OT - So Michael...

dwight wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> c) Play cowboys and indians
>> .... or he is trying to bring democracy to the Middle East and get rid of
>> a mass murdering dictator claiming he had WMDs.
>
> Uh... No offense, but the invasion came first. Then, while we were there, it
> was HEY, let's establish democracy! Yeah, that's the ticket. Revisionist
> history.

I don't think the plan was to invade, capture Saddam and then
immediately leave either. The biggest mistake made, IMO, was to disband
the Iraqi military and let them meld back into society with no chance of
gainful employment. The second was to not wait until we could come in
from the north through Turkey and therefore seal off the escape routes
out of Baghdad. There are several vying for third.

> Establishing a democracy had nothing to do with the original invasion and
> came up as a reason for the invasion long after we were already in there.
> About the time that the whole WMD thing was proven wrong, as I recall.

If establishing a democracy wasn't part of the original plan then what
was the original plan?

> But all that aside, I'm still confused about the whole conservative thing.
> I'm a lifelong Republican, but I seem to become more liberal as the party
> becomes more conservative. There are a couple of things about the
> conservatives that I just don't understand.

I'm right there with you. I am fiscally conservative but lean to the
left on many social issues. I am also for a strong national defense and
a proactive position on fighting terrorism and sealing our borders. I
don't care for the Republican party trying to enforce morals on the the
masses. Much of the social issues need to be left up to the States to
address or on the local level. Religion based issues like gay marriage
and abortion needs to be left out of the party platform, IMO. OTOH, the
left needs to quit targeting religion to exclude it from the public arena.

> Smaller federal government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, less
> government intrusion in our personal lives. I thought that's what it was
> about.

I am right there with you. The problem is the Republicans spend money
just like the Democrats anymore. Government is getting bigger by the
year and more intrusive. This is on all levels and not just the Federal
level. I see it here where I live all the time. IMO, local governments
are far worse in this regard than State and local governments. The sad
fact is we just roll over year after year and let them get away with it.
We are on a slow march to a socialistic form of government. I don't
want this and if it happens we will all suffer for it.

> But then we come to the "social issues," for which conservatives seem to BEG
> for federal involvement. How does that mesh with conservative political
> beliefs?

It doesn't. In reality you and I are more Libertarian than Republican.
It is too bad that the Libertarians can't field a decent candidate
because they have a great platform to run from.

> Do I have to continue to believe that the American family is a mom and dad,
> 2.3 kids, and a cat and/or dog? No matter what the numbers tell me?
>
> And do I have to profess Jesus is my personal savior to be a Republican, or
> can I continue in my agnostic ways?

No you don't. I haven't attended church regularly for decades. I just
don't like the way religious leaders manipulate their congregations.
This is why I think you and I are really Libertarians at heart.

> Who was it that said I haven't left the party, the party's left me?

Ron Reagan said that when he left the Democratic party to become a
Republican. IMO, Reagan would be disgusted with what the Republican
party has become.

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> dwight wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> c) Play cowboys and indians
>>> .... or he is trying to bring democracy to the Middle East and get rid
>>> of a mass murdering dictator claiming he had WMDs.
>>
>> Uh... No offense, but the invasion came first. Then, while we were there,
>> it was HEY, let's establish democracy! Yeah, that's the ticket.
>> Revisionist history.
>
> I don't think the plan was to invade, capture Saddam and then immediately
> leave either. The biggest mistake made, IMO, was to disband the Iraqi
> military and let them meld back into society with no chance of gainful
> employment. The second was to not wait until we could come in from the
> north through Turkey and therefore seal off the escape routes out of
> Baghdad. There are several vying for third.
>
>> Establishing a democracy had nothing to do with the original invasion and
>> came up as a reason for the invasion long after we were already in there.
>> About the time that the whole WMD thing was proven wrong, as I recall.
>
> If establishing a democracy wasn't part of the original plan then what was
> the original plan?

Isn't that the very question we are ALL asking? WHAT was the plan, if any,
and how were we supposed to go about it? After the part where we were
"greeted as liberators", I don't think there was anything written in after
the words "Fill in the blank______________." As soon as Bush called Mission
Accomplished, the question "What do we do now?" was finally asked. But don't
try to tell me that the democratization of the Middle East was anywhere on
the table before then.

>> But all that aside, I'm still confused about the whole conservative
>> thing. I'm a lifelong Republican, but I seem to become more liberal as
>> the party becomes more conservative. There are a couple of things about
>> the conservatives that I just don't understand.
>
> I'm right there with you. I am fiscally conservative but lean to the left
> on many social issues. I am also for a strong national defense and a
> proactive position on fighting terrorism and sealing our borders. I don't
> care for the Republican party trying to enforce morals on the the masses.
> Much of the social issues need to be left up to the States to address or
> on the local level. Religion based issues like gay marriage and abortion
> needs to be left out of the party platform, IMO. OTOH, the left needs to
> quit targeting religion to exclude it from the public arena.

Okay, we're 90% in agreement. I'm a strong believer in the separation of
religion from government. It might have something to do with the fact that I
am not a Christian. Now, I don't mind the display of the 10 commandments at
our local courthouse, and I certainly don't mind government offices shutting
down for the CHRISTMAS holidays, so I'm not a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth
separationist. But I would argue that, if Christians are allowed to be part
of government programs, all religions must be afforded equal time. Or, at
least, a percentage of equal time based upon their percentage of the
population.

Yeah. That would be fun.

>> Smaller federal government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, less
>> government intrusion in our personal lives. I thought that's what it was
>> about.
>
> I am right there with you. The problem is the Republicans spend money
> just like the Democrats anymore. Government is getting bigger by the year
> and more intrusive. This is on all levels and not just the Federal level.
> I see it here where I live all the time. IMO, local governments are far
> worse in this regard than State and local governments. The sad fact is we
> just roll over year after year and let them get away with it. We are on a
> slow march to a socialistic form of government. I don't want this and if
> it happens we will all suffer for it.

And I'm torn. This is the United States of #*%& America, goddammit. There
has to be a way that we can care for those who cannot care for themselves,
without going all socialist about it. There is NO reason why anyone should
sleep on the streets in this, the greatest nation in the history of the
planet. Just from a point of national pride, we should take care of the
weakest among us. I am blessed (uh, not in a Biblical sense) to be living in
the country and fairly well off. My life is comparatively easy, my worries
comparatively few. If the feds wanted to take a few more dollars out of my
paycheck and SWORE that it would be used to help the homeless, the indigent,
the hungry, and the poor, I'd be all for it.

Throughout history and throughout the future, there have been and always
will be human beings who cannot make it on their own and need help from the
rest of us who can. I see nothing wrong with that.

There will be abuses, of course. But I will pay for those, too, if it means
caring for those who need it. (Of course, if I catch you abusing this
governmental charity, you'll have a different kind of housing and three
squares a day.)

>> But then we come to the "social issues," for which conservatives seem to
>> BEG for federal involvement. How does that mesh with conservative
>> political beliefs?
>
> It doesn't. In reality you and I are more Libertarian than Republican. It
> is too bad that the Libertarians can't field a decent candidate because
> they have a great platform to run from.

I Googled up an article from back in October in the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article...102645595.html
on why the GOP is losing its members. Pretty much goes along with all we've
been saying here.

>> Do I have to continue to believe that the American family is a mom and
>> dad, 2.3 kids, and a cat and/or dog? No matter what the numbers tell me?
>>
>> And do I have to profess Jesus is my personal savior to be a Republican,
>> or can I continue in my agnostic ways?
>
> No you don't. I haven't attended church regularly for decades. I just
> don't like the way religious leaders manipulate their congregations. This
> is why I think you and I are really Libertarians at heart.
>
>> Who was it that said I haven't left the party, the party's left me?
>
> Ron Reagan said that when he left the Democratic party to become a
> Republican. IMO, Reagan would be disgusted with what the Republican party
> has become.

If I may offend even more readers, I blame the Moral Majority. They weren't
cutting it back in the 80s, and laid plans to gain political control. They
saw an opening in the Republican party and took it, and today control my
party's platform. Their strategy was brilliant and effective. And may, even
now, be backfiring.

When the radical right (yes, YOU, Fox News) looks at the Democrats, they
conveniently ignore the millions and target the few, to make the argument
that the disgustingly liberal are as representative of the Democrats as they
are of the Republicans.

Perhaps it's time that all political moderates leave their parties to create
two new ones - we'd have moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans,
leaving the radical fringe elements to battle it out amongs themselves.

I gather that the Libertarians are these moderate Republicans. I also gather
that the old Green Party was most definitely NOT the moderate Democrats, who
still need to strike out on their own to gain their own voice.

Perhaps I should lead them into the sunlight.

Let me stand for America. Let me be the prototypical American.

Every four years, I get real excited about politics and faithfully watch all
of the debates and argue candidates with everyone who will listen.

I can name both Pennsylvania senators (I think... let me Google that), and I
even know who my congressman is, two years after we moved into our new
locale. I couldn't begin to tell you what the political views are of ANY of
these three, but I do remember that I was disgusted with Rick Santorum and
happy to vote him out of office. (Now, who was it that took his place?)

When you get to the local government level, I have no idea. My state senator
or representative? I couldn't guess. No clue.

Does my community have a mayor? Or a board of supervisors? Uh... sorry.

And whaddaya mean, I have to VOTE for judges?!?

Every four years - and especially THIS year - I go out to vote, and I see
the presidential nominees on the ballot. Easy - I tick off my choice. The
rest of the ballot... I get a glazed eye and blank brain looking at it.

And that, I believe, is the prototypical American.

Okay, truth is, I vote in every primary and every election. I make it a
point to do so, since this twice-yearly exercise is really what it's all
about to be an American. And I know that if I don't vote, I don't have any
right to complain, and I LOVE to complain. I do know a little bit about the
people who work in my government, but not nearly enough to make a truly
informed decision.

I resolve, right now, right this instant, to investigate the upcoming ballot
in the primary in May (Pennsylvania) and to know all I can know about the
candidates for each office.

Because, as Obama would tell you, the government starts from the bottom up.
The guy sitting in an office in my municipal building probably has more
impact on my life that the guy or gal sitting in the Oval Office.

dwight

dwight wrote:
> "WindsorFox-{SS}-" > wrote in message
> ...
>> dwight wrote:
>>
>>> Y'all can give it a listen and tell me if you like it. Notice I didn't
>>> say tell me if you DON'T like it...
>>>
>>> dwight
>>> www.tfrog93.com/audio/audio.htm
>>>
>>> (Just doing my bit to unite a nation.)
>>
>> Okay just so you know that's getting ripped and put onto a CD so I can
>> listen to it on my newly purchased Martin Logan reQuest speakers.
>>
> Okay, but that's not one of my better ones. I would call that one of my Slop
> Piano tracks.
>
> The one you really want to listen to with those speaker is "October 20."
> Starts out quiet and slow, but stay with it. It's my personal favorite.
>
> )
>
>

Oh I didn't mean that particular song, I meant the whole eeeechi-lada...

--
"Yah know I hate it when forces gather in ma' fringe..." - Sheogorath

"Daytime television sucked 20 years ago,
and it still sucks today!" - Marc Bissonette

dwight wrote:

> The huge bulk of America just wants to go to work, keep as much as we can of
> our paychecks, watch the telly, and be able to order pizza once in a while.
>
> And we wish that both moveon.org and Rush Limbaugh would shut the *#%& up.
>
> dwight
>
>

At least Rush makes me laugh, though that's all I think he's good for.

--
"Yah know I hate it when forces gather in ma' fringe..." - Sheogorath

"Daytime television sucked 20 years ago,
and it still sucks today!" - Marc Bissonette

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> dwight wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>> But then we come to the "social issues," for which conservatives seem to
>> BEG for federal involvement. How does that mesh with conservative
>> political beliefs?
>
> It doesn't. In reality you and I are more Libertarian than Republican. It
> is too bad that the Libertarians can't field a decent candidate because
> they have a great platform to run from.
>

I too tend to lean more Libertarian than Republican or Democratic. But I
could NEVER join their party. Like the Republicans need to leave Religion
based issues like gay marriage and abortion out of the party platform, the
Libertarians need to get their "legalize drugs" issue out of the Libertarian
party platform! That one issue is the biggest thing holding them back from
becoming a legitimate third party.


>> Do I have to continue to believe that the American family is a mom and
>> dad, 2.3 kids, and a cat and/or dog? No matter what the numbers tell me?
>>
>> And do I have to profess Jesus is my personal savior to be a Republican,
>> or can I continue in my agnostic ways?
>
> No you don't. I haven't attended church regularly for decades. I just
> don't like the way religious leaders manipulate their congregations. This
> is why I think you and I are really Libertarians at heart.
>
>> Who was it that said I haven't left the party, the party's left me?
>
> Ron Reagan said that when he left the Democratic party to become a
> Republican. IMO, Reagan would be disgusted with what the Republican party
> has become.

Most true Republicans are.

"dwight" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> dwight wrote:
>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>> ...

>>
>> I am right there with you. The problem is the Republicans spend money
>> just like the Democrats anymore. Government is getting bigger by the
>> year and more intrusive. This is on all levels and not just the Federal
>> level. I see it here where I live all the time. IMO, local governments
>> are far worse in this regard than State and local governments. The sad
>> fact is we just roll over year after year and let them get away with it.
>> We are on a slow march to a socialistic form of government. I don't want
>> this and if it happens we will all suffer for it.
>
> And I'm torn. This is the United States of #*%& America, goddammit. There
> has to be a way that we can care for those who cannot care for themselves,

Can't or won't?

> without going all socialist about it. There is NO reason why anyone should
> sleep on the streets in this, the greatest nation in the history of the

Besides them choosing to you mean? There are many quite capable people who
drop out of society for a whole gamut of reasons, some of them can never be
"fixed" no matter how much money you throw at them. What component in your
thought process makes you think it is the Governments "job to worry about
such things? Or worse why do you believe it is the tax payers
responsibility to subsidize these "non-compliant" members of societies own
life's choices?

> planet. Just from a point of national pride, we should take care of the
> weakest among us. I am blessed (uh, not in a Biblical sense) to be living
> in the country and fairly well off. My life is comparatively easy, my
> worries comparatively few. If the feds wanted to take a few more dollars
> out of my paycheck and SWORE that it would be used to help the homeless,
> the indigent, the hungry, and the poor, I'd be all for it.

No you wouldn't, Do you suppose you are willing to contribute 75% of your
gross income to care for them? If not do you think you should be forced to
do so? Do you believe the Social system is administered appropriately?
What makes you think the Government is capable of efficiently and
effectively administering any social programs?

>
> Throughout history and throughout the future, there have been and always
> will be human beings who cannot make it on their own and need help from
> the rest of us who can. I see nothing wrong with that.

Through history they have been taken care of by their own families, friends,
churches, and communities, NOT GOVERNMENTS or taxpayers! Socialism and
Communism have proven to be abject failures, period. I am (you are too)
much more capable of directing my own dollars than any giant inefficient
government bureaucracy.

>
> There will be abuses, of course. But I will pay for those, too, if it
> means caring for those who need it. (Of course, if I catch you abusing
> this governmental charity, you'll have a different kind of housing and
> three squares a day.)

You wish, that abuse of the system is Status Quo, history has proven over
and over that the government horrendously squanders the taxpayers money, and
is vastly less efficient than the private sector at all of these social
tasks.

>
>>> But then we come to the "social issues," for which conservatives seem to
>>> BEG for federal involvement. How does that mesh with conservative
>>> political beliefs?
>>
>> It doesn't. In reality you and I are more Libertarian than Republican.
>> It is too bad that the Libertarians can't field a decent candidate
>> because they have a great platform to run from.
>
> I Googled up an article from back in October in the Wall Street Journal:
> http://online.wsj.com/public/article...102645595.html
> on why the GOP is losing its members. Pretty much goes along with all
> we've been saying here.
>
>>> Do I have to continue to believe that the American family is a mom and
>>> dad, 2.3 kids, and a cat and/or dog? No matter what the numbers tell me?
>>>
>>> And do I have to profess Jesus is my personal savior to be a Republican,
>>> or can I continue in my agnostic ways?
>>
>> No you don't. I haven't attended church regularly for decades. I just
>> don't like the way religious leaders manipulate their congregations. This
>> is why I think you and I are really Libertarians at heart.
>>
>>> Who was it that said I haven't left the party, the party's left me?
>>
>> Ron Reagan said that when he left the Democratic party to become a
>> Republican. IMO, Reagan would be disgusted with what the Republican
>> party has become.
>
> If I may offend even more readers, I blame the Moral Majority. They
> weren't cutting it back in the 80s, and laid plans to gain political
> control. They saw an opening in the Republican party and took it, and
> today control my party's platform. Their strategy was brilliant and
> effective. And may, even now, be backfiring.
>
> When the radical right (yes, YOU, Fox News) looks at the Democrats, they
> conveniently ignore the millions and target the few, to make the argument
> that the disgustingly liberal are as representative of the Democrats as
> they are of the Republicans.
>
> Perhaps it's time that all political moderates leave their parties to
> create two new ones - we'd have moderate Democrats and moderate
> Republicans, leaving the radical fringe elements to battle it out amongs
> themselves.
>
> I gather that the Libertarians are these moderate Republicans. I also
> gather

No I don't think the Libertarians are these "moderate" Republicans, they are
not very moderate on many/any of their postions.


> that the old Green Party was most definitely NOT the moderate Democrats,
> who still need to strike out on their own to gain their own voice.
>
> Perhaps I should lead them into the sunlight.
>
> Let me stand for America. Let me be the prototypical American.
>
> Every four years, I get real excited about politics and faithfully watch
> all of the debates and argue candidates with everyone who will listen.
>
> I can name both Pennsylvania senators (I think... let me Google that), and
> I even know who my congressman is, two years after we moved into our new
> locale. I couldn't begin to tell you what the political views are of ANY
> of these three, but I do remember that I was disgusted with Rick Santorum
> and happy to vote him out of office. (Now, who was it that took his
> place?)
>
> When you get to the local government level, I have no idea. My state
> senator or representative? I couldn't guess. No clue.
>
> Does my community have a mayor? Or a board of supervisors? Uh... sorry.
>
> And whaddaya mean, I have to VOTE for judges?!?
>
> Every four years - and especially THIS year - I go out to vote, and I see
> the presidential nominees on the ballot. Easy - I tick off my choice. The
> rest of the ballot... I get a glazed eye and blank brain looking at it.
>
> And that, I believe, is the prototypical American.
>
> Okay, truth is, I vote in every primary and every election. I make it a
> point to do so, since this twice-yearly exercise is really what it's all
> about to be an American. And I know that if I don't vote, I don't have any
> right to complain, and I LOVE to complain. I do know a little bit about
> the people who work in my government, but not nearly enough to make a
> truly informed decision.
>
> I resolve, right now, right this instant, to investigate the upcoming
> ballot in the primary in May (Pennsylvania) and to know all I can know
> about the candidates for each office.
>
> Because, as Obama would tell you, the government starts from the bottom
> up. The guy sitting in an office in my municipal building probably has
> more impact on my life that the guy or gal sitting in the Oval Office.
>
> dwight
>
>
>

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
news
> dwight wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Joe wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>>>> I know Super Tuesday has yet to arrive, but after the bru-ha-ha
>>>> down
>>>>>>>> here, it looks like it'll be McCain and Clinton. What say you?
>>>>>>> I agree that is is going to be McCain on the Republican side and
>>>> think
>>>>>>> the odds are currently with Clinton but don't count out Obama just
>>>>>>> yet. The last Gallop Poll Obama gained something like 11 points in
>>>>>>> ONE
>>>>>>> week and it stands at 43% to 39% for Hillary. That is a huge jump
>>>>>>> in
>>>> just
>>>>>>> a few days. It also looks like the elite liberal wing of the
>>>>>>> Democratic Party is starting to line up behind Obama. Also, Obama
>>>>>>> collected an amazing $32 million this January. That is more money
>>>>>>> than any candidate collected for an entire quarter last year. That
>>>>>>> can of money is serious and can make a huge difference. Hillary
>>>> can't
>>>>>>> come close to those numbers and I think she is running out of money
>>>>>>> fast.
>>>>>>> Old Billy Boy is killing her right now. I said a long time ago that
>>>>>>> Hillary will throw the black vote over board to get the Hispanic and
>>>>>>> racist white vote. Yes, the Democrats have white racists too. The
>>>>>>> racism between blacks and Hispanics is huge and the Clintons are
>>>>>>> whipping up into a frenzy to prevent Obama from getting a decent
>>>> chunk
>>>>>>> of the Hispanic vote. Hillary will do anything to win, including
>>>>>>> destroying the long standing ties that party has to the black
>>>>>>> community. Everything the conservatives have said about her and Bill
>>>>>>> is being showcased by them right now. The Democrats are seeing it
>>>>>>> too and I think many are saying they don't want another Clinton in
>>>>>>> the White
>>>>>>> House.
>>>>>>> As for McCain, He has truly been in the right place at the right
>>>> time.
>>>>>>> if the Republicans had a truly conservative candidate with some name
>>>>>>> recognition that person would have won hands down. The fact is
>>>> Romney
>>>>>>> is just as liberal as McCain and being from Mass. is just too much
>>>> for
>>>>>>> many Republicans to swallow. He strikes me as a pretty boy that
>>>> will
>>>>>>> say anything to get elected. He isn't a conservative. No one can
>>>> be
>>>>>>> and also be governor of Mass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huckabee is a joke. He is this years Pat Buchanan. The proverbial
>>>>>>> "our jobs are going overseas" candidate just like John Edwards is on
>>>>>>> the left. I mean can anyone elect a president that doesn't think
>>>>>>> dinosaurs were real? I can't. Thompson had the best credentials
>>>> but
>>>>>>> he just didn't seem to want the job that bad. Giuliani had a chance
>>>>>>> but made one of the biggest campaign strategy blunders in recent
>>>>>>> history. I actually liked him better than anyone running on either
>>>>>>> side.
>>>>>>> All the above being said, there is one thing that will motivate the
>>>>>>> Republicans to get behind McCain en mass. That is for Hillary to
>>>> win
>>>>>>> the Democratic nomination. I would vote for Satan himself before
>>>>>>> Hillary and I am far from alone in that sentiment. I firmly believe
>>>>>>> Obama has a better chance in the national election and even he is
>>>> far
>>>>>>> from a lock. McCain will get most independents, many Hispanics
>>>>>>> (thanks to the McCain-Kennedy bill) and, IMO, a big portion of the
>>>>>>> black vote (if he runs against Hillary). Even against Obama I think
>>>>>>> he is the odds on favorite for several reasons. The biggest is that
>>>>>>> Obama is the most liberal Senator in Congress. He makes McCain look
>>>>>>> like Ronald Reagan and that is a good thing overall. McCain greatly
>>>>>>> increases the odds the next president will be republican and also
>>>>>>> increases the odds of the Senate and/or House reverting back to the
>>>>>>> Republicans.
>>>>>>> So to summarize, I think McCain is a lock and it is too close to
>>>> call
>>>>>>> between Hillary and Obama. Especially, considering Obama has
>>>>>>> tremendous momentum right now and is collecting money faster than he
>>>>>>> can spend it.
>>>>>> Excellent post! Thanks very much for your honesty. You never
>>>>>> disappoint.
>>>>> If you couldn't tell I'm not real thrilled with anyone this election.
>>>> I
>>>>> am somewhat excited about Obama though but not in regard to his
>>>>> political views. I wouldn't vote for him because he is very liberal
>>>> but
>>>>> the fact a black man can be a serious contender for President shows
>>>>> just how far this country has come regarding race relations. I also
>>>>> believe that the same would have happened on the right if someone like
>>>>> Colin Powell had run this year. Powell could have walked away with
>>>> the
>>>>> Republican nomination this election cycle.
>>>> Agreed. Then again, the same holds true regarding women with Clinton.
>>> I think that a black man trumps a woman in which shows more maturity.
>>> Half the population are women and they don't have the racism component.
>>> I think Obama is breaking more ground than Hillary. Also, if she wasn't
>>> Billy's ho bag she wouldn't stand a chance. At least now we know why
>>> she stayed married to him after all those affairs.
>>>
>>>>>> That said, I'm waiting for Bloomberg to stir things up.
>>>>> I don't think he will run if McCain gets the nomination. McCain will
>>>>> suck all the votes from the moderates and that is the very voters
>>>>> Bloomberg desperately needs if he stands any chance of winning.
>>>> Again, agreed, although it would've been great to see Bloomberg thick
>>>> in the fray of things. IMO the next thing will be to see who the VP
>>>> candidates will be.
>>> If Obama is smart he should try and get Evan Bayh as his running mate.
>>> He is a moderate, white male and is young with plenty of experience. It
>>> would make a formidable ticket, IMO. McCain has less to chose from,
>>> IMO. He definitely needs someone who is conservative, somewhat young and
>>> has good experience. I don't know who that person would be off the top
>>> of my head.
>>
>> I'm not doing anything, and I have the added plus of not being beholdin'
>> to anyone.
>>
>> But instead of constantly courting the fringe elements on both sides of
>> the spectrum, I'd rather see candidates address the vast centrist
>> population in this country. Why do the 5% liberal left and 5% radical
>> right always get the attention?
>
> The primary system is run by the two parties and they make it almost
> impossible for an outsider to break in. McCain is actually one of the
> first moderates in many, many years to actually get a good chance of being
> the nominee on either side and this was a fluke. He was in the right
> place at the right time. On the Democrat side both Clinton and Obama are
> very far left and are far from moderate. So this election, the vast
> centrist population you speak of has their candidate and that is McCain.

Well John McCain and John Kerry could damn near be the same misguided
anti-American fool in a different suit. You can flush both those Johns
together, and this country would be better off without them.

>
>> The huge bulk of America just wants to go to work, keep as much as we can
>> of our paychecks, watch the telly, and be able to order pizza once in a
>> while.
>
> ... and, IMO, this is why the majority of the country is just right of
> center.
>
>> And we wish that both moveon.org and Rush Limbaugh would shut the *#%&
>> up.
>
> That won't happen anytime soon. At least Air America went belly up. That
> is a start.

"WindsorFox" > wrote in message
...
> dwight wrote:
>
>> The huge bulk of America just wants to go to work, keep as much as we can
>> of our paychecks, watch the telly, and be able to order pizza once in a
>> while.
>>
>> And we wish that both moveon.org and Rush Limbaugh would shut the *#%&
>> up.
>>
>> dwight
>>
>>
>
> At least Rush makes me laugh, though that's all I think he's good for.

Rush is a petty childish fool. He couldn't debate his way out of a wet
paper bag. His petty, taunting, name calling methods have no are
inexcusable, and totally obliterate any message he might have hidden
beneath. He is as entertaining as watching a school yard bully extort lunch
money out of younger children on the school yard. No thanks, you can keep
him and Jerry Springer, they both accomplish the same thing.

>
> --
> "Yah know I hate it when forces gather in ma' fringe..." - Sheogorath
>
> "Daytime television sucked 20 years ago,
> and it still sucks today!" - Marc Bissonette

"Joe" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Johnson > wrote in news:IPqdnaB-
> :

>
>> We haven't had to hear about
>> his personal sex life and there have been no impeachment hearings
> (even
>> though Congress has tried their best to find something the past two
>> years).
>
> We've listened to his past drinking escapades and his daughters' romps
> instead. As for Congress, they are a bunch of wimps.

And his drug use. It's the pot calling the kettle black here.

Bush, Clinton, Obama, and Marrion Barry, are these drinking, druging fools
truly the best this country can come up with???

"My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
news:G7tpj.3069$k%2.869@trndny09...
>

Cynical and unforgiving.

Christian?

dwight