GOP unveils ad suggesting Obama has basically won presidential race

[WayOutWest]

You're follow up statement however about being 'out of touch' - i'm not talking about technilogical knowledge (your 'html geek' insult aside), the internet is used by the majority of americans who have no idea how it works but McCain says he's never used it....never.  That to me would mean no emails, no web searches, no nothing...how can a politician be in touch if not using the most available and modern technologies to facilitate that 'being in touch'.  I'm not asking the guy to build web sites, i'm asking that the guy use email or a web browser every once in a while.

He didn't say he doesn't use it, he says he's computer illiterate.  That is not a big deal, most people are computer illiterate, that's the whole reason we have Windows and Apple computers.  I'm not holding that against him, who needs a computer when you have 1,000 people at your beckon call.

I personally have never seen a republican candidate I would consider voting for since most of them seem hung up on the 'family values' 'america a-ok' 'more guns the merrier' nonsense that drives me crazy.

I voted for Bush in 2000, didn't think much of Gore and didn't know enough Bush at the time.  When I couldn't decide who to vote for a friend of mine said who would you trust with 10K of your money to hold for 4 years?  I told him Gore would probably find and excuse not to give it back and Bush would HONESTLY lose or misplace it.  I figured I go with the good intent/same results guy cause at least he was honest.

Though if Colin Powell had ran I was willing to consider him...before he agreed to work for the dumbest president in my life time

I would have voted for Powell in the past as well but now I would not because he's either just as stupid as Bush or just as slimely to back the Iraq war.

[jemagee]

He didn't say he doesn't use it, he says he's computer illiterate.  That is not a big deal, most people are computer illiterate, that's the whole reason we have Windows and Apple computers.  I'm not holding that against him, who needs a computer when you have 1,000 people at your beckon call.

I've heard/seen some reports that while what you say might be true...when you factor in the 'demographics' of John McCain, he is an oddity/rarity in terms of his computer illiteracy...

[Joe Vancil]

Actually, I want to chime in on this.

I'm bothered by one thing about McCain:  his vote on the bailout bill.  That's all.  Were it not for that, I'd probably be voting for him.  (As it stands, Bob Barr is getting my vote.)

The idea that McCain "doesn't use the Internet" doesn't bother me at all.  I'm reasonably sure he reads e-mail, but truth of the matter is that he probably doesn't consider e-mail the same as "the Internet."  Probably reads a newspaper or two online.  Doesn't consider that "the Internet."

Colin Powell, in his endorsement of Obama, put something out there that you have to remember when you're talking about McCain;  Powell stated that it's time for a generational change, and to be honest, he's probably right.  But what you need to take from that (in reference to this post) is that McCain - and his statements - reflect an older generation.

When McCain says he's never used the Internet, he's likely talking social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace, chat rooms, online banking, Wikipedia, web searches for information, YouTube, and E-bay - because, folks, to a person of his generation, that's what "the Internet" means.  The world you and I live in an entirely different world - and the fact that we look at this as "everyday" shows how out-of-touch *WE* are.  Saying McCain is out-of-touch on this topic is nothing more than e-culture elitism.

That's right;  WE are the elitists, thinking that "our world" is the typical.  A signficant portion of the people won't use any of the things I've listed up there, because they are irrelevant to the person's daily life.  They work for a living in a factory or retail store or even a garage or farm.  They go home at night to their family.  They use a telephone to talk to their friends, if they don't see them while they take their kids to whatever the nightly school event is.  They turn on the TV for their news and entertainment.  They go to the bank;  maybe they use an ATM card, if they trust them.  They mail their checks to pay their bills. 

Consider this:  I'm *IN* the technology field.  I'm also one of the last holdouts of the "old school" BBSes, before making my way onto the Internet proper in 1997 - roughly three years after the craze really started.  I'm also one of the folks who was as skeptical about the "information superhighway" as Clifford Stoll, in his book, "Silicon Snake Oil."  I'm proud to say that I'm STILL that same skeptic.  The Internet hasn't added to our lives as much as it's DISTRACTED from our lives.

I get my news online.  I do online information retrieval, online commerce, online fantasy sports, and am even known to post a message here from time to time.  I've got my own domain, my own mail server, my own web site.  Even have it all running virtually.

And then I go and visit home.

My brother - never one to turn down technology if it makes things easier for him - has his satellite link-up, since he can't get high-speed internet any other way, living out in the country.  He doesn't have time for MySpace or Facebook - and if he did, he probably wouldn't use them - preferring to keep his private life PRIVATE.  YouTube is kind of cool, but that's about it.  He'll use Google from time to time.  But what is his real electronic experience?

Stock investment?  He'll do that with a stock broker.  Crop prices?  He's got a specialized satellite receiver for that and for weather.  News?  Television and newspaper in print.  Online friends?  E-mail, but that's it.  Banking?  He goes to town for that.  Purchases?  Well, in a pinch, if he needs something specific for the computer, he might get it online.  Run a Carfax report on a vehicle?  Probably wouldn't have done it in the past;  now gets his brother to do it for him.  Find consumer recommendations on something?  Talk to people who've got one.

And he's considered technologically up-to-date - even advanced - among his peers.  Serves on the REA board.  Has been asked to serve some other functions as well.  In a lot of ways, a community leader.

In fairness, he uses the Internet for some things:  filing flight reports when he takes the plane somewhere, the occasional google search.  But in truth, he uses his COMPUTER more than the Internet.  He keeps farm records.  He has a music libarary.  He scans family pictures and is starting to do video.  He'll word-process a letter, and keep an electronic copy.  He still runs cut-sheets for land-grading - which was actually his first big use of the computer.  And, for his personal entertainment, he has the games that he really likes.

It's a different world, but one you don't see unless you open your eyes and look at it.  There is life beyond the city, and while it's no life that I'd want to lead, it cannot be overlooked.  And for years, I could say that my brother paid more in taxes than I made in a year.  Once you're up and running - and out from under heavy debt - there's opportunity there.

Let me put it to you this way:  How did we get stuck with George Bush?

All you have to do is look at a map of voting districts.  Urban areas heavily favored Gore and Kerry - rural areas favored Bush.  Gore preaches environment - TO FARMERS.  Good luck with that one.  Try telling a farmer not to use pesticide.  Kerry was just as bad at relating to that group.  Bush did ONE THING right during the campaign - he didn't tell these people how to live their lives.  Zell Miller resonated with that demographic perfectly in the 2004 RNC speech;  his ideas are TYPICAL approaches from both the South and rural America.  That's why you saw Huckabee - who is most similar in his approach to rural America - start off strong in Iowa for the Republicans in this past primary season.  Nothing - NOTHING - ticks these folks off more than urban snobbery.  Obama - even though he's a "city boy" (which is not a racial comment) - understands rural America *FAR* better than either Gore or Kerry.  You were somewhat likely to see a rural Democrat vote for George Bush, because Gore and Kerry came across as snobs.  Clinton won some southern states because he DIDN'T come across as an intellectual elitist, even though he was probably a greater intellectual than either Gore or Kerry.

I grew up on a farm;  I've lived in a city (either St. Louis or Columbia) for my career.  There are notable differences in the people and how they act and react.  "Independent," "socializing," and "community" mean ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS to each.  I'd even argue that "family" and "friends" have different meanings.  Let me give you an example.

You go to talk to a lawyer. 
City perspective:  I want the top-notch lawyer around.  I want him to lay the case out, as it's likely to be seen, and what the likely outcome is.  He's there to be my *expert*.  I want him to be STRAIGHT-FORWARD. 

Country perspective:  I want a lawyer I know, who *I* think is good.  Helps if I know his family, and what kind of people they are.  I want him to advise me on what's the right thing to do, and I'll consider his *advice*.  I want him to be HONEST, or even BLUNT.

Both points of view are valid, and there are bits of wisdom in each.  I'm of the opinion that, as in most cases, you can get further fashioning your own wisdom from the best parts of each than you can by following either.

Well, I've drifted across several points, but in a round-about way, they're related.  And I think this is part of the reason Missouri has always been a sort of litmus test for candidates;  Missouri gone the way of the winner in every election but one - one Democratic Senator and one Republican one - notable Democrats and Republicans in the House.  McCain resonates with a significant part of the population.  His downfall is that he doesn't excite them.  He's old - and while they respect age, they're not after elderly.  He's conservative - but has a few things that just don't fit quite right.  He's a bit of a maverick - but that's not necessarily a good thing when his views don't quite mesh with theirs.

Actually, this election, I will not be surprised to see Missouri go for McCain, but Obama win.  But Missouri truly is a toss-up, I think.

[westkoast]

I really don't care if John McCain was able to hack a linux box or unable to log into AOL.  Pretty sure he can have an aide help him out on any tasks he struggles with.  The guy is not a retard.  That is just not his avenue to take to handle certain tasks.  While we all think the Internet is the easier way to go to pay bills and look up directions not everyone feels that way.  Since it is not the only way to do things it is not all that important.  I think a bunch of geeky blog writers at places like Wired.com got fired up over nothing.  Would John McCain really need to email to get something done if he was to win?  No.  Non-issue at face value....Though I think 'John McCain doesn't use the Internet' is a over simplified way to say that he is out of touch with the generation that will bloom while the next president is in office.

Joe you bring up a good point and something that those of us in the 'younger' generation who support Barack Obama echo.  A number of people in their 20s have only been able to vote in 2 or 3 election cycles.  In that amount of time they (or should I say we) have come to see that the older generations idea on the direction we should take as a country doesn't coincide with our own beliefs of what we vision 10-20 years down the line.  While I would hope that a lot of my fellow 20 year olds would understand Barack Obama can't save the universe he is a type of person who represents a younger and different generation.  This has a lot to do with why he is so strongly supported by the youth.  This is also what causes the 'old' jokes and shots.  Those are not meant to really be taken literally (like when I jab JoMal).  Really I think a lot of people mean that he is out of touch with the younger generation when they say 'McOld' or whatever dim witted attempt at making a catchy nickname you heard this past month.  The Republican party, whether right or wrong, is viewed as the old guard.  The wrong way.  Not everyone in the younger generation feels this way but a lot do.

One thing that also needs to be taken in mind is a lot of us were 80s babies or late 70s babies.  We were young when Republicans were still fiscally conservative, actually successfully de-regulated business, and they helped direct America to be  head and shoulders above everyone else on the global stage in many aspects.   As we came of age in the late 90s and post Y2k we know Republicans at the highest levels to be war mongers, fiscally irresponsible, elitist, corrupt, and not speaking for the common American regardless how many times they reference Joe Six Pack or Joe The Plumber.  The values that I hear older republicans cite when asked why they are Republican just do not exist in the top levels of the party anymore.  Really everything in the last decade says otherwise.

[jemagee]

The first president i clearly remember is Ronald Reagan

Didn't like him then, like him worse now that I understand how horrible he was...

[WayOutWest]

Actually, I want to chime in on this.

Joe,

First off, I was of that same opinion regarding McCain but to think for one second that computers and the internet don't play a major role of every day American lives is not true.  Back in 2000 I would completely agree, less than 30% of American households had a PC let alone the internet.  In 2008 is has completely flipped, less than 30% of American households do NOT have a PC and the internet.  It is very out of touch to not have some ability to get on a PC and the internet.  Granted I don't want my commander and cheif wasting time on the net but he should now how to use it but if he doesn't I'm not going to hold it against him.

On your other "elitest" point.  You are kidding yourself if you think that's what the problem with the Demo's and the "common man" American was in the last elections.  2000 the Republicans STOLD the election, Bush did not win the popular vote and his brother's state was the key to election and the MOST contraversial.  In 2004 the Republicans became the RepuGlicans.  Using red herring (gay marriage, terrorists win, Christian pandering) and swift boat tactics to win an elections has NOTHING to do with the Demo's being "snobby".  Please don't try to sell that to anyone with a BRAIN Joe, it's insulting.

[Lurker]

I really don't care if John McCain was able to hack a linux box or unable to log into AOL.  Pretty sure he can have an aide help him out on any tasks he struggles with.  The guy is not a retard.  That is just not his avenue to take to handle certain tasks.  While we all think the Internet is the easier way to go to pay bills and look up directions not everyone feels that way.  Since it is not the only way to do things it is not all that important.  I think a bunch of geeky blog writers at places like Wired.com got fired up over nothing.  Would John McCain really need to email to get something done if he was to win?  No.  Non-issue at face value....Though I think 'John McCain doesn't use the Internet' is a over simplified way to say that he is out of touch with the generation that will bloom while the next president is in office.

Joe you bring up a good point and something that those of us in the 'younger' generation who support Barack Obama echo.  A number of people in their 20s have only been able to vote in 2 or 3 election cycles.  In that amount of time they (or should I say we) have come to see that the older generations idea on the direction we should take as a country doesn't coincide with our own beliefs of what we vision 10-20 years down the line.  While I would hope that a lot of my fellow 20 year olds would understand Barack Obama can't save the universe he is a type of person who represents a younger and different generation.  This has a lot to do with why he is so strongly supported by the youth.  This is also what causes the 'old' jokes and shots.  Those are not meant to really be taken literally (like when I jab JoMal).  Really I think a lot of people mean that he is out of touch with the younger generation when they say 'McOld' or whatever dim witted attempt at making a catchy nickname you heard this past month.  The Republican party, whether right or wrong, is viewed as the old guard.  The wrong way.  Not everyone in the younger generation feels this way but a lot do.

One thing that also needs to be taken in mind is a lot of us were 80s babies or late 70s babies.  We were young when Republicans were still fiscally conservative, actually successfully de-regulated business, and they helped direct America to be  head and shoulders above everyone else on the global stage in many aspects.   As we came of age in the late 90s and post Y2k we know Republicans at the highest levels to be war mongers, fiscally irresponsible, elitist, corrupt, and not speaking for the common American regardless how many times they reference Joe Six Pack or Joe The Plumber.  The values that I hear older republicans cite when asked why they are Republican just do not exist in the top levels of the party anymore.  Really everything in the last decade says otherwise.

don't have a lot of time but...enough to free flow for a while.

I agree with a lot of what koast says here.  Although it really is a generational difference as much as he thinks.  This is what Powell was referring to when he said that the Republican party had lost its way.  They are no longer fiscal conservatives.  Thier "core" has become dominated by the evangelicals...mostly rural America and the deep South.  Basically what Joe was describing.  Just look at who Palin "resonates" with.  And the fact that this die hard core sees her as the standard bearer for the next 4 years heading into the 2012 election is deathly for the party as the Reaganites built it.  Social conservatives were a PART of the coalition; the base.  That part has driven away the more moderates.  Those moderates...as well as Democrat moderates...were ripe for McCain to grab.  But somewhere he lost control and whoever is running the campaign convinced him to pick Palin.  It was all downhill from there...constant attacks against Obama (which turned off the moderates); failure to set/detail any policy (another turnoff for the middle), then the hypocrisy issues (final straw for most moderates).

As I mentioned in earlier discussions I am most scared of Reid & Pelosi.  My biggest wish for Obama is that he rises above petty partisanism and can lead the country.  That he really stands up to the Dems in congress and works for a stronger America not Democratic revenge.  That his Supreme Court picks are moderates and not flaming liberals.  At this point I hope desparately that Republicans can hold onto 42-45 Senate seats.

[Joe Vancil]

The first president i clearly remember is Ronald Reagan

Didn't like him then, like him worse now that I understand how horrible he was...

Reagan was horrible?

And who was it that said Reagan had a vision and a mandate from the masses?  Obama.  And he was right.  In that regard, he's a worthy successor to the legacy of Reagan, as I've said several times.

Reagan was EXACTLY what the country needed in the 1980's - a voice that said double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest rates were HORRIBLE.  A voice that said America was a great country.  A voice that said America wasn't going to sit on the sidelines, but assume a role of leadership. 

Make no mistake, jemagee - we were floundering under Carter.  As good of an individual man as Carter was and is, he was HORRIBLE as a President.  Reagan righted the course of the country, and we really didn't alter that course until Bush Jr.  Reagan was visionary and idealistic.

That's not to say he was without his mistakes.  His tax cut theory about us being on the wrong side of the curve, and lowering taxes would increase tax revenue was - quite simply - wrong.  He put us under a big debt so as to bankrupt the nation that we feared the most coming into his presidency, and left us feeling safe and secure.  I look at his policy, and say that he ran up a debt, and expected us to get to paying it off once we had accomplished what we needed to, but we never bothered to do that. 

And quite honestly, the hope I have for America is exactly the hope that Ronald Reagan spoke of.

In my lifetime, ONLY Reagan and potentially Obama have put forth that kind of hope. 

I take it, jem, that you aren't old enough to remember the energy crisis, to remember gas prices when you had to pay double what was showing on the pump, the Farmer's Strike, the Iran hostage crisis, and the fear of nuclear Armageddon.  I doubt you've seen double-digit inflation, unemployment, OR interest rates in your lifetime...and doubt you can imagine all three at the same time.

If that's the case, I can understand why you knock Reagan.  You equate Bush Jr.'s "conservativism," deficit, moral push, patriotism, securing the nation, and "cowboy diplomacy" with Reagan's.  I can safely say that what Bush has offered us is the ultimate corruption of each and every one of these ideals.  Conservativism in Reagan's day meant less domestic spending - not the pork barrel garbage that we've been saddled with under Bush.  Bush's deficit was for a war and for pork;  Reagan's was for armament, research, and ultimately, negotiated peace with our biggest threat.  Reagan's moral push focused on "Say no to drugs," and actually triggered a drop in illicit drug use, whereas Bush is trying to pretty much stop everybody from doing everything.  Reagan's patriotism focused on being proud of being an American, when we weren't the only superpower - that we would negotiate from strength, whereas Bush's was, "If they don't want to join us, screw them."  Reagan's cowboy diplomacy actually employed DIPLOMACY, whereas Bush focuses on "cowboy" and leaves it at that.  Over the years, people started to believe that we were living in Reagan's "shining city," and not realizing we had still more work to do.

Ronald Reagan was a great man, and quite simply, the greatest President in my lifetime.  And he managed to do it with an opposition party holding the House of Representatives for all 8 of his years in power.  And while the Democrats often disagreed with Reagan, in the end, the people were with Reagan, and Congress relented.  Instead, these days, we've got a Congress that gets in line with an unpopular president on an idea that most people DON'T WANT on the bail-out bill.  That kind of $#!+ didn't happen under Reagan.

In the Democratic National Convention, Bill Clinton said, rightly, that the greatness of America was demonstrated by the strength of our example rather than the example of our strength.  (That's paraphrased.)  Trace that back, and you'll find it was Ronald Reagan that really put us back in that position, because until he came along, we were a beaten nation, and that's how the public felt.

Reagan's America was on the right track.  I'd like to see someone get us back on the track to "the shining city."  I'd like Reagan's optimism again.  Obama might do that, because, in a serious way, I think he gets more of Reagan's message than anyone else in politics has in a LONG, LONG time.

[Joe Vancil]

Actually, I want to chime in on this.

Joe,

First off, I was of that same opinion regarding McCain but to think for one second that computers and the internet don't play a major role of every day American lives is not true.  Back in 2000 I would completely agree, less than 30% of American households had a PC let alone the internet.  In 2008 is has completely flipped, less than 30% of American households do NOT have a PC and the internet.  It is very out of touch to not have some ability to get on a PC and the internet.  Granted I don't want my commander and cheif wasting time on the net but he should now how to use it but if he doesn't I'm not going to hold it against him.

On your other "elitest" point.  You are kidding yourself if you think that's what the problem with the Demo's and the "common man" American was in the last elections.  2000 the Republicans STOLD the election, Bush did not win the popular vote and his brother's state was the key to election and the MOST contraversial.  In 2004 the Republicans became the RepuGlicans.  Using red herring (gay marriage, terrorists win, Christian pandering) and swift boat tactics to win an elections has NOTHING to do with the Demo's being "snobby".  Please don't try to sell that to anyone with a BRAIN Joe, it's insulting.

WOW,

Your last sentence states my whole case about intellectual snobbery more clearly than I could in my whole message.

The 2000 election was *NOT* stolen.  It was lost by sheer stupidity on the part of Al Gore. 

A group of third graders could tell you how a RECOUNT is supposed to work:  you take *ALL* the ballots in question, and you count them ALL again.  What's marked on the ballot is what counts.  If you can't tell, the ballot is thrown out.

Yet the Democrats wanted only SOME of the counties in Florida recounted.  They argued that some people "marked their ballots incorrectly."  They argued about hanging chads.

And the final result?  If the Democrats had done what I JUST SUGGESTED - the same thing ANY THIRD GRADE CLASS IN THE COUNTRY WOULD COME UP WITH - they'd have won the election, if we're to believe the recounts after the recount.  But they fought over it, got their way once and didn't like the result, fought over it some more, didn't like the result, fought over it some more....

They tried less-than-ethical means, and got a less-than-correct result, thus proving the old adage once again, "Cheaters never prosper."  Trying it their way, Bush won.  Trying it the CORRECT way, Gore would've won.

And let me finish up this with my take on this garbage that is the electoral college.

Make no mistake - if you vote for McCain in California or Illinois, your vote doesn't count.  Ditto if you vote for Obama in Arizona or Texas.  And I think that is complete garbage.

But still, we see no need to eliminate it.  The Democrats aren't willing to part with half of California;  the Republicans want that half of California, but don't want to concede half of the South to get it.

As for the 2004 election, the Republicans cast the Democrats in the same kind of poor light that the Democrats are doing to the Republicans in this election.  The fact was that back then, it was all anti-Iraq for the Democrats, and the Republicans made it about Gay Marriage and Terrorism.  The fact that people apparently CARE about those issues should cause a few folks to take notice.  But not OUR politicians.  We just need the vote - we don't really care about the masses actually THINK.  The very fact that many folks WILL vote when the topic is Gay Marriage should be an indicator of something.  Instead, it's a "red herring."

I say it again - a lack of respect that ANYONE could POSSIBLY disagree with their policies and positions.  That doesn't indicate "enlightenment" to me.  It indicates one thing - which I can say about BOTH political parties - a genuine disconnect from WHO the American people are, what they believe and value, and an over-inflated sense of self pride.

Some of that air is going to get taken out of the Republican Party this election.  But that same mandate that the Republicans had in 2000 is going to be handed to the Democrats.  If they turn into the windbags that the Republicans turned out to be, their end will be similar.

[JoMal]

Okay, WOW, that's the first time I've heard Mondale and Ferraro refered to as "Fritz and Tits."

The fact that this is literally the first time I've heard that is just plain sad, because that's freakin' hilarious!

Its not original, nor complete. The entire phrase should be "Fritz and Tits and Tyler too"

[Joe Vancil]

As I mentioned in earlier discussions I am most scared of Reid & Pelosi.  My biggest wish for Obama is that he rises above petty partisanism and can lead the country.  That he really stands up to the Dems in congress and works for a stronger America not Democratic revenge.  That his Supreme Court picks are moderates and not flaming liberals.  At this point I hope desparately that Republicans can hold onto 42-45 Senate seats.

I'm with you on Reid and Pelosi, and I think your wish for Obama is exactly right on the money.

As for the Supreme Court, I'm actually okay with a flaming liberal replacing John Paul Stevens - who is a flaming liberal - as long as the pick is a competent, Court-worthy candidate.  In other words, the liberal version of John Roberts, not of Clarence Thomas.  (Remind me sometime to detail just how bad of a choice I think Clarence Thomas has turned out to be.  Has he actually written ANY opinion yet?)

As for a moderate on the Court - I don't know that that benefits anyone at this point.  In fact, a moderate replacing Stevens could be very detrimental to the court.  If we could replace TWO of the extremists - one from each end - with moderates at once, perhaps.  But as it stands now, another liberal to replace Stevens is probably a better idea...although I'm still pretty peeved about that ridiculous Eminent Domain ruling.  Then again, I'm not big on revisiting old cases.

[JoMal]

What is most evident in the American psyche this past decade is how distrustful the majority has become of our politicians. This distrust has been exploited, mostly by the Republicans, but certainly by the Democrats as well, to a degree.

The 2000 election, which for some odd reason, Joe blames on the Democrats on losing, though the Republicans in Florida had more control over the results after the vote, was ripe for this distrust to fester. Clinton had been fighting for his political life for years prior to 2000, not so much for his dallyings with Monica as for lying about it to Congress. In the media age we now live in, and who should blame McCain if he choses not to participate, instant knowledge, whether accurate or not, can be had in the blink of a link.

And here is where I blame this instant gratification called the Information Highway - it makes people lazy. Who needs to think for themselves any longer, when they can Google someone elses thoughts, if not tainted research? Who needs to really understand the mechanism of politics if "REAL" issues, like gay marriage, abortion rights, and worshipping the wrong "Christian" religion can be used to attack an opponent? Let's call Obama a terrorist and a foreiger and see how many thousands of people in, let's say Missouri, believe it?

Reagan was not a great president, Joe, but he was a great communicator and looked very presidential and he would be appealing to a certain type of American who thought that was a good thing. Reagan made a deal with Iran prior to the 1980 election to free the hostages, but it meant the hostages had to stay prisoners for four more months, so Carter would not get the credit. Reagan had to win the election at all costs, you see. Reagan send the Marines to Lebanon as a show of force, saw 240 of them get blown up in a suicide attack, which should have been expected, and responded by doing nothing (THIS is my biggest complaint regarding his time as president - he talked like he was a cowboy, but ran away from a real fight).

But this is where history is repeating itself from his time. He got the USSR to overextend themselves militarily by essentially bankrupting that government in direct respond to the perceived "Star Wars" satellite network that Reagan supposedly was workiing on - and which never was implimented. They went belly-up and swimming in dept. THAT was how the Cold War was won.

But what no one thought to address at the time, but was the only thought to seriously cross my mind the day I heard the Berlin Wall was coming down, was that nature hates a vacuum, and the Soviet threat, while at times very confrontational, was necessary for BOTH countries. Having enemies to contend with is the one, essential foundation American Capitalism requires to be healthy. Without war, the threat of war, the image of foreign attacks on American soil, and how that might threaten this government, then the economy, has no viable outlet for massive manufacturing deals, international banking, an intelligence gathering - all of which drives the economy like no tree-hugging, peace-loving, environmentalist-based economy could EVER muster. Nor, apparently, a financial housing nightmare could ever accomplish.

We had removed the known Soviet enemy and nature was anxious to fill that void with another foe - it HAD to for the betterment of America's way of life. And the politicians all knew it. It did not take long, if you youngsters might recall, before we were at war again in Iraq. It was not long before we had "terrorists" around to be a constant threaten us once again. And we do NOT negotiate with terrorists, especially when a deal with them might lead to another Capitalist-threatening void.

It was not long before a highly convenient attack by them gave Bush the Carte Blanche any gung-ho American president needed to wield ultimate power like only a superpower could. And run us into dept to other countries, like Russia and China, that this country may never pay off, to pay for it. Paying companies like Halleburton with some of that money, who have stockholders like Cheny, Rumsfeld and Rice (what, didn't you know that?).

Which leads to the Reagan analogy of running your main enemy into bankrupcy. Since, thanks to Bush, everyone is now our enemy, we are the ones who are being run into bankrupcy. Thank God most of the rest of the world is going down with us, since they are so tied to the dollar. Which probably will leave a vacuum......which nature abhors......so will be filled........by..........

[jemagee]

I believe Reagans demonization of the soviet empire and communism led to a feeling in our nation that it was ok to 'dislike' people just because again, and I think it's still something we see today.

It's my own personal held belief, I've had it for a while now, and very few people agree with me on it.

And that's one of the reasons I think he was horrible.

The fact that he's held as some 'beacon' as an example of 'strong republican leadership' is just something that baffles me...then again, the truth about history hardly ever comes out in the current or even the next generation...takes time for history to be written.

[WayOutWest]

The very fact that many folks WILL vote when the topic is Gay Marriage should be an indicator of something.  Instead, it's a "red herring."

That says everything right there.  Today, with our 20/20 hindsight in full "economic panic" effect, doesn't the STUPIDITY of voting on that issue and ignoring the REAL issues at the time become even more evident?  With our 20/20 hindsight on the Iraqi war in full effect doesn't it seem STUPID to vote on the issue of abortion? 

Most people I know who vote based on their "moral" beliefs, don't even care to know what the other issue are that affect our country.  That doesn't make THEM stupid, it just makes their method of voting stupid. 

[jemagee]

Here's my theory on Gay Marriage - eliminate all legal benefits of marriage since it's primarily a religious institution and then who the hell would want to get married.

The Anti Gay Marriage folks tend to be against it from a religious point of view - so make marriage purely religious with no legal benefits - then who would care?