Jindal Says GOP Getting Away From Its Core Values

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, an up-and-coming Republican sometimes touted as a potential presidential running mate, said his party has taken a beating at the polls lately because it "started defending corruption and spending and other things they would have rightfully condemned in the other party."

Jindal, the first Indian American governor and a former House member, said he has talked to presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) several times, but that they have never talked about his possibly serving on McCain's ticket.

"I'm certainly supporting Senator McCain, will do whatever I can to help him get elected, but I'm focused on being governor of Louisiana," Jindal said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

Some analysts have drawn comparisons between Jindal and presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). Both are newcomers to the national scene, minorities, highly educated, young and talented at public speaking.

Jindal said that -- even aside from policy differences -- those comparisons have their limitations.

"I think Senator Obama is an incredibly gifted speaker. I don't think I should be included in that same short list, and I mean that as a sincere compliment," Jindal said. "I don't agree with all of his ideas, but I think he brings an earnestness, I think he's genuine. I think he speaks better than any elected official I've heard in several, several years, maybe going back to President Reagan."

Two former 2008 presidential candidates - Democrat John Edwards and Republican Fred Thompson - made it pretty clear that it's pretty unlikely that they would be Obama or McCain's running mates this fall.

"I'd take anything [Obama] asked me to think about seriously, but obviously this is something I've done and it's not a job that I'm seeking," Edwards, who was Sen. John F. Kerry's running mate in 2004, said on ABC's "This Week."

Thompson said he is not interested in being vice president. "It's presumptuous for a person to turn down things that haven't been offered to them and I don't think will be offered. And it's not something that I want," he said on ABC.

Edwards critiqued the media's coverage of the campaign, calling for "more substance, more policy, more depth."

"It's the nature of American journalism and the nature of Americans -- you know, we like a good contest," he said. "We love to go to football and basketball games. But politics are different than that. There's something very serious at stake. And we should know what the real and substantive differences are between the candidates."

Days after the Supreme Court threw out the law governing the process for trying detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Thompson said the justices' 5-to-4 decision would play a big role in the 2008 campaign.

"I can't think of anything that more starkly points out the differences in these two presidential candidates, in terms of the kind of justices that they would appoint to the Supreme Court," he said.

Meanwhile, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) acknowledged on CNN's "Late Edition" that his party faces a difficult prospect this fall in trying to hold onto its number of seats in the chamber.

"We've got a steep hill to climb. It's a challenging year for Republicans. I think Republicans, we have to do is show that we're agents of change," he said.

By Post Editor |  June 15, 2008; 1:40 PM ET
Previous: Remembering Russert | Next: No Talk This Week


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Two comments:

There will be NO new Supremes before the inauguration in January 2009.

The Supremes did EXACTLY what they should have, and the decision is based on the Constitution. Only the right-wing demigods, syncophants, and bigots think Bush and Darth Vader would get anything but slapped, and this is the THIRD slap on them on essentially the same issue.

Hurry up January 2009.

Posted by: swanieaz | June 15, 2008 2:41 PM

"Drifting away?"

Running headlong is more like it.

The GOP's core values have been dead as doornails for years. The party leadership used them as bumper stickers to cover over grand theft and looting on an historic scale. These are the moct socialist leard we've had since Lyndon Johnson. They're nothing but pure Keynesians using Defense as their Department of Fearmongering and Redistribution. And the useful idiots who call themselves conservatives are footing the bill and enjoying it.

Posted by: DFC102 | June 15, 2008 2:41 PM

McCain is an absolutely terrible candidate, but after the horrific Bush presidency, you could prop up a bowling pin and it would be an improvement. But, McCain is flailing in the wind, without an ounce of conviction. He will be a continuation of the disastrous Bush platform, and our country cannot afford another four years of anything approaching the Bush debacle.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 15, 2008 2:43 PM

Posted by: info | June 15, 2008 2:44 PM

a gifted speaker? ridiculous. noonan wrote his speeches. his vocabulary was limited to two words, 'i forgot'.

Posted by: alzheimer ron | June 15, 2008 2:52 PM

I wouldn't go so far as to label them as the guy did...


This time we want one focused on the U.S. and not moreso for corporate. A breath of fresh air from Bush-policies this time around would be nice!

Posted by: Obama2008 | June 15, 2008 3:02 PM

Malik Obama confirms Obama grew up a Muslim.


Posted by: Truthhurts | June 15, 2008 3:15 PM

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is attracting elite Jewish Democratic donors who backed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and are concerned about Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) stance toward Israel, say McCain backers who are organizing the effort to court Democrats.

McCain has already had several fundraising events with Jewish Democrats in Washington and Florida, say his supporters.

He also has the backing of Democrat-turned-Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), who made history as the first Jewish vice presidential candidate and has recently raised questions about Obama's foreign policy vision for the Middle East.

Stephen Muss, the Florida developer, is the biggest Democratic donor and fundraiser to pledge his support for McCain and the Republican National Committee, said a GOP official. Muss has given tens of thousands of dollars to help Democratic candidates in recent years, including $80,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics and CQ MoneyLine.

Muss did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday afternoon.

"Many Jewish Democrats are sensing there is such an existential threat to Israel that you have to vote for an individual who strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship," said Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), chairman of the GOP's Jewish Victory Coalition.

Cantor said McCain held a fundraising breakfast with Republican and Democratic Jewish donors last week at the Hyatt Hotel in Washington, D.C.

"The playing field is wide open for John McCain as far as attracting Jewish support," he said.

Cantor said Muss would help bring more Jewish Democratic donors in South Florida over to McCain.

"He's an influential player," said Cantor. "From my knowledge of his influence in South Florida, that's significant."

Brian Ballard, a prominent McCain fundraiser, said that several major Jewish Democratic donors have said they will join McCain's camp.

"There are Bill Clinton folks who for the last three to six months we've been pushing to get involved," said Ballard in an interview last week, referring to former President Bill Clinton. "In Florida there are a lot of people not happy with Obama's stance with regards to Israel and regards to Cuba. We're starting to see some significant people come over.

"Democrats who are traditional large Democratic givers are coming over to our side," said Ballard.

Jewish support is especially important in Florida, a crucial swing state where Obama trails McCain in recent polls. Jewish voters make up about 5 percent of the electorate in that state. Florida's Jewish community is also a lucrative source of political fundraising.

Jewish Democrats are concerned about Obama's stance toward Israel, and many big donors from this group supported Clinton. McCain has moved aggressively in recent days to win their allegiance since Clinton dropped her White House bid.

"Her dropping out was huge in terms of potential for crossover voting and crossover support," said Cantor.

Jewish Democrats are concerned about Obama for several reasons. While stumping in Iowa last year, Obama told Democratic activists, "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people."

Some Jewish voters interpreted the statement as a sign that Obama would be overly sympathetic to the Palestinian side in future peace negotiations with Israel. And some are concerned about a senior Obama adviser's comments regarding the influence of American Jews on foreign policy. Merrill "Tony" McPeak, the former Air Force chief of staff, told the Portland Oregonian newspaper in 2003 that the political influence of the Jewish community had hampered efforts to negotiate peace in the Middle East.

Obama has also caused some alarm among Jewish Democrats by pledging to negotiate with leaders of nations that have taken hostile stances against Israel, such as Syria and Iran.

The growing sympathy of Jewish Democrats toward McCain is epitomized by Lieberman, a self-described independent Democrat from Connecticut.

Lieberman has launched a new bipartisan grassroots group, Citizens for McCain, to attract Democrats and independent voters to the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.

Lieberman could become a potent weapon for Republicans seeking to pick off Jewish Democrats. As the Democratic Party's former vice presidential nominee and a former Democratic candidate for president, Lieberman is assumed to have an expansive list of Jewish Democratic donors from around the country.

"Joe Lieberman supporting McCain has gone a long way with the Democratic Jewish community," said Stu Sandler, deputy executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

"People across the board have had trouble with Obama's stances and some of the people he's had around him," said Sandler, citing McPeak.

Sandler said that McCain met with a group of 60 Jewish leaders, including "a handful" of Clinton supporters, before a conference hosted in Washington last week by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

McCain held a fundraiser with Jewish donors on Friday in Key Biscayne, Fla. Before the main event, McCain met with a roomful of Jewish Democratic donors to discuss Israel and other issues important to them.

As many as two dozen Jewish Democrats who attended the meeting gave money to McCain's campaign at the fundraiser, which raised about $500,000, said a source close to the event's organizers.

Posted by: Truthhurts | June 15, 2008 3:19 PM

The latest Guantanamo detainees decision is a defining moment for democracy in the US. What could be more of a core value than habeas corpus?

We should be very wary of any presidential candidate (or Supreme Court Justice) who tries to convince us that the right to challenge arbitrary detention does not apply to unpopular people, or that the Constitution can be suspended in time of war.

Posted by: algasema | June 15, 2008 3:31 PM

The Republicans have already shown us that they're "agents of change." We used to be the best country in the world. We used to be the "good guys," who would never torture prisoners of war, much less civilians from an occupied country. We used to have credibility and a national conscience.

We used to feel secure. Now a bag of hair gel can shut down an international airport. That's not security, that's paranoia, courtesy of our "agents of change."

Posted by: Voice of Reason | June 15, 2008 3:42 PM

who cares if obama grew up as a muslim, if it's even true? what difference does it make? only a prejudiced person would make that type of comment. what's important is who he is now as a person and a leader. and he is substantial.
bobby jindal believes in creationism. 'nuff said. goodnight, irene.

Posted by: frieda406 | June 15, 2008 3:47 PM

Jindal would be the perfect reinforcement for McCain's "lay back and enjoy your rape" platform! He does McCain one better in enforcing Shari'a Law, opposing abortion even in the case of rape and incest. *

McCain-Jindal: The RIGHT wing choice for 1908.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal

Posted by: B2O2 | June 15, 2008 3:50 PM

I would hate to have "Bombs Away McCain" President of these united states. The man is unstable and has an almost uncontrolable temper. In fact, Republican Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi said of him and I quote, "The thought of his being President sends a cold chill down my spine. He is eratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper, and he worries me". Can you imagine McCain making decisions on whether to enlarge the wars in the Middle East to include Iran when we are bogged down already in an unwinnable war in Iraq (according to experts who have spent years in Iraq and the middle east not the Republican sycophants the news media always quotes) and in Afghanistan. This guy is as dumb as Bush when it comes to Foreign Policy and national security. He thinks a trip to Iraq where he will be entertained by Bush clones in the military and kept in "safe" areas is proof that he knows more about what is happening in Iraq than Obama. It reminds me of how reporters were taken to Vietnam and given the royal treatment during the Vietnam war. They all came back saying that everything there was wonderful! The "light at the end of the tunnel" crap. A vote for "Bombs Away" McCain is a vote for more war. I guess, 4000 dead, 35,000 mutilated and injured, and another 150 billion dollars of borrowed money from China isn't enough to satisfy their addiction to war.

Posted by: dave | June 15, 2008 3:51 PM

Ask someone from Louisiana how popular Bobby Jindal is right now. He has refused to veto a dramatic pay raiise the Louisiana Legislature has given itself, even though Bobby opposes this increase. He is too busy trying to keep his nose from getting bloodied by his state legislature and somehow maintain the national illusion that he is a "new" and "upcoming" Republican. The poeple of Louisiana are very upset with Bobby at this moment.

Posted by: LSUvet | June 15, 2008 4:48 PM

"--Malik Obama confirms Obama grew up a Muslim.--"


Another Republican liar. McCain: The candidate of choice for dishonesty.


Posted by: NoOneImportant | June 15, 2008 4:52 PM

It's not news that Republicans act in opposition to the values they claim to hold; the news is that a Republican actually realized the inconsistency and spoke about it in public. They talk about reducing the size of government and government spending, and they they increase both to record levels. They spout family values and then they have extramarital affairs. Great people, huh?

And because they can't use the N word, they trot out the tired, weak, repeatedly disproven crap about Obama being Muslim.

Posted by: Not Big News | June 15, 2008 5:33 PM

AMERICA: It was a great idea.

Posted by: Tomhere | June 15, 2008 5:43 PM

Uh, Jindal is a nothing. He was Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at HHS and I hear he made no decisions, everything he did was about politics and advancing his career. Just what the republicans need, another talentless idiot. Go ahead McCain, pick him for VP. Then you have even less of a chance of winning.

Posted by: the truth | June 15, 2008 6:10 PM

Since when did the G.O.P. Have Values - They Sold Those For The Southern Strategy - Thanks Nixon

Posted by: Values... did he say Values? | June 15, 2008 6:20 PM

Jindal is reciting the entrenched, in-denial thinking that led the GOP to conclude that it lost ground in the 2006 elections because it hadn't being right wing ENOUGH. The failure of the Republicans to accept the repudiation of their insular, outdated and fringe platform and views, and their failure to reformulate and update their platform and agendas from the past century, is the reason why they're still lost in confusion while polling numbers are sending clear messages to them.

They still don't realize how out-dated and fringe their platform and approaches are. The Bush-Cheney-Rove years allowed an extreme minority of the population to dominate the political landscape of the general society, and they became too extreme and insulated. They still don't realize how pointless and infuriatingly wrong their stale ideas have become in the past 8 years. Without a reformulation of the kind McCain is attempting, the party is too ideologically bankrupt for any practical political movement.

Yes, the party fell down on small-government, low-spending and fiscally wise management principles, among other failures. But the failure to carry through with ideologically pure, principled conservative lawmaker and executive actions are just the nails on the coffin, so to speak. The core failures of the Republicans are on issues that are outraging the general public and are the most unpopular stands that conservatives keep taking in the face of public scorn. (Like responding to an increasing vulnerability to high energy prices with oil-company-pandering, opportunistic calls to drill in protected reserves, while failing to focus on serious and permanent fixes like real fuel efficiency, energy technologies and renewable fuels programs.)

The right wing is spoiled and self-obsessed after years of rule of extremists over the centrists and moderates for so many years. They don't realize they have no political capital left and their ideas are not only out of touch and out of the mainstream, but they have become emblematic of everything wrong, from scientifically impoverished global warming denials to constant attacks on ANWAR's protected oil reserves.

The problem is the spoiled and out of touch right-wing base that is, even now, fighting with McCain as he tries to reformulate the party platform to be less of a laundry list of most-unpopular, reviled and debunked ideas of the day. They refuse to follow his lead and keep going off-message and arguing at cross-purposes to him, apparently unaware of how dreadful their "contributions" are. The Republican right wing has become the out of touch, offensive harpy whose every utterance is capable of spiking the Republican party's polling numbers lower.

That spoiled and out of touch base is withholding its support from McCain, arguing with him and undermining him instead of following his leadership, discussing his ideas and helping sell them to the electorate.

The right wing base, at this point, doesn't want the Republicans to win the election so much as it wants to continue to dominate the party as an extreme minority of America. They're probably going to have to lose everything, for years, before they choose to come out of their deluded bubble.

They are like the offensive line on a football team, who, in the middle of a game that is already underway, keep arguing with the coach about what plays to put in the play book while the other team has the ball and they should be in full defensive mode.

I feel sorry for John McCain. If he can pull this out, he will be a great president. If he can pull off what are basically the chores of Hercules, just to deal with his deluded, out of touch party, he could be a leadership President.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 15, 2008 6:23 PM


George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Thomas Jefferson Believed in Creationism, so I guess nuff said as well. The fact that you bring this up as to whether a politician will be effective is absolutely retarded. Get offended hurry. If you are going to say something, bring up a policy he supports that you disagree with, like others have done.

Posted by: Libertarian | June 15, 2008 6:23 PM

We need 5 new supremes court judes.To protect our county.

Posted by: avery davis | June 15, 2008 6:24 PM

GOP values? They've always been pretty plain to see: Gimme,gimme,gimme...more, more, more. So they're still homed right in on their priorities - just ask Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney and the rest of the gang.

Posted by: nighthawksoars | June 15, 2008 6:29 PM

How does the title of this article relate to its content?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 15, 2008 6:41 PM

I expected a list of values and explanation of the "how" as well. Maybe it is the writer's way of implying that for Republicans, it is an obvious point based on the issues? Good point.

Posted by: Obama2008 | June 15, 2008 6:46 PM

Jindal thinks the G O P "has taken a beating at the polls lately because it started defending corruption."
What's he EXPECT the party of corruption to do? Of course they are defending themselves!
I've been cataloging the GOP's rampant corruption for years, and publishing my findings at the site which has earned the top spot in the list of sites recommended by Google and the like when searches are made for "Republican corruption", i.e. http://LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/gopcorruption.html (or http://JesusNoRepublican.Org/).
Check it out and help spread the truth.

Posted by: Rev Ray Dubuque | June 15, 2008 7:02 PM

McCain should pick Thompson. They can run on a SNOOZE CAMPAIGN. As for Jindal, he's an ardent bigot--homophobe--and McCain would do well to pick him so as to insure McCain's loss with women voters, Gays and the elderly and anyone who believes in equal rights and healthcare for all.

Posted by: Steamboater | June 15, 2008 7:05 PM

I'm pretty sure that the terrorist-hugging liberal meant "demagogue," not "demigod" when referring to conservative, constitutional common-sense types like myself. Thanks for the accidental compliment, though.

Check the case precedent for this one: Ex Parte Quirin, for one...

Posted by: KB | June 15, 2008 7:23 PM

I find it very sad how uninformed and ignorant some people (even Supreme Court Justices) can be to think that our U.S. Constitution and its "unalienable rights" extend to FOREIGN citizens who were captured while waging war against America. The Constitution was written to apply to the citizens of this country, therefore should not be applicable to these prisoners. Granted, they should be given the opportunity for defense, but not to the same standard that our Constitution allows. Our own military servicemen are not tried under the Constitution in military trials. The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) does not have the same level of rights and provisions that the Consitution does, so why should these terrorists get better treatment than our own servicemen and women? The truth of the matter is, THEY SHOULDN'T. Had they minded their own business, attended their mosque like good little Muslims, and avoided contact with terrorism, they probably would not be in Gitmo to begin with.

Posted by: JROD | June 15, 2008 7:26 PM

Why is that anyone of color or a different name is considered a Muslim?? The politicians are not damaging this country nearly as much as the closed minded ignorant thinking of some so called Americans.

Bobby Jindal and Barak Obama are both Christian. While i do not believe in many of their views and politics, each individual's story is the stuff that makes our country a destination for people who want to make something of themselves.

Next time someone decides to say Obama or Jindal are Muslims, they will just be confirming my post.

Posted by: Chefra | June 15, 2008 7:29 PM

To Truthhurts,
You seem to say everything related to Jewish voters in your second post. Are they the only donors in American politics?. For that matter are they the only people who vote in America?. That would be a big surprise in this our wonderful country.
I guess John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were right after all. Maybe its about time the USA examined the power of the Jewish lobby.

Posted by: TruthShouldnothurt | June 15, 2008 7:38 PM



Posted by: LYNN PARKER | June 15, 2008 7:49 PM


The Founding Fathers believed in Deism, not Creationism. VERY different modes of viewing the world. Thanks for playing.

Posted by: JD in Ann Arbor | June 15, 2008 8:11 PM

jindal is an empty suit, just like Barack

Posted by: Anonymous | June 15, 2008 8:24 PM

"Why is that anyone of color or a different name is considered a Muslim?? The politicians are not damaging this country nearly as much as the closed minded ignorant thinking of some so called Americans."

Obama was a Muslim because his father was Muslim and because he was raised Muslim as a child. He was converted to Christianity at Trinity Church by Rev. Wright, but he was still a Muslim.

No one is close-minded by pointing this out. The problem is that Obama is denying that he used to be a Muslim and has put up a website that uses cleverly-worded, narrowly-worded refutations to imply that he "never was a Muslim". Obama can successfully use the website to bluster and lie, but the problem isn't that he was or wasn't a Muslim when he was a child.

The problem is a candidate who denies who he is and his religion in order to be more popular and get more votes. Obama not only denies being a Muslim as a child, he also denies that he was aware of what Rev. Wright was preaching at Trinity Church for his 20 years as an active member of the church.

There isn't much character for President in a guy who lies about his religion in childhood and his worship as an adult. It's not narrow minded to revisit his true biography versus his revisionist autobiography.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 15, 2008 8:29 PM

The GOP's 'drifting away' from its values? That implies that it actually has values to drift away from. Unless you count doing the bidding of donors and oil companies, lying, cheating, contempt for the law and constitution, and hatred of gay people as values. If there's anything else the GOP actually stands for, please do let me know.

Posted by: Tom | June 15, 2008 8:31 PM

Jindal is too young, like Obama. By reaching for this guy, the Republicans demonstrate that they aren't really aware of the fundamental problems with their brand or the fundamental attractions of Obama's. Reaching for Jindal is the shallowest, least insightful interpretation of what Obama's candidacy is about and how to beat him.

Sad, very sad.

The Republicans are just flailing and clueless as to what is wrong with their platform, brand and process. All those years of getting away with ignoring public opinion and the mandates of the greater electorate, by focusing intensely on an intensely mobilized base, has resulted in the Republicans being in a clueless bubble about what to do now to win a general election with that base demoralized and their reach in the center gutted by voter repudiation of their out of touch platform.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 15, 2008 8:36 PM

I'm increasingly amused at the right wing's efforts at labeling Barack Obama everthing and anything that they think will turn people against him. No matter how many times you say that he grew up a muslim it won't be true. He is part Kenyan. My sister was married to a Christian Kenyan for twenty years. I met dozens of his friends and family, none of whom were muslim and they all had those types of clothes. Those are Kenyan garments not muslim garments. Also, that silly article on the pro-Isreal-gets-to-do-anything-it-wants website didn't quote Obama's brother as saying that he grew up muslim. If that quote was even true, it stated he had a "muslim backgroun" which seems to refer to his father.

If Barack were a muslim to you vicious people think that he would impose his views on our country, or have you not thought that far yet. Will he join forces with terrorists? Right, he had this all planned out and he's almost there. Nice you give him all that credit but it won't work--you guys are shooting yourselves in the foot so keep it up but I don't think your hate will work this time. Americans are smarter than that.

Posted by: MJS | June 15, 2008 8:36 PM

The Republican Party isn't the same Republican Party my grampa said to vote for. It's been hijacked by a most corrupt Conflict of Interest and Collusion challenged bunch of scalawags, Republican, Democratic, or Independent Legislators seen since Tammany Hall.
The racist, greed and avarice riddled Dixiecrats jumped from the Democrats to the Republicans when the Democrats saw the light and embraced the Civil Rights act.
The Dixiecrat values attracted the Neo Con Parasites and once they leeched on, even the Dixiecrats didn't know that they were outclassed in the greed, avarice and racist arena.
Biding their time, the Neo Cons, then pimped themselves to the Religious idiots, with such finesse, the church of the white mans Jesus, with its's new idealogy of greed and corporate style governing, in the manner of the Neo Con owned corporations, is now practicing a bastardized version of christianity with principles and ideals completely 180 degrees opposite what their white man Jesus lived and breathed.

Posted by: CurtJ | June 15, 2008 8:38 PM

That's why I like Bobby Jindal. He is a REAL Conservative, unlike MANY Republicans!

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | June 15, 2008 8:45 PM

Compassion, I'm sure Dems would agree, was never a Reublican core value until Bush came along. It's what undoes Dems and what has undone Bush. Fortunately for McCain continued Obama gaffes and liberals prevailing on the question of recognizing habeas corpus for murderers captured by our troops on the battlefield will ultimately seal Obama's fate.

Posted by: rpatoh | June 15, 2008 8:47 PM

Freida406 is right. It scares me how divisive some people can be about religion. That's a big reason why I don't bother with religion anymore. People like Truth Hurts, don't want to hear the truth. They just want to win. That's sad. I call you anti-American. I'm an immigrant to this country and I know that this country was built on doing what is right both at home and abroad. "Truth" I bet you know little of our national and world history. That's why you spew your divisiveness with little concern for what's good for this country instead of what makes you feel good. Sad...sad...sad!

Posted by: MJS | June 15, 2008 8:47 PM

Jindal would have been a great boost to McCain's campaign, but his kudos for Obama
will be self-destruct. He is too honest.

Posted by: Observer | June 15, 2008 8:49 PM

rpatoh, I know you can't really be that simplistic to think that we could run roughshod over both our constitutional laws and international law, abuse people that we capture, torture them, discover that a huge number of them should never have been captured, and then expect them to want us around. That's so stupid. I heard a report on the radio yesterday that it is well documented that large numbers of the people that the U.S. captured in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries and jailed wrongfully had been indocutrinated by Al Qaeda while in jail and of course when they were released they joined the insurgency. Maybe if you were locked up wrongfully you'd feel grateful to your captors and torturers afterward and join their cause but I doubt it. You have to THINK with your brain not with your emotions. If this country will be great again, it will be because we elected Barack Obama. No matter what you say about him, I'm certain he won't "make gut decisions" as Bush does like some amateur and ignore the advise of his expert advisors deciding instead to listen to people with ulterior motives like the "Jews are superior" neo-cons and the people with oil interests. WAKE UP!

Posted by: MJS | June 15, 2008 8:54 PM

I loved what I have seen so far of Jindal! A tru breath of fresh air and brillient, and articulate; I admire his compasinate, but dignified restraint. True presidential meterial. Move over Barack Obama! Here comes a wonderful man far more experienced and accomplished! Even ten years younger! Barack Obama is mostly just words; no substance! I'll vote for Jindal anytime!

Posted by: anindependentvoter | June 15, 2008 8:55 PM

I'm struggling to picture the virtually 100 percent white GOP having an Indian-American as a VP candidate, even if he is a right-wing creationist from Louisiana. But I hope McCain picks him. That's a good way to assure that 30-40 percent of their base stays home

Posted by: Patrick | June 15, 2008 8:55 PM

Yay Patrick!

Posted by: MJS | June 15, 2008 8:58 PM

As far as Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln accepting evolution - it would have been a little hard for Washington, who died in 1799, or Jefferson, who died in 1826, to embrace a theory that was first published in 1859 on the eve of the Civil War. Even Lincoln would have been hard pressed to be aware of such a recently published theory in the natural sciences as he prepared in 1959 to run for the presidency, and after election became embroiled in leading the country through the Civil War.

Despite these 3 leaders great foresight in many matters, they couldn't have known the theory of evolution before it was published. Also, it took many years for even experts in the sciences to absorb and come to accept what Darwin set forth in "Origin of Species". Note that even the teaching of evolution didn't become a major contention until the 1920's, when the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial" decided the issue for the first (but not the last) time.

Posted by: Bill in San Jose | June 15, 2008 9:00 PM

Constitutional scholars make it clear that the founders certainly weren't creating a "christian" or any other type of religious nation. They were actually doing the opposite because they left a country that oppressed people based on their belief. It irks me when people say that this country was founded as a Christian nation. Was anybody listening in American History?

Posted by: MJS | June 15, 2008 9:05 PM

Oops! That should be: "Lincoln ... as he prepared in 1859" - not 1959 as I said.

Despite many who have drawn parallels between Kennedy and Lincoln, it was Kennedy, not Lincoln, who was about to run in 1959!

Posted by: Bill in San Jose | June 15, 2008 9:09 PM

"I loved what I have seen so far of Jindal! A tru breath of fresh air and brillient, and articulate..."

Jindal has a serious speaking, appearance and presentation issue. His voice is awful, both nasal and grating, he is stiff and strained in his posture and facial movements as he talks and, well, look at his hair.

Any candidate in the contest this year should take acting lessons, speaking training and get at least $100 haircuts. They should also exercise and eat a lot of vegetables.

This year's election, with Barack Obama in it, is more like "Dancing with the stars" and "American Idol" than it is like Bush v. Gore. Anyone who doesn't realize they are in a battle of personalities and charisma might as well pack it in... Not that Liebermann was a winning wing man in 2000, either.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 15, 2008 9:09 PM

"Obama was a Muslim because his father was Muslim and because he was raised Muslim as a child."

Actually not, his father left when Obama was 2 and did not have contact with him. His mother and his maternal grandparents reared him and they are not Muslim. They did not drop Obama off at a mosque. Nice try though at disinformation. Some stupid people will believe you.

Posted by: somnamblst | June 15, 2008 9:09 PM

Thanks for clearing that up. I had serious doubts that Obama's grand parents were Musilim but unlike the O'Reilly and Limbaugh crowd, I think and research before I repeat things.

Posted by: MJS | June 15, 2008 9:12 PM

"a gifted speaker? ridiculous. noonan wrote his speeches. his vocabulary was limited to two words, 'i forgot'. "

You referring to Jindal or McCain?

Posted by: tom | June 15, 2008 9:26 PM

Please, Republicans are generally not drifting away from their core values. Since the mid 1870's CE, the GOP has usually represented the interests of corporations and the wealthy. Originally created as a party upholding human rights, being opposed to the expansion of slavery and abolishing that infamous institution, since Reconstruction the Republican party, except foe the progressive Republicans, have opposed the rights of unions, as well as been against the creation of social programs from Social Security to Medicare to Medicaid to universal health care coverage.

The only major change among most Republicans in three decades is the party used to advocate balanced budgets, however since the Reagan era, they have endorsed excessive military spending and huge tax cuts to especially benefit upper income households, resulting in gargantuan budget deficits.

Posted by: Independent | June 15, 2008 9:27 PM

Agents of change? Republicans are the reason we need change.

Posted by: Sara B. | June 15, 2008 9:28 PM

The Constitution was structured to protect the rights of American citizens, not foreign combatants in particular terrorists. The freedoms we cherish may be what eventually destroys us if we disburse rights to those who are not worthy of them.

Posted by: Ziggy1 | June 15, 2008 9:31 PM

"I find it very sad how uninformed and ignorant some people (even Supreme Court Justices) can be to think that our U.S. Constitution and its "unalienable rights" extend to FOREIGN citizens who were captured while waging war against America."

Well, they were actually addressing the limits of federal power, which is quite a different issue.

Posted by: tom | June 15, 2008 9:31 PM

"As many as two dozen Jewish Democrats who attended the meeting gave money to McCain's campaign at the fundraiser, which raised about $500,000, said a source close to the event's organizers."

Okay, you persuaded me, Truthhurts: McCain should run for President of Israel! They'll need someone, when Olmert goes to the slammer!

Posted by: tom | June 15, 2008 9:33 PM

bobby jindal seems to be a decent guy which makes me wonder if he belongs with mccain.

bobby,as a second generation immigrant,drifted away from his indian cultural and traditional values.that makes many indians uncomfortable about him,even if they are proud and happy for his achievements.

bobby's parents immigrated from Punjab,India.he should read a book called 'passage from india' written by joan jensen, a historian, in the 80s. the early punjabi immigrants faced discrimination.they were called names like 'hindoos' and 'coolies' by caucasians. they were stripped of us citizenship and property because till 1943 america was a place only for caucasians and blacks,and others were unwelcome. that picture changed in the 60s with martin luther king's movement and lyndon johnson/john kennedy's promotion of civil rights. as part of that deal, the quotas for immigrants from india increased and bobby jindals parents moved to america. bobby was then born here.

mccain voted against equal rights for naturalized us citizens in 1995 and again in 2007. mccain effectively,even though he was born in panama, has opposed equal rights for foreign born scientists, engineers and doctors-and he has done that along with the 48 other republican senators in 2007 and for many years before that.

i, as a naturalized us citizen,indian born, will not vote for mccain even if bobby is his running mate. it will be a vote against my conscience.

i don't have anything in common with obama either. i supported hillary. i am not crazy about either obama or mccain. obama called hillary 'a democrat from punjab' and attacked her character. obama's supporters played the race card, and called everybody opposed to them 'racist'. though mccain has a poor record on the iraq and economy, i won't vote for obama either

Posted by: observer | June 15, 2008 9:34 PM

"Compassion, I'm sure Dems would agree, was never a Reublican core value until Bush came along."

Bush wouldn't know compassion if it bit him in the arse! How stupid can you guys get?

Posted by: tom | June 15, 2008 9:36 PM

also, libertarian, you use unkind words when you refer to my comment about jindal being a creationist, which he is, and whether that belief can mar his/her effectiveness as retarded. that's not a very educated or thoughtful comment. i believe it's called simplistic and kneejerk. but i shouldn't expect less from someone w/such puerile reasoning as yours. next, it is absolutely an issue if someone is that naive or simplistic and bans from the rational thought process the importance of science. and this is someone who wants to be president? yegods. another moron. please spare us.
p.s. i put the phrase "goodnight, irene" in my first post. as anyone familiar with music history knows, that was a very popular song sung, among others, by the weavers. my name isn't irene, libertarian. you should be more careful when you read.

Posted by: frieda406 | June 15, 2008 9:36 PM

Jindal is said to be an exorcist. The Republicans could use one!

Posted by: tom | June 15, 2008 9:37 PM

I don't think even John Boehner believed what he said: "Republicans need to be seen as agents of change." What change could they possibly make that would not damage this country further?

Democrats, on the other hand, need to stand up and own up to their responsibility to restore the Constitution from its current status as "a piece of paper." As one voter, I have told my Congressman, a freshman Democrat, that I will vote for him in November. However, I also informed him that I will not donate to his campaign after his vote to extend warrantless wiretapping. That was just going along to get along.

Posted by: Pam | June 15, 2008 9:49 PM

The national media generally ignores what's happening with Jindal in Louisiana. He talks a good game, but his facade is quickly melting. The secretive governor avoids the state's press at all cost; supports the teaching of intelligent design in public schools and school vouchers; he also supported the repeal of Louisiana's very sensible motorcycle helmet law (thankfully it didn't reach his desk). But he outraged even his supporters when he said he will not veto a bill that will triple Louisiana legislators' pay. The raise will push Louisiana's part-time legislators' salaries into the top ranks of much larger, more prosperous states and states with full-time legislators. Meawhile, Louisiana remains last, or nearly last, in every quality of life list you can think of.

Posted by: Manchester | June 15, 2008 9:56 PM

Jindal would be wise to distance himself from the imploding carnival that is the McCain candidancy. If he wants to run as a "different" Republican at some point in the future, he will need to be able to point at the collossal failure of the GOP as exhibited by McCain's landslide defeat. Because, folks, that's what it is going to be: Reagan in 1980, except this time it will be Grandpa McSame rather than a peanut farmer who gets the shellacking.

Mark my words. The GOP is in for a long, well-deserved wander in the wilderness. Maybe if you all can figure out what those "core values" are and actualy act on them, maybe your "brand" wouldn't be utterly worthless today.

Posted by: Christian in NYC | June 15, 2008 10:00 PM

Do you remember watching Bewitched? The husband worked for some kind of advertising agency. Every disaster in the show was somehow turned into an advertising gimmick of some kind.

That's what the republicans have become, pretty much starting with Newt Gingrich, continuing through Tom DeLay and the current crop of fascists running the party.

With Karl Rove as the minister of propaganda, the party leaders have no clue how to generate policies to run the government that aren't first a policy to maintain republican power. It's not as if they've chosen this as an alternative form of governance, a choice among choices - they truly don't know how to do it any other way.
The republicans have gone from being a bunch of stuffed shirts to being a bunch of empty suits.

Fortunately for the republicans (and not for us) the democrats are an essentially useless group of humans. They have no backbone, and judging from their choice as party leaders in government - Pelosi and Reid - they will continue to remain useless.

We can only hope both parties will find a better way to compete for leadership, say, competence instead of marketing?

Probably not.

Posted by: dagwood | June 15, 2008 10:10 PM

I admire Jindal and his tiiumph in Louisiana. When we saw the obstacles he overcame to replace the GRF's (establishment) we were very happy. He is very capable unfortunately the Republican party is a lifeless uselss corpse. Jindal complains of corruption? Here is a page where people in positions of authority never dreamed their on line pictures would one day be used to expose their scientific misconduct and fraud.


S. Ray DeRusse
2917 Lipscomb St.
Fort Worth, Texas

Posted by: S. Ray DeRusse | June 15, 2008 10:30 PM

Oh please, Dear God, let the Republicans talk about their "values" again in this campaign.

Posted by: Roy | June 15, 2008 10:41 PM

Or maybe the GOP is exposing the real core of their values. Is not what it does more indicative of of its "values" then what it says?

Posted by: Mark from Planet Earth | June 15, 2008 10:45 PM

The two things that distinguish the two candidates the best are there views of Iraq and there views on help this country's economy. There are plenty of other issues that distinguish them, including health care which is important to me but if those to problems are not handled there will not be much of a country. We simply can not continue in the direction we are going.

Sen Thompson thinks otherwise because he is interested in distracting the voters from the central issues of the campaign. This is how the country has elected Bush twice. Gay marriage was not a reason to elect a president. The supreme court decision is not the reason now.

Posted by: Gator-ron | June 15, 2008 10:47 PM

Some conservatives are bickering about Obama supposedly being Muslim because that's the only dirty trick they could pull against him.

How lame.

Face it up, guys: Obama is running circles against McCain, and will win by a landslide in November. McCain is simply no match to Obama. This is obvious to everyone except a few people who are still in denial.

If you stop for a second being so suspicious about Obama, you'll realize he's a better choice for you personally than McCain is:

- Obama's a family man (as in, his wife is his first and only wife); there's been absolutely no rumor, ever, that he cheated on her - and you know better than anyone that rumors would have surfaced by now;
- Obama's more religious than McCain; he parted with his pastor b/c the pastor bashed the USA, not because of his pastor's Christian beliefs;
- Obama believes in family values; he said that repeatedly - he grew up without a dad and knows how important a strong family is;
- Obama's a self-made man, who started from the bottom and worked his way up through his own merits and determination. His dad was not a U.S. Navy admiral to open doors for him.

Just look at McCain's days in college and compare them with Obama's: McCain dated a stripper, drove a red convertible Corvette, and finished school the fifth from the bottom. Obama was the poor student who worked and studied hard, and finished at the top of his class, as editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review.

Why would you think that a party animal who grew up among the rarefied military elite has better morals and values than a hardworking, conscientious man who started from the very bottom and worked his way up to the top through his own merits?

Posted by: alan r | June 15, 2008 11:04 PM

Conservatism preserves the best of the past: integrity, fiscal respopnsibility, balanced budgets, and above all, respect for the Constitution of the United States, and our individual liberties guarantied in Bill of Rights. The Core Values of the present-day Republican Party are not Conservative, Neo-or otherwise. The Core Values of the Republican Party of Bush - Cheney, et al, are Fascist to the core. Mussilini called it Corportism, the seamless melding of corporation and state. We call it Halliburton. He who swears to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and then betrays that oath commits treason. McCain promises to continue most of the policies of the Bush administration, including the Iraq war, tax tax cuts for the super-rich, and "Bomb-bomb-bomb...bomb-bomb Iran!" Come November, vote as if the future of the American Republic depends on your vote. It does!

Posted by: Dennis Swenie | June 15, 2008 11:19 PM

I'm glad that Edwards did not rule out being the VP. He would make an excellent choice. He appealed to rural and working class voters, he was a tireless campaigner and both he and Obama refused lobbyist contributions during the Primary. According to a May poll done by Survey USA an Obama/Edwards ticket would be a very strong ticket.


Posted by: pmorlan | June 15, 2008 11:24 PM


I believe with all my heart and everything that's in me that if we decide to leave Iraq there will be chaos, there will be genocide and they will follow us home," McCain said. "I'm not prepared to let that happen. We cannot choose to lose. They should have let us win in Vietnam a generation ago."

What about the political consequences?

"I don't know, and I don't care," he said emphatically, repeatedly insisting that he would rather lose a campaign than lose a war.

His wife, Cindy, similarly brushes off the political consequences as she tells audiences that her husband is the only candidate she would trust to oversee the war to the end. "If we lose this race, it's not the end of the world. We have a great life; we have a great family," she said.

October 30, 2007

Posted by: jesse | June 16, 2008 12:15 AM

I do respect Governor Jindal but the truth is, the GOP's core values have been replaced with the stupidity witnessed over the last 7 years. Whatever was left of Reagan's influence in the party has been demonstrated to be thoroughly exorcised and all that remains is a party of greed, corruption, and fear. Where Reagan brought hope, Republicans today bring us fear of terror.

Perhaps had they not ridiculed as intellectuals the more intelligent members of their own party who have tried in vain to warn them over these last 7 years, they would not be facing such a high bill to pay this fall. As it is, I am a proud Republican for Obama. Because at the end of the day, a solevency of an economy is not determined solely by economic policy, domestic spending, or other political rhetoric, but it is determined by the people's ability to believe in and have hope in that economy. Republicans do not have hope anymore, only fear. They are willing to sacrifice 200 years of constitutional tradition because they are scared of terrorists.

Mr. Obama is not afraid of terrorists and neither are the real patriots of this country. LIVE FREE OR DIE

I am an American and I am not afraid to live free. I am not afraid to have a constitution that guarantees rights to EVERYONE, BECAUSE WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS AND IF WE AREN'T, THEN WE DON'T DESERVE TO BE FREE. McCain and the rest of the cowardly fear mongers can bite me. NO MORE FEAR. AMERICA FIRST. IRAQ CAN GET IN LINE.

Posted by: Benjamin | June 16, 2008 12:19 AM

"Obama was a Muslim because his father was Muslim and because he was raised Muslim as a child."

Okay, Republican geniuses. So everybody keeps the religion they were born into? Like my father-in-law who was raised Catholic and became a Unitarian Universalist in his sixties? Like my wife, likewise raised Catholic, and me, raised Methodist, who became Episcopalian in our twenties?

And if everybody keeps the religion they were born into, what does that do to this business of accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior that the right-wing "Christians" are so much into?

Posted by: Obama's No Muslim | June 16, 2008 12:57 AM

Reagan's "trickle down" economic philosophy was just as much a failure as both Bushies! The Repub party has been corrupt for years. Nixon was just the first to be ousted for it. Those of us who are old enough to have lived through these Repub mistakes are a living testament! The only decent Republicans have been dead for years!

Posted by: Mark VanGelder | June 16, 2008 3:44 AM

There was a time when Democrats respected Republicans for their values. But now, McCain campaigning to continue something other than Republican values, and against good sense.

Would a real conservative sing "Bomb-bomb-bomb bomb-bomb Iran?". What a horrible choice for President.

If nothing else, perhaps Obama will bring either one or even both parties back to their real values, which sometimes only happens by changing the guard.

Posted by: B | June 16, 2008 3:57 AM

McCain has his hands full with the right wing idiots of his party. Only those liberals with certified lobatomies would believe that he is a Bush clone.

Posted by: DerbyDaddy | June 16, 2008 4:03 AM

The Republicans spent their time in power pinching the middle class, providing corporate welfare, and letting public institutions and infrastructure deteriorate. They pass the largest budget EVER, but with no way to pay for it, plunging us in to massive debt.

Things get really bad, so Democrats are able to regain power and try to remedy the situation. But it costs money to repair a hole in the road - and all of that neglect is expensive.

Republicans blame Democrats for raising taxes. American public eats up the rhetoric against raising taxes, and re-elects the Republicans.

(This is where we revert back to ACT I)


Posted by: Brian | June 16, 2008 4:17 AM

To all the Obama lovers, you deserve everything that's coming to you and you will get it!

Posted by: Barry Rodgers | June 16, 2008 5:27 AM

Response to truthhurts:

The Jews have hurt America consistently and tainted its image throughout the world only to protect a illegal state and a forceful occupation named Israel. There is nothing wrong with being a Jew. but there is something seriously wrong with Israel. The problem is It wants the land but not the people in it. They keep demolishing and uprooting people who lived there for hundreds of years.

America has suffered enough to keep this rogue state happy. Now it is time to break free.

Posted by: Ron A | June 16, 2008 5:38 AM

Israel rules America. We use this country to make sure we get our way with the filthy Palestenians and make our money from it. America will always be a Isareali Pet

Posted by: Jeremy Stein | June 16, 2008 5:49 AM

Goldfarb writes, "Days after the Supreme Court threw out the law..." Don't you mean, "Days after the Supreme Court upheld the law" (of habeus corpus, that is).

Posted by: dsul93 | June 16, 2008 5:52 AM

Ron has hit the nail on the head!

It's about time somebody pointed out that the Jewish state commonly called Israel has created as much trouble as its predecessors suffered in Europe several generations ago.

I have Jewish friends and support freedom of religion, but the aggressive posture of the Zionists and their little friends in AIPAC (Schumer, Feinstein, and other idiots) makes me sick. They bear as much resemblance to true followers of the Jewish tradition as BushCo does to real Christianity.

To quote a blog entry I saw a while back...

Clean. House. Now!!

Posted by: fltnsplr | June 16, 2008 5:58 AM

Malik Obama??? Dude...Scare tactics were used to con the US into Iraq..Do you really think scare tactics are going to help choose a President or make us attack Iran? I think is time to change strategy. BTW, where's Osama Bin Ladin? Remeber that guy. He's the one who attacked us and currently vacationing in Pakistan.

Posted by: Jack | June 16, 2008 6:28 AM

There's like ten card-carrying socialists who read this e-rag and post the most biased opinions they can muster?

The negativity of these comments makes me want to dig a hole, crawl in and wait for it all to end.

I will say one thing before I go; Most of you haven't a clue about what you speak and wouldn't know foreign policy if it kicked you squarely in the head.

Posted by: sybredeth | June 16, 2008 6:47 AM

There was a time when the US was seen as a beacon of hope to the rest of the world. There was a time when the US was looked to as an end to tyranny and unlawful oppression. There was a time when the world carefully considered what the US representatives had to say. There was a time when the US still had allies, not just in governments but in the people they represent. There was a time when all of the nominees didn't have skeletons hiding in their closets. There was a time when our government did not spy on its own citizens. There was a time when our government instilled hope into its citizens, not fear.
There was a time when parents knew their children's birthdates, friends and teachers - and knew if that child had a sawed-off shot gun sitting on their dresser. There was a time when our citizens understood that honesty, perseverance, and caring for more than themselves were the qualities that made our country great. There was a time when more than 30% of Americans turned out on voting day.
Now our beacon is dim. Now we justify torture as a means to an end. Now our international delegates may as well be mute for the lack of influence they have. Now our allies leave us to wallow alone in our self-importance and paranoia. Now our politicians make the news not for their social reform bills and stirring speeches but for their pornography collections and lobby-funded vacations. Now your next-door neighbor, your grandmother, and you are wire-tapped because you, too, may be a terrorist. Now we fear the woman next to us in the grocery store because she covers her head and doesn't wear jeans, the elderly man at the airport because he tried to bring 4 ounces of shampoo on the plane and didn't want to take his shoes off at security, and anyone who doesn't look, talk, think, or worship as we do.
Now it's up to the schools and police to raise our children; we're too busy. Now it's not uncommon to watch a perfectly healthy adult park in the handicapped spot. Now we throw our trash out the window for someone else to pick up. Now we don't return the extra $5 in change that the new cashier accidently gave us, and will lose his job over. Now we don't vote, because who can really take an hour or two of their day once a year when there's pre-recorded TV waiting at home?
So yes. I do think it's time for a change.

Posted by: AD | June 16, 2008 7:06 AM

I care if Obama "grew up" a Muslin! I care about the security of my country that shall be in jeopardy if Obama wins the highest office in the land! I care that the entire assets of Obama, who may become the US President, can be said in two words: gifted speaker! I care that the
so-called judges on the US Supreme Court are punishing Bush via their recent decision (real fine Americans, NOT)! I care that the Democrats are totally partisan and that is the reason nothing gets accomplished in the US Congress!

"Four more years of Bush." No, possibly four more years of Jimmy Carter if Obama happens to win due to votes via the so-called blacks, the ultra left wing, the ignorant folks, and the 'give me what other's earn' -- the dictatorship of Obama's idea to redistribute other's wealth sets well with some folks who prefer to take not earn!

Yes, I care about this country and that few real patriots now exist. I care that too many US citizens are not educated; consequently, they goose-step to their master's commands, even if following them results in self-determent!

Yes, I care and so should those that claim I should not care, but just blindly vote for Obama due his skin color, and/or blindly vote for Obama because it's an historical election due to him possibly becoming the first African-American US President, and/or due to undeserved personal monetary gain, and/or due to wanting a dictatorship under the auspices of the ultra left wing liberals.

Posted by: Scarlete | June 16, 2008 7:44 AM

All I can say is McSame is collecting social security. I am sure he has the middleclass in mind as he cashes that social security check WE pay for!.

Posted by: Larry Oregon | June 16, 2008 11:17 AM

"McCain is the same as Bush." Only shallow liberal tools can try to tow that line. The media completely has Obama's back or this election would be McCain versus hillary.

The democratic leadership votes almost identically on every single issue and anyone who votes otherwise is blackballed. Democrats treat politics like high school where it is a popularity contest. The media backing them at every play is the only way we get socialist and communist laws attempting to be passed and not called for what they are.

Liberals want to make us tools of the UN and the rest of the world via climate change legislation, world courts, LOST, etc. That to me is a lot more scary than Bush. I don't like a lot of things Bush has done but it's ridiculous the negative media coverage and how people make him out to be as a result of that. Obama would rather sell out the US to countries like China and then brag how they like us again.

Oh well America is becoming a country of brainwashed idealistic tools who will deserve someone like Obama who will take away all our rights in the name of the environment, children, etc. We can pick up all these liberal policies and then go to the status of a 3rd world country quickly. I guess the good thing is by the end of the Obama presidency I can go work at a gas station and make a good living as liberals tax the wealth out of this country.

Posted by: Cryos | June 16, 2008 11:25 AM

Lol Brian the flaw in your "logic" is look at the 90s bubble econonmy. It was a massive consumer economy run by democrats that imploded and primed China and India's economies. Yeah the democrats are so much better when they're in office.

Posted by: Cryos | June 16, 2008 11:30 AM

The biggest problem with republicans is the neo-cons who spend like democrats. They are not conservatives and this definitely includes Bush.

To who said this about Edwards "He appealed to rural and working class voters." If that is true the rural and working class people are morons. Yeah he is really one of the people when he is a metrosexual who gets manicures and $400 haircuts. Yeah maybe that is appealing if you bat for the other side.

Posted by: Cryos | June 16, 2008 11:33 AM

I think all the hate against Jindal is because he is Indian American and Americans are mad at oversees jobs. You liberals should be ashamed of yourself for your blatent racism.

Posted by: Cryos | June 16, 2008 11:37 AM

"Lol Brian the flaw in your "logic" is look at the 90s bubble econonmy. It was a massive consumer economy run by democrats that imploded and primed China and India's economies. Yeah the democrats are so much better when they're in office."

Bubble ecomonmy?? What parallel universe are you living in? The primary goal ought to be fiscal responsibility, a responsibility the Republicans seem to have forgotten. Love him or hate him, at the end of the Clinton Presidency, the government had a balanced budget and zero debt,and the economy was very solid.

You think the "consumer economy" is run by Democrats?? And please don't pretend the Republicans do not blame Democrats for having to raise taxes to pay for Republican shortcomings. It is happening as we speak.

Posted by: Brian | June 16, 2008 11:53 AM

Cryos: "The biggest problem with republicans is the neo-cons who spend like democrats. They are not conservatives and this definitely includes Bush."

First, I agree that the current Republicans in power are not yesterday's conservatives, and that is a shame. But why is it that Republicans always use the tired "spend like Democrats" line?

The real issue is not spending. Spend or not, if either of the parties can not balance a budget and keep the federal government out of debt, they are a liability. Last time we were out of debt was during the Clinton administration.

Posted by: Brian | June 16, 2008 12:01 PM

Please Brian. I don't know what the color of the sky is in your world but remember the dot com crash? I guess it must not have existed since it was under a democrat's watch. And democrats love to accuse republicans of being supported by the "fat cats." How about the fact Bill Gates was a huge donor to Clinton and other democrats and became the richest man in the world with no successful anti-trust lawsuits under Clinton. Oh wait Clinton is a democrat there must have been no foul play involved.

The "balanced" econonmy was projected not including the high interest short term loans that Clinton obtained. Whoever was president after Clinton was screwed regardless of political party. The rest of the bubble fell when Bush announced he wouldn't support the Kyoto Protocol. The following day after his first announcement on that subject the Dow Jones took its first big hit of the big market crash. And the SEC was so gutted they couldn't tell where the money went. My guess is that foreign interests had a lot of money invested in America based on a democratic leadership and pulled out when they realized we wouldn't be a tool of world government.

Posted by: Cryos | June 16, 2008 12:03 PM

Obama was born a Muslim because his father was one. Get educated about Muslim beliefs!

Larry Oregon: All military members pay social security -- they have no option but to pay! Get educated! McCain paid his dues!

Posted by: Scarlet | June 16, 2008 12:04 PM

Yeah liberals believe in taxing the crap out of people and business to make the budget balanced. That is not a good strategy.

They are successful though because they target the successful who already pay the majority of taxes to support the "gimme" programs for everyone else. Of course they'll get votes if they say "we're gonna rob this rich person and give you money so you don't have to take responsibility for your own actions." People making under $30,000 pay negative income tax yet liberals insist on more and more subsidies. They won't be happy until middle class is more poor than the "poor."

Posted by: Cryos | June 16, 2008 12:15 PM


It seems to me that in your last post, you are saying Bill Clinton was pro-business and free market, so thanks for that. Bill Gates, by the way, won his case because he invented the operating system in the first place, giving him unusual latitude.

To think that the .com crash was caused by Clinton policy is ridiculous. It happened under established SEC rules and at the hand of over-zealous brokers. The President can not change SEC rules - those are controlled by Congress. Once everyone realized that the stocks were all over-valued, that is when the market crashed. Clinton was no saint, but he didn't cause the market crash, nor did the Republican Congress. Believe it or not, politicians are not the cause of everything that happens.

Posted by: Brian | June 16, 2008 12:17 PM

Bill Clinton was moderate in many ways. I give him credit for that. I didn't say the .com crash was caused by Clinton policies; I said it happened under his watch. And the SEC being gutted did have to do with his presidency. Agencies like the SEC and INS deteriorated over his 8 years in office.

I agree that the president and congress don't decide or cause everything. The same goes for liberals claiming that Bush caused this "bad economy" although I admit the war and other policy changes by neo-cons are not helping things. I also like how "recession" was splashed all over the place by media and a negative outlook was put out before there were even any supporting numbers. This coincides with the media blackout on the war as it becomes successful. Could it be democrats knew the war would be less of an issue when it is becoming more successful and needed a bad economy to have a chance of winning this November?

Also how does "corporate welfare" cause these problems? The corporate tax rate of 35% is the 2nd highest in the industrialized world behind Japan. Even if you count credits, etc the tax rate remains extremely high.

Posted by: Cryos | June 16, 2008 12:27 PM

The Republicans spent their time in power pinching the middle class, providing corporate welfare, and letting public institutions and infrastructure deteriorate. They pass the largest budget EVER, but with no way to pay for it, plunging us in to massive debt.

Things get really bad, so Democrats are able to regain power and try to remedy the situation. But it costs money to repair a hole in the road - and all of that neglect is expensive

So how are things like massive climate change legislation and social spending programs for the poor and illegal aliens "repairing a hole in the road?" It appears the democrats seem more concerned with using bad economies as justification for socialism than they do fixing the problems.

I respect "classic" liberals who I think were standing up for working class people and passed sensible legislation. Unfortunately modern liberals seem to have lost their way and their "progressive" agenda is to "take a world view" and transfer wealth to other countries. Neo-cons and neo-libs have taken over both parties.

Posted by: Cryos | June 16, 2008 12:35 PM

"Oh well America is becoming a country of brainwashed idealistic tools who will deserve someone like Obama who will take away all our rights in the name of the environment, children, etc."

Would that be the fewer and fewer rights we still have left after 8 years of Bush who took them in the name of security? Given recent history, it's pretty difficult to wage a substantiated argument that Democrats will take away rights and Republicans will not.

"Democrats treat politics like high school where it is a popularity contest."

As opposed to calling people with opposing views "tools" which is very mature.

"Liberals want to make us tools of the UN and the rest of the world via climate change legislation, world courts, LOST, etc. "

Would you like your paranoia with a helping of conspiracy theory? Don't forget, the US was a founding member of the UN, back when global cooperation was still recognized as a path to peace for EVERYone.

"I guess the good thing is by the end of the Obama presidency I can go work at a gas station and make a good living..."

Well, it's good to have a goal in life.

"Oh well America is becoming a country of brainwashed idealistic tools..."

Hello, pot, this is kettle. Black.

I'll let you get back to your AM radio show now...

Posted by: AD | June 16, 2008 2:30 PM

"Given recent history, it's pretty difficult to wage a substantiated argument that Democrats will take away rights and Republicans will not."

I'm sorry what is political correctness again? Democrats just give different "noble sounding" reasons for taking away your rights but are no different. How is it that monitoring foreign communications has affected your daily life? Political correctness has much more of a stifling impact than national security issues in my opinion.

"Liberals want to make us tools of the UN and the rest of the world via climate change legislation, world courts, LOST, etc. "
"Would you like your paranoia with a helping of conspiracy theory? Don't forget, the US was a founding member of the UN, back when global cooperation was still recognized as a path to peace for EVERYone."

If you don't see giving our sovereignty to a corrupt international organization as a valid concern I feel sorry for you. You must be a liberal with a "world view." UN officials aren't even held accountable; look at the Oil for Food program. The EU is trying to strongarm a "treaty" ie new constitution past its voters to give greater control over its member countries' sovereignty. The next step will be for the US and EU to give some sovereign powers to the UN as part of a stronger world "cooperation" aka government. I guess I am a conspiracy theroist for seeing manuevering to control a large portion of the world's population.

I'm a moderate who votes republican more often than not but I've witnessed liberals pass conservatives in many ways. Liberals have become what they claimed to dislike in conservatives; intolerant and unquestionable.

Posted by: Cryos | June 16, 2008 3:23 PM

LOL AD. I love you

And by the way I don't listen to am radio so you can try your stereotypical "Rush Limbaugh, conservative radio, etc" attack all you want. The only conservative news I watch is online fox news along with cnn, nbc, abc, bbc, reuters, etc etc etc. Unlike the stereotype you're trying to paint me as I prefer differing viewpoints and to make a rational decision about what is true. Liberals rarely disagree on issues and you can tell their attacks and defenses by what you've read in recent mainstream news.

Posted by: Cryos | June 16, 2008 3:29 PM

What core values do the Republicans have? It seems to me what they stand for keeping all the gold you can stockpile in the name of Jesus and defining heaven as a place for white heterosexuals. Paternalism, patriarchy, suppression, repression and hypocrisy??? If this Jindahl fellow can articulate some values I'll be listening.

Posted by: Gaias Child | June 16, 2008 5:38 PM

Wow Gaias child. That is a really insightful post. What liberal blog did you plagarize that from? Liberals should save themselves some time and figure out technology to get MSM RSS feeds straight to their brain so they don't have to memorize the garbage before regurgitating it. Same goes for mindless conservatives.

Posted by: Cryos | June 16, 2008 6:31 PM

But who do you think should be picked as VP running mate?
Go to http://www.votenic.com and see what America thinks
2008 Presidential Election Weekly VP Poll.

Posted by: trence | June 17, 2008 9:35 AM

You tell'em Piyush Jindal. Give me a break. Please be McCain's running mate and you will truly see how much more internal "racism" the Republican party has than the Democrats. Obama would win in a landslide.

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | June 17, 2008 10:20 AM

Actually recent surveys during this election cycle have showed republicans are more open to electing women or any race to office than democrats.

Posted by: Cryos | June 17, 2008 1:51 PM

The true test for Jindal...sign the anti-evolution bill. Then we'll know how far he's strayed from True Republican Values.

Posted by: thebob.bob | June 18, 2008 1:21 PM

"George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Thomas Jefferson Believed in Creationism . . ."

Um . . . Most of them also believed in slavery. Darwin's "The Origin of Species" was published in 1859. And "Creationism" is a modern dogma and almost certainly not what they believed in.

Classic case of Republican argument by resorting to superficial postulates of dubious provenance. As long as you stay on the top millimeter of any topic, Republican arguments almost seem to make sense. The less you know, the better they sound.

Posted by: drossless | June 19, 2008 12:51 PM

nope republicans are now neocons but then democrats are now neoconets so what diff does it make?Bush commits crimes and Pelosi protects him.Someday the people will wakeup,at least one can hope for that.

Posted by: pooty | June 19, 2008 7:50 PM

I noticed the all out attacks on Jindal every since his name was mentioned as the possible VP candidate for Mccain. Out of all the people named as possible VP, JIndal has received the most attacks from the liberals. This however, is very good news to me because I had suspected that he is indeed the best man for the Job. I believe a Mccain - Jindal ticket will be the winning ticket in November for the GOP.

Posted by: chris | June 22, 2008 12:14 PM

"Truthhurts"- "Malik confirms Obama grew up a moslem".

Posted by: Buddy | June 22, 2008 5:58 PM

LOL-who in the world could honestly believe the GOP and the Republicans to be
"agents of change" when they have been so COMPLICIT in the secrecy of the Cheney-Bush Administration?
The winning outcome of philosophy has been to wind back the clock thirty, forty years in terms of secrecy, civil rights, education, ....you name it. I find it incredible to believe that any of these folks even understand that we are in the 21st century as opposed to the 12th century.

Posted by: Suzanne | June 23, 2008 2:30 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2010 The Washington Post Company