For some who would vote against Obama, they would say that he has accomplished nothing and is the most liberal Senator in history. That's not actually true. It depends on whose numbers you look at. There are numbers that prove there are other Senators with a more liberal voting record than Obama.

Obama has also been intimately involved in legislation that SHOULD be considered valuable and important to anyone who considers themselves a fiscal conservative.

1)He was VERY involved with the Federal Spending Transparency Bill. List of participants in that effort below . . . please note the number of R's. I believe this shows an ability to work across the aisle.

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) (R),

Senator Tom Coburn (Okla.) (R),

Senator Barack Obama (Ill.) (D)

Senator Tom Carper (Del.) (D)

Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis (Va.) (R)

2) He was the chief cosponsor of a bill (which was passed into law) that prevents the multiple enrollments of aid recipients. Summary of the bill:

Amends the Article of the Illinois Public Aid Code regarding rights and responsibilities of applicants and recipients. Changes the length of the demonstration project to determine the cost-effectiveness of preventing multiple enrollments of aid recipients through the use of an electronic automated 2-digit fingerprint matching identification system in local offices from 12 months to 36 months.

Further amends the Illinois Public Aid Code. Implements the provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 regarding the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Sets forth standards for eligibility under the Code. Changes the title of Article IV from "Aid to Families with Dependent Children" to "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families". Provides that nothing in that Article shall be construed as providing an entitlement to any assistance or service provided for under the Article. Requires screening for domestic violence issues. Makes changes throughout the Code in compliance with the federal Act.

There really ARE more. But to that whole arguement about 'experience' . . . we've HAD experience in office . . . and all it's shown ME is that a lifetime in politics makes you a lifetime politician. That's not always a good thing.

I LIKE the idea of having someone fresh, not tainted. I LIKE the idea of having someone who is a bit of an idealist. Let's face it, the President alone doesn't run the country anyway. So why does HE need to have years and years and years of partisan politics under his belt?

Thus endeth my first arguement FOR Obama.

OG; There is no argument for Obama. He is the most liberal [with totally socialist philosophy to back him up.and the biggest underachiever in the State and U.S. Senate. He is also our very first "Affirmative Action" Candidate for President. He has not earned a place at the table, and I feel that is racist and un-American views and activities actually disqualifies him from the running and from consideration from reasonable thinking Americans.

He is not qualified by experience for the position of President of the United States of America. His only qualification to be president I can find is that he's black, good looking and gives a good speech, full of platitudes and generalities, very light on any real substance or good, but he make people feel good.

I'm sorry, that just isn't enough to qualify anyone black, Arab, white or purple to be President of the United States of America.

I almost choked when I saw that you wrote in the same sentence, using Obama and fiscal conservative in the same sentence, it is evident that you haven't read Obama's plan for our economy.... We will have CHANGE, and that chance will be the small change left over from our paychecks if that fraud is enacted and inflicted on the American people.

OK, this will help the emotionally challenged liberals understand the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Read on if you dare... Hey and it on topic.

What Republicans Believe, What Democrats Believe by Larry Elder, popular black syndicated talk show host and writer here in L.A.

Republicans believe hard work wins, and government should allow you — to the fullest extent possible — to keep what you earn. Democrats believe that success results from luck, chance and happenstance, and therefore a just government takes from those who have and gives to those who do not.

Republicans believe in a colorblind society determined by drive, work ethic and talent. Democrats want a color-coordinated society. This explains the support for race and gender-based preferences to "correct" past sins and to create "diversity."

Republicans believe discrimination to fix previous discrimination remains discrimination, and that all a government can be is just in its own time. Democrats wish to use government to "rectify" past wrongs, which they hold responsible for today's "inequities."

Republicans believe that government should empower the individual — that a government that taxes least taxes best. Democrats want individuals to empower government, and support policies that redistribute income from person A to "deserving" person B.

Republicans believe that the playing field, while unlevel, requires an individual to do the best he or she can with the cards dealt. Democrats consider life rigged, and that one's destiny rests on matters beyond the control of the individual.

Republicans believe that those who cannot help themselves can and will be helped out by other individuals — not government — as a result of basic human compassion. Democrats believe that because of one's misfortune, he or she is entitled to something — via government — from someone else.

Republicans believe in peace through strength, and thus support strong national defense, and — in this era of Islamofascism — a proactive foreign policy. Democrats believe in strength through peace, and believe they can better influence the behavior of enemies by demonstrating our good intentions.

Republicans believe in the mutual benefits of free trade of goods and services. Democrats believe in "fair trade," and support barriers that shield domestic industries against competition, reducing the incentive to innovate and change to remain competitive.

Republicans consider the Constitution a contract, limiting the duties, powers and obligations of the federal government. Democrats consider the Constitution a "living, breathing document," to be interpreted flexibly. Republicans, for example, reject Roe v. Wade because the court based it on a right to privacy, not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Democrats consider the right to privacy implied, despite the absence of any reference to it.

Republicans believe in the Second Amendment, and that it confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers wanted this right to protect against tyranny by government. Democrats consider the Second Amendment an impediment to public safety.

Michigan, six years ago, became one of about 40 "shall issue" states that now allow citizens to apply for a permit to carry concealed weapons. At the time, law enforcement officials predicted an increase in violent crime. In fact, the opposite happened.

Woodhaven, Michigan Police Chief Michael Martin said, "I think the general consensus out there from law enforcement is that things were not as bad as we expected. There are problems with gun violence, but I think we can breathe a sigh of relief that what we anticipated didn't happen."

So how did the president of the Michigan chapter of the anti-gun group Million Moms March respond? She called the statistics bogus, and argued that even if true, society still possesses too many guns.

And this brings us to our final observation: Republicans believe what they see, and Democrats see what they believe.

What Republicans Believe, What Democrats Believe by Larry Elder popular black syndicated talk show host out of L.A.

Republicans believe hard work wins, and government should allow you — to the fullest extent possible — to keep what you earn. Democrats believe that success results from luck, chance and happenstance, and therefore a just government takes from those who have and gives to those

This is NOT an accurate statement. Democrats ALSO believe that success results from hard work (but you have to admit that not all the wealthy people in the world . . . those that many would consider ‘successful’ work hard. Many have simply inherited their ‘success’ and behave as entitled brats, but that’s a different conversation). The concern is that many who work hard are NOT compensated for it. It takes many people 2 or 3 jobs just to keep a roof over their heads, and they STILL have to choose between medicine and food. Democrats simply believe that if we have a system that helps those individuals . . . give them a ‘hand up’, not a ‘hand out’ . . . that it will be a benefit to ALL people, to our entire society.

Republicans believe in a colorblind society determined by drive, work ethic and talent. Democrats want a color-coordinated society. This explains the support for race and gender-based preferences to "correct" past sins and to create "diversity."

Republicans believe discrimination to fix previous discrimination remains discrimination, and that all a government can be is just in its own time. Democrats wish to use government to "rectify" past wrongs, which they hold responsible for today's "inequities."

I don’t agree with ‘correcting sins of the past’ or forcing diversity. What I DO believe in is making sure that people aren’t discriminated against. I don’t necessarily agree that affirmative action is the way to accomplish that. Personally I think affirmative action is insulting to the people that it’s aimed to help.

Republicans believe that government should empower the individual — that a government that taxes least taxes best. Democrats want individuals to empower government, and support policies that redistribute income from person A to "deserving" person B.

Republicans believe that the playing field, while unlevel, requires an individual to do the best he or she can with the cards dealt. Democrats consider life rigged, and that one's destiny rests on matters beyond the control of the individual.

Republicans believe that those who cannot help themselves can and will be helped out by other individuals — not government — as a result of basic human compassion. Democrats believe that because of one's misfortune, he or she is entitled to something — via government — from someone else.

No. Democrats don’t believe that anyone is ENTITLED to someone else’s money. Democrats, again, want to make our society better by ensuring that all people are given options and opportunities for advancement in life. I don’t want to take your money from you, walk down the street, and hand it to a single mom with 3 kids and two jobs. I want to pool our resources to make sure our schools are safe and strong, we have after school programs that are affordable, that there is affordable/free lunch at schools so our children can concentrate and learn, that the single mom with 3 kids has healthcare for all her children and herself, that our streets are safe because we’ve provided funding for adequate police coverage, that our veterans coming home from the war . . . men and women who are risking their lives in situations more terrifying than I can imagine, aren’t left living on the streets or in shelters . . . I could go on, but do I need to? We’re a wealthy nation, we CAN pool our resources to help each other out. Wouldn’t that make us even stronger . . . coming together like that?

Republicans believe in peace through strength, and thus support strong national defense, and — in this era of Islamo-fascism — a proactive foreign policy. Democrats believe in strength through peace, and believe they can better influence the behavior of enemies by demonstrating our good intentions.

I won’t argue with you on this one. I DO believe in peace through strength. Even if it doesn’t work . . . I still believe that it’s right. I don’t believe in a ‘bomb first, ask questions later’ approach. I don’t believe God believes in that approach either.

Republicans believe in the mutual benefits of free trade of goods and services. Democrats believe in "fair trade," and support barriers that shield domestic industries against competition, reducing the incentive to innovate and change to remain competitive.

I’ll be honest with you here, I don’t know enough about trade issues to comment one way or the other.

Republicans consider the Constitution a contract, limiting the duties, powers and obligations of the federal government. Democrats consider the Constitution a "living, breathing document," to be interpreted flexibly. Republicans, for example, reject Roe v. Wade because the court based it on a right to privacy, not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Democrats consider the right to privacy implied, despite the absence of any reference to it

“Republicans consider the Constitution a contract, limiting the duties, powers, and obligations of the federal government” . . . someone really needs to tell GWB that one. He seems to believe he has unlimited powers and duties, and absolutely NO obligations.

Roe v Wade is a whole separate issue, and could be it’s own discussion board, so I’ll leave it alone for now.

Republicans believe in the Second Amendment, and that it confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers wanted this right to protect against tyranny by government. Democrats consider the Second Amendment an impediment to public safety.

I can actually argue this point on both sides . . . and mean it. Gun violence is a huge concern to me. But I agree that the right to bear arms is there . . . and I agree that more gun laws won’t necessarily prevent more gun violence. So, I won’t put up a huge fight on this one, personally . . . but I leave it open to others that may have more passion one way or another.

Michigan, six years ago, became one of about 40 "shall issue" states that now allow citizens to apply for a permit to carry concealed weapons. At the time, law enforcement officials predicted an increase in violent crime. In fact, the opposite happened.

Woodhaven, Michigan Police Chief Michael Martin said, "I think the general consensus out there from law enforcement is that things were not as bad as we expected. There are problems with gun violence, but I think we can breathe a sigh of relief that what we anticipated didn't happen."

So how did the president of the Michigan chapter of the anti-gun group Million Moms March respond? She called the statistics bogus, and argued that even if true, society still possesses too many guns.

And this brings us to our final observation: Republicans believe what they see, and Democrats see what they believe and feel.

I disagree, we have facts and figures to back up our arguments. It’s just that if the facts and figures aren’t from a conservative source you simply don’t believe them. My point here is that each side has their ‘facts and figures’, and neither side believe the other sides numbers. There is always going to be some ‘expert’ on EACH side that can skew the numbers any way they want to. So what you’ve stated with “Republicans believe what they see, and Democrats see what they believe and feel.” Is as accurate as if I were to state “Democrats believe what they see AND feel. Republicans believe what they see, but are incapable of feeling.”

Please note that I did not CALL Obama a fiscal conservative. I mearly pointed out pieces of legislation that I believe any fiscal conservative would/should applaud.

Also, I don't agree with your 'first affirmative action candidate'. While there may be many who choose to vote for Obama because he isn't caucasian . . . there are also many who are going to vote for him for other reasons. Reasons that you obviously don't agree with . . . but it has nothing to do with the color of his skin, at least for an awful lot of us it doesn't.

Since we're talking his voting record,

How about the 36 time he was the only, or one of 6 or less, (IL) legislators to vote present, a vote which says "I haven't got the brass to say yes or no."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html

How about his "change" votes? The ones where he came back later and said "I want to change my vote" because it was politically expedient. Look it up.

How about the other day when he voted for FISA despite giving his word he would not vote for any bill that gave the telcos amnesty? That one got him the coveted "Wanker of the Day" award.

OG;

I wrote... "I almost choked when I saw that you wrote in the same sentence, using Obama and fiscal conservative in the same sentence, it is evident that you haven't read Obama's plan for our economy...."

I don't believe you clearly read what I wrote, I know you didn't call Obama a... "fiscal conservative", but that Obama was in the same sentence, with the words "fiscal conservative" that is an oxymoron. That is what I found as unimaginable, as it would have been another lie and misrepresentation of who Obama is.

I want to make it very clear that Larry Elder, a black man, syndicated columnist, and talk show host who wrote the thesis on what Dems and Rep. believe, not me.

I however feel his thesis to be honest and accurate statements and remember just because you don't agree with what Larry Elder wrote, it doesn't mean it's not true.

OG Wrote..."I believe any fiscal conservative would/should applaud." WELL YOU WOULD BE WRONG on this point, I am both a social and fiscal conservative and Obama's policy is naive, uninformed and inaccurate and would only further damage our economy.

So you think those two pieces of legislature are NOT fiscally responsible?