On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 1:14 AM, JW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What are their positions on warrantless wiretapping? I remember that > Obama voted for the FISA bill after saying he'd vote against it, but > it certainly isn't an issue that's gotten a lot of attention.
Well, this issue can not be the reason voters are undecided between Obama and McCain, since they both agree on this. But even if this were somehow relevant in deciding who to vote for, there would be no reason for anyone who cared about this to not know where the candidates stood. McCain has been very clear that he supported the FISA immunity for warrantless wiretapping bill (though he was not present the day it was passed). And there is even less reason for anyone who cared to not know were Obama stands, as this has been the single most focused on vote of his senate career, and earned him the most stinging rebuke from liberal democrats across the country (including, for what it's worth) me. After repeatedly promising never to vote for a bill that contained the wiretapping provision, he did in fact vote for it (he did vote for amendments, which failed, that would have somewhat mediated the harm). This may have been a reason to vote for Hillary (who voted against the wiretapping bill) instead of Obama. This issue has not gotten a lot of attention in the fall campaign because the two candidates agree, and neither has much to gain from bringing it up. But anyone who wants to know where these two guys stand on this issue can easily find out. > The situation in Iraq could change in the next 27 days; look at what's > happened to the economy in the last 27. The situation in Iraq could easily change in 27 days - but how does that prevent someone from making a decision? As Obama said at the last debate, it is likely that the issue that will take up most of the attention of the next president is something we are not really focused on or even aware of now. Perhaps this might be a reason not to participate in early voting (though even that I am not convinced of) but it is not a reason to prevent someone from deciding who they support right now. > Why? If a voter isn't sure, what value is there in deciding early? > Maybe some useful new information will come along, and even if it > doesn't, taking the extra time to weigh what one knows can be > worthwhile. At 27 days before election day I think we have already passed any opportunity to decide "early". But the point here was if a voter became aware of a conflict between two of their own value positions (in this example, between abortion and Iraq). How would 27 more days, after at least 6 months of knowing about the conflict, change anything? In this example, the undecided voter is not waiting for more information from the candidates, they are are just weighing their own conflicting values. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Like TV only smarter. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
