Haha. Given the choice, I'd vote Pat Buchanan and put my money where my mouth is.

Dean is two-faced- literally. That's the point I was getting at. Have you seen the new Hillary book where she says "I've always been a Yankees fan," but can be pictured wearing and pointing to a Cubs hat? They'll say anything to anyone for a vote- their word is meaningless. How can you ally with someone like that?

Bush hasn't balanced the budget (or come close), vetoed a single spending bill, used the Republican majority to do anything useful and conservative beyond confirming Roberts and Alito, or spoken out about Congressional corruption on both sides of the aisle. Don't forget the open border policy. National debt as a percentage of GDP is the highest it's been since WWII, and it's not set to shrink. I'm 18, I'm going to have to foot the bill someday. I want a change.

I think it's too close to tell if Iraq was a mistake, and that valid analysis of a war takes time. We now believe Vietnam was winnable- agree with the premise of the war or not, that's one example. 20 years from now, we'll be able to tell on Iraq. I think anybody who analyzes the success/failure of a war while we're in it is talking out his a$$. I mean making a blanket statement, such as "We failed miserably, Iraq is a quagmire, etc." Wars have turning points, sometimes multiple ones. At Valley Forge, some naysayers could've convinced everyone to pack it up and go home. How would American, even human history have changed if that happened? We did this, it's time to follow through and just get it over with.

The fact of the mater is you're just plain wrong. The world is leaving you top down, vertically oiented, central planners on the dung heap of history. The last thing the world needs is "great leader" nation, a new Rome. It is you who are living in the past, thinking of the glories the US government can bestow on the backward globe, if they'll simply toe the line.

As country after country moves towards decentralization, through modern communications, your kind will be thought of much like the village idiot perched on the fence, crying out for others to listen to you, that you can show them the way, if only you're granted the power over their lives to "help them". It's for the children.

It's garbage when Hillary Clinton says it, and it's garbage when you Bush'ists say it.

Buchanan hasn't a prayer. Even he knows it and won't run. But if you want to write him in, go right ahead.

I've been waiting for someone to come up with a real reason, rather than emotion, that they wouldn't vote for Hillary. The concept that she could favor two baseball teams certainly seems a valid reason. If you're seven.

Didn't the Papacy declare itself infallible in the late 19th century? I.e., if the Pope says it, it is by definition "right". Pretty scary no matter who utters it, or in what context.

Hillary has NO backbone, no convictions....at all. Although we know she is a leftist at heart, she will pander to whatever gains her the advantage, she is a politician in the worst way. The very idea that a poll worshiping tool like her would have to make serious decisions for our country is scary as hell. We need a leader in the Whitehouse, one who does what they know is right even when it's unpopular. Hillary?????? Lord help us all.

Speaking officially on moral matters, he is guided by God and therefore infallible. This means publications like encyclicals are accurate moral compasses.

He can't say 2+2=5 and claim he's right.

I will add that it is absolutely hillarious that the left gets led around by the nose by the Clintons. You all know she will cost you the Whitehouse, but like lemmings you will follow her over. Just watch. Right now the Presidency is sitting there for your taking, but her ambition and ego is more important. And you call us blind loyalists, lol......

Emotion? Daft!

I wouldn't vote for Hillary because her philosophy is more of what the Bush'ists want; socialism, central planning, government involvement with every aspect of our lives.

Those ideas were suspect when they first appeared in Rousseau's "Social Contract", in 1765, and have been thoroughly debunked by the Austrian School economists.

We no longer need, nor desire, the nanny state, and surely Hillary Rodham Clinton is as strong a proponent of the nanny state as has ever been.

Can anyone please tell me why Hillary is qualified to be President? She has spent what, 6 years now in the Senate? What bills has she authored? What leadership has she shown?

My impression over the last 6 years is that she has sort of lurked in the shadows, trying not to take an actual position on much of anything lest it come back to haunt her later. I certainly don't consider her one of the party leaders, at least not publicly. Maybe she pulls all the strings behind the scenes, I dunno.

Anyone care to enumerate her qualifications?

I hope the House begins impeachment proceedings on their first day in office. This next three years should be pretty fun. At least.....we are likely to get the kind of information we have been denied these last five or six. Some interesting questions become subpoenas, and the answers will become known. That's going to make these last couple of years seem like a cakewalk for Dubya.

Hope in one hand **** in the other.........:D

The above would equate to capitulating to liberalism, not incompetence. Obviously the economy would argue against a majority of your incompetence argument. With a recession the debt problem would have went from bad to worse. When the choice was a collapsing economy, exacerbated by the psychological hit of being attacked by Islamofascism, and increased spending and debt, I would take the increased debt. I think there was an element of brilliance to it. It was anything but incompetent. Bush has called, weakly, granted, for cuts in spending, several times. He was crucified for social security reform. Bush's handlers cowered and caved on prescription drug handouts and illegal immigration. Bush has pussed out on fighting for cutting the size of government, but at least he hasn't caved into demands to raise taxes, as that cave would surely weaken the strong economy.

If by 'incompetent' you mean 'liberal' and 'coward,' yes, Bush is incompetent.

i have started to open and close evey phone conversation with "bush sucks", so if he's listening he knows where i stand.

Ah, the new McCarthyism. Where it has always truly been but conveniently repackaged to look like a republican tendency. They used the demonized name to hide their communist tendencies in the 50s...The witches want a witchhunt, an old fashioned Inquisition...Those who want to do the interrogation are the most evil of them all. They must sell a lie, drag the country through the mud, weaken our national security, attempt to tear down the economy. They and their media coven do this to reacquire the golden broom on which they will fly around Washington D.C., looking for people to destroy and burn at the stake.

I have made it a point to reply to assine and ignorant hate-filled statements, like "bush sucks" with "fuq-u."

The biggest poll-worshipping tool to occupy the white house to date is your hero, Dubya. He's spent more money on public opinion polls and flip-flopped more than anyone in recent history.

But since he won't be running again, you're criticizing Hillary for what every potential Republican challenger has been doing -- McCain foremost among them. The Uh-merican voter has demanded to hear what they want to hear, knowing full well that it's the voice of expedience and pandering. The press lets them all get away with it.

I'm still waiting to hear an actual, specific criticism of Hillary that makes objective sense. Oh, and as to her qualifications, well they are at least better than the former serial business failure and Governor of Texas you foolishly supported in 2000.

Any objective observer will note that you are 180° out of phase on that. Bush is constantly sticking to his objectives in the face of bad polls, Iraq, Social security reform, tax cuts for "the rich :rolleyes: ).........support of Bolton, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, etc....

What are you talking about?

Did you know there are more nerve endings in your gut than in your brain? Look it up. But you won't find it in a book. You'll have to look in your gut.

the truth hurts