One of the things that has always been a bit of a thorn in my side is the way the Republicans/Conservatives have more or less labeled themselves as the “Family Values” party.

I recall a few years ago, having lunch with a good friend who happened to be a pretty far right leaning Republican. He had once been a centrist, one election voting Democrat, the next election voting Republican, but recalling the conversation that day, he told me how he could never again vote for a Democrat because he was for “Family Values”.

That comment was probably one of the few times I actually got a bit angry, or maybe bewildered would be a better choice of words. I really had a hard time understanding or even comprehending how he attributed “Family Values” to one particular party or the other.

My father is, and has been a lifelong Democrat, never having voted for a Republican in his life, and I don’t know that any amount of money could ever persuade him otherwise. But he worked hard his entire life, raised 2 kids to be fine adults. Stayed faithful to his marriage which is now entering 56 years, didn’t drink, and taught me and my brother right from wrong, but for some reason, according to my friend, he does not have “Family Values” and would never be worthy of his vote if he was seeking office. Did I mention that my friend was recently divorced?

I’ve always found it a bit strange that the state in the US with consistently the lowest divorce rate is Massachusetts. Arguably one of the more liberal states in the country, whereas, the highest rates (with the exception of Nevada) are generally states frequently defined as those being in the “Bible Belt?

One of the things I’m really hoping for in this general election is that the candidates will stick to real issues, not phony ones such as “Family Values”. Sure I know that conservatives might say that “Family Values” are a real issue and I won’t dispute that, but, is it a political issue? It’s not something that any politician can do anything about. It comes from within your own value system, your own concept of right and wrong, your own concept of morality . Sure, a politician can talk about it, but it’s just pandering. You control your own morality. It does not belong to one political party or the other.

I’ve always been amazed at how the conservatives seem to hate government programs, or intervention in their lives, always claiming that liberals want government to solve every problem, yet they seem to look to government as some kind of moral arbiter. “Family Values” do exist, but they are about actions, not words, and are not exclusive to any political party or political persuasion.

I have to admit, I really hate the idea of another slogan or soundbite based presidential campaign..

“A 3rd Term for Bush” - “Tax and Spend” - “Support the Troops” etc..

I mean.. do any of them really mean anything. Sure Obama is going to use this phrase, When you’ve got a President who by most measurements is one of, if not the most unpopular President at this point in his term, in US history, he’d be crazy not to.

I think most of this is largely of McCain’s making though. In 2000 he was his own man. Not afraid to speak out against his own side when he felt they were wrong. To me, and many blue staters, he was by far the best option the Republicans could have given the country, and probably one of the few Republicans that many blue staters would have given some thought to voting for. But McCain 2008, is not McCain 2000.

To most blue staters, McCain has basically sold his soul to the devil to get this nomination. He traded in his integrity and his honesty for the support of the current White House, who more or less anointed him as the Republican successor to Bush.

Virtually everything McCain stood for in 2000, he has taken an almost polar opposite position over the past 4 years. Who is the real John McCain? That’s an unanswered question at this point.

I fully expect McCain to revert back or at least try and revert back to the McCain of 2000. But using a phrase from the 2004 election, can he really pull off the “Flip Flop’, I think it’s going to be very difficult.

There is no doubt he has stood firmly behind Bush on most issues the past 4 years. And I think that’s the angle the Dems are going to take. There’s no question McCain has far more experience than Bush had, and is by any measure, far more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Bush was when he took office. He has by far more experience than Obama, no one will argue that point.

But I don’t know that experience is a substitute for judgment. I will agree that Obama is an unknown commodity. But McCain has chosen his path over the past 4 years, and cast his lot with the sitting President, which is a very different path than he took in 2000. Either he had a political motive for doing so, or he changed his opinion on almost every position.

McCain is now trying to proclaim himself the change candidate. Does anyone really think he can pull this off?

Most of our Preidents have come from the ranks of Governors and former Governors, so really Obama has more federal and specifically national security experience than most any of the recent Presidential candidates of either party.

Obama has been privy to far more national security information than Bush, Clinton, or Reagan before they took office.

I guess it really depends on the factors you are looking at when the sound bite “Bush’s 3rd term is used”

I would say the odds are good that it will stick.

Ok, tell me who this sounds more like, Obama or McCain?

1. more likable
2. less of a “Washington insider”
3. more inspiring
4. will rely more on sound input from those around him

My guess is you are picking Obama… but I actually had pre-prez “W” in mind. I think if Dems get their way, we are more likely to have a 3rd term for Bush than with McCain. So many (both sides) are stuck on the War, or the economy, or health care… and what a pickle our country is in… and most Dems would like to blame Bush for those specific issues not being resolved. And that’s all well and good, and maybe those particular issues are his fault. But if you look deeper than just specific issues, you will see underlying patterns with the current administration that may have lead to the issues that Dems blame Bush for. Those underlying patterns match Obama so much more than McCain, it is not even funny.

I think if you asked most fair minded conservatives (I hear the libs scoffing now, “fair-minded?, HA”) to play Monday morn QB, I think they would have rather had Bush without all the cronies up in his ear steering him in a spend/neo direction. And I can almost overwhelmingly say that most on the right would have rather had McCain in 2000 after all is said and done, no disrespect to W intended at all… it is mostly about spending, I call it VWS - “Veto Wuss Syndrome”… ok, digress-city…

Ok, last point/question, go… 2016, after 8 years of Obama or 8 years of McCain… who do you think we would be able to say this about more: “would have rather had <name here> without all the cronies up in his ear steering him”.

If you say McCain fits better in that sentence, then your super dotty. Everyone likes Obama better than McCain, even if a republican says otherwise… they are lying. Again, everyone like Obama more than McCain… but honestly, a vote for Obama is a vote for Bush’s 3rd term. Even as a conservative, I don’t want a 3rd term for Bush… so I think I know how I should vote.

OK, so now I see on CNN that Hillary has decided the nomination is still up for grabs..
This is just getting to the point of being ridiculous. Maybe what the news sites say now and what she actually says tonight will be something totally different, but where you could once make the argument that this was just politics, that just doesn’t fly any more.

I see this as nothing more than a power grab on her part, or the feeding of a massive ego. I mean all politicians have one, that is totally out of proportion to their real importance, but she seems unwilling to accept reality. Isn’t this one of the biggest criticisms that us Blue Staters have thrown at Bush the past 8 years, that he’s out of touch with reality?

The Republicans are giving us a Grandpa Munster candidate who can’t go through a 24 hour news cycle without making a bonehead statement, yet he is running almost dead even in most of the polls. It’s not logical. Hillary, you are doing the dirty work for him.

He makes the following statement

” I choose to wear that flag on my lapel because the nation it represents makes that choice possible.”

Well I’m not going to question Mr Dobbs’ reasoning for his wearing the lapel pin, but for him to totally discount the fact the the flag lapel pin has become a wedge issue used by many on the far right to claim the patriotism angle.

In my opinion the flag lapel pin has become a convenient way of claiming patriotism without having to actually show patriotism. Patriotism is not defined by a symbol, it is defined by actions. Simply claiming “I support the troops” does not mean you actually support the troops.

The daily talk radio babble coming from the “Microphone Marines” most of whom never served a in the military are a perfect example of the listen to what I say mentality and not what I do.

If you’re a patriot, prove it, don’t say it.

I’m just glad the current occupant of the White House wasn’t president in 1941 because this jackass probably would have attacked Mexico in retaliation.

Any one with a brain knows that Saddam’s only reason in 2003 for still trying to present an appearance that he possessed nuclear, biological or chemical weapons was as a buffer to Iran.

If Al Qaeda ever issued currency, I’m pretty certain that Bush’s face would be on one of their bills. He is the answer to virtually all of their prayers.