McCain's Speech To CPAC

Did he bring you home?

He did mention the FISA bill and challenged Hillary and Barack to get on board.  Ramesh has instant reax.  [Speech here.]

McCain was also adamant on the war in Iraq and did note, probably not for the last time, that of the current crop of candidates he has the most knowledge of the horror of war, yet still thinks the war in Iraq is worth the heartbreak.

MORE:  Cheney's speech.  Cheney noted FISA but did not name names:

One of the ways we prevented attacks and saved lives is by monitoring terrorist-related communications. Last year, Congress passed major revisions to the FISA law -- that's the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- but those revisions are set to expire next week.  We're asking Congress to make those revisions permanent, and to provide liability protection for companies that are believed to have helped protect America since 9/11. (Applause.) Those who act in good faith to defend this country should not be punished with lawsuits, or hassled by trial lawyers. (Applause.)

OTOH, the RNC was not so coy:

RNC Attacks Clinton, Obama Over Electronic Surveillance Bill

Politics officially entered the Senate debate over a rewrite of electronic surveillance rules Thursday when the Republican National Committee released a web video attacking the leading Democratic presidential candidates for “undermining” an overhaul.

The video was posted on YouTube and the RNC Web site and distributed to grassroots organizers, according to an RNC official. It criticizes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., as well as Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and  Barack Obama, D-Ill., for opposing retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies being sued over their alleged cooperation in the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance activities following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

It also urges them to enact permanent changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that would update a temporary law set to expire Feb. 16.

“If Senators Reid, Clinton, Obama and their Democrat colleagues do not make the FISA updates permanent, they’ll deny intelligence and law enforcement communities the tools they need to protect Americans from foreign terrorists,” the video states. “After all, the terrorist threat to America never expires.”

And a plaintive plea:

At a House Judiciary Committee hearing, the panel’s top Republican,  Lamar Smith of Texas, pleaded for politics to be left out of the FISA debate. “The [temporary law] expires next week. The Senate must pass a strong bipartisan bill. And when they do, the House must act quickly to pass the bill and send it to the president,” he said. “This is not the time for partisanship. This is the time for responsible action.”

Too late.

Comments

[SteveMG]

Good speech, a solid first step - more needs to be done - to prove to his conservative critics that he is with them.

A President McCain will have listen to those on the Right; a President Clinton or Obama not only won't listen to them, they don't need to.

If you can't see that, I can't help you out.

[Red white 'n blue1]

McCain's credentials in the Iraq war are substantial but until his credentials on the Illegal's Invasion of the U.S. are shown to be substantial as well - he will be in trouble in Nov. The majority of legal Americans insist that the border be closed down to further invasion FIRST, then we can talk about who we should let in and what to do with those criminal illegals already here.

[centralcal]

Well, he gave a speech, said most of the things he knew he needed to and all is forgiven?

If wishes were fishes . . . this IS John McCain, after all. I will have to see how long his good intentions last, how he maintains his temperment - both angry-wise, and maverick-wise. Also, he has to say more than "secure the borders," which he really hasn't to date.

[clarice]

I think FISA is exactly the place to draw the first line in the sand--and we owe this to the Dems who set this expiration date. With geniuses like Pelosi and Reid at the helm, the Dems could improve their stable only if the Archbishop of Canterbury joined the team.

[Sue]

I'll be voting for McCain in November, barring a Huckabee on the ticket. Romney convinced me. Not McCain.

[SteveMG]

Here's an interesting report that I've heard nothing about. Did Limbaugh discuss this today?:

"Rush Limbaugh's private jet touched down at Dulles yesterday [2/6], as the titanic righty radio talker was limoed into DC to meet with bigtime righties who are in town for the Conservative Political Action Conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel. There are rumblings that Limbaugh had a private meeting with presidential candidate John McCain, who is slated to address the confab."

Anything to the "rumblings"?

Link

[Rick Ballard]

The 2008 Vote Purchase Plan passed and the Senate only larded it up by $15 billion. We got off lucky.

[clarice]

Steve, Drudge is carrying a headline which says Rush has said he'll support whoever the Reps nominate.

[MayBee]

People who paid no income taxes but earned at least $3,000 -- including through Social Security or veterans' disability benefits -- would get a $300 rebate.

The word "rebate" has been re-purposed.

[SteveMG]

Clarice:
Steve, Drudge is carrying a headline which says Rush has said he'll support whoever the Reps nominate.

Did Limbaugh meet with McCain yesterday? I catch a bit of him during lunch time; but we were swamped at work today and I didn't get out.

I don't see a story on it anywhere - his website doesn't mention it - so I assume it's not true.

[PeterUK]

Hillary

[PeterUK]

"the Dems could improve their stable only if the Archbishop of Canterbury joined the team."

The way things are going,he could be free quite soon.

[Rick Ballard]

MayBee,

By my calculation the $161 billion Vote Purchase Plan would buy 805 bridges to nowhere. The main difference is that the bridges to nowhere would still be there after the elections.

Let's hear it for all the tough Porkbusters.

Easy on the repurposing of "rebate". People will think that you don't feel that veteran's and senior's votes are worth buying. That's another doubleplusungood.

[PaulL]

Rush said on the air today that he didn't meet with anyone.

McCain's speech was excellent. If he continues to direct his fire at Democrats instead of Republicans, he'll do just fine.

Romney did the right thing by stepping aside. The Huck looks even stupider than usual.

[jim lloyd]

Michelle: I just got on your wb site today for first time and I have a question you may have answered before. Why are you not on O'reilly and/or Fox anymore? I have E-Mailed them many times for an answer. I've asked, is it because you steal to much of his thunder wth your passion on the issues and he can't handle it? I think I am correct due to his bloated ego...please answer. thank you...

[Sue]

Speaking of bridges to nowhere, http://ace.mu.nu/>Ace has come up with a perfect candidate for McCain's VP. I don't know that much about her. Anyone here have any objections to her?

[Sue]

I'm sorry. I gave credit to Ace when it was one of his bloggers, Slublog, that came up with her.

[qrstuv]

Steve MG: "A President McCain will have listen to those on the Right; a President Clinton or Obama not only won't listen to them, they don't need to.

If you can't see that, I can't help you out."

Explain to me why McCain would "have" to listen to those on the right.

Make it convincing.

His history strongly suggests that he values the opinion and respect of the NYT far more than he values mine.

[Rick Ballard]

Headscratcher - McCain at CPAC:

I intend to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people's elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.

I've heard that there are attorneys who hang around here. As an attorney, how do you intepret "enforce" regarding a judge? Second, is it a judge's duty to "respect values of the people"? Does such a duty extend to, oh say, cannibals who value the taste of liver with fava beans and a nice Chianti?

Or is this just a heaping serving of specious twaddle without meaning?

[SteveMG]

Explain to me why McCain would "have" to listen to those on the right

Because those are, in part, the people who elected him; it would be part of his base. Presidents just don't desert their bases if they want to have any chance of success.

If you think he will, then obviously you shouldn't vote for him. If I thought he would, I wouldn't support him either.

TM just quotes him above supporting the changes in the FISA law to protect the telecoms from lawsuits and to enable us to listen to calls between al-Qaeda operatives without getting warrants.

None of this is supported by the NY Times.

Sorry, I think it just absurd - there's no other word I can use to soften it - that anyone thinks that the NY Times editorial board is in any way comparable ideologically to McCain.

[Rick Ballard]

SMG,

Beldar has a very decent rationale for McCain up. Best I've seen to date from someone who doesn't care for him.

I sure hope McCain finds some speechwriters who speak English soon.

[Semanticleo]

“This is not the time for partisanship. This is the time for responsible action.”

IOW; "Let's all keep a lid on this TelcomCulpability thing, otherwise Dems and
Publicans both will swing from the yardarm.

[Jane]

Rick, I think the "enforce" word is incorrect altho I don't attribute it to doublespeak. McCain is not a lawyer. I assume, maybe incorrectly, he meant to say "uphold".

[Rick Ballard]

Jane,

I don't think it's doublespeak. It's a very sloppy throwaway that deserves enough ridicule to make the dimwitted speechwriter think before typing away. I really don't care to see enforcers on the bench nor do I give one whit about finding judicial candidates who "respect the values of the people" when I am absolutley certain that the vast majority of "the people" don't have any values that amount to more than momentary preference.

It's a very important point for conservatives and this language does nothing to assuage doubts concerning McCain's accuity or competence.

[qrstuv]

I didn't say he was as far left as the NYT, just that he cares much more for their approval than he does for mine.

And talk is cheap. He can *say* anything he likes, but he is on the record as follows:

* Opposing the First Amendment.
* Trying to ram through an amnesty bill that makes a mockery of rule of law, as well as of the wishes of the majority of this country.
* Expressing disdain and contempt for people who support that law.
* Assisting the Democrats in preventing the judicial nominees from even receiving votes, thus providing Democrats with a way to get their way without being directly accountable to voters.
* Siding with Hanoi Kerry and calling the SBVT "dishonorable."

Need I go on?

Like I said, based on past form, I do not trust the man an inch.

He will do what he needs to do in order to receive the approval of the media -- who, last I checked -- vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.

[Sue]

He will do what he needs to do in order to receive the approval of the media

Except on the most important issue of the day. The war. And I read this elsewhere today but it stuck. Do we really want our military having to salute Hillary or Obama? I don't. McCain it is. Like it or not. Mostly not, but I'll do it.

[qrstuv]

Really, Sue? How sure are you of that?

He wants to shut down Gitmo and forbid any interrogation that might tell us anything. It's like he doesn't understand what's going on.

And as far as the troops are concerned, I'd say yeah, he gets it--he won't backstab them. But does he understand what the war is even about? I haven't heard him articulate what we're up against, why we're fighting.

The Democrats don't, for sure, but neither would they want to piss off the country by announcing "victory/defeat/peace/whatever." I don't think they have the pull to do that.

And I fear very, very much that McCain will simply lend a Republican face to a lot of progressive nonsense. The damage there could last for a long, long time--long after The Maverick's time.

[Topsecretk9]

Those who act in good faith to defend this country should not be punished with lawsuits, or hassled by trial lawyers.

Amen.

[Semanticleo]

"The damage there could last for a long, long time--long after The Maverick's time."

That doesn't matter because he's tuff on terrorism.

http://realtruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/01/its-official-john-mccain-is-insane.html

[Semanticleo]

"act in good faith"

A presumption yet to be determined.

[Jane]

I dunno Rick. I can't argue with you because given what we are left with I don't know if I am hearing what I want to hear or not. Time will tell.

[Sue]

Really, Sue? How sure are you of that?

I'm not going to try and talk you into voting for McCain. I had to be brought there kicking and screaming and still hold a caveat with Huckabee. Do what you think is right. But I'll be voting for him because of the war issue. Whatever his stand on certain issues with the war, they are better than the stand of the other 2. For me anyway.

[Ann]

Dobson endorsed Huckabee today. What if Huckabee starts a third party and Soros backs it. Just thinking. That's a Hillary win for sure.

[narciso]

I guess I'll vote for him in the end, is there a realistic choice. The truth is the
whole terrorist detention and trial network was undermined by the Kuwaiti and Quatari
(Al Sabah & Al Thani) funding of the Gitmo
detainees defense, mostly through the public
relations campaign and the carbon paper stenography of reporter's like the Herald's
Carol Rosenberg. The German govt wasn't hiring BBDO for instance to represent Dasch & Co; before the US Supreme Court in Qurin,
or the other prisoners in Eisentrager. I guess we'll just have to kill all the AQ militants now; starting with Gadahn and al
Libi

[SteveMG]

We've lost over 3,000 guys (men and women) in Iraq over the past 5+ years. Because of their heroic sacrifice and the brilliance of General Petraeus along with the rejection of al-Qaeda by the Sunnis, we're now winning.

It's been a terribly bloody war. But we are clearly having success in driving al-Qaeda out of the region and preventing them from using Iraq, as they did Afghanistan, as a failed state for their purposes.

McCain will continue with this approach.

Clinton and Obama will not. Their election will be described by the press as a repudiation of Bush's war policies. And the left will demand a withdrawal.

That in of itself is sufficient reason to support McCain.

Forget about everything else, it seems to me.

We simply cannot leave Iraq to the terrorists.

[narciso]

In other news, the Tabligh News Service (Newsweek) has another dispatch from
Northern Pushtunistan; by Yousafsai, about
the 'draconian' prison network run by the
Afghan National Security Directorate. Obviously, they don't read 'draconian' in the same sense we do, because such a prison wouldn't allow Taliban to buy their way out of prison. I guess that's what Archbishop
Williams thinks it meaN, honestly what a
#$%#$^$%&

[clarice]

narciso I think we just did kill al-Libi.

[Anon]

qrstuv-

Oh for shit's sake if you think for one minute that the troops would not be thoroughly dejected by having Hillary as their Commander in Chief and if you are so scrupulous as to do that to them then -

Cripes you might actually be a Limbaugh/Levin/Beck fan.

Let me get this straight-you sat by the radio for years while they told you that Hillary and Bill were pure evil and now hey!

Hunky dorey! Let's have Hillary in Chief.

And that turnabout somehow doesn't insult your intelligence?

Well hell Rush might know his audience is beyond that....

Wow what a bunch of bastards.

Go start your own party and hurl shit at each other and then sit around and conduct purity tests afterwards on each other.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

Gadahn too. At least one report I read suggested that he was probably with al Lidi when the Predator sent him out for raisins.

[SteveMG]

Just imagine how the press would report a Obama or Clinton victory.

As a complete repudiation of Bush's war policies, especially in Iraq.

Look, I've tossed lots of things at the screen over the years when McCain was pulling one of his "maverick" stunts. He appears to enjoy going after conservatives or conservatives policies he opposes more than he enjoys criticizing liberals or liberal policies. And the press loved encouraging him too.

But our choice is not between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. It's between John McCain and a 100% ADA liberal.

It's not even a close call for me.

To be sure, if McCain wins I'll probably knock out a few TV screens or monitors during his terms.

[qrstuv]

Anon, SteveMG --

I will ignore the personal elements of your responses.

I waver, I really do, even if you don't believe it.

And I do know what the stakes are. The war on terrorism is the reason I became a Republican after 20 years. And I think it would be truly wicked to abandon the Iraqis.

But my gut tells me that McCain will hurt us much much more than we can predict.

As I said, I also do not think that the Democrats could actually do that. After all, they've been *trying* to surrender for two years. They have failed because their constituents become angry when they try it.

[clarice]

Really,Rick? I missed that.
That would be delicious news if true.

[SteveMG]

qrstuv:
I will ignore the personal elements of your responses.

What "personal" elements were in my response?

Second, how can I engage - even if I did, which I didn't - in personal remarks to a poster who's named: "qrstuv"?

There's no "person" there to get "personal" with.

[Other Tom]

The fellow is transparently a front man for Joe Bfstplk.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

Jawa has the rumor. The Pak source hints that we're trying to get him to 'phone home' if we did miss him.

I sure like those Predators. Cheap, quiet and deadly.

[SteveMG]

a front man for Joe Bfstplk.

Very good.

You don't want to mess with Mr. Bftslpk. Or Btfsplk? Or.....??

Boy, Al Capp would have some fun were he alive today. Lots of material.

[clarice]

Guess will have to wait until the snapshots of the pieces are examined.

[Other Tom]

I saw that Pak report on that American asshole getting waxed. My immediate thought, after a solemn prayer that the report was true, was to hope that he lived long enough to know what had happened to him, and that he died only after some lengthy and excruciating pain.

I hope Fox News or somebody will air a nice retrospective of some of his more fulsome videotaped messages, which I will happily record and forward to his next of kin.

[Ann]

Townhall has video of Mark Steyn at CPAC today if you missed his great performance. I could watch him forever. :)

[Pofarmer]

He wants to shut down Gitmo and forbid any interrogation that might tell us anything. It's like he doesn't understand what's going on.

And as far as the troops are concerned, I'd say yeah, he gets it--he won't backstab them. But does he understand what the war is even about? I haven't heard him articulate what we're up against, why we're fighting.

Actually, he want's to bring them to Ft Leavenworth and put them in the Federal Prison system, which is just foolish.

He's also adopted the Left Shiboleth of "Get Osama" even though there may be no Osama to get. McCain is just tilting at windmills. I too, see no evidence that he understands what is at stake in the larger pictures. Other countries are going to need help, other figures are going to need whacked, hard decisions are going to have to be made. I don't trust any of the top three to make them. Does it count if I distrust McCain less?

[Sue]

Does it count if I distrust McCain less?

It's where I am. If McCain thinks he can win the WH with a few of us like-minded conservatives holding our noses and voting for him, he has another think coming. But, he is the firewall between the WH and the Clintons. I still think she is going to get the nod. I keep thinking about firewalls and how they didn't help other candidates very much. We're almost doomed, I tell ya', almost doomed. ::grin::

[cathyf]

It's been a terribly bloody war.

Actually, it's been an amazingly unbloody war. So much so that the magical thinking crowd has been able to convince themselves that there isn't a war going on at all...

[Rick Ballard]

I think that's just a bid for the George B. McClellan Award for Poor Political Timing.

[narciso]

It really hasnt by historical standards, even that 4,000 figure from the Iraq theatre of operations; counts soldiers, and airman injured in accidents; instead of combat; about 10% of the total. The terrorists use of child suicide bombers; what the left nutroots call 'adapting' to the environment, along with IEDs and EFP make the injuries more gruesome. (Eg; Sgt. Pepper, a Army hero who lost his arm and his eyes, yet continues to persevere). Yet there's only one view of combat proferred
by the media; they're always killing innocents and it's our fault, because they only kill 'occupiers and collaborators' while we always kill innocents, often on purpose (Haditha, Mahmoudiyah, Fallujah)
which as Christian Caryl of Newsweek,once put it, creates a generation of violent orphans,(that the terrorist are responsible always escapes them) McClatchy, NY Times, Reuters, al AP, take all civilian casualty reports straight from theterrorists fax machine; of course. The heroism of Americans like Paul Smith, Rafael Peralta, even Michael Murphy ,most recently, rarely gets picked up; if acknowledged at all.The latest from Clatchychokee Digest is how the Navy's JAG judge, wants to let defense attorneys cross examine Al Nashiri; the head of AQ's navy turned over by the UAE, because this is exactly what we do with terrorists (sarcasm removed)When 'Cully Stimson, last? of the long line of statesman
pointed out the treason of the white shoe firms against their prospective neighbors,
he was ejected from his office at detainee
and threatened with disbarment;(He's at Heritage now, for what it's worth)

[Syl]

Afghanistan was and will always be a war of attrition. That's why we're fighting in Iraq where we can win decisively and soon.

Iraq will be and is oh so close to being a humiliating strategic defeat for al Qaeda yet Obama tells the press we have to leave Iraq in order to fight the 'real' terrorists.

Mind-numbing--and terrifying.

[anduril]

I worked my magic and saw that there was no mention of Krauthammer on this page, so here is his article on how/where we got McCain. His answer is: Bush begat McCain.

Here are the last few paragraphs:

Conservatives are on the eternal search for a new Reagan. They refuse to accept the fact that a movement leader who is also a gifted politician is a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon. But there’s an even more profound reason why no Reagan showed up this election cycle and why the apostate sheriff is going to win the nomination. The reason is George W. Bush. He redefined conservatism with a “compassionate” variant that is a distinct departure from classic Reaganism.

Bush muddied the ideological waters of conservatism. It was Bush who teamed with Teddy Kennedy to pass No Child Left Behind, a federal venture into education that would have been anathema to (the early) Reagan. It was Bush who signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. It was Bush who strongly supported the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill. It was Bush who on his own created a vast new entitlement program, the Medicare drug benefit. And it was Bush who conducted a foreign policy so expansive and, at times, redemptive as to send paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan and traditional conservatives like George Will into apoplexy and despair (respectively).

Who in the end prepared the ground for the McCain ascendancy? Not Feingold. Not Kennedy. Not even Giuliani. It was George W. Bush. Bush begat McCain.

Bush remains popular in his party. Even conservatives are inclined to forgive him his various heresies because they are trumped by his singular achievement: He’s kept us safe. He’s the original apostate sheriff.

The trouble with this theory is, it begs the question: if Bush begot McCain, where did Bush come from? Lets not forget, before Dubya we had Dole (!), and before Dole (! - I still can't get over a major party nominating that guy!) we had George H. W. Not that George H. W. didn't have his moments, but these guys were all donut presidents or candidates in one way or another.

[anduril]

Great McCain quote from yesterday, to go with the Krauthammer column and its views on McCain:

"We have had a few disagreements, and none of us will pretend that we won't continue to have a few. But even in disagreement, especially in disagreement, I will seek the counsel of my fellow conservatives. If I am convinced my judgment is in error, I will correct it. And if I stand by my position, even after benefit of your counsel, I hope you will not lose sight of the far more numerous occasions when we are in complete accord."

Is this not a sugar coated version of: My way or the highway? I mean, everyone knows how this attitude works in practice. He's being nice-nice now, but when it falls out he'll try to demonize the slightest disagreement if he is convinced that his judgment is NOT in error. When was the last time this guy decided that maybe his judgment was in error?

[richard mcenroe]

Did he fire Juan Hernandez yet?

If he didn't, he looked CPAC in the eye and lied to them.

Senor McCain, no es mi Presidente.

[richard mcenroe]

"When was the last time this guy decided that maybe his judgment was in error?"

POSSIBLY when that SAM went up his tailpipe. I haven't heard of anything since then.

I see no reason to decide whether or not I "have" to support McCain before election day. I look forward to seeing his meltdown when his 'friends' across the aisle and the MSM turn on him after he gets the nomination...

[Other Tom]

Rove does the math and says Hillary is the Dem nominee.

I think McCain is going to lose in November, and I know of no living Republican who I think would win. It's that simple. I guess we all have our own personal views on when the wheels began to come off, but for me it was when I first heard GHW Bush say "I see a kinder, gentler America." Say what? It's all been decidedly downhill from that point on.

I wholeheartedly agree with Krauthammer: neither Bush can sensibly be considered a conservative, any more than McCain can. I'll go further and say that I can't foresee any conservative, real or imagined, ever winning the presidency again. I live in California, and I well remember how Pete Wilson, with his support of the ultimately-doomed Proposition 187, alienated the state's Latinos and turned California--home of Reagan--into a very permanent, reliable Democratic state. (And Arnold is not an exception: he's simply not a Republican, let alone a conservative.)

Given the unavoidable demographics, and the national state of mind about the proper role of government in peoples' lives, people who share my personal political views are decidely in the minority, and can't realistically hope to marshal electoral majorities.

[anduril]

The probability is that IF he gets to the WH, his ass will have been singed good and proper during the campaign as a result of the Dems' opposition research. Since he's not a conciliatory guy in the best of circs, he would then be in a definite state of meltdown.

[anduril]

OT, I'm not necessarily disagreeing--just venting. OTOH, none of us can claim 20/20 vision into the future, so ya never know.

[BarbaraS]

Are you people nuts? When are you going to wake up and realize we don't have a choice. I'm not a McCain fan by any means but I have said all along that if he gets the nomination I will vote for him. The times we live in will not allow us to have all these purity principles. We are fighting for survival. And if you think McCain will do as much damage as Clinton or Obama you are nuts.

I, too, do not want a Clinton in the WH to desimate the military yet again. I do not want Bill with his rampaging sez drive or Hilary with her arrogance, lies and destruction of personal reputations. I don't w3ant her to be able to use the forces of government to punish her enemies. And Obama.....god......if he is not allied with the terrorists he is a useful idiot who hates the white people of this country. Only dems are looney enough to vote for a man named Barak Hussein Obama during a world war with jihadists.

As far as Krauthamer is conerned, he has been on a Bush bashing fling for some time now and I discount everything he says period.

As far as Bush not being a conservative is nonsense. A consevative loves God, country and family in that order. A conservative wants the laws and way of life to stay the samesd as they are now. In what way is Bush not a conservative? He has actually fashioned is presidencey on Reagan more than on his father. Remember the 1986 amnesty? He has done the best he could with what he had to work with and it is egregious of his party and its pundits to turn on him because he doesn't do eveything their way.

For the last two years I have heard nothing else on the internet but how to defeat Hillary the inevitable candidate. Now I hear something else. She won't do as much damage as MCain? Really???? Ridiculous!!!! The country is going left. One of my theories is that the dams and independents voted for McCain in the primaries because they wanted someone to vote for. They couldn't vote for Clinton or Obama. I could be wrong nut sure all the dems and independents are not this stupid.

[battery]

As far as Krauthamer is conerned, he has been on a Bush bashing fling for some time now and I discount everything he says period.

[sophy]

I do not know how to use the flyff gold ; my friend tells me how to use.