Stephen Bleeds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AN OPEN INVITATION
>
> I am an independent leaning democrat...that does
> not mean that I could vote Republican this year
>
> I am inviting someone on the right to a discussion
> of the issues involved in this election.
> I do not want to talk about Palins family or
> Obama’s or for that matter anyone’s family.
> I do not want to talk about associations, past
> sins, or get into name calling, sarcasm, etc.
> I will be honest. And I am looking for someone to
> do the same.
> If we can connect I will give you my email if we
> can agree to talk about...Health Care, Iraq,
> Education, and Immigration etc. I want to try and
> understand and find at least a nominal thought
> that we can agree on.
>
>_________________________________________
>
I would be happy to exchange thoughts with you, but we do have the slight problem that the posts do not contain the e-mail addresses, and I am not willing to post mine in a public forum nor would I suggest that you do so. If you can come up with a way for us to make contact, let me know. I a number of e-mail discussion groups of which I am a member (groups.yahoo.com), there is a way to read a post and to reply to the individual on the group's website without being given the other's address. Unfortunately that is not true here.

E.J.
I'd have more respect for you if you devoted a column(s) that explored the following issues that the mainstream media has conveniently ignored :
.what did Obama do as a "community organizer " and who did he represent ?
. Obama's mantra is change ; has he ever demonstrated leadership on issues that created change ?
. how has Obama demonstrated a willingness to overcome the partisan divide in Washington?
.why did Obama vote "present " so many times as a state legislator? if he can't even decide how to vote on tough issues , how can he lead this country ?
.the Chicago and Illinois political culture rivals , if not surpasses , the reputation for corruption in Alaska . What has Obama done to challenge this culture?
. why was Obama a member of Reverend Wright's church and a colleague of Ayres?
. despite conventional wisdom , how has Joe Biden demonstrated expertise on foreign affairs ? didn't he advocate separating Iraq into 3 sectors--something every "expert" believed was idiotic? didn't Biden initially vote for the Iraq only to later vote to deny funding for the troops ?
. Joe Biden was made to look like a fool during the confirmation hearings for Alito and John Roberts . What are Biden's qualifications to be VP or President other than 36 undistinguished years in the Senate . How come he , like John Kerry , never has assumed a leadership role in the US Senate despite his many years in the Senate?

Perhaps the new Mr. Dionne will somehow claw his way to writing a good article because the old one (even the current one) just throws around alot of meaningless horse do like another famous blowhard: Joe Biden (the other master in saying alot of nothing and making it look/sound important).

What are you smoking. He has far more in c0mmon always with the Republican party. From abortion to energy policy to the war on terror. As for him being a divider you are wrong, he is by far the best bipartisan choice in this elction for the reason you mentioned, he does not agree with his party on every issue, Obama however does. The choice is simple to me, I go with the real maverick not the fake one. And as for Obama's communoty service, that is funny as hell.

I died laughing at this line from the article


"These, presumably, are people who never needed a neighborhood advocate."


Yea mmk. If it wasnt' for "neighborhood advocates", there would be death and destruction everywhere!!

Pulease. Read Henry David Thoreau to see laughable stupidity of this article.

Individual rights are what makes America great, and when you substitute that for fraudulent "help" from the government or some phony communist organizer, you are not America anymore, you are Rwanda...

jpipk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do conservatives understand liberals so much
> better than vice versa? Dionne hasn't a clue about
> how conservatives think, nor does he even try to
> analyze them other than through his very liberal
> and biased prism.
> His column is not worth reading except for
> conservatives to be reminded what we're up
> against: hypocrisy, distortion, cultural
> ignorance, valueless screed. No, Mr. Dionne, I
> HAVE NEVER NEEDED A NEIGHBORHOOD ADVOCATE!
> Liberals say that Palin is not ready to be
> President (who is -- Obama?), so that disqualifies
> McCain.
> Conservatives say, well,with Palin we can vote for
> McCain, because the future is back in our hands,
> and McCain's mischief is far more tolerable than
> Obama's.
> Besides, he will appoint good judges.
> And if the liberals block them, well, they are
> replacements for liberals (hopefully). He court
> can work with 7 or 8 justices.

i want to address the "he will appoint good judges" aspect of this email, because the issue is not clearly understood by the people, who have been listening to long to he distortions of both republican and democratic vested interests about the subject. i am a lieberman democrat if i can be described at all and am taking the mccain (who i'm voting for) republican party up on its outreach program to listen. i'm also a lawyer, at at least one client in my 32 years has told me i am half-way decent at it, so i don't speak from complete ignorance.

so, let's discuss "strict construction" of the constitution.

it is true that many liberal judges "legislate from the bench." it is also true that the very best example of this is roe v. wade. the reason roe v. wade is judicial legislatio.n is obvious on the face of the decision--it divides on a sliding scale the right to an abortion into three temporal periods or "trimesters" of pregnancy. no court in the land has ever been empowered and none is now, to tell people that their rights are contingent on the passage of time. that is a legislative function and only a legislature can tell a citizen she is allowed to do something in the morning, afternoon, and night in varying degrees. it may be that the constitution, not having prohibited abortion, permits it as a right (to be left alone by government) reserved to the people. perhaps the best answer is that the legislatures of the various states in our federalist system can make the decision for each state and maybe congress has the right to pass a national law in favor or against abortion. but roe v. wade is a dishonest ideological dead end. it's time liberals admitted it if they really are liberals.

second, what most republicans--the party of lincoln, after all--don't understand very well is that they sort of forced the liberals into some of these ridiculous positions. in the 1954 school desegregation case, the court turned topsey-turvey to justify desegregating the schools, using social studies, and this or that other mental gyration as to why "separate but equal" was not right. the 1964 civil rights law was justified on the basis of the "commerce clause" of the constitution related to trade between and among the states. how absurd when talking about civil rights. but this all occurred because the CONSERVATIVE courts before these cases REFUSED to interpret the constitution plainly and strictly. basically, the conservative courts pretended that the civil war never happened, or that the north (led by lincoln, the republican's champion) actually lost, or that the constitution was not amended in the aftermath of that war. if the supreme court of the united states, for almost 100 years after the civil war had just read the post-civil war amendments straight out, they would have banned discrimination without the need for any other law, enforced african-americans' right to vote, and ruled that one sub-group of a state's population could not be forced to go to one school while others got to go to another school. all those courts refused to do their duties and that's why the liberals engaged in pay-back when they got the chance beginning in the 1960s. that was not right, but it was definitely in reaction to conservatives having cheated on the "strict interpretation" issue ever since the civil war.

and don't think that conservatives don't still know how to legislate from the bench with the best of them. for example, a lot of bush appointees are not pro-union and are still not the best friends of civil rights. so, when a civil rights or employment case plaintiff wins a big judgment and appeals, most often the circuit courts "remit" the case back to the trial court saying, "ok, you won, but the judgment was too big. in cases of this type most awards are $50,000 and you got $500,000, so we're cutting you to $50,000 based upon precedent." but the "precedent" argument is a lie. there is no "precedent" when it comes to damages, because damages have always been determined by a jury on a case by case basis unless a statute sets the damages. so, you can't use joe's old case to prove how much tom was injured in a new case. but in this way, supposedly "strict constructionist" republican appointees legislate against cases the basis of which they don't like just as assuredly as did roe v. wade or the others i've mentioned.

what all of this leads to is that we must remember that judges are all members of one-third of the GOVERNMENT. judges do not, except in part by function, stand "above" the rest of us or the rest of government in angel wings, waiting to apply the law (although i am the biggest advocate that they should try). rather, there is very little difference between a judge and a chicago alderman. this was proved in bush v. gore. five republicans voted for bush and four democrats for gore. if by chance there had been four republicans and five democrats, al gore would have been declared the winner. for, judges, like all other government officials, have their own agendas and political leanings. many try to carry these out honestly, but you can't trust them to do so unless by experience you know the judge is honest--any more than you can trust a legislator or a president until his or her trust is earned.

another example of this is the gun control case. it is clear, and always has been, that the second amendment protects individuals from the federal government making any laws about guns for private protection. liberals, wanting the good result of less killing, ignored the constitution's clear language to get this result, just like the conservative post-civil war courts ignored all the words in the constitution protecting african-americans as i've already addressed. but the recent decision also ignored words. as is commonly known, the second amendment talks about the militia. the supreme court majority said these words were basically a meaningless preface meant to put the rest of the amendment in context. but the only real preface in the constitution is the preamble to the whole constitution, not part of the actual law part such as the amendments. the court then ruled "no restrictions period." that was just as much a lie as roe v. wade, too. when read straight out, the amendment says that its purpose is to protect the militia system so that if mr. hitler takes over washington, the people can be protected. but the way they are to be protected is that the state militias will overthrow mr. hitler for grabbing too much power. those militias were run by the states' governors of course, and so each state can make all the gun control laws it wants. YOUR GOVERNOR can say, "report for duty for 4 weeks for the militia every summer at $10 per week and the type of gun you keep in your home for when you are called is the following one . . ." of course, if you are attacked by a burgler in your home, you can turn that gun on him. but it's only the federal government, not the states, that can't make gun control laws because the purpose of the second amendment was for the states to protect the people from washington.

and of course, there are the smaller, non-constitutional dishonesties of judges in interpretation--the political crooks and just plain crooks who make your stomach ache by just making up interpretations because the can and because their agenda tells them to do so.

the lesson you need to learn is that your natural distrust of government, which is as american as apple pie, is actually not a partisan protection. the republicans have sold it as such, and the democrats have fallen into the trap of defending on the basis of the republican argument, which is a false argument.

the real problem is that ALL of us people need to watch ALL of the judges to make sure that they do enforce the constitution and laws as written. but that means conservatives have to swallow and accept liberal interpretations of our in many ways very liberal constitution and liberals have to accept the conservative parts.

i'm here to tell you that neither side plays fair.

so, insist on strict constructionists, but you have to be willing to accept the parts you don't like.

keevan d. morgan, chicago

E.J. Dionne is a liberal Democrat to his very marrow. He could have actually have prepared this article 6 months ago, because no matter what McCain did, E.J. was going to stick it to him come the general election. E.J.'s a liberal, and that's fine. But just admit it. And admit that that's why you don't care for McCain in the general election. No Republican had a chance with you E.J.

Palin's husband works for a foreign oil company (Brittish Petroleum). McCain got big bucks from the oil industry the week that he announced he was for more offshore oil drilling. He takes tons of money from lobbyists and lobbyists run his campaign.

If you want the President to play any role whatsoever in getting us off foreign oil and oil more generally, Barack is really the only choice. Please google "the only green candidate left," penned by Thomas Friedman the other day. He's right.

In the words of a wise governor of Montanta:

"The petro dictators will never own American wind and sunshine."

A-men. (oh yeah, he's a Democrat working with a lt. gov that is a republican by his choice and vigorously endorses Barack).

Wake up America.

Republicans are asking way too much to essentially pin the party's hope on an untested rookie who, despite a rhetorically effective speech, is not in tune with the majority of the public on 90% of the issues, and whose perceived extreme positions on things such as abortion and creationism. Once people understand where she stands, much of her current popularity (remember, it's only been 6 days) will not endure. This is not a partisan analysis, just a reality check. If Republicans are planning to rely on Palin's new "star power", they are going to be seriously disappointed. No single person can sell old wine in a new bottle once people have figured that fact out.

As for McCain, well, it's just all rather sad, isn't it? The man has sold his soul. His speech was not good (and what was up with that green background with the McMansion -- wow, awful).

Hey I thought Johnny Mac was from Arizona. He looked so pale. Or were we all fooled and it was his spirit giving us his spew. LOL
I got another one John McCain is so stiff.How stiff is he?Hes sooo stiff he looks as if he's fitting himself for his own coffin.
HES SOOO OLD as in great grandpappy old.

Peg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mike Crum Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > E.J. must be worried now....Let's have the
> > cultural battle for the soul of our
> country.....I
> > can't wait until Dionne and the rest of his
> panty
> > waist girly men friends get sent
> packing.....Give
> > me guns, religion and babies any day...That's
> what
> > this country is made of, not the liberal tripe
> we
> > have been led to believe....Just remember E.J.,
> > Sarah Palin has you in her sights, and she
> won't
> > miss...P.S....I wonder how long it would take
> her
> > to skin you, you puke...
>
>
> How pathetic you are, Mr. Crum.


PEG......You're next babe.....P.S.....I bet you're glad your mom didn't abort you....

John McCains new theme song " Knocking on heavens door" LOL

Big Louise Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No lies here, honey...the tide has turned. And
> McCain and Palin's republican party is a new
> one...more pragmatic and responsible. The tide
> has turned.

Yeah right Louise. I'm not an eggplant. I'm not buying it. Mc Cain LIES LIES LIES and more LIES. And if your buying it. I got an acre of land to sell you in Brooklyn for 100 bucks you send me the cash and I'll send you the deed.......I promise.

PEG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> machomom Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hold on to your buttons folks, it's gonna be a
> > rough ride. I just heard some new poll stats.
> >
> > McCain is pulling ahead.
>
>
> GOOD GRIEF, GET A GRIP ON, WILL YA? The "polls"
> especially the national ones are not dependable.
> They take one part of the country and poll, then
> another part of the country, then another....so
> the results are an inaccurate picture of the true
> situation.
>
> Look at the overall state polls....(each
> individual state), that's where the accuracy is.
> And Obama rules....and will continue to rule.


I'm believe it's going to be McCain/Palin despite the best efforts of the libs. And that gives me great relief. So we shall see, won't we?

Sorry Abraham, the Fed can't be responsible for everything, and H.W Bush didn't have an economic clue. He was entirely focused on "the deficit" and by raising taxes through the roof he sent the country into a recession and got run right out of office.

Now It's the Democrat that wants to raise taxes, but he has no designs on spending cuts and has no interest in "the deficit".

What's worse, oil demand is much higher than it was in Carter's time and our own domestic production is much lower.

If we don't produce more oil, we will see $8.00 gas in two years.

Can you spell recession?




Abraham Lincoln Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Richard Nixon, an elephant, created long gas lines
> too as he created ridiculous price controls that
> eventually caused inflation to sky rocket until
> one man came in to shock the system back to normal
> and restore fiscal responsibility (a Republican
> ideal that the first Bush understood and
> practiced, that Reagan got, but that the new
> Republican party seems not to care about)...
>
> This man was Paul Volker.
>
> He supports Barack Obama vigorously.
>
> McCain has economic hacks who pushed trickle down
> economics which has zero support amongst
> economists and people with any sense.
>
> If you love your country, and like making more
> money not less, and like keeping more of it, vote
> for Obama not McCain. Unless, you are part of the
> 5% elite richest, then go with McCain, he's your
> guy.

No lies here, honey...the tide has turned. And McCain and Palin's republican party is a new one...more pragmatic and responsible. The tide has turned.

Richard Nixon, an elephant, created long gas lines too as he created ridiculous price controls that eventually caused inflation to sky rocket until one man came in to shock the system back to normal and restore fiscal responsibility (a Republican ideal that the first Bush understood and practiced, that Reagan got, but that the new Republican party seems not to care about)...

This man was Paul Volker.

He supports Barack Obama vigorously.

McCain has economic hacks who pushed trickle down economics which has zero support amongst economists and people with any sense.

If you love your country, and like making more money not less, and like keeping more of it, vote for Obama not McCain. Unless, you are part of the 5% elite richest, then go with McCain, he's your guy.

Oh, for God's sake, E.J. You've got bitter-sauce all over the place.

Instead of writing this pap, you should go out, take a walk, spend another $20 at Starbucks, sit down, have a good, long cry, and realize that, despite all efforts, Mccain has won. Then you can get another coffee and finally start acting like an adult.

Ummm, No!

We do not have a parlamentary government. If you are suggesting "when one party is in power" you would have to mean that that party controls both the Presidency, House and Senate at the same time. That hasn't happend much.

I'll take Reagan over Carter any day of the week, and Obama is trying to be the next Carter. You remember, long gas lines, energy crisis?

How will we run our economy without increasing oil production? It is incredibly reckless to not have a plan to do so.

This disqualifies Obama from the office, and he'll lose, and we can make history anyway.

See, everybody's happy!




Economics 101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone concerned about the economy, should vote
> Obama: The United States economy and stock market
> both have done statistically significantly better
> (google it) than when the elephants have been in
> power. I guess everyone forgets Bill Clinton's 8
> years when he had a budget SURPLUS! SURPLUS!
>
> Obama's economic advisors are smarter and more
> accomplished than any other team that ran for the
> highest office. His advisors are the one that
> gave him the policy of eliminating taxes for older
> folks living on social security: the tax take in
> was not very high, yet it required the retired
> folks to have to pay for tax services/headache of
> filing for a small amount. So Obama's guys
> calculated to give retired Americans a break and
> say: "you've done your work for yourself and this
> country, you're done paying taxes."
>
> Hmmm, sounds like common sense.
>
> (95% of familes will get a tax cut under Obama,
> only the top 5% will see their taxes rise to
> Reagan levels, that's not that much. If you are
> in the 5% elite that are in the upper upper class,
> such as Cindy McCain, Mitt Romney, etc. you will
> pay slightly higher taxes and I could see where
> they would want to uphold the current status quo
> skewed toward tax cuts to the rich. So, if you
> are in the "elite" vote McCain to protect your
> wealth if you want, but if you are not in this
> uber wealthy "elite" Obama/Biden is the ticket
> that will lower your taxes).
>
> You can google this too or find Barack's tax plan
> on his website.
>
> Despite what McCain's camp says, this is a HUGE
> eleciton about HUGELY important issues. Please
> treat it with the responsibility that a citizen of
> a democracy has.

Economics 101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone concerned about the economy, should vote
> Obama: The United States economy and stock market
> both have done statistically significantly better
> (google it) than when the elephants have been in
> power. I guess everyone forgets Bill Clinton's 8
> years when he had a budget SURPLUS! SURPLUS!
>
And anybody that wants to look at the facts will realize that it was a Republican congress that caused the change--they hauled Clinton kicking and screaming into that realization. He eventually quit fighting them and you see the results. But it wasn't Bill's idea--he was just along for the ride.

After that false assertion, there is no need to go after any more of your others. Except to say this--the smartest people in the world doesn't make failed policy any better, and that's what Obama has--failed policy.

This is what a real conservative sounds like, courtesy of the only true conservative that was in the race, Ron Paul (fyi: hard to find to bigger elitists than Mitt Romney and NYC born and raised, cross dressing, multiple times married Guliani, give me a break, he IS the "elite"):

"Americans inherit from their ancestors a glorious tradition of freedom and resistance to oppression. Our country has long been admired by the rest of the world for her great example of liberty and prosperity – a light shining in the darkness of tyranny.

But many Americans today are frustrated. The political choices they are offered give them no real choice at all. For all their talk of “change,” neither major political party as presently constituted challenges the status quo in any serious way. Neither treats the Constitution with anything but contempt. Neither offers any kind of change in monetary policy. Neither wants to make the reductions in government that our crushing debt burden demands. Neither talks about bringing American troops home not just from Iraq but from around the world. Our country is going bankrupt, and none of these sensible proposals are even on the table.

This destructive bipartisan consensus has suffocated American political life for many years. Anyone who tries to ask fundamental questions instead of cosmetic ones is ridiculed or ignored.

That is why the Campaign for Liberty was established: to highlight the neglected but common-sense principles we champion and reinsert them into the American political conversation. "

I get it very well. You believe in low taxes, free markets, protection of property rights, Jurist Prudence, freedom of religion, government restraint, fiscal conservatism, or some set of these principles, but you think Sarah Palin was mean, so you'll vote for Obama.

This makes complete sense.

I smell Plant.



jane p Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ya just don't get it, do you, Bob?
> People actually have separate brains... go
> figure.
> I worked as a child for Goldwater, and have voted
> GOP since, except for once.
> Goldwater would have nothing to do, with the
> present-day GOP, because everything we stood for,
> is only a memory.
> I have a brain, I have eyes, and ears... and these
> last bunch of years, the GOP have gone over the
> edge.
> I mean, look at your response, if I don't see
> things your way, I'm not of the GOP.
> The GOP isn't a cult, despite your closed-minded
> view that it is.
>
>
> Polobob Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > All spoken like a true Republican. We'll miss
> you
> > Jane!
> >
> > jane p Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > "Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict
> > > catastrophic harm on America; he's worried
> that
> > > someone won't read them their rights."
> > >
> > > That's the quote that finally pushed me over
> to
> > > Obama.
> > > I was leaning McCain... then he picked Gov
> > Palin.
> > > I really questioned the Palin pick, as all
> > > Republicans should've, but haven't.
> > > They've shielded her from the American
> > people...
> > > from answering questions.
> > > And you support that?
> > > Then, she started playing the *tough, snotty,
> > > b**ch* routine, which really put me off. No
> > need
> > > for that childish garbage.
> > > But, that quote... that's not the America I
> > love.
> > > That scares me a helluva lot more, than the
> > > Terrorists do.
> > > That's submitting to the Terrorists. It's
> > letting
> > > fear turn us into them.
> > > Nope... not me.
> > > I watched 2 WTC, a building I once worked in,
> > > collapse from across the East River.
> > > I had a friend die, and many others who were
> > > nearby.
> > > I like the Constitution, and refuse to let
> the
> > > manipulators scare me into voting for them...
> > and
> > > shredding the Constitution.
> > > I'm just so sorry, for all those in my GOP,
> who
> > > seem to have forgotten what we used to stand
> > for.
> > > And just follow, and belittle everyone... and
> > > basically, have stopped thinking.
> > > Very simply, if they are keeping Gov Palin
> from
> > > being interviewed, does that suggest
> confidence
> > in
> > > her? They don't have confidence, but you do?
> > > I want to know that she understands about the
> > > issues, now, not after being coached by her
> > > mentors.
> > > Electing a Pres/VP is not electing a Campaign
> > > Spokesperson.
> > > You're being used, People. Give up the
> attacks
> > > already, and open your eyes/minds.