One of the latest things the McCain Campaign has been pushing is that middle-ground voters shouldn't elect Obama because it would give the dems control of the Senate, House and presidency. Moreover, it looks like the dems are close to gaining the filibuster-proof 60 seats in the Senate.

I disagree with McCain that middle-ground voters should elect him over Obama. Put simply, I believe Obama's plans for our economy and his views on the Iraq war are a bit better and more thought out than McCain's.

However, I do agree with McCain and others that the Dems having a filibuster-proof Senate is a bad thing. I want legislation to be critiqued and challenged, refined and improved. I also want bills to be inclusive and mindful of conservative values and needs.

One of the main gripes I had with the Bush administration was that there was such an air of "my way or the highway" about policies. There wasn't any middle ground sought. Either you fashioned bills precisely the way that the Bush camp wanted or he vetoed them. This severely limited the effectiveness of Congress and the Senate and a lot of important issues went unaddressed or were dropped from the agenda because there was just no point to bringing them up.

Now, electing John McCain when there's a Dem-controlled Senate and House is also a bad idea because he'll likely just continue the Bush-esque tactics of vetoing anything that comes across his desk that doesn't fit with his world view--or worse, he may veto good bills just because he doesn't want to be seen as being "pushed around" or giving into the Dems. On one hand, I imagine he'd veto things outright less than Bush. On the other hand, McCain has demonstrated he'll act out of anger and spite... a toxic combination for good policy-making.

Put simply, not all Democrat ideas are good just as not all Republican ideas are good. However, when there's a way to challenge an idea and it has to stand up to scrutiny of people with different views, you tend to get better, more refined products that then better serve the people.

I do think Democrats having the White House and majorities in Congress and the Senate is fine because we really need to be able to get a LOT of stuff done in the next four years and any ideological road blocks similar to what the Bush admin has practiced will really hurt us in the short- and long-run... people are losing their homes NOW. People are jobless NOW.

Yet there still needs to be checks and balances and there still needs to be a reality check provided by the Republicans to ensure the Dems don't just pull the same shit the Bush administration did, but where the only difference is that their poorly-crafted ideologically-driven policies cater to the other side of the aisle.

Just to add some numbers: according to fivethirtyeight.com, there's only a 34% chance of that happening, so you're probably safe.

One of the latest things the McCain Campaign has been pushing is that middle-ground voters shouldn't elect Obama because it would give the dems control of the Senate, House and presidency. Moreover, it looks like the dems are close to gaining the filibuster-proof 60 seats in the Senate.

I disagree with McCain that middle-ground voters should elect him over Obama. Put simply, I believe Obama's plans for our economy and his views on the Iraq war are a bit better and more thought out than McCain's.

However, I do agree with McCain and others that the Dems having a filibuster-proof Senate is a bad thing. I want legislation to be critiqued and challenged, refined and improved. I also want bills to be inclusive and mindful of conservative values and needs.

One of the main gripes I had with the Bush administration was that there was such an air of "my way or the highway" about policies. There wasn't any middle ground sought. Either you fashioned bills precisely the way that the Bush camp wanted or he vetoed them. This severely limited the effectiveness of Congress and the Senate and a lot of important issues went unaddressed or were dropped from the agenda because there was just no point to bringing them up.

Now, electing John McCain when there's a Dem-controlled Senate and House is also a bad idea because he'll likely just continue the Bush-esque tactics of vetoing anything that comes across his desk that doesn't fit with his world view--or worse, he may veto good bills just because he doesn't want to be seen as being "pushed around" or giving into the Dems. On one hand, I imagine he'd veto things outright less than Bush. On the other hand, McCain has demonstrated he'll act out of anger and spite... a toxic combination for good policy-making.

Put simply, not all Democrat ideas are good just as not all Republican ideas are good. However, when there's a way to challenge an idea and it has to stand up to scrutiny of people with different views, you tend to get better, more refined products that then better serve the people.

I do think Democrats having the White House and majorities in Congress and the Senate is fine because we really need to be able to get a LOT of stuff done in the next four years and any ideological road blocks similar to what the Bush admin has practiced will really hurt us in the short- and long-run... people are losing their homes NOW. People are jobless NOW.

Yet there still needs to be checks and balances and there still needs to be a reality check provided by the Republicans to ensure the Dems don't just pull the same shit the Bush administration did, but where the only difference is that their poorly-crafted ideologically-driven policies cater to the other side of the aisle.

Just to add some numbers: according to fivethirtyeight.com, there's only a 34% chance of that happening, so you're probably safe.