Friday, October 17, 2008

My own theory about the election...

Today I’m feeling a bit theoretical. Maybe because it’s Friday, who knows? But actually I’ve been cooking up this theory for several weeks now. There’s nothing scientific about it. This is based on a sense that I get from the overall mood of those around me and what I consider interesting trends that seem to be reinforced every day. Call it a hunch, maybe even personal bias, but I believe that this country and the major media outlets are in for a shock on election day. I believe the outcome will either be very, very close, closer than any election in our history, or will end up as a big win for McCain. By “big win” I mean McCain takes the traditional red states including Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Ohio; and additionally wins New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and possibly wins close races in Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon and Washington. Is this my own partisan bias? Not likely, since I am hardly a partisan. But I admit that my conservative blinders may be affecting my objective thought, which is why I say this is a non-scientific observation. Nonetheless, I see things this election cycle that I haven’t seen before which, in a nutshell, is a hesitancy among people to admit that they either support McCain or don’t support Obama.

I’ve had friends recently ask me, with some concern, what I think about the polls. If you believe what you see then basically Obama wins in a landslide, taking all the aforementioned states. The question is: Does anyone actually believe that? My answer to those friends is that I get the sense that people are angry right now and many are taking it out on the GOP, especially when a pollster asks the question. But inside the privacy of the voting booth it will be different, and many people will be unwilling to allow their anger to cast a risky vote, making it very difficult to punch Obama’s name. If Barack Obama were a moderate Democrat then the answer would be yes. And let’s face it, a moderate Dem in our current environment would slaughter any GOP challenger. If the Dems had nominated Hillary (hardly a moderate, but seen by many as such), or Richardson this thing wouldn’t even be close. But they didn’t. Instead, the Dems have once again nominated a far-Left candidate along the lines of Kerry, except this time the candidate is far-Left with extremist economic policy, foreign policy, questionable associations and virtually no prior political record. Contrast that with McCain, a man who is well-known as a centrist and someone that can be trusted with the people’s money. Folks, this is a center-right country and McCain is a center-right candidate opposing a radical Left candidate. Am I to believe that Obama wins in a landslide? That would mean an incredibly sudden and dramatic shift in the American political landscape that would be historic and that I simply don’t think is likely to happen.

I noticed something during the debate the other night. When McCain said “I am not President Bush…” there was a subtle spattering of applause from the audience. This is rare in a debate and the first time it’s happened this year. I had to rewind the TiVo to be sure of what I heard, but it was there. The audience that promised no outbursts actually applauded this line, and in the past two days of debate analysis it has been this line that has gotten the most attention. Why? I believe it’s because people simply don’t buy the assertion that McCain is another Bush. Again, people know McCain, they are familiar with his record and the vast majority of folks see him as I see him, a centrist. They don’t think McCain is what Obama tells us, and this is a problem for Obama because it’s basically the foundation of his entire campaign of change. If he can’t convince people that McCain equals a Bush third term then he loses his role as the only “candidate for change” and has nothing to stand on but his thin record of far-Left principles.

So what about the polls? I’ve had my own theory on that and yesterday I read this column by Jonathan Morris describing his experiences nationwide. It’s very interesting. McCain supporters are apparently hesitant to be vocal about their support for him, or perhaps their unwillingness to support Obama. Morris asks: Would you be willing to stand in front of a divided crowd and tell them that you will vote for McCain? I get the sense that many would not. Why? Well, I think it’s because this is a Dem year. The GOP has become the focus of anger and mistrust in a truly unique political environment. Voting for them isn’t the “in” thing. And in this campaign McCain has defended himself against subtle accusations of racism, war mongering, grouchiness, and erratic absent-mindedness. Standing with him carries the risk of similar accusations hurled your way. And the “general consensus” is that the Dems are better on economic matters, thus a vote for them is good for you economically while a vote for the GOP suggests a degree of naïve subservience. It’s like what Marx described as “false consciousness” at a different level, so when pollsters ask they may not be getting truthful answers since no one wants to appear naïve or self-detrimental. Morris described a group of GOP ground-pounders who say repeatedly that they go to people’s doors, get a “wink” of support, but then are turned down when they ask to put a McCain sign in the yard. We saw this in 2004 to some extent. Remember the excitement in the Kerry camp when the exit polls showed him winning handily, yet the actual vote count was dramatically different? At the time, the media brushed it off as faulty exit polling techniques, but I think there is more to it. Many Americans just seem to vote differently than they may want to admit. I find this fascinating.

Let me give my own little example. Even here in the conservative stronghold of Texas I see something similar. As recent as three weeks ago, in the midst of the economic meltdown, there wasn’t a single McCain sign on my street. I live in a conservative neighborhood in a conservative city. Why no signs? So, as I said before, for the first time in my life I planted a sign in my yard, not as a challenge but simply to show my support. Something impressive happened. Within a period of two weeks, four other signs appeared on my street, all McCain. Did I have something to do with this? I don’t know, but I find the timing a bit odd. Is it possible that even my neighbors on a street of about 20 homes in a conservative stronghold were reluctant to show their support fearing that they may be the only one, concerned about how their neighbors may view them? If so, certainly my neighborhood isn’t alone, especially when you consider some of the states that show Obama leading. When is the last time states like Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia, Missouri and Florida voted Liberal? Yes, some of them went for Clinton but Obama is hardly another Clinton.

And when I look at the polls I’m frankly surprised that they are so close. Again, a moderate Dem would probably have a 20 point lead right now, but Obama is having some serious trouble closing the deal. There is no explanation for this other than the fact that voters simply don’t trust him, that they are uncomfortable with him and I think that’s because he is just too far Left for the average American. I think the folks want to vote Democrat, but it will be simply too much to vote for Obama.

The shame of it all – if my prediction holds – is that the Left will blame racism as the cause. I just don’t buy it. In a time where conservatives adore people like Condi Rice, Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, Lynn Swann and, to some extent, Colin Powell, it’s hard for me to accept the notion that Americans will vote based solely on race in a large enough extent to sway a national election. Plus, if someone were truly voting on racial grounds, I don’t think they’d have a problem telling a random pollster that they will vote for McCain. True racists aren’t exactly ashamed of their thoughts. But ask someone who trends center-right, is angry at republicans, and sees the pollster as a vent for that anger and you may be more likely to get a protest “vote” for Obama that won’t play out when it counts. That is my prediction. No matter what the polls show I think this election will either be a late-night squeaker or will end up being a near-landslide shocker for McCain. America may be ready for a Democrat president, but I don’t think it’s ready for an ultra-Liberal.


Anonymous said...

Sorry John. I disagree on your last point although I concur that polls are unreliable.

People are going into the voting booth and not all be unlike that old woman that John McCain admonished in a recent campaign rally.

In the booth a significant number of people will not get past the color of Brack Obama's skin. If you do not believe that, you are fooling yourself.

Is America racist to the core? No. Are there racists in America. You betcha.

These are people who will decide quite simply that they are not ready for that type of "change."

Condoleeza Rice, Lynn Swann, Colin Powell are not factors. It's OK for them to be black b/c they are in supporting roles.

Never deny that there are a signifcant number of people in this country who are thinking "I am not prepared for a black man to be president of the United States."

Are they enough to tip the election? I do not know but I suspect you are correct in prognosticvating that the election will be close although I do not see how it could be closer than 2000.



Bushwack said...

Well TLGK here is another aspect of your argument:
The reason the polls are so close is BECAUSE Barack Hussein Obama is BLACK.

95% of blacks are voting for him, is that racist?
I never voted for or against ANYONE because of the color of their skin, yet when BLACKS at a rate of 95% are saying they are voting for the "Messiah" it is not called Racist. WHY? well because they can hide it.

I am hoping for ALL White and Latino racists will vote along their racist views...That should even it up.


Bushwack, Hello!

Point & Counterpoint with the Loop Garoo Kid is much like talking to a wall; he avoids logic & reason when 'Fact-Based Evidence' is on the table; he 'defends' when there is no defense; he gives long-winded tirades, if you beg for a concise comment.

Warning, warning!

He has a tough shell, but a soft gentle presentation. I think he's a
"Secular-Progressive" Socialist, but he'll never admit it. Who cares? Dr. John, like myself, hopes in vain for a McCain/Palin close victory...but the "Debates" were not very exciting.
Imagine Barack Obama standing next to General Colin Powell, both are "black"...You choose, which one is "Qualified" To Lead? Who's the Slicker Con-Man? reb

Anonymous said...

The Redneck Mafia. Cute.

SH. You would know "fact based evidence" if it moved into your guest bedroom and made a nuisance of itself. Regrettably, you regard facts as a nuisance which is why you constantly chose to ignore the evidence for any premise that supports your viewpoint, no matter how outlandish.

By the way, in case you had not checked, Colin Powell is not running for office.

Unfortunately, Sarah Plain is. You seem to have converted your blog to a shrine to her. All I can say is that one man's godess is another's false idol. I keep telling you reb, remember Commandments 2 and 9. (Anglican)


PrivatePigg said...

Again, a moderate Dem would probably have a 20 point lead right now.

I've been saying this forever. This, to me, is why a close Obama victory is still a big win for conservatives. The Democrats should be handing the GOP their arse right now. These debates should be nothing but formality. We should be preparing for a liberal presidency. But we are actually considering the fact that McCain could win! This should be a blowout...

Which means that even if Obama wins, he was less than convincing to a very large percentage of people, and will find that he has the toughest time of any President in recent memory of holding on to his mojo and impressing the massses. Obama, should he win, will have a short grace period. Any misstep will result in a quick and obvious lagging of support. If his policies turn out to be as disastrous as they should, 2012 should set up nicely for the GOP.

Anonymous said...

To one all.

Gen. Colin Powell just endorsed Barrack Obama on "Meet the Press" in the most eloquent terms.



Anonymous said...

As someone with no dog in the race, and who detests both candidates, I think bias went a very long way in the outcome of this post. Objectively, Obama is clearly going to win.

Anonymous said...

I pray that McCain does win this contest. The economic proposals presented by BO will further cripple this country and stifle the ambition and creativity of those who would provide the jobs that will move us out our current mess. His plans to make government BIGGER are a disaster. We need government out of our lives and back doing the job in the original plan "providing for the common defense". Each of the dollars we pay in taxes returns less value the further it travels up the ladder LH


TLGK, alias Loop Garoo Kid,

I've Posted 'Fact-based Evidence' in John Perazzo's "Fannie, Freddie & The Left, but a timid Loop hides here, afraid to comment where it's
an Open Forum for Left, Right, and Independent, and a bit tougher for a "progressive" lawyer.

The Jelly-fish Has No Spine for Fair & Balanced Openness. He carefully avoids the sharp barrier
Earlier, I asked you to compare Gen Colin Powell to the Trained Seal from Chicago; that fine general should have had the Democratic nomination, and the people would have their first black president without any hesitation!

Now, Colin Powell has decided on a Chicago man with a Con-man's smooth delivery, No Executive or Business Experience, No Military our Commander-In-Chief!

Gen Powell chooses to ignore massive voter fraud in a dozen key states, and the undeniable fact that A.C.O.R.N. & OBAMA have a long, long symbiotic relationship.

Powell now votes skin-color. Sad.
Sew a button on that, Garoo-sum!


allison said...

Snake hunters--
1. Voter fraud would not actually be committed until someone would try to vote as one of the fake names who were registered.
2. ACORN is responsible for finding the "fraudulent" forms and alerting the authorities about it. This wouldn't be a known issue if they hadn't. They are not trying to perpetuate it, they are taking the proper actions when they find that it happens--not processing the forms, obviously, but also firing the responsible employees.
3. Many studies have recently shown that voter fraud in the US is actually quite rare. Google it.
4. If Obama hadn't previously interacted with ACORN, NO ONE would know about this issue. It may have made a local newspaper, but I highly doubt you or I would have known about it. This is being made into a gigantic issue by the McCain campaign because, once again, they have nothing to go off of except for instilling fear over non-issues into their supporters. This is creating a.) a distraction from the real issues at hand, and b.) an extremely false sense that Obama is corrupt and something to be feared. McCain has now had to DEFEND Obama at his own rallies because people are saying such twisted things. Frankly, such close-mindedness frightens me, and it's sad that the McCain campaign has had to stoop to such incredibly low levels to win votes.

PrivatePigg said...

Man, I am so tired of Obama supporters telling me that every criticism of Obama is "a distraction from the real issues" or "a negative ad." Criticism is completely legit, whether in a "negative" tv ad or otherwise. And Obama's connections to a radical group like ACORN, who's shenanigans are not new this election year, are legitimate insights into how radical the man will be and to what type of judgment he has - two HUGE issues. Concrete things like the Iraq War and the economy are not the only "issues." Character and judgment are too.

Don said...

Geez, I hope you're right about this. I've often thought the same myself.

One glimmer of hope that I'm seeing is that many Dems I know here in Texas say they won't vote for Obama. They would have loved to vote for Hillary, but not Obama. Some say it's because of his race, but most say it's because they believe he is a closet Muslim.

You can make polls say anything you want by how you ask the question and which area you take the poll from.

I think the media is working overtime to get Obama elected. If McCain does pull this one off, I want to see the fit Curic throws this time!

Anonymous said...


Several months ago I made a decision not to visit your site. I respect your right to dislike or not vote for Brack Obama. Nevertheless, you have chosen to print and pass along any garbage w/o checking its provenance. By way of example and not limitation, there was an exchange of e-mails regarding Dr. Jack Wheeler and a comment I do not even remember about Barack Obama. This was the same Dr. Jack Wheeler who in February printed a piece accusing John McCain of collaberating w/ his N. Vietnamese captors who allegedly put him up at a hotel and supplied him w/ multiple prostitutes. This vile piece of slander wasn't supported by any facts, just the imagination of that pay for pundit Jack Wheeler.

I have also made a personal decision. I will only argue w/ people whose positions are rational. I no longer believe your positions are reason based. I am sorry to have reached that conclusion. I may give you a few months after the election and revisit.


allison said...

Colin Powell said it best just yesterday, What if he WERE a Muslim? Why does it matter? Why is there such a huge problem with being a Muslim in America today? The problem is not just those who think and say such terrible things about people of different ethnic or religious backgrounds, but those who hear people say those things and don't stand up for what is actually true. That is WRONG and too many people are just letting it slide.

PrivatePigg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PrivatePigg said...

Why is it wrong? Is this not the United States of America? If people are more comfortable with a President they can relate to (which means a President that shares the same values, beliefs, etc.) then so be it!

I agree, stating something that you know to be untrue is not cool. But saying that people would have no right to have reservations "if he were a Muslim" is asinine.

Why do you think we talk about a candidate being "out of touch" or "raised with different values," etc.? Because it matters to people that the President knows what is going on in their lives and understands their problems and values. A President that grew up differently than you, had a different culture, a different religion, or any number of other things, may tell you that "hey, this is not like me." It doesn't mean people are saying "Islam is bad," it just means that people want a candidate they can relate to. It is no different than liberals trying to paint certain Republicans as "far right wing Christians" who want to rule with the Bible. Saying that you wouldn't vote for a far right-wing Christian Bible thumper is Ok, but saying you wouldn't vote for a Muslim is not ok?

Or did I just distract from the issues?

And, by the way, Obama must not be thinking - why would he come out today and announce Powell will be an advisor? Rather than strengthen Obama's foreign policy credentials, it tells me "Oh, so that is why Powell endorsed him." I mean, it's not like Powell has a history of endorsing far-left, inexperienced Democrats for office.


Allison, As you must know, I'm an old man, and as a former democrat (I first voted for Harry Truman in 1948; he beat Thomas E. Dewey, Att Gen of N.Y.) Nothing compares to Election 2008! We had fairly decent elections back then.

Allison has probably met a few muslim young ladies at school, and found them to be modest, kind, and polite. Allison makes a "value judgement" based upon these brief social encounters. Nice People too, without a doubt.

I've Studied Comparitive Religions all my adult life, and I would suggest that you reserve judgement, until you gain a bit more knowledge of Saudi Wahhabism, or Persian Shiite, where they cut off the right hand of a chicken thief, or Cut the Head Off a "birthright muslim" if that person dare to seek a more peaceful religion!

Apostasy is not tolerated under Sharia Law, and death punishment is swift, Allison.

Freedom of Religion is Forbidden;
Freedom of Speech is "restricted",
Freedom to Think is a Vague Concept.

Young girls that have a sexual contact before marriage, (even if raped by a relative) have 'dishonored' the family name, and are murdered by the parents, or close relative w/o retribution!

See your Google, for "honor killings". Sunni or Shia, it's a Brute "Kill-Culture" in the 21st Century, and they enrich U-235 to "wipe Israel off the map...don't just ignore that!
A.C.O.R.N. Is Not New. False
Voter Registration AND Stuffing A Ballot Box from a Phone Book, or a Graves Registration List is not "new" to the Democratic Party... The Daley Machine in Chicago did it in the 1960's; Mafia Unions held major influence long before you were born, Allison.
Union "Goons" beat up members for 'going against the grain' of tough authority.

Criminals in Congress (In Both Parties), Senators like Dodd, and Obama and Republican Sen Bennett taking money "contributions" from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac need EXPOSURE, NOT ADULATION. Slamming an office-holder w/o Evidence is not a "new" devise.

Billionaire George Soros spending a good portion of his vast fortune to destroy the image of a sitting president (in a time of war) now That's New! This Evil Old Goat deserves to be hung from a public meat-hook, not Idolized on the Liberal Campus. He's a king-maker, endorsing Obama on Feb 1st, 2008!
Democrats outspending rivals 4 to 1, that's not new.

I view SOROS as a non-human, Political Beast, Personified! MoveOnDotOrg is his personal toy, an expensive mind-altering devise.
Loop Garoo ~ Suck Up Some Courage, fellow; Comment on John Perazzo's Article, if you dare! I will spare you, and not answer your have my word. GO, Councelor, strut yer stuff!

If you decline, we'll all know Garoo-sum has no back-bone, just more empty 'progressive' phrases, and snide ridicule, like "Red-neck Mafia", How original is that?


allison said...

I understand that there ARE Muslims who are violent and who believe things that many Americans completely disagree with and are horrified by. I know that to be true. However, you are making it sound as though meeting a "well-behaved" Muslim is the rarity, and that the majority are terrorists. Nope, sorry, not the case. Conservatives always rant about how we never see the "good side" of the war, yet they constantly keep us glued to the "bad side" of Islam and of Muslims, encouraging our negative thoughts about terrorists and who they are or "should be." It's backwards, totally backwards.

And the statement that people only care about Obama being or not being a Muslim because they couldn't "relate" to him? Yeah right. To soooo many people, as snake hunters demonstrated, believe that Muslims are violent, that they are terrorists. I have seen plenty of youtube videos and heard one too many stories about people who are so vehemently opposed to an Obama presidency because of his ethnic heritage or the color of his skin to believe that excuse. If it is a disagreement on beliefs, fine, but then get the facts RIGHT before deciding whether or not you agree.

PrivatePigg said...

Well, as long as you are getting your facts from YouTube... You don't think that those YouTube videos are the exception, and not the rule? Who would watch a video of me saying "Most Muslims are nice people." But you'll jump right on the video that says "Muslims are all bad!" Just like you say bad Muslims are a minority, but that we only pay attention to them at the expense of the good ones, so the people who think "all Muslims are bad and Obama is a closet Muslim and therefore is a terrorist" are also the minority. But Democrats will pretend that it's those few people who embody all of middle-America - those racist right-wingers, all of them!

Main stream America would doubt a Muslim for the same reason they doubted "rich, elitist" John Kerry and "I use more electricity in one month than the average person uses in a year but you should conserve your energy" Al Gore - you simply cannot listen to him, understand his background, and feel like he understands what your life is like. Culture, religion, associations, lifestyle, etc. are all integral parts of this equation.

PrivatePigg said...

After leaving my last comment I just happened to stumble upon this video.

allison said...

I certainly hope that those videos are the exception, but there are a fair amount of them, and even one is too many for me. These things have been happening at nearly all of their rallies, with very little OFFICIAL statements against them. I definitely commend the people in that video you linked to, and I wish that more people would have the courage to do that.

Anonymous said...

Reading through these, I'm rather appalled at fact that people would legitimately have a problem with a Muslim as president. Why does it matter? If a candidate's political ideas are sound, why does it matter what religion that candidate follows? I was under the impression we were supposed to vote for the guy whose ideas most represented our own, not the guy who we can "relate to."

The truth of the matter is that there is a contingent of conservatives have an irrational distrust of Muslims, and believe Obama is a Muslim. I've met many such conservatives; one of my family members is one of them. She's literally afraid of an Obama presidency because she's afraid he'll turn the US into a country ruled by Sharia law. No joke.

Me, I'm philosophically opposed to Obama's tax plan. My problem rationally rests with his political beliefs. If Ron Paul, the candidate I plan to vote for, was a Muslim, I'd still vote for him. I literally don't care what religion a candidate is. I optimistically hope that most American conservatives don't either, but I could be wrong.


Allison! Are you purposely twisting
my words? I hope not. I never said that meeting well-behaved muslims are a 'rarity', and that the majority are "terrorists". That's absolutely false!

The Muslim Leadership...the Grand Ayatollahs of Iran ARE Pious Killers; the Saudi Royal Kings permit these evil Mullahs & Imams to train killers for Holy Jihad, intimidate the "majority" into a "Faith" that teaches Suicidal Bombers to blow themselves to bits, promising them virgins after a glorious death, and they fly planes into buildings...they Stone their women for perceived Sin! The Majority Are Obedient Sheep, that face Mecca, five times a day, praying to Allah (praise his Holy Name, if you please).

Freedom to Think, is a Vague Concept At Best; please do not misquote me again; that's a Loop Garoo tactic. He's a miserable lawyer, and The Truth is incidental and momentary. Maintain your own integrity, Allison, he's a bad boy. He's Loaded With Strutting Pedantic Arrogance too!
He's a 'member of the bar'. Ha!


allison said...

You said that I have probably met some nice, well-behaved Muslims, but that I should "reserve judgment" until I have researched more. I have taken religions classes, I have been doing a lot of reading about different religions, and so far I see nothing that would lead me to believe that Islam is a violent religion with the majority of it's followers being terrorists. Your comments still lead me to believe that you have doubts about that, I have not twisted your words.

PrivatePigg said...

First of all, I think it's a bit funny that people keep saying that "conservatives" won't vote for Obama because he is a Muslim, etc. Conservatives won't vote for Obama because they are conservative, and he is very liberal. The idea that his possible religious background is somehow affecting his ability to get conservative votes is kind of silly.

Second of all, and to address Robert M., while you may find it easy to oppose Obama because you are "diametrically opposed to his tax plan," many people might not find that a good enough reason. They may oppose his tax plan, but support him on the war, etc. A plain look at "just the issues" does not always take care of it, especially for independents and people who routinely switch their loyalties between parties.

Further, what is the biggest event of the past 10-15 years? September 11th. Does anybody remember how George Bush and Al Gore promised to take care of that problem while campaigning in 2000? Of course, no one knew 9/11 would happen and therefore no one could explain to the American people how he would handle it. This "fear of the unknown" is a huge element of being president. So much of what a President ultimately does in office is with things that no one could have foreseen during election year. Thus, while you may be able to figure out "where they stand" on certain issues, a man's ability to make decisions will be relevant. This becomes especially important when independents and other "centrists" agree with both McCain and Obama on a number of issues. Based on policy alone, they can't make a choice.

It is at this point that a person's background becomes highly relevant. His culture, his religion, his experience (or lack thereof), his upbringing, his associations, all things that may affect and may point to his judgment, illustrate how he might handle certain situations. People can look at the aforementioned and say, "I don't trust this guy to make the same decisions I would make in crisis." Or, in the middle of crisis, "can I expect this man to steer the United States in the direction I think it should go?" Would this man, as President, have the same vision for America post-economic meltdown or post-terrorist attack or post-natural disaster as I would?

People look at Obama and say "No." He ascribes to black liberation thought, he associates with radicals, he may have grown up with values and morals very different from ordinary Americans, etc. These doubts are real and they are legitimate.

Anonymous said...


Just checking. Am I miserable b/c I am a lawyer or am I miserable and incidentally am a lawyer?

Meanwhile, as for Perazzo's article, I am underwhelmed. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were complicite in the subprime mortgage meltdown, but they did not cause it. Blaming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is like blaming the CRA.

Here is what we all know. For years, politicians have accepted money from various sources and scupted policy to protect those sources. This is not an original thought.

I remain comfortable w/ my decision to refrain from visting your blog, reb. You'll have to do better than trying to insult me. What you have to do is go back to being a though provocating site instead of a billboard for conservative pap.


Anonymous said...

Yeah, first of all, you first used the word diametrically, meaning the quotation marks are inaccurate.

Second of all, what does political expediency have to do with me personally? I just expressed my opinion. Why should it concern me who wins?

John Washburn said...

Personally, I would have no problem voting for a Muslim if he/she shared my conservative, small government opinions and demonstrated outright rejection of the radical teachings that have hijacked that religion.