I am not getting involved in whether or not Sen. Obama lacks substance or not. I find it to be a silly argument. If he has real positions on issues, then he has substance. I was replying (and making the record complete) to your comment that our current President has shown that the President is beyond the law. A more accurate statement would be that the last two Presidents have shown that the Presidency is beyond the law. If you want to carry on arguing with somebody the issue of substance, feel free. Stating that any of the candidates lacks substance is silly, but argue with the silly if that is what you desire. All I ask is that you do so with a complete and accurate record.
and you're comparing lying under oath about having sex, to all the rights this current president is eroding away.
Hmm, no, not really. As PG pointed out, there is a distinction here. One would be hard pressed to characterize president clinton's lewinsky affair as a constitutional issue, or one which touched on separation of powers. Perhaps had he repeatedly claimed executive privilege throughout the whole thing and refused to sit for depositions, it would have been. But largely you are trying to bring in an apple into an orange bin in the interest of completeness and accuracy of he record and are muddling it. Also I need to point out that Abraham Lincoln was a senator from Illinois and a lawyer, in the interest of completion.
Agree about Romney running away from his record. Stupid. Romney has an excellent record as Governor, with his universal healthcare plan winning kudos from Democrats and Independents (I have friends who live in the state, and they love the healthcare program Romney pushed through... compared to what Texas has, nothing, it is superb), and it uses private enterprise to make it go. Why he ran away from his record is a mystery and a huge mistake. He had a chance to be "The New Republican," and blew it. Also agree with how he handled his religion. As someone old enough to remember JFK dealing with big questions about being Catholic, I was offended by Romney attempting to wrap himself in the Jack Kennedy aura, while being nothing like Kennedy in handling the issue. Pathetic. Well, the guy is soon to be toast, IMO. Another rich fellow spending millions and finding it made no difference. Impeach Bush.
I guess Romney's strategy was to say/do whatever it takes to get there, and then implement his ideas once there. The whole flip/flop thing is very questionable. But I am not sure how he otherwise could have run as a GOP candidate. (and pretty much everyone have flip/flopped to a degree). Romney is in big trouble if he doesn't do well in NH. My guess is he is not going to get the GOP nomination, and that's too bad, because he would have been a great president that gets some tangible things done. (consider we are possibly facing an economic downturn)
Remember how ticked off Republicans got when George H.W. Bush campaigned one way and then morphed when he got elected. He had no base of support from either party, got very little done and was terminated after one term. There is no reason to think Romney would have been any different. Because of his track record, maybe Romney was just not going to win as a GOP candidate. Simple as that. If you can't run on your principles and record, don't run.
