It’s been a long time since I’ve agreed with anything the DNC has put out…if ever. But I can’t find much fault with these new ads they put out:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUOM9QvhG5I[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9njHHyRI7g[/youtube]
The Obama flip-flops are legendary, as is Romney’s which just goes to show you, Romney is Obama-lite and no choice at all if given the nomination.
As for the candidate who is giving OLite a run for his money, Newt Gingrich, he picked up a few endorsements today. First up is Maryland Congressman Andy Harris and according to the Gingrich camp there are more to come today.
So with Newt surging in the polls you knew it wouldn’t be long until the MSM brought out the daggers.
You have the WaPo asking for dirt on the man, and Politico has a slew of articles like this one ready to go I’m sure.
To be honest, it’s hard for me to believe that Gingrich is more conservative then Romney. He did approve of the individual health care mandate, believes that man is causing global warming, and wants an immigration strategy that pretty much is amnesty.
So why support him? Tina Korbe puts it well:
In the first place, Gingrich has owned up to at least a few of the mistakes of his past, both personal and professional. As he has taken responsibility, he has demonstrated a rare humility that qualifies him for power in a way arrogance never does. Shaped strongly by his study of history (as is impossible not to notice), he approaches policy from a perspective that does — as he claims — seem to combine consideration for the international, economic and social implications of any given decision. Gingrich would make mincemeat of Obama in the debates as not even the polished Romney could — and, if any independents are unfamiliar with him from his tenure as Speaker, they’ll be impressed with his broad policy grasp, just as Republicans have been newly impressed during the primaries. He hasn’t made his career by tricking liberals into voting for him nor by telling liberals they need a guy like him in office. When he reaches across the aisle to achieve reform, it’s to achieve conservative reform. The difference between Romney and Gingrich can, perhaps, best be summarized with a single statement: Mitt Romney’s signature legislative achievement was Romneycare, while Newt Ginrich’s was welfare reform.
But if he does get the nomination his past WILL haunt him during the primary. This may not be a great way to beat Obama.
So in the end it’s Newt or Romney and the GOP screws itself over again.
See author page
My support has always been towards Rick Perry. We have waited a long time for a candidate to say “Term Limits” and to limit Congress’ time in DC. And for criminal charges to be pressed against ALL (Boehner too) that have done the insider trading thing. Believe you me, I know it is hard to trust a candidate and their promises but I know Rick Perry, he is a man of his word and he got the endorsement of Marcus Littrell the other day, that should tell you something about Rick’s character. Please consider him and as far as the term limits, cut in pay etc. he means it. It doesn’t make him a hypocrite because running the second largest state is so much different than running the country. Congress and the Supreme Court has to have term limits. Rick Perry will do it! I will stake my reputation on it.
Whenever the Left tries to anoint a candidate as the Republican nominee, watch out!
Well, that is what I see MSNBC, CBB, CBS, NPR, Daily Kos and even the Dem underground trying to do almost every day.
How about the media quit trying to be ”King Maker” and allow the nominating system to work?
How about the media just REPORT rather than try to twist and spin an outcome?
It would be nice.
Heck, they might even get the hang of that ”investigative reporting,” thing.
Gee, Curt, I guess you qualify as one suffering from “Romney Derangement Syndrome.”
Do you honestly think Palin didn’t flip-flop?
If the shoe fits, buddy!
@Ivan. I don’t think anyone is deranged about Romney. He is just not a candidate that anyone seems to support. But for the DNC to air Romney smears even after the months of support by the Democrat-controlled media signals a change in tactics (perhaps). Obama can beat Romney better than Bush beat Kerry (and that was DAMN easy). But who knows.
May the candidate with the most international socialist Billionaire backers win…oh wait!
A person who is hard headed and stupid will never change his mind or admit when he has made a mistake. Humility and the ability to reason are attributes far beyond the tendency to blame others for your mistakes and never admit that you are fallible. After three years of a president who has a flawless view of himself, it is time for a change.
Ivan, Ivan, Ivan…your post reminds me of the Diane Sawyer interview with Gabby Giffords, Sawyer just had to bring Sarah Palin into the story but I will bite…just name one instance of Sarah Palin flip-flopping…just one! She has always been (like Rick Perry) Christian Conservative to the core…deeply rooted in her love for America. Nice try though.
@Patrice: ‘And for criminal charges to be pressed against ALL (Boehner too) that have done the insider trading thing. ‘
You don’t get it. It’s not illegal (for them) because that is the way the law is written. Of course, that doesn’t make it right, but the remedy is to throw the bums out and change the law.
They played the same game with minimum wage laws and equal-opportunity employment laws. They don’t apply to Congress and its staff hiring. Likely there are other laws I’m not even aware of that similarly exempt Congress.
As for Gingrich and Romney… Gingrich has the same record of flip-flops as Romney. Maybe he can make a better case for having changed his mind for good reasons (i.e., not the latest polls) but I doubt it. In the past he’s supported action against global warming, Medicare part D, the individual healthcare mandate, NAFTA, GATT, the creation of the Department of Education (in 1979), the fairness doctrine, TARP, and ethanol subsidies. His record on gun rights is poor. He also as a long record of authoritarian proposals which you may or may not find objectionable (death penalties for marijuana smugglers, etc.).
Basically, my reasoning in comparing Gingrich and Romney is that Gingrich has often supported big government positions *even when there was no particular need or reason to do so*. Romney on the other hand appears to have a liberal track record because he was working with a liberal legislature, while his statements are a matter of craven opportunism. Hardly an endorsement but there is at least a chance he would be more conservative if elected.
As for electability, you probably know that Romney is currently polling better against Obama than Gingrich. While I agree that Gingrich would obliterate Obama in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate (or any other similarly freewheeling format), much more so than Romney, I also think it’s a fantasy to think that Obama can easily be forced into such a confrontation. He can run $300 million of attack ads on Newt’s character, insist on unreasonably scripted debate formats, and sit back.
Feeling better about my choice (Paul) at the moment 🙂
@Patrice:
Her wanting to give amnesty to illegal aliens.
Now, admit you were wrong and don’t make me get the interview from Hotair.com where she wanted a “pathway to citizenship.”
Let’s see if there is ANY intellectual honesty here at FA.
@ bbartlog, although I am wit’ cha on most of your post, I do believe there is a way around the so called laws on this insider trading deal. I am not a lawyer but have been a legal assistant for 12 years. The laws that Pelosi and the others wrote are unconstitutional and it would not take much to connect the dots before a grand jury on fraud charges but I do agree they have to go.
Paul is a one trick pony, granted that trick tickles the ears but on everything else he is a lunatic. He is a doctor and yet he wants to legalize heroin and cocaine and pot and crack…PLA-eeeeze….how is that upholding his oath? And every so often , as I look into his eyes during debates, it is like no one is home, like he is tried to reign in a thought from somewhere faraway…and I am highly suspect when all these die hard liberals tell me that if they would vote Repub, it will be for Ron Paul…or Rupaul like Levin calls him.
Getting weary of the polling and debate mantra…the Master debater (yes, I know the thought rolling in on that) is destroying this country. As Perry said, he is not strong on debate even though he is great at getting his points across in every other setting, he is a doer. He is the only one that has created over half the jobs in the whole nation in the past two years. Over half. If America goes back to work, then the economy will heal. If Perry cuts Congress’ salary in half and sends them home for half of their time they spend in DC, then they are less likely to screw us up any more. I really like his ideas because this is how this nation was founded. George Washington said to go home and work in their stores, on their farms, that keeps their grassroots prospective. We have created monsters. Who cares if one can read a teleprompter well? I have never been polled and I would like to know who in the heck gets polled. First the Tea Party was for Herman Cain…now it is Newt…our fickle flesh knows no bounds. Tell me, why do want Ron Paul? Is he a job creator? Naw…
Can anyone name ONE politician, republican or democrat, who has kept there promises after their election? Remember the republicans who got elected to congress after they PROMICED to end earmarks, but after they were elected, they said that earmarks weren’t so bat?
We need to have it mandatory the candidates sign a contract that states what they will and won’t do after they are elected, and a timeframe that they will do it. If the politician doesn’t do what they promised, they would automatically be out of office without any benefits. In the contract it would have to state that the politician would vote for any bill they introduce, otherwise, they could INTRODUCE a bill, but vote against it.
We also need to change the system so that bills are voted on as they are introduced into congress. There have been many bills introduced into congress that have not gone to the floor for a vote (the Fair Tax bill for example) because the head of that house doesn’t want it passed. One person in the house, and one person in the senate decides if a bill is voted on. This has to stop.
Intellectual honesty…the truth has no agenda, my friend…I am always honest…I want to ask you your definition of a “flip-flop”….to me a flip flopper is one who see which way the wind blows (like Mitt and Newt) and changes their position to suit a certain audience in order to get votes. Or they out and out lie in order to garner votes like Obama and then does the exact opposite. I repeat, Sarah Palin is not a flip flopper. Here is the exchange of how she feels about illegal immigrants, she has never waivered or changed her viewpoint whatsoever. So nope I am not wrong about Sarah Palin. Now, you might not like her answers, but that does not a flip-flop make. I happen to agree with her. We will never deport millions of people. I agree with Rick Perry too, the Mexicans that were dragged across the border when they were toddlers in the dead of night, only know this as their home. Just because their mother might waddle across the border and drop their brother on the ground and poof, they are automatic citizens doesn’t mean that we should not allow them the same deal as was offered to our forefathers. To be become American citizens. Say, Mark Steyn wanted to be an American citizen…would you say “pathway to citizenship with him” is wrong? I know that Rick doesn’t agree with me on this one…I say one large sturdy fence on the whole border, concrete blocks , the whole bit. And change the amendment to not allow anyone that flies in or waddles over the border on a birthing vacation to give birth to an automatic citizen. They have been flying from the Middle East for decades into Deerborn Michigan…have their babies, fly back out and indoctrinate them to hate America and all it stands for and then they come back when grown, an American hating citizen.
As governor, how do you deal with them? Do you think they all should be deported?
There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant -there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants- not only economically is that just an impossibility but that’s not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration.
Do you then favor an amnesty for the 12 or 13 million undocumented immigrants?
No, I do not. I do not. Not total amnesty. You know, people have got to follow the rules. They’ve got to follow the bar, and we have got to make sure that there is equal opportunity and those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great country provides.
To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?
I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.
@Smorgasbord:
Agreed. They, the politicians of both parties, are corrupt and lying to the bone.
And I include Reagan in that one. He dramatically grew government despite decades of being the “Champion of smaller government.”
You can’t get a Republican though to admit that.
@Patrice: Sarah Palin flip-flopping? How about running for governor, and then walking away from the job?
She had a commitment to the people of Alaska. She had a commitment to the people who voted for her, who volunteered on her campaign, who contributed to her campaign, and she just dumped ’em all and walked. She raised her right hand and solemnly swore to faithfully discharge her duties as governor to the best of her ability, and then, when the going got tough, she didn’t get going; she just went.
Changing your mind happens to the best of us. Witness Winston Churchill. But failing to keep your promise is a way worse kind of flip-flop.
Patrice, you are wasting your time with Ivan. He’s a liberal who pretends to be an “Archie Bunker” Conservative. He thinks by pretending to be someone so “betrayed” by the GOP that we will excuse his unceasing attacks against the GOP and it’s supporters. Until I called him out on it, he never criticized the left even once. In fact he tries to cover his liberal roots by claiming that because such behavior is expected of liberals we shouldn’t waste our time criticizing them.
As a lib he has a rabid hatred of Sara Palin and has no problem lying and distorting as you saw in his #8 post.
Hey CBC, how about blaming the leftists who were attacking her by filing false complaints against her, making it impossible for her to do her job? How about the fact she was being bankrupted by them?
It’s rather telling you want to leave that out and blame her.
@Patrice: As governor, how do you deal with them? Do you think they all should be deported?
So she’s against deportation. It’s not “humane.” Okay, very good-I disagree with it, but at least it’s a position.
So she contradicts herself BIGTIME in the next paragraph. She is DEMANDING they follow the rules. Never mind they BROKE THE RULES to get here. Nope, she contradicts herself horribly in this interview.
Thus why I find her to be a typical politician.
@Hard Right:
that’s a big “negative” softright. The Republican leadership has done EVERYTHING to advance the cause of the illegal aliens and I’m opposed to that.
You, on the other hand, are a shill for them-an actual apologist for their betrayal of their sacred vow.
@Cry, Beloved Country: I can see why you might think that is a “broken promise”…but I do disagree. There was a liberal (as you might know) that was clogging the courthouse with lawsuits against Sarah…it was costly MILLIONS of taxpayer money. He showed no signs of letting up. Why the judge kept allowing these lawsuits, like Sarah wearing a warm coat that happened to have a logo on it when she was jogging or at a governor function outdoors…there were several lawsuits alone on just that…like the Nike emblem on her coat and he even sued her for having Greta in her office on an interview (company time). It was also costing her personally Millions too! She was spending every day in court fighting these frivolous suits and not being able to be the governor. It was hard for her to step down, but she did what was right for the people that elected her. The lawsuits stopped when she resigned. The Palin hate is palable. She still fights many death threats against her and her family daily. You know this myth has got to stop. Obama was not called a “quitter” when he only served his Senator term for a matter of days. He campaigned for almost 2 years before the election. Any governor that runs, like George W. they did not call him a quitter. Palin did so much in the short time she was there, she still promotes Alaska and is active in it’s growth and prosperity with every move she makes. She doesn’t have to have a title to do that. I think she would make a hellofa great President too!
Sarah Palin could not perform her duties and the voters understood. But the armchair quarterbacks don’t.
@Patrice:
Poor Ivan… still desperately seeking relevance.
And no, what he posted is NOT a flip-flop.
@Ivan: There is absolutely no contradiction whatsoever in the interview…there are certain rules in becoming a citizen, don’t you think the better solution would be to stop automatic citizenship. Once an illegal has a baby on this soil they have free housing, free food, free medical care too…them and their aunts and uncles and anyone sleeping on the floor of their section 8 housing.
I have to say that there is nothing “softright” about “hardright’s” post. He has your number. I guess because I live in Texas and have held trembling, crying young hispanics that are so afraid of being deported because of their parents bringing them here, I am moved with more compassion. These are fine young people, that are more American than you or me. Bright, and proud to be here. If we stop the bennies for automatic citizenship babies, we will go a long way to rectify their problem. You know my grandfather came here as a teen, to escape the Nazi regime. His parents were not as fortunate. He changed his name because of the stigma of having a Jewish name. He saw things as a child that he never shared. Doubt if he ever became a legal citizen and yet he was one of Teddy’s rough riders and was Sheriff of a county in Oklahoma.
Ivan, I appreciate hardright telling me the truth about you…I saw the red flag with your condescending tone and now you are telling me what I am all about….no apologist here…advocate , yes….I am a Rick Perry gal, I know him…and find him constantly true to his word. Speaking the truth here.
Double-speak = FF.
@Patrice: As regards Paul, you write: ‘He is a doctor and yet he wants to legalize heroin and cocaine and pot and crack…PLA-eeeeze….how is that upholding his oath?’
Which oath, the one to uphold the Constitution or the Hippocratic oath? Anyway, he would let the states do what they like in that regard; in a similar vein there are still dry counties in Utah, long after Prohibition ended. No doubt many more people would end up wrecking their lives with drugs, but against that you have to weigh all the lives lost and money spent on the war on drugs as it is now. If it’s the Hippocratic oath you’re thinking of (which BTW doctors have not had to take in a *long* time… but Paul might be old enough to have done the oath) then I’d say it only applies to medical practice, anyway.
‘I am highly suspect when all these die hard liberals tell me that if they would vote Repub, it will be for Ron Paul…’
Well, it’s an excellent reason to be suspicious… but in the end it’s only a reason to look closely at a candidate. If they’re still acceptable after closer examination then cross-party appeal is a bonus, not a negative.
@Patrice: I assume you’re quoting Palin here. For the record, I disagree with the claim that it is somehow impossible to deport 12 million people. It may, ultimately, not be desirable to deport every single one of them – but when I see someone claim that it’s just impossible, I consider that a red flag. Yes, some of the younger generation (who came here as very young children) would suffer for the sins of their parents. It’s an imperfect solution. When you let ten million people invade, you end up with a difficult situation.
As for ending entitlements, I agree that this would help greatly. One of the unfortunate (D) betrayals of California was that they dropped their appeal of the court battle to deny illegals welfare benefits. But even without generous welfare, many would still come for the better job market. Entitlement reform by itself is not sufficient.
@Patrice: #12
Several states are solving their illegals problem by making it illegal to hire illegals, so the illegals leave. If all the states and the federal government would do this, illegals would quit coming here. They could still immigrate here LEGALLY.
@Ivan: #13
Reagan also gave the illegals amnesty, which encouraged others to come.
@bbartlog: Good comment…yes, I was thinking about the Hippocratic oath and they do say the oath…the modern one is this…(Remember how old Ron Paul is) and obviously you haven’t heard the same interviews with Paul as I have. He wants the federal government to control the sales of pot, cocaine, heroin…like they do the other legal drugs.
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.
I will not be ashamed to say “I know not”, nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Don’t you think a good fence will be part of a solution? Enjoyed to talking to you all, will pick it up tomorrow. Got dishes to do…I like this crowd better than most of the blogspots. Intelligent , thought provoking conversation…we conservatives need to vet our candidates , we need to discuss and get on the same page eventually for the good of the country. I have worked on many a campaign and have been an elected official myself. Come from a line of political office holders , believe it or not, Democrat. That was back when Dems were not that much different than Repubs. Labels blow off going up and burn off going down whether they are religious ones or political ones. I am a Christian Conservative…like Sarah Palin…like Rick Perry….like Rick Santorum…like Michelle Bachman…speaking of such, did you hear her say that we need to keep giving aide to countries that are burning our flag on Cavuto today? Do what? I like Rick’s stand…start with zero with every dang country…and if they are allies, help them…if not, fergitaboutit….We will talk again soon, I hope…So far in an unofficial poll of Flopping Aces we have 1 vote for Perry, 1 vote for Paul, and 1 vote for Ivan (he votes for himself)
I don’t care how he flips or how he flops, how does he ACT after all the TALKING?
@Aye:
If I’m not relevant, how come Curt mentions me in his commentaries? ;->
Got ‘ya! (again).
@Smorgasbord: That’s right, Reagan was a semi-conservative.
@Smorgasbord:
As I recall, Reagan later admitted in retrospect that his granting of those amnesties was a mistake, and if he had it to do over again he would not have.
@Ditto: #30
As long as the democrats want the illegals for votes and the republicans want them for cheap labor, neither side wants to stop them. Let’s get rid of all politicians and start over? It can’t get any worse than the sharks in congress now are doing to the country.
@Smorgasbord:
It’s not just Republicans who want them for cheap labor. There are quite a few Democrat types who hire illegals for landscaping, nannies, etc.
I’d like to see 99.9% of Washington DC politicians get their pink slips. The problem is the progressive media and party hard*sses will just try to help more of the same ilk replace them. Now if there was a way to get rid of the political party system, reform the media and stop them from taking sides, we might be able to get rid of the pollitical elites and elect sensible middle-class and patriotic statesmen, who care about their country, the Contitution and their fellow Americans.
@Ivan:
Did Curt mention you in one of his commentaries?
If that were true, you’d be able to post a link to where Curt mentions you.
And, if that’s not true…well, then you’re a proven liar once again.
Tick tock.
He’s pro-Brady on the firearms issue.
I don’t trust Newt.
He may be a great orator, but that’s about all I like about him.
@Ditto:
Apologists unite!
Let’s face it, a real conservative wouldn’t have given them amnesty in the first place, okay?
@Aye:
Mata said he was referring to me in the thread about Sarah endorsing Newt. Mata said it.
Again, I ask you to do a search as I’m not your step’n’fetch it.
Try reading again… maybe slowly and try to get a 5th grader to help you out.
Which of the three words, “I was guessing” is above your literary paygrade, Ivan? As I said on that thread, you owe Curt an apology.
@MataHarley:
Obviously you thought he was referring to me or you wouldn’t have mentioned it.
I owe no one an apology. You guys are so insecure it’s unreal. And you’re also intellectually dishonest.
You play the dunce sooooo well, Ivan. LOL
@Ditto: #32
As you know, politics of any party has become a shark feeding frenzy. The only way to fix it is with new politicians coming on that will sign a contract to change the way things are done, such as:
(1) Term limits.
(2) End ALL pork spending.
(3) Recieve their paycheck from the taxpayers and no other money allowed.
(4) End foreign aid to most countries. (We are sending foreign aid to China)
(5) Find a way for politicians to run for office without paying anything. The ones who donate the most to politicians get the most back from them.
(6) Reduce the size of government down to only what is needed. Each politician should have to vote whether or not each agency, committee, department, etc., is kept or canceled. Each one would be voter on during the shortest term in office, and stretched out so they can’t be voted on all at once.
(7) Funding by the numbers.
(8) A politician will be declared a business. They will pay their own expenses. They will be under the same regulations they make for businesses and have to pay unemployment, Social Security, and file the same paperwork the other businesses have to.
(9) Politicians will get the same retirement and medical plans as we do.
There are many other changes that need to be made.
@Ivan: You said:
I challenge you to a debate – you pick the topic.
…waiting…
@Patrice:
One of the problems, still unaddressed by any of our candidates is, most of our illegal immigrants did not wander across the Mexican border; but they legally flew here and stayed.
@Ivan:
I am not sure if you knew this, but Reagan was not a dictator; and he had to work with a Democratic Congress. I agree that the government got too large but I also don’t believe that I can put all of that on Reagan.
On the other hand, I would admit that Bush does not have that excuse when it comes to increasing the size of government.
@Cry, Beloved Country:
That was not a flip-flop! Her time as governor was being consumed by personal attacks and lawsuits, so stepping down took that weight off of Alaska; and she left a good man in charge (according to her; I don’t know anything about her Lt. Governor).
There are some people who want to hold onto power no matter what; so isn’t it a little refreshing that she believed that stepping down and relinquishing her power was the best thing for Alaska? I can think of one particular president right now, if he had that kind of honor and stepped down for the good of the country, that my respect for him would grow immensely.
@Smorgasbord:
Because he foolishly believed that Democrats would work with Republicans to shut off the flow of illegals into our country after that. We conservatives are finding out that you cannot trust the promise of an elected Democrat. When they promise $10 in spending cuts for $1 in tax increases, we can be sure they will stand by the latter, but not by the former. This is why nearly all conservatives want to see real spending cuts before considering anything else.
I’m still waiting for an answer to my challenge, Ivan.
@Smorgasbord:
I support your basic sentiments, but I don’t quite agree with:
The problem is that taxpayers would be subsidizing campaigns, and you can be sure that politicians would continually expand what campaign aid the taxpayers give. I would prefer to: Only allow campaign contributions by individual citizens. (Not corporations, special interest groups or political PAC’s) Keep the current maximum campaign donation limit, (If campaign contributions are “free speech” the wealthy should not be able to use their “free speech” to buy a politician.)
Correction: “Political Campaigns should be run as a business.” We already have politicians operating their offices as a for profit semi-private business, with cushy business wheeling and dealing, while giving taxpayers the business.
@Gary Kukis: #42
This is also how some suspect terrorists have entered the USA.
@Gary Kukis: #45
Well said.
An example I like is if you are having trouble paying your bills, getting another credit card isn’t going to work. Most of us don’t have a money printing press like Obama. Ray Stevens got himself one:
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=J6TcpfBHlbs
@Ditto: #47
My thinking is to have a series of debates. They are cheap to set up and the candidates don’t have to pay anything. They can be done over the Internet at any time and the people and the public can download them any time.
Laws governing donations don’t work when politicians can open up their donation web page to any person or country and any amount like Obama did, knowing they won’t be prosecuted. As long as money is needed to get elected, the ones who have it will get what they want, whether it is legal or not.
@anticsrocks
Sure! What is your stand on Free Trade?
@Gary Kukis:
So Reagan does something wrong, and it’s not his fault.
Got that.
Whatever.