About Me

Name:Deadpan
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Blog Roll

 

How to feel better about the Florida Primary

Posted by Deadpan on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 3:15:39 PM
Disappointed by the Florida primary results?  I certainly was.  That's why I'm sending another donation to Romney's campaign today. 

Yesterday I got a fundraising call from the RNC telling me how dire things are for the party.  I said I thought Republican politicians had brought that on themselves and that I wouldn't be making any donations until I know who the Republican nominee will be. It sounded like the caller has been hearing that a lot.  She'll hear it more if McCain keeps winning. 


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mack and Huck, Sitting in a Tree, . . .

Posted by Deadpan on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 2:59:42 PM
Huckabee is no longer a serious candidate for President.  He doesn't have the money to be competitive, but it's pretty obvious that he would like to be McCain's VP and thinks he can get there by drawing votes away from Romney who is neck and neck with McCain.  Without Huckabee, I think it's likely a majority of his voters would go to Romney, but I'm not sure about that.  Hugh Hewitt agrees. 

Huckabee was a better choice than McCain, because of his experience as an executive, but he has approached this campaign like an amateur, unprepared to discuss foreign policy, doing the Bill Clinton shtick with a bass guitar instead of a sax and pounding away on a populist theme, than has more to do with the New Deal than with Republican Conservative principles.

I could see that Romney was shaken by his loss last night when he gave his concession speech, but his remarks were some of the best I've heard, pointing out the need for Americans to strengthen the root institution of this society, the family, and the dire need to take on the entrenched greed and power in Washington, appoint judges who understand that they aren't legislators, and so on. 

I suspect that Mitt is learning a lot about adversity right now and falling back on the spiritual reserves that ultimately will be his greatest strength.    McCain's greatest strength is his ego and his willingness to get mean.
He made it through the Hanoi Hilton by his stubbornness and his defiant attitude.  But being president requires more than that.  He has to be a man of ideas, as Ronald Reagan was, not the platitudes and bromides that form so much of his rhetoric.  His attempts to be gracious in victory ring as hollow as the handshake between coaches after a tough game.   We saw the real McCain when he dismissed Romney as a mere hireling, a manager, and when he lied about Romney's "timetable" statement.  I don't trust him and I don't like him.  A party that would nominate him is not the same party that Ronald Reagan lead.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Posted by Deadpan on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 2:51:28 PM
John Hawkins lists his Ten Most Annoying Things about the Race for the Presidency and my reactions:

1.  Change, Change, Change: 

Everybody's the candidate of Change.  Nobody seems to mention how they will change anything, leaving it to every voter's imagination what it means.  It's a way of covering up the problem that none of them knows what problems they're going to confront.  Did George W. Bush expect 9/11?  No, and neither did anybody else.  Otherwise, it wouldn't have happened.  But his reaction to it and his steadfastness in prosecuting the war on terrorism proved his mettle.

2.  Lack of Focus on the Issues: 

Hey, it's the Primaries!  There's a big difference between the parties,  but between candidates in the same party?  It's all about how they can handle the same issues better than their opponents, like which Democrat can bring home the troops faster.  After the party nominees are settled there will be big issues.

3.  The Candidates are Running for President, not National Pastor:

His religion was the last thing Romney wanted to be front and center.  The media wasn't going to let that go by.  They can't stand anybody who is (a.) smarter than they are, which Romney is; (b.) is successful and (c.) Republican.  The fact that he's a Mormon gives them a way to savage him with impunity, because all that most people know about Mormons is that they're weird, polygamists and don't use electricity.  Add to that, the fact that Evangelicals are so afraid of losing members to the LDS church they've spent the past 20 years spreading the story that Mormonism is a cult, Mormons aren't really Christians and they believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers.  This gave Huckabee a ready-made constituency who only had to be reminded that he is one of them to have them tumble into his column like snow off the roof.  He almost got away with it, but that "my faith defines me" plus "Christian leader" caption in his ads, followed by his "innocent question" to the NYTimes interviewer about what Mormons believe, gave the game away.  After he went on TV and played bass guitar, which often leads to dancing, extolled the Confederate Battle Flag and went around preaching what sounded a lot like FDR populism with a lot of jealousy toward Romney, implying that he was handed everything he has, when he wasn't, Huck's cachet began to fade.  He has no fundraising ability, so he's now running for McCain's VP.

So I agree with Hawkins here.  Unless the candidate is a Scientologist or practices/advocates human sacrifice as a religious ritual, like Al Qaeda, his religion shouldn't be an issue. 

4.  Entitlement in Iowa and New Hampshire:

Hey, somebody's got to be the first primaries.  All these states vying with each other to move their primaries earlier really has messed up the process.  The result is that candidates begin campaigning earlier, about as soon as the last midterm election was over.   I think a Constitutional Amendment is in order providing that no state can hold its primary or caucuses earlier than April 1 of the election year.  Let the candidates spend their time quietly raising money and building organizations and leave the rest of us alone during non-election years. 

5.  The Intra-Party Blood Feud on the Republican Side: 

This isn't really "intra-party" so much as the reaction of conservatives to John McCain, the candidate of the Independents of New Hampshire, and people who think that his suffering in Vietnam thirty years ago should be rewarded with the presidency, whether he's shown himself qualified or not.

6.  Reaganmania: 

Well, he IS the patron saint of the party, at least in the 20th Century.  It's not as bad as invoking George Washington, John Adams, and Ben Franklin, like Ron Paul.

7.  It Never Ends:

See No. 4 above.  I don't know why it's become an endless campaign.  I think it started with Carter who ran without the party in the state primaries and had the nomination sewed up by the convention.  That became the new paradigm.  The early primaries are the problem.

8.  The Gloom and Doom of the Electorate:

When every candidate is telling you how bad your life is and how they're going to fix it, why argue?  Of course, this year, gasoline and heating oil have doubled since 2004, so people really are feeling a pinch and telling them the economy is great doesn't make it much better.  Then all these variable rate mortgages come to the point where the payments are supposed to start paying back the loan, not just the interest, and all the yokels who didn't understand how that worked, or thought the day would never come are caught unable to pay,  Who's responsible?  Well, common sense would say it was the people who took out those loans and the lenders who let them borrow the money.  But the home lending business is too big to fail, so the rest of the country has to bail out these mortgage lenders poor homeowners for the good of the economy.   The problem as I see it, is that no construction firms are building small, starter homes any more, because they still cost too much, so they make their money on the double garages two-storey, finished basements, three baths, and all that jazz, and young couples just starting can't afford to pay a conventional loan, so the industry invented the ARM and kept things moving.  But I think it's a bubble, and sooner or later, we're going to have to find some other way to deal with the need for housing.

9.  Sound Byte Debates

This is the age of 24 hour news, blogging and the internet.  Sound bites are all the public has time for, provided they come with a punchline from Jon Stewart, Jay Leno, David Letterman or Jimmy Kimmel.  Without that they don't have the time even for the sound bite.  All the public lets through these days is the general tone of the coverage.   It's a crappy way to run a democracy, I agree.  I'd prefer that people have to pass a basic awareness test, like the questions on JayWalking before they get to vote, but when the Democrats are trying to make it easier to vote, even if you're an illegal alien, whattayagonnado?

10.  Race vs. Gender vs. Class Warfare on the Democratic Side:

Identity politics has always been part of Democratic politics.  They build coalitions out of blocks like a kindergartener.  I've always been mystified how they could be the party that kept Jim Crow alive for 100 years and then sew up 90% of the black vote almost in perpetuity, along with labor unions, radical feminists, gays and the crypto-marxists from Academia and the elite professionals on both coasts.  You'd think that groups that disparate wouldn't have enough in common to hold together, but the fact is they all expect something from government, minimum wages, guaranteed union contracts, special rights, welfare, etc.   Meanwhile both parties have learned how to milk corporations for donations and lobbyist perks in exchange for corporate welfare.   Yes, they pay lip service to "small business" and rail against "tax cuts for the rich," but these days politicians ARE the rich, al least if they stay in Washington for more than a couple of terms, and then the best thing is to be defeated for office and go to work for a lobbyist firm, or work 20 years in the Pentagon then retire and switch to working for Defense Contractors.  

The only fix for this is to disperse power, which is about as easy as putting toothpaste back in the tube when someone is rolling it up from the other end.  The only ones who can do that are the people at the grass roots, and if you think they'll ever give up their entitlements, I've got a bridge to sell you, cheap.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Let Romney Be Romney

Posted by Deadpan on Friday, January 25, 2008 9:16:56 PM
I've often thought that Romney is most impressive as an executive and manager, a role in which he's most comfortable and accomplished.  His speech about religion's role in politics was so good because it was heart-felt and personal.  He wasn't trying to be what someone else expected, or fit their expectations.  He's an impressive guy.  He ought to let his personality flow.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mitt Romney is Not the LDS Church

Posted by Deadpan on Friday, January 25, 2008 9:08:34 PM
NOTE:  Whoops!   Since I posted this, it has been pointed out that Lowell was wrong and that there was a question specifically about Mormons in the poll which he didn't catch.  Hugh Hewitt was told about it and apologized to Brian Williams yesterday.  I withdraw the following, as well, and add my apology to Hugh's. 

My original post is as follows:

Lowell Brown of Article6Blog.com has caught NBC News in a falsehood about it's own poll trying to insert Mitt's Mormonism as an issue.  He calls it "borderline mendacity," but to me there's nothing borderline about it.  It was journalistic malpractice, which is common enough these days, but far worse than mere political bias, since it attempts to insert religious bigotry into a campaign.  It may be that Brian Williams, who asked the question, may not have read the poll questions himself, but that is no excuse.  He should apologize publicly to Governor Romney and Republicans in general.

What might have been said if a poll asked the sample members how well they believed Bill Clinton was living his religion when he was dallying with "that woman, Ms. Lewinsky," in the Oval Office?  Or whether they thought Mayor Giuliani had set a good moral example in his treatment of his last wife. 

Religion is not a useful issue in politics.  What matters is character.  A pious Muslim, excluding the radical Islamists, who lives his religion is preferable to a lousy Baptist like Bill Clinton.   I don't consider atheism to be honest, although I could accept an agnostic who was honest and honorable.   The only thing that should matter about a person's religion is how it has affected his life and behavior.  In Romney's case, his parents and their faith and moral standards probably had the most influence on him.  If I were to judge Mike Huckabee's religion by him, I'd say it has made him petty and resentful of those who have achieved more in their lives.   The same test for Giuliani would yield a judgment that his religion emphasizes justice, but not moral behavior and family life.  The reason those judgments seem unfair and false is because they are unfair and based on too small a sample to justify an accurate opinion.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Posted by Deadpan on Friday, January 25, 2008 6:03:52 PM
I can't even listen to Michael Medved's show lately.  First it was defending Mike Huckabee at every turn, but whom Medved hardly mentions now.  He's now endorsed McCain. but seems to have taken it on himself to argue with every person who has said he couldn't vote for McCain, instead of supporting someone the base can accept.  There's a reason it''s called "the base."  You start there and then reach for the swing voters, the independents and those who may not be enchanted with their own party's candidates.   When you start out trying to moderate the base--make them less conservative or  impose a candidate they don't like--you're likely to lose those who are your natural allies.  Medved argues--that's my basic problem with him: he wants to argue with everybody--that for the good of the party we should be willing to support McCain, but isn't that putting the cart before the horse?   Is the party made for its members or are they its slaves?  It's up to the candidates to sell themselves to the party.  You can argue that so-and-so is more likely to win, but what good is that when you think your candidate is likely to go soft on captured terrorists, wants to weaken the party by limiting the ads it can run or the money it can raise, thinks enforcing our borders is inhospitable,  and is more likely to spend his time in office insulting people and fighting with his own party?  That's not leadership, it's commanding.

It comes down for me to an LDS scipture, a letter from Joseph Smith when he was imprisoned in the Liberty Jail in Liberty, Missouri.  I have replaced the word "priesthood" with the word "office" to and  make the point clearer.

    Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

    Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they     do not learn this one lesson—

     That the rights of [office] are inseparably connected with the [trust of the people,] and that the [trust of the     people] cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

    That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride,     our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in     any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the [trust  of the people is withdrawn;] . . .  and when it is withdrawn,     Amen to the . . .  authority of that man. . . .

    We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get     a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

    Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

    No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of [one's office alone, but] by persuasion, by     long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

    By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

This scripture was written about ecclesiastic offices and how one is to act when leading those of the church, even when teaching them the word of God, but the principle is the same in politics.  Jesus told his disciples to be wise as serpents but innocent as doves.  Nobody need expect that his political opponents will not try to trick him, make unjust or false charges, etc., but his defense must be his innocence, and he must never become high-handed, contemptuous, bitter, willful or arrogant.  I see all of those things in John McCain, and while they may have made him a hero as a POW, they do not make him a good political leader.  As a Senator he is one of a hundred who tries to pass legislation he thinks is good for the country or opposes what he thinks is bad.  As president he would preside, lead and direct the efforts of others, including many bureaucrats who are fractious and determined to undermine him.  He has to handle himself so as to not become embroiled in petty disputes and play into the hands of member of the press who see their role as fault-finding, rather than mere reporting. 

Michael Medved argues that McCain has a good record of voting on conservative issues.  Fine.  But time after time, when he has come to the fore, it has been to throw thorns in the path, to team up with liberal Senators and to lecture his fellow Republicans with sarcasm, profanity and belittling rhetoric.

But the reason the man repels me is his lack of conservative votes.  It's his manner and his personality.  He's cranky, autocratic and vain.  I just don't like him.  I don't feel obligated to vote for him.  If he is the nominee, heaven help us, the Democrat may be so obnoxious that I would find McCain preferable, but  what are we to do when we are given a choice between too candidates we can't stand?  The time to avoid that choice is now, during the primaries.  If the country choses the Democrat, I'm willing to live with it, provided I voted my own conscience. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

he is the candidate that the Democrats most fear.

Posted by Deadpan on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 7:11:45 PM
(Via Hugh Hewiit)  Amy Goldstein lists the reasons the other candidates hate Romney.  

1. He can win. Governor Romney appeals to economic conservatives and could appeal to foreign policy conservatives based upon his understanding of the issues. Most non-partisan foreign policy wonks who have briefed the major candidates tell me that Romney "gets it" better than any other candidate -- even better than those who have held high profile office for decades. Moreover, he is the candidate that the Democrats most fear.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Can we stop conflating Romney with the Mormon Church?

Posted by Deadpan on Monday, January 21, 2008 1:09:08 AM
Ron Rosenbaum wants Mitt Romney to denounce the LDS Church practice of baptism for the dead.  I haven't noticed him demanding that Huckabee proclaim that all Jews go to heaven under Southern Baptist Doctrine.   Somehow, a lot of Jews have gotten the idea that by doing ordinances vicariously for those who have died without receiving an opportunity to accept Christ, Mormons are claiming them as members. 

What the principle is all about is to reconcile Christ's teaching that except a man be born of the water and the spirit, he cannot enter heaven, with the fact that most of mankind has never heard of Christ or his gospel.  Freedom of choice is a central doctrine of the LDS religion.  It holds after this life as much as it does during mortality. 

None of this makes any difference to Jews who are angry about the practice.  It's as though they're saying "Your religion is false, and we don't want you pretending it's true."  Isn't that what freedom of religion is all about, letting people who believe something you don't act as if it's true?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No More Fred?

Posted by Deadpan on Monday, January 21, 2008 12:52:07 AM
I hope this isn't prophetic, but it doesn't look like Fred Thompson will stay in the race after South Carolina's primary, or maybe Florida's.  McCain seems headed for a victory, which really makes me sick.  It's like 1996 all over again.  The only thing worse would be if he won.

I don't want to throw away all the work, blood and money we've put into delivering Iraq from its national nightmare to be wasted, but one has to think that's a foregone conclusion from national polls on the popularity of the war.   The only thing I agree with him about is that we need to stay in Iraq and prevent Iran from getting nukes, but I don't think he's electable, because he can't attract more than about a third of the voters.  He's old, stubborn and irascible, and he lacks judgment.  For example, it would make sense to lessen our dependence on foreign oil by producing more here, but he likens that to drilling in the Grand Canyon. 

America is being pulled in 10 different directions by  the economy, environmentalists,  terrorism, civil libertarians and courts, and  every other cause du jour, and nobody seems to be  willing to say "no" to anybody.  I don't see McCain as a leader capable of dealing with all that.  Maybe there isn't one, given our news media and their ADD approach to things, but I'd take Giuliani, Thompson or Romney.  Huckabee is out of his depth, and McCain is, well, McCain.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"I Only Meant . . ."

Posted by Deadpan on Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:01:07 PM
For years liberals have pandered to minority groups, inviting them to feel victimized and castigated others for being "insensitive"  to the point where these groups have begun to feel entitled to special regard and treatment.by whoever they deem the majority.   It's now become so reflexive that even using the word "niggardly" raises hackles.  And of course, any allegation of racism brings Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and their ilk parachuting in to organize protests and demand satisfaction, which often takes the form of kissing his ring and donating to his causes.

Now, having pandered so well as to be declared to be the first African American President, Bill Clinton is living his political career through Hillary, and finds himself (he doesn't really think of her as an independent entity) facing a true African-American opponent who beat them in Iowa.  Margaret Carlson writes:

Bill Clinton, in particular, was furious at Hillary's loss, indulging in the kind of red-faced rants vividly described in George Stephanopoulos's tale of White House life, ``All Too Human.''

How dare this upstart backbencher steal this election from Hillary! The press? What a lazy bunch of enablers swallowing this &%*# fairy tale, all this hooey about what we share being so much greater than our differences.

Carlson believes that race becoming an issue will damage Obama, but I don't see how.

So Hillary has gone negative, and the Clintons are notorious for playing hardball. The first salvo was attacking Obama's admitted use of drugs as a teen.  The second was the implication that Martin Luther King couldn't have changed the nation's race laws without the efforts of LBJ.  It took a white president, LBJ.

The implication is that American blacks need white patrons to grant them their rights.  So much for Dr. King's dream.   How that hurts Obama's cause, I'm not sure.  If I were black, I'd be angry and energized.

George Will notes that it did take a southern white Democrat president to push the civil rights laws through Congress, but it's not likely that he'd have been so inclined without the courage and leadership of Martin Luther King.

It is unfair, and wonderful, that Clinton has been castigated for her insensitivity in uttering the incontestable truth that President Lyndon Johnson, as well as Martin Luther King Jr., was indispensable to enactment of the civil rights acts of 1964 and 1965. To his credit, Barack Obama seemed not quite able to conceal his boredom with his assigned role of slighted victim in the charade of being offended. His campaign, however, methodically played a muted part in the required dance of agreement.

Clinton's clanking, wheezing political jalopy, blowing its gaskets and stripping its lug nuts, has moved on from faulting Obama for a kindergarten essay (in which he supposedly revealed a presidential ambition that was unseemly around the teeter-totter) to accusing him of wanting to be reasonable, even likable. Is there nothing the man will not stoop to?

America has passed another milestone on its march to equal opportunity thanks to Robert Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television, who this week proved that a black billionaire can be just as witless as are certain white billionaires who think their wisdom is commensurate with their net worth. Introducing Clinton at a rally, Johnson called Obama a "guy who says, 'I want to be a reasonable, likable Sidney Poitier in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.'" For the uninitiated, that is how you call someone an Uncle Tom in an age that has not read "Uncle Tom's Cabin."


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Fed Up

Posted by Deadpan on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 6:38:44 PM
I've been irritated a lot by Michael Medved's radio show, because of his focus on dissension.  He invites guests who are so outrageously wrong that disputing them is like shooting fish in a barrel.  He gives priority to callers who disagree with him and devotes a segment each week to disagreement. 

He's against Romney, and so he defended Huckabee and criticized Romney's negative ads against him as unfair and distortions.  When the focus shifted to New Hampshire, Medved endorsed McCain and has been plugging him consistently today trying to help him win in Michigan, touting him as a true conservative. 

It's gotten so that I can't stand to listen to him anymore.  He's showing his own dishonesty by claiming McCain as a conservative.  I have seen McCain pull the rug out from under his fellow Republicans too often to ever trust him again.  He's ill tempered, self-centered and stubborn beyond belief.  He reminds me of a rhinocerous (No, not a RINO) with poor eyesight, big bulk and a quick temper.  If startled, rhinos attack before they know what's threatening them.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Huck Will Fade

Posted by Deadpan on Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:38:53 PM
Peggy Noonan:

<blockquote>Everyone said Mike Huckabee was a big dope to leave Iowa Wednesday to fly to L.A. to be on Jay Leno, but did you see him on that thing? He got off a perfect line on why he's doing well against Romney: "People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off." The studio audience loved him. And you know, in Iowa they watch "The Tonight Show" too.

Mr. Huckabee likes to head-fake people into thinking he's Gomer Pyle, but he's more like the barefoot boy of the green room. He's more James Carville than Jim Nabors.</blockquote>


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hillary's Voice

Posted by Deadpan on Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:49:35 AM
Maybe the tearing up was what turned the trick after all.  As I always say, people care about sincerity, and once you can fake that you've got it made. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

For our children

Posted by Deadpan on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 2:07:37 PM
Robert Samuelson nails candidates for promises they can't keep.  We've already pledged our children's future to support their parents' generation.   It ought to be obvious that these candidates, Huckabee, Obama and Clinton aren't worrying about our children.  Children can't vote.  Those who are old enough to vote realize that they can't count on promises from these people.  They should be voting for cutting Social Security and Medicare, because until their voices drown out those of angry old people, nothing will get done. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Wait is Over

Posted by Deadpan on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 1:42:04 PM
This letter gave me a jolt.  I don't know what has held me back from sending money to help Mitt, I guess I just wanted it to go to win the main campaign, but I realize now, as the writer states, ". . .  after two elections and two unacceptable outcomes from Iowa and NH I realized I can't sit back anymore and must step up and start helping my guy." Read the whole thing.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »