Lindaland
  Global Unity
  Key Bush Supporters Defecting to Obama (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Key Bush Supporters Defecting to Obama
Mirandee
unregistered
posted May 17, 2007 02:30 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This post is a momentous occasion for me. It may be the first post I have entered at GU that Jwhop can't say comes from a "lying leftist source." hee hee

Insider Report from NewsMax.com


Key Bush Supporters Defecting to Obama

Disillusioned supporters of President Bush are defecting from the Republican ranks and turning to Democrat Barack Obama as the best 2008 presidential candidate for uniting a divided nation.

One of those Obama admirers is Tom Bernstein, who attended Yale University with Bush and co-owned the Texas Rangers baseball team with him. In 2004 he donated the maximum $2,000 to Bush’s re-election campaign and gave $50,000 to the Republican National Committee, reports Sarah Baxter, a Washington correspondent for the Times of London.

This year he is supporting Obama, and has said he admires the Democrat’s call for action on Darfur.

Another Obama fan is Matthew Dowd, Bush’s chief campaign strategist in 2004, who last month declared that he was disappointed with the president’s leadership. Dowd hasn’t yet endorsed a candidate, but he said the only one he likes is Obama.

Robert Kagan, a leading neoconservative, is an informal policy adviser to Republican candidate John McCain. But in a recent article in the Washington Post, Kagan wrote glowingly of a speech by Obama at a Chicago gathering, saying it was “pure John Kennedy.”

In that speech, Obama called for an increase in defense spending and talked about building democracies and the right to take unilateral action to protect American interests if necessary, Baxter reported.

Financiers have also been “oiling Obama’s campaign,” Baxter wrote, noting: “John Canning, a ‘Bush pioneer’ and investment banker who pledged to raise $100,000 for the president in 2004, has given up on the Republicans. ‘I know lots of my friends in this business are disenchanted and are definitely looking for something different,’ he said.”

Democrat Hillary Clinton has been attracting some support from Republican defectors, too. John Mack, who helped raise $200,000 for Bush’s re-election, has said he was “impressed” by Clinton’s expertise.

According to figures cited by Baxter, Obama and Clinton have received more than $750,000 in individual donations from former Bush donors.

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 17, 2007 03:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I wonder though, if it is going on in order to get someone elected in the primary that can easily be beat?

Although I hate to say it, I do believe this country is still not ready for a female or minority president.

Making sure either Obama or Hillary wins the primary ensures an easier victory for a Repblican OR those defecting believe in Hillary and Obama.

I'm just skeptical.

------------------
Waiting for my Soldier Bear to come home from Iraq... I love you Bear...Forever and a Day....

IP: Logged

BlueRoamer
Knowflake

Posts: 95
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 17, 2007 04:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for BlueRoamer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I doubt what you say Pid, because of the fact that the republican candidate's are looking pretty lame at this point. There aren't any strong candidates. There's a lot of decent candidates, I like Guiliani, he's socially liberal and economically conserv, McCain isn't so bad either. Romney seems the most presidential but he's a mormon, that might kill him.

Despite everything wrong with her, none of the other candidates match Hills competence, isn't that what we need in a president?

There's a lot of people like me, who are ready for a COMPETENT president, regardless of their gender or race. We've had enough of the idiocracy.

IP: Logged

Blue Baby 143
unregistered
posted May 17, 2007 04:57 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Although I hate to say it, I do believe this country is still not ready for a female or minority president.

They won't be ready if people like you keep saying that and thinking that!

IP: Logged

goatgirl
unregistered
posted May 17, 2007 05:04 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hillary and Obama do not vote like Democrats. Hillary has WAY too much baggage.
Even the people who work for Obama can't tell me what he stands for, they do know that he's so EXCITING!!!.

quote:
Although I hate to say it, I do believe this country is still not ready for a female or minority president.

No kidding. Even though I don't like that either, it's true.

quote:
There's a lot of decent candidates

No, there are a bunch of turds as far as I can tell right now. The ones in the lead on either side, are corporately owned as far as I can tell. And that doesn't impress me. I'm tired of corporations calling all the shots in this country. No that doesn't mean that I don't want/appreciate/like capitalism, it means that giving paper entities the same rights as flesh and blood will eventually make for an uneven playing field for the actual people. Doesn't matter which party you look at either. It's like getting vanilla or french vanilla at this point.

The only candidates who actually have said original and thought provoking things on either side, haven't got a snowballs chance in Hades. Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich. I'd vote for any of these people (not wanting to provoke anyone here) due to the fact that they aren't attempting to pander to anyone. They don't seem as "politicianish" and have some sort of actual message.

I like the fact that John Edwards is talking about Health care, and poverty. Though, he looks like it's been a long time since he went hungry...

I'm fairly unimpressed can you tell?

------------------
After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music." - Aldous Huxley

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 17, 2007 05:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Say what you want BR... we'll see what happens in the end and then you'll see that I was right.

Babypoop,

Grow up and face reality. I am only stating the obvious. There are 300 Million people in this country, not everyone subscribes to your insanity.

Again... I suggest we break out the popcorn and watch the show.

------------------
Waiting for my Soldier Bear to come home from Iraq... I love you Bear...Forever and a Day....

IP: Logged

goatgirl
unregistered
posted May 17, 2007 05:08 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
They won't be ready if people like you keep saying that and thinking that!

No it's honest.

There are a great many people in this country who dislike the thought of a woman being in that great position of power. It makes them uncomfortable and threatens their secure little world.

There are a great many people in this country who dislike the thought of a black person being in charge of the country. It makes them uncomfortable and threatens their secure little world.

The only thing that will change these attitudes is education.

Peace.

------------------
After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music." - Aldous Huxley

IP: Logged

goatgirl
unregistered
posted May 17, 2007 05:09 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Can I bring the drinks?

------------------
After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music." - Aldous Huxley

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 17, 2007 05:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Absolutely goatgirl!! It will be an election party.

Although I would love to see a minority or woman in office I just don't see it happening at this point- whether they represent the Democrat or Republican party.

At this point, I do like Hunter and Romney- I would love to see Fred Thompson throw his hat in the ring.

------------------
Waiting for my Soldier Bear to come home from Iraq... I love you Bear...Forever and a Day....

IP: Logged

goatgirl
unregistered
posted May 17, 2007 05:24 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'll be sure to bring some strong stuff for the losers whoever it is. It should be interesting in any case.

Do you think Romney can overcome the uninformed opinions people have about Mormanism? I've been wondering about that. And didn't Fred Thompson used to be in Reagan's administration?

------------------
After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music." - Aldous Huxley

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 17, 2007 05:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think Romney is going to have a hard time with the Mormonism. Many don't consider it to be a "Christian" relgion but Mormons feel that they are. It depends on how others will accept it and how well he is able to demonstrate that his religion will not influence his ability as a president.

I think the same holds true for Obama. He is ties to a pretty extreme Baptist church and there will always be questions about his family ties to Islam. I don't think that should be held against him at all, but we know that topics like that are often open to debate.

Fred Thompson wasn't apart of the Reagan Administration but he was active in lobbying. He as also instrumental during the Watergate investigation. His questioning led to the downfall of Richard Nixon.

He's had a very interesting and diverse career and as far as politics, he's one of those people that says what he means and is clear about it.

I am not happy with the Bush administrations constant hedging. I think they needed to be open about the war, our progress and what we plan to do. Bush comes across as believing that the truth will come out, but in the meantime we are losing the war of propaganda. Our Soldiers have made amazing progress but it seems not to get reported.

------------------
Waiting for my Soldier Bear to come home from Iraq... I love you Bear...Forever and a Day....

IP: Logged

goatgirl
unregistered
posted May 17, 2007 07:04 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
I am not happy with the Bush administrations constant hedging. I think they needed to be open about the war, our progress and what we plan to do.

I think that would have/will help immensely. There are many people who are unhappy due to what you stated. For Bush to continually avoid being upfront and frank about what is happening makes people question if he's perhaps hiding things. Another thing, is that the public at large has not been asked to make any sacrifices. During WWII people rationed and planted victory gardens, etc. It seems to me the only people sacrificing anything are the military and their families. THe sole burden should not rest upon those shoulders. We all need to help out.

What you said about Romney made me think of Kennedy, and how people were wondering whether or not Rome would be calling the shots in Washington.

quote:
we know that topics like that are often open to debate.

Sometimes it feels that in politics the lowest common denominator of discussion is what is considered newsworthy, and the important subjects never get any light of day.

Psst...Pid, don't look now...I think we are having a discussion together in GU!

------------------
After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music." - Aldous Huxley

IP: Logged

BlueRoamer
Knowflake

Posts: 95
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 17, 2007 09:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for BlueRoamer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
GG I feel like you're asking for a candidate that can't possibly exist. Of course, the front runners are going to corporate sell outs, money makes the world go round. I don't see how you could possibly expect someone like Kucinich to get a nom, it's just not gonna happen.

You can't just tear down every candidate, and pretend like you don't have to pick one of them. You're gonna have to vote for someone.

Repeating that there are millions of bigots in this country doens't help either. WE know how messed up things are. But there are millions of people who aren't bigots. There are millions who will vote for Hillary or Obama. If you look at the polls right now you can see that MANY people ARE ready for a woman or a minority. Making a blanket statement, "people aren't ready," basically implies that you mean ALL people, and ALL people are not like this. Some are. Some aren't. The question is, are more people who vote ready? The answer might be yes. Have a little faith, dont' get so lodged in saturnian doubt that you fail to see that there is hope and there is potential. It's attitudes like yours that killed the dems in the last eleciton, people gave up faith, you could feel it turning before the election even start.

Don't be part of the negativity, have some faith that we can and will elect someone competent enough to handle the office of president.

IP: Logged

goatgirl
unregistered
posted May 17, 2007 10:22 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
You're gonna have to vote for someone.

I plan to vote. When did I say I wasn't going to vote? I will vote for the candidate that best aligns with my views.

quote:
Making a blanket statement, "people aren't ready," basically implies that you mean ALL people

I didn't make a blanket statement. If you re-read my post you'll see that I didn't say what you think I did. What I said was "There are a great many people in this country" Not all, just a portion. I also said that education will change the attitudes of that portion that holds that opinion. I have no problem electing a woman or a minority. I have a problem with the particular woman being Hillary. I think Obama is WAY too young and inexperienced for the office at this particular time in history. Another point I'd like to bring up is that the whole country isn't like the particular city you happen to live in. The city you live in is, umm, how shall we say quite educated, open minded, and informed. Just think of who your Senator is! My Senator recently had people arrested for protesting at his office.

quote:
It's attitudes like yours that killed the dems in the last eleciton, people gave up faith, you could feel it turning before the election even start.

When you make assumptions about me, we can't discuss things. Why don't you ask me how many hours I spent working on campaigns for the Democrats last election cycle right up to election day, before you make a statement like that.

quote:
Don't be part of the negativity, have some faith that we can and will elect someone competent enough to handle the office of president.

Again we better pick a different woman, and a minority with more experience if we want them elected.

Peace.

------------------
After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music." - Aldous Huxley

IP: Logged

Blue Baby 143
unregistered
posted May 17, 2007 11:05 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I was gonna say something but I realized that BR's come back was better. It even made me look good LOLOLOL

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 18, 2007 12:13 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
goatgirl,

Why yes we are having a nice discussion

BR,

Again, you have taken statements completely out of context. No one said that everyone was against a woman or minority in office.

I could say more but it would just be lost on deaf ears. Oh and no, that was not a slam on people with disabilities.

------------------
Waiting for my Soldier Bear to come home from Iraq... I love you Bear...Forever and a Day....

IP: Logged

BlueRoamer
Knowflake

Posts: 95
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 18, 2007 12:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for BlueRoamer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
GG what is your problem with Hillary if you don't mind my asking?

Is it that she voted for the war?

That she's a corporate sell out?

That she stood by her cheating husband?

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted May 18, 2007 12:54 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Actually the third most powerful person in this country IS a woman. Nancy Pelosi.

For that reason I disagree that this country is not ready for a woman to be president and have that power. The fact that Hillary Clinton is doing so well in the polls shows that people are ready for that.

I don't like her though. She is definitely corporate owned. She and her husband have been around the Wash political scene long enough to owe a lot of people favors.

Right now I am throwing my support behind Barrack Obama. He is fairly new in politics, doesn't owe a lot of people favors. I like what he says. To date I have never heard a speech he made that I didn't like.

What the country really wants right now is some new blood in Washington. Obama has a good chance of getting the nomination, especially since he has shown the ability to get a lot of financial support.

I truly believe our country is ready for both a woman and a black president. In fact I think one or the other will get the VP nomination in the Democratic party depending on which of them get the presidential nomination.

Romney's father had no problem becoming governor of Michigan with his Mormon background. He was one of the worst governors this state ever had though. Which is why his son had to move to another state to pursue his political ambitions. The name is detested here.

Actually, Pid, that very same thought about the Republican support for Obama crossed my mind as well. I guess I too am skeptical. LOL

IP: Logged

BlueRoamer
Knowflake

Posts: 95
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 18, 2007 01:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for BlueRoamer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Mirandee I'm glad someone has a little faith in the American people.

IP: Logged

BlueRoamer
Knowflake

Posts: 95
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 18, 2007 04:13 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for BlueRoamer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
GG I understand that our views and ideas are colored by the places we live and the culture that surrounds us.

I know it must be very hard being as intelligent and analytical and aware as you are and living where you live. THe politics and education level I'm guessing don't match up to yours.

But New England is not the only place I've lived, and I've felt discrimination right in my face. Remember that I'm gay, I know how bigoted people can be. But I also know there's a lot of tolerant and accepting peopel out there too.

IP: Logged

goatgirl
unregistered
posted May 18, 2007 09:57 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What I see Hillary as is someone who will take money from whoever, no matter what they stand for in order to get elected. The fact that she has a husband who cheats on her is not a factor for me. She voted for the war, the patriot act, the reauthorizati9on of the patriot act, torture, repeal of Habeaus Corpus. Now that the public tides have turned so to speak, suddenly she's against the war? THis does not sit well with me.

In addition to that, do we really want to spend the many months up to the election rehashing everything that happened during the Clinton presidency? There will be no time for discussing what's happening now, because we'll all be listening to things that happened almost a decade ago and more. She has too much baggage. She will continually be on the defense. Hillary for the Democrats equals how to lose. I'm not trying to be negative, or not believe in the American people, I'm just being honest, and a realist. THere is a difference you know.

Peace.

------------------
After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music." - Aldous Huxley

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 18, 2007 05:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
GG,

I absolutely agree with your description of Hillary. I don't see her as honest about her views, only as someone that panders to the polls.

I feel Obama believes in what he says and wouldn't go back on his word. Although I don't subscribe to his views, I do like his honesty.

Mirandee,

I have to disagree with the statement that Pelosi has so much power. I believe she holds a powerful position, but she is sinking fast and losing her credibility. Her latest move to try and take away the voice of the Minority in the house (a protective order that has been in effect since 1822)

If this is a constructive way to use power, then I am not only appalled but ashamed at how tide is turning. It strikes me as a desparate move by someone that is bitterly angry that her agenda is not getting passed. It reminds me of a kid that is losing a baseball so they take away the equipment so no one can play.

Dems bend rules, break pledge
By: Patrick O'Connor
May 17, 2007 06:25 AM EST

Democrats are wielding a heavy hand on the House Rules Committee, committing many of the procedural sins for which they condemned Republicans during their 12 years in power.

So far this year, Democrats have frequently prevented Republicans from offering amendments, limited debate in the committee and, just last week, maneuvered around chamber rules to protect a $23 million project for Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).

On Wednesday, Democrats suggested changing the House rules to limit the minority's right to offer motions to recommit bills back to committee -- violating a protection that has been in place since 1822.

Much of this heavy-handedness is standard procedure in the House, where the majority has every right to dominate, but it contradicts the many campaign promises Democratic leaders made last year to run a cleaner, more open Congress.

Just last December, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) declared that Democrats "intend to have a Rules Committee ... that gives opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the House."

If this sounds familiar, it is. Republicans made similar promises in 1994, only to renege when they took control of the Congress in 1995.

Democrats have made a number of small revisions -- such as meeting earlier in the day -- but their overall record in the new Congress has fallen well short of that goal.

"The Democrats have not made good on a single promise they made during 2006, especially when it comes to fostering a more open and deliberative House of Representatives," Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said. "Instead of making the House more open and deliberative, they've gone in the opposite direction, doing things we never even contemplated during our time in the majority."

The Democratic spokesman for the Rules Committee sees it differently.

"We've passed a lot of bills, and we've passed them through the committees," said spokesman John Santore. "We're operating in an objectively fair way."

The Rules Committee itself is an often overlooked partisan backwater, where members engage in fierce debates about what amendments, if any, members can offer to bills on the floor. Under Republican rule, the committee often met late at night, when few reporters were around to cover the minority's protests.

The committee, arguably the majority's most powerful tool, serves as a bulwark for the party in power, allowing it to limit debate on controversial bills and prevent the minority from offering amendments to dramatically alter legislation introduced by the majority.

As such, the committee is extremely partisan, and that partisanship often gets personal. The current chairwoman, Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-N.Y.), for example, has an extremely strained relationship with California Rep. David Dreier, the committee's ranking Republican, who preceded her as chairman.


Consistently, Democrats have prevented Republicans from offering amendments to legislation on the floor, which was standard procedure under GOP rule, too.

Statistics are somewhat misleading because chamber rules differ from year to year, but Democrats so far have allowed a comparable number of amendments on the floor to what the Republicans allowed during the first four months of the last Congress -- a little more than a quarter of those offered by the minority.

But Democrats this year have brought a greater percentage of bills to the floor under a totally closed rule that prevents members of the minority from offering amendments -- 45 percent under Democrats, compared with 35 percent under Republicans.

Most of the evidence, though, is anecdotal and mirrors the Democrats' complaints in the minority over the past 12 years.

Members of the majority, meanwhile, argue that they are only trying to overcome the minority's obstructionist tactics to bring down legislation that is popular with a bipartisan majority of the House as a whole.

Democrats broke their campaign pledge to run a more open and honest Congress during their much-ballyhooed "first 100 hours" in power when they introduced five bills on the floor without moving them first through committee or allowing Rules Committee Republicans to dissent. But each of those bills passed the House by a wide margin, illustrating the broad popularity of the legislation.

Members of the minority complained intermittently about alleged abuses of chamber procedure. But it wasn't until Democrats sent the motion to recommit bills back to their committees of origin that GOP leaders began protesting in earnest.

Early in the year, Republicans used a rarely used procedural tool to great effect to change Democratic bills on the floor. After the minority forced Democrats to withdraw legislation granting the Washington, D.C., delegate a vote in the House, Hoyer vowed to change the rules to prevent another such occurrence.

The majority's solution was to define any motion that would send the bill back to its committee of origin as a motion to table -- or, in essence, "kill" -- the legislation, pressuring members who support the overarching bill to vote against the motion.

Republicans tried to bring the floor to a standstill Wednesday after word leaked that Democrats would introduce the rules change into the rule on a budget bill expected on the floor Thursday. Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland (R-Ga.) called for a procedural vote every 30 minutes before Democrats agreed to withdraw the change from the rule.

The Rules Committee provides members a chance to offer changes to legislation before it comes to the floor, even if the lawmakers aren't on the committee of jurisdiction. The majority has the votes to defeat any amendment it does not want to be considered on the floor, but rarely does the party in power block an amendment from even being considered.

Under the Democrats, filing deadlines have been moved up, and some amendments have been blocked completely. When Slaughter wouldn't allow a small group of anti-war Democrats to offer an amendment to the earliest iteration of a bill to fund the war in Iraq, Dreier agreed to offer it for them, and Democrats voted it down.

This perceived drift by the party in power resembles a similar drift by the Republicans after they stormed to power in 1994 as a spirited band of small-government reformers. The realities of the majority eventually forced them to play with the rules, too, and ignore many of the reforms they approved during their first months in power.

During their last days in power, Republicans were regularly introducing bills in the middle of the night, provoking Democrats to rail against the GOP during heated late-night sessions.

------------------
Waiting for my Soldier Bear to come home from Iraq... I love you Bear...Forever and a Day....

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted May 18, 2007 05:34 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Pidaua,

What I meant by Nancy Pelosi being the third most powerful person in government is that she is third in sucession to become acting president should the president die in office or be impeached.

If both Bush and Cheney were impeached Nancy Pelosi would become the acting of President of the U.S. She holds the third most powerful office in our government for that reason. Which also makes her the most powerful woman in the country.

Here is the line of sucession after the president:

1 Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate Richard Cheney
2 Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi
3 President of the Senate pro tempore Robert Byrd
4 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
5 Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson
6 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
7 Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
8 Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne
9 Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
-- Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez
(ineligible; not a natural-born citizen)†
-- Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao
(ineligible; not a natural-born citizen)†
10 Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt
11 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
12 Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters
13 Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
14 Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
15 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
16 Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff ††


IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted May 18, 2007 05:37 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
GG,

I agree with your assessment of Hillary Clinton. She's a true, corporate backed and owned politician. She voted as you stated on the war and everything else. Now she has changed her position due to the shift in popular opinion of the American public. I don't trust people like her who do that.

IP: Logged

carlfloydfan
unregistered
posted May 18, 2007 05:55 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Check out Ron Paul. I've been a fan of him for a long time and a lot of people who once laughed at me for bringing him up are starting to come around.

He's been looking better and better in debates and many abc, msnbc, ect viewer polls show him placing first.

Rudy, on multiple occasions, has had to resort to cheap tactics and putting words in Paul's mouth, as Paul maintains his cool and out debates Rudy.

Check the man out, search google videos and youtube.

If you like him, back this man, tell everyone. He is the only legit candidate that I see for 08. (lost faith in Dennis Kucinich lately)

PS: He also came in 3rd in 1988 for president, so he had done this before. He has been a politician for 30 years and is very very consistent, if that is still important to folks. Check his voting records if you must. Look at what he proposes for his policies.

But, I will leave the research up to you, assuming you like to be well informed, I have no doubt you will give him at least an hour.

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a