"'I think that would be up to, first of all, to John to decide whether he wants a pro-choice running mate; then we would have to see how the Republican Party would rally around it,' Ridge said. 'At the end of the day, I think the Republican Party will be comfortable with whatever choice John makes.'"Maybe this type of statement is calculated to appeal to "the muddled middle" on the issue of abortion, but "comfortable"? You gotta be kidding me.
Hello world!
7 years ago
14 comments:
Considering the person chosen for the keynote GOP convention speech is pro choice (Giuliani) it shows us how far out in right field you are.
No, it shows that we are the big tent party.
Giuliani merely highlights the Democrats' weakness on national defense.
Tell us Ned, on whose watch did America get attacked? On whose watch did the attacker bin Laden escape? On whose watch has the Taliban grown stronger?
Imagine for a moment what you'd be saying if all these things happened under a Dem president?
So delusional...
Yep, weakness.
And, a cursory search of my blog failed to turn up an FDR is a War Criminal post.
Which reminds me, I've been looking for one of your invaluable presidential poll updates lately. Gotta wonder how/if Russia's aggression is impacting whatever recent presidential polling data might or might not be showing, you know?
Right Ned, must be why Russia ceased bomber patrols when Clinton became President and resumed them during Bush. So much for a safer world and enjoy your moment of swiftboat gains.
Oh, I'm not gloating (and they certainly aren't "swiftboat"), just wondering why you've shut up lately on the subject.
By the way, is there any way a Lib can lose an election without somehow being cheated?
Re. Russia, etc. I raised this to a similar knee jerk comment previously, but are you seriously equating Russia ca. 1992 to Russia ca. 2001? That assertion could help explain why Americans don't trust Democrats on national defense . . . too partisan.
Tell us Ned, on whose watch did America get attacked? On whose watch did the attacker bin Laden escape? On whose watch has the Taliban grown stronger?
McCain's big TV ad says:
"Washington is broken, things are NOT better than they were 4 yrs ago"
So we want to elect a president of the same party that failed?
The same ad says McCain will "stand up to big oil" ... yea thats right, now that he has pocketed over a million from big oil since June?
I guess it takes a truly ignorant person to be manipulated thusly. Either ignorant of delusional or authoritarian... which one describes you best Ned?
Duh . . . I guess I are ignorant, cuz noone told me I were allowed to be anything else, and de voices in ma head tell me de Publican party is good.
Sprint away William!! You're annoying.
Tell us Ned, on whose watch did America get attacked? On whose watch did the attacker bin Laden escape? On whose watch has the Taliban grown stronger?
William, you again?
But wait, is this a trick question? I think Dubya was the President, but I could be wrong. I need a really smart guy like you to confirm the info.
You need to work harder to get your message out, William. Americans don't trust you or other Democrats on the issue of national security. And Americans aren't as stupid as you think they are.
"Americans aren't as stupid as you think they are"
Oh yea? Wasn't it Americans that voted in the guy on whose watch America got attacked while he went on vacation after receiving a string of dire warnings? On whose watch the attacker bin Laden escaped? On whose watch has the Taliban has grown stronger?
You wouldn't call that stupid? Or maybe blind authoritarian? You wouldn't think it might be stupid to vote the same party in again after the last 8 yrs of failure? Stupid?
With all the generic indicators leaning hard Dem, only racism will cause Obama to lose.
Keep typing bone head.
Post a Comment