[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

First of all, John McCain is immensely wealthy. I don't have any problems with that, I would like to be too, but he downplays that all the time, trying to make himself seem more rugged and blue collared. I mean, all his commercials are calling him the "The original maverick." What does that even mean? Nearly every speech he's given in Kentucky was at a National Rifle Association meeting. That's laughable.

Well honestly, in today's day and age being a supporter of the NRA is maverick. Moreover, he has a long history of bucking his own party to achieve goals that he thought were best for the nation, recently pushing for reductions in spending since 2000 and campaign finance reform (even though that turned out to be a bit of a mess).

As for him being rich, well, really his wife is rich and he went along for the ride. he enetred politics pretty much right out of the Hanoi Hilton.

When asked how many houses he owned, he responded "I'll have to have my staff get back to you."

Do you have any other Obama ads you'd like to repeat? Maybe he shiould be compaining about the price of arugula at whiole foods, like Obama did? And in the end, biothg arguments are meaningless. Honestly, who cares who knows owns what? Obama is rich as shit too. So what? That has npothing to do with whether or not someone is in touch.

When asked if he thought it was unfair that health insurance companies covered viagra and not birth control, he sat there with a very pained expression on his face for about 15 seconds, before saying, "I don't know enough about that to answer you" or something to that effect.

The knee jerk Republican reaction reaction would be to go all birth control nazi on the reporter. Instead, he admitted to not knowing something on a subject, which is honorable especially when confronted with a loaded question like that. Moreover, insurance compoanies can cover whatever they like. And consumers can choose accordingly.

McCain once stated that there had been great economic growth during the 8 years Bush has been in office, stating there had been "great progress economically over that period of time." I guess someone told him the mistake he made, because on the next day he turned around and said "American's are hurting badly, they're not better off than they were 8 years ago."

Both statements are correct. There was great economic growth, especially after 9/11 when everything plummeted. Now its taken a downturn, and is not a great as it was one or two years ago or in 2000, which techinically is 8 years ago. 2001? We're MUCH better now.

And I do take exception to the wording in McCain's second statement, as I think he pandered a bit. The economy isn't as bad as everyone would have you believe, and the BBC even reported that it went up over 3% last quarter. The Anmerican idea of success and "poverty" is so skewed by our affluence it's insane. It used to be success was a car in every driveway... now its a car in every three-car garage, a plasma screen TV in every room, and meanwhile the kids in these families are relying on grants and government loans to go to college.

I grew up knowing what it was like to be in a successful and poor family. In the 80's my dad had a successful, but small, construction company. When the recession hit, he barely worked for almost 2 years and struggled just to keep his business afloat. I remember weeks of tuna casserole for lunch and dinner. I also remember steak and eggs for breakfast in years earlier and in the mid-late 90's and my dad being lucky enough in 2001 to have a contractual job with a private school when times got tough again.

Times aren't that tough right now, we're just doing as well as we were before and we have to make adjustments. Its not the democrats or republicans who are responsible... its the economy... its done it before and MUCH worse and it will do it again. And the sky certainly isn't falling and no amount of raised taxes to the rich will help, it will only inspire the rich to hide their money in untaxable trusts and not invest it back in their businesses, which can only hurt.

And in my experience, demonizing business and the rich never made any poor person any richer. Does it make them feel better? Sure, I guess and I find that sad. And it defeinitely gets people elected.

I don't think he's in touch with regular people at all. And it's not just those things, it's the way he acts and the things he does. The other day I saw a video of him giving a speech somewhere, and he introduced one of his supporters to talk...some Puerto Rican rapper named Daddy Yankee. I mean, could that be any more obviously an attempt to get what he considers to be the "young and cool" crowd to like him? Maybe if Puerto Ricans could vote it would have been an alright thing to do.

And Obama doesn't do the same thing? Remember Luda's rap against Hillary? Oh please... both are guilty of this so please don't point it out only when it is politically expedient for your candidate.

And now his VP pick. Mostly just a ploy to draw in women voters. You complain about Obama's lack of experience all the time, and here McCain chooses someone who has been a governer for two years, not even any experience with the federal government. If McCain dies (and he's getting kind of old, it could happen) would you want her to be our president?

Palin was on the short list back when Hillary was still winning the primary, so your pandering point is a non-issue. For this arument? She has a son in the Iraq war and I believe she's the wife of a firefighter. +1 for in-touchness for McCain.

As for her experience, I'll admit I am concerned about it, especially considering McCain's age and her lack of pretty much any international experience. She would not have been my first choice. I always liked the governor of Lousiana, Bobbty Jindal.