Yuku free message boards

Thanks Rob for your two cents. It's interesting, both figuratively and literally, I think Canadians two cents may be worth that much more than an Americans right now. (Do you resent the folks from the U.S. being called exclusively Americans? We all live on the continent of America, after all. But I digress.)

Truth be told, as much as I hated Hillary at the beginning of this campaign, I have to be extremely impressed with her the last half of the campaign. I told a Democrat friend of mine that she looked the best of the three down the stretch, and it was a shame, because I knew she didn't have a prayer. The cynic in me said, yeah, if Obama takes her on the ticket, he better get a food tester and watch his back. Honestly, I see her as probably the most stable of the three. I figure it would be Billary all over again, but I figured she knew she'd be "the man" and the buck would stop at her desk. And I really think the team of folks she had assembled probably would be as smart as any. Right now, I don't trust McCain to pick a decent team. He'll likely be selective with any Bush holdovers. I could see Colin Powell making a second stint as Secretary of State, but otherwise, I'd say he'll likely look upon any of Bush's second term people as pariah, and rightly so. The first Bush term was a much better administration than his second. The second was a bunch of yes-men, and that's what turned me against Bush the second term. But I don't have faith that McCain would pick a decent team. I think ego on his part will get in the way of selecting the best administration.

Obama I don't trust for his inexperience. I think he's being controlled by forces above him and to whom he's beholden to. I fear to know what really is in store if he is elected.

Hillary I would measure as a known commodity and I reckon her team would be similar to her husband's. And truth be told, in hindsight, even though I didn't like them the first time around, I think they did better than Bush's second term team, so at least that would be an improvement. So if it had come down to Hillary v. McCain, I may have pulled the lever for Hillary. But that choice is not to be.

I do agree that Obama has to take Hillary if he wants a sure win. If he chances to go out on his own, he has to try to woo the staunch Hillary supporter back into his camp. As of today, I don't think he has a chance to do that. I don't see him taking the states he will have to win, namely Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Hillary showed her strength in those contests. Obama will need three of four of those, and right now I'd say those go to McCain, unless he takes Hillary onto his ticket.

I can see maybe the territories and commonwealths could have affected Obama's reckoning, but I still say that if Quayle had said it, he'd have been crucified as an idiot in the press, and we'd still have jokes about it on Letterman and Leno.

I'm OK here. We got some seepage, and the tornado siren blew once. No damage locally. Lake Delton, a lake near Wisconsin Dells (and there's a village with that name) drained as a dam built in the 1850s burst. Big mess. I understand that they had marked that dam as needing maintenance and it was scheduled for 2009 or 2010. A bunch of $500,000 homes got washed away. And I heard on the news today that Lake Delton, the village, had forgone participation in the national flood insurance program, so no one who lost their homes will be eligible for reimbursement. The village had considered the flood plain to be too restrictive on development and had voted to forgo participation in the program. Haven't heard how many local heads are going to roll for that. (I mean, if you're going to take your chances with the flood insurance program, you may at least have wanted to wait until the maintenance on the dam was done.) Another town, Gays Mills, is under water for the second time in two years. I count myself fortunate to be above a flood plain in my community situated on the La Crosse River. We have a dam here. It's sound. If it would burst, the contours of my community would favor my house. Noah would have to be floating by for me to be flooded. Thanks for your concern! We're OK here. But allot of folks in the state (and the Midwest) are hurting. And I'm not the sort to say, "Well, they're millionaires anyway." It's no damn fun to have your life's savings washed away in a flood and have no recourse for it. I feel for them.

Hooray wrote:

Since I'm pretty liberal/libertarian on social issues I have to side with Obama there. McCain will appoint more conservative justices to the Supreme Court as the opportunity arises, and try to overturn Roe v. Wade. I support a woman's right to abort an unwanted pregnancy. I can't stand the idea of the government forcing a woman to bear a child against her will. Hey Republicans, maybe you should support sex education and birth control so there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies and therefore fewer abortions!

I don't agree that McCain is committed to appointing conservative justices, and I don't think overturning legalized abortion is very high on his agenda. Heck, I don't even hear conservatives talking much about overturning legalized abortion, much less Republican operatives. Despite abortion being a winning issue for Republicans in 1994 and 2000, the Republican Party has turned its back on that issue. In local contests it may still be an issue and sometimes you hear a major Republican pay lip service to the issue in front of interest groups like National Right to Life, but I think most who care about that issue have had to come to realize that the Republican party doesn't care two bits about saving the lives of the unborn. All they cared for in the past was the votes of those for whom that issue is a single reason to come to the polls. Seeing as 7 of the 9 Justices currently sitting were appointed by Republicans, 6 by Reagan, GHWB, and GWB, Presidents who had campaigned and won on that issue, if the Republicans had been serious about overturning Roe v Wade, it would have happened already.

For myself, I'd like to see both Democrats and Republicans try to work on a common ground approach. There are relatively few Americans who want abortion to be legal for a woman in every situation, and there are relatively few Americans who believe abortion should always be illegal. Most Americans fall in the middle and would be pragmatic if only allowed to be. I'd like abortion to be an issue decided by the people through their elected state and federal representatives rather than the courts. If it could be done in that fashion, my expectation is that abortion would be legal in most or all cases up until the first trimester of pregnancy is done. After that, I would expect it to be severely curtailed and probably mostly illegal except to protect the life and health of the mother. Americans are great on compromise if we're allowed. The fact that RvW put this issue in the purview of the courts, that is what has made abortion to be such a hot-button issue which has clouded and corrupted the process of selecting and confirming Supreme Court Justices since.

My own view is that it is conservatives who have done the right to life movement most harm. Personal responsibility is right. In all cases except rape or incest, a pregnant woman has CHOSEN to have sex, and, together with her partner, should expect the consequence of a baby, even if she used and uses birthcontrol. There really is no excuse. However, those who support the right to life are not going to win this argument on personal responsibility alone. Right or wrong, a woman who wants an abortion, legal or otherwise, is going to have one. So for conservatives to be dogmatic on personal responsibility, all they can expect is a woman in trouble to seek extraordinary methods to get herself out of trouble. What those who truly value life have to realize is that if you want to limit the number of abortions, one really has to take some pro-active measures. Hooray mentioned one, and that is greater access and education in birth control. But that is only one way. Another is to make funding available to non-judgmental, non-ideological (as in not funded by Naral), non-profit (as in not Planned Parenthood) agencies that actually promote life through helping a woman decide whether to keep her baby or give her baby up for adoption while materially supporting the woman either way. Unless conservatives are willing to put up to save lives, they might want to shut up.

Abortion has ceased for me to be the hot-button issue it was because I don't see any politician ready to employ common sense solutions meant to bring people together on this issue rather than tear them apart. I apologize for saying so much on this since it really isn't the topic, but I just wanted to address what Hooray said.

Hooray again:

I don't think it matters to me who the Democrats nominated. Hell, I voted for Kerry in 2004. I would have voted for Hillary if she were the nominee. I will vote for Obama. I would probably even vote for a department store mannequin with "Democratic Nominee" written on it with a magic marker.

I haven't seen anyone here come out and say without reservation, "I support McCain" or "I like McCain" or even "I like Republicans". Republicans and McCain are reaping the sown seeds of having dissed and neglected their base of support.

This election is going to come down to whether people want Obama. It really is Obama's election to win or to lose. If Obama can keep his campaign to flowery speeches and tight sound bites, he'll likely win. However, if Obama gets down in the trenches with McCain and goes toe to toe on policy, his lack of experience, his gaffes, and his liberal agenda will show through, and McCain will have a real chance. But if McCain wins, it will not be because people wanted McCain, it will be because they didn't want Obama.

We shall see.