Hmm. Well, as long as you don't get personal on the issues.

As to the attempt to trivialize the dangers of the Soviet Union and to equate conservatism with communism and liberalism with paradise, well, enjoy your tour of the universe. Most liberals don't want to admit even to themselves (let alone to anyone else) that that's who they are, and usually call themselves "independent" as an easy cop-out. However, when they go on touting the virtues of the Democratic party, even when they bury it in well-written prose, they're quite easy to spot. Espousing the virtues of civil debate while chastising the "other" party and its leaders is another common indicator.



I've never understood why more people can't grasp this simple concept. Bush has made me furious on a couple of specific issues (the war not one of them), but at least I know who and what he is. That's a lot more than his predecessor or either of the current candidates can say, especially the Democrat. Had it not been for Bush, we would now be joining those nations who have decided individuals can no longer own firearms, a right many consider to be the most important of all individual rights. While that statement may make me out to be a single issue voter (I am not), a candidate's (and their party's) views on that one issue is often indicative of their regard for their constituencies IMO.

You missed the point Mike. The candidates and wannabe's are fair game - they have to be - Christ - look at the media today; here let me help - Obama is so thin that if he stood sideways and stuck out his tounge he would be a zipper.

The views and opinons in any political debate will be diverse. Some you will like, some you won't. But shouting at each other with snide comments gets us nowhere, other than right to a locked thead.

And I cannot help but point out that your views of Clinton are your opinions. I think his presidency was far better then Bush's 'walk through the black forest' of civil rights and the treasury. So he wasn't Gandhi. So he got head in the White house. BFD. Clinton said alot of the same things about Sadam that the neo-cons did. BUT he didn' think he was above the process and take us to war over a dictators bad intentons. He knew Osama was the real bad guy.

I don't like Bush - yeah he is simple alright. Forest Gump so. He is an embarrasment to the nation. I don't care for McCain. Old school. Been there done that. Look at his staff- loaded with lobbyists who think we are all imagining the rise in gas prices.

I feel Obama and the Dems this year are a far better choice given the erosion of all things most Americans hold dear - their civil rights- their privacy. Their right to process with the courts. I think it is time for a change. Change the 'cheats' every four years unless the Bird of Paridise is shitting gold bricks into my cuddy. Then I will take another look at it. I have every right to that opinion, just as you do yours.

Obama is new and mesmerizing to voters because he offers everything that Bill & Hill used to promise them, but they dont believe in them anymore. Now they have to create a new star… one who promises us a bright future like the one the Arkansas duo promised umpteen years ago. Edwards was my first choice, but he ain't there anymore.

Besides Obama is Broadway. He is articulate. He is the Will Smith of politics right now (I would actually prefer the Chris Rock of politics, but that is a whole 'nother thread). The Clintons kinda reek of an anachronistic vaudville duo. It's like comparing today’s digital movies to the silent era - OK, maybe Gone with the Wind.

Make no mistake — the numbers of netgeeks looking at Obama on You Tube reflect the hopes of the future for a whole new generation of voters. It is hard to have hopes with Bill & Hill — we know them so well. Is this good? I dunno. But it is participation in the process. The netroots freak show didn’t go down to well in Iowa for Mr. Dean in 2000. The greeks don’t want no freaks and neither did the farmers in Fort Dodge. But we are 8 years into the future. Maybe these kids will put down their bongs and go vote this year. Change for the sake of change is change nonetheless.

Expect a massive increase in young people voting. In the social channeling/networking world I have experienced, it's a worthwhile cause at the moment. But, just because they're young doesn't mean they're voting for Obama. Lots of young people hold fast to conservative/republican lines. However, I do think the young repub's will be slower/harder to mobilize to vote in Nov.

Great stuff, guys. Thanks!

Woulda done more, but I'm cooked (and beating hell outta the banks in my spare time). Back soon to enjoy your commentary!

I find that an interesting statement given that most dems are looking to remove rights from the Constitution in the name of safety and fairness. Between BHO's old pledge to remove firearms from the American public (which we no longer hear about), to the Senate dems wanting to have equal play on talk radio for differing views (thereby causing these stations to fail), it sounds like they want to impede upon two major Rights.



I find Obama intriguing as well, but I have yet to hear his stance on anything pertinent. Like many candidates anymore, he simply points his finger and says, "They're doing it the wrong way, I will do it right." Which opens the question, what is the right way? No one offers solutions anymore, it has become the fight of the Monday Morning QB's.



I'll give you that, but everything is relative. When you are used to Bobcat Goldthwait, Sylvester the Cat would be sounding pretty impressive right now.



I have concern with that given the younger voters are typically quite realistic, and easily swayed as such. i remember being that age.


Personally, I have never registered with a party, but do find myself being conservative, not by party but by definition. i just want to be left alone to do what i want to do without hurting anyone else.

While I agree that we have concerns about some civil liberties, it also has to be remember that these are recent liberties that evolved in the 60s and 70s with the civil rights movement. We will always have to evaluate what is and is not a reasonable right. It is like the issues of detainees. We have every right to to detain them if you look at them as POWs. The issue is that a country is allowed to keep POWs until the involved nations make a treaty that include release of enemy prisoners. But how can you make peace when the other nation has no borders or government? There is no official organization, no diplomatic recourses, no real ending. You cannot just release people that vow to murder Americans, and if you release them to their country of origin (if known), they are not wanted there. Their fate will either be release by an enemy state to attack again, or likely execution by a friendly state.

And anyone that is insane enough to call this an illegal war, should remember that it was sanctioned by Congress and support of the war is sanctioned every year by them, in the form of military spending. This is not President Bush's war, this is America's war. Americans are dying to make this a safer world for us. Americans died from many terrorist events that had support from the former regime. Our media does a great job of broadcasting the mistakes of our leaders, but fails to cover the lies and deceits of our enemies which led to our failed intellligence.

As far as Clinton's track record, every use of military by his regime, was an example of failure. Look at the number of attacks on our resources with no repercussions. The one attack against Al Queda was a resounding bust. Under Clinton, our military forces declined, our real intelligence gathering all but disappeared. Yeah, he is articulate, but can you really trust anyone who cannot be counted on to be faithful to his wife, even with the media attention on his every move? And what goes little noticed is that he is also a sexual predator. If not for his political connections, he would have likely been convicted of rape.

We have too much of people listening to the glib and articulate. Every con man is articulate. Plain speakers get little credit. When Lincoln gave his dedication speech at Gettysburg, the listening public was underwhelmed. They had been listening to the long orations and beautiful words of those who had come before. Then their President gets up and makes a very short speech. Many were insulted. He hardly said a word. It was disrepectful. And then the words were printed in the papers.

We are held hostage by our party system. Every president has to live with and by the actions of his party. It does not matter how good a president is, he is only the figurehead of the party in today's politics. Congress has effectively neutered the office in that aspect. Why should the issue of pro-choice be the deciding issue for a Republican candidate? Why should social welfare funding be the deciding issue for Democrats? The reason is simple. Our system requires so much money to get elected, every candidate has to make every decision on how it affects his funding. If we could divert all of the campaign spending to the national debt, we would be showing a profit within a decade.

I thought this was about the decline of capitalism?

Yeah, the Congress should be held accountable for believing the absolute BS that Mr. Bush and his cabel were spreading, but the fact remains that it was Mr. Bush and hs cabel that were doing the spreading and they were beating the war drums loud and long, all the while buliding a "casae" for an invasion of a soveriegn nation.

Yeah, and when Bush's efforts finally caught Osama...Oh, wait, that still hasn't happened and the Afghanistan war has suffered from lack of effort and troops because Bush has concentrated on his little revenge party in Iraq.

And Bush has done SOOOO much for our troops. "Mission Accomplished." - GWB "Bring 'em on." - GWB (I could go on.) Bush has cut medical care for our veterans. Quite the happy reward for those serving in his war, and, yes, it is HIS war.

And, "plain speaker"??? "PLAIN SPEAKER"???!!! Why the man can hardly put two words togther without the use of a teleprompter. The man is an embarrasment to see up at the podium.


I agree with you that to a degree the political system in this country often dictates the way that the president conducts the country's business, but Bush has brought it to a whole new level. Bush, at one time said that he was a "uniter." "I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is someone who brings people together.” - GWB "I'm a uniter, not a divider." - GWB A "uniter" he has not been. He also said after the election in '04; "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style." -GWB. a quote from GWB while he was still the President elect really shows what aspirations he had for the
White House..."If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." Yeah, he's a suave dude alright. Really knows how to unite folks.

With McCain, all I can see is McBush warmed over. Blech. No thank you. While I respect your right to your opinion, I'm simply tired of the current administration's ways of riding rough-shod over the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. This country deserves better.

Edit: Having re-read what I've posted, some of you may think I'm some left-wing, tree-hugger nut case, but I am not. I do wear the liberal label, but, like my most of my conservative countrymen, I do not lean all the way in one direction. I support the right to own and bear arms, and, most of all, I hold the Bill of Rights and the Constitution dear.

Without capitalism...what do you have?

Bush's brand of 'conservatism' is something completely foreign to traditional Republican party norms. He has outspent even the most liberal Democratic administrations. He has led the nation into undeclared foreign wars under false pretenses. He has bloated the size and scope of the federal government like no president since FDR. He has consistently promoted "civil unions" for homosexuals. He has increased federal funding for abortion providers at home and abroad (I support a woman's right to choose, but this is most assuredly not the party norm). In addition, over the objections of a Republican-controlled Congress, Bush even supported the Clinton gun ban. So the rhetoric on the Dems taking away or guns is pure nonsense. It would be political suicide. I will own a gun regardless of any law that says I can't, but I do not believe any politician but Bush and his strong arm tactics with our rights and the law would even try. To justify its expanding obliteration of constitutional liberties, the Bush administration uses the most insane brand of logic--which should outrage American citizens: everyone in the US is a terrorist.

I am bewildered by the fact that so many of the American people are so unaware that they can, even as an exercise in insanity, can so disgrace their nation and themselves by allowing this moron to completely and irreversibly destroy the rights and freedoms guaranteed to every American by the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, posse comititus, and all of the priceless documents and promises that millions of Americans have died to bring about and then to defend.

However, it is Bush's preoccupation with turning America into a total surveillance society/police state that separates his administration from any and all others. Before this administration, no conservative president had endorsed the concept of turning the United States into the fulfillment of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, but that is exactly what GW and his band of corporate thugs are attempting to do.

Under the rubric of fighting terrorism, President Bush has done more to strip the American people of constitutionally-protected freedoms than any administration since Abraham Lincoln. Another example of Bush's tyrannical tendencies comes in the form of his "signing statements." Bush has issued more "signing statements" than any president in history. In fact, before President Reagan, there was a total of only 75 "signing statements" by all previous administrations. Then, Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton issued 247 "signing statements" combined. So far, Bush has issued 147 "signing statements" that have challenged constitutional restrictions (upon him) to more than 750 statutes. (Source: The Boston Globe)

After signing a postal reform bill called H.R. 6407, the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act," President Bush issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open the private mail of American citizens without a judge's warrant. WTF? That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed.

I also wonder where the public outrage is over all of this negative media hype from individuals who appear to have only a room temperature IQ who I believe promote nothing but hate & division, that spew the 'Rovian' doctrine on cue and just repeat old crap like "Taxes bad, rich people good" or "The poor like to be poor" or any of the other trash that emanates from the blow holes of Limbaugh and O'Reilly and the like. All paid for by the same corporate thugs who want us bail out their failed companies.

This is not the America I grew up believing was the greatest country on earth. It does not bode well for the future if we do not change this trend. I'm willing to give the Dems a chance.

That's easy. Slavery.


I agree with CM on this. We had Carter in the 70's and Obama looks to be nothing but a repeat of that disaster. Socialist by nature and dangerously naive about the world and the threats facing us.

I'll be voting for McCain for the same reason I voted for Bush twice. He may not be the best man for the job. But he IS without a doubt better than the alternative.

So exactly what is your opinion?

Barkeep! Give Cigar Man a cigar and a bottle of your very best Hornitas! Cigar Man, a tip of the hat to your eloquent responses. I could go on for days about the injustices that the current administration has foisted upon this country but do not have the time. Gotta get SOME work done!

For all the anti Bush rantings, I find it interesting that among the military, they would prefer him or McCain any day, over the challengers. These are the guys that actually have their lives on the line with what our President does. A lot of good soldiers left the military in embarassment over Clinton's activities. And we almost did not have any military left when Carter was our resident embarassment.

If your goal is to have a President that makes Europe happy, I would suggest that you go live in Europe. We elect our Presidents and Europe can lump it if they do not like that. The fact is, trying to appease other nations has never been a issue that worked for our good. And as far as injustices this administration has foisted on us poor serfs, we have more freedoms than any other nation. The problems we have, come from within our own ranks. We pay less and get more out of our government than most nations. And yet, we have a huge number of people from all income levels that refuse to pay their fair share. We have crooks at every level of life, that prey on the dumb and helpless. We give celebrity status to idiots that couldn't go to the bathroom without step by step instructions. And we elect people to run our schools that want to either ignore the facts of history as being un-PC, or want to throw out anything that is not according to the Bible (insert edition here).

You talk about an embarrassment and our rights being eroded, but I find that the only rights being taken away are those being used by our enemies against our own citizens. Abuses of the system can be found, no matter what. That is usually a function of some low level idiot and works both ways. How many of us have screamed when an obvious crook gets free on a loophole. Graham was right, we are becoming a nation of whiners. That is the real embarrassment.

So, because we lament the fact that this president has been taking our rights away we're regarded as whiners??? That's rich. The government can use these new powers against anyone it considers an "enemy" you and I included. Do I want to have the gov't to be able to listen in on calls that I make without a warrant? No. Do I want the gov't to beable to open my mail or tap into my email without a warrrant? No. Do you? They can do that now.

Never said a thing about wanting to make Europe happy. I'm much more self centric than that.

Yeah we have more freeedoms than most nations, but it's not because of anything that the current administration has done.

I agreee with you regarding celebrities; what the heck is it about them that the news media has to report on everything they do? Guess it sells papers, advertisement time on the tube, you name it. I certainly don't get it. I'm not sure what your trying to get across regarding school boards ignoring facts and wanting to throw out anything that isn't according to the bible. If you're alluding the "Intelligent Design" fiascos being played out in different state school boards, I would agree that the bible's stories have no place being taught as science in public schools.

And, you might be surprised at the number of military folks who are not ardent Bush supporters.