But I'm going to vote for John McCain in our state's Presidential primary.
Mind you, this is out of no allegiance to McCain - as the regular reader knows. It's a vote against Mike Huckabee. And the best way to do that on the ballot at the current time is by voting for McCain.
My thoughts on Huckabee's conduct and that of his campaign following our caucuses are not tough to figure out. Had he simply stirred the pot for a day or so, tossing around scurrilous charges, it would have been distasteful though perhaps forgivable in the fog of a hard fought campaign. But it went on for days, long after the campaign knew what it was saying was false and over-heated (see one of the most obnoxious examples here).
I proudly caucused for Mitt Romney on the 9th** and was ready to likewise cast a primary ballot for him as well out of loyalty to that preferred option and out of demonstration of my displeasure with either McCain or Huckabee as the GOP nominee. Yet, with Romney now endorsing McCain the choice is a bit easier when coupled as well with Huckabee's repellent post-caucus behavior.
Admirably, I think the lovely Mrs. Earling will still vote for Romney. And to those that do likewise I say, God bless you. As for me, I'm going with the most visible anti-Huckabee option on the ballot.
**Joni Balter recently reinforced the notion she doesn't exactly have her thumb on the pulse of Republican voters when she lamented Romney's showing in our GOP caucuses. Balter makes some allusions to her belief that Washingtonians caucusing for Romney weren't keeping up with the news. Hardly.
Anyone with a TV or an Internet connection and even a modestly serious interest in following the Republican race could have figured out long ago that not only does McCain have real problems with the Republican faithful, but Huckabee hasn't exactly been lighting the world on fire beyond Evangelicals, especially outside the South. Republicans serious about the unification of conservative thought on social issues, economic policy, and foreign affairs are not thrilled about the McCain v. Huckabee choice Balter expected GOP caucus-goers to choose from.
With the Republican race essentially over after February 7th, a conservative protest via a respectable showing for Romney should have been no surprise. The issue wasn't viability as Balter asserts, it was acceptability. Many conservatives are going to come to accept a McCain candidacy only reluctantly (some, not at all). It is thus sad when an MSM pundit displays so little understanding of the consequences of that somewhat obvious dynamic.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 16, 2008 09:10 PM | Email ThisC'mon, Eric, give it a rest. Do you honestly believe that any fence sitter or Huck supporter is going to read your words of wisdom and experience an epiphany that will make them vote for anyone merely because YOU are?
Dude, you need to get your ego problems fixed... and soon... because I'm here to tell ya: no body gives a damn who you're voting for.
Posted by: Hinton on February 16, 2008 10:01 PMPlease try to be nice, OK?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 16, 2008 10:09 PM1. Is that like drain cleaner?
2. Don't be so sure, remember Billary counts votes according to the Chicago school and she has all those FBI files. They are now investigating the votes in Harlem because not one single person there cast a ballot for Obama:
Voting Malfunctions: Obama Votes in Harlem Not Counted
By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:50:53 PM EST
Tags: New York 08, Barack Obama (all tags) Share This:
The bad news is voting machines malfunctioned in Harlem and many Obama votes didn't get counted. The good news: It's being rectified.
The tip-off: Several Harlem precincts recorded 0 votes for Obama.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/16/135053/176
I bet King County can top that by producing negative numbers.
Like the old Chinese curse, may you live in interesting times.
That you "care" begs the issue: it changes nothing, least of all YOUR vote, which we can all kinda gather was wasted on Paul.
He wrote "I can't believe I'm saying this." All I did was agree with him.
Posted by: Hinton on February 16, 2008 10:54 PMDo you share McCains beliefs? Did you vote for him?
Better make it the full $2300 for now.
Posted by: jim on February 16, 2008 11:17 PMOf course, some people may have their own reasons for wanting to see Republicans beat up on each other before the general election. Those people might be otherwise intelligent, but they aren't good Republicans.
I think most people here will vote for him because he has an (R) next to his name, and the other candidate has a (D). In their mind a vote for (D) = a vote for Marxism.
There hasn't been a Republican in the race.
Posted by: Independent Voter on February 17, 2008 06:43 AMMcCain one of the Keating 5 is the lone Senator remaining after the Keating Scandals.
McCain accepts large contributions from the extreme left through the Reform Institute that is funded in part by George Soros and Teresa Heinz Kerry. There is more than a casual relationship between McCain and the extreme left and McCain's involvements are many as demonstrated by the Reform Institute which McCain founded and used to support his campaign workers between runs.
McCain is damaged goods and Repurblican lose either way come November. It is our failure for not having a quality candidate on the ticket.
Posted by: Snuffy on February 17, 2008 07:39 AMOK vote Hillbilly or Obamomoma and get a Real Liberal and assist with the ruin of the country. Do you hear the left crying if one of these wack jobs gets elected "they will be the ruin of the Dimocrat Party"? No because neither one leans to the center and a good wind from the far east and they would both fall over.
I don't think McCain will be the ruin of the Party, however he was not my first choice. And who is putting him in front--are the Dims crossing the party line to vote for him or has it been Republicans?
If you are Right leaning don't get yourself in a down pour and if you are Left leaning your showing your spots in your postings.
Yes I have a lot of issues with McCain. Just as I have a lot of issues with Ron Paul for different reasons. Remember this voting is for a portion of the delegates that go the National COnvention. Even a Mitt delegate can vote for McCain at the convention or they can join the undecieded column and see if we can not get conservative concerns heard that McCain would have to work to get those votes at the National COnvention to join his team.
Posted by: David Anfinrud on February 17, 2008 08:12 AMThe Insiders who lost or are losing?
Giuliani
Clinton
The quality candidates who are winning?
McCain
Obama
We may see this trend repeated a lot in the coming years, maybe in the Governor's race where suddenly just coming out and appealing to some Insider code word or group of people who supposedly have their fingers on the buttons is no longer enough.
Excuse me, but I just have had about all I can take of this garbage from lefties, and Paulists.
Republicans aren't "snooping around" in anyone's life, unless you might happen to be in the habit of phoning up middle eastern terrorists.
If you want government to impose themselves on your life vote for Hillary, or Obama. What party do you think comes up with seatbelt laws, bicycle helmet laws, wants to tax food they claim to be unhealthy, and want to restore the "Fairness Doctrine"? As well as pass laws in this state which will effectively squash the people's right to the initiative process.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 17, 2008 10:16 AMJust because I am voting McCain to knock Huckabee out of the race and hopefully national politics for good, doesn't mean I will still vote for McCain in the general election. He still has a lot of work to go. If picks a guy like Lieberman or Huckabee for a running mate, I will not vote for McCain. It is now up to John McCain to win my vote. He could start by not bragging about taking away our freedom of speech with Russ Feingold or by changing his tune of radical, religious, environmentalism.
Posted by: AP on February 17, 2008 11:23 AMWhy did it take Eric several paragraphs to say that?
A dozen years ago, from a crowded field of Republican gubernatorial candidates, one emerged, due entirely to having the religious right vote. Former state senator Ellen Craswell went on to set a new record in losing by a major party candidate in this state, particularly after her ignorance concerning gays and AIDS 'came out' during a debate televised statewide. (Her connections to Dominionist Christians didn't help, either.)
Gov. Huckabee literally represents the religious right portion of the national GOP. The Republicans can (barely) win majorities with the help of this constituency, but lose badly if other Americans see such Dark Age intolerance on public display. (See, "Fiasco, Shiavo", for details.) A candidate Huckabee will do for the national GOP what candidate Craswell did for the WSRP: act as a harbinger of chronic minority status.
The religious right's views are deeply antithetical to the Jeffersonian spirit of American civil liberties, and any Party which openly embraces such divisive bigotry has created a host of intractable problems. Without the Huckabee voters, Republicans are a minority, pure and simple. With the Huckabee voters in control, the Party is a chronic minority. Hence the panic at the thought of his candidacy.
Anyway, you can't stop Huckabee. Remember, he majored in miracles, not mathematics!
Posted by: tensor on February 17, 2008 11:35 AMThe guy's a total empty suit, except for the style-over-substance-kool aid-drinkers. So, have fun with that.
Posted by: Hinton on February 17, 2008 11:38 AMWhile awaiting his muse, he can post his observations however he likes. I reckon I will still keep coming back.
Posted by: Micajah on February 17, 2008 11:38 AM * In the midst of the savings and loan implosion of the 80s, federal auditors begin investigating the practices of S&L magnate Charles Keating.
* McCain, along with four other Senators, meets with Keating to discuss ways to derail the investigation.
* McCain and his colleagues meet with Ed Gray, the chairman of the regulatory board, and persuade him to delay seizing the S&L.
* Two years later, regulators finally have to seize the S&L for a federal bailout, costing taxpayers $2.6 billion. In the meantime, 17,000 investors in Keating's S&L lose $190 million.
For someone with a stainless "reform" halo, McCain looks pretty dirty here. So, what does the "straight-talker" do? Take responsibility? Apologize?
McCain defended his attendance at the meetings by saying Keating was a constituent and that Keating's development company, American Continental Corporation, was a major Arizona employer. McCain said he wanted to know only whether Keating was being treated fairly and that he had not tried to influence the regulators.
But Keating was more than a constituent to McCain-he was a longtime friend and associate...Keating raised money for McCain's two congressional campaigns in 1982 and 1984, and for McCain's 1986 Senate bid. By 1987, McCain campaigns had received $112,000 from Keating, his relatives, and his employees-the most received by any of the Keating Five.
After McCain's election to the House in 1982, he and his family made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, three of which were to Keating's Bahamas retreat. McCain did not disclose the trips (as he was required to under House rules) until the scandal broke in 1989...And in April 1986, one year before the meeting with the regulators, McCain's wife, Cindy, and her father invested $359,100 in a Keating strip mall.
Posted by: pbj on February 17, 2008 12:32 PMFirst, I challenge anyone to prove that McCain is not more conservative than Bush. Secondly, I believe that the anti-McCain talk show hosts are acting as narcissistic and unprincipled as the far left. Surely they are intelligent enough to see that, but don't seem to care. It seems to be personal against John McCain by them - why don't they take it out with the McCain himself instead of going behind his back ? They know full well that they are empowering the Democrat candidate, whoever they are.
Finally, their comment about McCain being the end of conservatism as we know is disingenuous. That has already happened under the current administration. In summary, if McCain loses in Nov., part of the credit (or fault) will go to not only Pres. Bush for destroying the Republican Party, but also the conservatives in the media that railed against him.
Posted by: KS on February 17, 2008 12:57 PMthe conservatives in the media that railed against him, since he become the presumptive nominee.
It's one of the reasons that I wish both parties would select all of their delegates based on the primary.
Posted by: Dave Orvis on February 17, 2008 01:08 PMWhile Mrs. Craswell's stridently anti-choice stance didn't help her with our state's pro-choice electorate, it really wasn't an issue in her failed campaign. Her strongly Christian views, in a state with the lowest church attendance, coupled with her embrace of theocratic supporters, resulted in Mr. Locke -- the driest technocrat in years -- winning a massive landslide. On her day of non-election, the GOP held comfortable majorities in both houses of the Washington State legislature. Those majorities began eroding on that day, and have since dwindled to small and shrinking minorities.
The national GOP lost in 2006, in a defeat so total that the current Congress contains not a single freshman GOP member. A Huckabee candidacy could reduce the GOP level in the Senate to well below 40 votes, at which point, with a Democratic president, the Republicans would not even count as a nuisance. This explains Eric's loud personal attacks on Gov. Huckabee, and Eric's pointed switching of his vote, from Pro-Romney to Anti-Huckabee. Gov. Huckabee's objections to WSRP Chair Esser's blatant mischaracterization of the recent caucus results have nothing to do with it. McCain may be electable; Huckabee is not, and nothing else makes the decision.
"Which children, then?"
Has former GOP Rep. Mark Foley come out of hid-- treatment? If so, what has he to do with this?
Posted by: tensor on February 17, 2008 01:25 PMEnough war hawks enough!
Posted by: Publicbulldog on February 17, 2008 01:36 PMI checked online, a cornish game hen goes for about $13. $10 cornish game hens seem to be a thing of the past.
$4 a gallon gas seems like it's just around the corner, especially with the continued devaluation of the US Dollar. I doubt the US Military is paying $4/gal for gas, I'm sure they buy in bulk.
Or unless your ISP screws up and lets them read all non-terrorism related communications on the server. Ooops.
Why is McCain so dangerous? Think Jimmy Carter. Then imagine if he was a Republican.
By then end of the next president's term, no matter whom is chosen, inflation will have doubled, unemployment will have doubled we will have at least on if not more terror attacks worse than 911. That is what the current choice of BOTH parties offers us.
America will get its ass kicked around all over the world.
Posted by: pbj on February 17, 2008 01:58 PMActually, the Republican House leadership protected him to the fullest extent possible, hiding his attempted predations from the lone Democrat on the House committee which oversaw the page program. Karl Rove even made a special appeal (pre-exposure) for Foley to stay in the House. (Foley had thought of retiring.) When all of this exploded, at the instigation of former pages, a month before the election, the Republicans lost any claim to moral superiority over their opponents. (Heck, they lost any claim to having any sense at all. What kind of person protects a boy-chaser?) Your raising of this issue, in discussion of a topic which has nothing to do with it, just amazes me.
"Last Dem I can think of who got caught playing footsie with the pages got a standing ovation from the House, didn't he?"
If you're referring to Rep. Barney Frank's censure by the full House -- a punishment Foley never received, thanks to the GOP House leadership's cover-up -- he has since described it as the worst moment of his Congressional career, if not his entire life.
"However, you prove my point."
Is today Opposite Day, or is that just you?
Posted by: tensor on February 17, 2008 02:03 PMWhat if I want the freedom of choice in marrying another woman? Would you be in favor of a nanny state law that outlaws that?
"If it doesn't get above a certain MPG, then you pay a special additional tax."
I though we were trying to relinquish our dependence of oil from our enemies? What better way to stop the jihadists than to cut off their money supply.
You are a hypocrit indeed. You can of course talk about "how long" it took to get rid of Foley. No one will argue about that. But you conveniently over look the fact that YOUR crook, William Jefferson (D-LA) was reelected. He is still in office today, even after having been caught with over $90K of bribe money in his refrigerator. There is NO defense for that behavior and the FACT that democrats reelected him shows just how morally bankrupt they are.
Posted by: pbj on February 17, 2008 02:09 PMNo, I would not be in favor of a law that "outlaws" you from marrying another woman. Do I agree with that lifestyle - no. What you do is your own business. If the state legislature chooses to disallow recognition of such unions, then that is their prerogative as elected representatives. If the Supreme Court rules that laws such as the Defense of Marriage are constitutional, then you must accept it as the law of the land. The rule of law is what controls here, not popular opinion. If churches choose to not recognize or endorse such unions, then they have that prerogative.
YOU have to be tolerant to the opinions and views of others, which is a foreign concept to all liberals. I cannot count the number of times my opinion has been discounted for the stated reason "oh, you're a conservative." Until you learn to be tolerant, do not expect to be taken seriously.
Posted by: Art on February 17, 2008 02:18 PMLooks like:
a) He didn't have a serious opponent in the race
b) Upon his re-election he has no power in the house
Never underestimate the stupidly of the voters, I mean after all they got big-spender Dubya re-elected.
How much will that bring? Will it be enough for to stop importing oil from the middle east? Will the 50 jobs it create be worth the damage of a national forest?
Maybe you should get informed, because unless your an oil company looking to expand your profits or an Eskimo living in that area there's no real reason to build up there. The amount of oil in ANWAR is a mere a drop compared to the ocean of Middle Eastern oil.
I shop at the IGA OR the Albertsons.
I see them at 7-8 bucks for smaller birds.
The point being they are tiny little birds for too high of a price.
They used to be 4 or 5 bucks.Those military zealots get them at the px for 5 bucks probably.
Posted by: Publicbulldog on February 17, 2008 03:02 PMHemp is the only sustainable clean fuel source.
Too bad that 10 pound monkey crap prevents something that no recreational user or med patient smokes,and is prohibited because it competes with the patented de jure monopolies that use that 10 pound monkey crap to take out the competition.
People on this blog like: Ragnar,Cydney,Katomar,Hinton,et al buy that 10 pound monkey stuff,and help keep us all lined up at the corporate gouge.
Katomar just did. (Why he bothered, in a thread which has nothing to do with boy-chasing, still makes me wonder.) In fact, he argued contrary to all of the facts of the cases he introduced.
Since you've introduced the example of a House Member accused of criminality (again, why?) we'll discuss then-Rep. Bob Ney, first elected in 1994, who pled guilty to taking Mr. Abramoff's bribes. He refused to resign, continuing to draw money from our taxes whilst awaiting sentencing for having sold us out! That the then-House leadership couldn't get him to resign showed just how weak and useless they were. Hence the loss of their leadership positions later that year.
Thanks in no small part to their tolerance of such abuses, the Congressional Republicans are becoming an endangered species. Having Mr. Huckabee at the top of the ticket won't help revive their breed, which is why the GOP establishment, like Mr. Esser, attacks Mr. Huckabee at every opportunity.
Posted by: tensor on February 17, 2008 03:20 PMHuh. I didn't know that.
Posted by: pudge on February 17, 2008 05:59 PM" If McCain wins, liberals get to implement their harmful policies and the blame goes to Republicans. If either Democrat wins, they have to take the blame for their failed policies."
Think about that for a minute - first, you are neglecting the makeup of the Supreme Court. McCain would select conservatives like Roberts and Alito (contrary to what the right-wing media put out). Now, if a Democrat gets elected, there are 2-3 justices that will retire and likely get 3 new ones like Ruth Bader Ginsberg. That would be way harmful and coupled with Universal Health Care and expansion of the nanny state - it would permanently change the makeup of this country and a good portion of that would be irreversable. Based on that, the logic of that statement makes NON-EXISTANT.
Get over it, McCain will most likely be the candidate - Apathy by the Republicans will lead to destruction of this country - there is a choice- pay for it now or pay big time for it later...
" If McCain wins, liberals get to implement their harmful policies and the blame goes to Republicans. If either Democrat wins, they have to take the blame for their failed policies."
Think about that for a minute - first, you are neglecting the makeup of the Supreme Court. McCain would select conservatives like Roberts and Alito (contrary to what the right-wing media put out). Now, if a Democrat gets elected, there are 2-3 justices that will retire and likely get 3 new ones like Ruth Bader Ginsberg. That would be way harmful and coupled with Universal Health Care and expansion of the nanny state - it would permanently change the makeup of this country and a good portion of that would be irreversable. Based on that, the logic of that statement is NON-EXISTANT.
Get over it, McCain will most likely be the candidate - Apathy by the Republicans will lead to destruction of this country - there is a choice- pay for it now or pay big time for it later...
Apparently your research on Mr Jefferson was lacking. You failed to mention that the Democrats appointed him to the Homeland Security committee.
I feel safer already!
Posted by: pbj on February 17, 2008 08:12 PMyou want to talk about who took Abramhoff money?
OK:
• Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), who received at least $22,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), who received at least $6,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), who received at least $1,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), who received at least $2,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who received at least $20,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), who received at least $21,765 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Tom Carper (D-DE), who received at least $7,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), who received at least $12,950 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), who received at least $8,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ), who received at least $7,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), who received at least $14,792 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), who received at least $79,300 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), who received at least $14,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who received at least $2,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), who received at least $1,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), who received at least $45,750 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI), who received at least $9,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT), who received at least $2,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD), who received at least $14,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), who received at least $3,300 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator John Kerry (D-MA), who received at least $98,550 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who received at least $28,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT), who received at least $4,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), who received at least $6,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), who received at least $29,830 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least $14,891 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), who received at least $10,550 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), who received at least $78,991 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), who received at least $20,168 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least $5,200 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), who received at least $7,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR), who received at least $2,300 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), who received at least $3,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), who received at least $68,941 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV), who received at least $4,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO), who received at least $4,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), who received at least $4,300 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who received at least $29,550 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), who received at least $6,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), who received at least $6,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.
Hypocritical lying scum DEMOCRATS!
That is because it is based on the false premise that Bush is a conservative.
Posted by: pbj on February 17, 2008 09:24 PMYour comment falsely implied the Republicans had acted to remove Foley when they discovered his boy-chasing. In fact, the exact opposite was true: they hid his predations, and kept him in office for as long as they possibly could. He held a Congressional seat for the Republican Party, when their slender majority was crumbling, and the Republican leadership (if that's the right word) clung to power at all costs. Their actions were the exact opposite of what you claimed. He was not "gotten rid of"; he remained in office until he resigned, and he resigned only after his would-be victims exposed him. No Republican Representative had a single bad word to say about him until after he fled our House.
In case you do not know, one of Rep. Foley's offices was head of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children(!). While we now know of his intimate personal interest in that subject, when then-Speaker Hastert discovered Foley's pursuit of pages, Hastert retained Foley as head of this Caucus! A more obvious example of complete moral bankruptcy would have been hard to find, had Rep. Ney not then been drawing a taxpayer-supplied salary for taking bribes to betray us.
Again, please explain what (if anything) Rep. Foley's GOP-approved boy-chasing has to do with Republican presidential politics. Is there something about the raft of GOP presidential candidates we do not know? Please do tell.
Posted by: tensor on February 17, 2008 11:39 PMWere you under the impression that DC would be a bastion for holy men and women? You'll never find more scum accumulated in one spot than in WA DC.
The bad thing about Republicans is that they talk alot about taking the high moral ground then quit often someone wearing R stripes makes them look bad.
The bad thing about Democrats is that the book that contains their definition of morality is a living breathing document subject to change and contains alot of things that your average R and your koolaid drinking D find disgusting (like intentionally getting feces on your penis and other abnormal behavior).
Posted by: REBEL on February 18, 2008 10:29 AM
BEST excerpt:
" He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It's not that she is a woman. It's that she is who she is. It's the liberal victim groups she panders to, the "poor me" attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves. "
Ouch!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2008 10:49 AMWell since we are now measuring by how long it took to get them out, I think the name Gerry Studds (D-MA) is in order. This pedophile was NEVER kicked out. And for the record, that is a LOT longer than it took to get Foley out.
Afterwards, Democrats honored him in a gay parade.
And yet, William Jefferson (D-LA) continues to serve in congress, elected by his collegagues to the Homeland Security Committee. Tensor, you are what we call a hypocrit.
We are not at war with Islamic jihad. If we are, congress forgot to declare war.
What we do have is some terrorists that need to meet their maker. We can do that without invading nation after nation and supporting dictators in all the ones we do not invade. Dr Paul supported going after all that have attacked america, he just does not support invading unassociated nations or supporting dictators.
Posted by: Lysander on February 18, 2008 02:08 PMAs for the few that want to attack our non military personal? They too would lose motivation if we were not supporting dictators and occupying their lands. Immediately? No, but eventually they would. They will never so long as we try to fight in wars on their lands with money we do not have.
McCain is more of the same. The policies we have had for 50 years had led us from one group to the next wanting to kill us and has cost us trillions. It is a doomed policy that McCain wants to ramp up. It will destroy our nation.
Dr Paul wants to return to a policy of non intervention, peace and trade with all. And before you imply it, NO it does not mean he would let terrorists attack us or let them go free after they attack us. One of dr pauls strongest reasons against the war in Iraq was becuase it was a distraction and resource drain away from catching the man behind 9/11.
Posted by: Lysander on February 18, 2008 02:19 PMWow. You predicted I would eventually end up casting a vote for the GOP nominee, however grudgingly (and in this case motivated entirely by the desire to vote as aggressively against Mike Huckabee as possible). Pardon me if that leaves me less than awed at your powers of prediction.
But while you're on your kick describing my "feigned conservatism," perhaps you could stick to using my actual words rather than quoting Matt Rosenberg who a) no longer posts here and b) doesn't represent my thinking on the topic you referenced in the least.
I'm sorry you're so pissed off at some of your fellow Republicans, but in posting your critiques perhaps you could actually stick to applicable facts and stated opinions of those you seek to criticize?
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 18, 2008 05:04 PMWhat you may see in this primary will be very similar to the Cantwell, Murray and Gregoire elections. Liberal havens like King County, the few liberal counties will overwhelmingly support McCain, while the least liberal counties will go for other than McCain. There is a rural/urban divide in this state and where the Republicans rule the nest, the urban/suburban folks need to see who they vote for - and it won't be McCain in the primary at least.
Posted by: Doug on February 18, 2008 08:52 PM