Studies and polls have their place in debate but most of the time they are slanted by personal belief.

Take the so called "consensus" by scientists on global warming. Are you aware that back in June, twice as many "real" scientists and meteorologists met and vehemently took the position that global warming is a hoax.

The Union of Concerned Scientists have been championed by progressives with claims like "the debate is over" and "there is consensus". Their claims are based on "peer review". This group consists of gynecologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, dentists, medical doctors, philosophers, political scientists and "political activists". Are some of then 'scientists'? Yes, but to call their 'peer review' at all valid is like saying that because a bread deliver driver and baker claim that white bread is healthy and go along with one nutritionist; it must be true!

Poor analogy but you get the point....people take things like scientific consensus seriously when in the case mentioned above, it is agenda driven.

Therefore, based on your assumption that "polls are not accurate" and "are used for political gain" (I assume you seek to include "studies" in this equation as well), and to be absolutely fair here, hypothetically we thereby must disavow "every poll and study" that establishes or references a statistic and every assumption or conclusion that was derived from said "statistical data", or is indicative of a trend, or that which establishes a criterion or baseline, which furthermore puts us in a position that neither you nor I can cite any "statistical" or relevant correlative data to support our positions. Futhermore, the accepted criteria by which a "representative sample" is achieved regarding random sampling, number of respondents, quality of data, means of polling and statistical margin of error must also be discredited. As well, this also establishes that, love them or hate them, focus groups also are deemed irrelavent. Basically, your assumption realistically doesn't leave many means of quantifying or qualifying information, let alone serve as a basis for analytical or speculative examination, which ultimately come to serve as defining a "fact" or not. It all seems to come to the conclusion that, aside from perception, nothing means anything. Unless relevant value is applied to information, thereby establishing relevant empirical data, information out of context is just "raw data". As such, I stand by my citation of said "data" as relevant and applicable to my line of reasoning....

....Peace....

"Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong...." - Dr. Thomas Fuller M.D.

A poll??? Who cares, polls are not accurate. Polls are used for political gain or control.

Several "studies" have shown for years that vitamins prevent cancer; last year a "study" showed that vitamins accelerate cancer. What are we to believe? Studies are often skewed as they are done by people with opinions and belief systems.

For every study or poll someone shows me I can probably find another that disputes it.

"Figures don't lie but liars figure"

Check your subjective "facts":

The Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy was referencing an "Associated Press - Ipsos poll" conducted "Oct. 23 to Oct. 25" as reported by the AP/Columbus Dispatch (Fram, AP/Columbus Dispatch, 11/1).

The Washington Post was referencing a study by the "Department of Health and Human Services / Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)"

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored...." - Aldous Huxley

Unfortunately, progressives want to pick an choose which parts of the Constitution that they want to support. They believe it is a "living, breathing document". That is the way around their agenda.

Now to the footnotes:

Kaiser family foundation claims to be non-partisan but all of their conclusions and causes are Left leaning.

Laura Sessions Stepp and Laura Shaver:

(1) Write for the Washington Post, which is one of the most agenda driven, biased newspapers in the country; just behind the NYT

(2) Stepp is an unabashed Liberal psychologist who has authored books about teen sexual practices. Once again, she champions non-traditional sexual behavior.

(3) Shaver is a member of Think Progress! a MoveOn.org style, Left leaning organization (extreme).

So Nevadarati, we can agree to disagree as your quotes are without bias or agenda

The information as cited:

Paragraph 4 - Paragraph 6: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation per the Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy, released on November 2, 2007

Paragraph 7 - Paragraph 11: Washington Post, March 13, 2008, in an article entitled "STD Data Come As No Surprise, Say Area Teenagers", by Laura Sessions Stepp and Katherine Shaver

....Peace....

Paragraph 1: I provided a documented, statistical and proportitional breakdown of religious affiliation within our country, and then went on to make the point that a religious majority should not give itself license to circumvent Constitutional principles and protections.

Then neither should special interest groups such as gay rights advocates, abortion advocates, racial interest groups, etc.

Paragraph 2: I provided that Gov. Sarah Palin, in applying a religious pretext to her political and leadership views, and in the context of what we know of her, may supersede what is in the best interest of the nation, both objectively and pragmatically, by appying said religious views to policy relative to health and welfare for all.

Health and health care are not covered by the Constitution and I assume that is what you are worried about. Also, leaders for 200 years have governed with the same belief. If they had not you might not exist.

Paragraph 3: I provided that a vote for the McCain/Palin ticket is antithetical and in diametric opposition to everything that Sen. Hillary Clinton represents and would be regressive. I also stated that an Obama/Biden administration would progress the causes that Sen. Clinton embodied.

Progress is a term that you folks use to describe your ideal world. Progress is not always good. Often times it interferes with freedom and the will of the "majority"

Paragraph 4 - Paragraph 11: I provided documented statistical data to support my contentions in paragraphs 2 and 3, which was of expanding on and defining a contextual definition of "reality" relative to an issue of health and welfare.

Those statistics will need footnotes to assure that they did not come from Wikipedia or a left leaning blog.

Paragraph 12: I summarized my position that advocated for a leader whom is willing to institute policy on the basis of objectivity and effectiveness relative to what is in the best interest of the nation, exclusive of a religiously based predisposition.

Who determines what is in the best interest of the nation? How about Donald Trump or Lee Iacocca or Bill Gates. All would be objective and effective and all would find a different definition of what is in the best interest of the nation.

Like it or not, religious belief has unified and made this nation stronger many times. Because you happen to view it as a fairy tale, 70% (a majority) finds comfort in religion. We should not make decision based on religion but that a progressive can't see the wrong in terminating the unborn, especially partial birth in favor of a woman's selfish choice is not a religious view, it is a moral view that is, on it's face how a HUMAN BEING should believe.

Without religion we would have societal chaos and perversions; much like we see today. Most supported and perpetuated by 'progressives'.

Paragraph 1: I provided a documented, statistical and proportitional breakdown of religious affiliation within our country, and then went on to make the point that a religious majority should not give itself license to circumvent Constitutional principles and protections.

Paragraph 2: I provided that Gov. Sarah Palin, in applying a religious pretext to her political and leadership views, and in the context of what we know of her, may supersede what is in the best interest of the nation, both objectively and pragmatically, by appying said religious views to policy relative to health and welfare for all.

Paragraph 3: I provided that a vote for the McCain/Palin ticket is antithetical and in diametric opposition to everything that Sen. Hillary Clinton represents and would be regressive. I also stated that an Obama/Biden administration would progress the causes that Sen. Clinton embodied.

Paragraph 4 - Paragraph 11: I provided documented statistical data to support my contentions in paragraphs 2 and 3, which was of expanding on and defining a contextual definition of "reality" relative to an issue of health and welfare.

Paragraph 12: I summarized my position that advocated for a leader whom is willing to institute policy on the basis of objectivity and effectiveness relative to what is in the best interest of the nation, exclusive of a religiously based predisposition.

....Peace....

Nevadarati -
You still haven't even attempted to answer my question about constitutional sex behavior modification.
Nor have you answered the right to bear arms thing.
And you haven't addressed the taking of people's property by force.
How's your building project going? Get any visits from your voluntary code enforcement fascist?

And while your dodging these questions, you might want to ponder why the government apparatchik allows themselves to provide gambling to the populace, but not allow the populace to do likewise...

And why is it that your government is in the marriage business?

- Just keepin' it real, dog.
C. dog e. doG

Neverandati seems to envision himself a prophet or another Karl Marx. What a crock of bull and hardly readable.

Nor should it be....Peace....

Morality cannot be legislated....Peace....

"Sound governing principles" are those which are realistic, objective, pragmatic and equitable to "all", devoid of a religious pretext and based on the inalienable rights of all. and in the case of Gov. Sarah Palin, her religious beliefs, based on what this nation knows of her, are directly a pretext upon which basis she admittedly aspires to lead and legislate by. When one's religion precludes options by which the health and welfare of a nation are administered and are not devoid of a religious predisposition or bias, then objectivity suffers as a result, and when objectivity suffers, so do people as a direct result of said bias. Therefore, it is paramount that religious bias not influence that which is in the best interest of the nation....Peace....

Give it a rest, Nevadarati. In case you were asleep the last 100 years or so, the Constitution died, and the father, son, and the holy ghost, they caught the last train for the coast - I think they were a headin' to Alaska, the Last Frontier.

And riddle me this, Diplomat Nevadarati, untangle for me your oxymoron of "sound governing principles". Would that be the de-facto taking of people's right to bear arms? Or perhaps taking away their ability to build a house as they see fit? Or prohibit them from taking drugs they prefer, not those the governments sell? Or to rule over the fruits of their labor via taxation, and in so doing make the instruments of government no better, and in fact and deed the masters over citizen chattel? Words, words, and more words, Nevadarati. Let's see you put your words into practice, then get back to us with your results. Of course, that will be from a jail cell, so remember to butter up. And while your there, maybe you could update us on how Ed and Eileen Brown are doing. And maybe you could tell them about how well that constitutional protection works that you've been telling us about.

And just for laughs, Nevadarati, could you point out the specific language in your constitution that provides for the purchase and dissemination of birth control materials to anyone, let alone teenagers who have not reached the age of majority? No, I'm not looking for flowery preamble stuff you gravitate toward. I want hardcore, specific, graphic language about sex. Sounds to me like your letting your religion interfere with a sound government policy of letting people be individuals and choose their own way. Not very constitutional of you, Nevadarati, unless your constitution was drawn at the turn of the last century somewhere on the Russian steppes.

"To be great, one should be responsible for their own actions, not a nagging ninny Nanny to the rest of us."
- C. dog e. dog.

The following sentence should correctly read:

Sentence 1, Paragraph 2: With the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as vice presidential nominee....

According to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Christians account for 78.4% of the U.S. populace, followed by 4.7% for other religions, unaffiliated 16.1%, and don't know/refused at 0.8%. Freedom of religion is an inalienable right, but instituting religious doctrine as the basis of national policy therefore becomes the application of theocratic principles. Bearing this in mind, it is also necessary to realize that when religion and policy intersect, objectivity, pragmatism and that which is in the best interest of the nation become susceptible to theological influences which undermine said governing objectives. And when theocratic principles threaten to undermine sound governing principles, as is the case within this opinion, relative to areas of public health and welfare, it then becomes paramount that we examine and attempt to maintain the secular boundaries of our government as outlined and set forth in the Constitution.

With the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as as vice presidential contender, conservative and religious principles are central to and inherent within the proposed agenda of the Republican party, especially in the area of a woman's personal domain over her own body, undermining core tenets of "individualism", which further extends to sound and practical health and welfare policies regarding birth control, specifically relating to education about, access to and application of realistic, rational and pragmatic measures for preventing the spread of disease and pregnancy prevention among teenagers. Teenagers are biologically and naturally functioning human beings (read sexually functioning), as the statistics support this claim. Within the religious context, the mere advocation of abstinence or the implication of moral and religious stigma (relative to instituted policy doctrine) to pre- and adolescent sexual activity is not a realistic antidote to the exponentially rising rate of STDs and its direct correlation with HIV/AIDS infection rates, or the rising rate of teen pregnancies. The failure to recognize, acknowledge and institute (proactively and reactively) sound, scientific and medically based policies relative to a real, endemic and worsening crisis within our teen population (and adult population) is not in the best interest of the nation as a whole, and as such, is one of the conflicts that arises when religious/theocratic principles are applied to secularly based concepts of government. The framers of our Constitution recognized this, and so should we.

Sen. Hillary Clinton created and continues to progress many great inroads and advancements regarding gender equality, especially to that which needs no introduction, the perpetuation of the preservation of a woman's right to personal domain over her own body, a core tenet of "individualism." To cast a vote in favor of the McCain/Palin ticket is to underwrite that which, as outlined above, is not in the best interest of the nation, and certainly not in the best interest of women in general relative to health and welfare policy. Sen. Barack Obama and his administration will continue to progress the advancement of women's rights, by example, as well as implement sound policies regarding the aforementioned health and welfare issues relevant to what is, in "reality", in the best interest of the nation. If you are in doubt of the "reality" of the situation as described, I offer the following in support of such:

According to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation per the Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy, released on November 2, 2007, in fact, "Sixty-seven percent (67%) of U.S. adults favor allowing public schools to provide contraceptives to students, including 37% who favor providing them only to children whose parents have consented and 30% who favor providing them to all students who ask...." (Associated Press - Ipsos poll via the AP/Columbus Dispatch, Fram, 11/1).

Furthermore, "The poll also showed that 51% of people believe sex education and birth control are more effective ways to reduce teen pregnancies than emphasizing abstinence and morality, compared with 46% who prefer moral and abstinence messages. About 64% of minorities and 47% of whites consider sex education and birth control the most effective method. Nearly 7 in 10 white evangelicals said they prefer abstinence, as well as about 50% of Catholics and Protestants. About 62% of all people surveyed believe providing birth control reduces the number of teen pregnancies."

"According to the poll, 49% of people said providing teens with birth control would not encourage sexual promiscuity and 46% said it would. Fifty-five percent (55%) of women and 43% of men believe that providing contraceptives to students would not encourage sexual intercourse. Forty-five percent (45%) of Republicans said birth control should not be provided to any students, compared with 19% of Democrats, according to the survey" (which "involved interviews with 1,004 adults and has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.")

Per the Washington Post, March 13, 2008, in an article entitled "STD Data Come As No Surprise, Say Area Teenagers", by Laura Sessions Stepp and Katherine Shaver, in referencing a study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which "analyzed data on 838 girls aged 14 to 19 who took part in a 2003-04 government health survey. Overall, one in four girls in the sample, which officials said was nationally representative, had a sexually transmitted disease. The teens were tested for four infections: chlamydia, trichomoniasis, herpes simplex and the human papillomavirus.

"There was a big difference by race: Nearly half of the black teens had at least one STD, compared with 20 percent among whites and Mexican Americans.

"About half of the teens acknowledged having sex, though studies indicate that by the time that they finish their first year of college, more than two-thirds of young women have engaged in intercourse."

"In 2005, the CDC reported that slightly more than half of teenage girls had engaged in oral sex, which carries the risk of herpes and HPV, among other infections. Still another survey disclosed this year that after 16 years of decline, the birthrate among 15- to 19-year-olds has started rising."

"Shannon Hader (senior deputy director of the D.C. HIV/AIDS Administration) and other health officials said a large number of young people have unprotected sex, many with multiple partners. In a 2007 study by the D.C. public school system, 60 percent of high schoolers and 30 percent of middle schoolers reported having had intercourse. Twenty percent of the high school students said they had had sex with four or more people, and 12 percent of the middle schoolers said they had had three or more partners."

As stated, I submit to you that these statistics clearly indicate the need for a secularly based, realistic, pragmatic, scientifically and medically based means by which to administer a responsible and effective health and welfare policy that is, in reality, in the best interest of the nation....

....Peace....

"The price of greatness is responsibility...." - Sir Winston Churchill

Demakowski is a nutcase and belongs in the state hospital. Every letter he writes says that same nonsense. Your religion belongs in your church, not the public square. No one wants to hear about it.

Pretty much says it all.

Based on what Demagogueski stated, we should implement libertarian anarchy right here and now ... which come to think of it, doesn't sound half bad after hearing what these nit-wit major party candidates have been peddling to pander to this and that special interest group. By George (Vreeland), I think he's got it!

- Just connectin' the dots,
C. dog e. doG

No one is 100% righteous and "Christian" all of the time but most conservatives are quite a bit more that way than Democrats.

Remember, Dem's are almost 94% in support of abortion, defining when life begins to justify the process. They are almost 67% in favor of federally funding abortions, 41% in favor of late term abortions and an amazing 88% in favor of distributing birth control in schools.

Then, they complain about the possibility of Rowe v. Wade being over turned which would really only leave the decision up to the states, where it belongs.

The abortion debate is about more than a woman's right to choose, it is about population control and stifling growth and it is about getting a firm hold so that partisans can then decide other issues including when someone dies, what services they get if they are terminal, etc.

If there is a God, some of those supporting abortion are going to be mighty surprised.........

I didn't know god lives in Franklin? Because how else could you know whether or not he is a "true christian" and what is in his heart? For all those "christians" who think that they are capable of judging another person's soul they should read the bible... Only god is capable of that judgment. What you should be called is hypocrites or posers. God is accepting of ALL people not just those with an (R) next to their names.

I don't think you can call the Republicans any more Christian than you could the Democrats. (Nor Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Greens et al) You have to "judge" that by the individual. (Just remember you'll be judged by that same measure according to Christ) Abortion, homosexuality, war, greed, lust... how many of these moral dillemas contained in BOTH parties would you like listed? Neither can claim any kind of ownership to anything that likens itself to a pure form of Christianity, now or ever. You'll have to measure the individuals relationship with Christ by their deeds, not their words. What do they support, what do they rail against, and most importantly what have they DONE? Cindy McCain seems to get it, judging from her past works. Not sure on Palin as I've not researched her background enough (No, reading insipid articles in tabloids like this one, nor watching CNN to see what Wolf Blitzer says counts toward that) but I do think McCain gets it at least moreso than Obama and Biden. (*What was he thinking choosing Biden? Was that advice given to him by a Hillary supporter or something?) Anyway, the measure of the man will be his history and his deeds, not his empty rhetoric to a crowd of voters. Don't link the letter after their names to any form of Christianity at all, it'll only serve to insult God. My $.02

Too many people hide behind religeon - if what Demakowski says are Christian Values in the Republican party - He is sadly, sadly mistaken - the Republican Party is about MONEY - Big corporations are profiting hugely by this Republican Party - The Wealthy are profiting greatly from this republican Government - Our Poor and Elderly are starving and having to choose between buying their medication or food. People are losing their Jobs left and right - Remember Katrina? This government faced the other way when our own where homeless, hungry and had nothing. Barbara Bush said of the people that were housed at the Superdome in crowded, filthy conditions "They were underprivaledged anyway, so it worked out well for them". Under this Republican administration We started a War based on lies and deceit, which had NOTHING to do with the attack on Sept 11th - It had to do with going after George Bush Sr's Arch Enemy at the expense of the American people both financially and in lives.- This War killed thousands and thousands of civilians, Women, Children and unborn Children in Iraq - You call this CHRISTIAN? WOW - I'd rather not be one, especially a hypocritical one!

Demakowski, are you saying that anyone who wants to change the current form of government to do good for the people of the country is a heretic? Or is really that someone with a different political philosophy than you can not possibly practice your righteous religion? I guess the theory here is that Bush, with his do no good for the working man philosophy is the only true Christian in the race. I say until Jesus comes along and crushes governments with a stone, while we still have government, let it be a help, not a hindrance....so far the current government is the latter.

By his vice presidential choice we know that the wacko religious right will get the head place at the table of this supposed "bipartisan" government.

Oh, yeah, I can tell that it really killed you to compare Obama to Hitler. You disgust me. You know who else was a great speaker? Ronald Reagan! How do you like that analogy pal? Ronald Reagan was just like Hitler. And I love how your gang mimics Obama as "The One" and then you have the guts to say that God chose McCain to lead the country. If that's true, I believe god is going to be quite disappointed this November.

I didn't know God is a Republican.

Thank GOD!!!!!!

Obama?
Forget him!
Look at this :

The Republican Party is a sick joke, and the people of this country are fed up with them.
From Nixon to Bush, and from Scooter to Larry "Toilet Stall" Craig, the Republicans have proven themselves to be a bunch of lying, corrupt, evil, perverted, over-spending crooks.
When you look at all the money Bill Clinton left this country, it makes us all cry to know that Bush spent it all.
When the money was gone, Bush went to China for help.
Just think, we owe money to China!
That is the Bush way.
Cheney is no better.
You can't trust either of them.
No one does.
Why are we in Iraq?
The war should be on terror, not in Iraq.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and yet Bush has spent all that money to fight "his" war.
Yes his, because many Republicans have backed off from the war.
By the way, the war in Iraq has cost the U.S. almost six hundred billion dollars.
Bush is friends with Rudy Giuliani, but Rudy is no hero.
While he is often called the hero of 9/11, the truth is that Rudy was a terrible leader during his years as mayor of New York City.
He made bad decisions and took a girlfriend while being married.
In fact, he even wanted his lover to live in the same house with his wife.
Most people would call this perverted.
New Yorkers were so sick of his antics, that they wanted him out of office.
Then came 9/11.
The only reason people call Giuliani a hero today, is because he just happened to be NYC's mayor during that bad time.
Any mayor would be looked at as a hero if they showed their face under those circumstances.
If there was no 9/11, Rudy would have become a joke.
In closing, the New York Post reported in their paper on April 23, that Giuliani spent more than 48,000 dollars of campaign money on posh hotels while claiming to have spent the least of all the Republican candidates.
Rudy is a good time leader, and does it with other people's money.
He is through.
Mitt Romney is done as well.
Mitt can't seem to get his facts right, and will say things to make himself look good.
Red flags go up around him.
I spoke with his son Tagg at the New Hampshire debates back in June (2007), and while he seemed like a nice man, Tagg could not get his facts right either.
The worst Republican as of late, though, is Larry Craig.
He is a lying pervert who wanted gay sex with a strange man on a dirty toilet seat.
He pled guilty, then said he was not guilty.
Say what?
He is another Republican moron.
Did you hear about Washington State Republican Rep. Richard Curtis?
He offered $1,000 to a young man for unprotected sex while dressed in women's lingerie.
This sort of thing just goes on and on with them.
Remember Mark Foley?
Here is a letter I wrote that was in many newspapers and Web sites:

Once again, the Republicans have turned my stomach with shocking and repulsive behavior. Mark Foley, a Republican member (now ex-member) of Congress, has sent many e-mails with perverted sexual content to a sixteen year old boy.
This is the same man who while in Congress, backed a bill that was meant to protect children from child predators.
Foley himself, is a man who preyed on a child with lust.
What is also incomprehensible, is the fact that some Republicans knew of Foley’s behavior, and yet, did not take a hard stand against this until it became public news. If I had a teenage son and/or daughter, I would not want them to go near any Republican leader for fear of either or both becoming a victim of a sick Republican pervert.

George Vreeland Hill

There were more than three hundred such letters in newspapers in 2007 alone.
Many of them in New Hampshire.
There are thousands on the Internet.
No lie.
THOUSANDS!
This does not even include articles, ads, radio, TV and other areas where the public takes notice.
In fact, one Republican in California wanted me stopped once, because I was hurting some Republicans in their elections.
I just want to do my part in helping to get rid of every Republican scumbag.
From phone scams to the Union Leader (NH) covering up for Republicans, the garbage never ends.
But the Republican Party will end.
Did you know that George W. Bush once made fun of the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction?
He did, and in front of some shocked people during a black-tie event in 2004.
He said.... (While looking under a piece of furniture) "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere."
Then, while pretending to look out of a window, Bush laughed as he said..... "Nope, no weapons over there."
While he was laughing, there were men and women fighting and dying in Iraq because of WMD.
George W. Bush should be removed from office because of that alone.
Face it, Bill Clinton lied about having sex, and was impeached because of it.
George W. Bush however, did far worse, as he laughed at the very people who are fighting for the United States of America!
That about sums it all up!
(By the way, this Bush/WMD was part of an article and letter I wrote as well.)
This leads us to John McCain.
All he seems to do is attack other candidates.
His use of Barack Obama in an ad with Paris Hilton was silly, and it made him look stupid.
His Woodstock ad against Hillary Clinton was boring and without the facts.
He tells of Hillary wanting to spend a million dollars on a museum while he (McCain) supports spending more on the war in Iraq.
He wants you to believe that the Democrats are the big spenders, while it is McCain's Republican Party that has spent all the money Bill Clinton left us to a point where Bush had to borrow money from China.
Think about that again.
We owe to China.
That is the Republican way.
Also, it must be noted that McCain even laughed at war.
Remember when McCain changed the words of a Beach Boys song to Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran?
McCain even laughed when he was done.
He thought starting a war with Iran was a laughing matter.
That is the real John McCain.
He just can't be trusted.
He is another George Bush, and you know what we got with him.
Also, McCain's choice of Sarah Palin for his running mate is proof that he is not in a position to lead this country.
There were far more qualified candidates out there.
This tells the voters two things.
First, it takes away the Republican argument that Barack Obama lacks experience because they now have that same lack on their own ticket.
Second, it is clear that McCain is using a woman to get the women vote, and most of them can see through this ploy.
It is an insult to all the women who McCain thinks are stupid.
He would have been better off trying to get John Edwards to join the GOP and team up with him for their vote.
At least that would have been more honest.
The Republican Party is a mess, and getting worse.
People do not trust any of them, and we are all tired of their act.
I am doing my best to make sure that no Republican wins an election.
Thank you for your time.

George Vreeland Hill