It’s Okay to Vote for Obama … Or Not

CNN devoted a whole segment to debunking the myths about Obama. I have never seen a candidate treated with such adulation by the MSM. You can choose to vote for or against Obama. It does not make you a retrograde or a racist either way. If you choose to vote against him, however, it should be for the right reasons

The CNN debunking was legitimate, in that they were explaining that Obama was not a Muslim; he did not take the oath of office on the Koran, he was not the candidate only of minorities and that he did not attend madras while living in Indonesia. They went just a little farther than a news organization should go in defending a candidate (consider how far they did NOT go in debunking RaTHergate or the 2000 Florida myths), but then they went too far when they brought on some clown who railed re the Republican machine that would do anything to smear Obama.

Most of these rumors probably started the way rumors generally do. People believe all sorts of stupid things and conspiracy theories can have a long life w/o anybody in particular planting or nurturing them. Some of these things, such as the play on Obama’s name, probably are spontaneous. (Obama is very close to Osama and the Hussein speaks for itself).

If anyone created the story, it was probably Democrats and specifically Hillary’s campaign. Bill’s comparison of Obama to Jesse Jackson was only the tip of the Clinton iceberg. Back when most of these things originated, most Republicans didn’t care about Obama. In fact, Republicans were happy to have someone to bother the person who looked like the inevitable nominee, Hillary Clinton.

Who knew that this new guy would waltz in from out of nowhere and take the nomination away from her? I always think of Bart and Lisa Simpson. Lisa (like Hillary) works hard, is very serious and little nerdy and then Bart comes in and trumps all her work by being the cool-boy.

I am not surprised that CNN had joined MSNBC in actively working on the Obama side, but I don’t want them to rewrite history quite so soon. For several months, we had democrat-on democrat smearing. It has now become imperative for Democrats to patch up their differences and blame somebody else. Their media allies will help in this endeavor, but it wasn’t us. You can lay any smear of Obama on Hillary’s doorstep and Hillary bashing was very effectively carried on by the Obama camp. I am sure that Republicans will mine the rich vein of negatives uncovered by Hillary about Obama, but she opened the pit.

Obama is an attractive candidate with lots of positives. But he is also a man with little experience, questionable associations and sometimes poor judgment, as when he advocated a policy that would have kept Saddam Hussein in power and then opposed the surge, which made success in Iraq possible. He is also advocating old fashioned liberal policies that gave us the stagflation of the 1970s and were generally abandoned after that sour decade. There are plenty of good reasons not to vote for Obama. Let’s talk about them and lay off the silliness of making fun of his name or his background.

Posted by Jack at June 9, 2008 2:25 PM
Comments
Comment #255018
Jack wrote: Let’s talk about them and lay off the silliness of making fun of his name or his background.
Good idea.

Let’s start with the candidates’ voting records.

Neither John McCain or Barack Obama have a good record on illegal immigration.

John McCain voted for the first shamnesty of 1986, and also supported the failed Dream Act of 2007.
John McCain now, after 26 years in Congress, says he now gets it.
Interesting how these revelations come about when someone is running for office?

Barack Obama wants to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens, voted for the failed Dream Act of 2007, wants to give amnesty to illegal aliens, and also tries to mischaracterize people wanting secured borders and existing immigration laws as xenophobes.

Have these candidates forgotten that the 18 of the 19 perpetrators of 11-SEP-2001 (some who were illegal aliens and/or had violated several immigration laws), possessed 13 state-issued drivers’ licenses and/or 21 ID cards (source: www.9-11pdp.org/press/2004-12-03_factsheet.pdf), and all 19 hijackers had obtained Social Security numbers (some real, some fake; source: www.cis.org/articles/2002/back1202.html). The terrorists very simply tapped into an enormous market for fraudulent documents that exists because tens of millions of illegal aliens have successfully breached our borders and now reside here illegally; anonymously; spawnning widespread document and identity fraud that threatens our ability to distinguish illegal aliens from U.S. citizens and legal foreign residents; and giving rise to the fastest growing crime in America: identity theft.

  • (01) McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[x], All[_]: Economy;
  • ;
  • (02) McCain[_], Nader[x], Obama[x], None[_], All[_]: War in Iraq; bring troops home;
  • (03) McCain[_], Nader[x], Obama[x], None[_], All[_]: Health care; eliminate middle men, fraud, waste;
  • (04) McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[x], All[_]: Terrorism, Homeland Security; secure our borders and existing laws and immigration laws;
  • (05) McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[x], All[_]: Illegal Immigration; enforce existing laws; not another shamnesty;
  • (06) McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[?], All[_]: Social Security (stop plundering surpluses);
  • (07) McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[?], All[_]: Education;
  • (08) McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[?], All[_]: Energy;
  • (09) McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[?], All[_]: Environment;
  • (10) McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[?], All[_]: Free (and fair) trade;
  • (11) McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[?], All[_]: Taxation; make fair, simpler, non-regressive;

Obama will get votes for promoting healthcare for more (or all) Americans, and bringing U.S. troops home.
Obama will hopefully also make the tax system non-regressive?
I still don’t know if I can voter for Obama due to his position on illegal immigration.

There’s no way McCain is getting my vote.
McCain is wrong on Iraq, wrong on taxes, wrong on illegal immigration, and flip-flops way too much.
McCain’s position on Iraq will probably lose the election for him, since most Americans think Iraq has had more than enough time to get it together, and there are still far too few (out of 27.5 million) Iraqis stepping up to the plate (not to mention the Iraqi politicians taking 1 and 2 month vacations while U.S. troops continue to risk life and limb).
If John McCain thinks U.S. troops in Iraq is making the U.S. safer, then how ?
Even if it were true, aren’t there better ways to make the U.S. safer ?

As for the media, there’s no doubt of biases.
At we can see different networks on different sides (e.g. CNN more left, and FOX more right).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 9, 2008 2:56 PM
Comment #255019

Jack,

“Obama is very close to Osama and the Hussein speaks for itself”

The fact that Hussein is the name his grandfather took when he became a Muslim around the time of WW1 seems to escape the right.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/02/28/hussein/

“Barack Obama’s middle name is in honor of his grandfather, Hussein, a secular resident of Nairobi, Kenya. Americans may think of Saddam Hussein when they hear the name, but that is like thinking of Stalin when you hear the name Joseph. There have been lots of Husseins in history, from the grandson of the prophet Mohammed, a hero who touched the historian Gibbon, to King Hussein of Jordan, one of America’s most steadfast allies in the 20th century. The author of the beloved American novel “The Kite Runner” is Khaled Hosseini.”

Right wing pundits have done much to obscure the truth about a lot of things. Much of the lies that you cite as “debunked” by CNN are merely the tip of the iceberg.

Posted by: Rocky at June 9, 2008 3:02 PM
Comment #255026

Jack, what prejudice! You admit you don’t know the sources of the fallacious rumors about Obama, but then proceed to lay them at the Clinton’s feet, lock, stock, and barrel.

What prejudgment without a shred of evidence one way or another. Your article reminds me of Pat Buchannan’s tactics. Appear sympathetic to the fabricated dismal position of the person Pat Buchannan does NOT want to see win. Its a clever sophist’s trick, or lawyer’s trick, but, I rather hope to hear straight talk and pros and cons here, not slickster’s tactics designed to denigrate one’s adversaries while maintaining the facade of empathizing with them.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 9, 2008 4:51 PM
Comment #255032

Barbara Mikkelson, at
snopes.com usually does a very good job of dealing with the veracity of various rumours of just about anything in popular culture. There are pages and pages about BHO, and she carefulloy sifts the truth from the lies.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 9, 2008 5:33 PM
Comment #255033
David R. Remer wrote: I rather hope to hear straight talk and pros and cons here, not slickster’s tactics designed to denigrate one’s adversaries while maintaining the facade of empathizing with them.
Good point. I got that same impression.

I’m curious to see an explanation of how McCain’s positions are better than Obama’s (especially on Iraq, taxation, healthcare, illegal immigration, homeland security, fair trade, the economy, etc.)
Especially since McCain already said economics is not his strong suit, and he has been seen him to defer, avoid, and skirt economics questions and issues.

All of the candidates are problematic in some way and their voting records raise many questions.
On a scale of 1.0(worse) to 10.0 (better), I give:

  • John McCain: 0.5

  • Barack Obama: 1.9

  • Ralph Nader: 2.0

  • Other lesser known candidates: ?.?
All the more reason to not forget that 468 Congress persons in do-nothing Congress are up for re-election too.

Regardless of who the next Presidenté is, little progress (if any) is likely as long as the next president is saddled with the same irresponsible, FOR-SALE, do-nothing Congress, whose campaign war-chests are funded mostly by the wealthy (i.e. 99.7% of all 220 million eligible voters are VASTLY out-spent by a very tiny 0.30% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 9, 2008 5:50 PM
Comment #255049

Our energy policy…dumb, dumber and dumbest. I have linked to a site some of you may find interesting. It’s written by an adult, not some childish wanna-be president or half-assed U.S. Senator. A pox on both Obama’s and McCain’s house.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060403052.html

Posted by: Jim M at June 9, 2008 6:45 PM
Comment #255051

Jack,
You change ground in the middle of the article. The falsehoods being debunked are smarmy little hate campaigns often conducted by e-mail, suggesting Obama is a terrorist, a Muslim, and so on. Check with your fellow Republican conservative, “Dr Parrot/Hubert.” I undertand he has been banned from the site, but he seems like an excellent resource for hatred, and I’ll bet he could provide some background on the origins of the campaign.

Those types of falsehoods are completely different from the disagreements between Obama and Hillary. That was a relatively civil competition, considering the stakes and the closeness of the race. The policy differences between Obama and Hillary were miniscule. So when you write: “You can lay any smear of Obama on Hillary’s doorstep…” that is simply wrong, and no one believes the truly slanderous material out there came from the Clintons.

The sad fact is that there is a fraction of the country, perhaps 5-10%, which will never, ever vote for a black man for president simply because they are racist. That’s sad, but true. And those racists are not a bunch of disaffected Clintonian Democrats…

You also write that Obama “is also a man with little experience… and sometimes poor judgment, as when he advocated a policy that would have kept Saddam Hussein in power and then opposed the surge, which made success in Iraq possible.”

Snort. Al-Maliki just visited Iran. He called the Iranians dear friends, as opposed to the US, which is merely a strategic ally. Yeah, that’s some mighty fine judgin’ there. Oh, and make sure you tell all those Shia crowds of protestors that the surge is the success, because it seems they don’t like the SOFA at all, and instead of a surge, they want the US out of their country.

“He is also advocating old fashioned liberal policies that gave us the stagflation of the 1970s.”

Nice, Jack. Getting an start on rewriting the history of the Bush administration and conservative economics? Well, it’s never too early. Let me guess. Everything under Bush went great! It was those darned liberals that caused stagflation!

Posted by: phx8 at June 9, 2008 6:47 PM
Comment #255052

phx8, Jack has been hitting the revisionism fasttrack for a while. The 5-10% “racist” vote should be offset by an increase in the black vote. One problem I foresee is that black precints usually get the worst voting machinery, and the election judges there have the least familiarity with it. Even voting with the new Sequoia machinery here was confusing for the election officials who were not familiar with it. Motor voter apparently also causes more confusion. BHO will need every one of those votes counted.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 9, 2008 7:08 PM
Comment #255055

ohrealy, are you setting the stage for voter fraud when Obama looses?

Voting machines are about as difficult to use as a comb.

Posted by: Jim M at June 9, 2008 7:24 PM
Comment #255067

Jim M,

Ever tried to pull a comb through an Afro? Bad analogy.

I think the level of anti-black vote will be higher than 5-10%.

Jack’s article is just silly. It’s the game of bringing up nonsense to then say, but I didn’t say that. I forgive him. He tired, he’s alone on the Red Column.

Posted by: googlumpugus at June 9, 2008 10:19 PM
Comment #255072

“On a scale of 1.0(worse) to 10.0 (better), I give:

* John McCain: 0.5

* Barack Obama: 1.9

* Ralph Nader: 2.0

* Other lesser known candidates: ?.?”

Come on d.a.n. you must give Bob Barr a rating, after all he does have a record to look at!

But aside from that nonsense, for possibly the first time in my life, I plan to vote for the candidate that most closely represents my views ……. that candidate being Ralph Nader.

At this point the only thing that could change my opinion would be if Nader decided to endorse Obama. And this has nothing to do with Hillary.

I’d grown to detest the idea of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton! We have NO monarchs! The USA is not a dynasty!

Posted by: KansasDem at June 9, 2008 11:36 PM
Comment #255080

Jack,
Why I refuse to support any Presidential Candidate, I do see where Senator Obama has a clear advantage over Senator McCain and the Republican Party on the Issues with the Children of the 21st Century. Now, which party can prove to the Adults om the Left and Right of Society that they have a winning plan is a Question of Enlightenment that only Space and Time will tell.

KansasDem,
Why not to be to picky, America is a Dynasty! However, it belongs to “We the People” and framed in such a way that no one Man can ever create a Monarch.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at June 10, 2008 1:42 AM
Comment #255081

Kansas Dem,
You might get a kick out of this. A friend and I used to have heated arguments over the same question, again and again: Should the President have his or her own parking place?

And I’ve always said, ‘Absolutely not’!

If there is any job in the country that should not be provided with the trappings of status, it should be the presidency. The term of office should be one long reminder of the same thing, over and over, that the president serves the country, not the other way around, that it’s all about the consititution, and never about the person in office.

Posted by: phx8 at June 10, 2008 1:56 AM
Comment #255097
KansasDem wrote: Come on d.a.n. you must give Bob Barr a rating, after all he does have a record to look at!
Well, that’s what the “Other lesser known candidates: ?.?” was for.

There are others running for president too (e.g. Chuck Baldwin, John Cox, Mike Gravel, Daniel Imperato, Alan Keyes, Cynthia McKinney, Ron Paul, Mike Pence, George Phillies, Christine Smith, Michael Charles Smith, Mike Warner, Frank Zilaitis, etc.)

I’ll look at Bob Barr more closely.
However, according to what I’ve seen, Bob Barr is that he supports the FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax.

That’s probably one of the worst things that could happen, and would make the tax system more regressive and unfair than it already is.

Bob Barr also voted YES on $99 Billion economic stimulus BILL with capital gains & income tax cuts (OCT-2001), which helped make the current tax system regressive. This helped create the situation where Warren Buffet, the 2nd wealthiest person in the U.S., pays a lower percentage of income (e.g. 17.7% on $46 Million in year 2006), than his secretary (who paid 30% in federal taxes on and income of $60K).

Bob Barr also voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax (“death tax”). (Apr 2001)
That’s interesting.
Let’s tax the income of the poor working person working hard for an hourly wage, with little (or no) chance of ever inheriting anything, but not the person who receives a windfall income without working for it at all? Is that fair? While some taxes on inheritance are too high, why not tax all types of income equally ? For example, such as this?

Bob Barr also voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999).

There are some other parts of Bob Barr’s voting record that raise some questions.

Thus, I’d give Bob Bar a 0.6 (on a scale of 1.0(worse) to 10.0 (better)).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 10, 2008 9:21 AM
Comment #255103

Jack

Please Jack, trying to shirk republicans of responsibility for spreading political slime is like trying to convince a man with no legs that he can walk without them. You guys have not reached that level of credibility yet. I suspect it will take at least a few years to overcome the damage done by Bush and his congress. Attempting to use the Clintons to advance that thought process is even worse. What you attempt to portray as a viciously slimy campaign was viewed by myself and I believe most others as probably one of the most civilized campaigns I have ever witnessed. Considering the length of the process that is saying a lot.

For the moment it appears McCain and Obama are advocating for a civilized campaign, I seriously doubt the swiftboaters will take much notice. They will continue their sleazy ways, while McCain will conveniently condemn them.

McCain has a real problem in that he must somehow sell republican policy as being good for this country. At present the term “dire straights” come to mind for many when considering the state of our nation. That state is largely seen as the result of seven years of poor and careless republican policy. Trying to sell republican policy will be similar to trying to convince people that Yugos were reliable cars.

Posted by: RickIL at June 10, 2008 10:41 AM
Comment #255104

David

The MSNBC expert had no trouble laying the problem at the feet of Republicans. When the rumors came out, Hillary was in that mud fight with Obama. Indeed I do not know who started the rumors. My guess is that nobody in particular. But it is much more likely to have been the Clinton folks than the Republicans.

So we don’t know. But Republicans are at least in third place behind nobody and the Clintons.

Phx8

When Hillary was still in the race I had to defend her against your fellow Democrats on these very pages. Hillary’s camp admitted that Fox News was the fairest to her. Now that she is out, you want to build that Republican smear myth. Look at the blue side of this blog and see how “civil” the debate really was among Dems.

Re that 70s show, really a 60s and 70s show, since it takes some years to create – liberal policies greatly contributed to the stagflation of the 1970s. Democrats controlled both house of Congress the whole time from 1960-1980. They were not only dominant; they were predominant. They also controlled the presidency for 12 of those years. It was a really bad time. I remember and I don’t want it back. We learned a lot since then.

Orealy

These are usually in districts controlled by Democrats, BTW. I agree re voting machines. They are simple to use. I don’t think we could make them any easier.

Posted by: Jack at June 10, 2008 10:55 AM
Comment #255106

RickIL, don’t leave out MoveOn.Org when mentioning the Swiftboaters. They are cut from the same cloth, one the left, the other the right side of that cloth.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 10, 2008 11:03 AM
Comment #255107
Ever tried to pull a comb through an Afro? Bad analogy

OMG, I can’t believe people are letting this little gem pass without comment…

Are you suggesting that black people are somehow incapable of figuring out how a voting machine works? That their minds are just wired differently, genetically?

Even if you were being flip and trying to be funny, it is possibly one of the worst comments I’ve seen on here in a while, especially from someone who purports to tell people that we should treat everyone equally. Obviously you don’t think so from that comment…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 10, 2008 11:16 AM
Comment #255108

David

I considered mentioning Moveon. But that would have left little room for retort. ;)

Posted by: RickIL at June 10, 2008 11:19 AM
Comment #255117

Something to consider: when you cite experience as a positive, it helps if other people have a positive experience of your learning process.

Obama’s advantage comes largely from the sense that Americans have that to get the leadership they want, they might have to wipe the slate clean. Obama actively and willingly seeks to make a clean break from the politics of the past, and darn it if people aren’t already simpatico with him already.

McCain’s leadership, once you peel back the layers, does not qualify so easily as one of change. He voted with Bush 95% of the time, a proportion that leaves only a crack of daylight between the two. He took public stands against Bush, but did not separate himself in action as he has in word.

Worse yet, though, for McCain, He has to unite a party whose divisions make my party’s long, difficult struggle for a nominee look tame. Methodology, not ideology constituted the separation between Obama’s faction and Hillary’s. Once the dust settles, They are likely to be on the same page. McCain’s party must deal with the fracturing of its coalition.

Additionally, though, his base jealously guards its prerogatives. Or rather, bases. McCain altered several major positions in preparation for his run this year, including his formerly pro-choice, gay tolerant positon, not to mention his position on tax cuts and torture. McCain is adopting Bush’s positions on many issues, and has undone his maverick position as it pleases the party.

But that sense of being a maverick represents his best chance for capturing the critical middle. The question arises of whether his base will let him out to play with the moderates.

Obama will not be punished by his party for reaching out to moderates and centrists. His is a party looking to expand its support. McCain’s party wants to maintain party orthodoxy at the same time, but worse than that, there’s an active war going on as to what that orthodoxy is in the first place.

McCain stands on much more precarious ground than Obama. People can forgive Obama’s inexperience for the sake of his fresh outlooks and approaches. They may not love him by the end of his first term, but they at least want the break from the past, if nothing else.

People want what both candidates have to sell: change. The real question is whether McCain’s credibility on his ability to deliver it will survive the scrutiny journalist and bloggers will subject his claims and career to.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 10, 2008 12:30 PM
Comment #255120

In reference to this quote from googlumpugus, ” Ever tried to pull a comb through an Afro? Bad analogy”

Rhinehold said, “OMG, I can’t believe people are letting this little gem pass without comment…”

I agree Rhinehold, and never intended my comparison of the ease in using the new ballot machines to combing my hair to be used in this manner. I wish I had said “brushing my teeth” or “wiping my butt”.

Posted by: Jim M at June 10, 2008 12:51 PM
Comment #255121

Jack -

Did you somehow miss the firestorm Obama went through concerning the pastors at his church? Did you somehow imagine that the relative slap-on-the-wrist that McCain got from his ‘spiritual advisers’ was worse than what Obama went through?

Are MSM castigating McCain for being one of the influence-peddling Keating Five? Are they berating him for his flip-flops on little things like torture? How much of the MSM are pointing out how many of his staff are lobbyists?

BUT, if you’re Obama, you get beat up for REALLY BIG things like not wearing a flag pin, for bearing a name he never chose, for not having his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance (never mind that it was NOT the P-of-A, but the national anthem during which such is NOT required).

Yeah, Jack, the MSM is sure beating up on McCain and leaving Obama alone, huh? Just like the Republicans are very fiscally responsible and the ‘tax-and-spend’ Democrats are profligate wastrels.

‘Tax-and-spend’ Democrats. Hm. How about ‘tax-a-LITTLE-less-and-spend-a-LOT-more’ Republicans? Boy, doesn’t that make sense for decreasing the national deficit?????

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 10, 2008 12:56 PM
Comment #255131

Evidently, voting in a county with a population of 5 million is a little more complicated than voting in some other places. Here, you’re lucky if they can even find your name in the records. In suburbia, the election judges are quite elderly, few under 80 years of age. In the recent primary, Oprah made news by spending much of the day at a precint in Chicago with non-functioning machines, and in an earlier election, friends in Evanston were told to go home and come back later, because their machines were not working. They had other things to do, and ending up not voting. People need to be know what to do when this happens, who to call when they are prevented from voting, and never to leave the polling place without voting.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 10, 2008 3:15 PM
Comment #255132

Ohrealy,
Vote by mail. It is the obvious solution, and it works great in Oregon.

Jack,
You blame liberals for the stagflation of the 70’s? Come on. That’s just silly. It was complicated, and a matter of economics. The political factors included oil shocks, especially the 1973 Yom Kippur War; the Cold War; the Vietnam War; addressing injustices raised by the Civil Rights & Women’s Rights movements with social legislation, including the War on Poverty; and of course other factors as well. Economic factors included printing too much money and not aggressively using interest rates or the Federal Reserve to address monetary policy.

But you’ll be amused to know McCain responded to his comparisons with Bush by turning around and comparing Obama to Carter. Most people aren’t old enough to remember Carter. Conservatives think Carter was a disaster, but they don’t know why, so this might play with conservatives, even though there is no chance they could tell you the similarities… But as noted earlier in the thread, there just aren’t that many conservative Republicans anymore, at least not ones that will admit it.

Posted by: phx8 at June 10, 2008 3:34 PM
Comment #255137

“But as noted earlier in the thread, there just aren’t that many conservative Republicans anymore, at least not ones that will admit it.”
Posted by: phx8 at June 10, 2008 03:34 PM

Please help me understand, few conservatives left, mostly moderate and liberals. Then what’s the fuss about John McCain? He’s certainly not conservative and should fit nicely with the liberal plan of big government, more taxes, less freedom and rulings from the Supreme Court that are based on what feels right, not the constitution.

So let the two parties join hands with a McCain/Obama ticket. Together than can form the “Fair” party and everyone will feel good and march to the liberal tune. We’ll tax and spend ourselves into prosperity, open the borders to all who can walk, crawl or drag themselves across. Welcome them with open wallets and be loved by the world. Gosh, doesn’t that sound nice?

If your correct phx8, I’ll turn out the lights as I leave, being the last conservative alive. Wow, what are you lacing your kool-aid with?

Posted by: Jim M at June 10, 2008 4:14 PM
Comment #255139

“Wow, what are you lacing your kool-aid with?”

Sodium Pentathol.

McCain is caught in the middle. He has a long history of voting with Bush and his fellow Republican conservatives. He has a conservative rating of over 80%. However, he occasionally takes high profile stands on issues such as campaign reform and immigration which buck the conservative party line. But not so well. His campaign reform was well intended, but did not work. Same for immigration. Don’t even know what he was thinking on that. He was also one of the 14 moderate Senators who shot down the GOP drive for the nuclear option- which was the effort to do away with the right of the minority party to filibuster. It’s hard to believe the conservative GOP was actually that stupid, but it’s true! Anyway, McCain has been able to work with Democrats in the Senate, but that does NOT mean he is a liberal. He’s simply a conservative capable of compromise. But all the conservatives can see is the threat of compromising, rather than the benefit of working together.

Posted by: phx8 at June 10, 2008 4:32 PM
Comment #255140

phx8, I use early voting at a suburban city hall now. I would never trust the local precinct officials, all much older than JMcC. It still took 2 people to find my name using my driver’s license. They enter the information, and a small plastic card pops out. You use that card at another machine that has the ballot on a touch screen.

BHO’s supporters should realize that the Democratic undervote is at least 1 million nationally. That number needs to be reduced, especially in states where it will actually affect the outcome for the electoral vote.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 10, 2008 4:45 PM
Comment #255143

On the e-mail smears:

“Brooks Jackson, director of the Washington-based FactCheck.org, an independent academic organisation set up in 2003 to monitor the factual accuracy of statements made in elections, said yesterday there had been false rumours on the internet about George Bush and John Kerry in the 2004 election.

“With Obama, it is particularly vicious,” Jackson said. He added that one of the most persistent is that Obama, a Christian, is “some kind of Muslim Manchurian candidate, planted by Islamic fundamentalists to betray the country and it is very widespread.

McCain too suffers from rumours on the internet, mainly from former Vietnam veterans disputing his account of his five-and-a-half years in a Hanoi prisoner-of-war camp.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/10/barackobama.johnmccain

Here is a detailed refutation of the most common e-mail smear against Obama:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

Posted by: phx8 at June 10, 2008 5:33 PM
Comment #255147

“He’s simply a conservative capable of compromise. But all the conservatives can see is the threat of compromising, rather than the benefit of working together.”
Posted by: phx8 at June 10, 2008 04:32 PM

phx8, the sodium pentathol in your Kool-aid is stale and you’re back-sliding on your truth-telling.

McCain is not conservative on the border issues, spending, man-made global warming, energy and other issues important to conservatives. While somewhat better than Obama, either will be a disaster for America.

And please tell me where Obama is willing to compromise with conservatives? Just one example will be sufficient.

Death destruction and despair, people crying everywhere. I can fix it let’s be “Fair”, Elect Obama…get your share. (A Jim M original)

Posted by: Jim M at June 10, 2008 7:02 PM
Comment #255148

Jim M,
As an issue, immigration is an issue which cuts across the political spectrum. It’s kind of a 52 card pick-up issue. I’m not really sure there is a conservative or liberal position. But I would agree that the solution crafted by McCain was ridiculous.

From my point of view, McCain is very conservative when it comes to spending.

McCain talks about Global Warming, but so does Bush. McCain did not cast one Senate vote on the environment in the past year. Not one. That’s not exactly an indicator of passionate devotion to the Green agenda. Whether McCain means anything he has said about Global Warming has yet to be backed up by actions.

Politically, it’s a bad spot to be in. It’s kind of like his performance on immigration; it leaves everyone dissatisfied.

McCain is solidly pro-choice.

But he keeps trying to have it both ways. He wants to be a conservative Republican and a moderate Independent. That’s nice. We all want a lot of things. People in jail want out.

Posted by: phx8 at June 10, 2008 7:19 PM
Comment #255154

Whoops! McCain is NOT pro-choice. He has made it clear he would appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v Wade.

Posted by: phx8 at June 10, 2008 7:53 PM
Comment #255155

Jim M -

You wanted examples of Obama’s center-leaning tendencies? Here:

“Perhaps Obama’s biggest departure from his liberal roots was his vote in the state Senate last month on the concealed-carry law. He was the only Chicago Democrat to approve allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons.”

“Obama sponsored Illinois’ welfare-reform law. But he worked to soften its blow, ensuring that work requirements for recipients were coupled with increased spending on child care, job training and transportation.”

“Emanuel, for one, cites major legislation that Obama has passed in Springfield—welfare reform, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit for working families—and categorizes these as “centrist Democrat policies.”“

“Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war, and Richard Lugar, leader of the Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee.”

“Obama sends out regular signals that he will govern in a very centrist fashion. Running Harry and Louise ads and appointing Bush Dog Jim Cooper as a spokesperson on health care make that obvious enough. His praise of Reagan and bragging that he is more bipartisan than the DLC also make that clear. He has no problem letting you know that he’s “not one of those people who cynically believes Bush went in only for the oil,” that he isn’t a “anti-military, 70s love-in.” He scolds unknown progressives for thinking that “every mention of God is automatically threatening a theocracy,” and reminded everyone that Social Security faces a crisis.”

Are these enough?

And then add to these Obama’s direction to the DNC: “Presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama, exerting his new power as leader of his party, has told the Democratic National Committee to eschew all contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees. Obama has spurned money from lobbyists and PACs ever since he declared himself a candidate for president. On Thursday, he extended that policy to the DNC.”

Now, do some homework and find out how many lobbyists are working for McCain….

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 10, 2008 8:00 PM
Comment #255158

“Please help me understand, few conservatives left, mostly moderate and liberals. Then what’s the fuss about John McCain? He’s certainly not conservative and should fit nicely with the liberal plan of big government,”

Jim M by now even the most die hard of conservatives realize the cons have expanded the federal government since the days of Reagan yet you still espouse this nonsence that it is only the liberals that do this. Is this intentional or are you just in denial about this fact? How can you still say this after 30 years of conservative policies and largely control of the government?

“more taxes,”
Are you in favor of the conservatives borrow and spend approach in lieu of taxes? It seems to me you have no problem with the free ride we are getting at our kids and grandkids expense yet you claim to be conservative. It seems to me you are first in line to claim class warfare when the wealthy have to pay their fair share yet dont mind having future generations foot the bill for your nation building activities. Fair is not a bad word in fact it allows all of us to share in the liberties we as a nation enjoy.

“less freedom”
Jeez Jim M Jeez where have you been? two words habeas corpus. Two more words Bush Administration. One more word conservative. Your speel about liberals is just so untrue and foolish that Im embarrassed for you. The conservatives of the 107th,108th and 109th Congress have worked at limiting the freedoms we as individuals have in this country with the “war on terror”. The conservatives have proven themselves this past decade to be the false messiahs of freedom my friend. The more liberal members of the congress are the ones that have been working to keep our individual freedoms in tact not the conservatives.

“and rulings from the Supreme Court that are based on what feels right, not the constitution.”

Really Jim M how would you know this? Just because some decisions dont go your way doesnt mean its not based on the constitution. These false accusations you keep blaming liberals for are getting in the way of the facts. Seems to me it is the reason the repubs went with a more mainstream candidate this election cycle. The Tancredos and Hunters were shot down for the same misguided assertions you continue to believe. The conservatives actions speak much louder than their lame and untrue assertions about others. That is why this “McCarthyism” you continue to support under the guise of conservatism is failing, it had its chance, was tried and found wanting.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 10, 2008 9:23 PM
Comment #255160

j2t2

That is why this “McCarthyism” you continue to support under the guise of conservatism is failing, it had its chance, was tried and found wanting.

Well said and an excellent overall response. However you may be better off saving your breath on this one. I suspect you are addressing one of those 2.7 out of ten people that still believe Bush is doing a good job. I seriously doubt they really believe that, they are just having a tough time admitting that republican policy has failed our country. That or they are realizing that it is time for those who have gained under Bush to begin paying the piper. Trickle down economics worked well for those at the top. Unfortunately that trickle turned into a slow drip and evaporated before reaching those at the bottom. Those at the bottom who didn’t get theirs are not happy. As a result those at the bottom will dictate at the polling booth that those providing the drip will have to open the valve a little further and suffer with less just like the rest of us. Of course suffering for them would be a very good life for the rest of us.

Posted by: RickIL at June 10, 2008 10:52 PM
Comment #255163

Jim,
Two examples of Obama exhibiting leadership & bipartisanship: 1) As a state senator in IL, he brought parties together to pass legislation requiring police interrogations and confessions to be videotaped; and 2) As a US senator, he worked with Republicans on legislation to lock down nuclear weapons.

Obama is a relatively young man. He did well during his years in the Senate, but obviously his voting record is not as long as McCain’s record. That may or may not be a good thing, depending upon how you look at it. Obama is young and charismatic and energizing and highly intelligent. Generally speaking, his voting record is liberal. McCain is old and has a very distinguished service record from when he was in Vietnam. His voting record is generally conservative. It is fair to say that McCain would carry out a third term of Bush policies, especially in regards to the economy and Iraq. If you are happy with the past eight years, then you should definitely vote for McCain. If you think we can do better, and you’re willing to take a chance on making changes, then you should vote for Obama.

Posted by: Phx8 at June 11, 2008 1:31 AM
Comment #255164

Rhinehold,

No. I’m not suggesting more than what I stated. It’s a bad analogy.

Are you suggesting that? Perhaps it points to someone who never thinks beyond more than limp straight anglo hair. Are you really shocked that a comb does not easily move through Afro? Another shocker! Many black men cannot shave without causing ingrown hairs.

You really need to get out more.

BTW, If voting machines are severely limited in black neighborhoods, or given shortened hours as they were in Ohio, they might be a little more difficult to use. Maybe they thought combs would solve the problem.

Posted by: googlumpus at June 11, 2008 2:20 AM
Comment #255170

Stephen

You comments are logically inconsistent as is the entire attack on McCain.

You say that he is not very independent and that he is just a mainstream Republican. Then you say that he will have trouble with the core of his party. Which is it? It cannot be both.

Last year, most pundits said he could never get the nomination. Democrats still gleefully point out that the core Republican voters are unenthusiastic about McCain. This sort of sounds like someone who is a bit of an independent.

McCain has taken great heat standing up for his principles against party leaderships. It was a very key and hot issues such as Iraq, immigration and climate change. In fact, there are no hotter issues than these. NONE.

Obama has differed with the Democratic establishment when? Has he ever suffered any significant political heat? Obama can reach out to the left and to the extreme left. Moveon.org and the Soros folks who control his cash flow won’t allow any real moderation.

Obama talks very well. I am still looking for the man behind the curtain.

Glen

The reason you are surprised is that you have bought the Obama scenario. Obama had a close relationship with Wright for 20+ years. It is not the same kind of relationship McCain had with some people who endorsed him. These guys were not his spiritual advisors. It was a equivalence set up by the Obama camp with little root in reality. Even the pro-Obama press didn’t buy it.

Phx8

Liberal great society programs seriously screwed up the economy in the 1970s. It took years to come out of it. You are right that other factors played crucial roles. Johnson spent money on both guns and butter. It created a store of inflationary pressures that broke a couple years later. The oil embargo and prices also played a role. Nixon’s stupid price controls were a factor – and many Democrats today would like to have something like that again. Carter’s windfall profits tax and price controls on gasoline were beyond stupid. Back then we also looked to blame corporations for all our government inflicted problems.

Personally, and in a non-partisan way, I expect something like the 1970s for the next few years. All the same factors are in place. We have the hangover of war and inflation, oil price shocks and we will soon get liberal business-bashing legislation. Housing prices are down. I think it would be a good idea to get into real estate. When the big stagflation hits during Obama’s second year, it will be nice to be in real assets sheltered from his higher taxes.

Posted by: Jack at June 11, 2008 4:34 AM
Comment #255177

“I expect something like the 1970s for the next few years. All the same factors are in place. We have the hangover of war and inflation, oil price shocks and we will soon get liberal business-bashing legislation.”

Jack isnt this what d.a.n. and David have been saying for a while now? Havent the cons and neocons been saying the deficit and borrow and spend approach is no problem we will grow out of it? Maybe the liberal legislation is what we need to grow the people of this country out of the problem. Afterall the trickle on voodoo, deregulation and free market approach has only returned us back to the hated ’70s. Seems we havent learned anything, just proved the “rich get richer, poor get poorer and the middle class gets screwed” saying we have all heard before. Don’t you think its time to return to an economic system (seperate from our governing system) that works for all and put this terrible chapter of voodoo economics we now call democratic capitalism behind us?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 11, 2008 10:46 AM
Comment #255182

J2t2,

No one does voodoo like you do!! I like your return to my favorite Bushism.

Posted by: googlumpugus at June 11, 2008 11:34 AM
Comment #255187

My friends, most of you continue to confuse conservatism with being solely a Republican characteristic. Not true. Is liberalism solely a Democrat characteristic? If so, Obama surely will not receive the conservative Demo vote or even the moderate vote.

Believing that a majority of American’s subscribe to the MoveOn.org or G. Soros crowd is a huge mistake and one that will be exploited by conservatives in the coming election.

I define conservatism as one that promotes adherence to the original meaning of our constitution, a federal government engaged in only those things authorized by the constitution, taxes sufficient to meet the nations needs, not for social engineering and political pandering, freedom from government regulation not specifically designed to protect our common interests, a strong military and willingness to protect all Americans from any foe, among others.

You may deride and disagree with my values but you will not change them.

Posted by: Jim M at June 11, 2008 12:10 PM
Comment #255206

phx8 et al, don’t bother going back to Springfield IL to find a record of BHO doing anything. That was all part of a deal with the Democratic IL Senate leader, to get support with the interest groups that he needed for his many years of fund raising and campaigning.

McCarthyism is the Rpblcn party. They try a new variation for the new generations as they come along. Currently, they are opposed to the Bill of Rights, except for the second half of the second amendment. They believe 5 million Americans should be in prison, and lose their voting rights. Most currently, they oppose our form of government, and want to return to the Articles of Confederation. Their policy is to bankrupt the Government of The United States of America when in power, and sabotage it when in opposition.

On immigration, it’s primary purpose is to provide low wage servants and workers again. For a while, we were only supposed to get immigrants in categories that we needed, but they need more people to pay in to Social Security.

Googlumpus, combs? Suppressing the vote is a serious issue. Few enough people vote anyway. People are easily discouraged when you make it more difficult. Many in the opposition are disturbed when it becomes too easy to vote.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 11, 2008 2:56 PM
Comment #255239

“You may deride and disagree with my values but you will not change them.”

Jim M I’m not trying to change your values I’m just defending my values from the far right propaganda you seem to dispense with on such a regular basis. To tell me that Delay, Lott Hastert, Frist and Blunt werent conservative’s as well as republican’s is misleading, my friend. They ran up the deficit, expanded government, and made laws that are suspect when held up to the light of the constitution. The conservatives in the democratic party were to blame as well. Yet you tell me its the liberals that do this. You dont seem to understand that its time to get past this foolish liberal/conservative thing and address the real issues. The cons had their chance and fell on their collective faces just as the libs did in the past. Seems they aren’t that much different afterall. Perhaps the problem lies elsewhere.
Wouldnt it be nice to have a republic once again, one where we actually have representation in lieu of a foreign organization that overrides the laws of this country? Where the best interests of this country is taken into consideration not just the best interest of the corporation that owns the representative? A Congress that writes its own laws? An actual debate on the issues not on the distractions?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 11, 2008 7:31 PM
Comment #255280


This Democrat like KansasDem will be voting for Ralph Nader. As much as I dislike McCain, I am hoping that Nader and Barr, along with other third party candidates that may get on the ballot, garner enough votes to elect McCain.

If this country must suffer the consequences of four more years of government of the elitist, by the elitist, for the elitist, I much prefer that the conservative fight it out with the liberals than have one party rule.

Posted by: jlw at June 12, 2008 4:16 AM
Comment #255282

jlw -

You HAD one-party rule from 2000-2006.

You had three-day work weeks in the Republican congress - that’s less than the ‘do-nothing’ congress in the history books.

You had Democrats COMPLETELY shut out of policy and legislative proceedings.

You had the PRESUMPTION that one-party rule was going to be permanent (Google Karl Rove and the ‘permanent Republican majority).

And you’re against the Democrats because you don’t want to have one-party rule? Sheesh!

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 12, 2008 4:33 AM
Comment #255287

There once was a revolution. There were Tories and Patriots. Tories were stripped of their clothes, covered in hot tar, and doused with feathers. This usually killed them.

The Tories shot at some of the rioters and murderers in Boston.

How do you wrest power from those that believe they own it?

It didn’t happen with a tea party. It may not happen with a vote. It may come when the public is tired of excuse after excuse, game after game.

Nixon was afraid of revolution. Fear can be a good thing. Sometimes the tree must be replenished.

Posted by: googlumpugus at June 12, 2008 7:08 AM
Comment #255297

I’ll vote against Obama because he’s a radical liberal. Because he thinks I need to pay more for gas. Because he wont let America drill for it’s own oil. Because he says we shouldn’t be allowed to eat as much as we want. Because he supports third term abortions. Because he supports illegal immigration. Because he got in bed with radicalized left wing extremists and is now pretending he had no idea they were extremists. Because he wants to raise taxes. Because he supports massive government giveaways. Because he sought defeat in Iraq whereas Bush finally found victory.

I’ll vote against Obama because it’s the right thing to do. I don’t care what his skin color is.

Posted by: StephenL at June 12, 2008 9:39 AM
Comment #255298

Glen

Point of fact, Dems controlled the Senate until after the elections of 2002.

From 2002-2006 we enjoyed a growing economy, dropping unemployment and even (in 2006) a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

phx8

I have been explaining that the economy was indeed good from 2003 until last year and that we should do something to address entitlements. Whereas most people on this blog insisted on claiming the low unemployment and good growth of those times was somehow bad.

The oil price shocks really only came since 2006. We have not suffered the liberal business-bashing yet. So we should do two things soon. Address entitlements (Bush tried; Dems blocked) and lay off the liberal business bashing.

Since I don’t think we will do those things (Dems will just continue to bash) I expect 1970s like conditions. I am only advising how one can prosper in such an environment, not advocating it.

Posted by: Jack at June 12, 2008 9:41 AM
Comment #255302

I grew up in a conservative republican household. For years I swore to republican and “no” to ‘big government’ and no to free government ‘handouts’.

Although I consider myself conservative, this is the first time in MY history I am going to vote Democrat for Obama.

I can’t believe that John Mccain got picked to represent the Republicans. What a foolish move.
My perception of John Mccain is NO DIFFERENT than George W. Bush. The war is a failure, and the WAR on Drugs is a FAILURE. LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE! THE WAR on Drugs is a HUGE FAILURE and does nothing buy LINE the Pockets of this corrupt Government.

Obama, it’s all you bro!

Let’s make positive change.

Henry F. Johnson

Posted by: Henry F. Johnson at June 12, 2008 11:16 AM
Comment #255306
StephenL wrote: I’ll vote against Obama because …
That’s your right. Thus, you should have all the facts.
StephenL wrote: … he’s [Obama] a radical liberal.
Extremism is a problem, whether it is left or right. If you look at Obama’s and McCain’s political compasses, they are both a bit extreme. Johh McCain: ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm (see bottom of page) Johh McCain: ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm (see bottom of page)
StephenL wrote: Because he thinks I need to pay more for gas.
Where did you get that? Because he’s not for the temporary federal gasoline tax (for the summer)?
StephenL wrote: Because he wont let America drill for it’s own oil.
Actually, the government has provided access to over 200 million acres of oil and gas leases, and the oil companies appear to be avoiding drilling, to limit production, to drive up oil prices. There’s a discussion about that in this thread.
StephenL wrote: Because he says we shouldn’t be allowed to eat as much as we want.
Where did you get that? If true, it’s not something that can easily be legislated (if at all).
StephenL wrote: Because he supports third term abortions.
This is a difficult issue. Personally, I think we should be looking at the reasons that makes many women feel as though that’s their only choice, rather than trying to criminalize it.
StephenL wrote: Because he supports illegal immigration.
Both John McCain and Barack Obama have pathetic immigration voting records:
  • John McCain: career immigration grade: “D”, recent grade: “D” (27%)
  • Barack Obama: career immigration grade: “D-“, recent grade: “D-” (20%) John McCain also voted for the first shamnesty of 1986, which has now more than quadrupled the problem. John McCain also supported the failed Dream Act (another shamnesty) of 2007, and says he now “gets it” (after 26 years in Congress). Interesting, after 26 years, he finally suddenly gets it (i.e. says secure the borders), just when he’s running for the office of president, eh?

    It’s unlikely either Obama or McCain are serious about illegal immigration.
    As a result, both are essentially pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits, votes, and/or misplaced compassion (i.e. more for illegal aliens than U.S. citizens).
    More about illegal immigration here: One-Simple-Idea.com/BorderSecurity.htm

    StephenL wrote: Because he got in bed with radicalized left wing extremists and is now pretending he had no idea they were extremists.
    Of course not. But how about right wing extremists?

    As if any politicians in D.C. aren’t trolling for big-money donors?

    StephenL wrote: Because he wants to raise taxes.
    You may want to research this better. Perhaps you are unaware that the current tax system is regressive? That is (excluding the lowest tax brackets), the less your income is, the higher your federal taxes are as a percentage of your gross income):
    • _________Current REGRESSIVE Federal Tax System:________________
    • 35% |——————————o————————————————————
    • 33% |———————-o—————o—————————————————
    • 30% |——————o—————————o——————————————= (30% total
    • 27% |—————-o————————————-o———————————- federal tax for
    • 24% |—————o————————————————o————————- secretay making $60K)
    • 21% |————-o————————————————————-o————-
    • 18% |————o————————————————————————-o-= (17.7% Warren
    • 15% |———-o——————————————————————————- Buffet’s total
    • 12% |———o——————————————————————————— federal taxes on
    • 09% |——-o———————————————————————————- $46 Million)
    • 06% |——o————————————————————————————
    • 03% |—-o————————————————————————————-
    • 00% |ooo—————————————————————————————
    • ____$0__30K__60K__90K_120K_150K_180K_210K_240K … … $GROSS INCOME …
    Obama’s goal appears to be to even this out by eliminating the tax cuts for the wealthy (not the middle class or poor). More about that here: One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm#Taxes

    What’s wrong with all Americans (excluding those already below the poverty level) paying a more equal percentage?
    Unless you are wealthy, you should want the tax system to become non-regressive.

    NOTE: I’m not an Obama or McCain supporter, but think the real facts should be clear.

    StephenL wrote: Because he supports massive government giveaways.
    Such as? Universal health care? Maybe. I fear another vast system will fail if it is mismanaged as badly as Social Security and Medicare.
    StephenL wrote: Because he sought defeat in Iraq whereas Bush finally found victory.
    “found vitory” ?

    First of all, even if U.S. troops left Iraq today and the Iraqis squandered their chance to build a better Iraq, it wouldn’t be a failure in any way of the U.S. troops.
    But Bush has done nothing to be praised for. In fact, it is Bush’s and his cabinet’s blunders that have made everything worse: One-Simple-Idea.com/Blunders1.htm

    StephenL wrote: I’ll vote against Obama because it’s the right thing to do.
    That’s your right. We can only ask for more voters to vote more responsibly, and having the correct facts first helps.
    StephenL wrote: I don’t care what his skin color is.
    That’s good. It is encouraging to see more Americans looking to character and issues, rather than race.
  • If you want to see more about the candidates voting records, see the following:

    • John McCain: OnTheIssues.org/John_McCain.htm

    • Barack Obama: OnTheIssues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

    Posted by: d.a.n at June 12, 2008 12:15 PM
    Comment #255312


    Most bad management, both in government and business is deliberately created for the benefit of politicians, unscrupulous businessmen and their cronies.

    A bad king will mismanage his kingdom for his pleasure.

    A good king will manage his kingdom well and chop the heads off of those that he has delegated authority to when they mismanage because of self-indulgence or sloth.

    A king that fails to keep an eye on those that he has delegated authority to will wake up some morning and find his treasury pilfered.

    In the case of Enron, the shareholders were king. In the case of government, the people are king.

    Posted by: jlw at June 12, 2008 1:26 PM
    Comment #255323

    On Iraq, we’re even getting the Kurds to join Islamic parties. Is this what we really want? By the time we get out, Iraq may be readhy to become another Iran.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9winTzvqQn4

    Note JMcC’s ads featuring pics of BHO and Ahmadinejad together.

    Posted by: ohrealy at June 12, 2008 3:49 PM
    Comment #255373

    ohrealy, and in the meantime Sharia Law is spreading southward in Africa like a wildfire. Not that Sharia law, in and of itself, would breed terrorists. But, it certainly creates fertile ground for al-Queda to exploit, and it is!

    al-Queda is on the decline in Iraq, but the philosophy of al-Queda is spreading throughout the world. That is Bush’s legacy. Our president became obsessed with Iraq, and dropped the ball entirely in Afghanistan, Indonesia, Africa, and Pakistan allowing the philosophy of terrorism to grow in the world. Obsessions can do that. Exclude from view all other things of importance resulting in serious unintended consequences.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at June 12, 2008 9:30 PM
    Post a comment