http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-X9tEOp19o

Herb

I'm turned off by this frankly. Have been the whole time. Bill has a lot invested in Hilary running for President. If she does not make it, he and a whole lot of other people are gonna say it's all because he scored in the Oval Office.

Flat out, that puts his motivations into question.

Randi Rhodes did a segment on this, I found interesting. Obama was not saying he supported what Reagan did, which was essentially kill off the New Deal. (bastard!)

Instead, he was equating his political skills to Reagan's, in that he can change the direction in a similar fashion. Subtle, but very important distinction. ---and one the Clintons are abusing.

There is an upside though. We can see now that Hilary is gonna play hard ball with the best of them. As a woman, that show of strength is significant. She's not gonna pull a Pelosi and dodge important things.

Here's the rub for you though Herb. She still absolutely has my vote, should she be the nominee. Her kind of hard ball is gonna be better than the GOP kind of hard ball.

I suspect both her and Obama are gonna tow the corporate line, meaning the kind of change that helps us to like getting hosed and more able to deal with getting hosed. That's better than the GOP will do.

Obama is kind of a sleeper though. When he's really in charge, he might change things up a bit. I don't think that's true of Hilary.

Of course all of that is exactly why I will support Edwards all the way through.

If this crap continues, and McCain gets the nod, the two won't be very differentiated in this area, and it's a very important area!

Violating equality under the law, and our core legal means and methods (action before authorization, ignoring congress with signing statements, post act immunity, etc...) has done us a whole lot of harm. We probably won't know how much harm actually!

That does not bode well for liars and manupulators. Both McCain and Clinton are gonna be seen as similar here, and that means a tougher race in general. Not something I want to see.

Oh, and kudos to Ed! I listen to him fairly regularly. Like his commentary a lot.

You know Herb I have to agree with Ed here. I think he is becoming a liability to his wife.

'Her kind of hard ball is gonna be better than the GOP kind of hard ball.'

Sounds like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Herb

And you have to admit, GHW Bush, as an Ex Pres, did not sink this low into politics when his son was running.

Then again, perhaps GHW wasn't that excited about W being President.

Yeah it does, but I'm absolutely for some kind of accountability.

The Bush administration, and the GOP, violated our equality of law, circumvented our process, lied along the way (a lot), and has done us a lot of harm.

If congress is not gonna provide that accountability, then it falls to us, the people, and the ballot box is about the only means we have right now. So, no GOP votes period.

Now, that will leave some issues with the Dems. Typically, we've done better with them, so it's likely that will continue. We know absolutely it's not gonna be that way with the GOP, so...

It then is a smart wager. Chances are, some of these things will improve with the Democrats in charge. Maybe they won't, but it's also an extremely solid wager that they won't get worse.

Having been through that, our next tool is primary politics!

Lots of people here say, "vote 'em all out!". I frankly agree! To do that, we need to get engaged with strong local challengers nation wide.

Doing this will put established seats in jeporady, cost a lot of money, and that will be heard. Either things change, or we start putting new blood in there for our own good.

There is a short term and a longer term strategy here. Short term = no GOP. Longer term = change ups for both parties.

It is simply not rational to think keeping things the same as they are will help us in any way. That alone prevents a GOP vote, no matter what.

Sorry, but I've seen enough. I know what I was taught in school. Was warned about this crap too, and here we are!

Only a fool would ignore that, hoping for the best.

Edit: It is known that the Dems have the vote, for these reasons, from a whole lot of people. If we don't follow through with a greater end game, what's gonna happen is some minor change and the whole "both parties suck" line will be true.

It is that greater end game that drives my rationale for no GOP votes. There are other choices, but people have to go out there and exercise them.

With our two party system, really we have these choices put to us:

-deal with one party or the other,

-don't support one party in particular, *

-support both, hoping for moderation,

-change a party to better reflect our needs, *

-support nothing.

The latter, BTW is very common. "all of them are corrupt, so lower my taxes and let me do my own thing please." Sound familiar?

Our greatest impact, as voters, lies with the two options I've marked, with the '*', so that's what I'm gonna do and advocate for, going forward.

Herb writes:

Sounds like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Conservatism in a nutshell. BTW Herb, did you know Rush is anti-Huckaberry?

That's because Rush really, really wants the GOP to win.

"BTW Herb, did you know Rush is anti-Huckaberry?"

I'm not a Rush guy.

And talk about generalizing. You guys really must believe Ol' Herb is lockstep with the Republican party. I guess it must not be that way for you, but for me, some things are more important than party affiliation.

If they abandoned their pro-life stance, I'd be gone. I'd leave with my fond memories of the Nixon administration.

Herb

Hey, I don't mean this in a personal way, but you do realize that position leaves you as a tool right?

Wave the Pro Life flag and get a vote!

Doesn't that bother you some, given the mess we've seen? Clearly, you don't support all of it, so there has got to be some worry there.

Expensive isn't it?

(Yeah, I know. Life --at least some life) is priceless.)

Sounds like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

That's a DUHbya tactic

'Life...is priceless...'

Exactly.

I'm biased in favour of life...and admit it.

Herb

"I'm biased in favour of life...and admit it."

Except for Iraqis. They are collateral damage in your book.

*PLONK*

think about all the UNBORN babies killed in Iraq since DUHbya's senseless war.

The GOP certainly has Herb by the nose. They will never end it, because they would lose the issue to hang over the heads of their opponents.

Besides anyone can say they are pro-life and still be pro-choice. If you are against choice then you must call yourself anti-choice. That is because 'pro' in pro-life only means that favor life, but that's not an absolute stand.

Troll sez: "You guys really must believe Ol' Herb is lockstep with the Republican party."

Sort of like how you believe everyone here is a Flaming Liberal?

"I'm biased in favour of life...and admit it."

And from what I can tell,
Terrorists are OK with you as long as they are:

1. Christian
2. Willing to suffer the legal consequences.

http://www.untiefe.de/Abgedreht/Terrorist_school.gif

Great new Anti-Terror car from Volkswagen, quick, send a boatload to Iraq!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y78nhrLOFY8

"Terrorists are OK with you..."

By stealing a page from Hillary's playbook, it's no surprise you ape her crooked tactics.

It points to your own abysmal position and won't help Mrs. Clinton, either. Her continued lying about Mr. Obama continues to further alienate the African-American vote, destining the radical left to yet another dismal presidential election failure and a pro-life Supreme Court.

Herb

Point Blank question.
In your black & white world this should not be that difficult.

Regardless of leagal penalties,
Was Eric Rudolph morally justified in committing a series of bombings across the southern United States, which killed three people and injured at least 150 others?

No weasel words please.
Just answer the question.

If a 'doctor' makes a living by killing the innocent unborn, one should work within the system to stop it.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

This wanton killing of the innocent unborn is precisely why we need to overturn Roe v. Wade.
It's also why we need to legally pursue the lucrative abortion industry.

Herb

And you still did not answer the question..

Them's weasel words.

Why is it so hard to give a simple answer?

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

It doesn't get any plainer.
What is your problem?

Herb

So that's a "no" then.

So, that's No. what he did was not morally justifiable.

Thanks. I'm much relieved to hear that from you.
Just don't know why it was so hard to get there.

Because deep down, it's not really a no.

"Two wrongs don't make a right."


No, but 3 rights make a left!

The answer Herb won't give is " No. He was not justified. But frankly, it just bothers me SO much less than what the doctor did that the ends come very close to justifying the means. I wish working wihtin the system would get results. But sometimes, I don't get the results I wanted when I work withing the system. This is an important enough issue to warrant some extreme measures. Call me a hypocrite - I just don't care. I don't care about my credibility with a message baord here. I want abortion to stop itself or someone else stop it. So as guilty as I feel, I'm glad someone stepped in and took matters into their own hands and the only real conflict I would have, deep down , would be to denounce it for all the logical reasons. Sometimes things defy logic. I'm not so black and white after all. So be it...but you can bet I will be when it benefits me later. Sue me. We're all like that to some degree. Especially Chickenjuggler."