Happy Super Tuesday!

Todd

18 Comments

  1. February 5, 2008 at 3:45 pm — Reply

    Well, I confess that I have promised to get my US citizenship if Hillary gets the Dem nomination — just so I can vote against her.

  2. February 5, 2008 at 4:28 pm — Reply

    I can’t vote till next Tuesday, but Hillary gets my vote. I love the emasculating aspect of the whole thing.

  3. Brad
    February 5, 2008 at 6:19 pm — Reply

    I’m rooting for Hillary and McCain. To me Hillary and Obama are just about the same on the big issues, but like Jonathan said Hillary will be much more effective in mobilizing people to vote against her. McCain has the best chance of any republican in the general and thus gives us the best chance of avoiding unbelievable taxation and socialist policies.

  4. February 5, 2008 at 8:14 pm — Reply

    “Unbelievable taxation”. I love it. Line of the night.

  5. February 5, 2008 at 8:56 pm — Reply

    Agree! Paul -vs- Obama would be the best case scenario. If only!!!

  6. February 6, 2008 at 8:12 am — Reply

    I must say that I really like Obama. I think between he & Hillary, he is the dems best chance at winning the general election. Hillary is just so polarizing. I think that you would have people coming out just to vote against her that probably wouldn’t even vote otherwise. Reinhardt is a case in point, although if he wants US citizenship, he’ll have to go to the back of line & wait like everyone else. I hope there’s no amnesty here at the Todd blog! ; ) As far as the Republicans go, although I like Ron Paul’s philosophy, he’d pretty much be suicide in the general election, so I think as far as best possibility for actually winning, that’d probably be McCain, even though he’s a fip-flopper. In a McCain vs. Obama election Obama gets my vote. However, I’m afraid that he might choose Hillary as VP which would add a whole new layer of conflict among voters & would also bring all of those scary feminist assassins out of the wood work, & that’s just scary.

    You’ve probably already seen it, but this video from the Obama campaign gives me chills because its so good.

    http://www.dipdive.com/

    Eloquent speeches don’t make someone a good president, but considering the blundering speech giver we’ve had for the last 8 years, it would certainly be a breath of fresh air. Gosh! I wrote way too much. Sorry.

  7. February 6, 2008 at 8:59 am — Reply

    Sam, I don’t think we have to worry about Obama choosing Hilary as VP. There’s too much bad blood there. He may choose Kansas’ governor though, which doesn’t excite me at all – aside from the fact she would no longer be our governor.

    Paul is out. He’ll withdraw sometime today or by the end of the week I would assume. McCain is going to be the Republican candidate. Which is ridiculous.

    I just hope Paul’s Freedom-loving supporters won’t forget what he started once 2012 rolls around and Clinton is up for reelection.

  8. February 7, 2008 at 9:47 am — Reply

    It appears my Paul-out theory is false. He might be coming to Kansas for a speech!

    Check out the story at Kansas.com.

  9. February 7, 2008 at 10:13 am — Reply

    i voted for bush twice. i’ve never voted for a democrat. ever. not even in the 5th grade mock election… i don’t think my parents, sibblings or grandparents ever voted for a democrat…but here i am, under barak’s charm. so if the dems want to win the white house, they need someone who will win people like me (white, young, female, republicans). and that person is not hillary.

  10. February 7, 2008 at 10:29 pm — Reply

    I think Ron Paul has a chance as a third party in the general. Both parties are pretty well polarized right now and there will be a lot of pissed off republicrats and demicans.

  11. February 10, 2008 at 7:16 am — Reply

    Vote for Democrats (doesn’t matter which candidate) if you want:
    1) More taxation
    2) More legislating from the bench
    3) More terrorist attacks
    4) More government intrusion

  12. February 10, 2008 at 2:33 pm — Reply

    Sam’s Dad:

    That sounds pretty much like the Bush administration, doesn’t it?

  13. February 12, 2008 at 2:37 am — Reply

    Jonathan, did you not notice that there have been no more attacks since 9-11? Did you not notice the tax cuts Bush engineered? Did you not notice the judges that Mr. Bush has nominated?

  14. February 12, 2008 at 10:59 am — Reply

    No, I haven’t noticed.

    I have, in fact, noticed the number of terrorist attacks spike immensely since 9/11 (sorry if I include all humans here, not just people who live between Canada and Mexico and who happen not to be deployed overseas somewhere), to a large extent because of arrogant people playing with armies without understanding how to or listening to those who do.

    I have noticed that the tax cuts Bush engineered were balanced by other taxes and/or will have to be balanced by other taxes so that the economy doesn’t suffer more through a higher federal deficit (excuse me if I hold presidents responsible for the effects of their policies, even after they’ve been retired).

    I have noticed that the judges Bush appointed are just as activist as those they replaced, they just legislate from the bench for big business and for federal agencies instead of legislating for the citizen and for our God-given natural rights.

    And I probably don’t need to explain to you how much more invasive the federal government has become in the name of national security over the last seven years.

    I don’t understand my fellow conservatives when they choose and pick to see realities so they can idolize poor leadership. My ideal is not the Republican party. My ideal is freedom. And Mr. Bush has done just about everything to create the illusion of freedom and to instead restrict our rights, our freedom of travel, our safety (unless we cower at home), and our freedom to enjoy the fruits of our labor — which instead go paying for reckless foreign invasions and to bail out recessions brought on by poor economic policies based on big, but unrealistic economic theories, implemented by people who partied their way through their MBA.

    You know, just because you kind of like a guy doesn’t mean that he’s not a failure. Bush is one. By any standard.

  15. Sam's Dad
    February 12, 2008 at 1:01 pm — Reply

    One could argue that the terrorist attacks in Iraq, in response to troops stationed there, are quite different than those committed in the U.S. In fact, Bush stated in the very beginning that one of the reasons to go there was to draw those terrorist to our military there, and therefore away from our civilians. I believe that has worked (even if you’re opposed to it).
    One could argue that the economic downturn, and loss of jobs, that followed 9-11 would have been much more dramatic had the Republicans not offered the tax cuts that they did.
    You are not specific about the “other taxes” that were implemented. Please enlighten us.
    As far as invading our privacy — I actually don’t mind my bags being examined when I travel with 150 other people on an airplane. I guess you do. I would recommend you drive. Other than that, I’m not aware that my liberty has been mitigated. Perhaps yours have. You might want to give us details.
    I don’t “kind of like the guy,” I’ve only met him once. I don’t know if he partied his way to an MBA. Frankly, I have a little more respect for Yale than that. Tell us about your MBA, and while you’re at it, describe your military expertise.

  16. Sam's Dad
    February 12, 2008 at 1:07 pm — Reply

    Oh, the judges! Jonathan, ruling in favor of big business and federal agencies is not tantamount to legislating from the bench. If you wish to consider the judges Bush has submitted as being less conservative than those John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, or any other Dem would submit, then I’m not sure you would agree with any reasoning I could offer.

  17. February 12, 2008 at 1:43 pm — Reply

    The overwhelming majority of the people we are fighting in Iraq would never have had any interest in or ability to kill Americans had we not invaded their country. A sensible debate can be had as to whether the war was a good idea to begin with, but there can be no doubt that it was abysmally prosecuted from the moment the large scale military assault ended. Bush campaigned in 2000 on a platform that promised to avoid “nation building” (I disagree with him on that promise), but he would have been wise to fulfill that promise (or any of his campaign promises) because he completely sucks at it. The actions taken by the administration in the first year after the invasion were so willfully idiotic as to qualify as legitimate political malpractice. I don’t know if we could have been successful in any serious way in any event, but the post-invasion bumbling threw away any chance there might have been.

    Regarding the economy, are you really confident that the answer to the current economic stagnation and uncertainty is more and deeper tax cuts and a continuation of the Bush-era economic policies? It’s time for the fairy tale of supply side economics to be retired the the dustbin of history. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to support a relatively low tax rate, but increased revenues are not one of them. Our taxes already are ridiculously low by global standards.

    As to civil liberties, it goes much further than mere airport security. Electronic surveillance has been by far the most egregious example of the way the administration has broken the public trust, but, beyond any specific policy, the way in which they have gone about doing it is the most troubling. They clearly do not believe that the people’s representatives in Congress have any role to play in how the people’s security is defended. Someone ought to remind him that his oath of office demands that he protect the idea that is America, “the Constitution of the United States”, not the American people.

  18. February 18, 2008 at 5:03 pm — Reply

    I agree with Gail. Obama has my vote.

Leave a Reply

SHARE

Happy Super Tuesday!