Say Anything Blog

true dat

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

MikeA: You’re comparing three articles with seven years of lies, half-truths and outright fabrications about the President in the MSM?  Talk about hyperbole!

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Mike,

Bill Clinton has forced himself deeply into this campaign with all the ruthless vigor he can muster at 60 years old, and with the same contemptuous disregard for the protestations of those who he would assault.  The only difference is that this time his predations are directed at members of his own party rather than the opposite sex, and he does so for the benefit of his wife (or is she really just a stalking horse?), and not illicitly behind her back.

Had he stayed out of the campaign there would be little need to point out any of this.  But then as the spouse of a candidate out on the campaign trail he should expect the scrutiny.  Just look at the way Jerri Thompson was accosted by the Left, just for being so attractive.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

The New Disease = a Clinton who just won’t leave the office of the Presidency well after his 8 years have been over.

If Billie don’t want people talking about him ne can simply go away. He can not be President, and his wife will sweep him to the curb if she becomes President. And if he keeps having this screaming jags with the press he is going to have a heartattack. Just watch the videos, his blood pressure has to be spiking into the upper 300 range, all because someone wants him to answer a simple, straightforward question. Imagine how high it will go when Hillary walks into the Oval Office and slams the door in his face.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

I think, in order for our criticism of Clinton to be deranged, it would have to be inaccurate.

Is it inaccurate, Mike?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob...I don’t think it’s any more or less accurate than much of the criticism leveled at Bush. I certainly believe that the levels of obsession are about the same.

r108...if those three articles were the only examples on SA or even one hundredth of the examples one can find here then you would have a point.

B1...Clinton does offer himself as a target by his words and actions and so you do have a valid point. It’s still funny though.

I hope HC loses FWIW but the hatred of the Clintons in some circles is just as nutty as the hatred of Bush found in others IMO.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

r108...if those three articles were the only examples on SA or even one hundredth of the examples one can find here then you would have a point.

Then you missed my point; the major TV and print media has been waging a jihad against this President for seven years.  What happens on blogs and talk radio doesn’t compare at all; it’s in an entirely different universe.
Also, Rob made the most salient point; the Clintons are disliked for what they have actually done(and are still doing), while President Bush is hated for what is largely speculation, like the BS about being a Nazi, for instance.  There is no valid comparison, IMO.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Mike,

You are wrongly confusing disdain for the behavior of Bill and Hillary and loathing for their power-hungry sense of entitlement and their tactics with hatred.

I don’t hate either of the Clintons.  Hell, I don’t know either of them.  Hatred is a personal, emotional response.  My contempt for these two is strictly an intellectual expression.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

B1...you’re right of course but in my defense I will remind you of the “ “ placed at the end of my comment. I rarely take comments too seriously when I see a wink and I hope that others treat such remarks in the same spirit. That said, I don’t think I would be wrong in observing that current events in the Democratic campaign provide a pleasantly useful opportunity for some to let their heart felt opinions of the Clintons run wild as it were.

This is not true for everyone of course and it’s certainly not the case that the Clintons are above criticism either. The convenient timing of the articles just struck my fancy.

r108...I do understand your point but of course I don’t agree with it. I don’t expect you to see the same irony that I see but then I didn’t really post the comment with you in mind.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

...but then I didn’t really post the comment with you in mind.

My only hope is that you post with the truth in mind.

Nothing compares with the relentless tirade of lies, half-truths and outright fabrications from the MSM, no matter what you may choose to believe.
And, of course, there’s always the fact that the Clintons are actually guilty of what their detractors say, while most of what is said against the President is projection.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

And, of course, there’s always the fact that the Clintons are actually guilty of what their detractors say, while most of what is said against the President is projection.

In your opinion of course. I mean there’s “truth” and then there’s truth and to draw up and compare lists of traits and actions and statements in order to ascertain the facts seems a pretty big undertaking for a mere mortal.

I’m satisfied opining that neither the Clintons nor the Bushes are as good nor as bad as their supporters and detractors profess. Personally, I’d really rather vote for neither if I found myself in the position.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

I’m satisfied opining that neither the Clintons nor the Bushes are as good nor as bad as their supporters and detractors profess.

The Clintons have yet to be held to account for their greedy taking of money from the Chinese, and Bill has yet to be held to account for the slaughter of the people at Waco(since he threw Janet Reno under the bus for that one), while we have a resident leftie on SA who insists President Bush is responsible for how meat is packaged at WalMart.  Pure derangement.
IMO, Clinton enabled 9/11, with his policy toward terrorism.  This isn’t(despite your insistence) “six of one, half a dozen of the other”, in any way at all.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

This isn’t(despite your insistence) “six of one, half a dozen of the other”, in any way at all.

You are entitled to your opinion. I suspect that Mr. Bush will be called to account for his policies one day as well but I think the best I can offer right now is that if one didn’t like the first Clinton presidency then one is not likelier to be happy with a second one. Given your opinion of the BC years, I think you’re apprehension regarding an HC Administration is logical.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

My opinion is informed by the facts.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

MikeAdamson - Rob...I don’t think it’s any more or less accurate than much of the criticism leveled at Bush.

Wow, Mike. Can you add any more weasel words in there?

So, Mike, are you trying to tell us that Willie Jeff did NOT have a junior government employee perform an oral sex act, multiple times, upon him in a Federal Building? Are you attempting to convince anyone that he was not, while in office, impeached, and found guilty of perjury and subornation to perjury of witnesses before a Federal investigation? Is that the actual point you are attempting to make here?

And when called on your post you attempt to shrug it off as a joke. I really thought you were more intelligent than this.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2H9...that isn’t the point I’m trying to make. The point I’m trying to make is that there are people who hate Clinton just like there are people who hate Bush and that thoughtful critics with substantive issues with either or both of them are often met with hilarious statements such as Bush being a Nazi or Clinton authorising the slaughter of innocents at Waco.

The clue that I wasn’t being completely serious is the little “ “ at the end of the post. If I didn’t think there was some truth to it though then I wouldn’t have bothered commenting. I happen to find Clinton’s sexual escapades distasteful and undignified although I don’t find them as serious as presiding over an incompetent Administration which by all appearances has placed political gain above good governance...just for example.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

The point I’m trying to make is that there are people who hate Clinton just like there are people who hate Bush

There was a handful of Clinton haters during his administration. Purveyors of the “Clinton Chronicles” were roundly ridiculed by the majority of conservatives as a bunch of kooks. The difference today is the main stream Democratic leadership embraces the kooks and co-opts their agenda.

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

MikeAdamson - or Clinton authorising the slaughter of innocents at Waco.

Waco doesn’t compare to the kooks who call Bush a Nazi. Waco actually happened.

Could you imagine that kind of thing happening under a Republican administration? The howls of fascism would be deafening. The Department of Justice under Clinton does it and the nation gives off a whimper.

You have to admit the bias on that one. That is, if you can recognize it over your own.

There was a handful of Clinton haters during his administration.

Stop with the humor already…damn you guys are funny. Way better than The Daily Show. Wow, fugettaboutit, you are ready for prime time.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Stop with the humor already

Sorry, bob! I know that small doses of genuine reality send you into anaphylactic shock.
Take some Benadryl.

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

The point I’m trying to make is that there are people who hate Clinton just like there are people who hate Bush

Agreed, but the people who hate our President dominate the public media.  Big difference.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

lik...I’m not clear what you mean by bias as it applies to Waco. If you’re saying that the operation was bungled, that people died as a result and that the government’s incompetence was overlooked or underemphasised then you’re making a reasonable comment. If you’re saying that media bias shaped public opinion in favour of the government’s action then you’re making a debatable point. If you’re saying that the Branch Davidians were innocent victims of heinous governmental action then you’ve roamed over to the silly side. I’m not trying to pick a fight, I’m just unclear.

r108...I don’t think the media is dominated by people who hate Bush. I think it’s dominated by people unable or unwilling to drill down for the actual story and who settle for the superficial and sensational. I think that worked in Bush’s favour at the beginning of his Administration but clearly it doesn’t anymore.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

I think it’s dominated by people unable or unwilling to drill down for the actual story and who settle for the superficial and sensational.

If that were the case, then by the law of averages, there would be as many favorable as unfavorable stories on the President, but that isn’t the case; not even close.  The BDS sufferers dominate the mainstream media, whether you admit it or not.

As far as Waco is concerned, the ATF invaded the compound on the basis of two things: the false claim that there was child abuse going on(a Janet Reno staple), and the assertion that they were illegally selling guns.  The truth is that the few survivors don’t concur with the child molestation stuff, and David Koresh was a licensed gun dealer.  In other words, the pretext of the raid was bogus.  If a Republican administration had slaughtered that many innocent people, there would have been no end of trials and investigations, but there was almost no outcry in the media; the govt was uniformly portrayed as being the victims, which was a lie.
I’ve been to Waco, and those people wouldn’t have been bothering anyone; it’s the epitome of “the wide open spaces”.  Furthermore, Koresh regularly rode into town on his bicycle to get groceries, and could have easily been detained and questioned, if that’s what the govt really wanted to do.
A few more inconvenient truths for you.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

If that were the case, then by the law of averages, there would be as many favorable as unfavorable stories on the President, but that isn’t the case; not even close.

I’m sorry but the law of averages is not applicable in a case like this. If it was then you’d expect to see as many favourable stories as unfavourable on Tom Brady or George Washington or Chairman Mao.

As for Waco, we can agree to disagree.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

I’m sorry but the law of averages is not applicable in a case like this. If it was then you’d expect to see as many favourable stories as unfavourable on Tom Brady or George Washington or Chairman Mao. This is nonsense; the bias of the MSM against the President is obvious. I repeat, you would expect, if it were just by chance, a roughly equal number of favorable/unfavorable stories, and the truth is that there are almost no favorable stories on the President.  The bias is obvious.  If you want to maintain that there is nothing favorable about our President, then your bias is obvious.

As for Waco, we can agree to disagree. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.  You ignore the obvious discrepancies in the govt story, along with the complicity of the MSM not to report unfavorable facts about the Clinton administration.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

MikeA: Here’s one example of obvious MSM bias:  During the Clinton administration, unemployment averaged 5.1%, and the MSM praised his “great economy”.  Right now, the unemployment rate is 5%, but it’s being characterized in the MSM as “a recession”, and “recessionary”.  Why the double standard?

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Link please to stats used, R108.  Averages?  I believe unemployment was at 7.2% when Clinton took over and in 2000 it was 4%. So is that how you get to your average. 

And if there are not threats of a recession, then why is Bush all over a stimulus.  You just keep wearing those rose colored glasses.

why is Bush all over a stimulus.

He is from the government and he is here to help.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Omigod, you used the U.S. Misery Index.  This is just too too funny, R108.  Let’s see here,comparing the Clinton Admin. to the Bush Admin. I think it is pretty clear who had the best outcomes.
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
Nice try.

Link please to stats used, R108.  Averages?  I believe unemployment was at 7.2% when Clinton took over and in 2000 it was 4%. So is that how you get to your average. You missed it; the same number is portrayed by the MSM in two entirely different ways.  That is proof of bias.  Get it?

And if there are not threats of a recession, then why is Bush all over a stimulus.  You just keep wearing those rose colored glasses.  The only “threat” of a recession is that being falsely advocated by the leftie MSM.  That, and the so-called “stimulus package”, are both election-year grandstanding.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

The use of those numbers is not dispositive.  One would have to look at where those numbers are in the progression, are they going up or are they going down.  Your argument is just flimsy and you know it.  You say, “see the numbers are the same so the MSM is treating Bush and Clinton differently so the MSM is biased” That’s what you are arguing. 

But the reality is that Bush’s 5.1 is going up and Clinton’s “average” 5 was going down from 7.2 when he took over office and under 4 when he left office.  Big big difference. 

No bias shown, your are just plain wrong here. Bush is trending up and Clinton was trending down, a far cry difference and blows your argument out of the water.  come back with another one.

P: Same number, different reportage=bias.  Not only that, but the reportage on the superior Bush economy has been uniformly negative throughout his administration, which is also proof of bias.  You’re just plain wrong.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

From the NewsMax.com Staff

For the story behind the story…

Monday, Feb. 26, 2007 8:46 a.m. EST
Alan Greenspan Warns of U.S. Recession

Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned Monday that the American economy might slip into recession by year’s end.

He said the U.S. economy has been expanding since 2001 and that there are signs the current economic cycle is coming to an end.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

He said the U.S. economy has been expanding since 2001…

Despite the steady rain of lies, half-truths and outright fabrications in the MSM.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

R108, really, you can’t honestly be claiming that because the numbers are the same, one an average (your words) and one the actual are the same. 

Now I know you have gone off the deep end. I know you know more about economics than to say that the numbers are the same so that proves bias.  Come on R108, get real.  Where you got your numbers clearly show where the economy is headed on your own U.S. Misery Index that you failed to link or even cite.

But are your rose colored glasses really that foggy today?

P: Same number, different reportage.  My point was about the reportage, not the numbers. The numbers are the ones the MSM uses.  You missed it completely.

This thread is about reportage, btw.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

You simply can’t be claiming “same numbers different reportage.” The trends are different and you know it.  You can’t really be saying that because one is an average and one is a actual that it’s the same.  You know and I know that the reporting looks at those trend lines and for you to say that this is bias in the example you give is sheer folly. 

Now you are trying to spin your big mistake by claiming your point was the reportage.  I understand what the point is but you think because the numbers are the same (which they aren’t by your own post, one an average the other actual) the reportage is biased. So so wrong. 

Why don’t you try for another example and see where that one takes you because you are digging deeper and deeper here.  Your Bush Apologist syndrome is clearly out of control here.

Going shopping to help the economy, see ya later.

You simply can’t be claiming “same numbers different reportage.”

Yes, I am.  In your desperate attempt to spin and change the subject, you missed my very simple and obviously true point entirely, and even after I have pointed it out to you several times, you still attempt to deny and spin.  You’re simply wrong.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

of course you are R108, because you have to stay the course, even when shown you are wrong.  No desperation hear just loud laughter that you continue your inane loser argument.

MikeAdamson - If you’re saying that the Branch Davidians were innocent victims of heinous governmental action then you’ve roamed over to the silly side.

Yes. It is silly to think that a tank was needed. And all of those kids who died? To call that heinous is to be on the silly side.

Get a grip, Mike. Waco was a national embarrassment. It shouldn’t have happened in a free country.

robert108 - As far as Waco is concerned, the ATF invaded the compound...

A “compound”? With a “cache” of weapons, right?

They call it a ranch in Texas.

That was part of the media bias. They shaped the language used to describe the story.

It was much more than a ranch.  Compound would be an appropriate description:

According to the FBI’s final report, there were no illegal weapons, no child molestation, no drug production lab. So, exactly why did those people have to be burned to death? What crimes were they convicted of? The final analysis from DoJ was no crimes were committed, the entire incident was sparked by massive incompetence and stupidity on the part of the government agencies and personnel involved.

And yet, people want to put these f-ing morons in charge of healthcare.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

That said… what happened at Waco was very shocking. 

Seventy-six people, including 21 children and two pregnant women, along with Davidian leader David Koresh, died in the incident.

Say what you want, but this was very excessive use of force.

Clinton’s biggest watched war was in Texas against some Americans.

And they call us the fascists.

“The New Disease” indeed. And not in the way MikeAdamson intended.

2hotel9:  And using YOUR logic, they WILL be back in charge!  Remember, we don’t vote for commies like Romney, McCain or Huckabee. We stand on our principles.

Just think of it!  Another Clinton in the White House. Maybe Janet Reno back on the job and two or three new Justices to pat them on the back.

YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator

2Hotel9:

According to the FBI’s final report, there were no illegal weapons, no child molestation, no drug production lab.

Well you’re right there.

The problem here was that press reports before the incident contained a lot of hype.  There were some pretty extreme accusations published by the local Waco newspaper.  I think it was partly on the basis of these accusations (which were never later substantiated) that the use of force was justified by the Feds.

Part of the problem was that in addition to the errors that were made during the Waco siege, there were systematic attempts by the FBI to cover up their errors after the fact.

I agree with Likwidshoe on this one.  It is a very shameful chapter in the history of the FBI.  From my perspective the most objective account is from the DOJ.  There is a “bit more to the left” account by Carol Moore .  I don’t consider Moore to be partiularly credible here, others may.

PP, you are absolutely right. The Clintons will return to the White House. Because the candidate you keep throwing in people’s faces THEY DON’T WANT. Just because you say his name with heart felt conviction does not mean a damn thing. PEOPLE DO NOT WANT HIM.

Why is that so difficult for you to figure out?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Carrick, the graphic from Newsweek is a further bit of propaganda. In the balloons it states that melted handgrenades and an M-60 machinegun were found in the rubble. And yet, the FBI stated that no illegal weapons were found. The local press had quite a few sensationalist articles and lots of unfounded rumor. The national press, in fact, had a field day with this. As I recall, one of the survivors had tried to have several newspapers and broadcast companies brought before the judge that oversaw the final hearings on all this, but their lawyers prevailed upon the court to disallow any such motions.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

No, 2hotel9, YOU don’t want McCain, and you don’t speak for the people. All the national polls show that John McCain is the current front-runner.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com

If we get the Clintons back in the White House, it will be because you sat on your principles and didn’t vote.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator