WHEW! It's a HOT NIGHT! LOFF56 Weighs In.

LOFF56:

AMEN, Brother Rick!

One more comment from me, and then I guess tomorrow we'll have an outcome to all of this and we can all move on.

First of all Pete, you're way off base about the "Pro-life" versus "Pro-choice" debate. By saying that the "Pro-life" side is actually "Anti-choice" is exactly as erroneous as saying that the "Pro-choice" side is actually "Anti-life". I understand your argument, at it's core. Many pro-lifers' intentionally and dubiously call us "Anti-life" or "Pro-abortionists" which is characteristically wrong. Labels are important because words carry meaning; either negative or positive connotations. Which is why proponents of each side refer to themselves with the "pro" version of the phrase and more importantly why they label the opposite side of the debate with the negative connotation. Again... it's all politics and semantics!

But more to the point about this specific debate... Most (good) laws have some sort of moral basis. However that moral basis has to have a balancing practicality to it or that law would be counterproductive. Now some of those laws that are deeply rooted in morality are unquestioned by both the right and the left, by the religious and the scientific. Murder is illegal because it's morally wrong to both a religious person and a scientist (or a mental health specialist for that matter). Banning alcohol has an incredibly strong moral argument simply based on the number of deaths due to drunk driving every year. But as we learned, the policy of banning alcohol itself was naive to human nature and actually made the problem a lot worse.

Now I happen to believe that overturning Roe v. Wade would amount to the same (or far worse) problems we had during prohibition. (Of course the follow up is that we'd learn, repeal the ban and never talk about it again, just as we barely ever hear anyone talk about banning alcohol anymore.) But that doesn't mean that the moral argument for banning abortion isn't legitimate. In fact I believe that the moral argument itself helps temper a person's right to choose with an understanding of the consequences of a decision to have an abortion. (As you duly note, not everyone in this country is completely enlightened, and most don't have the advantage of understanding the value of therapy and enlightenment. The debate itself is literately a barbaric tool of providing information to the unenlightened masses.) Interestingly, Hillary Clinton's view on this issue has always been the most lucid: "Abortions should be legal, safe and rare." Without the very moral argument against killing an unborn baby, I don't believe the "rare" in this instance would have the same weight as the other two.

I hope you understand that this is all from a "this is where we're at right now" view point. I get it; that in an enlightened world this debate is moot because really in the end there can only be one good answer to the debate. (An answer that balances morality and practicality). But we don't live in that world, and I think it's unfair to chastise people (who don't have access to those enlightenment tools) for not living in that utopian world.

Second.

I totally agree with Rick's assessment of both candidates. (Almost, there are a few minor disagreements but...) If you think that Barack Obama comes with out his pile of shit, I think you're in la-la land. When you vote for Obama tomorrow, you're voting for Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Obama's press representatives, his policy advisers, his campaign managers, his speech writers, his wife, the DNC, and the countless number of people that could all potentially be giving Barack bad advice. It's an impracticality for Obama to be able to weed out every bad egg in his entourage. And even if his judgment is completely crystal clear, there will still be some people that will fool him and give him bad advice. He's only human.

I agree that there are some questions about things that he hasn't been completely transparent about. I figured that out when he missed some obvious opportunities in the debates to either set the record straight or nail McCain to the cross on some obvious slip ups. But where I disagree with Rick is in my ultimate choice is that I'm biting on Obama's message of Hope. However... with a big grain of salt, some of that hope is hope that he'll end up being who he claims to be. If he is, he probably will be the Messiah (or should I say the Filet Mignon) that everyone claims him to be. I'm not holding my breath, but I am hoping.

I have a whole other diatribe about the importance of moderation between right and left, but I'm tired, and I really just wanted to emphasize the point that all viewpoints are legitimate, and that all politicians, no matter how well they speak or how much you agree with them or disagree with them are still just politicians.

But hey, guess what, tomorrow there's one guy that's not on the ballot, George W. Bush, and that may just be the single biggest victory that this country could possibly ask for. :-D

GO VOTE EVERYONE!!