[Southsider2k12]

Out of curiousity has anyone ever attended an event like this? The closest I got was when George W came to the Chicago Board of Trade a couple of years ago, and I got to see the Presidential limo.

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=46645.73

McCain Visits Berrien County
Presidential hopeful speaks at Lake Michigan College about priorities of cuts in spending.

Andy Steinke
For The News-Dispatch

BENTON TOWNSHIP, Mich. - War may dominate the national discourse, but U.S. Sen. John McCain used the Lake Michigan College podium Monday night to stress time-tested Republican tax and spending priorities.

The Arizona senator and presidential hopeful vowed, if elected to the White House, to use his veto power to rein in spending, especially the Democratic variety.

"Democrats are still addicted to pork-barrel spending," McCain told the Economic Club of Southwestern Michigan, which meets at LMC's Grand Upton Hall. "Give me the pen and I'll veto every pork-barrel spending program that Congress sends to me. I won't let Congress spend money on programs that aren't important."

McCain, 70, said he has a plan to save money for Social Security and Medicare. He promised to spend money on programs that matter most.

He said a good tax policy cannot be built to break the economy. It must propel and support it.

"I won't let taxes get in the way of you (the people) making money," he told the 800 or so gathered, "but I won't use Congress to make money for you."

McCain has served in the Senate since succeeding Barry Goldwater in 1987. He is making his second run for president. He came just short of the GOP nomination in 2000.

The 2008 run has been more difficult, which McCain acknowledged in his comments Monday night. He has struggled to raise money, and there's been a shakeup in his campaign management team.

"I haven't won many of the votes, but I'm not tired of losing. I'm tired of not winning."

The Iraq war did not come up until the public question-and-answer session.

"I was the earliest critic of the failed plan of (defense secretary) Donald Rumsfeld," he said, "because we were supporting a plan that was doomed to fail."

During the day, McCain visited the Berrien County Vietnam War Memorial at Lake Bluff Park in St. Joseph, Mich

[Roger Kaputnik]

If only I could believe him about the pork-barrel spending.

[Ang]

I am a Republican by nature, but with all that I've seen about the current batch of Candidates, I am favoring John Edwards. I just like what he has to say and the ideas he's presented, despite his $400 hair cut.

[Southsider2k12]

I am a Republican by nature, but with all that I've seen about the current batch of Candidates, I am favoring John Edwards. I just like what he has to say and the ideas he's presented, despite his $400 hair cut.

Oops maybe this was the beginning of the political stuff on accident... but oh well, I guess we will just have to keep it civil...

John Edwards is one of my least favorite candidates on both sides of the aisle right now. He has completely changed from the moderate, middle of the road charmer who ran with John Kerry four years ago. He has moved completely to the left, and his platform contradicts his life all over the place, and that really bothers me. I won't even get into the economic ramifications of some of his plans except to say that if you think the deficits are bad now... just wait.

Of the Democrats I have been most impressed with Barack Obama and Bill Richardson. I can also at least respect Dennis Kucinich for his heart and consistancy, even though I don't think I have ever agreed with a word he has said.

[Ang]

Well, I'm holding out for something good to come out of the Republicans before I make a final decision. McCain and Rudy G are the two leaders for me, but again, I'm not completely impressed with either one of them.

Barak leaves a bad taste with me. There is just something about him that doesn't sit right with me but I can't quite put my finger on it. And Hilary isn't even a contender in my book.

Oooohhhh. So many choices. Maybe we should move this topic to the political thread?

[Roger Kaputnik]

Check out Ron Paul.

[Roger Kaputnik]

Well, I'm holding out for something good to come out of the Republicans before I make a final decision. McCain and Rudy G are the two leaders for me, but again, I'm not completely impressed with either one of them.

Barak leaves a bad taste with me. There is just something about him that doesn't sit right with me but I can't quite put my finger on it. And Hilary isn't even a contender in my book.

Oooohhhh. So many choices. Maybe we should move this topic to the political thread?

McCain is fading, but honorable. Rudy is a joke. Hilary doesn't settle right. Barak? Haven't really checked him out.

[JHeath]

From Wikipedia:

Ronald Ernest Paul (born August 20, 1935) is a 10th-term Congressman from Lake Jackson, Texas, a member of the Republican Party, a physician, and a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 2008 presidential election. He has represented Texas's 14th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1997 and represented Texas's 22nd district in 1976 and from 1979 to 1985. He earned the nickname "Dr. No" because he is a medical doctor who votes against any bill he believes violates the Constitution.

In Congress, Paul has adhered to limited government conservative and libertarian principles, often basing his positions on constitutionalism and states' rights. He has never voted to raise taxes or congressional pay and refuses to participate in the congressional pension system or take government-paid junkets.

Paul supports free trade, tighter border security, gun ownership, and a return to free market health care. He opposes abortion, capital punishment, foreign interventionism, membership in the WTO and NAFTA, the income tax, Medicare and Medicaid, the federal War on Drugs, and federal regulation of marriage. He is pro-life and believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned, arguing that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." In lieu of such action by Congress, he voted to ban partial-birth abortions.

The only part I'm confused by is the last paragraph. He argues that the federal goverment has no authority whatsoever to involve itself on the abortion issue, yet believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned?

[Ang]

What I get from that is by overturning R v. W, the Federal Govt will wash their hands of the abortion issue and no longer be involved. Does that make sense?

[Southsider2k12]

From Wikipedia:
The only part I'm confused by is the last paragraph. He argues that the federal goverment has no authority whatsoever to involve itself on the abortion issue, yet believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned?

If I understand him as a strict constitutionalist correctly he feels that the judiciary branch has to make the decesion on this, not the legislative or executive branches. He also feels that the consistitution would legally forbid abortion. Its either that or the writer of that is trying to say that he feels personally that Roe Vs Wade should be overturned. It is difficult to understand what exactly he did mean. Terms like "federal government" are so vague.

[Roger Kaputnik]

I agree: It seems the Judiciary has to reverse or vacate or whatever. And if they do not want the Federal gov't in on things, what about the States? What if a state decides the slaughter (I reveal a bias) is perfectly ok and should be minimally regulated? Does the strict constructionist say, Ok, it is the right of a state to do so? Or do they then apply the Federal equal protection clause to deny a State the power to proceed in that way?

All that being said, Ron Paul seems to be beholden to the fewest, and he seems to be willing to go on an independent path. I like both those qualities, even if I do not agree with him 100% on everything. As Mr Burns might put it, I like the cut of his jib.

[mcstumper]

I agree: It seems the Judiciary has to reverse or vacate or whatever. And if they do not want the Federal gov't in on things, what about the States? What if a state decides the slaughter (I reveal a bias) is perfectly ok and should be minimally regulated? Does the strict constructionist say, Ok, it is the right of a state to do so? Or do they then apply the Federal equal protection clause to deny a State the power to proceed in that way?

All that being said, Ron Paul seems to be beholden to the fewest, and he seems to be willing to go on an independent path. I like both those qualities, even if I do not agree with him 100% on everything. As Mr Burns might put it, I like the cut of his jib.

That's the tricky thing with stare decisis. An activist judge decides to create a new right from what he thinks is implied in a constitutional amendment and you end up with, well, for lack of a better term, a case amendment. I think that it would be unlikely that the Supreme Court would reverse itself, but would instead greatly reduce the scope of Roe vs. Wade by deciding that the ruling has only very specific application to the wording of the state law that was being challenged.

[Roger Kaputnik]

Sounds about right to me.

[Southsider2k12]

That's the tricky thing with stare decisis. An activist judge decides to create a new right from what he thinks is implied in a constitutional amendment and you end up with, well, for lack of a better term, a case amendment. I think that it would be unlikely that the Supreme Court would reverse itself, but would instead greatly reduce the scope of Roe vs. Wade by deciding that the ruling has only very specific application to the wording of the state law that was being challenged.

The court has gotten around making a lot of decisions by doing that, and sending cases back to other courts to clarify minute points.

[JHeath]

I agree: It seems the Judiciary has to reverse or vacate or whatever. And if they do not want the Federal gov't in on things, what about the States? What if a state decides the slaughter (I reveal a bias) is perfectly ok and should be minimally regulated? Does the strict constructionist say, Ok, it is the right of a state to do so? Or do they then apply the Federal equal protection clause to deny a State the power to proceed in that way?

All that being said, Ron Paul seems to be beholden to the fewest, and he seems to be willing to go on an independent path. I like both those qualities, even if I do not agree with him 100% on everything. As Mr Burns might put it, I like the cut of his jib.

I like some of what he says, but there are some points that would probably start to make my skin crawl if I researched much more than the quick "wiki" check I did.

BTW...is it just me, or are McCain's chances of earning the nomination becoming more and more far fetched every day?

[Southsider2k12]

I like some of what he says, but there are some points that would probably start to make my skin crawl if I researched much more than the quick "wiki" check I did.

BTW...is it just me, or are McCain's chances of earning the nomination becoming more and more far fetched every day?

You might as well put butter on him, because he is toast.

[JHeath]

You might as well put butter on him, because he is toast.

[Roger Kaputnik]

He alienated the gop primary electorate by a couple of things.

He is done for.

[Ang]

Too bad. He's a cutie. We need a cute president again. Haven't had one since Kennedy. IMO anyway.


This post has been edited by Ang: Jul 27 2007, 11:16 AM

[Roger Kaputnik]

http://www.unity08.com/declaration/text