Comments


  • Yea that's all great--BUT--Why is John Edwards a crook?  Where are these frivolous law suits?
    Austrian Economics?  Last thing I remember about Austria was a painter with a short guy complex.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:15 p.m.

  • Mike my Friend I would agree with you that Russ Finegold is one of the more stalwart members of the Senate. He also did an admirable job at trying to fight the Patriot Act. He has not announced he was running for President has he?

    I would not say that Dr. Paul is a loner, but he is often alone in Congress. I have learned a lot in my 40 year sojourn on this earth and nothing more important than this "doing the right thing is OFTEN lonely business."

    When Rosa Parks sat down at the front of the Bus she did it by herself. When Ghandi started his struggle he started it by himself. I for one am very proud to have a Congressman who defends the Constitution at every turn even if he has to do it alone at times.

    The most exciting thing that has come out of the Paul campaign thus far is the tens of thousands of College students who have embraced Austrian economics and Liberty. These will be our future Leaders.

    They may be to late to assist Dr. Paul on the House floor but I would be willing to bet in the not to distent future they will be a force to recon with. 

    Long live the Republic,
    Tex

    January 27, 2008 at 6:49 p.m.

  • If I wanted to support a civil liberties politician it would be Russ Feingold (D-WI) ,because he actually tried to block the
    the Patriot Act and actually was instrumental in removing some abuses. He also went after  domestic spying, and was a major force in the present stalemate. He does more than give lip service to civil liberties. He does not get Democratic support.
    John McCain was a champion in keeping the Geneva Convention in tact, and removing torture as an interrogation tool.
    Ron Paul is an ineffective loner, who will never get any meaningful legislation passed.
    Our differences Harold ,I believe in the process not the rhetoric.

    January 26, 2008 at 10:10 a.m.

  • First Mike the question is not whether you believe in Civil Liberties, but whether Obama & Clinton do. As to your faith in what they say I would not believe either of them if their tongues were notarized. I mean if they are such great champions of Liberty then why would they not only vote for the Patriot act, but also vote to reauthorize it?
    Secondly I do not hate Lawyers. I have several in my Family and I sell Pre-Paid Legal Services myself. What I HATE is Ambulance chasing Tort Lawyers who make fortunes off of frivolous lawsuits driving up the cost of medical care for the rest of us.
    As to Dr Paul being just like all other politicians that is laughable. We could only dream that every Politician took consistent, principled stands based on dogma and not public opinion polls. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon “Dr. Paul is the one exception to the Gang of 535 on Capital Hill.”

    January 25, 2008 at 9 p.m.

  • Not on the Republican ticket Ragman; anti-war in a pro-war party....It's 9-10 months away from the general election;plenty of time for Romney to change his stance.....lol
    Now Ragman,I told you before ,If you are going to be a good right-winger you have to hate the ACLU,lawyers,liberals (that's a given)despise lazy people(don't even sort them out)government,gays and  anyone that thinks global warming is real.......lol
    If all of the GOP candidates do not like government ,then why do they run for office? If you get a job you despise ;will you be good at it?

    January 25, 2008 at 2:27 p.m.

  • Why is John Edwards crooked? Just because he is a tort Lawyer? That's ludicrous. Everyone deserves legal recourse. His most famous case was a righteous one. It was not some frivolous  ambulance chasing case.  Everyone hates the lawyers--until they need one. OR, do you just dislike those who don't agree with you politically.
    Ron Paul has as much chance being President as Harold. Maybe he could run s VP.

    January 25, 2008 at 2:13 p.m.

  • I do believe in civil liberties and the Dem's are restoring some abuses of the Bush Administration, and both Hillary and Obama say they will continue with the process.
    I am not abandoning John Edwards, but the party will chose their nominee and I will support the chosen one. It comes down to basics with me,all three candidates are very similar in what they stand for and the primary will sort this out.First of all Harold this election is not my first and for me ,they have to be on the ballot in order to win. I am supporting a candidate not a movement. i believe in representative government. I disagree earlier in the early  debates Obama seemed uneasy and Hillary did seem to have a much more detailed answer to the questions. As I said he has improved. Ed Rowlings won't get a chance because Huckabee won't be the candidate and besides the Clinton machine is not something to sneeze at. They did will two elections.Come on your hatred for lawyers really stands out...lol
    Ernie (one of my favorite posters..lol) hopes that does not hurt your crediability...lol
    Hillary's health plan is on her website but to  be fair she was the last to come up with one. All three Democratic candidates have similar health care proposals. I like the candidates  plan on getting out of Iraq.
    Ron Paul: After reading the complete text of the recent  racial charges (old to some)I know this man only represents a very small segment of this country. If he would have been a front runner,this info would have doomed him.Tally his votes in the primaries. Even thou Ernie & Harold are strong Ron Paul supporters,they must admit they are in the minority. I don't buy Ron Paul as the only savior because he is really no different from any other politician ,it's only his supporters that think so.

    January 25, 2008 at 12:07 p.m.

  • chvictoria you must have been watching a different debate than I. At no time did she have  Obama shaking in his boots.  In fact it was she who looked like a retarded Deer caught in headlights when he through out that I was helping the Poor while you were helping yourself on the board of Wal-Mart.

    As to the Republicans shaking in their boots over her that is laughable. Hillary is the MOST hated female politician in America. I mean hell even the Democratic Leadership in Congress hates her. I mean most have endorsed Obama and the rest for the most part are waiting for the convention to see who to brown nose.

    By the time the likes of Ed Rawlins get through with her even her Mother & Daughter will not vote for Her. Hillary is about half as smart and twice as crooked as her husband. The problem is she has the personalty of a presa canario. I think I speak for most Republicans when I say PLEASE bring her on!

    I think Obama would be the tricky one because of the race card that I am SURE would be played at EVERY turn. (just look at how they twisted Hillary's comment about Dr. King and the passing of civil rights legislation.) I mean you point out he attends a racist Black Church & they will say you are just saying that cause he's black or that him & Romney could be the flip flop twins and they will say you are just picking on him cause he is Black. I guess you get my drift.

    Having said all that from what little opposition research I have dome on Obama he has LOTS of weaknesses that can be "tactfully" exploited. When the Republicans get through with him he will no longer be the fair haired child of the Democratic Party. I honestly believe John Edwards is your best shot at the White House.

    Like I said before I do not necessarily believe he would do any better job than the other two nut stains, but I believe he is more electable. I mean the worst thing we can say about him is he is a crooked tort Lawyer. Since MOST people in America now a days want something for nothing they LOVE tort lawyers and expect them to be crooked.

    Long live the Republic,
    Tex

    January 25, 2008 at 3:36 a.m.

  • GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!!! IT IS FUNNY HOW EVERYONE HATES HER BUT SHE IS LEADING IN EVERY NATIONAL POLL...IT IS FUNNY THAT EVERYONE THINKS SHE IS SO WEAK BUT SHE SURE HAD OBAMA SHAKING IN HIS BOOTS, AND MOST OF THE REPBULICANS TOO... AND THEY SHOULD, WE NEED THE CLINTONS BACK SO WE CAN HAVE ECONOMIC GROWTH, JOB GROWTH, AND REGAIN THE RESPECT OF OUR ALLIES.

    January 24, 2008 at 10:04 p.m.

  • "She [Hillary] knows the issues and is an excellent debater..."
    They *all* know the issues, Mike, and most are accomplished public speakers. Having *answers* for the issues is what I'm looking for. They don't all have to be right answers but I do expect them to have some idea of a plan to get from the issue to the resolution. Hillary has been in the political arena for over 20 years now yet every time I watch one of those debates or listen to Hillary campaigning anywhere, in response to any direct question on any given issue all I hear is an absolutely positive maybe response.
    The best example that comes to mind: In the first Dem debate she was asked about her plan to reach universal health care. Her answer was three minutes of saying, "We would have to consult the experts... blah, blah, blah." No substance. Not even a hint of a plausible plan. Ummm, wasn't it her self-professed goal to develop a plan for universal health care back when her hubby Slick Willie was in office? Did she not consult the experts *then*? Hasn't she been the senator from NY for, what?, six years now? Has she implemented *any* legislation to implement universal health care in her own state? Not that I'm aware of. And she's had years to work on that?!?
    Give me a break. She's had sixteen years to work on her plan for universal health care and would, "When I'm elected President," have to suddenly consult a bunch of experts and examine all sides of the issue? Even if universal health care *isn't* the answer (and it isn't), one would think she would have a least a clue after sixteen or years of concerning herself with the problem.
    She's the epitome of what we've come to know as a "politician." One who will say whatever panders to the group she's addressing to secure votes and get elected. I didn't buy a word of that little escapade in New Hampshire when she professed to only wanting to be elected to help the country. She wants to be elected because she's power-hungry and greedy. Just like her hubby. After all, ten candidates spend a few hundred million to get elected to a job that pays $400K a year knowing that only two will have a chance in the finals and only one of them will land the job.
    Must have one hell of a dental plan!!
    If it doesn't turn out to be Obama on the Democratic ticket, I'd vote for Satan himself before I'd cast a Democratic vote.
    Now if you want someone who will try his best to accomplish *exactly* what he says he plans to do, your only vote is for Ron Paul. As Tex pointed out earlier, one vote cast on the losing side of the issue isn't wasted and Ron Paul's been casting his votes with his conscience on *every* issue his entire political career.
    Judging from the consistent downhill slide of this country over the past twenty five years, I'd say he must have something pretty well figured out that most of the rest of 'em either haven't quite got or can be bought out of.
    Ernie

    January 24, 2008 at 7:49 p.m.

  • Thanks for bringing up Saul Alinsky. See, I learned something I didn't know. I didn't know anything about him, looked him up and now I know. Interesting. Cool!
    Now, thinkprogress, I have to look for that up now.  I like the Tax, then spend approach, better than I like the Bush Idea. You know--don't collect any taxes or cut them for your friends, borrow money from China, then spend like there is no tomorrow. I don't think GW is any model for fiscal restraint.  Maybe the next pres., whom ever it is will start paying some bills.
    Well if you voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 or 2004--your vote was like throwing it down a hole. That got Dubya elected.

    January 24, 2008 at 7:05 p.m.

  • Personally I believe if you care about Civil Liberties or the Constitution then Dr. Paul is the ONLY candidate a Wise person could vote for. That of course is neither here nor there for the purposes of this conversation.

    Basically you said you liked John Edwards but because Hillary & Hussein are the front runners you will most likely vote for one of them. Does the fact that Hillary & Hussein are front runners make Edwards any less worthy of your Vote?

    The people who annoy me are the ones who say I would vote for so and so if only they had a chance to win. The irony of it is MOST of the time if everybody who said that actually voted for them they would have a chance to win

    I am not one who believes in such a thing as a wasted vote. I mean if you vote your convictions win loose or draw you did not waste your vote. I am getting sick and tired of hearing about people voting for the lesser of two Evils.

    Long live the Republic,
    Tex

    January 24, 2008 at 7:01 p.m.

  • "I still say ,when it resorts to name-calling they have nothing to counter with. It's their last bullet."
    Hmmmm....makes me laugh. I am not your enemy, you're just wrong most of the time.  ; )  You spend too much time on thinkprogress and mediamatters.

    I have a somewhat of a respect for Obama, though I would never vote for him, ever. Pure socialist. But, he does say how he believes. He doesn't  hold back, he tells you he is going to take money away from you and give it to others. Tax and spend, redistibute wealth. Totally against what we were set up to do.
    Bill, Hillary, if their lips are moving, you know the rest. Too much studing about Saul Alinsky. And Edwards, biggest hypocrit on the campaign trail. Maybe he could practice what he preaches and let the poor live in his new gym, plenty of room and he has the money to feed them.

    January 24, 2008 at 6:06 p.m.

  • Hey Ragman I agree but even my wife is anti-Hillary for the very same reasons you mentioned.
    My daughters are for Hillary ,I made them self -reliant (too much so ,their husbands say)...lol
    To think all the years I agreed with women in the workplace and equal pay ,is all for nought......lol
    Yea,I have about five enemies on the  on -line forum, so no use trying to be civil and give  up all my principals
    just to get along for a few days.
    If it  is the truth ,I can deal with it.
    I still say ,when it resorts to name-calling they have nothing to counter with. It's their last bullet.

    January 24, 2008 at 2:37 p.m.

  • I like John Edwards, but I also liked Chris Dodds.  Chris Dodds had some good ideas and programs such as; requiring young people to give at least 2 years to their country--military or in service some other way . And also for older adults/retirees that wanted to help/volunteer to their country..  I am not sure about getting a Yankee elected though!
    I like John McCain, but  he wants the US to stay in Iraq. We need to support the troops and bring them home in a timely manner. No, not cut and run. I hate that spin slogan.
    I think all the stink over Hillary is just personal attacks with no substance--"she's too ambitious". Do you want a president that isn't. "She's too pushy. If she were a man that would be an asset. Like a salesman. It's funny how many women don't like her. Ain't it the way though. They always eat their own. Sorry ladies, that's probably not PC. "She just doesn't know her place". Like the White House maybe? Many of the questions she has to answer are like reprimands for not being more demure. I recently read "she is not liked, because she's a know-it-all."  She is running for president--don't we want a president to be a Know-it-all.  A writer recently wrote "the way she is treated is not even a double standard--It's a special standard. It's the Hillary Standard. And who can hold up to the Hillary Standard? No one--not even Hillary."
    I wouldn't' believe anything that came out of the mouths of Newt Gingrich , Hannity or colmes.
    "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous":     Voltaire

    January 24, 2008 at 2:23 p.m.

  • Well I have a difficult time  believing a wise person would vote for Ron Paul or Fred Thompson.
    If you take an actual vote tally of the primaries you would see more voters supporting Hillary than Fred and Ron Paul combined.
    It's called a difference of opinion not necessarily a right or wrong.
    Good luck with a candidate of your choice but any thing will beat what we had for the last seven years.
    I am sorry the party platform carries on the agenda for the prospective candidates.

    January 24, 2008 at 1:28 p.m.

  • Come now Mike don't tell me you are one of those people who instead of voting for the person you think is best for the job you vote for the Idiot who is popular? Don't get me wrong I do not think Edwards would be any better than the other two scoundrels. I just for some reason would prefer a crooked Lawyer from South Carolina to one from Hawaii or Chicago.

    Long live the Republic,
    Tex

    January 24, 2008 at 1:03 p.m.

  • I'm having a difficult time believing that a wise person would support Hillary.  Have you listened to her policies?  She is so far from what America needs at this time.  If Hillary is elected during Wartime it's so obvious we'd be in trouble.  Let's try to step away from calling ourselves Democrat or Republican and elect the "Correct" person for the job regardless of party affiliation.  I was leaning towards Fred but we all know that can't happen now.  Let's all get very serious about the 2008 elections because we all understand where we are now and where we need to be.  As stated earlier...God Bless America!  We are all in this together.  Support our Troops!  Whooooah!

    January 24, 2008 at 12:50 p.m.

  • I saw that show, and as I mentioned,Bill Clinton put an abrupt halt to Obama's momentum but it did light a fire under Obama and he did start firing back.. I just hope it does not cause a divisions within the party.
    Newt Gingrich has mellowed out  a lot , don't we all as we age. I might not agree with all his ideas, but he is a thinker and I respect that.
    Thanks for sharing Wendy.

    January 24, 2008 at 12:17 p.m.

  • Hey Mike! 
    You make a very valid point about Hillary bringing out the Republicans just to vote against her.  She would certainly get me out of the house!  I never have liked her, and I would rather see someone like Jessica Simpson in the White House than Hill-Bill.  Hills would definetly NOT get this female's vote!
    I don't know if you saw Newt Gingrich on Hannity and Colmes the other night, but he made some really interesting comments on what Hill-Bill is attempting to do to Obama's campaign.  Really gave me some pause for thought...  If you didn't see it, go check it out on Fox News' website. 
    Best of luck to you in this primary season!  God bless...

    January 24, 2008 at 12:04 p.m.