To win the presidency I always believed that she would present herself
in a very hawkish manner.

I don’t trust the Clinton’s much more than the Bush’s. It’s time for some
new blood in the Oval Office representing America.

I wish another woman, besides Hillary whom I just cannot support, was running for the Democratic ticket. Hillary has way too many negatives regarding progressive causes for me to support her. She is completely bought and paid for.

Deal breaker for Hillary was during the debate when she said that America was safer now than we were before 9/11. That is just too far gone for those of us who pay attention to worldwide media outlets, official governmental documents, and intelligence agency analysis.

Dick is still a dick, though.

(Arthur) “Brooks has spent his academic career studying the economics of charity, and for this project he accumulated a vast store of data in hopes of describing the difference between the 75 percent of Americans who give to charity and the 25 percent who don’t.

“That was the wow,” Brooks told me. A former Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent…”

Why are Leftists so stingy when it comes to charity?? Could it be they are only well-versed in spending “other people’s money”??

Such freakishly weird connotations you have. Conservatives like Thompson because he doesn’t pull a Kerry/Romney/Clinton and change his position to conform to the latest polls.

Speaking of have a fixation for a “daddy” – it’s interesting to note Progs want government to “parent” children and reward the “bad choices” of supposed adults. (If you REWARD bad – or stupid – behaviour….what do you end up with? Hint: MORE bad or stupid behaviour.) It might be understandable for Progs to be in quest for dad….so many of them forget to get married……

Now, pardon me, I’m going to go enjoy my fantasy of a Republican-free world.

But if we vote for a DINO like Clinton, then even if we win we lose.

Comment by Tundra — June 12, 2007 @ 1:26 pm

On the nose. So far, the best candidate I see out there so far is Dave Barry. He’s got my vote at least until everyone else gets tired of the dog and pony show and someone comes up with an original, creative, intelligent thought.

Different places but same perspective. I would rather be the only guy voting for Ted Nugent, than put my vote on for Rosie.

Comment by Crump’s Brother — June 12, 2007 @ 12:35 pm

Why not try voting FOR someone instead of voting against someone. Voting is really simple. Find the person you think would make the best president and vote for that person. I don’t vote in the primary because the primary is stupid. As far as the candidates go, if I like one, I vote for him/her. If I don’t, I don’t. Voting for someone you think makes a poor president (ie voting for Hillary even though you don’t think she makes a good president) is what’s dumb. Voting for the person you think makes a good president is what the election is all about. An untrained lemur makes a better president than any Republican, but I’m certainly not going to vote for one.

Here’s my first article from 2hr. interview:

WHO ARE JOE CLARK AND MARIA CUVILLON? WHO ARE “DC MADAME” DEBORAH JEANE PALFREY’S ACCUSERS?
“It’s my understanding that there really was no investigation.”
–Deborah Jeane Palfrey to the author.

Washington D.C.–”Do you realize that the information contained in the search warrant was 3-to-3 1/2, to 5-years-old?” states an exasperated Jeane Palfrey. The first thing one notes in speaking with Palfrey is her directness and approachability. She’s a very well-spoken woman who sees the implications of her case, and that they go well-beyond her own peculiar predicament. I point-out that the AP used the same excuse in October of 2006 as ABC recently did for not naming names on their 20/20 segment–she calls ABC’s decision “curious.”

Palfrey’s clients might have included wealthy doctors and lawyers in Washington and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs, but now well-known names have so far surfaced, said a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing. The escort service, Pamela Martin & Associates, advertised in newspapers, on Web sites and in the Yellow Pages. It operated since 1993 “as an out-call prostitution business” of college-educated women with other jobs, the affidavit says. (AP, 10.10.2006)

The piece is careful not to use the words “confidential informants,” but that’s exactly what they were and are. Palfrey adds, “They would have had no knowledge of who the clients were at that point [October 9th when the interview for the above quote took place]. These folks did not have a black book–there never was one. They passed-up 46 lbs. of phone records…they were already making statements about the doctors and lawyers on the 9th of October.” Could this suggest they already had an prepared outline of what to charge Ms. Palfrey with?

It appears at this point that the prosecution has lost the script, with the defendant shut-out of court–an obvious abrogation of due process, a Kafka hell. The good news is that the Supreme Court could be her venue-of-choice soon. Interestingly, the decision is being pushed by Justice Clarence Thomas. Also of-note: her “gentleman’s agreement” not to divulge any information expired after the 20/20 broadcast (they wanted the other nine years of her phone records too), and the gag order barring her from releasing more phone records appears to be floundering with a lot of back-peddling by Federal District Judge Gladys Kessler.

The AP article on October 10th, 2006: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061010/news_1n10hookers.html

More primary-documents: http://www.deborahjeanepalfrey.com