If the great mighty Obama does it it is just and example of how he will "change" much like the chameleon to better fool the people into voting for him, because after all he is a Democrat and we must get those terrible Republicans out of the white house.

If McCain were to do the same it would be perceived as a flip/flop at best and most likely a lie, because he represents the Republican party.

Funny thing this "perception management" game. A lie when presented properly can be seen as the truth and the truth can be seen as a lie.

Wake up America and smell the crap both Obama and McCain are selling us. Then come November decide who to vote for.

We are at a stage in history that we don't need a questionably change. A change yes, but not a gamble that will take us to God knows where? Obama has been weighed and measured and comes up short on; life experience, political experience and (it goes without saying) military experience. Additionally he has choose to do pretty much nothing in terms of taking a stance as a Jr. Senator. There is an old saying that goes something like this; "the only person not making mistakes, is the person not doing anything.' You might want to consider that when deciding who to vote for in November. Obama talks the talk and does it very well, but when the going gets tough, will he keep talking or take action?

What has Obama actually change positions on?

McCain has flipped on taxes, torture, the "agents of intolerance", campaign finance and the conduct of the war in Iraq.

Let me know if you'd like details.

Withdraw of troops from Iraq. Campaign finance. Gun ban laws. Just to name a few.

I am sure you can read for yourself, but alas truth is in the eye of the beholder. You behold Obama as truthful while I see him as just another two-bit politician with a flash-not even totally new-campaign slogan.

Face it Middleview: The only reason Obama has not made as many mistakes as McCain is; (a) he hasn't been alive as long. (b) during what little political experience he has, he has really done nothing noteworthy. I refuse to believe that you are so blind that you can not see him "changing" his stance on political issues on a near daily basis now. If he perceives his original strategy is costing him votes, he just changes it to what he thinks will work. Obama is operating under the belief of "why tell the truth, when you can manufacture it." It is called "Perception Management". Obama use it, McCain uses it and some people seem unable to see through it. Do you really believe that what is going on in Gitmo (as an example) is new, something that just started while GWB has been POTUS? Are you really that naive or do you just choose to join the bandwagon and point a finger at Bush? Gitmo is just one place that we know about, there are still many other Gitmo's in operation. Gitmo outlived it's usefulness and is being sacrificed so to distract us from the others. Both Obama and McCain want us to believe that they have the magic answer to cure all the countries problems. The truth is neither one can fix this country in the time they will be POTUS. Like it or not the best we can hope for is a POTUS that will not make it worse, start us in the right direction to mend and at the same time repair/maintain the strength and respect that the United States of America once had.

Obama comes up short in all these needs and McCain is only slightly better.

.....Obama hasn't change his position on guns. The supremes ruled that you can't make hand guns illegal. Obama is in agreement. That does not mean that he has changed his position on gun control. He is in favor of reasonable rules related to background checks and restrictions on the types of weapons (ie...machine guns, bazookas, tanks, artillery). If you look into his record you will see nothing at all in favor of banning handguns.

Campaign finance....McCain is funneling money from the GOP governors fund into his presidential fund. That is not illegal, but it is certainly in violation of the spirit of accountability. Obama never said he would definately accept public financing. He said if he were the candidate he would aggressively work to achieve an agreement with McCain. Looks to me like that didn't work out, for whatever reason.

Iraq...when did he change his position? He said, in the early days of his campaign, he would withdraw as carefully as we were careless in going in. He reinforced that thought the other day, saying that we would leave as his military advisors thought it safe to do so. He did not say that we weren't leaving and the idea of leaving enough troops to protect the embassy and any other vital assets is key to a successful end to getting American troops killed. Biden's plan was to move our troops to the desert and away from population centers. That would have forced the terrorists to come after us, if they wanted to kill our guys. That would work for me also. The Iraqis can patrol their own streets.

I agree with you that not all of our problems will be resolved in the next 4 years, nor even in the 4 after that. We are looking for a start in the right direction.

Where we disagree is that you think McCain, after voting 90% of the time in favor of Bush's legislation, would somehow change direction.

Why would you think that?

Talk to ya in the morning.....g'night, friend, rest well and dream of large women.

Obama's original plan for Iraq was to immediately remove the troops from Iraq hence the saying of "cut and run". He then planned to "wait and see" what effect his actions had. Now he has learned that is not a wise strategy and decided to consult with those who know what is actually going on in Iraq, his military advisor's, as to how fast to withdraw.. From what I read in the media he is catching hell from both sides on this move although I must admit it is a wise move, to consult with person(s) who know more about a subject than you do and as we both know when it comes to military, Obama has no experience.

As for his stance on gun ownership (handguns), you need look no further that his time as a Illinois State Senator when he cast his vote to make it illegal for law biding citizens of the State of Illinois to possess handguns in their homes for self-protection. This was gun ban similar to the D.C. gun ban and fortunately it failed. I pose these questions to you: (a) If Obama was pro gun ownership, why vote to make them illegal for law biding citizens to own? (b) After the highest court in the land ruled in favor of handgun ownership by law biding citizens, did you really expect Obama to say something like, "I don't care what the U.S. Supreme Court says as POTUS I will work to take handguns away?" Even I don't thinks that Obama would shoot himself in the foot (politically speaking of course) in that manner.Additionally, Obama has a voting record as a State Senator, of being very easy on criminals and ducking key issues by voting "PRESENT" which is the equivalent of "I don't want to get involved.' All you need to do is check the websites on his voting record as a Illinois State Senator for confirmation. Read the article attached to this and you will see an illustration of his "change" of various policies. All I am saying is that as a Jr. politician his campaign is in a constant state of flux as he will be as POTUS because if for no other reason, he is having to learn as he goes. As the saying goes from political stand point Obama is "wet behind the ears". I for one do not want a POTUS who puts his political career before the good of the country. I want a POTUS that will lead us, not change is way of doing business if he feels it will effect his chances of being re-elected. I feel that McCain, age is most definitely a factor. He realizes that he "probably" won't be able to run for re-election and as such is more likely to want to be known as the POTUS who actually worked for the good of America. As long as what he does is legal, he would be pretty much free to be a real POTUS without fear of not being re-elected. Obama on the other hand will, (should he be elected POTUS) want his 2nd term and will make sure he keeps us blissfully happy, which may or may not be in our best interests.

While McCain may have voted 90% of the time in favor or Bush policies, he at least took a stance and stood his ground. If you check Obama's voting record as both a State and U.S. Senator you'll find he voted present, or was absent a great deal of the time.

I would rather have McCain and take a chance on getting screwed and be able to see it coming, than have Obama and not be sure when, if or how he was going to screw us. In short I want a POTUS who has demonstrated that he is not afraid to take action. Obama just comes up short in that area, he talks a good talk, but when put to the test on a crucial issue he has side stepped most of the time.

Looking forward to your reply, my friend and the only woman I dream of I have been married to for 29 plus years, but thanks for the thought.

The comment about large women was a joke and was a quote from the movie "Princess Bride" after Andre the Giant had been knocked unconcious.....

Obama's legislative record, which includes supporting a ban on semiautomatic weapons and concealed weapons, and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month, did not involve a statewide attempt to ban handguns.

In February, he told an Idaho audience “I have no intention of taking away folks' guns.” Days later, when Politico asked him about the comment, he said, “It’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally.”

The more you look into his positions you will find that he has been far more consistent than McCain has been. Take his position on taxes. He can't even be honest about it. He was against Bush's tax cuts, but then says he has never voted against a tax cut....

Hug your bride, every chance you get. I lost my wife of 20 years, last month and miss those moments terribly.

I really am confused at how some of you can be so steadfast that Obama has not altered his position.

I saw several times where he said we would be out of Iraq in 2009. Sounds pretty specific and measurable to me. Now he is saying 16 months. That has to be a change.

Then he adds that he will be careful, that he will consult with the generals on what approach should be taken to end the war safely.

If that is not open ended I am not sure what is. I also wonder why this is any different than what W is doing. He seems to be listening to the suggestions of the generals at this time. Are you suggesting that when he talks to them he is asking what their plan is to extend the war? What if they cannot agree to a plan that ends in 16 months?

What about his view of Nukes and Capital taxes. I think his followers that do not see any of this as a shift in position are not willing to do any type of review that might alter their position. I think that is pretty sad that they are willing to vote based on blind faith that what ever he says is fine with them.

I personally think that these changes are toward a position that makes more sense. I am not sure however that I believe that he agrees with these new positions. I believe he will move left if he is elected. I also do not believe that McCain believes in all that he says but in his case I think he will also move more to the left when elected.

Middleview: If my response indicated anything less than an understanding of your "dream of large women" then I apologize for any misunderstanding. The Princes Bride is one of my wife's favorite movies so I did understand your comment.

As for you loss, you have my profound sympathy and hope that I do not live long enough to know what that feels like.

Now on to the rest of the post: You really need to check his voting record as an Illinois State Senator. It clearly shows the following: A bill to make it illegal to keep firearms in private homes and use them for self-defense-Obama's vote "YA." A bill to allow juvenile gang members to be tried as Adults for crimes involving the use of firearms-Obama's vote "NO." A bill to make it legal to prosecute juvenile gang members as adults for certain felony crimes (such as murder)- Obama's vote "NO." A bill to make it legal to consider the death penalty for juvenile gang members who commit murder-Obamas' vote "NO."

Obama can tell the people in Idaho anything he thinks they want to hear and apparently has done so. The facts indicate that he is LIBERAL even by most Democrat's standards and now he is moving toward the popular middle? Why? Only one reason comes to mind, to get votes.. As I type this Obama is getting torn apart by the press for changing his views on various items and for refusing to have a town hall debate with McCain regarding foreign policy.

As I have said in the past, Obama/McCain no great choices. We will each have to do our best to elect the person we feel is best for the job. Me I would like to give Obama at least 4 more years to get to know the real him, before I give serious consideration to him. With McCain you might not like what you see, but you know for a fact what you are getting for your vote. Obama on the other hand is to,,,,,,,,,,,,,Chameleon like to suit me at this point.

Have a good one and stay safe, my friend.

Please find a link to back up the statement that he said we'd be out in 11 months. I do remember that in one debate that Biden said it would be physically impossible to move troops any faster than 2 brigades a month and that even that could be a challenge. Now Obama says 1 to 2 brigades a month.

You think that is a shift in position or acceptance of a military reality? Show me where he said that we'd be out in less than a year. The fact is that Obama has said he'd get us out. If you think that he should be forced to stick to a schedule, regardless of any other facts on the ground....your nuts. Are you just trying to tell Obama supporters that the primary goal of getting out should be considered secondary to sticking to dates?

Bush has not told the military to plan to leave. He has reduced the current manpower to pre-surge levels and has said nothing more about any further reductions. Do you actually think Bush gives a shit about what his generals say? He certainly didn't when General Shinseki disagreed with Rumsfeld on the troops needed to invade and occupy Iraq. I wonder what Bush is thinking now that the commanding officer of the command unit responsible for Afghanistan and Iraq is saying he doesn't have enough troops to battle the Taliban. When will he be moving troops to Afghanistan?

You'll have to be far more informative about the stances you think he has changed regarding nukes and taxes.

All of the research I have done shows Obama to be consistent. If you actually think that policies as a state legislator and as president should be the same then we will never see eye to eye.

The votes you mention are less of a flip than just bills that you think indicate a liberal bent. I don't know enough about them. Just like the bill that Kerry was supposed to have flip flopped on (the $87b funding bill) that he voted for then voted against, when you know more about it there is much less to object to.

Where did you find the text of those bills? If you are going by the NRA opinions, then I'd suggest that there would be some value in reading them.

The problem that I have with McCain is that he is not the same guy he was in 2000. The compromises he has made to get the support of the Christian right wing have made him unpalatable to me. I sent him money and devoted time to his campaign in 2000. Not now.

Thanks for the kind words....too bad you don't live close to Denver. These little debates would be more fun over a good white wine or an ice cold beer.

Middleview I missed that last paragraph. I am very sorry for your loss and I pray that you find serenity.

In numerous of his stump speeches he said I was against it in O2 and I will end it in 09. I am sure you have seen a few of his speeches so I think that you have to have heard this before. If not turn on Fox and in a short time you will see Obama saying the very thing.

I think a Chang of view is probably appropriate. Prior to the surge I thought that nothing good could come from Iraq and thought we just needed to get out. At this point I think that it is possible that their could be a good outcome so I think just pulling out might jeopardize that so my view changed. What I find distasteful is how Obama and his supporters are saying that his policy has never changed. That is where I have the problem.

Although you were not talking to me Middleview, I wish I were close enough to have this discussion over a beer as well. Your points are usually based on details and how you have evaluated them. I think I spend so much time discussing Obama because so many of his followers seem to support him for reasons that are nothing more than blind faith. There are exceptions but when you ask for specifics the conversation ends.

As far as the Nukes go, I will have to look as this also came from clips showing how he opposed them to him saying we need to consider them. He is no dope so to go forward without Nukes being part of the plan makes no sense. He has to realize that we will have to build more.

I'm amazed at the level of support and the feeling of actual community that can come from strangers in a time like this. Thank you.

It would be fun to organize a bloggers beer bash somewhere central. There are a lot of folks here who can disagree without being disagreeable (to steal a phrase).

I'd have to say that a vote against some program establishing nuclear power in Illinois doesn't mean much. We don't know what he found objectionable about the bill.

In the case of Kerry and the $87b funding bill that he voted for, the money was a loan to Iraq and would have to be paid back. That bill didn't pass. The bill he voted against, the money was a grant. Knowing the details is important to be able to judge the bill.

McCain is in town today. A group of vets is planning on going to his town hall meeting to ask why he didn't support the GI Bill or the VA funding bills that he has voted against. I'll see what he has to say.....

Regards,

T.

I will be interested to hear what he had to say. It is my understanding that he supported an alternative plan that the Dem's stonewalled. So he was for another method and not against supporting the vets. I do not know which plan makes more sense in balancing the interests of the military and that of those who served.

I do not buy that McCain does not support our troops. I think all these claims that paint everything either black or white makes it so hard to really understand what is going on. Just as you point out some votes and the claims made about what they meant most likely are distortions. There are lots of issues tied to every vote so to say that one factor is the only reason only misleads the voters.

I am fortunate enough to have a good amount of time to investigate some of these issues but it is very hard to find anything that is not completely tilted one way or the other. The media does very little real investigation so as a source it really is mostly worthless. So even though I try very hard at times to understand an issue I think that at most I only scratch the surface.

Those who have little time or little interest to check on the details stand no chance of really understanding what is going on. That applies to both sides.

The guy with me, a very active Vietnam Vet, was the first guy that McCain turned to for a question. Jim asked why he voted against the GI bill, as well as several funding bills for VA health care. The Senator got a little pissed and said that he was in favor of education benefits for soldiers who had been in for more than one enlistment. He did not want there to be any real benefits after a first enlistment. He also disputed that he'd ever voted against bills for veterans, but Jim had a list of the bills and the dates that they took place. The senator was clearly flumoxed. To be fair, I am sure that no senator who has been in congress for as long as McCain can remember more than a few of their votes. Given McCain's age, maybe it is a surprise if he can remember voting at all.

Yeah, I know...."Cheap Shot"!

Later,

T.

If you can't get an idea on a person intent by the way they vote on certain bills then what do you judge their intent by? Do you wait until they actually take an action to say oh no I didn't realize they were that liberal? State Senator or not, when I see a person who votes against tougher criminal penalties and for a Washington DC type gun ban, that tells me all I need to know about just how liberal he is. As the saying goes; "a leopard can't change it's spots."

As for the text of the bills that I refer to; yes some are in the NRA opinions as is an in depth interview about why McCain voted against the GI benefits bill. Many of the questions about McCain are answered there.

As for McCain not being the same person he was in 2000. I doubt that any of us are the same now as we were then.

Not making excuses for McCain's actions because as I have said before he is just another politician. Neither he nor Obama walk on water and neither is above doing or saying what it takes to get the brass ring. The true test will be when whichever is elected POTUS. Then and only then will we see the true McCain/Obama.

As for the ice cold beer/good white wine, hold the thought as I do travel and you just never know where my travels will take me to. In the mean time if you happen to be in the Las Vegas area let me know. We have fine wine and ice cold beer here as well.

T.T.F.N.