Originally posted by Kaiser:
Look, the Republicans in general, including McCain, vote to legislate their faith-based morality on social issues (gay rights, stem cells, drug policy, abortion etc). These issues all boil down to church state separation and whether we ought to be legislating the morals of the day.
McCain has made it clear that he will use his supreme court nominations to put in another Alito or Roberts on the court - and then the slim pro-separation margin on the court will disappear... when that happens there will be major changes in the country.
Overall, he doesn't seem like that bad a guy... we could certainly do worse... but he WILL appoint conservative justices if he gets the chance and I'm using my vote to try to stop it.
On the gun issue, I don't think a single president can make THAT big a difference (apart from the supreme court issue I mentioned) - so I'm not too worried about losing my gun rights.
You can rest easy, though... Texas would elect a corpse if there was an 'R' next to its party affiliation on the ballot - so my vote effectively won't count 
Wow.... You really have drank down the lefty koolaid. Maybe drank the bong water too.
If McCain claims that he would appoint people like John Roberts to the court, that is not something to look down upon. John Roberts is perhaps one of the best qualified Supreme Court nominees to be put up in a generation.
However, your complete lack of knowledge regarding McCain is showing itself very clearly. There is no reason to believe McCain would nominate jurists like John Roberts to the court. McCain was one of the leaders of the "Gang of 14" in the Senate who organized and conspired to undermine Bush administration judicial appointments. Many vacancies are unfilled to this day.
Obama has said he would nominate people like Ginsberg and Souter. Two people who are judicial activists and have absolutely no respect for the constitution. Just like Obama.
You are also wrong about presidents not being able to do much about the gun issue. An anti-gun president can do great damage to gun rights. A president has the bully pulpit and the power to frame the debate. An anti-gun president with a Democrat Congress can also greatly influence anti-gun legislation. A president is also in control of the Executive Branch and can set anti-gun policies through all law enforcement arms of the federal government.
You also forget that Bill Clinton used the power of the presidency for many anti-gun initiatives. He also signed the Brady Bill. Some of it was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. With Obama Supreme Court justices, that would most likely not be the case.
The president also has the power to issue Executive Orders that could be anti-gun. Therefore bypassing the legislative process. Bill Clinton did just that on several occasions. The president also has the power to order federal agencies to issue grants to anti-gun organizations with that money to be used by those organizations to sue gun manufacturers and maybe even the government. That was also a familiar tactic in the Clinton Administration (used more widely with radical environmental groups to get what they wanted through the courts and bypassing the legislative process).
The gun rights that Americans enjoy can also be undermined through a backdoor process of international treaties. An anti-gun president with a Democrat Congress and with a couple of judicial activists on the Supreme Court can do great damage on this front. The international community and the United Nations despises the second amendment to the US Constitution. Just like many Democrats and Obama.
That's "change".
Previous Topic
Index
