Political Punch

Hey there anon, I beg to differ in regards to the gov't. not run'n the police dept., fire dept., or schools. One or all may be way down on the gov't. food chain, but they're by the gov't. at some level. If they're not, I'm sure there a load of teachers out there that would love for you or someone to explain the train wreck known as "No child left behind" to them. I won't argue the fact that the gov't. has a difficult time implementing this, that and the other, but that's not an excuse or reason not to do the right thing AND get it right for a nice change. Reagan did a great job convincing the public that gov't. is bad and if you make the programs that might help people look bad, inefficient, etc... you can convince them to let it be privatized where everything goes south for the people it's supposed to be there for. On top of that---the gov't writes a check backed up by tax dollars to the people that are run'n the privatized version so a lovely bunch of middle men can deposit the money off shore somewhere. Not to go way off the subject here, but the privatized part of the war is the biggest mess. Our socialized military is underpaid and honorable, while the farmed out work to Haliburton, Blackwater and the like is corrupt and very much money pit like. I may be a minority, but the government's problem implementing something successfully should not be an excuse to not do anything. I just get the feeling that the powers that be look upon the "For The People" part of the foundation the Founding Fathers laid down way back when as a burden that needs to be overlooked. When the gov't. can't get something right, it's not the gov't as an institution that has the problem, it's the people running it (Dem or Rep). They gotta go. Any organization: charity, corporation, etc... that is failing or is being mismanaged makes a change. I'm rambling, so I'll let you go. Take care. One more thing: It's nice to have a rational discussion about this type of thing with someone without all of the name calling, insults and, or attacks. Be well, Scott

Senator Jay Rockefeller is D-WV not R-WV.

McCain would make a dangerous
world many times more so.

From the confirmed hothead,
expect world disorder and
instability, not peace and
prosperity.

I'd rather take McCain any day than a young man with only 143 actual days in the senate thinking he can suddenly be president of the U.S.A. Obama has tooo much baggage to even be senator. In the dangerous times we live in - we don't need a president with trial-and-error leading our country. Dumb, dumb and dumber!!

McCain has lost his bearings.
They cannot be replaced.
They are too old,
discontinued - no longer
being made.

As a life long Dem........it is pathetic to see them grovel in defense of their "wimp" nominee. If Harkin and DNC think they can go after McCain et al with this nonsense they better think again.

I have never seen a more pathetic state of the affairs in the Democratic party......from the three stooges Pelosi, Dean and Reid to the ridciculous party nominee.

They truly deserve to loose....just pathetic.

I don't know if it's a Karl Rove tactic to go after a candidate's strengths, but he had nothing to do with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who lied about Kerry's combat experience in 04. They were a "527" political group. 527 designates a tax provision. Anyway, they were separate from the Bush campaigning.

No, it's very doubtful there will be similar attacks from the Obama campaign. Obama has stressed that all support needs to come through his campaign in order to avoid "swiftboarding."

Bush-McCain foreign policy is
little more than fist-punching
the air and railing at a host
of little countries of not
much consequence like Iran and
North Korea and terror groups
like the Al Quaida and the
Hamas. Myanamar has been
newly added to the list. When
they temporarily run out of
countries there is always
Cuba for some grandstanding
and freedom rhetoric.

In their worldview these
countries are the only
problems facing the nation
and the world.

Scott, there is nothing wrong with social programs. The problem lies when the federal government runs and has full control of the program. The federal government does not control the police and fire departments. Nor does it control the school systems. The federal government may provide funding for these programs but it does not make the everyday decisions involved in running the departments or systems.

The Liberals (i.e., Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton) want the federal government to be the end all answer to everything. They want the federal government to control all aspects of our lives. The quickest means to that end will be through a government take over of our health care system. Once the federal government has the control, then in the name of preventative health care, the bureaucrats will mandate what we can or cannot eat and drink and which products we can or cannot purchase. But it won't stop there. Eventually the bureaucrats will make the decision on who may or may not have children (over population is unhealthy) and who shall live (when the cost of health care for one individual takes away from others).

Regarding a comment way, way up on the list: I have just a quickie comment about womb-to-womb socialized health coverage mentioned earlier. I am so tired of people that love to let fly with the end of America---socialism, communism, end of capitalism....comments. The argument is ridicules. The police dept. is a social program. The fire dept. is a social program. The school system is a social program. The military is a social program. Blackwater & Halliburton are paid with tax dollars. Social program. Hell, the whole government is a social program. If you have a plan, share it. "The sky will fall" is not a plan. If you find no gray area when it comes to social programs, then Anarchy is the only proper form of government----I guess.

"He will not keep us in Iraq any longer than he feels is necesary." - Blue Bird

That's the problem. When does "necessary" end? What if McCain feels it is necessary for the US to remain in Iraq for a hundred years?

McCain's criteria and timeline (to end in 2013) for making the war unnecessary are just too fantastic.

Mccain has been a senator longer than he's been in the army.

Today's 70 is yesterday's 60 according to Oprah.... and besides, there was a time when the wisdom which came with experience and age was revered!

The best of all candidates is definitely Hillary.... but should you not be fortunate to have her.... then go for a President who has the experience and knowledge to work with both sides of our legislature to get whatever needs to be done D O N E!

He will not keep us in Iraq any longer than he feels is necesary. Look how we've fared with our non military Bush!!

BE CAREFUL WITH YOUR COUNTRY!
The following quote is from News-Leader.com, May 24,2008:
"Obama admits to having studied, at one point, the theology of Malcolm X. What attraction did the radical and violent teachings of Malcolm X hold for Obama, and why was the attorney for Malcolm X, Percy Sutton, interested in Obama to the point he assisted him in gaining entrance into Harvard?

Upon beginning his political career, Obama was endorsed by the Socialist Party. With his designation as the most liberal U.S. senator, I would suppose he remains in their favor.

Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, homegrown terrorists who belonged to the Weather Underground, a group that advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government and successfully bombed federal buildings, hosted a campaign event for Obama, which he personally attended, in their home. Additionally, Ayers and Obama served together on the Woods Foundation, a foundation which made grants to the Arab-American Action Network, which was founded by the extremely anti-Israel professor, Rashid Khalidi, a man who was connected to the PLO and Hamas."

"ACORN, an organization that has been tied to voter fraud and fined for the same, has worked restlessly in getting black voters to the voting booth for Obama.

The Democratic Party appears to believe that because George W. Bush has set the bar for president so low, Americans will overlook both the thin résumé of Obama on experience and his thick file on connections to some of the most radical and hate-filled elements in our society."

It's not enough just to be Black!

Be careful who you put into office;
Be very very careful.

I think he's dumb as a post, dumb as a post, dumb as a post. Finished fifth from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy, fifth from the bottom . . . fifth from the bottom.

Can't wait for the debates . . .

Senator McCain has served his country in wartime and paid a steep price. But that was many years ago and he has overcome hist raumas. As a Senator he has flip-flopped as a politician and survived many embarassing situations. When he, as a member of the Senate Arms Committee did not intervene with his knowledge of how to go to war, with the right arms and troops and vehicles and never pressed for supplying what our troops needs wereand after cars medicl and family support systems. He is anti the GI bill and has no regard for non military folk. He shamed himself as Colin Powell did when he shilled for Bush in his stroll in Bagdad. His cowering when his wife was insulted by Bush and his own temper tirade at his wife. He does not deserve the post he seeks. In fact he should retire from public office.

This Administration has abused every single person posting on this forum, yet only a few have the sense enough to know it. They just sit waiting, salivating for the figment of their imaginations' to throw them some more red meat, and poor them another glass of human blood. Meanwhile, this once great country is being shred apart, and this Administration's apologists are its pathetic and hapless victims.

I wasn't aware of Rove having been a part of the "swift boarding" of Kerry. I don't see Harkin's verbiage very comparable to the swift boarding, which was basically lies, and it's a tremendous leap to turn one Democrat's loose words into a Democratic campaign attack strategy.

I don't get it ! McCain has served in the senate for about 24 years and he served in the military for 21 years , so does Harkin think McCain shouldn't be president because he served in the military too long but doesn't mention that McCain's being in the senate for the last 24 years, what's Harkin ideal President a guy that has no military experience (even thou the next President will be a war president) no experience in business or the economy, no national political experience, a guy who is still finishing his first senate term and was a community organizer a few years ago....... ah that's what will make a good President, find the least accomplished person, throw in no executive experience and you got Harkin's kinda of President.

McCain is versed in nothing but military affairs and his judgment about that is questionable. McCain is poorly prepared for the office he seeks, he is a one dimensional person.

Harkin like many in congress just does not like John McCain and there is nothing more to this than that.

Gina, you are correct. My source indicates that Abraham Lincoln served during the Black Hawk War of 1832. But he should be included in the list of presidents who did not see combat. He was a captain of a company of volunteers during that war. And while they were deployed he did not see combat. Here is the full quote of Rep. Abraham Lincoln on the floor of the House on July 27, 1848: "By the way, Mr. Speaker, did you know I am a military hero? Yes, sir; in the days of the Black Hawk war I fought, bled, and came away. Speaking of General [Lewis] Cass's career reminds me of my own. I was not at Stillman's defeat, but I was about as near it as Cass was to Hull's surrender; and, like him, I saw the place very soon afterward... If he saw any live, fighting Indians, it was more than I did; but I had a good many bloody struggles with the mosquitoes, and although I never fainted from the loss of blood, I can truly say I was often very hungry."

My original response was to the comment that "it is" or is "close to it" being unconstitutional for the president to be a military man. My response had nothing to do with the discussion of whether there was a connection between a "good president" and military service. If you go down the list that I provided, you can readily see that there is no connection. There are plenty of bad presidents who had military service. Only history tells whether a particular veteran made a good president.

I respect, but strongly disagree, with your opinion that Sen. McCain is not a good choice for president. He was not my first choice (Dr. Condoleezza Rice was my first choice), but at least he doesn't want to "change" our society from a capitalistic, free market society to the socialistic -- bordering on communistic -- society that both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton want. They both advocate wealth redistribution; doing away with our "ownership society;" and they will destroy the free market with government interference (both in added regulations and the windfall tax). In addition, they both want to eliminate private health insurance and replace it with a womb-to-tomb universal health care program run by the federal government.

So if you are in favor of that kind of "change" then, obviously, Sen. McCain is not your candidate.