Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Arles]

Originally Posted by cartman

I guess if he was doing this for the good of the country in a non-partisan way, then why the need for distributed talking points?

Talking points are simply summaries for his supporters to use when discussing why HE wants to do this. Given no one can get inside of McCain's head, it's usually a good idea for a candidate to supply them to make sure those who represent them know why he's doing something.

The genius in it is calling the memo "Talking Points", which makes it seem much more insidious. Instead, if you actually read the memo, it makes McCain look very good. So, because of the scandalous title, the media will be stating that McCain was secretly hoping to "suspend advertising and fundraising" to instead try to help with this crisis.

Sure paints him in a bad light, doesn't it?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

would you possibly think anything else? this page of the thread is a massive lesson on how badly Arles is spun.

And what in the world do you think that you are any different??? I see no difference between you and JonInMiddleGA.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I'm not sure what is more scary...you making a YCDTOTV reference or me not even having to do a double-take on the acronym. Hopefully I'm not the only one.

"Daaaahahhhhh... I heard that!"



(hope this site doesn't have an anti-hotlinking policy)

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

And what in the world do you think that you are any different??? I see no difference between you and JonInMiddleGA.

Now THAT is funny.

Hey Jon! Joo hear that? I wasnt even talking about choo. LOL

Oh and BTW, McCain told a bold faced lie when he told Letterman he wasnt in NY and Letterman showed the feed of Johnny Mac taping his interview with Couric. So perhaps he just forgot he was in NY or he told a bold faced lie. y'know....I dont like lying, nope, not at all.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And speaking of things I figured were beyond obvious (as I was in a post before this one) ... it isn't 930pm Friday that would be the problem with the debate, it would be the time not spent prepping for the debate while doing, you know, what a Senator should be doing such as participating in Senate business.

McCain hasn't made a vote since April, suddenly he's all about the business of the Senate?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

would you possibly think anything else? this page of the thread is a massive lesson on how badly Arles is spun.

So, stating that McCain is "spinning" the media and this thread shows how "spun" I am. I am not sure that even makes sense, but I'll repost what Kodos linked to earlier to help explain all this:

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

And what in the world do you think that you are any different??? I see no difference between you and JonInMiddleGA.

Yep, but he'll keep insisting that he's seeing both sides, blah, blah.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Apparently Harry Reid does as well (see above).

And are you forgetting to factor in a plane ride and all that it takes to get ready for a debate which is almost hundreds of miles from DC?

He had plenty of time today to meet with Rothschild and plenty of time tomorrow to give a speech at Clinton's global warming event.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

McCain hasn't made a vote since April, suddenly he's all about the business of the Senate?

Would you agree with the premise that the banking crisis is slightly more important than whether or not spotted owls need protection in northwestern Oregon?

[Flasch186]

yes

Would you admit that McCain lied about his location today?

BTW, this may be a fun game.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Arles

Talking points are simply summaries for his supporters to use when discussing why HE wants to do this. Given no one can get inside of McCain's head, it's usually a good idea for a candidate to supply them to make sure those who represent them know why he's doing something.

The genius in it is calling the memo "Talking Points", which makes it seem much more insidious. Instead, if you actually read the memo, it makes McCain look very good. So, because of the scandalous title, the media will be stating that McCain was secretly hoping to "suspend advertising and fundraising" to instead try to help with this crisis.

Sure paints him in a bad light, doesn't it?

I did read it. And several of the points brought up in it are wrong. Obama contacted the McCain campaign that morning, not the other way around. And it was the Bush administration that invited Obama to the discussions, not the McCain campaign.

Take into account that McCain hasn't voted on a Senate measure since April Votes by John McCain | Congress votes database | washingtonpost.com , it seems a little bit of a stretch that now all of a sudden nothing can get done on the bailout unless he drops everything and heads back to Washington.

Or is his lack of voting yet another master plan that is playing the public and the media like a fiddle?

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

would you possibly think anything else? this page of the thread is a massive lesson on how badly Arles is spun.


LOLLERS, McCain stood Letterman up and who did Letterman get instead: Keith Olberman. Must see TV.

YouTube - David Letterman Reacts to John McCain Suspending Campaign

For anyone who doesn't feel like waiting/staying up lateish.

Letterman was on fire.

[Flasch186]

Well it's just a Hollywood type. him speaking out is probably good for McCain, sympathy wise, i mean. right? Well Letterman's just full of shit. That CBS feed was from a few days ago and the Senator wasn't ever scheduled to be on. It's just a vast Liberal Media bias playing out. And that wasn't even the real McCain over there on Couric's show because we all know that Johnny wouldve never let someone apply makeup, that makeup tech wouldve walked away with 2 broken arms and a limp....bloody.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Now THAT is funny.

Hey Jon! Joo hear that? I wasnt even talking about choo. LOL

Oh and BTW, McCain told a bold faced lie when he told Letterman he wasnt in NY and Letterman showed the feed of Johnny Mac taping his interview with Couric. So perhaps he just forgot he was in NY or he told a bold faced lie. y'know....I dont like lying, nope, not at all.

Mizzou Basketball, Arles, and JoninGA make no bones about what side they are on. Only Mizzou even tries to act like he has no bias. You are clearly a Democratic schill but think the rest of us don't realize it because you end every post with "I would be pissed at Democrats too". So either you are a complete fool and really think we believe you or you are in complete denial yourself and really don't see how slanted your posts are. You are 100% Democrat and your posts never show anything otherwise. That's not a bad thing, but you make it bad by claiming you are fair and balanced.

[Flasch186]

k

[SirFozzie]

Hell, Andrew Sullivan mocked McCain for saying he was locked up with his advisors all morning, when it came out that he spent most of the morning with Lady Rothschild...

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Hell, Andrew Sullivan mocked McCain for saying he was locked up with his advisors all morning, when it came out that he spent most of the morning with Lady Rothschild...

Today has not been a good day for the truth.

[Big Fo]

SurveyUSA has put up a "snap reaction" poll to the whole debate postponement controversy.

America's 1st Reaction -- Friday's McCain-Obama Debate Should Still Be Held On Friday, But Perhaps with New Focus:

Immediately after John McCain's announcement at 3 pm ET today, Wednesday 09/24/08, that he was suspending his campaign and seeking to postpone Friday's scheduled presidential debate, SurveyUSA interviewed 1,000 adults nationwide. Key findings:

A majority of Americans say the debate should be held on Friday. Just 10% say the debate should be postponed. A sizable percentage of Americans, 36%, think the focus of the debate should be modified to focus more on the economy. 3 of 4 Americans say the presidential campaigns should continue. Just 14% say the presidential campaigns should be suspended. If Friday's debate does not take place, 46% of Americans say that would be bad for America.

link to all questions and data

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Hell, Andrew Sullivan mocked McCain for saying he was locked up with his advisors all morning, when it came out that he spent most of the morning with Lady Rothschild...

(No idea if what he says is right - it probably is,) but Andrew Sullivan has been anti-Republican for about 4 years if you're trying to imply some intra-Party mockery.

He's kinda the opposite of Christopher Hitchens in that their current positions and fetishes are completely at odds with the labels they're popularly known as. (With the caveat that Hitchens is a complete badass who could outdrink Sullivan (and all of FOFC) and probably does most nights before debating his opponents.)

[Arles]

I have to admit, my interest in Friday's debate is about triple it was before. It looks like something will get done tomorrow (something very doubtful 24 hours ago) and that should help McCain. It will be "spun" (for Flasch) that McCain's ultimatum on the debates may very well have increased the willingness to get the bill done.

Now, do I believe that? I think it's a stretch. But, I think McCain is better off for pulling this stunt today which might be what matters in the campaign. In the end, I don't think it will matter much but it's been fun to watch.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Palin's inexperience is starting to become more of an issue when compared with the seasoning and expertise of Joe Biden. Here is Biden's take on the need for action due to the recent financial crisis:

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened'".

"October 29, 1929, a date which will live in infamy."

As I suspected, there wasn't a peep from most of the news outlets on this today. Can you imagine what would have happened if Sarah Palin had said the exact same thing that Biden said? It would have been hammered ad nauseum for days on CNN, MSNBC, "The View", Letterman, Jay Leno and SNL.

[Chief Rum]

I am dying to ask Biden to spell "potatoes".

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

As I suspected, there wasn't a peep from most of the news outlets on this today. Can you imagine what would have happened if Sarah Palin had said the exact same thing that Biden said? It would have been hammered ad nauseum for days on CNN, MSNBC, "The View", Letterman, Jay Leno and SNL.

The only person I saw hammer it was Jon Stewart.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

As I suspected, there wasn't a peep from most of the news outlets on this today. Can you imagine what would have happened if Sarah Palin had said the exact same thing that Biden said? It would have been hammered ad nauseum for days on CNN, MSNBC, "The View", Letterman, Jay Leno and SNL.

Yup. It is really a pretty sad statement. FDR went on TV during the Great Depression? Wow. So much wrong in one little statement.

[GrantDawg]

Good article on how this whole bail-out is a bit of a catch-22 for McCain:

First thoughts on McCain’s call to delay presidential debates

Wednesday, September 24, 2008, 03:17 PM
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Republican John McCain says he’s directed his staff to work with Barack Obama’s campaign and the presidential debate commission to delay Friday’s debate — because of the economic crisis.
Read the building story here.
“It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the administration’s proposal,” McCain said. “I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time,” McCain said.
Not to be too cynical, but here’s McCain’s dilemma:
Yes, the topic of Friday’s debate is national security, as many of you have pointed out. But given the attention that the Wall Street situation has earned, it would be unrealistic not to expect the two candidates to be questioned about it. At some point, the economy is a national security issue.
Opposition is building among conservative Republicans to a federal bailout. Newt Gingrich is among the leaders. See a previous post here.
Remember that Vice President Dick Cheney was given an earful by the House GOP caucus on Tuesday when he tried to sell the Bush package. Georgia GOP members are among the skeptical.
Presume that Democrats, because they control Congress, will get the protections they deem necessary to earn their approval. For instance, the New York Times is reporting that the Bush Administration is now willing to concede the issue of limits on executive pay.
But Republican qualms are ideologically based, and unlikely to be satisfied.
Should McCain endorse the package — as U.S. senators, both he and Obama will be asked to vote on it — then the Republican risks alienating a GOP base that was just won back by the nomination of Sarah Palin as vice president.
Vote against it, and McCain chances giving Obama the most important issue of the campaign.
CNN and ABC News is reporting that Obama is less than inclined to postpone the debate.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Arles

Would you agree with the premise that the banking crisis is slightly more important than whether or not spotted owls need protection in northwestern Oregon?

I'm sure that's all they've voted on since April. Good argument.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

I guess if he was doing this for the good of the country in a non-partisan way, then why the need for distributed talking points?

Because give or take at least half the country is too f'n stupid to tie their own shoes? And believe me, "half" is being far more generous than I really believe. You want to get an idea across to the masses, you better be able to boil it down to a few points on about a 3rd to 5th grade level or you're SOL.

Along with that cheery thought, re: the USA Today poll on debategate reaction, it'll be interesting to see what the final combined rating for the debate turns out to be. And then of that number, how many do you believe will actually have their vote influenced by anything that happens in the debate?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

Would you agree with the premise that the banking crisis is slightly more important than whether or not spotted owls need protection in northwestern Oregon?

How about the G.I. Bill?

Besides, McCain's a self-professed non-expert on the economy. He holds no positions on the relevant committees. What, exactly, is he going to add to the drafting of such a bill?

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

As I suspected, there wasn't a peep from most of the news outlets on this today. Can you imagine what would have happened if Sarah Palin had said the exact same thing that Biden said? It would have been hammered ad nauseum for days on CNN, MSNBC, "The View", Letterman, Jay Leno and SNL.

It makes Biden look more like a regular joe, you know, somebody you could have a beer with. Contrast that to an elitist rock star celebrity candidate like Sarah Palin who would probably be too busy traveling around the country meeting the likes of Bono. That just doesn't connect to my small-town, blue-collar values.

[flere-imsaho]

Palin being interviewed by Katie Couric: Cringeworthy.

Just... wow.

Heh, just watched the SNL Tina Fey-as-Sarah Palin skit. I'd bet good money Fey would have done better in that interview than Palin.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

As I suspected, there wasn't a peep from most of the news outlets on this today. Can you imagine what would have happened if Sarah Palin had said the exact same thing that Biden said? It would have been hammered ad nauseum for days on CNN, MSNBC, "The View", Letterman, Jay Leno and SNL.

I agree with you but like Obama, when you get an aura of being a 'rock star' youre treated differently. Biden and McCain arent thought of in that way, IMO.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

The only person I saw hammer it was Jon Stewart.

Indeed he was:

Joe Versus the Volcano | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by panerd

Mizzou Basketball, Arles, and JoninGA make no bones about what side they are on. Only Mizzou even tries to act like he has no bias.

Uhhhhh, I've stated that I'm a moderate Republican (read: don't believe a word of the moral right, but I'm very conservative on economic policy) and have said that I'm probably going to vote McCain. I think that's a pretty clear indication of where my bias lies.

I think that continues to be one of the main differences between the two sides. The general conservatives don't try to hide in any way what their leanings are, whereas posters like Flasch and JPhillips who have obvious leanings indirectly talk out of one side of their mouth about the virtues of liberal policy while preaching an 'unbias' search for the truth out of the other side. Someone needs to tell them that "Don't ask, don't tell" applies to gays, not liberals. It's OK to come out of the closet.

FWIW.....I think the McCain move is mostly political maneuvering, but the Obama camp needs to maintain their focus on the issues. Oh, and they need to tell Harry Reid to shut the hell up before he f#@$s up Obama's plan to handle this situation. Unbelievable.

Amazing contrast in interviews by Katy Couric. She had the flamethrower out for Palin. I'd note that there's nothing inherently wrong with putting Palin's feet to the fire. Voters need to see how she handles the situation. With that said, where were the similar questions when Biden was interviewed earlier this month? It was blatently obvious what was going on to anyone who watched both of those interviews.

[JPhillips]

I don't try to hide my beliefs, I just expect people to have evidence before stating "facts" and that they hold their side to the same standard as their opponent.

As for Katie Couric, seriously when did all the Republicans become such whiny pussies? Katie Couric is too mean for an interview? All you need now is for Harry Smith to bring out the flamethrower and you'll be 0-3 with former morning show anchors. Who would be an acceptable interviewer, Mike Greenberg?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

...posters ... who have obvious leanings indirectly talk out of one side of their mouth about the virtues of liberal policy while preaching an 'unbias' search for the truth out of the other side.

And Dan Rather thought he & his cronies represented "the center". This really isn't anything new.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't try to hide my beliefs, I just expect people to have evidence before stating "facts" and that they hold their side to the same standard as their opponent.

As for Katie Couric, seriously when did all the Republicans become such whiny pussies? Katie Couric is too mean for an interview? All you need now is for Harry Smith to bring out the flamethrower and you'll be 0-3 with former morning show anchors. Who would be an acceptable interviewer, Mike Greenberg?

I noticed you didn't address the creampuffs that she tossed Biden. There were certainly plenty of lobbying issues related to his son along with his numerous 'Biden' moment where she could have taken him to task, but that obviously wasn't in the cards.

I suppose that name-calling is now a full representation of the 'facts' in the discussion. Well done.

[JPhillips]

What were the tough questions she asked Palin? What was out of bounds? What I saw was a pretty soft interview, but one where Palin couldn't provide the boilerplate answers that should be second nature for a VP candidate. It isn't Katie Couric's fault if Palin is laughably unprepared for a simple interview.

Just so I can keep my fantasy team up to date, was Couric meaner than Gibson?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Arles

As to the debate, I think it's a wise move for McCain. They will not get postponed, the democrats would storm the capital with torches as they all feel Obama will roll him. He makes it look like both him and Palin aren't ready (also postponing the VP debate) - which once again sets up the low expectations gambit. Then, he will reluctantly take the debate, appear very statesmen-like while Obama ends up looking like the eager politician more interesting in gaining an advantage in the election than helping the country.

I think the expectations angle hasn't been played up enough on this. I think you hit the nail right on the head. We've been talking about this for a while (the line about Grandpa Simpson vs Denzel Washington comes to mind) and debates are all about expectations. This just lowers the bar a little more for McCain.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm not so sure this will affect the campaign in any way, but just another perfect example of what stupid sounds like.......

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Alcee Hastings: Anyone who hunts moose “don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks”

Rep. Alcee Hastings told an audience of Jewish Democrats Wednesday that they should be wary of Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin because “anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks.”

“If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention,” Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida said at a panel about the shared agenda of Jewish and African-American Democrats Wednesday. Hastings, who is African-American, was explaining what he intended to tell his Jewish constituents about the presidential race. “Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through,” Hastings added as the room erupted in laughter and applause.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Indeed he was:

Joe Versus the Volcano | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

I really like Joe Biden but he does have foot-in-mouth syndrome sometimes. And, yes, Jon Stewart did go after him last night but that's not exactly the news media.

SI

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What were the tough questions she asked Palin? What was out of bounds? What I saw was a pretty soft interview, but one where Palin couldn't provide the boilerplate answers that should be second nature for a VP candidate. It isn't Katie Couric's fault if Palin is laughably unprepared for a simple interview.

Just so I can keep my fantasy team up to date, was Couric meaner than Gibson?

Those mean reporters are making Sarah Palin look bad!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What were the tough questions she asked Palin? What was out of bounds? What I saw was a pretty soft interview, but one where Palin couldn't provide the boilerplate answers that should be second nature for a VP candidate. It isn't Katie Couric's fault if Palin is laughably unprepared for a simple interview.

Just so I can keep my fantasy team up to date, was Couric meaner than Gibson?

First, as you appear to be confused, the argument is not that the Palin interview was unfair in any way. The argument is that the quality of questions in the Biden interview wasn't even remotely as good or tough as the Palin questions. Biden got a free pass and I'm sure he was happy about it.

Here's the lists of questions that were asked of Palin and Biden. While I am certainly under no illusion that JPhillips will yield any sort of ground in admitting the obvious difference in tone between these two articles and how different the results would have been if the questions for each candidate would have been, I certainly think the comparison is worth the time for those that are interested.

First, the Palin interview.........

One-On-One With Sarah Palin, CBS Evening News Anchor Katie Couric Interviews Alaska's Governor On The Ailing Economy - CBS News

Couric: Did Rick Davis receive payments from Fannie/Freddie Mac as recently as last month?

Couric: But he still has a stake in the company so isn't that a conflict of interest?

Couric: Do you support the government bailout?

After Palin said, "(The Senate) is waiting to see if John McCain will be able to see these amendments implemented in Paulson's proposal."

Couric: Why do you say that? Why are they waiting for John McCain and not Barack Obama?

Couric: But polls have shown that Sen. Obama has actually gotten a boost as a result of this latest crisis, with more people feeling that he can handle the situation better than John McCain.

Couric: If this doesn't pass, do you think there's a risk of another Great Depression?

Couric: Would you support a moratorium on foreclosures to help average Americans keep their homes?

Couric: So you haven't decided whether you'll support it or not?

Couric: What are the pros and cons of it do you think?

Couric: By consumers, you're saying?

Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Next, the Biden interview.........

Behind The Scenes With Joe Biden, CBS News Anchor Katie Couric Spends The Day With The Democratic VP Nominee - CBS News

"You say what's on your mind. Have you found that you have to be uber-careful and disciplined in terms of being out there on the campaign trail?"

"Polls show that Sen. McCain and Sarah Palin are making inroads among white female voters who are less educated. Is that true?"

"How is it preparing for the debates?"

"Are you worried that you're going to have to pull your punches a bit because of her gender and you don't want to seem like you're bullying her? It's a different dynamic when it's a male/female thing, isn't it?"

"Are you disappointed with the tone of the campaign? The 'lipstick on the pig' stuff, and some of the ads - you guys haven't been completely guilt-free making fun of John McCain's inability to use a computer."

"Why did you (run that ad) then?"

Did Obama approve that ad?

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Uhhhhh, I've stated that I'm a moderate Republican (read: don't believe a word of the moral right, but I'm very conservative on economic policy) and have said that I'm probably going to vote McCain. I think that's a pretty clear indication of where my bias lies.

I'm genuinely curious as to how anyone can be very conservative on economic policy AND a Republican. I'm assuming no one who's economically conservative was ever a Democrat.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

I'm genuinely curious as to how anyone can be very conservative on economic policy AND a Republican.

Cause they remember Dole and the Contract with America Republicans. Wasn't too long ago.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

I'm genuinely curious as to how anyone can be very conservative on economic policy AND a Republican. I'm assuming no one who's economically conservative was ever a Democrat.

Simply put, I don't believe in government handouts or income redistribution. I'm a big fan of the flat tax with no exceptions/loopholes. That includes a full revoking of the estate tax. Most all of those issues lie on the conservative side of the line, so I generally support the Republican candidates more often than not.

[Fighter of Foo]

So how would you classify the prescription drug benefit and current finance bailout? That's explicit income redistribution right there.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

So how would you classify the prescription drug benefit and current finance bailout? That's explicit income redistribution right there.

I'm not a supporter of either of them. In the long term, both of them help the wealthier class rather than the average citizen IMO.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm not so sure this will affect the campaign in any way, but just another perfect example of what stupid sounds like.......

Stereotypes are just easier and save everyone time!

[Fighter of Foo]

OK last question If Republicans led and did these things that you're against (and IMO they're really BIG things), why support them with your vote? NOT arguing that the Dems are better, worse or indifferent, but if you support someone who says they believe in X and then goes and does the opposite, that seems like the worst of both worlds.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

OK last question If Republicans led and did these things that you're against (and IMO they're really BIG things), why support them with your vote? NOT arguing that the Dems are better, worse or indifferent, but if you support someone who says they believe in X and then goes and does the opposite, that seems like the worst of both worlds.

Well, if I used that logic to vote, I wouldn't vote for anyone.

My assumption is that most voters vote based on which candidate offers the most benefit to them as an individual. In my case, I align much more with the Republican way of thinking rather than Democrats.