed forget about John McCain rejecting John Hagee and Rod Parsley's endorsements, after accepting them with open arms, when their endorsements became politically inconvenient for him.

(The irony of this, of course, is that his running mate holds even more extreme religious views than those two charlatans.)
 

Bill Cunningham spoke at a Cincinnati rally and referred to Senator Obama including his middle name. McCain walked out on stage and denounced it. Not in the press through a spokesperson two days after pressure made him do it. Standing in front of a crowd getting booed. The Republican backlash from talk radio and Fox News went on for weeks. Ann Colter and Dr. Laura Ingrahm also took him to task on this stance and he never wavered. When asked to comment on it days later, he stated simply that isn't the way he does things. The right wing hated him until their horse was out of the race.

When right-wing groups all but tried to have him run out of politics last year over his bipartisan immigration bill, he rebuked these groups stating "we're all God's people" and we should act morally.

Show me one instance of John McCain speaking out against the Christian Right since he started running for the nomination this year. On the contrary, he's made every effort to buddy up with them - including his selection of a corrupt and completely inadequate running mate simply because her extreme religious views would placate the fundamentalists.

You asked me to show you one case where Senator McCain has spoken out against the Christian-Right since becoming the nominee. I can't think of anything particularly controversial that has been said since then. But I think you're being dishonest with that question. If you watched the RNC, you saw him accept the nomination then chastise the party for corruption. McCain isn't right wing. He might be when compared to your opinions, but I'm sorry, you're not mainstream.

First, I'm going to call you out on your lie: There is no liberal media. This idea that the media is liberal is one of the great lies of our age, and has spawned all kinds of evil in the name of false equivalency.

Second, they aren't surrogates for the Obama campaign, and the way you can tell is that they aren't labeled as such. They cannot speak for the campaign or the party, and neither the campaign nor the party is responsible for what they say. Yet people who do speak for the McCain campaign and the Republican Party are engaging in the worst kind of slander and the most brazen lies against Democrats and against Barack Obama in particular. Since there is no voice rising up from the rank and file of the Republican Party demanding that their party and its banner-carriers stop lying, I am forced to conclude that anyone who identifies as a Republican is okay with lying if it means they'll win. If any Republican would like to prove me wrong, he/she is free to post the letter he/she wrote to the party demanding that the lies stop.

There is no liberal media. There are no Nazi's in Argentina and President Clinton was completely honest because the meaning of the word "is" really is debatable. False equivalency? Just what in the hell do you call feminism? Read Christina Hoff-Summers (The War Against Boys). You will understand the meaning of false equivalency. Talk about an inconvenient truth. Where would the democratic party be without the teacher's union to pander to. I will address several points you've made below but it is pointless really to even pass this. Anyone who believes that the press isn't left-leaning isn't going to be persuaded by me. I am a political neophyte at a mere 34 years of age but this point can't even be argued. If I were to try, I'd basically be saying back to you what you are saying to me. That is just a waste of time.

Acknowledgment: (plus a little)
By definition, you are correct, the press and Hollywood aren't surrogates. You made a point earlier about McCain speaking out against the 'right'. I heard Senator Obama speak out against many of the attacks on Gov. Palin's family in broad generality. He said if they worked for him they'd be fired. Did he speak out against David Letterman or Bill Mahr for their attacks on a 17 year old girl? People protest at an abortion clinic, they're harassing young girls. Letterman does it on national television, and it's "satire" and "free speech" and your candidate can't even say it's wrong. By the way, I'm with you guys on the protesting, Roe V Wade is the law of the land and harassing women is wrong.

That's a joke, right? John McCain, who proudly claimed that he voted with Bush 90% of the time? John McCain, who abandoned every single position that opposed the far-right-wing in order to get the nomination? If you are, as you claim, a "down the middle independent," John McCain is significantly more Republican than you. He's a right-wing extremist whose temperament and judgment make him completely unfit for public life in general, to say nothing of the presidency.

Check your facts. Senator Obama has too. And what of it quite frankly? Are you really saying President Bush is wrong 90% of the time? Perhaps he's wrong on 100% of the issues that matter to you, but he's wrong 90% of the time? Do you know what he does 90% of the time? The majority of business before the senate is passed unanimously as it is general business and not controversial. President Bush isn't my favorite president, and I frequently disagree with him. But using his voting record as a benchmark for what is wrong.... is just playing to popularity and is really beneath a reasonable argument. This notion that because President Bush has been unpopular means Senator McCain needs to answer for it is just ridiculous. Senator Obama has a clean slate (mostly because his record consists of one very inspirational campaign), why does Senator McCain have to answer for President Bush? I know... it was Bush/Cheney/McCain. President Bush's 3rd term. Bla-Bla-Bla. McCain is his own man.

You listen to a lot of right-wing radio, don't you? That you think the San Francisco extremists represent the Democratic Party, when in reality they have very little if any power in the party and likely don't identify themselves as Democrats, is laughable. Compare this to the Republican Party, where the far-right extremists have taken over and driven all the reasonable people (like Lincoln Chaffee, Jim Jeffords, and Chuck Hagel) away.

No, I don't. Not once in awhile. Not when there is nothing else do to. Never. The last time I heard Rush Limbaugh speak I think there was a Clinton in the white house. You already have the jacket and pipe picked out for your first book's dust jacket don't you? A little insulting? Assuming everyone who isn't leftist is a right-wing radical is pretty ignorant, wouldn't you say? Isn't San Francisco Speaker Pelosi's neck of the woods? I will concede that maybe San Fran is the fringe of your party but are you saying your party has not supported the removal of recruiting stations on campuses all over the country? It is some other party's influence on campus doing this? And what does it say that Speaker Pelosi is as prominent as she is if her constituency isn't a recognized segment of your party? She's there to speak for them, no?

I'm a Christian. But I agree, the Republican party is a little too close the the Religious Right. THAT IS WHY I'M NOT A REPUBLICAN. And why is it that everyone who disagrees with you is fitted for a black hat? Talk radio? It's not for me, but what's wrong with it? I need my liberal-speak decoder ring just to sit the evening news, why can't someone else dominate another medium? I'd be happy to see the days of neutral reporting again across all mediums. Talk shows can say as they see fit, but the evening news should be down the middle.

Again, you make the rather intellectually dishonest argument that the Democratic Party is monolithic. It is the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party, that has been taken over by its militant and extremist wing. The Democratic Party is run mostly by centrists.

Intellectually dishonest. I don't think you made an argument here other than to say the Republicans are worse. I realize the Democratic party isn't monolithic. I have read everything Jimmy Carter has ever written or said publicly, this is a mind I can respect. As I said before, the Democratic party has many great ideas. Abortion, not one of them. The comparison was made to show an indifference toward an unborn child vs. an animal. I don't think the PETA crowd is in your mainstream, but I do think their opinion is welcome and those who would speak up for an unborn child aren't. Somehow disagreement with abortion is sexist? People want to give measured answers about when life begins and this is not a trivial conversation about art vs. pornography. A person can be charged with a crime if their actions cause a miscarriage but the woman herself cannot. The difference is clear, intent. So the simple answer to the question is, Women decided when life begins. But for this issue, I could vote for either party. You may laugh, but I vote issues and character, not partisan.

On the contrary. We talk to the American people like adults. Watch Sen. Obama speak sometime and tell me he's telling his audience they're stupid. Far from it; he presumes that his audience is capable of understanding nuance and seeing issues from a multiplicity of views.

The Republicans, on the other hand, do think voters are stupid. They speak in pablum and fortune cookies and pretend to address trivial things instead of focusing on the very real challenges this country faces. Tell me, please, exactly how many times the economy was mentioned at the RNC before John McCain's speech last Thursday? Millions of Americans are undergoing economic stress, and the Republicans think that by making this election about guns, gays, and God they'll be able to hoodwink the people into forgetting that. It's the Republicans, not the Democrats, who continue to embrace Phil Gramm, who called us "a nation of whiners" for experiencing economic hardship. The Republicans think you're too stupid to notice that they have no interest in working for anyone who doesn't make over $5 million a year.

If I didn't know you and I were in a "bad marriage" before, I'm sure of it now. Senator McCain's economic policy is pretty strait forward. You stop wasteful, dishonest spending and you lift unneeded burdens from the economy. You tax people less, leaving them more to serve their family. A Christian principal actually. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. Senator Obama on the other hand, wants to "redistribute" wealth in this country. Call that what you will, it's socialism. It is so simple to tell people they are living how they do because of the government and you'll fix it for them. And in some case, it's true and should be addressed. I'm one of the people Senator Obama used to speak to. Ten years ago, I made less money than I now pay in taxes. Am I now doing better because of a government program? No. I dropped my girlfriend off every night at 11 and went home and read until 2am so I could get my foot in the door at one of those "Big Companies" the Democrats want to tax back to the 3rd century. Question, what do you think happens to me when they do that? The reason they're called big companies.... they employ a lot of people. It isn't the stockholders who get the shaft when their corp taxes go up. It's the consumer, and the person like me who needs the government's help because I just lost my job.

Your $5 million dollar quote. I've resisted the urge to say anything personal but this is beneath you. I read in your bio where you went to college. You paid a lot of money for your education. I would suggest doing one of the following. Withdraw your statement like a gentleman or go back to that school and demand at least a portion of your money back. I watched the interview you speak of and Senator McCain's point was made clear. He'd like to see everyone making large amounts of money. He said, tongue and cheek, that he'd like to see the middle class be defined as those making under $5 million dollars per year and followed it by saying that people would take it out of context and it would be run in campaign adds against him. You are an impressive man. This statement is unworthy of even the hacks at CNN.

And yet, they also report news. I could list a number of repugnant things said by the right-wing blowhards who post opinions in the Wall Street Journal, but that doesn't mean that their financial analysis sucks. I never link to an outfit like the Huffington Post unless they've got a respectable organization backing them up.

Oh, and please don't use sexist insults like "gutter whore" around here. Next time, the comment gets deleted.

The issue with the Huffington Post is not isolated. I agree, there are too many vulgar opinions on both sides that get published. But you should think twice before attaching your reputation to them. I see their link on you blog and I think you consider them credible. It would seem that you do, which obviously disappoints me.

"Gutter whore" may not have been my best choice of words. Nothing sexist about it though. Man or woman, would have called it the same way. To wish death upon an old woman because her party's politics are different from your own (speaking of the site), is filth. That is what I wished to convey.

Slight addendum: When I asked for one example of McCain repudiating the Christian Right, I did indeed forget about John McCain rejecting John Hagee and Rod Parsley's endorsements, after accepting them with open arms, when their endorsements became politically inconvenient for him.

(The irony of this, of course, is that his running mate holds even more extreme religious views than those two charlatans.)

Did Senator Obama write a book praising and quoting Rev Wright (The Audacity of Hope) and then turn around and walk away from him when it became a political liability? Did he call the Clintons racists and then accept their endorsement? Of course he didn't call the Clinton's racists. Of course his campaign had nothing to do with that. That was the free speech of others that he can't control and would never trample on.

McCain does something you agree with, it has to be rationalized as politically motivated. Obama does something wrong, it has to be rationalized as fighting fire with fire. This is why our government is a disgrace. Common sense and reason don't prevail. Rather, political factions on both sides beat each other with sticks paid for by the republic.