comments for topic:

The Old Man Blunders

(click here to view original posting in a separate window)

You ask, "What was he thinking?" Well, my dear, he was your #1 pick for Republican nominee--and he got it! How'd that happen??? And now look at who he has picked for a running mate...Why? Care to speculate?

Tell me your thoughts on this odd turn of events, Carlos. Then I'll tell you mine.

Yes, he was my #1 pick, and any other Republican would have by now certainly crashed in flames.

Why did he pick her? I think several reasons.

1. There was nobody else. There is no Republican Biden. Romney would have sunk the ticket - he appealed to a part of the Republican base during the primaries, but he turned off everyone else. And the evangelical community hates him because he's a Mormon. And he said so much bad stuff about McCain that the Dems would have a field day dredging it all up.

2. Palin appeals to the base and especially to the evangelicals, who have been lukewarm towards McCain but who may now become energized by this. That could spell the difference in a critical state like Ohio.

3. He wants to pick up disaffected Hillary supporters. Will this do it? Who knows?

So maybe it will pay off - but I think the negatives are also strong. The Dan Quayle days are over - the country wants a veep who could fill the top spot if necessary. Clearly he would not have picked her if she were not a woman. That brings up memories of Geraldine Ferraro. The veep stakes are higher now than they were then. A hail Mary pass - let's just hope it connects.

#2
There was NOBODY ELSE? For the number 2 spot? Oh, Puhleeze! Giuliani, Fred Thompson & Romney are all far more seasoned, recognized & experienced Republican leaders than Palin. Again, I couldn't disagree with you more about Romney. So he's a Mormon. SO WHAT? Given his proven experience in business and government Romney's religion should no more be a barrier to the #2 spot than was Lieberman's Judaism. He's got tremendous potential and true leadership qualities.

But if you want leadership, youth and star quality in a VP-pick, what about General Petraeus? I thought he was a Republican, the last time I checked. I'm not saying that he could have taken this position, but any or all of these gentlemen should have been asked. So, Carlos, deciding that there was just "nobody else" is I think a bit out of the ball park.

As for there being "no Republican Biden," all I can say is, 'spoken like a Democrat'--that's right, not even an Independent! If there's to be a true difference between the parties, we need a Republican Biden about as much as we need a "Republican" McCain.

What the old man has offered up to the party and the nation is an unknown, unproven newcomer in a dress who may or may not prove to be more (or less) than what she appears. But what the old man and the party and AMERICA needed was a proven Republican star with experience, leadership and a moral compass--not a moral vacuum. The Democrats have already cornered that market!

#3:

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I wouldn't even care if Romney were a Hari Krishna. But the evangelical community sure does care, and they can't stand Romney.

And he would have been a terrible choice - nobody knows what he stands for, he flip-flopped so much when he was running so he could pander to the base. Two old rich guys on the Repub ticket - that would go over like a lead zeppelin.

Thompson is even more extreme and would be an easy target in a country that now mostly loathes Bush and Bushism. Giuliani and Lieberman are both more qualified than Palin, but the party would never accept them.

When I said there's no Republican Biden, I was not talking about Biden's views but about his stature. Now thanks to McCain's stupid choice, the Dem ticket is starting to look like the one with the gravitas. McCain picked Dan Quayle in a dress. It makes me wonder now about his judgment.

This choice is a disaster and the Democrats must be licking their chops.

When I found out, I went running into my boss's office saying how brilliant McCain was to pick a woman, and how pissed I was about it. I just gave him too much credit by assuming that the woman he picked would be qualified to lead or at least be qualified to attract the disaffected Hillary die-hards. I mean, he's obviously trying to get Hilary voters, but what Hillary voter would vote for a woman with very little experience and staunch opposition to abortion? She's as antithetical to Hillary Clinton as a female politician can be. It's kind of hilarious.

I don't buy that there was simply no one else. There are female Republican Senators. There are female Republican Governors. Not to mention that there are many male Republicans. It looks like he went for the beauty queen.

I've been saying up until this that Obama's argument should be(and ended up being thursday night) that McCain cares but is simply wrong about what will help America. With this choice, I'm not even sure how much they need to say he cares. I'm very disappointed in McCain and gleeful in that disappointment.

#5:

I will agree with your second paragraph. And that makes McCain's judgment all the more puzzling.

So you are gleeful, eh? How gleeful will you be when the other guy wins because people are afraid McCain will keel over and we'll get President Hockey Mom?

I'm supporting Obama. I think his priorities and ideas are much better than McCain's. Drilling IS a stopgap measure. We need to make serious national investments in alternatives(including nuclear). We DO need to shift the tax burden, and we need to start reducing our foreign debt. The only thing I'm not sure I agree with Obama on is the protectionism implicit in his statements. But that's pretty minor.

Just as I supported the Iraq war at first, I could be wrong. But while I think McCain cares, I think his approach to solutions is simply wrong. Trickle down = tinkle on.

And for the record, the random code I had to enter for this post was FETAL.

FETAL? My favorite position!

#4
"Now thanks to McCain's stupid choice, the Dem ticket is starting to look like the one with the gravitas."
So, was that a stupid choice or a desperate choice? Or could it have been something else?

"McCain picked Dan Quayle in a dress. It makes me wonder now about his judgment."
And what specifically would such a choice make you wonder, Carlos?

#5
You've made some stunning insights!

I don't buy that there was simply no one else. There are female Republican Senators. There are female Republican Governors. Not to mention that there are many male Republicans. It looks like he went for the beauty queen.

Yes, that's what it looks like, but why would he do that?

I've been saying up until this that Obama's argument should be.....that McCain cares but is simply wrong about what will help America. With this choice, I'm not even sure how much they need to say he cares.

Now, what do you suppose that might really mean? Anyone care to hazard a guess?

And speaking of guessing, here's a glimpse at how John McCain reached his momentous "out-of-the-blue" decision.

After all these months, with so much time to study a field of candidates, why would John McCain finally tap his VP-pick in such a haphazard way?

#7:

I don't understand the Democratic objections to drilling. I don't see it as a "stopgap" measure, but rather as preparation for the future. We already get much of our domestic oil supply from offshore sources. It's not a terrible thing to do. I think we need to start preparing for future generations, and not worry that we won't see an immediate effect on oil prices if we do this.

The Democrats don't seem to have any energy policy. They don't like drilling. They don't like nuclear. What do they like? Conserve, so that we won't be dependent on countries that hate us. That's about as realistic as teaching abstinence-only in sex ed. Americans are not going to give up their SUVs and their rich lifestyle.

Admittedly, McCain is weak on the economy and weak on health care. But Obama promises the sky with no realistic notion of how to pay for it.

Both candidates are flawed, and especially after the Palin pick, I am really worried about McCain. But I still think that Obama, with his lack of foreign experience and his tendency to blame America publicly instead of taking a clear stand against foreign tyranny, is for me the greater risk. He will appear naive to much better seasoned foreign leaders, and they will gobble him for lunch.

#6:

I misread comment #5 and originally thought it was from Intrepid. Sorry. Things are moving so fast it's hard to keep up with it all.

#8:

And what specifically would such a choice make you wonder, Carlos?

It makes me wonder about his judgment. At first McCain said his main criterion for choosing his running mate would be someone who could step in as President if need be. Then he picks someone with even less experience than Obama. And who seems like George Bush in drag. Just what we need, another religious extremist with no experience close to the White House.

And did they even do a good vetting job on her? It looks like one embarrassing shoe dropping after another. What else will we find out about her that the McCain campaign should have known?

But I really don't care about any of that as much as the fact that it gives me shudders to think of her in the Oval Office if anything should happen to the oldest President in US history.

I think McCain caved in to pressure from the religious right. They have all but destroyed the Republican Party. Increasing numbers of people are sick of them, so McCain better hope there are enough of them to get him elected.

#9:

What more can one say? McCain really wanted Lieberman or Ridge, but the religious crazies threatened a rebellion on the convention floor. As if abortion were the only or even the most important issue facing this country. Those people are idiots, and they are calling the shots in the Republican Party.

And shame on McCain for being such a wuss. Some maverick he turned out to be.

Obama just keeps looking better - too bad I can't bring myself to vote for him, but with all this Republican stupidity, it's very tempting.

#13
Re: "Obama just keeps looking better - too bad I can't bring myself to vote for him"
Yeah, too bad! So, why don't you try harder? After all, he's NOT an Evangelical. He is pro-abortion (even after the baby's born). And he wants to get us out of Iraq and have peace talks with terrorists. Wonderful! Besides, his longtime religious and political associations are so much nicer than those AWFUL right-wing "crazies" you're so concerned about.

If you don't think a Pastor like Jeremiah Wright is no cause for concern, then kindly repeat his mantra--if you bother to recall what that is. And if you can't recall, it's "GOD DAMN AMERICA!" which is what the Weather Underground killers William Ayres and Bernadine Dorn have spent their entire lives trying to do--or is it "Liberation"? These, among others are the longtime companions Obama travels with. So, if you think Governor Palin is an "extremist," I think you don't know the meaning of the word. But with a little "luck" you're going to find out.

#12

I think McCain caved in to pressure from the religious right. They have all but destroyed the Republican Party.

I don't know what Republican Party you're thinking of. The party of Eisenhower and Reagan, or the party of Javitz and John V. Lindsey? The "religious right" have not destroyed the Republican Party, they ARE the Party. All across this country, people whose political beliefs are right of center, whose values are traditional and who believe in God (whether as Evangelicals, conservative Christians or that rarest of creatures, conservative Jews) are the Republican Party base. In fact, in terms of the Party, it is Senator McCain that is the abberation--and he knows it.

Thus, the swing right in choosing a running mate. But why Palin and why in such a haphazard and seemingly careless a manner? It could be a reaction to the Hillary-factor in the Democratic camp. It could be an act of desperation, although John McCain does not strike me as a desperate man at all! It could be ego or hubris or carelessness. Perhaps...

Or perhaps he is trying to throw the election.

#13
Re: "the religious crazies" and "Those people are idiots, and they are calling the shots in the Republican Party."
I suspect idiots abound on all sides of the political spectrum, but as for the religious or conservative right "calling the shots" in the Republican Party, I don't think so. If that were the case you'd be seeing Vice Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (or at least Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney) on the hustings with McCain right now. NO WAY!

Something or someone else is pulling the strings.

#14:

I have no love for black liberation theology, but it is nowhere near as influential in this country as Christian fundamentalism. And if those fundamentalists keep up with their anti-science attitude on the teaching of evolution and stem-cell research, we will lose our leadership status in the world.

My main objection to Palin is similar to my objection to Obama: Neither has the experience to be President. But I have been hearing good things about her, and wish the media would shut up about all this family gossip and portray her for what she actually stands for.

I know that at least Palin is not running at the top of the ticket, but you never know. It's the Vice President's job to be ready just in case the unthinkable happens.

#15:

You just contradicted yourself:

I suspect idiots abound on all sides of the political spectrum, but as for the religious or conservative right "calling the shots" in the Republican Party, I don't think so.

The "religious right" have not destroyed the Republican Party, they ARE the Party.

You can't have it both ways.

McCain is "on the hustings" instead of a know-nothing like Huckabee because at least this time Republican voters were smart and didn't want to blow the election in advance. But the sensible strain has not prevailed, and has caved in to blackmail by the religious right, who threatened to disrupt the convention if McCain dared choose anyone who (shudders!) might not be a hard-liner on the most critical issue facing this nation today: abortion!

If the religious right "are" the Republican Party, then that party is doomed - or the nation is, if they ever get power again. All we need is another George Bush, an anti-intellectual who takes pride in how ignorant he sounds, who talks about fighting "crusades," who won't second-guess himself because he thinks he's got a mandate from God, and who opposes scientific education and progress when it conflicts with his faith. All we need in power are those religious rightists who think people like you and me are going to hell, and who want to impose their beliefs on everyone.

"The religious right ARE the Republican Party": That's the scariest thing you've said yet.

#17
Re: "The religious right ARE the Republican Party": That's the scariest thing you've said yet.
No, actually I've said a few things that were even scarier, but you were looking elsewhere.

Re: "All we need in power are those religious rightists who think people like you and me are going to hell"
We can always hope, Carlos. Otherwise, I'd have to be bored--and well-behaved--for eternity. I'll take the other option, won't you? Be seeing you there!

#18:

We can always hope, Carlos. Otherwise, I'd have to be bored--and well-behaved--for eternity. I'll take the other option, won't you? Be seeing you there!

I have to say, that sure gave me a laugh!

Did you hear Lieberman's speech tonight? He knocked it out of the park. Lieberman should have been the nominee for Vice President. But he wasn't - because of the religious right, who "are" the Republican Party. Those religious crazies may yet succeed in sinking the Republicans' chances.

#20
Yes, I did hear Joe Lieberman last night and I thought he was wonderful. His speech was a brave, honest, heart-felt appeal to all Americans of conscience. He is the last living vestige of the party I once belonged to so long ago--as did he--that left us both! Did YOU hear Fred Thompson's speech?

As for your complaint that Lieberman should have been the VP-pick, rumor has it he was McCain's favorite and was in fact approached (more than once) on the subject, but was not interested. And your contention that Lieberman "should" have been the nominee but wasn't because of the religious right is, I think, off the mark.

If it's true that McCain really wanted Lieberman the most, then he would have offered him the job--because that's just the type of man McCain is! If Lieberman was offered the job, he turned it down. If he was not offered the job, then there were other important issues that had to be considered:

1-Despite his own party stabbing him in the back (for supporting our actions in Iraq), Lieberman is still not a Republican. That may not matter to you, Independents, Democrats and other non-Republicans, but it does make a difference to us. And what matters even more to us is that Lieberman is a liberal while McCain is a 'maverick' who often steps across his own party lines. That combination (2 old white guys: one an atypical Republican, the other, no Republican at all!) does not register with registered Republican voters. This, McCain cannot ignore!

2-When the charismatic opposition is promising "CHANGE", how can the oldest presidential nominee ever stand beside last season's cast-off Democrat hand-me-down from Al Gore's failed venture? This is no offense to Joe Lieberman personally. He truly is a man of principle and honor. But in an arena where image is everything it just reads Retro/Re-tread Loser.

As for those "religious crazies" who may "yet succeed in sinking the Republicans' chances," all I can say is, "Would you know an authentic, traditional (right-of-center) Republican if you met one?" Or would you just start yelling, "Religious crazies" in horror? Tell that to Peggy Noonan who lived in Brooklyn Heights for years so that her son could attend Catholic parochial schools in a real neighborhood. Is she crazy? I suppose you think Reagan was either crazy or stupid or both for being a practicing Christian his entire life--and for lots of other things you'd call nuts, but I call Republican. And, for that matter, what about Joe Lieberman? He is a left-liberal but he's also a Conservative Jew. No wonder why the Dems went ballistic! How NUTS is that?

Tell me, Carlos, who do you think is more dangerous, Pat Robertson and what he stands for or William Ayres and what he stands for? Don't answer that question! Just think about it carefully. For the way you ultimately answer to yourself more accurately defines you than it does my party--and its alleged crazies.

#21:

First, I have to say that I am really impressed with Sarah Palin. She demonstrated poise, intelligence, and charisma. Clearly smarter than Huckabee and Romney combined, either of whom would have sunk the Republican ticket for sure. Anyway, I may have to eat my previous criticisms of Palin, and nothing would make me happier. I hope she can keep it up.

I did hear Fred Thompson's speech. The first half was a snoozer. The second half was very good.

I also heard Romney and Huckabee, and they were both embarrassments to the party.

"Would you know an authentic, traditional (right-of-center) Republican if you met one?"

Sure, we have been friends for years.

I would not call either Noonan or Reagan a religious crazy. Huckabee, who hates Mormons and who denies evolution, is a religious crazy. The fanatics who want religion taught instead of science in our schools and who would destroy the Republican party and hand a victory to Obama if McCain dared to choose a pro-choice v.p. are religious crazies. Unfortunately they have so much influence in the party that the Democrats may yet win.

If presented with the odious choice of Pat Robertson or William Ayres, I would say that Ayres is worse. What does that prove? Pat Robertson, who said that Sharon's illness was a punishment from God, who predicted the end of the world in 1982, and who called CHRISTIANS from other denominations the "Antichrist," is still an embarrassment. But people like Ayres are far more dangerous.

That is only one of many reasons I am supporting McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden. For me the choice is clear.

#22
Carlos, you use the word "crazy far too liberally!

Huckabee, who hates Mormons and who denies evolution, is a religious crazy.

None of that is crazy, Carlos. It's bigotted and bone-headed, but not crazy! Lots of people seem to hate Mormons (just as oh, so many hate Jews GLOBALLY). But that does not make them nuts. It only makes the one who labels and dismisses them as such foolish.

The fanatics who want religion taught instead of science in our schools.....are religious crazies.

Now, someone who wants science and math, history, philosophy and religion (or religous history) taught in our schools, I call that person enlightened. The persons you've described--"who want religion taught instead of science in our schools"--are backward, bigotted and stupid (a word I loath but which does apply--unlike "crazy"). But what about those persons who want junk science, sex ed for 6-year-olds and indoctrination instead of history taught in our schools? What do you call them? Well, I DON'T call them crazy and I don't call them stupid, either! But I have several names for these people, because what they've been doing has profoundly effected other people's children across America for two generations.

So, what would you call them, Carlos? If McCain wins, I hope he calls them OUT! And after listening to his acceptance speech last night--the most inspiring speech I've heard from a candidate in my lifetime--I think we now have better than a hope that President McCain will call them all OUT to save our America from its traitors within!

#24:

I think at this point we are haggling over semantics. Is Huckabee, who denies evolution in favor of a faith-based interpretation of biology, a religious crazy, backward, bigoted, or stupid? Whatever you call it, it isn't good. And there are lots of people like that, unfortunately, who want to dictate the policies of the Republican Party and the country at large. Some of them would hand the country to an Obama rather than allow a non-religious Republican to take the helm. Shame on them.

#24

Some of them would hand the country to an Obama rather than allow a non-religious Republican to take the helm. Shame on them.

Shame on them? Shame on WHOM? What are you talking about?

The man who for years has been your candidate, your kind of Republican (who you insisted could NEVER be nominated by those rightwing crazies) has just accepted his Party's nomination for the presidency and has offered the nation a brilliant winning ticket. And all you can say is shame on THEM? Such a reaction at this particular moment seems to repudiate not only McCain's breath-taking achievement but that of his own Party.

You also manage to totally ignore the very thing that I've been asking you to look at, which you call "semantics," but is, in fact, crucial. Oh, how I wish we were "haggling" over semantics, Carlos! But when I read through what you've just written, I know that there is far more than semantics hanging in the balance of what we debate. It is America itself that we are "haggling" over, its identity (as set down by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution) and its future.

You, Carlos, see a real danger from the far, religious right. And I agree! That's a real danger if the extreme, far rightwing ever comes to power. The seeds of fanaticism, racism, fascism are there and if unchecked, could take bloom and do violent harm. But what you do not acknowledge or study (or even seem to think about seriously) is the evil other that HAS blossomed over many decades like a growing cancer that has taken deep root throughout our nation and its institutions.

You seem to know so little of this--and could care less? But it is not semantics, Carlos, it's the entire other half of 20th century American history that so many simply ignore. What approaches is the end of capitalism but also the deliberate dismantling of our rule of law, our electoral process, our Constitution, our Democracy. And it's coming right at us, now. But if it happens, and the American radical, Marxist left takes over the White House, both houses of Congress and the country, blaming THAT on the far right would be the height of hypocrisy & the total negation of the last 75 years. The only thing worse than this happening in our America is not even knowing what the hell it is that's hit you!

Perhaps a McCain win can forestall it from happening. But the "Democratic" party will continue to put up these kind of FRONT fake candidates every four years until the win is finally accomplished. Perhaps, if we're very lucky, by then we'll be too old to be much affected by it. But we will die knowing what has happened, and it won't be "semantics." It will pound the Generation X-ers--and their children--to dirt!

Therefore, I repeat: What about those who want junk science, sex-ed for 6-year-olds and indoctrination instead of history taught in our schools? What they've been doing has profoundly effected other people's children across America for two generations. So, what would you call THEM?

#25:

Intrepid, I think you're great, but you are really confusing me. I don't understand what you're arguing with me about. I criticized the religious right, and you did so yourself just now. I said Ayres is worse than Robertson, and you tell me I am ignorant of the extremes on the left. I'm supporting McCain. What more can I do?

Therefore, I repeat: What about those who want junk science, sex-ed for 6-year-olds and indoctrination instead of history taught in our schools? What they've been doing has profoundly effected other people's children across America for two generations. So, what would you call THEM?

For a while I couldn't tell whether you were describing the right or the left. I don't want either side pumping kids' heads with their ideology. What is creationism if not "junk science"? Actually, I'm more concerned about the influence of the left in our universities, where it seems to have infected the entire academic system.

By the way, how about that lipstick flap? Of course it's a cheap shot, but the Obama camp seems rattled by it and they well deserve it. They did the same thing to Hillary, bringing up the race issue against her. Remember when she made that remark about Bobby Kennedy and they crucified her for it? So to see the Obama camp stew in its own hypocrisy is simply delicious.

When it comes to making up offenses and bringing out the thought police, no one can top the Democrats. In light of its own past actions, I think the attitude of the Obama campaign towards this lipstick thing is rather niggardly. Oh my gosh, did I say that?? What a good thing I'm not running for office!!!

But I do have some advice for Obama: Grow a thicker skin.

#26
Re: What is creationism if not "junk science"?
One may assume "Creationism" is wishful thinking by the religious right--but they cannot call that science. It is their hopeful interpretation of where they want science to go, and therefore would be more accurately named science fiction or 'scientific' religion--or just plain junk!

Sure, I agree. But I know a woman who is working toward her master's degree in environmentalism with her specific area of 'expertise' being global warming. What a tool she's going to make!

Carlos, Mi Amigo, if I'm confusing you, please forgive me. But it's nothing compared to how truly frightened I am with the current installment of our Presidential Sweepstakes. What makes me so damned argumentative is that which I most fear: a takeover of our government and its institutions by the radical left--meaning the great movement of American communism, its minions and fellow travelers.

I'm more concerned about the influence of the left in our universities, where it seems to have infected the entire academic system.

Ah, precisely! And that, my dear, is just the very tip of the iceberg. What about the media? What about our public schools and our courts? Most of all, what about that which is behind this fellow, Obama? These are thoughts to ponder on a warm and cloudy September 11th....How's the weather where you are?

#26

Re: "niggardly"
"Miserly, penurious, stingy" according to my Roget's Thesaurus.
"CHEAP" according to my Webster's!

That sure DON'T sound like the Obama campaign to me...still, what a word, Carlos! It suits his thin skin far better than the "pig" he threw out at Palin's "liptstik Hockey-mom." Could the messiah be running a little scared?

#27:

What about the media?

Yes, good question.

I was thoroughly disgusted with Charlie Gibson's "interview" of Palin tonight. It was clearly a setup. All that crap about the "Bush Doctrine," as if it were an officially defined term, which it isn't. And a slew of "When did you last beat your wife" type questions.

I don't think it's wrong to give candidates a tough interview, but this one was devious. Furthermore, they treat the Democrats with velvet gloves. If you're going to be a sneaky rat when you interview people, at least do it to both sides.

I hope to God there will be a backlash against this. I had my doubts about Palin and still do, but the way she is being treated is winning my sympathy bigtime.

#28:

I thought the Obama campaign was being uncharitable, which was close enough for me.

Why should Obama be scared? With twice as much money as McCain and with the media and movie stars solidly in his corner, what should he worry about?

#30
Re: "With twice as much money as McCain and with the media and movie stars solidly in his corner, what should he worry about?"

The truth. We might start there as a point of departure and proceed to those things that money can't buy: honor, conscience, integrity and the Golden Rule.

#31:

Well both Mark Shields and David Brooks are predicting an Obama victory. So maybe he doesn't need to worry after all.

McCain gives the impression that he's past his prime and no longer the firebrand he pretends to be and really once was. The shot he deserved was in 2000, when he should have won instead of the big disappointment we have now. But he was ambushed by the religious crazies in South Carolina, and they have had too much influence in the party ever since. So while you may not agree, they are a big reason most of the country is fed up with the Republicans and why Obama may win and give a lot of them just what they deserve.

No, it won't make me happy. I'm supporting McCain. But I've had enough of bringing faith into politics, and even sanctimonious Rick Warren grilling candidates on their faith. I read a recent poll that for the first time most Americans think that politicians should shut up about religion. So thanks to the religious right for bringing us a foreign-policy ignoramus like Bush instead of a better man like McCain, and paving the way for another foreign-policy neophyte when the stakes are higher now even than they were then.

Bash the leftist extremists all you like, they couldn't have pulled it off without the help of the religious crazies.

So, yeah, drill baby drill! And also research those stem cells!

#32

So while you may not agree, they are a big reason most of the country is fed up with the Republicans and why Obama may win and give a lot of them just what they deserve.

Carlos, if Obama wins because most of the country is THAT fed up with Republicans, then we're all going to get what we deserve for Obama ever having been nominated (and then elected?) in the first place!