Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Another look at the 2000 Bush v. Gore debate.

Posted By: American Woman on 2005-07-23
In Reply to:


I wonder if Bush would still have won if voters knew the extent to which he blatantly lied during this debate. To find the TRUTH, all someone has to do is take just about EVERYTHING Bush said, REVERSE IT (with the possible exception of the comment: "I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place." I didn't understand it in 2000 and still don't know what it means. And why did he only focus on "our friends in the Middle East?") I know this isn’t new news, but I found it interesting to take a second look at this. Hindsight being 20/20, I'm amazed at how good Gore is suddenly starting to look!


From www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html


MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?


BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.


MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, one minute.


GORE: I want to make it clear, our military is the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped, best-led fighting force in the world and in the history of the world. Nobody should have any doubt about that, least of all our adversaries or potential adversaries. If you entrust me with the presidency, I will do whatever is necessary in order to make sure our forces stay the strongest in the world. In fact, in my ten-year budget proposal I've set aside more than twice as much for this purpose as Governor Bush has in his proposal. Now, I think we should be reluctant to get involved in someplace in a foreign country. But if our national security is at stake, if we have allies, if we've tried every other course, if we're sure military action will succeed, and if the costs are proportionate to the benefits, we should get involved. Now, just because we don't want to get involved everywhere doesn't mean we should back off anywhere it comes up. I disagree with the proposal that maybe only when oil supplies are at stake that our national security is at risk. I think that there are situations like in Bosnia or Kosovo where there's a genocide, where our national security is at stake there.


BUSH: I agree our military is the strongest in the world today, that's not the question. The question is will it be the strongest in the years to come? Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I see moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. A recent poll was taken among 1,000 enlisted personnel, as well as officers, over half of whom will leave the service when their time of enlistment is up. The captains are leaving the service. There is a problem. And it's going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power. I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwartzkopf recently stood by me side and agreed with me. If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration.




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

The Iranian President has challenged Bush to a live debate...sm

I would be interested in hearing that.  One quote from the article:


The debate should be uncensored in order for the American people to be able to listen to what we say and they should not restrict the American people from hearing the truth.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5295550.stm


 


2000 election
Yes, Bush did win only one election.  The first election was handed to him by the Supreme Court Five.  If it had been handled properly and fairly, Gore would have won as he had the popular vote. 
2000 dead: How many is
2000 Dead: How Many Is Too Many?
By Mike Hoffman

When I left for the Middle East in February 2003 with a Marine artillery unit, I was told Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, had been assisting Al Qaeda, was partly responsible for 9/11 and was an imminent threat to the United States and Iraq’s neighbors.

We destroyed Iraq’s under-equipped and demoralized military – the imminent threat to our nation -- in a little over a month. Since the invasion, no weapons inspection team has found evidence of any weapons of mass destruction and the claims that Saddam Hussein was working with Al Qaeda have been shown to be nonsense. When I left Iraq for home in May 2003, after President Bush told us “Mission Accomplished,” 139 Americans had died.

After the invasion was over and the occupation began, Iraqis didn’t throw flowers and candy at our feet. Instead roadside bombs and ambushes awaited us down every street. The administration said we were about to turn a corner. We were told that once Saddam and his sons were captured or killed the insurgents would give up, demoralized by the loss of their leader; peace would reign. By the time Saddam was captured in December 2003, 463 Americans had died in Iraq.

The capture of Saddam had no effect, and daily attacks against American forces and Iraqi security forces continued. It was during this time that the bloody Shiite Rebellion occurred. This was some of the fiercest fighting yet in Iraq. Even with this rebellion happening, we were told there was still hope. Sovereignty would soon be handed over to the Iraqis and another corner would be turned. But we needed to stay and provide the Iraqis security until we could “officially” turn the country back over to them. This would empower the Iraqis and end the Insurgency. By then, June 2004, 958 had come home in boxes.

Most Iraqis didn’t seem to care they had sovereignty, since we still occupied their country. They were still without electricity and faced an average unemployment rate of 70%. Every time US soldiers walked outside the wire they were still taking their lives in their hands. Then, we were told, elections would fix this. The Iraqis would have their own government in place and begin drafting a constitution. This would demoralize the terrorists and end the fighting. On the day of the elections, January 30, 2005, the U.S. death toll was 1,537.

What’s wrong with this picture?

The first time we were told the war was over we had lost 139 American; now we have lost 2,000 American lives in Iraq. Time and time again we are told things are getting better, that we have “turned a corner.”

In the Viet Nam War we didn’t “turn corners;” instead policy makers talked about the “light at the end of the tunnel.” We know now that by 1968 President Johnson knew there was no light at the end of the tunnel; he knew his war was lost. The Pentagon Papers showed this; Robert McNamara admits it today. Over 22,000 American troops died in Viet Nam after 1968 in a war our leaders knew was hopeless and just piling up American and Asian bodies.

Again, there is no light at the end of the tunnel, and we’ve turned so many corners we’re going in circles. Our leaders know they can’t win this war, but, like Johnson and McNamara, they refuse to admit it to the American people. Meanwhile, our troops remain a huge provocative force in the region and each individual soldier a prized target. Failure to face this reality is exacerbating the current chaos in Iraq and preventing real regional diplomatic solutions.

So the question falls to ordinary Americans: How many more brave men and women are we willing to sacrifice before we force our leaders to bring the troops home? I pray that it does not take another 56,000 like it did in Viet Nam.


Mike Hoffman was a lance corporal in a Marine artillery unit during the invasion of Iraq. He is a member of Iraq Veterans Against The War.



2000 yrs ago? Try 6000....

not looking for any kind of attention - you are awfully presuming/assuming for a public board/forum poster....you know nothing about me...


please do not respond to any of my posts if you don't like them - you DO have that choice.



 


 


By the way, technically Gore did win . . .

in 2000.  He was cheated out of that election by . . . oh let's see . . . by the crooked business that went down in Florida which happened to have Bush's brother as governor.  Maybe you were sleeping when all that went down and came out as fact!  And another thing, 98% of the hate spewing on this board has been by the McCain/Palin fans, but I guess they learned how to be that way from those hate mongerers that they support!!  No hatred here . . . just calls 'em as I sees 'em.


I have never been called since 2000
to be included in a national poll. I'm Democrat. I answer all phone calls JUST to have my voice heard. Why haven't they called me?
Stolen, just like in 2000
I guess it is alright if the Republicans steal an election, but not the Dems???
Gore lies AGAIN!!

Gore criticizes Cheney for answering the scurrilous crap that the Democrats have been piling on Bush, saying "I waited two years before criticizing Bush".


Umm...not quite, Internet Breath.  Here's the link to the speech he made in ༾ trashing Bush, Cheney and the cabinet - calling them "un-American".  (Bush took office in ༽.)


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/15/flashback_gore_calls_bush_policies_un-american_in_2002_speech.html


 


 


Gore lying

I am not an AL Gore fan but I am wondering what indicates he lied?


He lost the election of 2000 and  was critical in 2002. Please (and I do mean this politely) what I am missing.


 


popular vote was Gore
Im trying to remember back from 2000..there was a university, I think maybe University of Chicago..which did a recount and Gore won.  If all the ballots had been counted and all the registered voters who were turned away were allowed to vote, based on the party they were registered under, Gore would have won.  I remember back in 2001, the outrage, so I contacted the university and was assured the public would be allowed a copy of the study on the recount.  Geez..seems like centuries ago..I will check back with my political friends and find out the university..Maybe they still are offering their results on the recount.In any case, however, to be fair, when there is a election in doubt, IMHO, you go with the popular vote, which was Gore.
The $2000 debit card sm

has provisions that state the card cannot be used for alcohol or cigarettes.  They will get no cash back on any purchase. 


The government has already thought of all these things.  The card can only be used for food, personal items, etc. 


Gore was a FAR better choice for America.
That's why we elected him. It took a crony-packed SCOTUS to act illegally to appoint Bush president even AFTER Repubs tried their best to suppress as many votes as possible to get him elected. It just wasn't good enough, so overwhelming was the vote for Gore.

So, looks like you're in the minority opinion box again. Must be hard having that happen time after time.
I can't believe it matters. 2000 or 6000, what's... sm
The difference? It's still an ancient piece of fiction written by primitive, superstitious people from a corner of a long-dead empire. Why anyone in the present day would chose to believe any of it, let alone feel compelled to organize their life around it (or believe that it predicts the future, of all things!) is beyond me.

sorry, I meant Gore, not Kerry....(nm)
nm
Here is the lastest immigration law, 2000. sm
http://www.aca.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=80
Gee, he was fine with you when he supported Gore
Reminds me of the line from the movie Dune....

"The sleeper has awoken".
Then you'll just have to do what the dems did since 2000
Suck it up, tune him out and go on about your business.
Then you'll just have to do what the dems did since 2000
Suck it up, tune him out and go on about your business. He's not going anywhere anytime soon.
Everybody KNOWS Al Gore won the popular vote
It is awfully coincidental that the state that had the problems counting their votes, which ultimately cost AL Gore the election, was what? Oh thats's right it was....FLORIDA - George Bush's brother's state. You do remember Jeb was governor of Florida during that time, don't you?
Gore is laughable and pathetic anyway.
nm
Al Gore and his "green" attitude
is the biggest bunch of BS I've ever seen.  That fat man preaches to everyone about global warming and then jumps on his private jets and flies off.  The kicker is that he is getting rich off of this scam too. 
Oh, I know. Al Gore is the biggest phony
nm
i can remember relatives saying if gore won, he would be antichrist
x
I just hope we don't have a repeat of the 2000 election...sm
Whoever wins, let them win by a wide enough margin that the is no question. To this day I do not know how Bush et AL got away with that one.  Talk about stupid democrats!
Tennessee Votes for Gore Statue.
I'd give my kingdom to be a pigeon for just one day.
Global warming and the swiftboaring of Al Gore: A timeline
http://scienceblogs.com/drcharles/2006/08/a_timeline_tracing_the_origins.php
Gore's "science" on global warming is flawed....
all one has to do is research the topic. On that basis alone he should not gave gotten the prize, and that has nothing to do with brain washing political propaganda. The fact that so many just buy his theory without looking at both sides is what smacks of political brain washing. No one asked anyone to defend the choice and we are all entitled to our opinions. This is a liberal gimme and has been for years...there was a time when it was a vaulted honor. I don't think many consider it as such anymore...and choosing Gore will not help that downward spiral I'm afraid. And, to be brutally honest...your description "esteemed leader...." and AL Ifoundedtheinternet Gore are diametrically in opposition. Again...in my opinion...to which I am entitled...check the liberal talking points...you are the live and let live people. Right...? Or do you want to just announce that it is liberals live and let liberals live?
By trying to address 2000 and 2004 election corruption
nm
Pot meets kettle. You mean like Tom Delay's 2000-2001
We are still dealing with the aftermath. But hey, he was just trying to help out the shrub and the rest of the GOP good ole boys.
Even Al Gore thinks caps and trade is a bad idea!!!
xx
Debate, lets debate
Honey, I dont know if your problem is Alzheimer's or Parkinson's but I have debated all over this board..I have tried and tried again and again to debate with your cohorts..It starts out okay and then your conservative friends start attacking and it continues through the debate to where then there is no longer a debate.  I ask for you to check the archives and you will see this..nothing but personal attacks against me, which then I attacked back..Debate..lets debate..I WOULD LOVE TO DEBATE WITHOUT ATTACKS..Place an issue and lets debate..Who knows..my consciousness might be raised or yours might be..Lets do it,,
I think Gore has turned off enough people recently that most Dems don't even support him.
Thank God he was not elected. 
Gore gave a superb speech today, very inspiring...
...though anyone addicted to Fox wouldn't know it. He really nailed the problem right on the old square head - best speech that's been given in years now. Naturally, the networks are too frightened to utter more than a peep about it, but maybe C-span is re-running it, if you get the chance check it out.

I'd almost forgotten how refreshing it is to see a politician really speak to an unrehearsed crowd without reading from a teleprompter or uttering gotta protect 'mericans and they hate us for our freedom and 9/11 every other line. Nice to know someone sees what's going on and is actually concerned about protecting rule by Constitutional provisions for a change.
This person was talking about the 2000 debit cards and calling them handouts...sm
Now is not the time to be talking about handups in the midst of a national disaster like the one in NO. In a time like this it is too late for that and inappropriate. But enlighten me, what kind of handup has the republican party offered the displaced NO citizens?

These people NEED HANDOUTS AND YESTERDAY, until they can regain some type of normal existence and then handups would be good. Some people can't stand to see a person get anything. I've learned that's just how some people are. Even though they are cush in front of their computers posting away, they think if I'm not getting 2000 dollars from the government neither should they. And then there's the, I got mine croud. They feel that these people should have educated themselves, worked harder and they wouldn't be in this position, so let em' stay in the astrodome until they can figure something out.

I don't agree and think these compasionate conservative Christians who think this way should ask themselves WWJD?


rhetoric rhetoric - just tell people what they want to hear, it worked in 2000 and 2004 right?
xx
I only lost $1000 so far-Hubby lost $2000 in a week (sm)

so, I called his financial advisor yesterday and told him to put hubby in a "safe" plan. It's now in a money market fund that is part of his IRA.


I have no choice. I have to stay where I am. I have no "safe" available. Neither of us will be able to retire on what is now in our 401Ks and you're not the only one. We couldn't buy a car with Both our 401Ks, let alone live on it.


We are late starters for retirement  not until our late 40s funds (most of our employers did not offer pensions). We are now of the first retirement tier and although we own our home outright, if we live until we are 90, there is no way we can live off retirement 401Ks or SS.


My husband's father told him back in the 50s that we would experience something like what is happening today and stated it would be worse than the ཙ crash. It is sure starting to look that way, but we will survive some way, I hope.


We need to pray for the people on SS now that cannot survive. I, for one, would love to help them, but can't help ourselves at this moment.


 


You do not know how to debate

you are the biggest hypocrite ever.  I was debating with you, but just because you didn't like what I said you said I was attacking you.


Again, you're are a sad individual....hateful sad individual.


As far as I see it, there is no debate.
This country has gone to the dogs. We are now just another  *invading* country, with no morals, no Constitution, nothing of which to be proud.  We have a lying, warring regime taking us down with them, taking our freedoms, spitting on the Constitution, tearing the very fabric of this country, and you see nothing evil about that?  That, my fellow American, is what I cannot comprehend. Furthermore, Iraq was not our enemy.  The Bush Family MADE him our enemy so that our very DEMOCRACY would be eroded to the point that we won't even recognize by the time he is out of office.  And you don't see any EVIL in that?  WAKE UP, Smell the coffee, or even the stench that wreaks from this regime. 
Debate
One of the biggest problems that we have today is our inability to have intellegent discussions. The previous commenters irrational, over-wrought statements, frought with conspiracy theory, does an excellent job of proving that point. There is plenty of grist for calling those in power to task for their actions and decisions without foaming at the mouth. Oh, how I long for the days of the old boy's club of the congress before the eighties when people of conscience could disagree on substance, still be fast friends and treat their political opposites with respect and decorum. I'm contuinally amazed how the most vocal and extreme ascribe nefarious motives to others. This seems to be, almost exclusively, an affliction of the left. Without this intellectual pollution, we might be able to actually find common ground.

Debate me...

First it was that **we couldn't debate,** now it is ** persecution.** When did I say I was persecuted. I merely said the Crusades have been seen in a negative light for as long as I can remember and suddenly they are being seen in a good light. That's all, kaput, the end. Martyr...don't think so.


I don't know how you can live with such disdain for all liberals and all Arab peoples and have any peace or joy in your life. That is a full-time job, being angry.


debate
Hillary all the way -
No need to debate this...because I see it as the same and you do not....
I listened to AL Franken on Air America quite a few times...that was mild, and it was not a joke. He meant it when he said it. I find that offensive. You do not, probably because Ann Coulter did not say it talking about Democrats. Face it, if Ann Coulter had made the same comment Al Franken did, substituting Democrat names and Democrat for Republican, you would not say Ann Coulter was obviously joking and ignore it. That is what I am talking about...you can see exactly what Ann COulter did wrong, but blow off Al Franken as obviously joking. I just don't get that kind of rationalization, sorry. No offense meant...just don't understand it, and it seems so prevalent on the left side of the house. I mean, I can say Ann Coulter was wrong and that both statements by both people were offensive and wrong. You can agree that what Franken said was tasteless and classless, yet he gets a buy as *obviously joking." I just don't get why you can't just say both were wrong and leave it at that...Coulter has to be worse and Franken gets a buy.
Debate

Once again, this is a subject I feel very strongly about.  I applaud anyone who broadens their education by learning a foreign language or learning anything new for that matter.


That being said, I believe that anyone who wishes to immigrate to THIS country should wish to embrace our language, our customs and our way of life, not the other way around.  I am speaking here of the illegal INVADERS.  I imagine that those who become citizens through legal channels, most likely learn English.  I am sick to death of hearing babbling everywhere I go, to the grocery store, to restaurants, everywhere.  My ancestors immigrated LEGALLY from Ireland and Germany.  The other side of the ancestors were herded up and driven to a reservation like so many cattle.  I live next door to the Cherokee Nation and not once have I heard them speaking in their native tongue outside of their Powwows, although they strive to keep the language alive. They don't require a press 1 for Cherokee on every telephone message system. 


If this language issue isn't enough, it infuriates me that the Mexicans can come here to OUR country and march in their demonstrations while waving their MEXICAN flag.


Unfortunately, the reason we have to learn THEIR language to commuicate is most likely the majority who enter our country illegally are ignorant in even the most basic education and thus not likely to be able to learn a foreign language i.e. English.


You are correct, if we aren't willing to stand up for the heritage of our country; we may as well learn the language as one day we will most likely be part of Mexico and Spanish will be the official language.


debate is on

per debate commission and Obama. Let's rock.


 


debate
i will probably watch on cnn. i do not want to miss a word or a fumble/jumble confused silly look on anyone's face. I am my own best commentator and so will listen to the commentators after the debate.... one candidate is really not overly intelligent. i will see how well he was briefed...looking forward to the comedy !
I too think that this debate could have

been more indepth and not just the same old ho hum we have been hearing since the start.  Then again, it was only the first debate and hopefully they will get better.  We have a right to hear specifics from both candidates.  We have a right to see them put on the spot to see how well they handle themselves.  I want specific questions directed to each candidate and I was specific answers with details.  I don't want just a pleasant little Q&A session of fluff. 


On the debate....

I was kinda struck by how Obama kept harping on the 10 billion a day (was it?) spent in Iraq...but talking about more troops to Afghanistan.  Three brigades I think he said he would send.  Okay.  So, we are just going to transfer the 10 billion a day to Afghanistan instead of Iraq.  Still going to spend it, just in a different place.  I was almost yelling at the TV at McCain...ASK HIM ABOUT THAT.  lol.


All kidding aside....what I took away from it was Obama leans heavily on Joe Biden for the foreign policy stuff because he is just out of his element.  I thought Obama looked uncomfortable, and I got really tired of the smirk after awhile.


On the other hand...in all fairness, John needs to drop the "Miss Congeniality" line.  I was talking to the TV again..."we know, John, we KNOW."  lol. 


I think what makes Obama dangerous is his world view.  I do not say that to be mean....I just don't think he is realistic about it.  On the one hand he praises General Petraeus (that he got right), and turns right around and won't own up to the fact that the surge worked (even though O'Reilly got him to admit it).  Just goes back to the war was wrong.  The country is still divided on that.  You can't turn back time...and to lose it now would be wrong.  Petraeus DID say Obama's plan for a timetable was wrong.  I would think more of him if he would say "okay john, you were wrong about the war, but we're there and can't change that.  And I was wrong about the surge."  I know...dream on...lol.


It was a little alarming to me, facing what we are facing with this "rescue" bill, he STILL talked about spending bazillion dollars.  He would not, when pressed, name ONE thing he would put on hold.  That just makes NO sense to me, with the "rescue" bill, the deficit, owing money to China yada yada....and wants to fund that stuff with stiff taxes for business...in a down economy.  Sorry, I think that's NUTS.   Sorry....that also tells me he is either not real smart, or trying to get the vote of people who can't see past "he is going to lower my taxes and give me free health care."  I really don't think he is not really smart, so if he gets selected he will be saying  "I wanted to do these things, but the economy won't let me."  


I have heard people talk all morning (on the Dem side) about how he mentioned the middle class and John McCain didn't.  Frankly, the way it appeared to me, was Obama was pandering to the have nots and McCain is not going to promise something he knows he couldn't deliver in the economic situation we find ourselves in.  I thought it was kinda patronizing actually.  McCain understands that small businesses and yes, nasty corporations, drive this economy and employ a huge number of Americans.  In an economic downturn higher taxes on businesses does not work.


Another thing I think McCain should have JUMPED on is that Obama supports the Hank Paulson rescue plan endorsed by Bush and John McCain doesn't like it as it stands.  Obama is siding with BUSH!  Oh well....lol.


in this debate

the results would be the same no matter who the moderator or modulator or referee or interpretor was.


 


Debate

After watching the debates I have finally made up my mind.  We can not afford to have the angry, unstable John McCain in the White House.  He was not only angry, he was sarcastic.  My husband and I kept laughing waiting for him to explode.  I happen to live in a state that is leaning toward McCain.  I notice on the local TV station's forum, 5 people who have been avid McCain supporters have said they changed their  mind after watching the debates.  It was evident that Obama was angry a couple of times, and I don't blame him but he never lost his "cool."


The race issue is going to play a part in this election but I wonder, has anyone considered that Obama is both black and white?  Maybe, just maybe, he could be the one to finally put the race issue to rest.  Many blacks will vote for him because he is "black."  Many whites will not vote for him because he is "black."  Ridiculous.  He is equally black and white.  Since Lou Dobbs is not running in the first place, he has no chance of being elected.  I have decided I will take a chance on Obama.  If he turns out to be the worst president in history, well, I'll come back and say I helped elect him.  The only real issue I have with him is that of  his church affiliation.  I noticed that was not brought up in the debate so I can only assume that McCain has investigated that thoroughly and found that there is nothing there that would benefit him.


And as for "Joe the plumber"........I have no doubt that with his notoriaty he will own his own plumbing company but what about my son, "Bill the plumber" who also aspires to own his own plumbing company?  My son, "Bill the plumber" has been inclined to vote for McCain but doesn't think either candidate will help him own his own company and neither do I.


I didn't hear anything about "Jane the MT."  What about all the MTs who can't find a job?  That might be a good talking point.......did anyone notice that Obama wants to reduce medical costs by putting medical records on the internet?  Can anyone say bye-bye medical transcriptionists?  Of course that is already in the works so really won't make much difference.


debate
I agree. McCain cannot hide his shifty, deceiving body language. He blinks more often and quicker, and he doodles on paper rather than being comfortable making eye contact with Obama.

No one in this world can perform miracles, per se, but I feel that Obama has integrity and diplomacy and really wants to try and better the multitude of conflicts this nation is under, in a realistic but motivated fashion.
Actually during the last debate
He said "when I am president" quite a few times. Just FYI.