Looking for positive news (neutral) about the republican party

[Blackadder]

In Europe the general opinion is that Obama is Superman and McCain is almost dead. Democrats are cool (Clinton) Republicans are evil (Bush)

Example:
In an internet poll organized by our national broadcast organization, people have to reflect upon 20 issues with comments of both candidates. readers choose which point of view from a candidate they prefer on each issue. In the end Obama usually wins by 85%-15% or more.

This makes it difficult for me to base my opinion on facts.

For example , almost every newspaper and opinion magazine is biased and pro Obama. In the rare case that a journalist dares to write something positive about McCain, he gets booed away by the reading audience who write a lot of letters to the editor claiming that he is an idiot.
Basically the media decided that Obama won already in September

(I am pro Obama myself, but I would like to know more about the opponents)

I myself think that both parties have some good and bad points. I would like to get some neutral information about their policies. Any suggestions for good sources are welcome.

[geni]

McCain has more experence and is on the more moderate wing of the republican party. McCain is very clearly anti anything that could be considered torture.

Palin offers a reasonable chance of seeing berlusconi get slapped.

[Grizzly Bear]

In Europe the general opinion is that Obama is Superman and McCain is almost dead. Democrats are cool (Clinton) Republicans are evil (Bush)

Example:
In an internet poll organized by our national broadcast organization, people have to reflect upon 20 issues with comments of both candidates. readers choose which point of view from a candidate they prefer on each issue. In the end Obama usually wins by 85%-15% or more.

This makes it difficult for me to base my opinion on facts.

For example , almost every newspaper and opinion magazine is biased and pro Obama. In the rare case that a journalist dares to write something positive about McCain, he gets booed away by the reading audience who write a lot of letters to the editor claiming that he is an idiot.
Basically the media decided that Obama won already in September

(I am pro Obama myself, but I would like to know more about the opponents)

I myself think that both parties have some good and bad points. I would like to get some neutral information about their policies. Any suggestions for good sources are welcome.
The tax foundation if I'm not mistaken is a non-partisan site which explains a number of the two candidates proposed policies:

They did fact checking for the third Debate (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/23783.html) and you can find a comparison between the two as well as the third party candidates on there as well... link (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/)

That's one of the few decent sites I know of that's non-partisan... perhaps if anything this would be a good place to start if you're looking into the two

[Cleon]

McCain is very clearly anti anything that could be considered torture.

Palin offers a reasonable chance of seeing berlusconi get slapped.

Wow. That's the first time I've seen two good reasons to support the McCain campaign. :D

[Tailgater]

When McCain picked Palin, he buried himself blowing off moderate Dems to appeal to the far right. The far right would have voted for him anyway just to vote against Obama. McCain himself wasn't all bad of a choice, but all the news went bad about 3 days after picking Palin. It's been grasping to negative campaigning and digging a bigger hole ever since. There are alot of similarities to the primaries with Hillary. I just hope Obama is half of what everyone is getting worked up over on how great he is.

[JoeTheJuggler]

McCain is very clearly anti anything that could be considered torture.


Except when he isn't:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503318.html

Republican presidential front-runner John McCain bluntly called waterboarding "torture and illegal" Wednesday morning, again challenging the Bush administration's defense of a harsh interrogation tactic that makes prisoners think they are drowning.

But later the same day, McCain cast a vote against Democratic-sponsored legislation supported by anti-torture advocates that sought to ban waterboarding and other coercive tactics by the CIA.

He ignored torture survivors urging him to renounce his support of torture:
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS214894+05-Aug-2008+PRN20080805

Has he ever stood up against the School of the Americas?

And I noted how he voted Yea to confirm Gonzales (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00003) for A.G. (despite his history of trying to make the legal case to support Bush's right to torture).

[Kestrel]

When McCain picked Palin, he buried himself blowing off moderate Dems to appeal to the far right. The far right would have voted for him anyway just to vote against Obama. McCain himself wasn't all bad of a choice, but all the news went bad about 3 days after picking Palin. It's been grasping to negative campaigning and digging a bigger hole ever since. There are alot of similarities to the primaries with Hillary. I just hope Obama is half of what everyone is getting worked up over on how great he is.

The Christian conservatives are the folks that run GOP campaigns at the precinct level. McCain had to energize them to counter the Obama ground game, so in that respect Palin was a good choice.

The problem is that Sarah wasn't ready. If they had a few months to bring her up to speed on the issues, it would have worked out far better.

[Upchurch]

The Christian conservatives are the folks that run GOP campaigns at the precinct level. McCain had to energize them to counter the Obama ground game, so in that respect Palin was a good choice.

The problem is that Sarah wasn't ready. If they had a few months to bring her up to speed on the issues, it would have worked out far better.
She would not have been as electrifying, but Elizabeth Dole would have been a much more solid choice. She could have easily pulled (and held onto) the ex-Hillary voters and moderates. She would have generally been seen as a reasonable choice and she could easily hold her own in the media spotlight.

The only draw back is that she probably wouldn't have fired up the crispies the way Palin did (but neither would she have driven away more moderate Republicans).

[corplinx]

Except when he isn't:

Describing his vote against that bill as caving on being anti-torture is completely dishonest.

[Tricky]

Describing his vote against that bill as caving on being anti-torture is completely dishonest.
If I could change one thing about Congress, it would be that every bill is about one thing only. Sneaking your agenda into an unrelated bill or beinge forced to vote for something you don't like because you greatly support other parts of the bill is politics at its worst.

If it means more votes, so be it, but I want a clear vote from each Congresscritter on each issue. Death to the omnibus.

[Tailgater]

If I could change one thing about Congress, it would be that every bill is about one thing only. Sneaking your agenda into an unrelated bill or beinge forced to vote for something you don't like because you greatly support other parts of the bill is politics at its worst.

If it means more votes, so be it, but I want a clear vote from each Congresscritter on each issue. Death to the omnibus.

Totally agree. I hate how voting records are used in campaigns and we are left to figure out why they voted the way they did. Voting no on a bill doesn't always mean they disagree with the premise of it. It might just mean that too many other hands were in the cookie jar before it came for a vote.

[geni]

If I could change one thing about Congress, it would be that every bill is about one thing only. Sneaking your agenda into an unrelated bill or beinge forced to vote for something you don't like because you greatly support other parts of the bill is politics at its worst.

If it means more votes, so be it, but I want a clear vote from each Congresscritter on each issue. Death to the omnibus.

Not very pratical. If you consider the number of clauses in each bill that would require some bills haveing a couple of hundred votes.

Non related stuff can in any case often be a legit way of getting non contentious stuff through the system.

[dudalb]

If I could change one thing about Congress, it would be that every bill is about one thing only. Sneaking your agenda into an unrelated bill or beinge forced to vote for something you don't like because you greatly support other parts of the bill is politics at its worst.

If it means more votes, so be it, but I want a clear vote from each Congresscritter on each issue. Death to the omnibus.

I agree strongly, but don't hold your breath for this to change.

[Pragmatist]

McCain is very clearly anti anything that could be considered torture.


Except for Palin's speeches...

:D