As this ad reminds us, Obama seems to believe that it's okay to have an unrepentant domestic terrorist (Bill Ayers) as a key political partner:
And as his campaign's response to the above ad indicates, he also seems to believe that it's appropriate for the federal government to silence those who point out embarrassing facts about him.
And as his campaign's response to Stanley Kurtz's appearance yesterday on a Chicago's radio show to discuss Obama's relationship with Ayers [program audio here] indicates, he also seems to believe that it's appropriate to intimidate uncooperative media.
(an interesting local connection -- the Chicago radio host, Milt Rosenberg, is the father of our own Matt Rosenberg).
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 28, 2008 10:22 AM | Email ThisThis guy is so tone deaf and such a lightweight that he is not fit for elected office. Unfortunately, at least 40% of the country won't see it that way.
Posted by: swatter on August 28, 2008 10:24 AMI think pay dirt has just been hit!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 28, 2008 10:40 AMTheir only choice is try to suppress this at all costs. But the more they try to cover this up, the bigger it will get.
These are the kind of arrogant and aggressive choices that Progressives will make brazenly. Obama could have very easily avoided the most radical elements of his upbringing if he was serious about being a new kind of candidate. But instead he openly embraced people like Ayers and Wright. And in return, he was fast-tracked into the Machnchurian Progressive that they need as a vehicle to get the power the desire.
Progressives always overreach in their desire for power, because their ideology is one of unapologetic control of their fellow man. They will trample any written law or traditional value to put their power in place, and they do so with a recklessness that guarantees ties to radicals like Ayers.
Obama is the worst kind of leader for the US. Regardless of how bad McCain is from either a right or left perspective, he is by far the more American, more individualist, and more benign candidate for freedom and sensible American values.
Excellent post Stefan. Good to know the family connection between Matt and Milt.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 28, 2008 10:51 AMWaiting...
This is an important election.
Posted by: bfr on August 28, 2008 11:24 AMhttp://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5670682
I thought the dem's love free press.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 28, 2008 11:49 AMThey do love free press. They don't always love a free press.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 28, 2008 12:20 PMThe facts are clear. Ayers has radical anti-American/ pro- Marxist views. And Black Lberation Theology shares those same radical anti-American views. There are irrefutable connections to several notable figures in these movements and Barack Obama.
Barack Obama does not deserve respect as an American Presidential candidate having any relation to such extremes.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 28, 2008 12:21 PMIt's obvious why. And it's apparent that the Left is not worked up about this, because you have to put yourself in their shoes... they hate the U.S., and so does Ayers, so to them it's no big deal.
Posted by: Gary on August 28, 2008 12:39 PMThe Commerce Department reported Thursday that gross domestic product, or GDP, increased at a 3.3 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter. The revised reading was much better than the government's initial estimate of a 1.9 percent pace and exceeded economists' expectations for a 2.7 percent growth rate.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 28, 2008 12:47 PMPut the beer down duff, it's way to early.
I understand you need to get drunk before Obama the great speaks. But please, your not 21 anymore. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 28, 2008 01:03 PMThese people are nothing but a bunch of evil, lying power hungry communist nutcases.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2008 01:03 PMCaller: "I like Obama because he'll bring change."
Medved: "what kind of change will Obama bring?"
Caller: (Pause) "I don't actually know."
A mile high and an inch deep??
Posted by: Michele on August 28, 2008 01:32 PMNow how many people were hurt by his bombs? (A: None)
What did he blow up? (A: Mostly FBI paperwork on leftist organizations.)
This coming from a party that has the full support of a guy who thinks Hitler was the best thing that ever happened to the Jews.
Give me a break, looks more like your running scared. Notice how McCain spends all his $$ attacking Obama without laying out what his plans are. Why isn't Dumbo Rossi going to the Republican Convention? He went 4 years ago.
I'm guessing he doesn't want to be seen as a Republican (which is why he's running under GOP). Or doesn't want photos of him hanging out with ol' Sen. Flip-Flop.
Try for once to answer in an intellectually honest fashion.
Posted by: Kato on August 28, 2008 02:43 PMThis matters a lot folks. This foreign born national with nothing but sloganization from propaganda speeches seeks to carry out nothing short of a violent and determined destruction of the bright points of the world. We must not be silent. I realize the Coward from Chicago who is frustrated with this whole election thing as evidenced by not answering the arguments made of his association to an unprosecuted unrepentant terrorist will crack at some point...he just can't do it in the Whitehouse. Rightfully he should just be left with kicking the dog rather than reporters on November 5th.
Posted by: Col. Hogan on August 28, 2008 02:46 PMGood and Pawlenty
Posted by: WaFlyGuy on August 28, 2008 02:53 PM
Lame. He and his people constructed a nail bomb that they planned to explode at an army base. Instead, it went off while they were building it, and killed three of their own. So he only "succeeded" in killing three of his own fellow terrorists, instead of members of the military. He was a terrorist, plain and simple.
But since his cause was leftist, Democrats say it was just fine that he helped launch Obama's political career. What a joke. Clinton pardoned two of his terrorist conspirators on his way out of office too. Can you imagine the outrage by Democrats and the media if Bush pardoned an abortion clinic bomber? Liberal heads would explode.
Posted by: Palouse on August 28, 2008 03:49 PMSeems he is still spitting on our returning war vets.
I think cato is the guy who is flying the UN flag and not the US flag.
Posted by: swatter on August 28, 2008 03:59 PMMcCain is friends with a guy who thinks Hitler was great for the Jews and the Catholic religion is a sham. I don't see Obama harping on McCain being buddies with that nutzo.
I realize the Coward from Chicago who is frustrated with this whole election thing as evidenced by not answering the arguments made of his association to an unprosecuted unrepentant terrorist will crack at some point.
Since Ayers didn't actually hurt/main/kill anyone and he's free to roam around the crime he committed must not have been all that great. It's funny to watch the right wing make a guy who blew up a bunch of filing cabinets as a 60's terrorist equivalent of the 9/11 hijackers.
McCain has to resort to fear mongering because he doesn't have a leg to stand on in regards to the issues. Any question he gets is scripted, and criticism is somehow an attack on his time as a POW. Heck even his old cellmate in Hanoi Hilton (who was there 4 years longer than Sen. Flip Flop) thinks McCain is a short-tempered jerk.
You need to read more about their targets. Cato, you need to ask yourself how you got to the point where you think it's just fine what they did, and why you regard it to be about as bad as throwing a gum wrapper on the sidewalk.
Why is it okay with you that they were domestic terrorists? Is it because they were motivated by their communist beliefs? How about if they bombed 20 abortion clinics. How would you have felt about that?
Posted by: Michele on August 28, 2008 04:26 PMI actually watched the Weather Underground documentary at SIFF a few years back, I don't recall any nails being mentioned by the police officers they interviewed.
Also, no one was hurt by that bomb in question except for the idiots who were constructing it. Good riddance. They made their own choices (including the GF) and they payed with their lives. So be it.
Some members of the Weatherman were caught, tried, and convicted of misdemeanors, they paid hefty fines, served no jail time, and were later pardoned by Ronald Reagan.
If Ayers is a terrorist why is he allowed to teach and walk freely in Chicago. If he was a murder/terrorist as some seem to paint him as then he would be a felon and in jail. The statute of limitations for murder never runs out. Since he never killed anyone Ayers is the 1960's equivalent of Kevin Mitnick
What exactly has Obama done wrong? What should he have done instead? Please be specific.
Posted by: scottd on August 28, 2008 05:02 PMWorks for me, wouldn't be the first person. Of course Ayers at least tried to go out of his way not to injure any individuals unlike the Conservative nutzos who just blow people up indiscriminately.
Is it because they were motivated by their communist beliefs?
I have no clue what their motivation was, I don't know any of them. Looks like they wanted the US to get out of a war stared under false pretenses (hmmm, sounds familiar). They clearly took the wrong approach but again the 60's were certainly not the same as the 00's.
Cato, you need to ask yourself how you got to the point where you think it's just fine what they did
Where did I say it was fine? I don't recall saying that at all. I don't agree with his methods, but blowing up file cabinets and toilets in the Pentagon is not the same as flying a plane into a tower and killing 2000+ people because you hate America. Personally I find it very amusing that the Republicans are trying to make Ayers out to be something he's not. Ayers is a bad guy, but he's certianly not the Unibomber, he's not Eric Rudolph, and he's never done anything that would make him the equivelent to the 9/11 terrorists, which the McCain campaign is painting trying to paint him as (if McCain actually had to talk about the issues instead of fear-mongering the election would be a Reaganesque landslide for Obama).
Posted by: Cato on August 28, 2008 05:16 PMUnlike you, I don't approve of domestic terrorists, no matter what their targets are---private property or government. Weather Underground was a split off a Maoist (COMMUNIST, for those in Palm Beach County) group and said they wanted to be the "white" version of black radical groups back then. This was a dangerous group, and the fact that you are so nonchalant about them tells a lot about you.
Posted by: Michele on August 28, 2008 05:26 PMYou think a guy who publicly states that Hitler was God's gift to Jews is good? The same guy who claims that the beliefs of billions of people worldwide are completely bogus? Interesting how hard McCain actively sought out this guy's endorsement despite these well know facts about the Rev. Hagee.
Funny how everyone here seems quite fine with that sort of association. Even many Catholics here (looking at you Ragnar) seem more than willing to let that association slide right on by.
Really, I don't think Ayers or Wright HATE America. They certainly disagree with some of it's ideas/stances/policies but they both still choose to live here. Meanwhile your communist argument is a red herring. Neither Obama or anyone on Obama's staff is advocating massive work collectives, eliminating free markets, or cultural revolution. Your fear of Amercian communism is a joke at best (heck Nixon policies were closer to communism than Obama's are).
I don't approve of domestic terrorists, no matter what their targets are---private property or government.
Nor do I, but Obama's associations to Ayer's are not anything more than associations. Heck two of McCain's good friends are convicted felons, G. Gordon Liddy (multiple felonies) and Oliver North (multiple felonies). Maybe we should be making a fuss over Republicans giving convicted felons talk shows and guest spots on Fox News.
Meanwhile I notice that Ayers has never actually been convicted of any felonies or terrorist acts. Hmmm, funny that.
Apparently, denial really ISN'T just a river in Egypt, Cato....
Posted by: Michele on August 28, 2008 06:12 PMYes, Ayers is definitely Obama's butt buddy, even though he is unrepentant Marxist terrorist. But he did get Obama into a sweet gig at the Challenge Fund, which excuses everything. The records of which were the cause of this unhinged reaction of Team Obama. Doncha just wonder what Obama has to hide?
Imagine a Senator of the US requesting the DoJ to silence and prosecute political speech they disliked. Now imagine the same fool in charge of the DoJ. Not a pretty thought...
Posted by: iconoclast on August 28, 2008 06:16 PMBring on next week. before I choke on the libralism.
Posted by: gs on August 28, 2008 06:27 PMB, Hussein Obama is connected with the Chicago radicals, who are more anti-American than the Arkansas mafia was... He apparently takes no back seat to Slick Willie in corruption, but has that slick touch and the family that was well portrayed by his wife was well orchestrated to divert attention from the bad and ugly side of BHO.
This story has legs... The McCain campaign ought to keep digging into this story - looks like there's a smoking gun.
B, Hussein Obama is connected with the Chicago radicals, who are more anti-American than the Arkansas mafia was... He apparently takes no back seat to Slick Willie in corruption, but has that slick touch and the family that was well portrayed by his wife was well orchestrated to divert attention from the bad and ugly side of BHO.
This story has legs... The McCain campaign ought to keep digging into this story - looks like there's a smoking gun.
Go Hillary 2012 is all they are working on. Carville the attack dog will not be seen, but his findings will be heard.
Posted by: gs on August 28, 2008 07:05 PMBy your retarded logic, if Timothy McVeigh had blown up the Alfred P Murah federal building in OKC but no one had died in that attack, perhaps a nice slap on the wrist and some community service for the lad would have been an appropriate punishment, right?
Don't try to defend the relationship between the chi-town @$$clown and his good buddy Bill Ayers whom the young Obama had to kiss the ring of before venturing into the Chicago political machine. He knew his associations would likely come back to haunt him but didn't care because it ascended him to the next rung on the ladder. Examples of both Short sightedness and bad judgment that Senator Obama would carry into the whitehouse with him. Which is why the American electorate will resoundly reject this empty vessel in November.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 28, 2008 07:09 PM"Now how many people were hurt by his bombs? (A: None)"
Wrong, that is a lie. Diana Oughton, Ted Gold, and Terry Robbins died in the explosion on Greenwich Village on March 6, 1970. This was an accidental explosion that killed the members of the WUO. It was intended for the bombing of an officers' dance at the Fort Dix U.S. Army base and for Butler Library at Columbia University. So CLEARLY the intent was to KILL AMERICANS.
The bomb preparations have been pointed out by critics (e.g. Terrorist lover CATO) of the claim that the Weatherman group did not try to take lives with its bombings. Harvey Klehr, the Andrew W. Mellon professor of politics and history at Emory University in Atlanta, said in 2003, "The only reason they were not guilty of mass murder is mere incompetence. I don't know what sort of defense that is."[27]
"What did he blow up? (A: Mostly FBI paperwork on leftist organizations.)"
LIE. June 9, 1970 they blew up a New York Police station.
Posted by: pbj on August 28, 2008 07:47 PMThey did try to kill a judge and his family with gasoline bombs. Failed there too.
Nice friends ya got, Obambi. Go well with your Acorn business relationships any day.
Posted by: iconoclast on August 28, 2008 07:54 PM"By the end of 1976, the Weather Underground would collapse.[48] Within two years, many members turned themselves in after taking advantage of President Jimmy Carter's amnesty for draft dodgers.[11]"
Lie. The Weathermen founding document called for the establishment of a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement" and other "anti-colonial" movements[1] to achieve "the destruction of US imperialism and achieve a classless world: world communism."
Just as liberals have to call themselves "progressives" in order to lie about their true intentions, you won't ever hear Obama openly state what he wants. This is because if they truly stated what their really intended, they would never get elected. They have to lie and hide their true intent and the MSM is marching lick step with them.
Posted by: pbj on August 28, 2008 08:09 PMsince you know what barack really believes, can you tell me what the stock price of wamu will do?
and, have you "looked into putin's heart" and can you tell me what russian is going to do?
don't succumb to hackery.....
are you on a talking points or is this what you believe?
Even Ayers laughs about being guilty. At the end of his book he brags guilty as hell, free as a bird--it's a great country".
An unrepentant marxist terrorist is a close personal and business associate of one of the two candidates for President. Not a good thing.
Posted by: iconoclast on August 28, 2008 08:15 PMThink she'd but that?
Why do people try so hard to excuse people who bomb stuff and get pictures of themselves standing on the flag?
I know why.
Posted by: Gary on August 28, 2008 08:21 PMThis from a fawning member of the Obama "hope and change" congregation (Read Theology of victimhood)...See the irony there?
Posted by: Rick D. on August 28, 2008 08:21 PMpull out your pom poms, next week you can rally for 8 years of policies and results that violate your fundamental principles.
smaller govt: no.
lower taxes: no (unless you are going to die before we have to pay off the debt repubicans racked up).
national security: where's osama?
haters--to use vernacular.
accoutnability? posit an argument why republicans should get another 4 years rather than stating why dems shouldn't.
good luck--facts indicate republicans should lose.
Posted by: dinesh on August 28, 2008 08:47 PMSimply put, I do not trust the judgment of Democrat control for the next 2 years at least, with the monicker of change, which in Obama's case means bigger Government and redistribution of income - hello Socialism... If it were all Republican control, based on the past 7.5 years, I'd have a problem with that also. In addition, BHO is one of the most liberal Democrats and with a Democrat majority in Congress - it would profoundly affect our economy in a negative way. I am ready for the debate with any Democrat/liberal about that - bring it on...
Posted by: KS on August 28, 2008 09:11 PMIt's more of the same - vote for us because the other guys are evil and we must not be. Except, we really are, but we're hoping you only notice that on their side.
When will a man of integrity and respect for the constitution of this nation stand up and run for president? More importantly, when will you follow him instead of picking someone by compromising what's right - what you know is right from a rational standpoint - in favor of some answer that answers nothing at all, is just more of the same?
It's pathetic. It's ironic when anti Obama people say he has no plan... when your plan consists of attacking Democrats and citing Republican platform that is almost never followed by Republican elected candidates.
I'm a Republican PCO, and I approve this message.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on August 28, 2008 09:11 PMAndrew - That is pure unadulterated BS, unless you can prove it otherwise. Good demagoguery though...
Posted by: KS on August 28, 2008 09:15 PMPerhaps instead of throwing hundreds of million of dollars away in a coronation for a guy that cries about the plight of the poor and downtrodden, they could have instead turned that money over to Jimmy Carter's habitat for humanity, sponsored University scholarships, etc.
...or is all that Hope and Change Bovine scat your shoveling down the throats of the American electorate just empty platitudes and you could really care less about helping those people?
I think we got that answer tonight at Invesco field.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 28, 2008 09:37 PMIf you are a Republican PCO then Osama Bin Laden is an American patriot.
I am reality and I approved this message.
Posted by: Reality on August 28, 2008 09:37 PMA is A.
And while I pick on Republicans more, especially here, that's because I feel betrayed. Somehow it became acceptable and even expected that I would support what is 1/8Right, instead of Right. As for Dems, well, I don't pick on them because their 'Right' is -1Right, as far as I'm concerned.
Sorry for the gratuitous math references. :)
Posted by: Andrew Brown on August 28, 2008 09:41 PMLook it up (Lake Stevens 9). While you're at it, grab a copy of the Constitution and start looking at that too. Make sure it's not an abridged Republican or Democrat version though, you'll miss the good parts.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on August 28, 2008 09:46 PMafter 8 years, 6 years of monopolistic control of 2 branches of the fed govt, please name republican accomplishments:
1. lower federal spending?
2. smaller govt?
3. lower taxes?
4. greater individual rights?
McCain will get my vote this November by default, based solely on the reality that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter and interpreter of the Constitution by which this country was founded. We can't afford another 2 ACLU American haters to be appointed by the boy king to the high court and not expect this country as we know it to be inalterably changed forever.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 28, 2008 10:01 PMI can definitely understand that, except for the ACLU comment. Aside from their view that the 2A is not an individual right, which has been shot down by the Supreme court finally, I have no trouble with them, and yes that includes when they defend chi-mos and all the other undesirables, because rights must apply to everyone equally, not just those I feel are innocent or deserving of them.
Anyway I'm not asking for anyone to write anyone in. I'd really settle at this point for candidates that run on their own merits and win because they deserve it, not because they make the other guy seem less deserving than their already nil entitlement.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on August 28, 2008 10:08 PM1. lower federal spending?
2. smaller govt?
3. lower taxes?
4. greater individual rights?
Don't be ridiculous - of course not. Not since JFK have they done this and JFK governed like a modern day Republican.
BTW - Bush is not running - try another tact about John McCain. I don't care if Al Gore or BHO said that - they didn't prove it because its not true if you look at the big picture.
The ACLU is certainly no friend to individual rights in this country, despite the name implying they are.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 28, 2008 10:22 PMTrickle up economics.
1.78 million people filed bankruptcy because of medical bills last year. Do you think the GOP gives a sh*t? It seems the more people suffer the happier they are.
Republiconvicts, and their "conservative economics" that only benefit the people that do not need help. Sickening.
America needs the GOP like dogs need fleas....
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on August 28, 2008 10:25 PMGenerally people who object to the ACLU object to them defending (successfully in many cases) people who probably did commit a crime but had their rights violated by the police. The 'fruit of the poisonous tree' type situations where, as an example, a cop decided to search someone because they had a hunch, and they find drugs, but since they had no warrant and no RAS, it gets thrown out.
Maybe you have other objections - I obviously can't speak to those without reading them so maybe I'm wrong here. But if it's the above type situations, then yeah... I support the ACLU's work because due process and rights must be respected for the undesirables if I want it to be respected when I'm harassed by an officer for open carrying a firearm, for example.
Just to clarify though, I don't like their stance on the 2A (although they don't do anything to fight it as an organization, they just don't support it).
The Constitution does not grant us rights, it limits the power of the government, and it must be protected and the government held accountable to it for us to remain a free country. I'm all for any organization that holds the government to it, although I'd much rather they supported all 10 of the first 10 instead of just 9... or really 8, since no one really acknowledges the 10th anymore.
Anyway sorry I'm rambling, have a good night man.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on August 28, 2008 10:32 PMThere are many things I feel the Republican party can be criticized on, but privatization does not grow government. Tax breaks are not bad either when they allow those entities that earn something to keep more of it.
Get your hands out of our pockets and stop acting like we're pariahs because we produced and engaged in voluntary trade with others for our own profit.
Profit.
Is.
Not.
Evil.
It is the engine of our civilization. If you don't like it, may I suggest you study Cuba for your endgame.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on August 28, 2008 10:36 PM...re: post at 80- any takers on how much good could have come from the hundreds of millions spent on tonights coronation of Obama? What an incredible gesture to have forgone 4 nights of pomp and circumstance to actually put your money where your mouth is...a new kind of politician as advertised, right?
Posted by: Rick D. on August 28, 2008 10:40 PMObviously I deplore taking anyone's property - I wish we had 'allodial' title in this country. Property rights - starting with ownership of one's self and extending to ownership of your time and other property - are the basis of all liberty and should be inviolable under any circumstances.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on August 28, 2008 10:42 PMSo, this is his son. Obviously not raised by his infamous father. So why is he hangin with this Obama socialist lowlife? Did he not pay attention to the hard lessons his father learned? Maybe he should read his father's book.
or...Why is the possible next president of the United States of America hiring this questionalble German architect???
or... Why is the DNC hiring a man whose father was tried at Nurenberg????
The list of unsavery people keeps growing. Just who is running the democrat party these days??? Sure makes the Clintons look good.
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/11294.html#comments
Why do all of those Republicans love terrorism?
Posted by: tensor on August 29, 2008 12:02 AMWhy do all these leftists get so lame, especially when all we get is moronic responses like Densors??
Posted by: hinton on August 29, 2008 12:34 AM1: republicans spent more--guess what, that was a DEMOCRAT 'accomplishment', which is why the conservative base was having fits with them.
2: smaller govt--against the wishes of the conservative base made it bigger by instituting a medicare drug program--a DEMOCRAT 'acomplishment', however. Spending was screwy--they actually gave Sound Transit oodles of money and Patty Murray half a million for her lame sculpture park---really brainless moves. They get an F for that stuff.
the aforementioned are things the conservative base did not want, because it involved democrat-type spending. So I didn't like it; you, dinesh, would consider these accomplishments, so it's a wash on those, depending on who you are.
4: greater individual freedom (SEE ALSO #3): thankfully, late-term human baby boys and girls got a break--at least until some judge blocked it, but thankfully the supremes later upheld this life-saving law-- from being stabbed in the head with scissors and having their brains ripped out. This is huge. Obama would have preferred these boys and girls were killed.
Roth 401Ks came into being. That was a step toward greater freedom to save beneficially for retirement for more people. The Roth was previously too limited as to who could have one.
Sadly, the liberals on the Supreme Court gave us a stinker of a decision in Kelo. But thankfully George W and this congress gave us two new supreme court justices who likely would not have put their approval on that horrifying government grab/theft of our right to own property. I consider these two justices an accomplishment in its own right, and a piece of insurance to protect us in the future from more of same.
Medical savings accounts--
3: TAX CUTS (MY FAVORITE TOPIC): YES! They definitely got this one right. No president except W in the last 16 years CUT INCOME TAXES for anyone, including the middle class, EXCEPT for George W. In fact, everyone who pays taxes got an INCOME TAX CUT. Which is good. It was a boost to our pocketbooks and had a great effect on the stock market. IT ALSO INCREASED INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. When you keep more of what you earn, your freedom just increased. When, in the bad old times, we had 90% tax rates, that was just another form of being a government slave, quite frankly.
We also saw the republicans institute a SALES TAX DEDUCTION, which was great for Washingtonians for the last few years. Now that we have a democrat congress, it's gone and TOO BAD THE DEMOCRATS HAVE DONE NEXT TO NOTHING TO REVIVE IT. Talk is REAL cheap, dems.
DEATH TAX WAS LOWERED. It should be lower still, but at least W and the republicans did something toward getting rid of 55% ROB-THE-DEAD-BODY tax rates.
You may not like anything I've said here, and frankly I don't really care what you think about my answers, so don't waste any energy responding to them; the point is-- I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION, DINESH.
SO "MAN UP" AND ANSWER MINE, DINESH----WHAT WERE OBAMA'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS WHILE IN OFFICE?
Posted by: Michele on August 29, 2008 01:13 AMA disconnect from a message? me think so.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 29, 2008 03:13 AM"McCain will get my vote this November by default, based solely on the reality that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter and interpreter of the Constitution. . . We can't afford another 2 ACLU American haters to be appointed. . ."
@90 Rick D:
"Former ACLU lawyer and current SCOTUS jurist Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a perfect example of what they would do to the Constitution. . ."
McCain voted to confirm Ginsburg and Breyer:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2031895/posts
@94 Scott
"Or if we're luckey, McCain will move to the right once he's elected and will actually turn out to be the right person for the times."
That just it, McCain will do whatever suits McCain, and has for years. It just so happens that he has needed to run to the right during this election cycle in order to get McCain closer to being elected. Once the man has power, I'd liken it to what Bush said after his re-election, that he has a mandate. The difference is, John McCain would start out that way, and likely go his own way.
Posted by: Constitutionalist on August 29, 2008 07:56 AMMcCain has said he'd put strict constructionists on the SCOTUS while we know that Obama would put Bader Ginsburg clones on it.......which is more dangerous of the two in your eyes to our American way of life?
I have to go with the lesser of two evils instead of whine about what could have been.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 29, 2008 10:50 AM