Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

I do love hearing from the irony impaired (update)
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, September 06, 2008

From the Mahablog:
The Right has pinned on Sarah Palin its fantasies of vengeance on the Left. That’s why they love her.
And the reason for the left's love of Obama?

UPDATE: It gets better. In reply Maha says:
If anyone wants to explain to these, um, persons that a politician’s capacity to wreak vengeance on one’s ideological opposites is not a compelling reason to vote for that candidate, have at it.
Well except apparently if that, um, person happens to be from the right, huh? See still unexplained broadbrush assertion above.

So yes, please do explain the wholesale inclusion of the right in the first category and why those on the right couldn't possibly be voting for precisely the same reason she claims the left is voting? And pray, do try to convince us here that none of the left love Obama et al because of their fantasies of vengeance on the Right. Please, please, please try and see if that dog will hunt.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

And the reason for the left’s love of Obama?
Stupidity, I suspect... :)
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Projection, pure and simple.

For the narcissist who has absolute conviction that they are right, and that only their path leads to nirvana, it is those questioning, those reluctant to embrace who must be re-educated. And damnation upon all those who actively resist - the ends will justify the means.
Written By: bains
URL: http://
"fantasies of vengence"

What, exactly does this mean?

The left always always always projects when it comes to violence. I prefer their political humiliation to blood.


BTW, Obamoron fell into yet another trap, critiicizing Palin on earmarks.

Actually, he fell into two traps here.

1)He’s got quite the pork record himself, including his wifey’s place of employment
2) He’s arguing with the BOTTOM of the GOP ticket.

Written By: shark
URL: http://
Actually, what’s happened is the left has identified Palin as it’s worst nightmare.

Know what? They’re correct.

Written By: Bithead
Now, remind me again, who was it that wanted to put the country through "De-Nazification" if the Democrats win? Some Republican named Soros, right?

Written By: SDN
URL: http://
1)He’s got quite the pork record himself, including his wifey’s place of employment
Let us not forget the millions that went to clients of Hunter Biden, the sone of the esteemed Senator...
Some Republican named Soros
Those words being used together breaks my mind...
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Which ticket just tossed the red meat of prosecutions of pols on the other side of the ideological divide if they should happen to win? I’m sorry, prosecutions "if any laws have been violated" (wwink, wink, nudge nudge).
Written By: Terry
URL: http://
I do not believe that Senator McCain chose Governor Palin with this question foremost in his mind: “What happens to the country if I die?” He has said that the greatest threat facing out nation is Islamic extremism. If he had made his choice based on who is best able to face this threat if he dies, he would have chosen someone like Tom Ridge, who was our first Secretary of Homeland Security. If he needed to choose a woman running mate, he could have chosen someone like Elizabeth Dole, who has sat on the Senate Armed Services Committee for years.

Like most other people, I have felt that we do not know enough about Barak Obama to entrust him with the presidency, even after he has been on the national stage for 19 months. I have therefore been astonished that millions of people were able to gather enough information about Sarah Palin in 45 minutes to entrust her with considerable enthusiasm with the vice presidency. Do not try to answer that she is running for the second slot on the ticket. If there were long odds against her becoming the chief executive, I would agree with that idea. But there are not long odds. Of the 42 men (counting both Grover Clevelands as one man) who have taken the presidential oath of office, 8 have died and been succeeded by their vice presidents. Those are short odds, more than one in six, worse than you get with Russian Roulette, where there is one chance in 6 that there is a bullet in the chamber.

Sen. Obama’s choice of running mate provides evidence that he has made his choice based on what will happen to the country if he dies. It shows evidence that he has put the country first in making his first presidential-level decision. Sen. McCain’s first such decision provides no such evidence.

Sarah Palin evoked the memory of Harry Truman in her speech at the RNC. All agree that she exudes confidence in herself. Most people think that she is faking nothing, that what you see is what you get. This means that her self-confidence is real and that she is sure of herself. But when Harry Truman ran for VP in 1944, he was filled with trepidation. One night he awoke in the middle of the night in a cold sweat, having had a terrible nightmare that Franklin Roosevelt had died and that he was President. He was not filled with self-assurance, even though he managed to exude that in public. He was fearful of what he was getting himself into. He was no Sarah Palin. But Sarah Palin is no Harry Truman.

No one needs to “love” Obama in order to compare his decision with that of his opponent. He knows that he is playing Russian Roulette with his own life and has made provision for the country for what happens if he dies. I am not convinced that John McCain has made his first presidential decision with equal seriousness. Therefore I am supporting Barak Obama, knowing that he may fail, certain that those who love him are going to be disappointed in his presidency, but convinced that he has put country first in his initial presidential-level decision.
Written By: Ed
URL: http://
Sen. Obama’s choice of running mate provides evidence that he has made his choice based on what will happen to the country if he dies.
Your whole argument crumbles right there. Obama is the top of the ticket on the Dem side and is less qualified than you seem to think Palin is, but apparently that’s of no concern to the Dems. So why should McCain be held to a different standard than the Dems are holding themselves (there’s that "irony" thing again)?
Written By: McQ
Ed, your analysis contains a hidden assumption, which is that Obama himself is qualified to be president. I challenge that assumption.

His overall experience is comparable to Palin, with less executive experience. So you are supporting a certainty of having an unexperienced, untried chief executive vs a probability in the case of Palin. That makes no sense to me, nor I suspect to most others.

And lest you jump to conclusions, I don’t expect to vote for either major candidate. I detest McCain, along with evaluating Obama as woefully under-qualified and the most liberal person to run for the Senate since McGovern.
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
I cannot answer for the Dems. I am not one of them. I voted for John McCain in the 2000 presidential primary based on the respect he earned when the Clinton administration moved to normalize relations with Vietnam. He lent his full support to this move, which happened 20 years after the fall of Saigon, and he did this because he believe that the time had come to take this action. I will always respect him for what he did.

During the 2004 presidential debates, President Bush and Senator Kerrey agreed that the greatest danger facing the nation was “loose nukes,” or the need to secure fissile material that might fall into the hands of terrorists. In 2005, Sen. Obama worked with Sen. Lugar on these unsecured weapons. He is up to speed on the security issue that matters most to me.
Written By: Ed
URL: http://
All agree that she exudes confidence in herself...This means that her self-confidence is real and that she is sure of herself.
But when Harry Truman ran for VP in 1944, he was filled with trepidation... He was not filled with self-assurance, even though he managed to exude that in public.
He was no Sarah Palin. But Sarah Palin is no Harry Truman.
And you know what Palin thinks in the middle of the night how? Or are you just another mind-reader who somehow sees exactly what he wants to see in other peoples thoughts? Or do you think that maybe she should campaign on the idea that she is "afraid" of the office of VP, as Truman certainly did not do?
During the 2004 presidential debates, President Bush and Senator Kerrey agreed that the greatest danger facing the nation was “loose nukes,” or the need to secure fissile material that might fall into the hands of terrorists. In 2005, Sen. Obama worked with Sen. Lugar on these unsecured weapons. He is up to speed on the security issue that matters most to me.
In that case, you want to vote for Nunn/Lugar, which deals specifically with fissile materials and unsecured nukes. Lugar/Obama specifically deals with conventional weapons:
The Lugar-Obama initiative would energize the U.S. program against unsecured, lightweight anti-aircraft missiles and other conventional weapons. There may be as many as 750,000 man-portable air defense systems in arsenals worldwide, and the State Department estimates that more than 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by such weapons since the 1970s. In addition, loose stocks of small arms and other weapons help fuel civil wars in Africa and elsewhere and provide the means for attacks on peacekeepers and aid workers seeking to stabilize war-torn societies. In Iraq, unsecured stockpiles of artillery shells and ammunition have been reconfigured into improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that have become an effective weapon for insurgents.
Written By: Terry
URL: http://
I voted for John McCain in the 2000 presidential primary...
Yeah, and I spent a Christmas with the Dixie Chicks.
In 2005, Sen. Obama worked with Sen. Lugar on these unsecured weapons. He is up to speed on the security issue that matters most to me.
If it really matters to you, then you know that the subsequent bill passed on unanimous consent meaning that the actual legislation was akin to congress saying that Mom and apple pie are good.

Secondly Ed, you were playing with numbers and facts before. 8 of 42 presidents died while in office - oh the unbearable risk right? Well of those eight, two were assisinated, and your argument against McCain/Palin is based upon naturally caused deaths. So of the six that have died in office, four sitting VP’s not only led the nation adequately, but they (the latest four BTW: T Roosevelt, C Coolidge, H Truman, and L Johnson) went on to win the next Presidential election after serving out the remainder of the dead guys term. Hummm, seems that when Presidents die in office, 66% of the time the country approves of the last VP. Pretty short odds there.

Finally, Poo-pooing the fact that former mayor and sitting one-term Governor Palin (executive experience) is running for Vice President, whereas former state senator and sitting one-term US Senator Obama (no executive experience) only reveals just how weak your argument is. In fact, if we play with numbers a bit more (age of President at death excluding those that died in office) we see an average of 74. And that is unadjusted to the increase in life expectancy over the past 230 years. Further, if you at the same average over the past century, the age jumps to 78. Pretty short odds in fact.

In other words, I suspect you’ve a contrived argument to lead you to the conclusion you already have committed to.

Written By: bains
URL: http://
Actually, FOUR were assassinated. Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy.

Which makes the argument about "McCain dying" even more specious.
Written By: The Gonzman
URL: http://
Woops, my bad. Should have looked at this page before sticking my foot in my mouth.
Written By: bains
URL: http://
I don’t know what Sarah Palin thinks in the middle of the night. I only wondered if the self-assurance was fake or real. Truman had to fake it, since he felt trepidation about what he had gotten into. He had to keep his real feelings under wraps. I have friends at work who were enthusiastic about her speech at the RNC, and they told me that they thought the exuberance was real, that “what you see is what you get.” They saw no trepidation and neither did I.

Terry is correct that Nunn-Lugar is highly pertinent. Obama’s first trip abroad was in support of this bill. I believe that Nunn-Lugar has to do with WMD at their source of production and Lugar-Obama has more to do with the international transportation of WMD. Both are important. Obama and Biden are well-versed in the particulars from their work on the Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Lugar was chair of that committee when Obama started in the Senate. Either he or Biden could pick up the ball and carry it. I am an arms control ignoramus but they are experts. I am inclined to think they are competent in this area.

There is a book by Sen. McCain titled Hard Call: Great Decisions and the Extraordinary People Who Mad Them. Most of the book is narrative and deals with decisions made by people like Branch Rickey, Ronald Reagan, Menachem Begin & Anwar Sadat, and many others. It begins with a story about his fellow POW, Bud Day, who was shot down north of the DMZ, but escaped, crawled for 13 days in the jungle with broken arms and a badly injured knee, and got to within sight of an American base. He had to make a decision whether to approach the base at night or wait until daylight. All alone, dehydrated, feverish, nearly starving, he decided to wait for morning, since an 18-year old sentry might mistake him for a VC and shoot him. He waited, but was recaptured, beaten, and sent to the Hanoi Hilton. The outcome wasn’t too great, but the decision may have been the right one, since the outcome of the other choice can never be known.

This is a very well-written book and deserves to be a best-seller The choice of Sarah Palin seems incongruous with what I read in this book. There are many reports from credible sources that his first choice was Joe Lieberman or maybe Tom Ridge, but that for political reasons having to do with the party “base,” Gov. Palin was promoted and selected. I have to wonder (no, not mind-reading, just wondering) if the campaign decision-making is being done by some committee, using political calculations and not on the kind of consideration that is described in the chapter on Branch Rickey.

Brach Rickey brought Jackie Robinson to the Brooklyn Dodgers to break baseball’s color barrier. That much everyone knows. The McCain book talks about the moral dimension of the choice, and how much Rickey was motivated by his inner convictions about the rights due to every human being. What is interesting is that Rickey claimed that he had hired Robinson in order to win games and increase the box office for the Dodgers. In other words, he did the exact reverse of what so many politicians do: he made the decision for deeply moral reasons, but in public he claimed to have been motivated by money and by expediency!

I cannot square the choice of Sarah Palin with the John McCain who wrote this book. Your mileage may vary. I am concerned that many top-level decisions in his campaign are being made by others. I am unconvinced that everything will change when a McCain administration begins to govern. It will take a fairly strong level of evidence to convince me otherwise.

Of the 8 presidents who died in office, 4 (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy) were assassinated and 4 died from natural causes. McCain is in pretty good health but is entering into one of the most stressful jobs on earth. I am not so much worried about death as I am about disability. Woodrow Wilson “survived” his presidency, but after his stroke in 1919 his wife was in effect the first woman president. I think that Obama has a higher-than-average risk of assassination that approximately offsets his younger age in terms of risk of death. Bains may be right; things may turn out OK. They usually turn out OK in Russian Roulette too. Consulting an actuary won’t help because their predictions apply only to large groups of age-adjusted risks. I am not saying that mine is the only way to look at the numbers, but the risk is not “specious.”

Perhaps Bains met the Dixie Chicks over Christmas time, Perhaps he thinks that I am making this up and that he respects Sen. McCain more than I do. If this is the case I will assume that he has read Hard Calls and can point to the page number that will convince me that this was truly a McCain decision.

In any case, I am glad to have run across this website. It is a pleasure to match wits with people who have some.
Written By: Ed
URL: http://
Yeah, and I spent a Christmas with the Dixie Chicks.
you too?

I think that Obama has a higher-than-average risk of assassination
Pray tell why. This will be good.
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
There are many reports from credible sources that his first choice was Joe Lieberman or maybe Tom Ridge, but that for political reasons having to do with the party “base”...
The only folks I hear and read making this point are those already committed to Obama. It is made to sound nefarious, but any thinking person realizes that without "the base" one can not win an election. Further, if Lieberman or Hagel were such a fine choice, for America, why were they not on the Democrat short list? No the folks pushing the Lieberman meme are those hoping for a GOP loss come November.
I am concerned that many top-level decisions in his campaign are being made by others.
This is either pure paranoia, or narrative foisting. Just who are those scary others making McCain’s choices, and is he the Manchurian candidate? Just like many anti-Iraq-war utterly reject the numerous legitimate reasons for the preemptive action against Sadam Hussien, you reject the reason(s) McCain picked Palin just because they do not comport with your prejudices.
Perhaps Bains met the Dixie Chicks over Christmas time,
Perhaps, perhaps not. The point being I can make virtually any claim on these intartubey thing which you can not disprove. Just saying that Martie and Emily and I broke bread in their mother’s house north of Dallas does not make it so. You are a newbie to this site; making claims to a legend which your arguments seemingly belie naturally raises questions about your veracity. I’ve seen too many trolls here.

But do continue, intelligent and respectful rebuttals/counter-arguments are always welcome.
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Sen. Obama’s choice of running mate provides evidence that he has made his choice based on what will happen to the country if he dies.
Based upon this, I conclude you are on crack.

Written By: Don
URL: http://
Sen. Obama’s choice of running mate provides evidence that he has made his choice based on what will happen to the country if he dies.
Revenge or a really poor practical joke
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I am concerned that many top-level decisions in his campaign are being made by others.
Definitely true for Obama. He isn’t running anything except his mouth and only effectively with a teleprompter
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
"They saw no trepidation and neither did I."

So? You expect her to be a quivering wreck 24 hours a day? Why should she show trepidation and Truman did not? Why should she show trepidation as a candidate for Vice President when none of the candidates for President have? Did Obama show trepidation when he announced he was going to play, as you say, Russian roulette? Could it be that you expect her to show more fear because she is female?

"I am concerned that many top-level decisions in his campaign are being made by others."

Aliens, no doubt.
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I see evidence that supports the idea that Obama chose Biden based on what happens to the country if he dies. He chose a man he has known for years, someone who admires John McCain and who also has argued with and debated him, questioning his readiness to lead the nation. He chose someone who knows more than he does about Washington and about foreign affairs. He chose a man who will not flatter him. The two men have had ample time to discuss every major issue that the nation is dealing with. The country would not be thrown into turmoil if Obama died.

McCain chose someone he met only once before calling her to talk about being on the ticket. The meeting was brief, not nearly enough time to talk with her about defense, economics, energy, health care, and other major policy areas. Ask yourself: would you invest in a company whose CEO was in the habit of hiring top managers based on a favorable first impression? Would you enter a business partnership with someone you had met with for only a couple of hours? Are there any business people in the Republican party these days? Why haven’t their jaws hit the floor?

McCain had nowhere near enough time to get to know her in depth the way Obama knows Biden. He would have to rely on the perceptions of others. I lent credibility to the Lieberman rumors based on the description of Bud Day that forms the introduction to Hard Call. Well, Bud Day, who spent years with McCain in Hanoi, is not available to run for VP, Lieberman resembles him in some ways: the men have known one another for years, they have faced similar adversities in the Senate, and McCain could be
confident that there would be no national crisis of confidence in the event of his death.

That is the contrast I see. McCain had to rely on information gathered from others to make his decision. If major campaign decisions are being made by others, that is a very big deal, because they will be there when he takes office. I was asked if I thought they were space aliens, no doubt. No, I think they are earthlings. Rick Davis is the name of his campaign manager. A man named Tucker Bounds was on CNN the weekend after the Palin selection, but he may have been only acting as a spokesman. He got his butt kicked by Campbell Brown, who pressed him again and again for a specific decision that Palin made as Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard. A man named Steve Schmidt is also very highly placed in the campaign. I do not know all the who’s who of the organization, but these man have all appeared on TV. All hail from planet earth.

If John McCain has relinquished some of his power to other men, that should worry a lot of people, not just me. The men who exercise decision-making authority during the campaign will want to retain power once it comes time to govern. Power once relinquished is not reclaimed without a struggle. Any conservative who argues otherwise is probably a liberal and doesn’t know it.

Sorry I can’t get to all your questions, guys, but tomorrow is another big day.

Written By: Ed
URL: http://
I see evidence that supports the idea that Obama chose Biden based on what happens to the country if he dies.
Ed, bless your heart, you keep missing the point.

Sarah Palin has more experience than Barack Obama and is a heartbeat away from the presidency if her ticket wins.

If Obama wins, he is the heartbeat and it really doesn’t matter who is there if ’he dies’.
Written By: McQ
Got it. I have not clearly made the direct head-to-head comparison with Obama and McCain. My bad.

How a candidate runs his campaign has some bearing on how he will govern. The selection of a vice president is the first “presidential’ decision a man makes. Obama made a choice that shows foresight. If he dies, there is little reason to fear that his death and Biden’s ascension to the presidency will trigger in international crisis. Foreign leaders have known Biden for decades. Obama made a sound, responsible first presidential decision. He used his own senses to learn who Biden is, having known him for years. He did not meet with him for a short conversation and then delegate the rest of the work to his aides.

McCain made a choice that could lead to an international crisis if he died. Foreign leaders are not familiar with her, not even remotely. They are not likely to be amused by stories of pit bulls and lipstick. They are not likely to be in awe of her status as commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard. If McCain had selected Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, the same leaders would know who they were dealing with immediately upon either of them taking the oath of office. Those who wish us well would be reassured that all was well, even though the nation was in mourning. Those who wish us ill would know that there was a serious, experienced man at the helm and that trying any funny business would be extremely ill advised.

I am trying to do what Mr. Bakun, my high school US History teacher, had us do over 40 years ago on our essay tests: compare and contrast. Compare and contrast the Embargo Act and the Non-Intercourse Act (every high school senior’s favorite). Compare and contrast Obama and McCain.

We can set two presidential-level decisions side by side and look at them. Obama made a good one and McCain made a bad one. Obama will be a better president than McCain.

I have many critical things to say about Sarah Palin as well. The very first day she was presented to the public in Ohio, first thing right out of the box, she gushes over Hillary and the “18 million cracks in the glass ceiling.” The “glass ceiling” is a fashionable expression, but it is an expression of identity politics, today’s version of “sisterhood is powerful” of the 1970s. Identity politics is one of the most noxious legacies of movement liberalism. Palin embraced it fully, to the approving roar of the crowd. The next day, she tried the same line in Pennsylvania and was booed. Then she dropped the line like a hot potato. Some feisty maverick! She keeps delivering snappy, scripted one-liners as long as an adoring crowd applauds. Show one moment’s disapproval and presto! The offending line is gone.

Sarah Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined. She also has more executive experience than John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson combined in 1960. Too bad she wasn’t there to handle the Cuban Missile Crisis. The outcome would have been ever so much better if she had.

The entire 2008 campaign has been a disgrace, not really because of partisan rancor or any of the usual suspects. The framing of the every issue has been contaminated by the assumption, shared by all candidates of both parties, that the main business of the next president was to bring change to Washington. Obama said it countless ways. McCain and Palin promise to shake things up in Washington.

But this is not what the President of the United States is there to do. It is not his function.

The function of the President is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

In a sane election cycle, this would be the paramount criterion for the evaluation of all candidates and all issues. If the presidential campaigns were set on a strong foundation, the preamble to the Constitution would be the framework for the contest from start to finish.

What is your plan to form a more perfect Union, Mr/Ms Candidate? Here would come issues of competition between states for resources (water, military contracts, etc), and possibly immigration (you could classify this elsewhere for all I care).

What is your plan to establish justice, Governor? Here come all kinds of issues dealing with criminal law, habeas corpus, equal pay for equal work, and a host of other things.

How far are you willing to go to ensure domestic tranquility, Senator? Any limits on government searches, wiretaps, monitoring of travel and behavior? (Immigration could go here as well.)

Tell us about providing for the common defense, Congressman. Do you read anything in this document that suggests that spreading democracy is a necessary part of this function? How do you intend to proceed?

You are authorized to do things to promote the general welfare, General. This could include jobs, economy, health care, energy, lots of stuff to consider. Fine. Tell us about it.

Have you forgotten about securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, Senator? What do these words mean to you and how will your presidency secure them?

Did we have a campaign anything like this? We did not. We had a chaotic mix of cheap shots, mumbo-jumbo, and increasingly grandiose talk about change. Obama did it. Clinton did it. McCain did it. They all participated in an unfocused and often embarrassing conversation about nothing. McCain accepted the frame of reference in its entirety.

That, as Mr. Bakun would say, is more information than the question was asking for. Deduct 10 points. I sure hope I get a passing grade.
Written By: Ed
URL: http://
I enjoy this type of banter. But I would like to add something to the mix, as a woman contributor.

I don’t care about lipstick and bulldogs. I don’t care about what beauty contests she has lost or won.

I do care about certain things:
Having her say that she didn’t support the bridge to no where, when she really did.Still built the road to it, and kept the money anyway. She never gave that money back.

Having her (and McCain)say that she sold a jet on e bay and made a profit, when she didn’t sell it at ebay at all,and she sold it at a loss.

I have to wonder if this is a pattern of lies for the Republican ticket, and if this is going to go on after they are in office (if they should win). What else are they willing to lie about?

I saw the commercial McCain put out about Obama, accusing him of wanting to teach sex education to kindergarteners.
The reality behind that is that Obama wanted to teach little boys and girls what to do if someone tried to touch them inappropriately.
How twisted the RNC is to try to make this into "sex education".

I’ll go out on a limb here, and I thoroughly expect to be attacked on this, but here goes nothing: As a small girl who had working parents back in the 1960s, I was repeatedly raped by a neighbor boy who was 16. This went on for approximately a year (I was between ages of 7 and 8 years old, 2nd and third grade).

My personality went through a tremendous negative change, and I began to be depressed and suicidal at a very very early age. My parents and his were friends, and no one knew what had taken place. My parents and his were not watching.We were next door neighbors..........

I applaud Obama for taking this to issue, especially since he has two little girls about the same age as I was when this tragedy happened. Believe it or not, this happens to little boys too.

On this alone, my mind is made up for Obama. There are many other issues a thinking person considers, and I do. But policies of awareness and safeguards like this would have changed my life for the positive, and would have prevented this from happening in the first place.

I’ve spent a fair amount of time, money, and therapy on resolving this one issue. Much in my life has been sacrificed, so that this guy could get his "jollies". I am not married, I have no children, and I do not trust men, for the most part. Others have said I’m attractive, but I cannot go forward in some areas of my life because of what happened, try as I might. and in this I know I am not alone.

I do have a phenomenal man in my life who is sweet, understanding, and has no idea how much I love him. (BTW, he is sleepless now-a-days thinking that the republican party will get in again, I can only reassure him........).

I had not made up my mind about any of this political stuff, until this republican-political commercial. I suppose the republicans will make fun of this, as they have community service, and a variety of other things that have come up.

Politically speaking, the republicans have driven me to the corner I am now in, and I want to say Thank you. It’s quite clear which way I will vote this election. Thank you very very much.

and just in case anyone reading this thinks I am making this about me, no. My life is only an example.

It’s about every little boy or girl that is being ignored, and the adults(whatever position they may have) who have not set in place safeguards and policies for this very damaging scenario.

I’m glad to see that ONE MAN is standing up and taking the risk of being misread, and still making a statement and an issue of this. Thank you Sen. and Mrs. Obama for being that kind of parent!!! and that type of thinking person to raise public awareness on this issue.

It’s this type of thinking I want to see in place, and not lies, jokes about lipstick and bulldogs, lies about who got the jet, who got the money, and who lied about all this.

Why lie when it can all be exposed. Why "exaggerate" when it will be laid bare to the public for all to see what you said, versus what actually happened?

No, this is the time to tell bottom line truths, and what happens when people lie, don’t pay attention to what is really happening, and the consequences and eventual outcome of the entire scenario. I’ve been living the consequences for quite some years now regarding lies and denial.

It’s better to take care of this stuff in the front end, rather than take a crap shoot on stuff, when you have only one choice about how things may or may NOT work out. Ask me how I know..................The consequences can be devastating.

How about your son or daughter?

Consequences like these can be avoided, not just in the case of what happened to me, but in other situations as well. Time to think, and project to the future.

Written By: Susan
URL: http://
I don’t know if this thread is closed, but two developments in the past 24 hours are painful to behold.

I hope from previous posts that two things are clear: first, that I have had respect for the real John McCain. Hard Call is still an amazing book. The first few pages, on situational awareness, can be an inspiration to anyone, even one who has never sat in the cockpit of an aircraft. You read that passage, and you want a man who thinks like that to be in the White House situation room in the event of an international crisis.

Second: that I am a traditionalist. The President of the United States is there to preserve, protect, and defend its Constitution. It is too late for the 2008 election, but I would like to see the framework for the 2012 election to be the preamble to the Constitution. Shoot, the 2012 election cycle starts in only three months. Better start now on it proper framing.

The first painful development was noted by Susan above. An Illinois statute that would provide age-appropriate sex education for all ages was passed with Obama’s help. For kindergartners, that means teaching the little ones to recognize a sexual predator when one approaches. Does this mean that John McCain wants to help pedophiles? We all know that this would be an infamous slander. But the ad implies that Obama wants to teach children about sex before teaching them to read. John McCain approved the message.

The second development was when Obama attacked McCain’s ideas about government reform, using the images of lipstick on a pig and of wrapping an old fish in new paper. He was saying that McCain’s reforms are nothing new. But the McCain campaign seized the part about the lipstick on a pig, paired it with the part of Palin’s speech about the difference between hockey moms and pit bulls being lipstick, and said that Obama was smearing Palin! Can anyone defend this to a rational person?

What happened to the Republican party? An attack on a candidates ideas, using a figure of speech that is part of the American political jargon for a very long time, is taken as a sexist attack on another person. What has happened here?

The party of Lincoln has become the party of injured feelings, that’s what.

Obama attacks McCain, and McCain hides behind Palin’s skirts, that’s what has happened.

I have not been blaming McCain for much of what has happened. I have been blaming Rick Davis and Steve Schmidt and other campaign insiders. John McCain spent five and a half years as a POW. Now he has been taken captive again, this time by a cabal of Washington insiders. In 1967, he was a Prisoner of War. In 2008, he is a Prisoner of Washington. After 40 years, he is a POW again.

When is someone going to go to Rick Davis and Steve Schmidt and demand that they set John McCain free? How did they gain such power over him? The real McCain would never lower himself to this level. Unless he would.

“Corruptio optimi pessima.” “The corruption of the best is worst.” The corruption of a petty man is sad but trivial. The corruption of a great man is a tragedy. Perhaps McCain really has lowered himself to the point that he takes shelter behind a woman when a man attacks him.

This is a sad day indeed.

Does anyone on this site have any thoughts?

Written By: Ed
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks