Are you really voting for Barr?

By Thor

May 22, 2008 8:20 AM | Link to this

I might! GA is a solid red state and I refuse to vote for the GOP (they should be punished). Obama doesn’t light my fire so I might cast a protest vote for Barr!

By Craig

May 22, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this

I’m with Thor. McCain has flip flopped on so many issues - tax cuts for rich people, immigration, relationships with the radical Christian Right, on and on.

If nothing else, agree with him or disagree, Barr is consistent. It would be nice, after 16 years of questionable ethics in our presidents, to have someone with some integrity in that office.

By Manny

May 22, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this

In this election, I will, for the very first time ever, vote for a Democrat for President. I’m voting for Barack Obama instead of McCain or Bob Barr.

I would like to see a refreshing change in our foreign policy. I think we should talk, to the point of chastisement, to Iran and other enemies of the US Government- as long as they are heads of state. And other than the fact that McCain was a POW in Vietnam, I see no policy change between President Bush and McCain.

And President Bush’s foreign policy has failed.

By HIDT

May 22, 2008 8:33 AM | Link to this

As someone who really believes government should do as little as possible beyond, defending the shores, delivering the mail and staying out of citizens’ business, I always give the Libertarian candidate a look.

By Redneck Convert

May 22, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this

Well, I might could vote for Barr except he’s a librul on some things. Like not wanting the guvmint to open our mail to look for terrists or listen in on our phone calls. If the guvmint don’t have that right then the terrists win. On other things like the budget Barr’s a good conservative that would cut out all this welfare to Those People.

Us rednecks got ourselfs a awful quandry in November. We see a librul at the head of the Republican ticket and a librul at the head of the Democrat ticket and a half librul in Barr and another librul in Nader.

I can’t figure out why this country turned so much against godly Republicans. Even most of our own party won’t vote for a real one. People set around and gripe about no jobs and high gas and a broke budget and they want to blame us for it. Well, you can’t pay for a war without going a little broke and the high gas is the fault of the towel-heads. We don’t get no credit for turning the Supreme Court mostly conservative or for building a couple miles of border fence.

Maybe I should of stayed in the race instead of dropping out. I think right now most of the people on this blog would be tickled to death to see the name Redneck Convert up there on the ballot instead of all these libruls.

Have a good day everybody.

By jbmlaw

May 22, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. I respectfully disagree with one of Jim�s significant arguments, but first things first. No, I will not be voting for Bob Barr, even though I voted for him in his race against a more attractive conservative candidate, John Linder. My disaffection arises from Mr. Barr�s repudiation of the Iraq effort; I will not vote for anyone who is wrong on the big issue, and he is wrong. Captain Queeg is right on the big issue, so for now he retains my vote. (Note to all friends who harbor ambivalent feelings about the Republican standard-bearer, you need to see the �McCain 2008� tee-shirt linked from Chairman Ann�s home page. Cannot be described in a family newspaper, but it is truly funny.)

My disagreement with our genial host is in his conditional absolute, that he will not support a third party candidate. I have so voted for a third-party candidate under similar circumstances. In 2000 I voted for the Libertarian candidate � think it was Harry Browne, I�m not sure � but only after I determined that Georgia was likely to support George W. Bush by a wide margin. My Harry Browne vote was to send a note of disapproval � I suspected then that Mr. Bush was a faux-conservative, much as I view Captain Queeg. Regrettably the Libertarian option is not reasonable this year, as both Mr. Barr and Mr. Paul declare themselves indistinguishable from leftists on Iraq; who would ever dream that Hillary would be more faithful to the Iraq effort than Bob Barr? If a true conservative offered himself/herself as an alternative in Georgia, and the state continued to look like safe McCain-territory, I would cast my futile protest vote again. Does not look likely this year.

By Copyleft

May 22, 2008 8:48 AM | Link to this

Nothing outrages entrenched party loyalists like the specter of offering voters an actual CHOICE, does it? (snicker)

I’m no fan of Barr or Libertarianism, but I’m always happy to see more choices offered in our broken electoral process.

By jbmlaw

May 22, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this

Dear Manny @ 8:32, just curious: what do you think could be accomplished by talking with Iran, best case? The Europeans have been talking for four years, with no results, other than giving Iran cover for further development of nukes. Of course, the problem for the Europeans is that they are trying to get something � nonproliferation � for nothing. What do you think Obama can accomplish that the vaunted Europeans have not, and at what cost? Is Kumbaya enough to satisfy you?

By Copyleft

May 22, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this

By the way, conservatives: I hope you enjoy being lectured and talked down to if you even DARE to think about voting for someone who actually represents your beliefs!

The partisans will wag their fingers at you, declaring “You’re not ALLOWED to choose! Party loyalty is all that matters—no matter HOW badly our candidate ignores or undermines the issues you care about!”

Liberals got an earful of that back in 2000 when they backed an actual progressive (Nader) instead of the handpicked corporate-party “safety candidate” (Gore). How DARE you vote your beliefs!

Enjoy.

By Manny

May 22, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

What has not talking to Iran accomplish? The USA isn’t Europe. If not talking accomplishes nothing but emboldening Iran to become the dominant player in the power vacuum that was created with the regime change in Iraq, then talking directly to them might.

Plus, talking isn’t negotiating. With my foes, I like to look them in the eye. I like to show them directly my displeasure, and speak directly as to how this can be resolved.

But to sit back and let Iran become the Middle East ultimate power broker while threatening war and rattling swords is accomplishing nothing but alienating our friends and stirring up hatred with neutral countries.

By WFC

May 22, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this

“Conservative” was once an honorable term (Barry Goldwater, for example.) However, in today’s world, far too often, “conservative” has simply come to mean: “I’ve got mine and to h*ll with you PLUS you better believe in my version of the Big Invisible Guy in the Sky.”

I’m comfortably retired and hardly a liberal. John McCain is a fine man who I admire although I don’t always agree with him.

By jbmlaw

May 22, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this

Dear Copyleft @ 8:53, heck, I get �lectured and talked down to� on this blog on a daily basis, and that is by my friend Dusty, not to mention my ideological opposition. I guess I am just a masochist.

By GOPs got to go

May 22, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this

Smile……

By bartender

May 22, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this

McCain adviser Charlie Black rebuked for work with dictators. Clients included notorious rulers Savimbi, Marcos, Sese Seko, Siad Barre http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24769387/

McCain is as corrupt as they come he’ll do anything, say anything as long as it suits his purpose. And, half the time his facts are wrong.

Lincoln Chafee said this on Faux News “It�s almost like two people, kow-towing to the Republican base. It�s a different John.”

I’m voting for Obama. He does not have the stink of the career politician hanging around his neck!

By Glenn

May 22, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this

Though I have most of Mr. Barr’s politics I can’t vote for a person missing any sense of humor. Too creepy.

The Libertarian Party is ridiculous, and should Barr become its nominee his only power will be destructive power. He’s a negative force, and should take a hike.

By ac/dc

May 22, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this

If anyone had any doubts that Obamanians were Marxist liberals, search no further than right here. http://www.kxmb.com/News/Nation/240392.asp What kind of liberal socialist democrat as-sholes love to play the Soviet national anthem?

Neocommunism under the guise of caring liberalism, or more specifically ‘progressiveness’ will be the death of this nation and your right to privacy, personal freedom of choice (apparently the only “choice” libs care about is with abortion), and the right to keep more of your property, including money for inheritance and retirement. Yes, I know, if I want to keep any of the aforementioned, I am just a greedy, selfish s.o.b. who doesn’t want to put my socialist-wannabe nation under liberalism first. Pi-ss off, libs. Go create your own socialist liberal utopia elsewhere and keep it the HELL out of my private life.

Want to really destroy this nation? Vote Obama ‘08!

Slimebags.

By steve

May 22, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this

I have voted Libertarian in the past, but will not this time around. I am voting for Obama. He is a democrat that actually talks about personal responsibility and I believe that his presidency will influence Americans to better themselves.

By ghost rider

May 22, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this

Outside of the deep south I doubt Mr. Barr has any noteworthy name recognition.

Besides he has a few hurdles to obercome such as these.

While pretending to be a champion of “traditional” marriage, Barr has remarried three times and also licked whipped cream off of a beauty pageant�s breasts.

By Manny

May 22, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this

Also, to further discuss the feasibility of direct talks vs. public threats is this point:

Iraq.

Saddam had no WMDs. Many liberals scream about that they knew all along that he didn’t and what-not, well I didn’t. And evidently the intelligence community didn’t either.

But imagine if someone held constant, hard, straight, and direct talks with Saddam about the ramifications of not being open from the one government that was the main instigator of that threat? What, during that conversation, you realize that Saddam is lying about WMDs and nuclear capabilities to make it look like they are keeping up with Iran? Imagine if you realize that Saddam is just trying to keep Iraq safe, in his weird, maniacal way, from an invasion from Iran?

I don’t know what would have happened during the course of that conversation. Maybe the way could have been averted. Maybe we could have still had the war, but under different auspices. Maybe we couldn’t have found out anything.

But we never tried.

By AmVet

May 22, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this

Copyleft at 8:48.

Like with you and me, I hope that sentiment is beginning to awaken in many more Americans.

There are two factors in play here.

First, many of the more deliberative voters now FINALLY see AND admit that the differences between the two parties are minuscule. Sure they each blather on endlessly about how the other is the devil incarnate, but the reality is that they are bought and paid for by the same monied masters.

And the reality is that nothing ever fundamentally changes in Washington. And if you really doubt me, I would ask you to ask the average American if they agree with that assertion or not.

So our hijacked government as defined by both political parties is no longer recognizable as a government of the people, by the people and for the people. (Unless General Dynamics, General Electric and General Motors are people).

This LONG overdue indictment of our utterly corrupt political duopoly is the primary reason that Ralph Nader resonates with those of us that recognize and wish to marginalize the monstrous, self-serving corporate wh0res and plutocrats.

Secondly, the parties seem obsessed with gaining and keeping power before the best interests of the nation. And NOTHING of import gets accomplished.

Sorry to be so blunt about this, but Mr. Wooten is an out-dated fool in this regard. And contributes greatly to this hyper-partisan, inept clusterf&ck that is a sham representation of effective governance.

And does one single blogger here actually believe that tripe about there being ANY possibility of him voting for a non-Republican? Under any circumstances?

And how pitifully ironic that the Wooten-led “conservatives” may get a chance to parrot the pathetic Democrats and bemoan and falsely blame someone, Mr. Barr in this instance, for their own obvious failures of leadership and inability to demonstrate that their are willing to clean up their awful act.

It is beyond time to tell both the Democratic and Republican apparatchiks to go to h&ll…

By Glenn

May 22, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

“direct talks vs. public threats”

Manny, I don’t think you’re going to get jbm, Esq., to but that loaded counterposition.

By jbmlaw

May 22, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this

Dear Manny @ 9:07, you ask the relevant question: �What has not talking to Iran accomplish?� US refusal to elevate the Iranians to our diplomatic level, coupled with our eradication of the government of Iraq caused Iran to suspend its nuke program (you recall the politicized CIA report from last fall that noted the 2004 suspension of activity?) Of course since then, the Western-leftist undermining of the war facilitated covert Iranian misbehavior in Iraq, and has cost us an additional 2,000 military lives. Since then we have had only the talk without the sabre-rattling, so the Iranians, reasonably, resumed their nuke production. As I read your note, you propose continuing such talk without sabre-rattling, which is what prompted my inquiry at 8:49. Thus, I assume kumbaya is enough for you, and that your expectations otherwise are justifiably low. Sort of “talk loudly and carry no stick at all.” Wonder how that will work?

Another issue crosses my mind, not particularly relevant for Obama w/r/t Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, or even Syria. Obama�s dad was a Muslim, and that means Obama was Muslim at birth. He later renounced Islam, and professes Christianity. I think I understand that the Koran pronounces a specific punishment for such apostasy. Does that not preclude meetings � for reasons of safety - with theocrats such as those who control Iran? Do we have any intelligent reason to believe they will adhere to Western sensibilities of civilized behavior?

By lolo

May 22, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this

YES I AM!

By ghost rider

May 22, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

By ac/dc

May 22, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this

Dear ac/dc, did you not note the disclaimer to this article?

“This article is a blog post and does not represent the views or opinions of Reiten Television, KXNet.com, its staff and associates and is wholly owned by the user who posted this content.”

Which means this could have been written by Hannity, Rush, Savage any one of a fistful of rightwing nut jobs!

The “Decemberists” are nothing more than a local PORTLAND band.

Try thinking for yourself..you’ll be a much better person.

By TW

May 22, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this

The size of the pending liberal tsunami will be proportional to the strength of rightwing’s continued embrace of the ‘w’ regime. Those who call themselves conservatives but do not denounce the ‘w’ admin for the abortion it has been, are nothing short a of a wet dream for moveon.org.

Denounce the infiltration. Save the conservative voice.

By Dutchman

May 22, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

To a degree, I do hope BHO gets elected. When that specter hots the American people, it will be 1994 all over again. The Congress will be turned out and a republican majority will be swept in. Followed closely with a conservative Republican President.

On the other hand, McCain does have is good points. I do not expect my taxes to go up nearly as much. HRC and BHO both want me to pay more for less. He seems to understand that rogue nations and crazy dictators and tyrants are to be marginalized.

In this imperfect world, we sometimes get imperfect candidates. I will vote for McCain.

By Lisa

May 22, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

I worked for Bob Barr when I was in college as an intern in one of his congressional offices. I found him to be extremely smart, knowledgeable about all of the issues, and committed to his own stances on those issues. He is NOT a politician who tells you what you want to hear in order to get your vote. I admire that honesty about him.

In this election, though, I am so torn. I really want to vote for him because he is the candidate that I most trust and believe in. I just wish he were in John McCain’s place! Because on the other hand, I don’t want to hand the election over to the democrats by voting for a third party candidatte! For that reason, my mind just isn’t made up.

By jungleland

May 22, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

Yes, I plan to vote for Barr. Less Government, Lower Taxes, More personal freedom.

If I was 100% sure that McCain would (1)Pay off the deficit (2)Overturn the Patriot Act (3) Lower Taxes

Then I would vote for him instead

By Truthifier

May 22, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

Did George Mcgovern break any fundraising records? Did George McGovern ever attract a crowd of 75,000?

As usual, Jimmy Wooten is just trying to stir things up. I’ve actually been a Clinton supporter, but no one, well no one other than Jimmy, would argue that Obama is not running a tight, effective campaign.

Jimmy’s shameless partisan hack routine is getting tiresome.

By getalife

May 22, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

“Appeasement goes mainstream � Israel, Syria sit down for talks”

Pakistan made peace with the Taliban.

Palestine next?

w lost, obl won.

Barr lead to impeach President Clinton but not a peep for w breaking the law and destroying our country.

Hell no to Barr.

By Dave

May 22, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

There is NOTHING that shows that Barr is for “smaller government” based on his previous record in Washington. He says he’s changed…trust me he has not…. That’s what we need as our leader…with ALL the problems that were facing this country and going on in the world…he became the biggest bully and pitbull in DC to go after Clinton…who cares if some girl got on her knees and “serviced” the president? Who cares that he lied about it. Too bad he did not do the same for ALL GOP members that have lied under oath over and over.

Hey GA….go vote red this election…nobody will even BOTHER with this state…as they don’t care. It matters very little. So vote for McInsane (and get him some depends while you at it), or for Barr….Obama is on a straight path to run this country. Too bad he won’t be able to mend and fix all the Dubya and DICK broke while they played in the whitehouse….

The Truth, (what a name for a propagandist)….sad that yesterday…as I wrote…that you think I was speaking of YOUR daughter…I was not…i was speaking in gneral terms…The WHOLE GOP “values voters” bunch in the state of GAWGA….sorry if you took it the wrong way… or personal… but spin thins as you may…it’s understandable that you do/did…

But I’m STILL waiting for the “censorship” police to show up and knock at my front door…. ;-)

By Manny

May 22, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this

JBmLaw,

Your interpretations, albeit somewhat valid, has some points in which I would like to clarify.

Your view that by not having direct talks with Iran is the US’s refusal to elevate the Iranians on a diplomatic level is counterproductive. See, that policy is viewed to many other countries in that region as Imperial. In other words, Iran has to come up a few levels before being recognized as a nation worthy of an audience with the US government. They’ll rather destruct US interests within the region and destabilize US-backed regimes instead of convalescing to that policy.

Instead of sabre-rattling, let’s talk and tell them directly our positions and the ramifications if our positions are not acted upon. That’s not sabre-rattling. That’s direct, hard diplomacy. They may still be threatened, but they aren’t guessing.

Also, to the issue of Obama’s father, Barack never took Shahada, so just because his father was a Muslim doesn’t mean that Barack is an apostate due to his father’s faith.

In Islam, you are Muslim by youth, but then the child matures and have to make a decision concerning his faith. According to Islam, if the child follows his fitrah, or innate nature, he will find his way back to Islam and start his journey within the 5 pillars of faith. And that person becomes a practicing Muslim.

Now Barack Obama never took Shahada, which is the 1st pillar of faith. His life was lived in accordance to his own logic and reason until he accepted Jesus Christ as Lord. And upon his first testimony of faith in Jesus Christ, his baptism, he became a Christian.

So just because your father was a Muslim doesn’t mean that you are an apostate in Islam. You are considered as apostate only when you acknowledge Islam as the true religion and then turn away from it. It’s the same was in which you accept Jesus as Lord in Christianity and then renounce it.

So Obama’s not a Muslim. If he was, when he said during a campaign speech that he acknowledge that Jesus is his savior just killed that.

Oh, and just being President of the United States would provide greater safety concerns than his faith with these theocrats.

By Dave

May 22, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

There is NOTHING that shows that Barr is for “smaller government” based on his previous record in Washington. He says he’s changed…trust me he has not…. That’s what we need as our leader…with ALL the problems that were facing this country and going on in the world…he became the biggest bully and pitbull in DC to go after Clinton…who cares if some girl got on her knees and “serviced” the president? Who cares that he lied about it. Too bad he did not do the same for ALL GOP members that have lied under oath over and over.

Hey GA….go vote red this election…nobody will even BOTHER with this state…as they don’t care. It matters very little. So vote for McInsane (and get him some depends while you at it), or for Barr….Obama is on a straight path to run this country. Too bad he won’t be able to mend and fix all the Dubya and DICK broke while they played in the whitehouse….

The Truth, (what a name for a propagandist)….sad that yesterday…as I wrote…that you think I was speaking of YOUR daughter…I was not…i was speaking in general terms…The WHOLE GOP “values voters” bunch in the state of GAWGA….sorry if you took it the wrong way… or personal… but spin thins as you may…it’s understandable that you do/did…

By Dave

May 22, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

There is NOTHING that shows that Barr is for “smaller government” based on his previous record in Washington. He says he’s changed…trust me he has not…. That’s what we need as our leader…with ALL the problems that were facing this country and going on in the world…he became the biggest bully and pitbull in DC to go after Clinton…who cares if some girl got on her knees and “serviced” the president? Who cares that he lied about it. Too bad he did not do the same for ALL GOP members that have lied under oath over and over.

Hey GA….go vote red this election…nobody will even BOTHER with this state…as they don’t care. It matters very little. So vote for McInsane (and get him some depends while you at it), or for Barr….Obama is on a straight path to run this country. Too bad he won’t be able to mend and fix all the Dubya and DICK broke while they played in the whitehouse….

The Truth, (what a name for a propagandist)….sad that yesterday…as I wrote…that you think I was speaking of YOUR daughter…I was not…i was speaking in general terms…The WHOLE GOP “values voters” bunch in the state of GAWGA….sorry if you took it the wrong way… or personal… but spin thins as you may…it’s understandable that you do/did…

By Redneck Convert

May 22, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

Well, I didn’t know jbmlaw was so multi-talented. Jim Earl’s cousin is a machinist, too.

By Curious Observer

May 22, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this

At least Lisa and a few others on this blog recognize that voting for Barr in sufficient numbers is the equivalent of handing the election to Obama.

Sadly, that’s more than can be said about many Florida voters in the 2000 election. In voting for Nader, they handed the state and the election to a man who arguably became the worst president in history, getting much worse than Gore.

So go ahead and futilely register your protest against the major parties. By voting for either Nader or Barr, you will be sealing your own doom. You have the right to commit electoral suicide. I suspect that most Republican voters are smarter than that.

By Markus

May 22, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this

Dave, when you write GAWGA, are you meaning the pronunciation of Georgia that sounds like jawja? Gawga sounds weird when pronounced as you have written it.

You’re welcome. Any time. No, really, I don’t need money. Your thanks is enough.

By Charles

May 22, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

I’m a Libertarian but I don’t feel that Bob Barr is committed to the ideals of the Party. I have to look at the big picture. The main priority in the upcoming election is to use all means to keep a Socialist (Obama) out of the White House. McCain will receive more votes than any third party nominee and is the logical way to keep my priorities intact. Sometimes you have to do what’s best for the country - and Obama would be a complete and total disaster if elected.

By Shar

May 22, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

Dutchman @ 9:56 - Whomever wins the White House in November, you will definitely be paying “more for less”. The catastrophic borrow and spend philosophy of the Bush Administration turned the record surplus they inheirited into a record deficit and undermined our currency while the economic program has permitted job flight and the current credit crisis. The next President will be forced to deal with the wreckage left by these policies, as well as the damage to our foreign stature, national security, overstressed military and domestic institutions such as education and justice. No matter what the candidates claim and promise between now and November, that is the reality they will face upon taking office in January and the conditions that will define the next presidency. Taxes will go up to pay for this appalling mess, and services will go down.

To that end, I am waiting for the convention hoopla to settle in hopes of discerning the better executive between all of the candidates running. The next four years will demand excellence in management, fiscal sobriety and the ability to prioritize and discipline in order to begin the process of repair, and right now I’m only hearing a lot of unrealistic promises and big ideas from all four candidates. I’ll vote for whomever shows the best ability to direct the nitty gritty, uncharismatic work of fixing what Bush has broken, to attract good subordinates and delegate appropriately while remaining acceptable to me on issues I deem crucial (abortion, Iraq and Supreme Court appointments.) I don’t care what party such a person comes from.

By Lily Toad

May 22, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

It is sad that our country is so locked into the two-party system that people don’t feel like they can vote for the candidate who they think is best for the job. If we don’t vote for candidates from other parties how will those parties ever gain strength? I voted for Nader in 2000 because he was running on the Green Party ticket and I wanted the Green Party to get on the ballot nationwide, which would happen if one of their presidential candidate garnered at least 5% of the vote. I’d like to break up the two-party system because the two parties are too much alike.

By GMAN

May 22, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this

Tisk Tisk Tisk! Decisions Decisions! Should I vote for the old flip-flop fossil with the junky wife or the multi-adulterer. What’s a faithful member of the Retardican Party to do?

By AmVet

May 22, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this

I don’t think anyone with an IQ over 100 doubt’s Barr’s estimable intellect.

That has never been the issue.

It is his judgment. And hyper(with a capital H)-partisanship. And the observation by most, that like Newt the Nut, he was one of the meanest, most intransigent little neo-con pr!cks to ever come down the pike.

But, to his credit, he has apparently had some epiphanies. For example, he has revised his one-time support for the moronically misguided War on Drugs. (Which is sure to BIG time p!ss of the Ronnie fans and Harding prohibitionists.) And shows some 21st century sanity and compassion by now supporting medical marijuana.

But he has demonstrated a long and documented history as one of the Kings of Wedge Issues and more and more and more governmental interference in private lives. As evidenced by his taking a lead in the completely unnecessary Defense of Marriage Act. And trying to ban Wiccans from the military. (WTF???)

Isn’t it time to just say no to those who insist on legislating their sometimes questionable morality and shoving their “Ed Meese values” down our throats?

Thanks, but no thanks.

By bill

May 22, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this

Avocation of the lesser of two evils is how my mother was able to choke down a vote for Nixon in 1968

By Dave

May 22, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw, Let me ask of you… why do we deal with Saudi Arabia? The WORST country in the WORLD as far as human rights go. 15 of the 19 hijackers that smashes into the WTC where from there. Women can not vote. There is religious rule and religious laws that make ALL women 2nd rate citizens. They have no freedom to dress they way they want, to even be in public with a member of the opposite sex that is not a family member. Yet we sell them bombs and bullets….fighter planes that can carry those bombs around the world…yet you have a problem with only Iran? Do you NOT think that there is not millions (if not billions) of dollars coming out of Saudi Arabia that is being used AGAINST our troops in IRAQ? (where we never have been in the first place)! The LARGEST flow of money for fighters that fight AGAINST our troops comes NOT from IRAN…it STILL comes from SA. It’s a fact that is known around the world…yet ALL our media (except small inde media) fails to report it.

Time to cut off SA. Or do we NEED them for oil? The empire is dead…and as they go down with it (as ALL curves show oil has peeked and is on it’s way down and the US empire that bulit up b/c of it)…that there are already others in place…that already RUN the show…face it or don’t believe it’s already true…

yet WHERE my friend…are your harsh words for SA and our relationship with them?

or….do you think oil lasts forever…..? ;-)

By ron

May 22, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this

Good morning all,Mr. Barr has some campaign funds that really haven’t been sorted out to my satisfaction,although I would never be persuaded to vote for the gentleman.

Manny,Do you really believe that in a Muslim country such as Iran that a child has a choice of religions?Or even in a Muslim enclave in the U.S.?

jbmlaw,Interesting article in the London Times this morning on oil pricing.Article by Anatole Kaletsky. Much food for thought there.

By Dennis

May 22, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten writes, “I�ve previously stated my absolute unwillingness to vote again for any third party candidate.”

What a pity, unless he only means the current offering of “third party” candidates.

Given his wrtings, however, Mr. Wooten means what he says, “I�ve previously stated my absolute unwillingness to vote again for any third party candidate.”

But that’s conservative thinking…don’t take any chances that the world can be a better place for everyone (Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world, red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight). Stay in the rut that you are familiar with (Get all you can, can all you get) even if it is a rut.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Dave

May 22, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw, Let me ask of you… why do we deal with Saudi Arabia? The WORST country in the WORLD as far as human rights go. 15 of the 19 hijackers that smashes into the WTC where from there. Women can not vote. There is religious rule and religious laws that make ALL women 2nd rate citizens. They have no freedom to dress they way they want, to even be in public with a member of the opposite sex that is not a family member. Yet we sell them bombs and bullets….fighter planes that can carry those bombs around the world…yet you have a problem with only Iran? Do you NOT think that there is not millions (if not billions) of dollars coming out of Saudi Arabia that is being used AGAINST our troops in IRAQ? (where we never have been in the first place)! The LARGEST flow of money for fighters that fight AGAINST our troops comes NOT from IRAN…it STILL comes from SA. It’s a fact that is known around the world…yet ALL our media (except small inde media) fails to report it.

Time to cut off SA. Or do we NEED them for oil? The empire is dead…and as they go down with it (as ALL curves show oil has peeked and is on it’s way down and the US empire that bulit up b/c of it)…that there are already others in place…that already RUN the show…face it or don’t believe it’s already true…

yet WHERE my friend…are your harsh words for SA and our relationship with them?

or….do you think oil lasts forever…..? ;-)

By will not vote for Barr

May 22, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this

Barr is an idiot, even though I have occasionally voted Lib in the past I will never vote for him. If Repubs are serious about winning in Nov., for heaven’s sake even if you’re not crazy about him, just vote for McCain. Your making a statement might be shooting yourself in the foot, people.

By JK

May 22, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this

Dave, fake lawyer man, Wooten, Crusty, and their kind give the Saudis a free pass when it comes to human rights abuses, totalitarianism, and OH YEAH, the little fact that OBL is a Saudi who remains free and well-funded. You see, Bushie boy holds hands and skips through the bluebonnets with the Saudi royals, and there’s even kissy-face for the cameras! So NO, we are not allowed to talk about the fact that Saudis attacked us on 9-11, or about the enormous financial debt we (the taxpayers and our grandchildren) we have incurred. Why do you hate America?

By Lily Toad

May 22, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this

Dave, to avoid multiple posts, I recommend shutting down the web page right after hitting “post.” This is the only way I can keep my post from repeating itself and still use my computer.

By Dave

May 22, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this

AM Vet…great post @10:36am!

By BradF

May 22, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this

I’d probably vote for Bob Barr, particularly because I’ve already cast my vote in the primary for Ron Paul. I haven’t seen anyone else worth voting for. Regardless of the shape the country is in, or the situations we are in, the bottom line is who can you trust to actually get the job done.

By the way, When I was a kid in the 80s, there was talk about future problems with Social security etc, Has anyone taken a leadership role and fixed that yet? No? Maybe the next generation will be able to figure it out and fend for themselves. Given the situation we face today, they won’t have to worry about it.

By Dutchman

May 22, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

Shar,

The only way for this government to control the deficit is to cut spending - that is the only way.

As we have seen in the past, when folks get to keep more of their money, to a point, the tax revenues increase. So we are not talking about an increase in tax revenues. We need to address the spending in Congress. The pork that both parties seem to be in love with.

Someone asks what about the Saudi’s and their human rights record. That one is easy. We need to increase our ability to provide our own oil and refinery capacity. Cut them off where it will hurt the most.

But then again, Congress has forbidden us to use our own resources. No drilling, no refineries, no oil independence.

Regardless of what may be a magical solution, until we can produce more energy than can be recovered from hydrocarbons, we will need oil until then.

After all, what do you think plastic is made from. Petro products are ubiquitous. Oil touches a vast majority of our lives. Until that magic whatever is invented, we will remain dependent on oil, I just wish it was our oil and not some foreign governments.

By jbmlaw

May 22, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

Dear Truthifier @ 10:07, I still have my album of Barbra Streisand�s concert for George McGovern. The answer to both of your questions, is �yes.�

Dear Manny @ 10:12, thanks for your good-faith answers, especially for your explanation alleviating my ignorance about the relevance of �birth as a Muslim.� I think I disagree with your view that elevating Iran to our diplomatic �level� would not have adverse consequences in the Middle East. It seems to me that region embraces profound, if often unmerited, respect for the �strongman.� Thus Saddam�s refusal to acknowledge that his WMD program was a Potemkin, although such a simple acknowledgement would have saved his regime and his life. If we suddenly open discussions with Iran as an �equal� we have created the Strongman in the Middle East - not a wise move. But, �being President of the United States would provide greater safety concerns than his faith with these theocrats�? Not likely. These same theocrats kidnapped an entire embassy-full of US diplomats (except for the one military guy, whom they murdered). You implicit argument, that this is a normal bunch of people, is without foundation and contrary to history. Especially if they think �we� are talkers who are not doers � remember, they saw Obama bowl also, and are conscious of the distinction between ability to disseminate pretty words in the English language vs, doing something.

Dear bill @ 10:40, that is how I voted in every election except 1980 and 1984 when I voted for a conservative (the only times since I reached voting age that a major party nominated one � I was too young to vote for AuH2O, and probably would have been too stupid then), and arguably 2000 when I cast a third-party vote. Voting for the least-rotten is a norm in America.

Dear dave @ 10:44, forgive me for being Clintonesque, but what do you mean by �deal?� You surely do not suggest that the government of Saudi Arabia foments terrorism against the US (although the government of Iran obviously does.) Otherwise I agree with most of your observations, so let�s clarify �deal� and perhaps I can offer an argument. If you mean �trade,� you surely already realize I am a free-trade advocate.

Dear Ron @ 10:46, thanks for reference, hope to review this afternoon.

By Dave

May 22, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this

Thanks Lily Toad! ;-)

JK?…perhaps you think or read wrong in what I posted…. I hate how we have this relationship with the Saudi’s….there is NO WORSE country in the WORLD when it comes to abuse of it’s very citizens….From their very rights, of women….to cutting off heads…hands, etc.

But f******* as it is…why did SO MANY in the US “cherish” the ahging of Saddam? When in truth…Bush and Cheney are the ones that hopefully will have to face those very same gallows one day…in a dark room…while people cheer…

They have caused pain and suffering to MILLIONS!!! We too should have the very right to see them held accountable….

No!!! I DO not believe in hanging, ot the death penalty…but I DO think that Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi, and ALL the rest of the neo- cons should be spending life sentences in small small cells… as they deserve that…

They truly do…

Say what you want…but when you think GLOBALLY>… Saddam was a “saint” compared to the torture and suffering they (mentioned above)have brought upon innocent people…

To be honest..though I think he is a good man…Powell deserves the same…he should have “walked away” before he too sold the war that has killed millions of innocent people…

and to ANYONE that signed up for the miltary after we dropped the first bombs on Iraq…you too need to re-examine you life and the choices you made….

I don’t blame you for making a HUGE mistake…but I kinda think you should have had “smarter” parents or guardians that could have kept you away from the death and destuction you became part of….

There were NO “terrorists” in Iraq until we showed up….

The “saddest” thing about it..

Is that Dubya and CO are “the WORLDS TERRORISTS”….yet their buddies (and they themselves) profit from the terror, killing, and injuring of innocent “good” people…

So sad…America…sad of what you became…

Sad that the blood on your hands…

lies on and in the hands of those that voted for Bush/Cheney…TWICE!

By James

May 22, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

Yeah, I plan to vote for Barr. I vote for the man, not for the party, and I base my vote on principles. McCain has shown by his voting record and such bills as the McCain-Feingold Act that such things as the Constitution are less important to him than political expediency. One could make the same argument against Barr, but at least he is now saying the right things. Do I trust Barr? No, but I trust McCain less when it comes to his conservative credentials.

Besides, isn’t it high time we had another Georgian in the White House? I hold that a vote against Barr is a vote against Georgia. Take pride in your state! Vote Barr!

By AmVet

May 22, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this

Dave, only the most rabid right-wingers and religionists still cling to, and desperately try to defend, this demented definition of “conservatism”.

Most of the others, even the once BIG time fans of all things “conservative” ala Bushco/Gingrich/Reagan, politely avoid the subject or offer the deluded defense that the GOP’s gigantic problems are because they weren’t “conservative” enough.

Wake up, Republicans! They weren’t conservative to speak of, at all!

I do not feel sorry for them and this ongoing implosion of theirs though. They have had nearly three decades to come to grips with, and more importantly, alter this “conservative” charade/train wreck first foisted on the nation, via his gullible proxies, by the revered Ronnie Raygun.

What a bunch of non-conservative rubbish.

And now at long last this nonsense is coming home to roost for them.

And the spectacle is most entertaining for an American electorate completely fed up with their hypocrisy, hubris, venality and utter incompetence.

The Republican-lite Barr is but another poser, albeit perhaps slightly less distatesful, in this regards…

By JK

May 22, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this

Sorry Dave!!! My sentence structure appeared to be lumping you in with them, when I meant to address you first, and then begin my rant about them. I enjoy and agree with your posts! The Bush enablers are responsible for what America has become because they put party before country, and refuse to ever admit they were wrong. They’d rather die being wrong claiming to be right than to actually BE right. I totally agree: SO SAD.

By Daniel

May 22, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this

I would definitely vote for Bob Barr over either Insane McCain or Hussein Obama. McCain is a warmongering neo-con and Barak is as socialist as they come - might as well rename the USA the USSA if Barak becomes President.

Bob Barr in 2008 !

By Tom

May 22, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this

I’m not crazy about Bob Barr, but I’ll give him one thing…..

At least he hasn’t forgotten the actual purpose of a constitution like so many of the GOP members I used to support unflinchingly.

By Jeff

May 22, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this

I’ve said it before:

I will NEVER again vote for ANYONE with a D or an R beside their name.

I will sooner write in my dad for President than vote for either McCain or Obama, at least I could trust him with the job!

Now that Mr. Barr is in the running, he has my vote.

Republicans (or Democrats for that matter): Want my vote again? It aint that hard to get. Simply stand for minimal government intervention and maximal personal responsibility. In other words, FREEDOM as the Founding Fathers intended.

By Dave

May 22, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

Love how this Blog of Jims moves more to “the left” every single day….

Is it only ME that sees the HATE that is in the very “core” of those on the right? So much hate…and to be honest…it’s sad…very.

By getalife

May 22, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this

Stand up and sign the petition for Florida, Michigan and Democracy by helping to make their votes count

By Copyleft

May 22, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

Charles & Daniel: The SOCIALIST candidate for president is Brian Moore of Florida.

Obama is the DEMOCRATIC candidate. You guys really need to learn your terminology.

By JK

May 22, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

Dave, They hate us for our freedom. That’s why they’re okay playing footsie and doing business with the Saudis — no freedom there for women, gays, or those who think for themselves. The American “righties” and religio-fundies admire that so much, they’ll make any and every excuse they can think of to enable it.

By Dutchman

May 22, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this

Shar,

The only way for this government to control the deficit is to cut spending - that is the only way.

As we have seen in the past, when folks get to keep more of their money, to a point, the tax revenues increase. So we are not talking about an increase in tax revenues. We need to address the spending in Congress. The pork that both parties seem to be in love with.

Someone asks what about the Saudi’s and their human rights record. That one is easy. We need to increase our ability to provide our own oil and refinery capacity. Cut them off where it will hurt the most.

But then again, Congress has forbidden us to use our own resources. No drilling, no refineries, no oil independence.

Regardless of what may be a magical solution, until we can produce more energy than can be recovered from hydrocarbons, we will need oil until then.

After all, what do you think plastic is made from. Petro products are ubiquitous. Oil touches a vast majority of our lives. Until that magic whatever is invented, we will remain dependent on oil, I just wish it was our oil and not some foreign governments.

By will

May 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this

I absolutely intend on voting for Barr. I’m also a born and raised liberal who voted for the first time in 2004 for John Kerry. If you actually think Bob Barr is going to hurt John McCain in a vastly more serious manor than he’d hurt Barak Obama you are just blindly following the typical and lazy anti-3rd party propaganda. While Bob Barr might siphon some voters from the libertarian wing of the party, those people most likely wouldn’t be McCain voters anyway. Every single Poll I’ve seen so far looks about like this. Barr gets about 7% of the republican vote, 5% of the democrat vote, and 12% of the independent vote. So the propaganda simply doesn’t match the facts. From talking to people in the field (politics goes so good with beer) I find Obama supports much more interested in hearing about Barr than McCain people. This is because McCain people are more-or-less one issue voters (pro-Iraq war) while a lot of people are attracted to the change image of Obama for a plethora of reasons many of which aren’t really reflected in Obama’s policies. When I present to them a real alternative change candidate like Barr and explain how issues like the nat. dept, sound money, and state’s rights are far more crucial than anything Obama is going to address it is amazing how quickly Obama seems artificial to them in comparison. If that doesn’t work then I’m offering a six-pack for anyone I know that votes for Barr and so far it looks like I’m going to have quite a party on election day.

By Jeff

May 22, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

Will:

I like the six pack approach! Beer is always a good thing!

By BS Aplenty

May 22, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

I like Bob Barr, in general, but won’t vote for a third party candidate. McCain ‘08

AuH20 + OU812 => Ted Nugent

By Dutchman

May 22, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this

By Dave May 22, 2008 11:35 AM

I can’t tell if you are just plain unamerican, or ignorant.

While we may not agree with an administration, we do support our county. There are some of us that understand the difference and some that it get clouded in their little pea size brain.

Just remember, it was Congress that authorized the war, not Bush and Cheney. It is Congress that funds the war, not Bush and Cheney. Bush and Cheney have no authority to send troops into battle without the funding provided by Congress. How do you think the VietNam war was ended, Congress surrendered and stopped funding it.