Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

McCain's Pros and Cons

With Super Tuesday tomorrow, presidential politics is the only game in town after the delightful diversion provided by Eli Manning last night.

There is widespread speculation that Sen. John McCain could actually lock up the Republican nomination by Wednesday morning, a prospect that has both our Readers Who Comment and McCain's Republican colleagues "grappling with the idea of him at the top of their ticket," as Paul Kane reports today. The knock on McCain is that he has a temper and doesn't always speak in polite senatorial tones, even to his GOP colleagues.

What they're saying is the stuff we've been reading about since this strange campaign began. Some Republicans don't like McCain and think they may have to vote for a Democrat. Some Democrats do like McCain. Others worry that his position on the Iraq War represents a continuation of a failed policy but also fear that he has the best chance of defeating the Democratic nominee, whether it be Clinton or Obama. And there are a couple of RWC who support Ron Paul. They file on almost every political story. Almost as much fun for political junkies to watch as the Super Bowl was for football nuts.

First to apparent Republicans disaffected with McCain (our RWC don't register by party).

sd71 said, "if he [McCain] gets elected it will be the lowest point in recent us history since richard nixon was impeached."

jwkopp2004 wrote. "I know I won't be able to vote for McCain. I may have to vote Democrat this time."

Now let's hear from some who appear to support McCain.

jabailo said, "John McCain is exactly what this country needs. We need someone to rampage through the government and kick up dust and smoke call everyone on the carpet. Give 'em hell, John McCain..."

hoosiermandarin wrote, "We mustn't confuse agressiveness and a temper. Fighter pilots are aggressive, fighter pilots with a tamper are dead."

andrew23boyle said, "I am a liberal, pro-choice atheist who supports McCain. He has my vote one way or another because I think the defeatism of the Democratic candidate will lead to disaster in the Middle East... McCain can unite this country and lead us to victory in Iraq and Afghanistan!..."

Linda7 wrote, "Doubtful that Teddy Roosevelt was a "kissy-poo" guy and look what he got accomplished! Broke up the trusts, created National Parks, promoted the U.S around the world, etc. I'll take my chances and vote for McCain tomorrow."

And then there are those who just analyze, sometimes cynically.

bourassa1 said, "My friends, John McCain understands that the American people want change; they want a new direction. That's why John is planning a new and completely different set of wars... I hope you'll join me and others who believe with John McCain that YES WE CAN fight three wars at once. Or four. McCain '08! Because 189 countries still remain unconquered by our mighty legions!"

MorganaLeFay wrote, "If McCain does well on Super Tuesday he'll cut a deal with the 2% upper income bracket. With the aristocrats placated, Rush, Coulter and the rest of the GOP noise machine will turn around and begin support McCain... McCain will then give the jobs of the goobers to Mexicans, draft the children of the goobs into pointless foreign wars and tell the goobs that gay, secular, non-white, liberal, Islamofascists are trying to cut their heads off..."

wtwo said, "I don't understand how a men with an 80% plus conservative rating is considered a 'maverick'. It seems the press' definition of maverick is just a hothead willing to curse out senators in public."

DardenCavalcade asked, "What does being an heroic POW have to do with being a good President? I can admire his military service, respect his maverick antics as a Senator, and still regard him as ill-prepared to govern a vast, dynamic, youthful, anti-authoritarian country."

hbetterthanahal said, "McCain and Rudy are birds of a feather.Coarse, spiteful with hot tempers to match.I never thought I'd see the day that I would agree with comedian Rush."

chwurr wrote, "Funny how these spineless sycophants are preparing to suck up to the new potential president, to make sure they are not overlooked when the lofty jobs are handed out...in the unlikely case the country wants to enjoy another republican term."

wardropper said, "He's too old to be a maverick. And he is damaged goods.
Perfect for the GOP."

IssyWise asked, "What if....just what if, people are voting for McCain because he so obviously cares? As opposed to being a slick, finger in the wind, sale trimming electoral technician. What if Hillary's little display of heartfelt concern before New Hampshire impressed people that she was more than a calculating panderer? Naw...."

And erkola said, "Mccain's temper isn't the problem. There is nothing wrong with a little fire in one's demeanor. It's his Bush-like thinking that's the problem. Another 4 or 8 years of that and we're sunk..."

gtaylor1 opined that "The problem for the Republican Senators running for re-election is that the nostrums and banalities they have learned to mouth will not recieve top-down support from a McCain ticket (unlike the experience with Bush and Mr. Cheney). This will leave the Senators exposed and vulnerable."

And finally a word for Ron Paul from RedRose1, who said, "Those of you who vote for McCain or Clinton will make all the elitists of the CFR, The Trilateral Commission, and The Bilderberg Group very happy on Tuesday... Ron Paul is the only one who hasn't bought into imperialism and dominating the world."

All comments on the McCain article are here.

By Doug Feaver  |  February 4, 2008; 9:45 AM ET
Categories:  Presidential Politics  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Suicides and War
Next: More Comments To Come

Comments

fhug nhjz hnwxrkg
http://kambikatha.ridzel.biz kambikatha

Posted by: kambikatha | May 12, 2008 3:32 AM | Report abuse

fhug nhjz hnwxrkg
http://kambikatha.ridzel.biz kambikatha

Posted by: kambikatha | May 12, 2008 3:32 AM | Report abuse

McCain, Obama or Clinton?
A considered Forecast
By Michael Sanders

The upcoming elections in November 2008 will decide over so many issues internal as well as external, that it is almost mind-boggling.
First of all, Americans do not use their brains when it comes to such important elections, rather side with the best (Dirty) Fighter, or the one who appeals to them as the nicest one with the most (deceptive) promises.
Now lets look into this issue with more thoughts.
McCain?
It seems almost sure that he will be the winner since the Democrats rather indulge themselves into senseless fights and cannot make up their minds. Especially where Nancy Pelosi has shown no "Back-Bone" at all and rather endorsed G.W. Bush than to impeach him for what he has done to this world, in specific to the American People.
McCain will be an extension of Bush, no question about that, but I believe Americans will rather stick with what they know, even if they do not agree, than to elect someone who cannot make up his mind (in this case the entire Democratic Party).
McCain will surely pardon Bush for everything he has done and there will be never a possibility later to prosecute Bush for his criminal behavior. That all looks like a long planned "Conspiracy" made by some ones who actually run this Country. This conspiracy Theory seems also not fetched to far, considering the lies and deceptions the Bush Doctrine has enacted since inception and even long before.
The Media has played also some vital part in this, since they only supported, cleverly the ones they supposedly saw winning (wanted to see or manipulated to win), not speaking reason or education of ramifications. In my opinion, the Media has as usually failed their responsibilities in educating and pointing out the obvious.
McCain will benefit from this trend and will plunge us into the next war even more devastating than the ones we fought already for all the wrong reasons.
There is one simple issue, the Republicans preach an eye for an eye and try to make people believe that such acting is ethical and moral. That was and always will be the prime direction of Republicans, since their major supporters most benefit from it (Oil, Bank, Insurance, Pharmaceutical and not to forget the Weapon Industries).
Republicans have always found the best propaganda to manipulate people into their decisive politics, actually aimed only to enrich the ones they feel are worth to live at the cost of all the rest. Republican politics is to keep the "Masses" uneducated and armed with whatever weapons possible to balance their methods. What that means is, that Republicans rather have the Jails filled, even where it cost the Taxpayer over $450Billion annually, to keep the jails going. By maintaining that (not very well advertised) budged going, they assure that the Judicative Arm of our "Democracy" is well "oiled" and can produce sufficient distraction to the people to hide their real intentions and acts.
That is also the reason why they (the Republicans) are always so anguish to appoint Judges and Prosecutors and support, of course, the even most callous acts of the Police, the Executive Arm of this "Democracy" as they call it in spite of realistic summations.
Foreign Policy means for Republicans, to oppress onto others their will without any considerations or understanding of others considerations or cultural background and kill so many as possible people (or let them get killed) of other countries.
The "New World Order" of their most evil leaders doctrines let no other way since anyone who does not participate voluntary in their way is an enemy and has to feel the raft of our so superior weapons and get killed. (Very Democratic and respectfully to others cultures and lifestyles, isn't that?)
Considering that the Oil reserves beginning to get low and will not be able to serve our growing, not to speak of our children's needs, manipulated into energy waste, the next enemy, already set up will be Iran and Cheney has planned very detailed ways how to inflict the most devious propaganda and mains to begin a war on that front.
The next than will be China and India, overlooking totally that these both have the potentials to populate the US ten times over. But since we have sold out almost all of our productions to them and do not care about our own education and production rather the waste of it, it is not far fetched to see the conflicts with China and India coming.
Intolerance and ignorance have always been and always will be the trademark of Republicans. No surprise on this issue. And since the Democrats mingling around and have openly no better understanding of future and considerations, it seems to be a no-brainer to see that McCain will be our next president. Especially where many Clinton Supporters will rather vote for McCain than for Obama.

Obama?
There is a lot to say and a lot better not to say. But first let me say that I am not a racist or being prejudice against Afro-Americans. However, let's be reasonable and consider actual facts and circumstances.
If anyone realistically considers how an Obama Administration would be, there is one issue no one can deny. At first many Afro-Americans would take the election of Obama as a sign that (Finally) the fortunes have changed and the time where the White man has to obey a Black administration allows them to take what they believe is rightfully theirs and the White man has to pay for it. The signs of such considerations are already obvious.
The outrage the Rev. Jeremiah Wright showed and still maintains is what will happen. "it is time that the White man pays for his sins..." With other words we all owe them a better lifestyle without that they have to do something for it to earn it like any one else.
What does that mean? There will be a possible civil war in the US where the White population rebels against the oppression of the Black one and that is not only sad also devastating to everything the US stands for. It finally will deepen the rift between Black and White for centuries and the atrocities will be long remembered in most negative ways. That is not good for either race, especially in the US where until now people of all races live together and have basically generated a common ground. The ground for such possible future has been laid by the still (currently) ongoing Bush Administration, who is generally callous of any one who does not fit the level of wealth and influence.
On the other hand, Obama is too inexperienced to lead this country out of all its problems. He would make a good Vice President where he can learn and prepare for a future possible Presidency. And therewith gradually brings his presents into the Publics mind and consideration.
Obama's considerations for foreign policies are not only unknown but also very uncertain. Another sign of his immaturity for this job. But most troubling is his stand as American, with a "Mentor" like Rev. Jeremiah Wright. All and any disclaim today of Rev. Wright's opinions is just a fake, resentfully voiced because actually it precisely what he (Obama) thinks.
It is a very sad situation. However, to analyze it right, it is necessary to evaluate the past and be reasonable. It is just barely fifty years ago that the "Colored Fountains" disappeared and it is only forty years ago that the Civil Right movement granted more equality to Afro-Americans and still the that process has been evolved has not helped to create an realistic equal opportunity.
Thousands of years of segregation almost all over Europe and the Middle East as well as even in Africa itself, cannot be wiped out in such short time and just being forgotten or better, being healed.
The ramifications of this change will need another (easily) hundred years, even in the US, and that is fast and wishful thinking. Sure, we are not prejudice or otherwise even remotely racist. That is the face we all show not to be condemned by others with liberal views. But the reality is different.
I bet my live on it, that not only (minimum) one third of Clinton followers will rather vote for McCain than for Obama, just because... and in general elections, many otherwise not active Republicans will come forward and vote for their candidate out of fear that a Black President would rule them. That gives a sure victory for McCain from the start. Any Democrat who thinks (hopes) otherwise is an illusionist.
Therefore it is amazing that the Democratic Leadership let the situation arise as it has. But the shamefully acts of Nancy Pelosi to endorse G. W. Bush and under no circumstances allow any impeachment, therefore condemn the people of the US to further suffering and cruelties of this despot, are a clear sign of what to come and further undermine any left respect to Democratic Leadership qualities or even abilities.
The entire Obama Campaign, build on a momentum of young and inexperienced upcoming new voters as well as on guild of liberals is a fake. There is not one thing Obama can clearly state and follow up onto. He is may be a good future leader and there seems to be some signs of it but for the upcoming legislature period and the ramifications thereof, Obama is surely not the right one to lead the US back to a prosperous and respected nation. Especially not after G.W. Bush's disastrous reign.
Has anyone really considered the amount of "repair" which needs to be done first before we even can consider going on? The Housing Market, raising Food Prices, the cost of energy, oil in specific, but mostly the declining Dollar value and that all because the Bush administration has brought a healthy surplus into a Trillions of Dollars deficit. Than there is our reputation towards other nations, our bulldogging ways to tell others how they have to live to match our (incomplete) ways of democracy.
There are so many issues, where others (foreign states) see only hypocrisy because they do many things much more human than we even consider. Just take the Capital Punishment as one and consider that related to any other state, even China with over 1.4 Billion people, we have the highest rate of incarceration, almost every tenth US citizen is or was in jail for reasons that have to be debated separately.
Sure, we are still the richest country, measured by who has accumulated the most riches. From 946 Billionaires worldwide, 406 (42.9%) are Americans, or from a total accumulated wealth of 3.45 Trillion Dollars, 1.34 Trillion Dollars (38.9%) are owned by Americans. This all regardless of raising poverties because our current administration has spend Trillions into a war they lied about and which has cost by now over 4,000 US Soldiers not to speak of tens of thousands of Iraqi's and all the wounded (which are as well neglected by this administration) on both sides and the ones who lost their homes and income.
Also not to speak of the Trillions of Dollars this war has cost by now and still costing.
Now we speak of trade, sadly the Clinton Administration enacted the free trade and therewith opened the markets to China, India and others. Under any ongoing Democratic Administration, after Bill Clinton, that would may have turned positive but with the war obsessed Bush Administration, which has turned also into nightmare.
Today we are not depending only on the Oil from the Middle East, we also depending on the manufacturing from China and the superior Programming capabilities from India, not to speak of the cheap labor we harvesting from there. Actually, since we have "liberated" the Afro-Americans, we now using cheap labor in countries we still can oppress, rather than to educate our own population and create a proud "Made in the USA."
That creates also some future potential hot spots. The Chinese have already shown some signs. The make things as they used too and their standards not all times match with ours. So, if they do not do what we try to tell them to do, there is the next "Bottle-Neck." We are depending on them, because they manufacture almost 80% of everything we believe we need to maintain our lifestyle and if they do not do it our way (especially under a McCain Administration), our "superior" weapons manufacturers (question is how much of their stuff is actually been made in China or India as well?) will urge a Republican Administration into a war with them and .... There we go again....
Obama is much too inexperienced to handle or even to avoid such development and so we are in a "Catch 22."
How to raise the respect and the value of our Dollar to be back what we once where?
We have so many problems internal, that such revival of reputation and values is almost impossible within four years (that will be the maximum any Obama Administration could stand halt under current circumstances). Obama has neither the experience nor the knowledge to accomplish that. He has the spirit and the ambitions but he has not show any sign that he can comprehend the magnitude of the problems he has to face and the ones, which will arise because of him.
Clinton?
Now we have really a problem. An Afro-American or a Woman? Speaking of prejudice here it comes clear what it means. It is almost a joke, if it would not be so serious, to see that the "Liberals" rather vote for an inexperienced Afro-American than for a Woman.
Have Americans, especially the Democrats, forgotten, that because of Bill Clinton's politics and leadership, we had finally a balanced budged and beginning to accumulate a positive SURPLUS?
Have too many Americans not recognized that by now that, in spite that Bill Clinton was knowingly (so where many other presidents, starting with George Washington) a philanderer BUT a good politician, who actually did something for the people rather than G.W. Bush? Have Americans forgotten, that Bill Clinton cleaned up the mass G.H.W. Bush left in the first place? How many Americans, turn away from clear conspiracy of the Bush Administration, beginning long before (but planned the events) for a "successful" election.
Does it not strike anyone add that the incitement efforts towards Bill Clinton where masterminded by Newt Ginrich, who, at the same time was clearly philandering with some woman as well? Has no one understanding for the evil of Dick Cheney who planned the Iraq War long before elections 2000 even began? Who says that it is impossible that the Cheney, Bush, Ginrich club did not initiated a setup with Monica Lewinsky? Just to damage the Democratic Party well enough to manipulate a possible winning in the 20000 elections?
True, this is unproven and just a hypothesis but considering recent events and how they (the Bush Club) lied and cheated to get their way, this is truly not an impossibility.
Considering now that even the prolonged pre-election is masterminded by the same individuals seems to be not far fetched and clearly creates a good starting point for a successful McCain election and he would be indebted to its masterminds and therefore the reign of the Bush Doctrine could go on and could be the next (after McCain) Presidential candidate would be Jeff Bush.
Think about it and prove me wrong, I would be happy to face defied in this matter.
Now to Hillary. It was also often spoken of that she was the "Spiritus Rector" of many of Bill Clinton's ideas and considerations. Surely she was a good politician and proved that during her role as Senator for New York.
She surely has experience and a strong will. Bust she also, like every one of us, has some shortcomings. Who are we to criticize that? (Or with other words and understanding, do we criticize our selves when we criticize her?).
What seems to be clearly visible is the almost same vicious and covetous attitude, which swept the country (manipulated by hypocritical Republicans) during the hearings regarding a potential Bill Clinton indictment. The way, his wife (the actual victim) is been treated right now by many Americans seems to be related to degrading propaganda and the same callous considerations as they where evident in 1999.
Coincident? There are to many co-incidents and more than two co-incidents in the same matter or the same considerations make me very suspicious. However, we speak here of more than 15 to 20 co-incidents and that is more than suspicious.
The question is here, how can we trust any Democratic Leadership, especially after the failure of Nancy Pelosi and her inept acting's in matter of American National Security and welfare? The only candidate they have who would make sense, they not even support by themselves they rater endorse G.W. Bush and make no real efforts to rebuff him in any way.
Politics? Yeah! But the question is here who benefits from all of that? Any good detective asks first, who benefits from the crime, in this case from a divided Democratic party and from a Democratic Candidate who surely will fail, because he has no grasp on the realities of the disastrous situations he would have to deal with, if elected. A perfect setup if you ask me. But again prove me wrong and I will be glad to grant you your victory because I would be a winner as well, even if I did not vote for it because of my believes.
Back to Hillary. Sure she has problems and if someone is not allowed to change his mind because initial intelligence proved wrong or was even manipulated, I ask all Americans, how many have believed that it would be right and the best to invade Iraq but by now have changed their mind? So you can do that but a politician not? Why?
Politicians are humans as well and to many incidents of shortcomings, much more devastating and even criminal has shown that in the past and will do so in future.
Hillary did not vote for torture of prisoners of war, Joe Lieberman did. I do not know how Obama voted on this issue and therefore cannot comment on it. But that decision, how to treat helpless prisoners is most telling about a humans concept of ethic and morale. Has no one ever considered that such behavior of our leaders is to often copied by the people, who feel in charge?
Has no one realized that the behavior of lying and cheating as our current administration does it is been copied by MANY? Speaking of torture, why do you think the Police feels free to shoot someone callously and than even get away with it on court? Or all these other outrageous excesses the Police providing us with almost on a daily occurrence?
Is violence the best way to fight violence? I would say yes for any uneducated person, because the Republicans preach it this way and conduct themselves in the same concept. Does that make it ethical and morale?
Hillary has some concepts of morale who are much more appealing than the callous concepts of her opponents. She would be able to handle a crisis and show strength in smoothing them out. Obama has not even any clear concept of them. All he wants is Change (the question is from what and HOW?) but even that is not explained professionally rather just emotionally and that is the danger. It shows his inept experience and ability to handle a crisis.
Hillary would act, Obama would ask ten advisors and still could not come up with a sound solution. He has not even come up with an answer about his true patriotism, also what do you expect?
In summary:
We are screwed again. The Democrats feel with overextended liberalism they can win the heart of the Americans and thereby split themselves into half and actually condemn the upcoming elections to be lost by them because of that. The Republicans are as usual out to gain so much as possible at whatever cost and whit whatever ruthless mains.
We the people have to pay the price for our "tolerant" behavior, surely the Politicians do not respect that even where they manipulate it that way and so we feel we can do nothing to prevent either evil.
Except, if we beginning to ask hard questions and make long overdue demands on our representatives and then watch them follow up on it, rather than to query between them selves and play childish power games at out expense.
Therefore it is time to think hard about the reality and what democracy actually means. Vote for the right person and leave the fakes on the way out. Get a real functional Congress working for the People and not against them.
Voice your concerns to the media and make them listen to you, you pay for their publications, also you have a right to see your opinion printed or spoken of much more than the Advertisers who manipulate you to buy their explanation why they have to make Billions and have to get tax-breaks and you not.
This has to be done with intelligence and not with violence, but it has to be precise and consistent, otherwise they wear you out easily.
Think of your children and think on your own retirement, think of the cost of living and accept your neighbor rather than to sue him/her for fictive benefits or loses. That applies also to our neighbors to the North and South as well as to communities (countries) overseas. We are not alone on this planet and the only way how we can curve violence is by educating ourselves and our children to be more tolerant and understanding to other peoples needs and concepts of living, even if that does not apply to us.
There are many other issues to be discussed, like Immigration, Social Security, Health Insurance, Education, Banking Laws, the Second Amendment, Justus, Supreme Court, Police, Military, just to name a few but I just hope that this article, if read, may be inspires some one to help acting in a responsible way to save the freedom and liberty we supposedly so much enjoy in this Country.

Posted by: Michael Sanders | May 8, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

How about McCains Pros & Cons on this Con Job: -- Hello CONGRESS !!?? Where is Our Congress?! - Why has not the War Profiteers and Economic Terrorists been prosecuted and jailed?! Bush / Cheney, Haliburton, and KBR - Are Responsible, and the buck ends with Bush. Why are they not in prison? Please tell the American Citizens why. CONGRESS, what are You doing about these Criminal Acts in Iraq?! - $19,000,000,000 missing at a minimum!! How? That is enough $money to give 190,000 of Our poorest FAMILIES each a suitcase with $100,000 in each! How can that much money go un-accounted for?! Treason, War-Profiteering, and the Looting of America must stop NOW!! "Congress wake up",- You are also accountable and are violating your' oaths of office. Soverign Citizens Unite, and order the CONGRESS to do it's Job!! - This Economic Terrorist Network Must be Arrested. - What in hell is going on in Washington D.C.? - jward52

Posted by: Joe Ward | April 28, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Useful site. Thank you!!!
http://teen-sex.brige.us teen sex

Posted by: teen sex | April 9, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Useful site. Thank you.
http://dick-hoyt.brige.us dick hoyt

Posted by: dick hoyt | April 9, 2008 7:08 AM | Report abuse

Useful site. Thank you.
http://filme-cu-sex.brige.us filme cu sex

Posted by: filme cu sex | April 9, 2008 2:00 AM | Report abuse

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://sexy-models.greatapproved.in sexy models

Posted by: sexy models | April 8, 2008 6:30 AM | Report abuse

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://hentai-top-100.greatofficial.net hentai top 100

Posted by: hentai top 100 | April 6, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Useful site. Thank you.
http://milfs-next-door.greatofficial.net milfs next door

Posted by: milfs next door | April 6, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Useful site. Thanks!
http://humiliatrix.greatofficial.net humiliatrix

Posted by: humiliatrix | April 6, 2008 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://retro-porn.greatofficial.net retro porn

Posted by: retro porn | April 6, 2008 5:33 AM | Report abuse

Useful site. Thank you!
http://older-moms.countysearchusa.net older moms

Posted by: older moms | April 5, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Useful site. Thank you.
http://infant-porno.countysearchusa.net infant porno

Posted by: infant porno | April 5, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Useful site. Thank you.
http://infant-porno.countysearchusa.net infant porno

Posted by: infant porno | April 5, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://culos-video.countysearchusa.net culos video

Posted by: culos video | April 5, 2008 5:58 AM | Report abuse

Useful site. Thank you:-)
http://hentai-manga.countysearchusa.net hentai manga

Posted by: hentai manga | April 4, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://bleach-hentai.remego.net bleach hentai

Posted by: bleach hentai | April 4, 2008 7:23 AM | Report abuse

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://gay.remego.net gay

Posted by: gay | April 4, 2008 2:29 AM | Report abuse

zpngdhxl hnzsxf zcotinwep wqkifjsx eucd cfiatxvqw epdog http://www.huslcqpi.hyewcxmln.com

Posted by: trsjiezyx owefpm | April 4, 2008 1:27 AM | Report abuse

qajygb qisvd jeswhb jorxvkwug otjelc blspdnty mjiktwqdh

Posted by: qwcgrt xnho | April 4, 2008 1:27 AM | Report abuse

Know what neither party wants to talk about ? "Ford Motor Co. is selling its storied Jaguar and Land Rover businesses to India's Tata Motors", that's what. Their failed trade policies and over and over repeated but wrong headed belief that protectionism, protecting American jobs and quality of life, is wrong. WAKE UP !

Posted by: ppcgm | March 26, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

There are no PROS only CONS to McCain using up air that a more normal person could be using.

Posted by: Paul Stephenson | March 25, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

There are no PROS only CONS to McCain using up air that a more normal person could be using.

Posted by: Paul Stephenson | March 25, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! http://hkdgmxglja.com

Posted by: dbsmqqqcci | March 23, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

After hearing reports this week that the "source" of what has widely become a "silent campaign" to discredit Presidential candidate Barack Obama. Reports that comments made by his preacher to condemn his legitimacy as President came from no one other than the John McCain camp. The McCain camp apparently thought they were clever in playing "both sides against the other" by maneuvering the general public (and media) into believing the source of the controversy came from the Clinton camp. I think it just goes to show that McCain is indeed a formidable opponent and Democrats would be foolish to take him lightly. He has shown he is quite capable of shifting and manipulating public opinion (especially in regards to Democrats). Considering what's at stake here, we shouldn't put anything past McCain or the Bush administration (which is quietly putting McCain in increasingly positive light in the hopes he will continue the Bush agenda of a continuous war).

Posted by: HipHop73 | March 21, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Please lose the precious Steven Jobs-Tom Cruise outfit and we may try to take you srsly.

Posted by: Lamb Cannon | March 9, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

im a little confused why people keep harping about McCain wanting to give the rich class tax cuts. Isn't it the rich who own most of the economy that we invest in? so by stifling their ability to expand their buisness and distributing it among the lower class income, 1. doesn't that lower the potential of our economy to grow 2. create more unemployment because corporations have to cut back to make enough money to keep their buisness afloat while paying the new/ heavier taxes imposed on them. this country was based on the system of capitalism and that is why it is so successful today....but fine if it makes more sense to have a little bit more money today than what you could have tomorrow then lets keep going. this country will have major economic crisis in just a few short years if the people vote against tax cuts for the rich. what do i know im just a kid.

Posted by: michael McCondochie | March 4, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

If anyone else sometimes feels as hopeless as I do no matter who wins the election, check out this video by David Ford on youtube. It really hits the nail on the head and is a great song as well
http://youtube.com/watch?v=M0wOkiOMlDE

Posted by: abnyc | March 3, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

x1mgqhhtv7ie http://www.299841.com/343897.html > efs6eyc2nw88 [URL=http://www.420874.com/284997.html] r0vyduhucnf4 [/URL] qitdy7tjqb

Posted by: 7w4377tkcn | February 27, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

obama muslim: this was on an interview last night an sky angle .mr Ergum Caner of liberty university at lynchburg va ,who is a converted muslim to christian said that obama was schooled in madrasa,s and is a muslim ----------unless he has converted . lets ask obama.... we do not need a muslim president in the usa.
thank you j morris

Posted by: j morris | February 27, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

McCain is like a fish out of water.

Posted by: SW | February 27, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Look we need McCain. He has the experience to mislead the American people and if we Republicans are going to win we MUST mislead the American people, make sure we scare them. FEAR must be McCain's message and to scare the hell out the Americans into voting for him. This is the only chance to win, we must use the fact Americans are easy to scare.

Posted by: Al | February 24, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

tp3yn606m fzs6xwa3x 0iz7238l2ump

Posted by: gn2op6wv2y | February 22, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

MESSAGE

Posted by: ISHMAel back | February 21, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

kevin devoto writes: This is insightful and helpful. Please bring more of this to our attention. thanks kevin devoto

Posted by: kevin devoto | February 19, 2008 1:22 AM | Report abuse

kevin devoto writes: This is insightful and helpful. Please bring more of this to our attention. thanks kevin devoto

Posted by: kevin devoto | February 19, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

00s5uw0jzec6lr72 [URL=http://www.488311.com/652772.html] 05rr4awc5ub7 [/URL] 2wztz14rr4a0r8ds

Posted by: pm9wfygvoz | February 18, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

6d5ptaziugqf8 http://www.377462.com/721517.html > 9d6yx3btg [URL=http://www.690775.com/946222.html] tymljwymf0erls [/URL] 5jt0ndg4jnt4jw

Posted by: xqc6im3l6n | February 18, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

.
.
.
.
.

McCain, Obama and Clinton are pro-NAU/SPP.
Huckabee and Paul are pro-American

STOP the North American Union!

http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/

.
.
.
.
.

Posted by: Regulus63 | February 11, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

The one comment by McCain that stands out in my mind is that he equates withdrawal with surrender. As a lifetime military officer and Presidential candidate, he should know the substantial difference that exists between the two terms.
This confusion shows me that McCain is a militarist, and is unequipped to handle foreign policy by means of diplomacy, statesmanship, or even through normally applied military means, leaving aside the possibility that he deliberately confuses these terms in order to (further) mislead the American electorate and people. Leaders who cannot assess when a situation is inappropriate for further military action waste the lives of our men, and lead to bad decisions and policies.
McCain is both the grandson and son of admirals, and a lifer retiree from the military. I feel he is either incompetent or unacceptable as a military officer and President, a really dangerous person to put in charge of our forces, if he makes such statements as these with such a background.

Posted by: bong_jamesbong2001 | February 11, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

A Commentary/opinion On the Presidential Elections 2008
The minority credentials of Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama and the unpopular legacy of the current Republican administration are unlikely to guarantee either of them the nomination and presidency in 2008. The outcome of this competition will be determined not so much by what is spoken and visible, but rather by what is unspoken, invisible, and taken-for-granted during the debates and campaign rallies. Unless democrats make radical changes in their campaign strategies, both in the primary and in the presidential, another Republican dominated White House, probably under Senator John McCain is highly probable. McCain seems to be skillfully exploiting the currently available opportunities to win the presidency by simultaneously disassociating himself from the Bush administration, establishing his credentials as a better and pragmatic conservative, and more importantly reinforcing all the negative stereo types about the democrats.
The entry of Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both minorities into the Presidential race, is indeed, a victory for the long fought battle on racial and gender equality. This, however, is not a sufficient indication of a radical substantive shift in the voters' attitudes towards a woman or person of color becoming the head of the state. The racial and gender equality visible in the public domain does not necessary mean that influence of race and gender on voter preferences have declined.
There are many who believe that a woman is too weak (for cultural or religious reasons) to be the head of the state. Racism still continues, in hidden and subtle forms, and some continue to fear people of color in leadership positions. The interplay between race and gender has the potential to determine the outcome of the competition between Hilary and Barrack, and at the same time deny either of them the victory over the Republican rival at the presidential elections The democrats do not seem to grapple sufficiently with the impact of the complexities and realities of identity politics on voter preferences. Those who prefer Hillary over Obama for racial reasons may dislike Hillary because she is a woman. Those who prefer Hillary over Obama because she is a woman may still not like her because she is a white woman. A colored male would be still preferred to a white woman, a perception shared even among some white men who dislike women being the head of the state. The same applies to those who dislike Obama for racial reasons. Democrats and undecided voters who are concerned about Hillary's association with Bill Clinton's controversial legacy may opt to vote for Obama, or a Republican during the Presidential election.
Minorities are not a homogenous lot; both candidates seem to take the intra-minority differences for granted. The African Americans are divided between Hillary and Obama. Democratic-minded Latino, Asian and South Asian minorities may prefer Hillary over Obama, simply due to the racial differences and tensions between them and the African Americans. This will divide the minority vote, and place Hillary in a much more advantageous position than Obama. In such a situation anti-Hillary and independent voters will prefer McCain.
Hillary seems to count on the support of the majority of the working class, as if the working class in this country is a homogenous lot, and they value class interests above other interests. She seems to think that her appeal to the Working class will simply transcend them. Perhaps, she is also banking on the non-African American working class who will vote for her because of their dislike for an African American candidate. This may be the case in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. Obama on the other hand, does not seem to counter Hillary's taken-for-granted endorsement from the working class.
Both candidates take their minority credentials for granted and do not pay attention to the influence of intra-ethnic tensions on voter preferences. Contrary to popular perception, Obama seems to be more capable of transcending the ethnic diversity than Hillary. If Obama wins the presidency, he needs to clearly demonstrate his capacity to transcend the differences between Hispanic and the other minority voters. If either of them is to win the White House, it is important that they counter Senator McCain's free market economic policies to unify the non-African American minority votes. The more economically privileged minorities, particularly the non-African American minorities, are likely to opt for a Republican rather than a Democratic candidate.
These realities of identity politics, however, cannot be easily tested. No one is going ask and not everyone will provide sincere answers to substantive questions about gender and race. It is not "cool" or politically correct to talk about them, but their influence is an important determinant of the outcome of the elections. Racism or sexism will remain as the "unspoken" variable, its impact on the elections will be hard to ascertain. The failure of the democratic candidates to find creative and pragmatic ways to incorporate class divisions (Rich and the poor) seriously in their campaign makes it extremely difficult for them to transcend the race and gender divisions, and consequently the policies of the republicans appear more convincing to the poor and middle class voters.
Then there are those who dislike a minority person (a woman or a person of color) not because they are sexist or racist, but because of perceptions of inexperience or integrity. Those apprehensive about the immorality and human cost of the Iraq war cast serious doubts about Hillary's sincerity, honesty and integrity. Her support for the war has earned her the reputation of being a highly opportunistic politician without any firm principles and commitments.
Obama does not carry the blame of being distrustful or opportunistic, but the lack of experience. There is no doubt that Hillary has more experience at various levels closer to the office of the presidency than Obama. On the one hand, her experience will place her in a stronger bargain position vis-à-vis those "special interest groups" that control Washington politics; hence she will be able to provide a better public service. On the other hand, she is too entrenched in the establishment for too long and will not be able to change the status quo. She does not have any outstanding achievement compared to Obama.
It would be unfair and premature to discount Obama simply on the basis of his relative lack of experience in public office, hence vulnerable to manipulation by the special interest groups In the past, many have been elected into the presidency with less experience than Obama. If voters look for 'radical' change of the current economic and political system, there is not much evidence not to give an opportunity to Obama. In fact, his 'relative neutrality' will place him at a better bargaining position vis-à-vis those interest groups. Obama's survival and successes as President from a colored minority will force him to bring much needed balance between diversity and unity in the administration as opposed to Hillary, who in some circles has earned a reputation of being a divisive person including in her association with the Clinton administration.
Whether Hillary or Obama gets the nominations, the policies of those interest groups e.g. big corporation, the media, and transnational actors who really control politics are unlikely to change automatically. On the one hand, both candidates are supported by corporate money. On the other hand, history has shown that any candidate who takes a strong position against the corporations and advocates a radical break with the mainstream economy has not gone very far in their campaigns for nomination. Even the general public is do not support such "radical" candidates. The fact that there are some substantive differences in the sources and the extent to which the Hillary and Obama candidates are supported by corporate money, by no means indicates that either of them are better positioned to bring changes to the influence of special interest groups.
The special interest groups such as the corporations do not directly take part in the political debates and campaigns; they simply endorse the candidates or impose their influence through the media. In public the debate is between the politicians, not between the politicians and those who really control the economic and political power from behind the scenes. The ways in which the hosts of the campaign debates frame the questions to the candidates provide ample opportunities for the candidate to disengage from any confrontation with the cooperate powers. Sometimes the candidates refer to "special interest groups," but they never specify who they are and how they plan to 'disempower' them. There is a happy marriage between the special interest groups and the candidates, where the candidates attack the special interest groups as a way of getting votes, but never articulate any plan how to fight them. While the special interest groups continue to influence the voters with their respective media organizations, they simply wait and see who gets elected, knowing that they could simply continue doing business as usual irrespective of who gets elected as the president
Mean time, the voters, who sincerely believe that the corporate patronage of politics is a main cause for many of the economic and politics issues, are confused as to which candidate is capable of navigating such political culture. They might prefer a Republican who openly advocates free market capitalism to a Democrat who seems to not to have a clear policy on the economy. Failure of the democrats to clearly articulate their economic, political and security agendas will only reinforce the negative perceptions about democratic economic policies, which eventually will cost them the presidency
The track record of the Republicans in both domestic and international economic policies is so poor; they will have a hard time in winning the elections. President Bush is leaving a red-ink legacy that would make it extremely difficult for any candidate to rectify. McCain is in a highly competitive position because he has earned reputation as a person with an independent mind who will not hesitate to challenge the main stream or the policies of his own party. McCain clearly understands popular perceptions and skillfully reinforces the negative perceptions about democratic policies. Both candidates promise to bring the troops back and empower Iraqis to take control over their own destiny. Although Hillary seems to be more rhetorical and less pragmatic than Obama, neither of them is convincing. "Bringing the troops" and "Empowering the Iraqi's" are slogans, not convincing policies. Both are saying what they want to achieve, not how to achieve what they want. Two fundamental issues they need to address are, first, how they plan to tackle the complexities involved in handing over control to the Iraqies. How do they plan for the US to cope with the political and economic crisis following withdrawal from Iraq? Secondly, how will the US plans to cope with the strategic economic and political interests that would follow after a withdrawal of troops? We do not know how such policies would be received by the profit-oriented military industrial complex and business that have invested so much in the war and have special interest in the continuation of American presence in Iraq.
Both Hillary and Obama want to improve the United States image internationally. While Hillary has experience in dealing with the international actors, she, because of her support for the war has earned a negative reputation in countries that are politically volatile and matters a great deal to the security of the United States. If fact, Obama's 'unique' minority credentials and his consistent opposition to the war makes him a stronger candidate to improve the international relations of the United State as opposed to Hillary and Bill Clinton's foreign policies particularly in the Middle East.
McCain while critical of the way the war is conducted, by-passes the question pertaining to the withdrawal of troops from Iraq simply saying that it is a matter for the military to decide, not for politicians. He appeals to patriotic-minded supporters of the security forces who believe that the troops will achieve the objectives of the invasion, provided there are left alone by the politicians. McCain does not want to interfere with the military, but wants to support the troops. Compared to his democratic opponents, he appears more clear and pragmatic in the light of the complexities involved in the future of Iraq. While Hilary is in a weak position to win over voters who dislike her because of her support for the war and to improve the United States record of international relations, success of Obama depends providing a strong case against MaCain's strategy in Iraq. Obama has to convince the public as to why the policies of the republican party alone is not sufficient to improve the situation in Iraq, and not let McCain to isolate politics from the role of the military.
Hillary Clinton wants universal health care. Obama want an egalitarian health system. None, however, indicates how they plan to raise financial resources to support their agendas. What we know is their respective preferences, nothing about their power to bring changes in the interest groups that control the health care industry. Would it make more sense to bring some representatives of pharmaceutical industry and insurance industry to respond to the policies advocated by the two candidates? Their lack of clarity make them susceptible of being not being pragmatic and advocating big government, both of which are very strong negative stereo-types about the democrats.
In their respective political debates both Republicans and Democrats treat politics and economics as two different domains. Economic issues are reframed and political issues and the former can be fixed changing the culture of politics and political leadership. So economic problems masquerades as political problems, and the political problems masquerade as problems associated with a given political party or their leadership. These perceptions are widely shared by the public as well. Although McCain also subscribes to a similar approach he is different because of his uncompromising advocacy for free-enterprise capitalism. Policies of the democrats, however, reinforce the popular negative perception about the "big government." Perhaps, the way out for democrats is either to explain or dispel the popular fears about a big government by educating the public as to why their policies will not lead to a big government or why big government will not necessary lead to economic crises, in fact, it will lead to a better economy. For example, increased governments will lead to better human resources which will retain jobs within the United States.
Of course, there is a difference between how you get elected and how you govern. Often one is elected not necessary for what he or she stands for publicly during the election campaign, but for what is not spoken. The interest groups who control the politics are really interested in these unspoken topics, that they know that neither candidate will dare address in public. As Kevin Connolly of the BBS puts, "You might rule as a pragmatist, but you have to run as a purist." This means you will run as a pro-life candidate, but you can still govern as pro-choice candidate. However, this is not an excuse for the candidates not to provide substantive explanations to the pressing concerns of the voters. At least they need to tell the voters how they plan to negotiate between purity and pragmatism of their respective principles and policies. On these grounds republican candidates appears to score more than the democrats, as the former has a reputation of being principled and united as opposed to the later known for their ambiguity and disunity.
For many McCain appears as a more a pragmatic person than either of the democratic candidates. He is a person with an independent mind and capable of bipartisan politics, who does not fear to even challenge his own party. He skillfully disassociates himself from the Bush administration by blaming it for all the economic and political woes. His criticism of Bush is politically more appealing to the public than if it had come from the democrats, since he is an insider. At the same time, he presents himself as a sincere and committed politician committed to conservative and free market values as opposed to a big government. Interestingly, McCain often invokes Reagan Revolution.
While it is true that Reagan's legacy is a distant memory for many of the voters, still they remember him as an ordinary guy who unified the nation and won the war against communism. None of the democratic candidates are unlikely to take on McCain's association with Regan or his revolution. In fact, there is hardly anything to gain, but to take enormous risks, by associating themselves with the legacy of Bill Clinton's administration, which is the closest to the memory of democratic administration. McCain has not only criticized the present administration, but his association with Reagan also provides a concrete example to prove his capabilities. This will compel some voters to discount the legacy of the current Bush Administration, and still hope for a better future under a McCain presidency.
A victory at the presidential elections either for Barrack or Hillary is unlikely to be influenced by the respective minority status or their past political credentials or by critiquing the Bush administration. Senator McCain is doing an excellent job in critiquing the Bush administration. Instead, democrats should spend their energies to concrete policies in a ways to dispel the popular negative stereotypes and perceptions (e.g. lack of unity, big government) about the Democratic Party and governance under democratic leadership, and to focus on critical issues ignored by Senator McCain.
Democrats also seem to be oblivious as to how the current competition between Barrack and Hillary for nomination tends to reinforce the negative stereotypical perceptions of democrats as disunited and lacking a clear agenda for change, and how in turn these perceptions would impact the voter preference at the presidential elections. It seems Republicans will unify behind their candidate sooner than the democrats, while democrats will have to wait for their conventions to decide on their presidential nominee. Such delay will cost them the presidency, partly because highly possible tensions between Barrack and Hillary will frustrate many voters and force them to opt for a president who appears to be more unifying. At this stage of the race, Hilary Clinton stepping down from the race is likely to increase the chances of democrats' gaining the control of the White house.
In the end the media carries a great responsibility to frame the questions to the candidates in such a way that they cannot escape from answering the substantive issues that matter to the country at large, so that the voters can make an informed decision about their choice for the President.

Posted by: Jude L. Fernando | February 9, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Ya lets vote for a democrate who plans on taking more money via taxes out of a working persons pay. That makes good sense. Democrates are too afraid to fight for this country we need a strong leader. Since when is it bad to have war to keep your country safe? Without Iraq war we'd have 9/11 on any day of the month. VOTE REPULICAN. People voting democrat please get a job and earn ur on money and healthcare o and grow some balls.

Posted by: Joe | February 7, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

If you really want to see the pros and cons of McCain, you should check out the site called ProCon.org. They have a pros and cons page on John McCain at http://www.2008electionprocon.org/candidates/johnmccain.htm.

Posted by: Tommy Flanagan | February 6, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

My idea for the primary system is not to allow the media to choose to televise and not to televise. Ron Paul for example is the only candidate who is not getting any media coverage because the media is making decisions for themselves by posting their preferred candidate, notice how FOX, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, Washington Post, USA Today is not mentioning Ron Paul, we'll there you go. That is why the media is not being fair but bulling candidates off the air. I think we have a problem here and the media is to blame.

I here Bilderberg Group

Ron Paul is the only candidate who will change the US out of foreign policy and major inflation in the US

Oh lets not forget NATO, Russia (and China)endorses Ron Paul to stop NATO

Posted by: Scott | February 5, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

I don't know and foxes more than gardening chunk home

Posted by: globalglobal | February 5, 2008 4:23 AM | Report abuse

McCain is for a war that has been through and through proven a fraud. You could literally call it the war of 1000 lies. That this cold blooded reptile, in step with the current administration, wants to press on with this atrocity, is reason enough not to vote for him.

Ron Paul gets more money than McCain because his followers are educated, reasonable, logical, and dedicated- enough to donate and engage in logical debate.

McCain supporters are lever pulling monkeys - allergic to reading books, thinking objectively, and comprehending history. So though there are more of them then Paul supporters, they aren't dedicated or care enough about this election to take part of that risk in the form of a donation or time online researching the issues.

Posted by: Brian | February 5, 2008 3:38 AM | Report abuse

i like ron paul the best, but i bet it will be mccain versus obama
- i don't think mccain can beat obama though, but it will be very close probably
- closest race still gw had to cheat in florida

Posted by: canada | February 5, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

could mccain have been broken and brainwashed while a POW? Why does he fight so hard to keep the pow mia files hidden? Go to vietnam veterans against mccain. RON PAUL remember that name when you are getting more of the same crap and living under a bridge next year.

Posted by: tom old marine | February 4, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

I've been a republican 23 years, but I will NOT vote for McCain, nor will I vote for Romney. The only true conservative with any integrity, intelligence or consistancy is Ron Paul. The GOP just makes themselves look stupid by trying to minimalize him. A vote for McCain, Romney, Clinton or Obama is just a vote for "more of the same"... and that is NOT what we need.

Posted by: Nancy | February 4, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Simply put, I and many other Americans are on the verge of a true revolution.

Not some kiddie game like has been played but a pure political ass kicking.

We want the Wars to stop. We want our rights as American Citizens returned. We want to stop any politician who does not adhere to the Constitution as written and amended.

The time has come for a look in the mirror for the American System. Ron Paul is a symptom of that. The media has invaded our rights to chose and the last eight years of politics has eroded our rights as citizens.
Time to end the occupation of the USA now!

Posted by: Rob J | February 4, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Hi,
Very very nice site!
And please visit my forum :)
adipex
http://adipexadipexonl.blog.ijijiji.com

Posted by: side effects of adipex | February 4, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

We, the American people, are waking up to the blatant bias of the corporate media in the obvious attempt to control our Presidential election. The media continues to promote their hand-picked candidates, while trying to discredit the amount of success and numerous, passionate support for Ron Paul by the American people. Why do you think Ron Paul had twice as much money donated to him compared to McCain (Ron Paul 20 million vs McCain 10 million) in the 4th quarter of 2007? Why do you think that Ron Paul had more donations from the US military than all other Republican candidates combined in the 4th quarter? Our revolution is growing by the day and exposing the media's dishonesty and fraud on the American people. Once the traditional media loses our trust, they will NEVER regain it again!

Posted by: Scott | February 4, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

100 years of war sounds really good to me. Bomb Iran? Why not? How about a draft for everyone 18 to 42?

McCain is Insane. And if I had to see that smug look on his face on my TV every time he made a presidential speech, I'd throw my TV out the window. The economy? What's that? My cronies are rich and powerful, so I don't give a flying bomb's butt.

I do like Sunshine, though.

Better yet, Canada is starting to sound really good, if Ron Paul doesn't win. But all my bets are on him doing just that. We've come a long way and we've still got lots more supporters jumping aboard the Ron Paul Train!

Posted by: blakmira | February 4, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

100 years of war sounds really good to me. Bomb Iran? Why not? How about a draft for everyone 18 to 42?

McCain is Insane. And if I had to see that smug look on his face on my TV every time he made a presidential speech, I'd throw my TV out the window. The economy? What's that? My cronies are rich and powerful, so I don't give a flying bomb's butt.

I do like Sunshine, though.

Better yet, Canada is starting to sound really good, if Ron Paul doesn't win. But all my bets are on him doing just that. We've come a long way and we've still got lots more supporters jumping aboard the Ron Paul Train!

Posted by: blakmira | February 4, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

MorganaLeFay's talent for distilling a pure point is awesome.

Posted by: jhbyer | February 4, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

i think the mainstream media is waiting on the keating5 reference until they find out if he's going to be the one. i'm a little surprised romney hasn't brought it up so far. . .

(i'm voting for ron paul because i'm concerned about the war and the economy)

Posted by: sean truitt | February 4, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

way to make sure the ron paul comment you posted was made by an obvious conspiracy theorist. i know that you had better comments than that one. ron paul folk make good points sometimes, but you couldn't shine any light on that, could you?
john mccain is out of touch with this country and will continue doing exactly what bush has been doing. anyone who thinks he's gonna fix anything for the better is just as insane as he is.

Posted by: seth c. | February 4, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

McCain' Cons and Neocons.

Posted by: TJ | February 4, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

McWar should just do everyone a favor and drop out.

Vote Ron Paul

Posted by: NYryan | February 4, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA 08

Posted by: shan | February 4, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

FYI - support our troops and military - they have donated more money to Ron Paul than any other republican candidate in the 4th quarter of last year - combined!

Posted by: a patriot | February 4, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Well McShame blew it in 2000 I would never vote for this sorry old man, Mcshame/Leiberman thats the best the grand ole party can do? I vote for the only American running for the office of the President of the United States. Ron Paul, these other one world rhino's, Should be very ashamed of themselves. End the Corpritists grip on our country before it is to late. Ron Paul 08

Posted by: RaferJanders | February 4, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

No mention of McCain being a member of the Keating 5, and during a time which we've been S&L'ed by the entire banking industry nationwide.

You'd think that woul be an important "con", but hey, when as the media ever done it's job of educating the public about the past? They're too busy peddling propaganda.

Posted by: Richard Wicks | February 4, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran....come on lets rally around this guy!!!

Posted by: NYryan | February 4, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Democrat in Utah asks 'where is the outrage'?
Has Congress just lost it ? 150 Billion for what I ask, Give people money to pay for things already in hock for like credit cards, mortgages and health care.This money will go for old business, not new spending. How about borrowing the $ for something in return, like alternative energy. Even 100 Billion could create 30,000 plus new megawatts of wind and solar thermal clean energy, enough to power 22 MILLION homes, shut down one third of the coal fired plants, create an income stream from a Federal/ municipal power co op, and put 100,000 unemployed to work for the next ten years. That is what I call a decent ROI.Not to mention a HUGE drop in CO2 emissions. We changed the composure of Congress for this type of thinking .... and we are getting the old way. A 3 Trillion dollar buget ? Don't do it. Put as much as possible on hold for the new guy, hopefully somebody with a brain that functions better.
Chris Lucas

Posted by: Chris Lucas | February 4, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company