General John Kelly: "He said that, in his opinion, Mr. Trump met the definition of a fascist, would govern like a dictator if allowed, and had no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of rule of law."
I'm not arguing the reason you're continuing to hammer the issue. However, the video adds nothing to the debate. I'm swayed by ideas, not video editing skills.
Also, there are plenty of things Russert can hammer McCain on that will hurt more. Most of us on the conservative side have been chewing his ass since New Hampshire. I'm still not willing to pull the lever for him in November.
This issue, as well as Farrakahn, won't mean a plate of shit on a hill of beans by convention time. I think this election, in the end, will be about who can best articulate their ideals and plans for America in the coming months. In that respect, if Obama gets enough substance out there (which has been lost in the throes of Obamamania) he should be able to Beat McCain. Of course this is 9 monhs out, so we'll have to see what happens, and if John McCain can pull his base together. I'm sure Obama will.
I agree with you. The candidate with the best ideas will get my vote.
The problem is that any candidate can set out his/her plans for anything but it will mean nothing because he/she has to work with the House and Senate.
That's why this talk about universal health and who has a better plan doesn't matter at thtis point since no matter who proposes what it will be changed by the legislative process--if it should ever get that far.
People want to hear details of what a candidate will do, but the electorate forgets that world events, national events, and working with Congress affects what a president will actually do in office.
IMHO, I need to hear what a candidate's philosophy is, i.e., what values he/she is guided by, what vision he/she has for the country, and how those ideals can translate into international and national policies.
5 comments:
You know that video doesn't add anything to the prior blog, don't you.
Plus, I thought that was the kind of video the Ron Paulistas were famous for making. As in it bears the stench of kookitude.
Patrick,
I'm banging on this issue because of what Russert brought up in the last debate between Clinton and Obama.
He pounded on the fact that an extremist, Farrakahn, endorsed Obama. And even though Obama repudiated him, it wasn't enough--for Clinton for Russert.
I'm hoping Russert brings up the fact that an extremist--Hagee has thrown his support to John Sidney McCain,III, and McCain is "honored" to have it.
There is a double standard here.
That's why I'm continuing to blog the issue.
I'm not arguing the reason you're continuing to hammer the issue. However, the video adds nothing to the debate. I'm swayed by ideas, not video editing skills.
Also, there are plenty of things Russert can hammer McCain on that will hurt more. Most of us on the conservative side have been chewing his ass since New Hampshire. I'm still not willing to pull the lever for him in November.
This issue, as well as Farrakahn, won't mean a plate of shit on a hill of beans by convention time. I think this election, in the end, will be about who can best articulate their ideals and plans for America in the coming months. In that respect, if Obama gets enough substance out there (which has been lost in the throes of Obamamania) he should be able to Beat McCain. Of course this is 9 monhs out, so we'll have to see what happens, and if John McCain can pull his base together. I'm sure Obama will.
FYI, Alan Colmes picked up on the John Hagee story on Hannity and Colmes tonight. Too bad it was during a conversation with Huck-a-duck.
Just thought you'd like to know.
Thanks Patrick.
I agree with you. The candidate with the best ideas will get my vote.
The problem is that any candidate can set out his/her plans for anything but it will mean nothing because he/she has to work with the House and Senate.
That's why this talk about universal health and who has a better plan doesn't matter at thtis point since no matter who proposes what it will be changed by the legislative process--if it should ever get that far.
People want to hear details of what a candidate will do, but the electorate forgets that world events, national events, and working with Congress affects what a president will actually do in office.
IMHO, I need to hear what a candidate's philosophy is, i.e., what values he/she is guided by, what vision he/she has for the country, and how those ideals can translate into international and national policies.
Post a Comment