Some issues are big and scary and complicated (like war and our financial system), and I can understand how I'm not really in a position to specify expectations for how the government will address them.

However, some other issues are so straightforward (even if they aren't 'big') that I can confidently say that if the new Democratic government does not address these issues, then they will be guilty of negligent government.

I'm sure that many issues fall into this category, but here's are two issues that I expect the new government to take care of in fairly short order:

In a letter to a local paper, the Mansfield News Journal, Bud Chamberlain opines on why if one "really wants a good President" one should vote for McCain.

In his monument of ignorance and xenophobia, Mr. Chamerlain feels that "Obama has agenda to rule the world [with his Arab friends]."

McCain: We need to know the full extent of Senator Obama's relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.

McCain made this serious accusation during the third presidential debate . It has also been propagated by television advertisements , and extensive editorializing by Obama's opponents. However, if we look into the specific accusations against ACORN (let alone the actual evidence), they do not add up into the grand conspiracy theory that McCain is promoting.

This thread is for the final Presidential debate. We'll be starting the live-blog at 8:45p EST. Readers without laptops (is that like Doctors Without Borders?) may want to know that the debate will be available on Hulu.com . Post questions you'd like the candidates to answer, your thoughts on who might win the debate, what each candidate needs to do to win the debate, etc.

Lois Coar, the mother of two grown children, supported Mitt Romney this year and is undecided for November. She cannot see voting for Obama -- "not because he's black, but I just can't put it in words." She likes McCain as a person, but "I can't understand why he keeps talking about this Ayers guy" -- William Ayers, the 1960s radical who became an occasional colleague and supporter of Obama in Chicago. "He should be focusing on the economy and real terrorists; that's what people worry about," she said.

"Maliki Suggests Bush Pushed To Extend U.S. Presence In Iraq To Help McCain"

According to Maliki:

Actually, the final date was really the end of 2010 and the period between the end of 2010 and the end of 2011 was for withdrawing the remaining troops from all of Iraq, but they asked for a change [in date] due to political circumstances related to the [U.S] domestic situation so it will not be said to the end of 2010 followed by one year for withdrawal but the end of 2011 as a final date.

If what Maliki claims is true, would that not be more than solid grounds to impeach and swiftly remove the POTUS?

As my good friend Brutus14 pointed out in Thursday's open thread, the Barr campaign has filed suit [PDF] in Texas to have the court compel the Secretary of State to remove John McCain and Barack Obama from the ballot.

The statute in question which states in part:

Every few days until the election, I'll try to put out a relatively terse profile about some lesser-known candidates for President.

Party: Green
State: California
Running mate: Rosa Clemente
Previous experience: US House (1993-2003, 2005-2007), Georgia House of Representatives (1989-1993)
States on the ballot¹: 32 (as of 09/10, likely 33 as of 11/04)
States on as a write-in candidate²: 16

Many have said that President Bush's 2004 victory was at least in part due to the large amount of ballot measures that preemptively restricted same-sex marriages or civil unions. In light of that, we may want to take a look at some measures on the ballot in the coming election. These measures in swing states may prove to be the difference between President McCain and President Obama.

Ender's video which featured the former Clinton supporter indirectly reminded me of the topic of judicial appointments and its effect on voters.

A common argument for McCain that has been used to shore up his support among the base is that he will appoint strict constructionist judges in the mold of Antonin Scalia while Obama will try to pack the court with far left ideologues. That, in and of itself, is a good enough reason to pull the lever for McCain, regardless of what views he may have on other issues. Indeed, a McCain presidency could finally be what overturns Roe v. Wade. Lets take a moment to dissect these arguments.

It is becoming more apparent with each passing day that the American lifestyle as it currently exist is unsustainable. For more than three decades we have accepted the false narrative that we can live beyond our means and there will be no cost for the extravagance. Not only has our government accepted and promoted this falsehood, but we as a nation have accepted it as well. It has become so ingrained into our national psyche that anyone who dares to point out its inherent flaws is immediately ridiculed by politicians, the media, and their fellow citizens. You see rather than looking at the real culprits of our failed domestic and foreign policies we want to create these “bogeymen” who want to destroy our sacred way of life. The truth is that it is always easier to blame others for our shortsightedness and faults.

Last week, B Rational had a set of questions concerning Obama's position on Iraq might be if his opinion on Iraq; specifically, what Obama would do if he changed his mind regarding the state of Iraqi capability. My return questions concern the apparent contradictory nature of Senator's McCain's position.

For some background, here are several statements that McCain has made:

Over the course of the next months, I'm going to pose a high-level political process question to the SC faithful. These questions will be mostly about how the government is fundamentally structured rather than on some sort of issue. My hope is that we can all debate from first principles on an issue that isn't readily discussed in normal political discourse.

Because we generally use single-member districts in the US, I will focus on alternative voting systems that are used in single-member districts.

Over the course of the next few weeks or possibly months, I'm going to pose a high-level political process question to the SC faithful. These questions will be mostly about how the government is fundamentally structured rather than on some sort of issue. My hope is that we can all debate from first principles on an issue that isn't readily discussed in normal political discourse.

Today, I'll ask questions about ballot access laws.

I wrote this in response to this diary over at Daily Kos. I usually don't post there, but I was feeling in the mood to put in a few words about Nader as I do from time to time. The comment grew a bit longer than I had realized, so it became a diary here. Also, I hope to be back posting open threads by the 7th. I hope everyone is having a good summer thus far.

I completely empathize with the Florida debacle, but I find the idea that everything was Nader's fault overstating the case.

I'll level with everyone here. Yes, if Ralph Nader didn't run for President (or had at least endorsed Gore in Florida or New Hampshire) Al Gore probably would have won the Electoral College. I say "probably" because public opinion preferences are chaotic.

Hat tip to Dr. Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek who cites a commentary in today's WSJ by David Boaz of Cato.

In the commentary, Boaz challenges the notion, implicit or explicit, put forth by the presumptive nominees which states that we as citizens should commit ourselves to higher national causes.

Boaz is obviously not impressed with this vision.

Pundits and commentators have made much hay out of the demographic trends in the Democratic primaries. This is really to be expected given the candidates and their policy. Never have voters had to choose between a woman and a biracial (yes, Virginia, Obama's mother is white and from Kansas -- it doesn't get much whiter than that) man. Given the haphazard coalition that the Democrats have cobbled together to form a working majority, it would make sense that identity politics would take center stage, especially so in this historic election.

"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said. "I've got Greenspan's book."^{1 ,2}

McCain is a solid Senator when it comes to fiscal matters. He opposes wasteful spending; as John posted yesterday he has no pork projects, in contrast to the Democratic candidates. He opposed the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, saying (Edit: in 2001) that "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief." But his current platform is inadequate to address the challenges currently facing America, and he betrays a fundamental lack of economic understanding as to the pros and cons of tax cuts.

Here . Card of course is no liberal, so it's interesting to see his take. Certainly feel free to weight the relevance or importance of his view as you see fit. Also I have to admit I'm posting this partially for Ender, since Card is most known as the author of Ender's Game ;-)

On Wright and what it means for Obama, he strongly condemns Wright's statements but agrees with Obama not disowning his friendship with the man: