Hey, at least that would be an honest talking point. A welcome change from the stream of lies and bullshit coming from his camp thus far.

How can you veto a bill that didn't pass?

I have given a lot of thought to the divided idea ... and it makes me happy with regard to the issue of appointed Justices and social issues, and thus really swings things in McCain's favor ... until I start to wonder why I'm voting for someone I need so many checks and balances on.

I'm just saying, don't blame everything on Bush vetoing things. Whatever way you cut it, this congress has been a disgrace.

Bush DID veto a ban on waterboarding.
Bush DID veto stem cell research.
He did veto SCHIP expansion.

Those bills you mention would have added up to quite a few accomplishments. Stem cell research, expansion of insurance for poor kids, a ban on waterboarding. That'd be a pretty decent record for just 18 months or so in control of Congress.

I don't agree with his bans on stem cell research, but at the same time, you don't need embryonic stem cells to conduct research, as tests/studies/research has proven.

As for waterboarding, we had this conversation before, and I'm not sure what all the SCHIP expansion entailed.

You're saying don't blame Bush because he didn't veto these bills because they didn't pass (or something along those lines - what you said didn't really make a lot of sense). But he did veto them. Your stance on the particular issues is not relevant to this point.

I'm saying this congress was a joke, on both sides of the isle, end of story.

End of story? The facts fly in your face once again and that's the best you can come up with as a rebuttal?

Well how can you blame congress for not doing anything when it could not do anything.

They could have been more bi-partisan but that required Bush to be so too...

The things Bush has wanted to pass are absurd; they wont pass a bill just for the sake of passing it, and got knows bushs agenda.

The bottom line for Eagle is "You can't blame Bush." So it must be Congress's fault even when Bush vetoed the legislation.

well the blame isnt ALL Bushs; its not like hes had a real chance to fix this mess he created...but then again, would any intelligent senator give him a chance to, after how his 6 years worth of passed policies turned out?

Not at all. But the fact is that without those vetoes, the Dem Congress would have a pretty good record for the short time they've been in control.

That said, my problems with the Dem leadership in Congress run deep.

Obama just re-hit the 50% mark again today. Pretty safe to say the financial crisis earlier in the week helped; it's remaining to see if the government response (and if the market continues to recover) will help McCain. Still think with the noises filtered out, Obama is looking at a 2-3% lead nationally at the moment.

I think Obama will keep a slight lead going into the first debate.

Maybe. But his turn to be pilloried by the media is coming up soon.

LOL sometimes I do think the media wants a close election for better ratings.

Just sit back and watch. They want a horse race. And they'll do what it takes to get one.

It seems like you might have a point on the surface, but the more you look into it, the Bradley effect is WAY different than it was twenty-five years ago. It's been pretty minuscule since the mid-1990s. I think a presidential election will be different, but Obama can still win with a 2% lead in the polls.

538 seems to think The Bradley Effect was overestimated in the primary http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/bad-math-and-bradley-effect.html

Whether it rears its ugly head more in the general remains to be seen. However I do think that if it's tied day of, it's going to be tough for an Obama win.

I'd say subtract 2% for any Obama poll.

I would say Obama 50-48 Going in then Obama will just win..

If its tied or 1 point then McCain will win.

As of 9/24, Obama is once again over 50%: 52 - 43

What poll is that? Gallup has him at 47%.