I understand the point about being pro life but I never could grasp that, if a girl is raped and becomes impregnated why would she not go and get it aborted. From the other side of the fence I guess she could send it out to be adopted. Beyond just that in the fact that she is of some would say the "fairer race" don't you think that is convenient?

Joel --

It amazes me how the Republican party has continued to buffalo intelligent people like you. The Republican party is no longer conservative. It is not conservative to BORROW endlessly and spend spend spend without concern for paying it back later. It's completely irresponsible. Then to call Democrats "tax and spend liberals" just adds icing to the cake.

Then to talk about "getting government out of our lives" when, under this past administration, we have all as citizens never been more spied upon and invaded by an administration more than proud of its stance that it really doesn't care WHAT the people think or congress or the rest of the world. That's pure idiocy if you believe it.

That meets my definition of hypocrits and liars. If that's your definition of politicians (it's mine for the most part) -- so be it.

Let's face it -- BOTH sides mess up badly. But where we've gone over the past EIGHT years is unforgiveable. To put more of that in for four more years based on one issue (pro-life?) is irresponsible to say the least.

Sorry -- I hate government and politicians even more for the most part. This time around I gotta call you on this one.

To put it simply -- considering the complete and utter MESS that has been made of our economy and reputation worldwide by the party that has been elected TWICE...they DON'T DESERVE the chance to try again.

I'm not actually planning to vote FOR Obama or FOR McCain. I am voting this year AGAINST the Republican party all down the line for the first time in my life and I encourage every REAL American to throw the entire party out.

Maybe if they start over they can reform into something capable of offering a VIABLE alternative.

Thanks for letting me vent. I still love ya, man.

--- Alan

Gonna keep it short because time is not in abundance at the moment.

I am NOT a fan of the way George W. has governed.

And I am NOT a fan of the Republican party as they have pandered to Democrats and the so-called "centrist" wing.

I am a true conservative and wish for a return to those ways.

Given the alternative of Obama, who would undoubtedly lead us one step closer to Socialism, it is a no brainer to pull the lever for McCain.

Liberals, and thus, the Democrat party, has become the party of Marx and Lenin. All REAL Americans should remove the blinders or history will repeat itself. If you think Big Brother is taking away your rights now, you'll love the Democrat's appeal to reinstate "the fairness doctrine".... wow, I feel a chill.

Sorry, but life is a PARAMOUNT issue. If you are not supportive of the rights of "the least of these", you have succumbed to the culture of death.

And years from now, when future generations ask "what did you do about the abortion holocaust", you can explain to your grandchildren that you were just plain ignorant and let it happen.

Love ya too, Alan. Come over to the light side. There is plenty of room, friend. :-)

Joel,

I too have not been a fan of McCain and for a long time thought that we were stuck with Obama (who I personally think would run this country into the ground, and for all you Bush haters out there, yes there is still a lot more damage that can be done). But seeing some of the ads that McCain has come up with, along with the increase of public support for McCain and the seeming incomprehension of the Democrats of why everyone isn't falling in love with Obama like they are, this is turning more and more into McCain's race to lose.

Thanks,

Nick

I've said from the beginning of all the presidential chaos that this country needs to get back to its founding principles. Politics was never meant to be a life-time endeavor. The government of this nation was founded on the belief that it was BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE. Any individual could run for office regardless of background or occupation and that variety of experience would lead to balance. Too early on, politics became an occupation in and of itself - it shouldn't be.

It IS REFRESHING to see someone who is from the people and for the people. Someone who understands first hand what the everyday person experiences from the workplace to the war front and back to the home front (literally in the home). This is the type of change that needs to be seen in Washington.

LIFE is valuable above all else - without it you wouldn't BE.

Short and sweet:

1. I'm a conservative who doesn't support dubya.
2. Obama is nothing more than the pied piper leading the people with his tune.
3. I'm sick of libs worrying about what the rest of the world thinks of us. We are the world leader. When you are powerful, the haters will be there no matter what. They hate us so bad, how about we pull the funding we give to them and put it back into our own nation?

Not enjoying this post at all! However, since this is the first time I haven't liked or agreed with Joel, I won't cut ties.

Also, I haven't seen anyone mention that Palin is under investigation for her firing of a state official or that she was chairwoman, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Kinda seems like a big oil nod to me.

My question about those ads that the McCain campaign has been running -

1. When McCain doesn't HAVE to run a smear campaign
2. Has hired an idiot to run his media campaign
3. And even after seeing what's being published continues to say yes to the slime he's throwing

What does that say about his own character?

I haven't come down on one side or the other yet but it certainly seems odd for a man of McCain's stature to resort to the garbage he's been spewing in advertising.

Joel -- I hear you. I just think anyone who honestly believes overturning Roe vs. Wade will stop abortions is naive at best. The reason Roe vs. Wade was originally put in place was not because people were rubbing their hands together looking for ways to kill babies. It was because abortions were happening ANYWAY -- in back rooms and alleyways with inappropriate medical assistance. Not only were babies dying -- but their young mothers.

I am pro-life. I am NOT pro-abortion. But I am also pro Roe vs. Wade. I believe there should be STRICT controls over who gets an abortion and why limiting them SEVERELY to only the most dire of circumstances wherever possible because I do indeed believe life is beautiful and should be protected.

Unfortunately, I believe the Republican party is big on USING the pro-life agenda to get the judges sitting in the Supreme Court that will vote their way on every issue -- taking all checks and balances off the table.

As G.W. proved, it's easy to SAY you're whatever you think the public wants to hear. I believe in my heart McCain SAYS what he thinks will get him elected. And I have long assumed Obama, being a politician, was doing the same thing.

Until he made that statement about Roe vs. Wade. It's UNPOPULAR and DANGEROUS for him to say that but it's obviously how he REALLY feels -- and I'm ready for a president who will tell me how he REALLY feels, instead of what he THINKS I want to hear.

I personally vote issues. Never ONE issue. That's dangerous thinking that got us right where we are today with Bush.m Remember all his "family values" bs? And the pandering to the religious right? It was for votes. It wasn't genuine.

And I believe the Republican party has been so tainted by all this they no longer are the Republican party OR conservative.

Instead they seem hell-bent on removing checks and balances from the entire system.

Without checks and balances we no longer have democracy. We have a dictatorship.

Hey -- you're no fan of Bush! We're BOTH pro-life. We just differ in our views.

Must be why I love ya, mon!

:)

--- Alan

Joel: I think this is a perfect example of why you should stick to
Internet Marketing.

They say 'politics' and 'religion' don't mix well.

Neither do 'business' and partisan politics.

I think folks can read all about these things elsewhere. Here at your blog they want to learn about "Internet Marketing".

This is what Seth Godin might call: "Interruptive Partisan Marketing".

Sure it's your blog. But this only points out that (a) you have made so much money you are independent of what folks might think of your choices here; or (b) as Alan Bechold said "It amazes me how the Republican party has continued to buffalo intelligent people like you."

I suspect (a) is the reason; and this is now your bully pulpit, right?

Let us not forget, there ARE republicans who are pro-choice, and there ARE democrats who are pro-life. There will always be some cross-over on every debatable issue among people who traditionally call themselves a "Democrat" or "Republican," but hold a different view from what their party represents. However, as an "American" first, people should just vote for the most capable presidential candidate that's most in alignment with their personal values - the person they think would do the best possible job for our country - instead of just sticking with a certain political party. For me, it's Obama. McCain will not be getting my vote. And regarding Palin, just because you have 5 kids doesn't mean you have family values.

one more comment to Roy...

I started my blog before I Was known as an Internet marketer or had ever sold an ebook.

It was always intended to be used for whatever I wanted... and still is! :-)

Joel,

I appreciate the post. It's just fine to show you have interests beyond books, business and marketing... and underlying to much of what you say, teach, and write about... it was already apparent.

When you lay yourself out there to expose your beliefs, people can be quick to jump on them.

Phoebe, as a downstate Illinois person (Springfield), I must say you are padding the numbers for Barak Husein Obama. If you count his years in college government or on the student council, it may add up to 10 years, but that boy has barely an experience that would be even close to the experience required for the office in which he is running. Its kind of like a college graduate or intern applying for the role of CEO of Microsoft.

Consider this, at the point McCain threw his hat in the ring, he had 26 years of experience in the U.S. Congress, with 22 years of military experience. OHB had 143 days of experience in a state senate position, with zero years of military experience.

I was somewhat neutral on the McCain ticket before today, but with Sarah Palin on the ticket, I am excited. I like what was said earlier that it is now McCain's race to lose.

Nevertheless, I am hoping this election goes back about 12-20 years where the president won by at least 200 electoral votes. With Bush winning by a combined 40 electoral votes over the last 2 elections, that brings about division more than anything... and the last thing our country needs over the next 4 - 8 years is greater division. I'd rather lose big than win by a little... at least in this case.

The sad part is, only 49-55% of Americans will vote (based upon the last 30 years). It hasn't been since the 60's since more than 60% of Americans voted.... but 100% of the people will complain.

Knatchwa: I understand the point about being pro life but I never could grasp that, if a girl is raped and becomes impregnated why would she not go and get it aborted.

Rape is a terrible crime. It would be even worse to compound it by killing the baby. It takes 40 weeks to carry a baby to term. Yes, this is a unfathomable sacrifice for the rape victim to make, yet for that baby it is the gift of life. Yes, adoption is the answer in these cases. And yes, it is terribly hard.

Rich, I don't think I padded Sen. Obama's credentials at all. In fact, I forgot to mention he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard and was president of the Harvard Review. Here. See for yourself.

One more thing: You may call him sir or Sen. Obama. He most certainly is not a "boy." I don't care where you live or who you are, that is no way to address or speak of the man who likely will be our next president.

Barack Obama's CV

Education
Undergraduate
Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA
Undergraduate, 1981-1983

Columbia University
B.A. Political Science with specialization in international relations
Thesis topic: Soviet nuclear disarmament

Graduate
Harvard Law School
J.D. magna cum laude 1988-1991

President, Harvard Law Review

Organizing
1983-1988 Director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland on Chicago's South Side.

1992 Led Chicago's Project Vote! push. This effort resulted in a record number of voter registrations, over 600,000 in Chicago.

Teaching
1993-2004 Visiting Law and Government Fellow, then Senior Lecturer, in Constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.

Law Practice
1993-2002 Worked as an associate attorney with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland.

Illinois Senate 1996-2004
chairman, Health and Human Services Committee

United States Senate 2004-present
Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs
Member, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Member, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Member, Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs

Source: http://obamasresume.org/

waw...good for us, its informative. Good job.

I'm going to try this again. Maybe it was a glitch that this comment did not get posted before.

Rich,
With all due respect, my summary of Sen. Obama's experience was not padded, as you say. What I neglected to add was that he graduated magna cum laude, that is, second in the ENTIRE graduating class at Harvard Law School while also serving as president of Harvard Law Review. Where did you go to school? SIU maybe?

In addition, I believe Sen. Obama, regardless of his credentials, deserves to be treated with respect, sir. As much as you may want it to be 1954, Rich, we no longer live in a Jim Crow America. Sen. Obama is not a boy; you may address him as sir, Senator Obama, or not at all. I daresay that if the two of you were to meet face to face, he would extend every courtesy to you. He deserves at least the same amount of respect, if not more. After all, he is poised to be our next President.

Don't believe me about Sen. Obama's credentials? Here. See for yourself:

Sen. Barack Obama's CV

Education
Undergraduate
Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA
Undergraduate, 1981-1983

Columbia University
B.A. Political Science with specialization in international relations
Thesis topic: Soviet nuclear disarmament

Graduate
Harvard Law School
J.D. magna cum laude 1988-1991

President, Harvard Law Review

Organizing
1983-1988 Director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland on Chicago's South Side.

1992 Led Chicago's Project Vote! push. This effort resulted in a record number of voter registrations, over 600,000 in Chicago.

Teaching
1993-2004 Visiting Law and Government Fellow, then Senior Lecturer, in Constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.

Law Practice
1993-2002 Worked as an associate attorney with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland.

Illinois Senate 1996-2004
chairman, Health and Human Services Committee

United States Senate 2004-present
Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs
Member, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Member, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Member, Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs

Source: http://obamasresume.org/

Phoebe, thank you for the good information, and for the webpage listed. I really am afraid. I can't believe that the Republicans would stoop so low as to put a person with so very little experience, in position to be second in line to assume command of the entire United States of America.

I know their tactics of 'instill fear and divide the enemy.' I know that they're trying to divide the Democratic Party and take Hillary-voters. That's the plain truth of their scum tactics, on the wall for all to see. But to think that they're so desperate that they'd put someone with almost NO government experience in a place of such power, deeply, geniuinely frightens me. Rome is burning. And for their next act, let's put a deck hand driving the ship.

Taken right from the website you listed:

"It would be one thing if she had only been governor for a year and a half, but prior to that she had not had major experience in public life," Dallek said of Palin. "The fact that he would have to go to somebody who is clearly unqualified to be president makes Obama look like an elder statesman."

And Alaska is a much smaller state than Illinois, the political base of Barack Obama, whom Republicans have repeatedly criticized for being inexperienced, having served nearly four years in the U.S. Senate after eight in the Illinois state Senate.

"Not to belittle Alaska, but it's different than the basket of issues you deal with in big, dynamic states," Dallek said.

Palin has no experience in national office. Before becoming governor in December 2006, she served as a council member and mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, which had a population of slightly more than 5,000 during her time in office.

Scary that they would resort to this. Even more scary that so many would follow the Pied Piper Republicans down this path without thinking out the possible conclusions. Rome is burning. America please wake up.

God Bless,
--Johnnie

Let us just keep our fingers crossed. The D day will soon come and pass. Then we know who will be the next president of US

Kenneth, I believe in everything you mentioned. I can tell you that, pretty much, your beliefs put you on the wrong side of this election. Let's take a closer look at a few of your points:

Lower Taxes: Barack Obama's plan states, in no uncertain terms, that about 95% of Americans would not, under his economic plan, see their taxes raised. As a matter of fact, he said that those in this 95% group would actually see a tax CUT, because he said he knows middle-class families in this group are hurting. He gave an exact number, I think around $250,000 a year; if you make less than that you'll get the tax cut. If you make more than that and are in the 5% group, then, yes, you're in trouble. He's going to remove the extra tax cuts Bush and his Republican cronies took from America and gave to this small elite group.

Since neither side plans on taking away free enterprise and freedom, we'll move on to the 'strong military' point.

Strong Military: Barack plans on, yep you guessed it, strengthening the military --by adding 65,000 troops to the Army, and an additional 27,000 Marines, among a bounty of other items to strengthen every facet of our military. As it is, our military is terribly strained, with personnel serving multiple tours of duty with poor resources. Think about it -- the only reason that the troops at war got the better body armor they have crying out for in the last few years was because of the work of a Democrat -- Ted Kennedy. Ted sympathized for these troops, and took the ball and ran to get this done for our brothers and sisters at war. It's time our military was taken care of ahead of time, by those who would send them into harm's way -- not after indescribable tragedies.

Fiscal Responsibility: With the Republicans, we don't even want to go here. Even before the war, during the Bush/Gore debates of 2000, Gore asked Bush how he was going to pay for his plans, if he cut taxes so much on the wealthy. Bush almost began perspiring, as he stumbled for words and finally replied "That sounds like Washington math to me!!" At no time in recent history have we seen a president get into a war, without raising a tax to pay for it. Bush raised no tax to support his $20-Billion-a-month war habit. That's your mouth writing a check your butt can't cash. Now, if you did that with your checkbook at home, you'd be writing hot checks and have to borrow money to cover them...hmmm...how many trillions do we now owe the Chinese??? Yes, I did say they borrowed money from the Chinese. Among others. These Republicans are anything BUT Fiscal Conservatives. They've SIGNIFICANTLY raised the size of government (that's a written fact). They're on a multi-trillion dollar spending spree with no idea how to pay for it, except for saddling America trillions of dollars of debt, and leaving that in 'hopes' that the next generation will pay it off. Is this Fiscal Responsibility to you? When the Democrats left the White House in 2000, the books were balanced -- as a matter of fact, we had a SURPLUS of money. It's time we run the wasteful Republican party out -- and become financially responsible again. Your points of Personal Accountability & Responsiblity would fall under this issue too, seeing how the Republicans have so clearly done neither.

Strong Leadership: I think that Barack Obama and Joe Biden will provide just that, in a responsible manner for a change. McCain votes 95% of the time with Bush, so McCain is pretty much a clone of Bush. The only leadership Bush has shown is how to Lead us into insurmountable debt, and ridicule from the rest of the world. Palin? You've got to be kidding me. Commander-In-Chief type leadership from a soccer mom who's been Governor of a state for a year and a half? Was a mayor of a town of 9000 before that? Strong Leadership? Please. Come back after you've added another ten years to your resume. Now that McCain has added Palin, it's totally clear that Obama and Biden are the combination of leadership we need.

And if you want "Change" from the Republicans, maybe they'll give you more of the "Change" to go in your pocket that they have over the last 8 years -- which is nearly a $2000 -DROP- in the average income. Did the Democrats do any better? When Clinton left office after 8 years, Americans had seen a $6000 -INCREASE- in average income. Do the math -- after 8 years of Dubya, American families have, so far, LOST, in total, an average of EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS of income. That's "Change" for you --far less $change$ in your pocket! But hey, give Bush some credit! Exxon's made history-making profits!

Kenneth, I believe if you examine all the facts more closely, you'll do everything in your power to keep the Republicans from damaging us any more.

God Bless,
--Johnnie

May the best candidate win this upcoming November presidential election 2008...:-)

www.United-States-Politics.Drewryonline.net

Don, don't lose faith in Joel just yet. There is no conflict of interest re. Palin's association with the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. It's an Alaska State Government REGULATORY Body. Sarah Palin is also Chairperson this year of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, a sister organization to the one I am associated with. Both are bodies comprised of several states' Governors and regulatory authorities. There is no conflict of interest whatsoever. These are the true "on-the-ground" government environmentalists who are in the fields making sure that environmental, reclamation and safety laws are being adhered to and who are policy-makers on environmental, safety and other regulatory issues. Don't confuse it with an industry association. They are not the same thing. The purposes include insuring environmental responsibility while allowing for a viable industry which is essential to the states' and nation's well-being economically and other-wise. Just because it has "oil & gas" in the name doesn't make it big business. Sarah Palin has guts. She stood up to the big oil companies.

Joel, it's great to meet some like-minded people like you and some of your commentors here. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this all-important decision we all have to make which has ramifications for our country that will continue long after 4 years are up. Sarah Palin is a breath of fresh air indeed. Injecting her genuineness and choosing a person who absolutely got involved in politics for all the right reasons (and has been extremely effective in a relatively short span of time) for a running mate has restored my hope in this election and for our country's future, and given me a higher regard for McCain than I previously had (along with his responses compared with Obama's during the Saddleback Forum -- If any of you haven't watched the interviews, you should -- very telling). There's no bigger positive change we can hope for in Washington than to bring a REAL person, like Sarah Palin, into this partisan cesspool at this time in history.

If you want to talk experience/inexperience, well, okay then. Look at your two presidential candidates side-by-side and Senator Obama should have a pacifier in his mouth in contrast to Senator McCain. Can we even count his time in the Senate as "experience", considering that almost as soon as he arrived in Washington, he started his campaign for president and has done next to nothing of note as a Senator? It was merely a stepping stone for him - a 4 month stint (before announcing) to make it look like he had experience in a national office. Not worth much in my book, and I've lived/worked in Washington politics for a LONG time and consider myself quite savvy on how the system works. He barely got his feet wet, and the decisions/votes he made along the way have not impressed me, for sure. He's stepping straight into the job, if elected, compared with Sarah Palin who, chances are, will not have to step into McCain's shoes as president (though I think she'd have no problem doing so with her executive experience, with the right advisors surrounding her, and McCain has will have them in place). It's ironic to me that so many have made a case of, "If something happens to McCain, will she be able to toe the line as President?" If NOTHING happens to McCain, will Obama be able to toe the line?!!

Before I learned more about Obama, I thought he looked awfully good too. Now he just plain scares me. He's too quick to give away the farm, meaning our country, just to appease the rest of the world. We live in dangerous times and require a decisive president of deep convictions who KNOWS what he believes (not a puppet with a prompter -- again, watch the Saddleback interviews and then tell me which candidate really knows what he believes and thinks -- who is decisive and strong in leadership). We also need a president who isn't afraid of offending France or Germany or whomever by doing the right thing for HIS/HER country and acting decisively. Obama's economic thinking isn't even reasonable and rational sometimes, and he makes a lot of promises to control things he can's possibly control (other countries and terrorists, for example, by declaring to seek disarming of the world from muclear threats, or the housing market (short of injecting truly socialist/communist controls over our free market...SCARY)). There, I went and said it out loud!

Then there's the fact, as Joel stated earlier, that Obama is a Marxist, not a Democrat. Someone commented that the Republican party isn't the Republican party any more. Perhaps there's some truth in that. The new Democrats look and act more like socialists and Marxists (I'm glad I saw the light changing parties years ago. She ain't what she used to be!), and perhaps the Republican party today has a bit of the old Democratic party tinge to it, but that's okay.

It's sad that so many have become so partisan and, well, angry and downright hateful. Leave partisanship behind and just look at the facts. Then decide, however you will. In order to get facts, however, you can't rely on the media anymore, but must do your own research. The media is so horrendously biased that you have to take everything they say/write with a grain of salt and investigate it for yourself. Don't vote for a party, vote for a candidate and his/her ideas and stance on the issues. Don't start quoting accusations before they're proven either as though they are fact, whether it be about Obama or Palin or whomever. Anyone can SAY anything. Wait until the truth comes forth. Eventually it will. The recent example of the rumours that Sarah's Baby Trig was actually her daughter's baby is one ridiculous example of that -- like that can't be proven false quite easily! It smacks of desperation and deception. How pitiful.

I have a friend who is a hard-core Democrat who won't even consider voting for someone outside the party. I asked her to lay out her ideas of what a perfect health care plan would look like, since that's a major issue for her. Funny thing is, she described McCain's health care plan and what it's intended to accomplish to a "T". Then we moved on to immigration and to energy concerns. That's as far as we got, but I have to say I never met such a strong Republican in my life, and she didn't even know it! There's a lesson for us all in there. I don't decide until I real their POLICIES and POSITIONS in entirety. Frankly, this time around, it cleared things up expediently.

end of rant...thanks for listening... God bless us all!!

Are you kidding me with this? Palin is far from the honorable maverick she pretends to be. In every speech she claims to have "said no thanks" to the bridge to nowhere when the truth is she said "YES" many times to the bridge until it became a big news story. THEN she said no but KEPT THE MONEY and built a road leading to where the bridge would possibly one day be built.

This is just one of MANY problems with her act. She has lied REPEATEDLY without same and I will never understand how people can support that. NEVER, I will never understand you.

How can you you POSSIBLY think she would be qualified to run the country if need be? And don't feed me this line about how "she has as much experience as Obama" because that is just a silly claim and I think deep down you know that.

Sara Palin is no maverick and she is profoundly unqualified to hold such a high office on every level.