American politics

[snikle]

Abortion was a non issue compared to those according to public polls

I have always wondered why it comes up every single election. I have never met a single person who lists that as a major topic for discussion when politics comes up. I feel this is a topic that is only pushed by the media to become and issue..

Said he had a plan to reduce property taxes, so as a home owner I can't help but like that.

I feel this is a major problem in our politics. Most people are only concerned with what affects them and not what is ultimately good for the country.

As a bottom line, I feel term limits is a major issue (but one they will never tackle until we make them) and I believe Social Security will not be fixed until we make those in the government have to live like the rest of the country and get rid of their very very nice retirement system.

For some fun shits and giggles (and possibly some interesting insight), try this quiz at the following link, you may be surprised to find out which candidate you are most in line with:
http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/Pres2008.asp

[BigO]

Abortion was a non issue compared to those according to public polls

I have always wondered why it comes up every single election. I have never met a single person who lists that as a major topic for discussion when politics comes up. I feel this is a topic that is only pushed by the media to become and issue..

Careful with making assumptions about the whole nation based on only your personal experience. I have met a LOT of people who are extremely passionate about this topic, both for and against.

Said he had a plan to reduce property taxes, so as a home owner I can't help but like that.

I feel this is a major problem in our politics. Most people are only concerned with what affects them and not what is ultimately good for the country.

As I said earlier, the guy I was talking about was a *local* politician. Not a senitor or something like that. He goes to our state capital and votes on state issues, not federal laws that affect the whole country. Property taxes are a BIG problem in Wisconsin. We have one of the highest property tax burdens in the nation and are no where close to the top of the nation in average income. That gap makes it hard for people in Wisconsin to afford buying a home and hard to keep it when the economy tanks. His plan is to raise the sales tax by one percent and use those funds to cut property taxes. I support the idea.

[jfrazierjr]

Abortion was a non issue compared to those according to public polls

I have always wondered why it comes up every single election. I have never met a single person who lists that as a major topic for discussion when politics comes up. I feel this is a topic that is only pushed by the media to become and issue..

hi, my name is Joe, and Pro-life is one of my highest election candidacy checkboxes. Now, I am not Eric Rudolph crazy and blow stuff up or picket, but I believe embryos are people too. However, I would never vote for anyone that I know supports Pro-Choice.

That said, I believe that the Federal Supreme Court should overturn Row v Wade and rule that this is a State issue(along with about 150,000 other BS rulings they have made over the past 200 years.) Each state should then decide by laws if abortion is legal within their jurisdiction and to what extent).

Said he had a plan to reduce property taxes, so as a home owner I can't help but like that.

I feel this is a major problem in our politics. Most people are only concerned with what affects them and not what is ultimately good for the country.

Yes, and no. Some of us feel that the economy as a whole benefits from lower taxes. For example, more times than not in American tax history, when the tax rate was lowered, instead of decreasing tax revenue as naysayers warned, tax revenue(income) increased. I believe that higher taxes, especially on wealthy (which I am not depending on your view or the word) hurts the American economy. I felt that way when I made 4.25 an hour back in 91, I felt that way when I made 26K in 96, I felt that way when I made 43k in 2000, and a feel that way now when I make close to 90k today. When I made 4.25 and hour, I STILL wanted the government to stay out of my darn way and let me earn my living without undue taxes. It's not that I mind taxes, I just have waste and corruption FAR more. Likewise, I hate many American's sense of "fairness". Many people want fairness when it comes to wages, but want "wealthy" to pay a disproportional share of the tax burden. ie, hypocritical.

As a bottom line, I feel term limits is a major issue (but one they will never tackle until we make them) and I believe Social Security will not be fixed until we make those in the government have to live like the rest of the country and get rid of their very very nice retirement system.

For some fun shits and giggles (and possibly some interesting insight), try this quiz at the following link, you may be surprised to find out which candidate you are most in line with:
http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/Pres2008.asp

Interesting. McCain came up as my second choice after Bob Barr. Of course, I realize that what McCain says today (more conservative) is NOT what he has been doing over the past 30 years. But since when was any politician been accused of being ethical? Certainly not any in the Republican or Democratic parties that I know of (not to say they are not out there.) Unfortunately, Libraterians and other parties can not hardly get on the darn ballot anywhere because of BS laws put into place by one or the other of the other big 2.

Ditto what you said on Term limits and SS(visa vie Congress living by the same laws.) I don't see EITHER party fighting for change on that front, so all the "average American's" who are so bent on one side or another should remember that when it comes election and primary time.

[snikle]

Taxes are interesting. Where I live, recently the people voted down a law that would raise their taxes by $13 dollars PER YEAR for local schools. I mean really, $13 dollars a year is too much to make the schools our kids go to better? Amazing.

This is the same city that has an average of 30 kids per class, and we wonder why the US is consistently falling farther and farther behind in education stats.

[jfrazierjr]

Taxes are interesting. Where I live, recently the people voted down a law that would raise their taxes by $13 dollars PER YEAR for local schools. I mean really, $13 dollars a year is too much to make the schools our kids go to better? Amazing.

This is the same city that has an average of 30 kids per class, and we wonder why the US is consistently falling farther and farther behind in education stats.

I know what you are saying, but I don't take things like this at face value. Sure, $13 a year is nothing, but consider if they did the same thing(likely will) for the next 20 years. Likewise, what they say the money will go for will not always be where it ends up. As I stated earlier in another post, several members of my family have been or are teachers, including my mother. In her county, a new superintendent was elected two years ago. He gave everyone a bonus. This includes the secretary in his office who got higher bonuses than 60% of the school teachers in the county. Thats just messed up.

As I have said before, it's not (solely) a matter of how much but how it's being spent. Another example in our state, North Carolina, has been trying to pass a lottery for "education" for years. So, 3 years ago, they called a special session at 7PM on a Friday night and it passed by one vote. Oh, btw, it only passed because 2 people who opposed the bill were not in town and were not told about the vote until the day of. One of them had left the day before on his honeymoon, and the other went into the hospital for major surgery. This is the kind of BS I am sick of. Oh, and the money for Education that this was to raise fell short by 40% in the first year. This was supposed to be "extra" money. And yet, our county school board has had bond referendums almost yearly for the past 5 years to borrow money to pay for new schools since they obviously can't freaking count(????????) and did not have enough schools on hand to meet the need. Oh, yea, and our property taxes went up to help pay for new schools also. I mean COME ON!!!! where is the money from the lottery going to?

Is it any wonder that some of us are sick and tired of paying taxes and having some politician tell use that we "owe" more?

[dorpond]

I only care about the big picture: having a safe and free nation for my family to live in. That is what I base my vote on - the president that will assure my freedom and my children’s freedom. (although there is no real assurance – only promises which we know don’t always come true)

I could care less about the "me-me-me" items of the world because after all, what good are the me items when our country is wiped by some American killing gas, nuked, or taken over?

Now, I am not just talking about external threats, I am also talking about internal threats that could end up with the same results. Heck, a bad economy could easily cause a country to meltdown and self-destruct - so could civil war amongst our own people. Too much change too quickly could cause a riot amongst our own people.

Now, that doesn't say that I am swaying towards any one candidate atm; I am just stating what I think about when I make my selection and pull the lever.

[kat2cute]

I know what you are saying, but I don't take things like this at face value. Sure, $13 a year is nothing, but consider if they did the same thing(likely will) for the next 20 years. Likewise, what they say the money will go for will not always be where it ends up. As I stated earlier in another post, several members of my family have been or are teachers, including my mother. In her county, a new superintendent was elected two years ago. He gave everyone a bonus. This includes the secretary in his office who got higher bonuses than 60% of the school teachers in the county. Thats just messed up.

As I have said before, it's not (solely) a matter of how much but how it's being spent. Another example in our state, North Carolina, has been trying to pass a lottery for "education" for years. So, 3 years ago, they called a special session at 7PM on a Friday night and it passed by one vote. Oh, btw, it only passed because 2 people who opposed the bill were not in town and were not told about the vote until the day of. One of them had left the day before on his honeymoon, and the other went into the hospital for major surgery. This is the kind of BS I am sick of. Oh, and the money for Education that this was to raise fell short by 40% in the first year. This was supposed to be "extra" money. And yet, our county school board has had bond referendums almost yearly for the past 5 years to borrow money to pay for new schools since they obviously can't freaking count(????????) and did not have enough schools on hand to meet the need. Oh, yea, and our property taxes went up to help pay for new schools also. I mean COME ON!!!! where is the money from the lottery going to?

Is it any wonder that some of us are sick and tired of paying taxes and having some politician tell use that we "owe" more?

But was the town even willing to give the $13 extra per year a chance, or did it immediately get written off because people assumed they would just keep raising it every year cause they could?
Taxes are not evil. They pay for the roadways (so there are less toll-roads), they pay for the police officers, teachers, fire stations, and yes, some even goes to planned parenthood, welfare, and other services only a small portion of the populous uses. So no, you will not get 100% of the money taxed back as services. But if you are wealthy enough to not be getting these services, like Welfare or free contraceptives, you should be considering yourself grateful. And the next time you see a bum on the street begging for money, you can direct him to the nearest homeless shelter because you have already helped him by making these services for the down and out possible. (plus most of the people begging on the streets are either panhandlers or just need to be informed of these services).
So your state setup a lottery that gives a bit of extra money to education and you expected that to solve all the education problems? Really??? First off, the lack of enough money coming from this could be because there aren't many people with gambling problems in your state (you can always hope). If it is a new lottery, it probably isn't very popular yet. Thirdly, new school construction costs a LOT of money, more than a couple thousand a month extra the lottery would be able to provide. Thankfully these new constructions only occur every 20 years or so, because you wouldn't want your children learning in schools filled with asbestos, leadpaint, and no AC.

I agree with dorpond. You have to look at the big picture. Not just with single issues like only voting on abortion and not our crumbling economy (which you sure complain a lot about for only caring about abortion), but also about the locations in the US less fortunate than you. You might have high property tax making some people not able to afford a home, but I'm sure your area has nice affordable apartments and low crime.

Neither political party is beyond corruption, but this isn't the fault of the party, but the people. The "secret" late night lottery vote is a person fault, not the governments fault. Plus, couldn't the missing people have sent proxies to cast their vote for them? Our system of government is in general fair, it is the implementation that has trouble.

I sort of believe we should move to a direct democracy now that we are nearly at the technology to safely be able to have every citizen cast their vote online (getting rid of the electoral college). However, then I remember that in this country, half the people have below average IQs and Millions would not consider the constitution when casting their vote, only their personal morals. You can be a racist in your own home, but trying to pass legislation on it (or ban gay marriage) like so many people would try to do makes me think direct democracy still wouldn't work, even if the technology were up to par.

PS. It is not in a president's ability to overturn Rowe-vs-Wade, so why make that your top requirement for the presidency? Only the supreme court can overturn that, and those aren't people you can vote for. In essence, it is fine with me that you are against abortion, and ignoring the fact that not everyone agrees with your <i>opinion</i> embryos are humans with rights ( and forcing this opinion on them would require the Mind Control or telepathy), the president's office is not the correct venue to state your dissatisfaction with this. Senators and Congress has much more power over this issue than the president, but even they can't overturn your hated law.

[jfrazierjr]

But was the town even willing to give the $13 extra per year a chance, or did it immediately get written off because people assumed they would just keep raising it every year cause they could?

I think you have a few threads mixed up. The $13 was something I was replying to. However, I can respond to this by saying (and in no way am I advocating violence against animals, this is just a saying.) "if you kick a dog enough times, he learns to fear you." The same type of situation applies with government of any level in terms of hoping for the best and always being disappointed. I have low expectations that someone is going to spend my(our) money wisely as a government employee or representative because I have far to much history to base the bad opinions on and far to few cases to base good opinion on.

Taxes are not evil. They pay for the roadways (so there are less toll-roads), they pay for the police officers, teachers, fire stations, and yes, some even goes to planned parenthood, welfare, and other services only a small portion of the populous uses.

In no way should anything I have said or shall say should imply that I think taxes are evil or that no one should pay taxes. What should be taken from my words are everyone should pay a fair and equal share of taxes and no one should be forced to pay an extra share because that person makes more money and someone else. Progressive tax rates are anathema to a free and open society in my opinion. Excessive WASTE of someone else's money IS EVIL.

So your state setup a lottery that gives a bit of extra money to education and you expected that to solve all the education problems? Really??? First off, the lack of enough money coming from this could be because there aren't many people with gambling problems in your state (you can always hope). If it is a new lottery, it probably isn't very popular yet. Thirdly, new school construction costs a LOT of money, more than a couple thousand a month extra the lottery would be able to provide. Thankfully these new constructions only occur every 20 years or so, because you wouldn't want your children learning in schools filled with asbestos, leadpaint, and no AC.

Nope, our County leaders have fallen short on growth projections pretty much for the past 15 years. Not by 30 or 40 students, but buy 3-4 thousand each year. Kids enroll and there are not enough classrooms. Actually, the lottery did do semi ok in it's first year, far short of projections but over all, I would not complain to have 300 million in profit in a year as they did (projected 450 million.)

I agree with dorpond. You have to look at the big picture. Not just with single issues like only voting on abortion and not our crumbling economy (which you sure complain a lot about for only caring about abortion), but also about the locations in the US less fortunate than you. You might have high property tax making some people not able to afford a home, but I'm sure your area has nice affordable apartments and low crime.

Neither political party is beyond corruption, but this isn't the fault of the party, but the people. The "secret" late night lottery vote is a person fault, not the governments fault. Plus, couldn't the missing people have sent proxies to cast their vote for them? Our system of government is in general fair, it is the implementation that has trouble.

You are right about that. But, in our state for example, the same party has held both branches of the state legislature for over 100 years and likewise holds the Governors office the vast majority of the time. As for the proxies, I have no idea if our state allows such things, but I rather doubt it otherwise a) the two missing would have used it and b) the leaders who did the underhanded technique would not have chanced it. The minority party can't even prove they are better as they are never given the chance to take the leadership role. There have been 10+ trials in the past 10 years or so and everyone of the offenders belonged to the same political party. I am not about the say the other party can do no wrong as that would just be a silly assertion, but the fact remains that our citizens keep putting crooks into office. Another example is 2 years ago, the speaker of the house was under investigation for misconduct. He was voted back into office and then 4 months later was pleaded guilty to several charges. And this was after 4 other corruption allegations of unrelated nature had surfaced (and yet no evidence could be produced) over the previous 4 years.

I sort of believe we should move to a direct democracy now that we are nearly at the technology to safely be able to have every citizen cast their vote online (getting rid of the electoral college). However, then I remember that in this country, half the people have below average IQs and Millions would not consider the constitution when casting their vote, only their personal morals. You can be a racist in your own home, but trying to pass legislation on it (or ban gay marriage) like so many people would try to do makes me think direct democracy still wouldn't work, even if the technology were up to par.

Like you, I would not trust 80% of the people to know what day of the week it is, much less vote on any issue with any type of intelligenly formed opinion based on facts.

PS. It is not in a president's ability to overturn Rowe-vs-Wade, so why make that your top requirement for the presidency? Only the supreme court can overturn that, and those aren't people you can vote for. In essence, it is fine with me that you are against abortion, and ignoring the fact that not everyone agrees with your <i>opinion</i> embryos are humans with rights ( and forcing this opinion on them would require the Mind Control or telepathy), the president's office is not the correct venue to state your dissatisfaction with this. Senators and Congress has much more power over this issue than the president, but even they can't overturn your hated law.

Yes and no. Presidents appoint justices to the Supreme Court. Your choice for President is critical to the appointment of justices who share your view of the world or Constitution. One side views the Constittion as a maliable document and believes we should do as the world does and the Constitution be darned, and the other sees the Constitution to mean exactly what the worlds say. I fall into the later camp.

Abortion is not the only issue upon which I vote. I will go into the polling booth on voting day hold my nose and vote for a candidate who at least more closely aligns with my viewpoint on many things. Mainly, because I feel the other candidate is polar opposite to my viewpoints on 99% of the issues instead of any real like of the one I am voting for. It just so happens that the candidate I am voting for "says" he agrees with around 60% of the issues I think are important.

[Azhrei]

Presidents appoint justices to the Supreme Court. Your choice for President is critical to the appointment of justices who share your view of the world or Constitution.

This is one of my key points for this coming election. I have to hope that whoever wins office will have some experts advising him on selections for the SCOTUS appointments that are sure to arise.

I'm more aligned with the Libertarian party than any other. I find Republicans to be too conservative (losing sight of reality in some cases) and the Democrats to be too liberal (spending way too much money in order to build a government that helps the destitute).

I believe that each individual has a right and a responsibility to make the best of their lives. Government should help those who are willing to make that effort. Otherwise, government should stay out of the way.

I'm also something of a Constitutionalist. I think the framers of the Constitution tried to give the states as much autonomy as they could and they wrote the Constitution to LIMIT the power of the federal government. That's the point of the phrase, any scope of law not given to Congress is expressly reserved to the States. But our (in)famous Congress has found ways around that: You want federal money for highways? set your speed limit as we say. You want money for free clinics? They're not allowed to provide information on ALL alternatives regarding pregnancy. And so on.

I don't suppose anyone here has been to Colonial Williamsburg, have they? It's a recreation of what Williamsburg was like just prior to the American Revolution. They have historians who dress up as political leaders of the time. These historians immerse themselves in the writings and teachings of these leaders and then walk about the restored city conversing with tourists. Very cool! I spoke at length with Patrick Henry about members of Congress and whether they should be compensated for their position, and with Thomas Jefferson on education for the (non-aristocratic) public. I've been there twice and will probably go back again.

My wife and I have become very politically involved. Not in terms of political parties, but in terms of the policies they espouse and our involvement in the political process.

I applaud your ability to "vote the issues". A comment was made the other day about how this election won't be about the issues, it'll be about personalities. Huh?! I surely hope that the person who said that wasn't trying to be condescending towards the citizens of this country; that they just put their mouth in gear before engaging their brain, but it makes me wonder...

[jfrazierjr]

I'm also something of a Constitutionalist. I think the framers of the Constitution tried to give the states as much autonomy as they could and they wrote the Constitution to LIMIT the power of the federal government. That's the point of the phrase, any scope of law not given to Congress is expressly reserved to the States. But our (in)famous Congress has found ways around that: You want federal money for highways? set your speed limit as we say. You want money for free clinics? They're not allowed to provide information on ALL alternatives regarding pregnancy. And so on.

Amen to that. People think the 1st amendment is the most abused amendment because of the whole religion thing(it is, the meaning is no where near how it's being used), but the 10th amendment is THE most maligned and ignored part of the constitution. The sad part is I would guess that less than 1% of the people (voting population or other wise) could even tell you anything about it. And I expect that far less actually understand the meaning and the intent of the writers. I wish everyone had to actually have an idea of what the Constitution says to be eligible to vote.

I keep meaning to getting around to reading the Federalist papers, but just have not have the time when I think about it, and don't think about it when I have the time. heh.. I even carry a small copy of the Constitution in my pocket so I can argue with anyone would "thinks" they know what it says (which, in my experience, most people don't know most of it or have a totally misunderstanding of the words, ie, they put extra words where there should not be that changes the meaning of the sentence)

I applaud your ability to "vote the issues". A comment was made the other day about how this election won't be about the issues, it'll be about personalities. Huh?! I surely hope that the person who said that wasn't trying to be condescending towards the citizens of this country; that they just put their mouth in gear before engaging their brain, but it makes me wonder...

Well, my cynical (which is unfortunately the only side that is available when I am talking politics) side says that the post you referred to is spot on. Most of the people who vote, on both sides are a bunch of uninformed people and have no clue what government should and should not be doing. This presentational election, just as most other elections have in the past at most levels will be nothing more than a popularity contest as most people won't spend the time to look at the issues. People hear the word "change" by politicians and it makes them all warm in side, never thinking that change can be either good or bad(or both in some cases)

[kat2cute]

heh.. I even carry a small copy of the Constitution in my pocket so I can argue with anyone would "thinks" they know what it says (which, in my experience, most people don't know most of it or have a totally misunderstanding of the words, ie, they put extra words where there should not be that changes the meaning of the sentence)

Hey, you are just like Senator Kucinich then with his pocket constitution. He is a really good guy and I hope he runs for president again in the future. He gave a really good speech at the Democratic National Convention. Check it out!

People hear the word "change" by politicians and it makes them all warm in side, never thinking that change can be either good or bad(or both in some cases)

I think it is funny that both parties are claiming to purport change. Bush has done such a horrible job that his own party is abandoning him and saying they will be a change.
"As a matter of history, it is easier to run as the opposition party if you actually are the opposition party"

Getting into current politics: As far as McCain's VP pick, I was at first pleasantly surprised. But as I did some research and actually found out about her, I think she is a horrible choice. Wanting to teach creationism; touting high morals of anti-abortion, abstinence-only sex-ed when she has a pregnant teen daughter; being anti-hate-crime laws; not believing in global warming; not having any foreign experience just to name a few. Sarah Palin is so experienced the campaign plans to keep her away from the press until the election! I read a really good article about her written by a member of the town she was mayor of who personally knew her. It doesn't just bash her like the liberal blogs have been, but weighs the pros and cons. It is a very good read, and has been verified by snoops.com.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/kilkenny.asp

Here is Palin's response to a candidate questionnaire for the Alaska 2006 gubernatorial race:

Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
Palin: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

If you say that voters should be tested on or know the constitution before allowed to vote, what do you say when our VP candidate doesn't even know the pledge wasn't written until 1892. And that the "Under God" portion wasn't added until the 1950s?

I will close with saying if you don't watch the Daily Show, you at least have to watch this short clip. Very funny, and insightful into the hypocrisy of the talking heads
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index ... ender-card

[BigO]

Getting into current politics: As far as McCain's VP pick, I was at first pleasantly surprised. But as I did some research and actually found out about her, I think she is a horrible choice. Wanting to teach creationism; touting high morals of anti-abortion, abstinence-only sex-ed when she has a pregnant teen daughter;

Or in other words, you don't like her because she's a conservative?

[BigO]

It seems like there are several Obama supporters reading this thread, so I'd like to ask you a question. I ask this in all earnestness, and don't intend this to be inflammatory:

Why do you like him?

Honestly, I'm just seeking to understand, not to criticize your opinion. I just have trouble understanding what people like about him. His polices (or proposed policies anyway) are not substantially different than what Hillary and the rest of his party has suggested for years. His promises of 'change' seem weak to me when he doesn't have any experience to back up his claims to actually be able to pull it off.

Hillary at least has a record to tout, but Obama hasn't actually authored any legislation that changed anything.

Why all the buzz?

[jfrazierjr]

It seems like there are several Obama supporters reading this thread, so I'd like to ask you a question. I ask this in all earnestness, and don't intend this to be inflammatory:

Why do you like him?

Honestly, I'm just seeking to understand, not to criticize your opinion. I just have trouble understanding what people like about him. His polices (or proposed policies anyway) are not substantially different than what Hillary and the rest of his party has suggested for years. His promises of 'change' seem weak to me when he doesn't have any experience to back up his claims to actually be able to pull it off.

Hillary at least has a record to tout, but Obama hasn't actually authored any legislation that changed anything.

Why all the buzz?

In my opinion, he is yet another celebrity. The few people I have talked to (and seen interviewed on TV) have no real substance for liking him vs Hillary. He just makes them "feel" good.

[Azhrei]

Or in other words, you don't like her because she's a conservative?

I don't think it's really that simple.

My wife has told me that she's spoken with women who don't like Sarah Palin because of the bad judgment she has shown. There's the obvious issue with abstinence-only education obviously not working (it didn't work for her daughter, right?). And then there's the idea that she's going to marry the boy to somehow make it right?! Many of my wife's friends who are mothers feel that's a huge mistake -- getting married and committing to a life together because a 17-year old became pregnant is not a good idea (in their opinion, anyway). A better choice for an pro-lifer would be to have the child and give it up for adoption. One has to wonder how much pressure the mother put on the daughter to make the decision she made...

Why do you like him?

You are correct that his policies are similar to Hillary's.

Have you read either of his books? He doesn't use his books to preach -- he uses them to describe his viewpoint on things. What I liked most was his approach to opposing viewpoints. Multiple times he would describe his approach to something, taxes for example, and then after describing why he thinks his technique is better he would argue the other side. In about a third of the topics he covered in his second book, The Audacity of Hope, he admits that his approach may not be the best. "But we'll never know unless we try. We DO know that such-and-such approach doesn't work because of the following lapses: ..."

It's refreshing to find a politician who will say they have an idea on how to fix/change something, but can actually see the other side of the coin without getting bitter or sarcastic about it.

And I haven't seen any ads from his campaign that outright lie about his opponent. I have seen PAC ads that lie (on both sides of the fence). My favorite right now is McCain's ad that says Obama would raise taxes on the middle class. Um, no. First, his tax plan is to eliminate the Bush tax cuts. That's $500,000 in additional income from those who make $9.1 million a year or more (on average). Second, after allowing those cuts to lapse (they have to be renewed), he would add a 2% increasing rate on incomes over $250,000. Third, anyone making less than $75,000 a year would get a TAX REDUCTION. And seniors making $50,000 or less wouldn't pay Social Security at all and would have income taxes reduced as well.

On the topic of authoring legislation, that's just blowing smoke. Being the author of a bill is good because it shows a legislator is taking initiative. But there are already thousands of bills being written in Congress. A more productive technique is to co-sponsor someone else's bill (why reinvent the wheel?)

This is a red herring. It's like the McCain campaign trumpeting Palin's executive experience by saying she's been commander of the Alaskan National Guard. (She has never issued an order to the National Guard. Not once.)

If you're interested in researching which campaign statements are true and which aren't, check out http://politifact.org/, a feature of the St. Petersburg Times (one of the country's top-ten rated newspapers).