Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 95
Yesterday afternoon, here in Texas, I went and cast my vote for Obama, and last night caucused with the Obama supporters to select that other 35% of delegates and to elect delegates to the county convention, among other party business.

This morning I see that Hillary narrowly won the state anyway and won big in Ohio and Rhode Island. I am not terribly disturbed. I am not terribly disturbed because, as I posted previously, all of the anti-Hillary rhetoric on this board prompted me to really research her voting record and her public positions and having done that, from the point of view of someone who will match up their "liberal credentials" against anyone on this board, I found few facts to support the rhetoric or to justify the hatred.

I've repeatedly heard posters refer to Hillary as "shrill." I can't help but note that that is an adjective that people, MEN generally, reserve to refer to strong women. But, imo, "shrill" is a good adjective to describe the tone of this board this morning.

For example:

--I hate Hillary with every fiber of my being

--The TMF net nanny, wouldn't let me use the word '[email protected]'.
[hmm, somehow the "@" doesn't make that epithet to describe a woman you don't like any less offensive]

--If Hillary beats Obama, I'm voting for McCain... [6 recs]

--I am so violently repulsed by Hillary, her attitude, and her tactics in her campaign against Obama that if he loses the nomination to her, i'm going to have to vote for a Republican....

--That Judas is never getting my vote.

--Hillary wants to move the Democratic party right of center. That's the announced goal of the DLC which she leads. She has positioned herself, along with the DLC, to reduce Social Security benefits. Her foreign policy would continue to be driven by the right wing Israeli Likud party.


At least the last statement is policy-based - only problem is that it is nearly completely unsupported by the facts. I've made fact-based arguments about this until I'm blue in the face, which have seemed only to prompt even more radically unsubstantiated attacks - I guess there's just no arguing against opinions that are largely emotion-based - it's sort of like arguing against someone's religion.

It seems to me that, in general, the majority of "arguments" against Hillary have little basis in fact - you just HATE her because she's a "[email protected]", she's "shrill," she's 'back-stabbing" and "conniving" and "devious."

Not only are the arguments not fact-based (and I hate to say it, and I'm sure everyone will vehemently deny it), but are, imo, largely misogynistic, however unconscious that might be.

At least there are still some voices of reason on this board:

KBM: My own opposition to "Hill" is strong - BUT not that strong....LOL

FY: If you do that, I'm 1) unfaving you and 2) p-boxing you, and 3) calling you insane. [that's a pretty close approximation of my thoughts]

Dude. I mean, seriously. McCain over any of Democrats that ran!?

...Ask anyone who voted for a 3rd party candidate in 2000 or 2004 because they didn't like Al Gore or John Kerry and "there's no real differences between the major party candidates" how they feel about that vote now.


Wessex99: Didn't some people think like this in 2004?

Well for sure in 2000. I remember DISTINCTLY the arguments that Gore was not substantially different from Bush. Some liberals seemed to have a need to prove that they were "more liberal than thou." The argument made by Nader and echoed by his supporters was that "things need to get worse before they can get better." I'm hearing the same thing from the "too-liberal-to-compromise," cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face, anti-Hillary demagogues now.

Dude. How much worse can things get?

I supported Obama even though, like Hillary, he was not my ideal candidate - but based on any rational policy-based analysis, they are close to dead even with each other. It is LUDICROUS to suggest that Hillary will destroy SS or even that she is "right of center" based on her nearly eight-year voting record and every word that has ever left her lips. I am nervous about her potential stance toward issues of war and peace, but honestly, no more nervous than I am about Obama's, since he simply has NO RECORD on that and might feel the need to prove that he's "tough enough."

Hillary's proposals for health care are one issue where she should have a clear advantage over Obama for people who believe that this country should be moving toward universal health care.

Anyway, I didn't get up this morning planning to waste my time writing this missive, but experiencing the "shrill" tone on this board was sort of like biting down on aluminum foil with a bad tooth. I've been reading this board less and less because I just don't like the way that reading about all of this hatred make me feel. I imagine I'll continue to read it less and less.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Except, Pit where is she on the war? I don't mean just Iraq but the whole grab the oil and protect Israel thing. How abbout her stumping for Lieberman?

Here's your parallel to 1968. The antiwar component of the Dems and Independents have no candidate.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Except, Pit where is she on the war?

that's very true - don't take my post to imply that Hillary is anywhere near perfection - re: war - in the post I said this:

"I am nervous about her potential stance toward issues of war and peace, but honestly, no more nervous than I am about Obama's, since he simply has NO RECORD on that and might feel the need to prove that he's 'tough enough.'"

You have to take my post in context - I mean, I VOTED FOR OBAMA - so that's the way I lean, I'm just trying to inject some REASON into the debate...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
--Hillary wants to move the Democratic party right of center. That's the announced goal of the DLC which she leads. She has positioned herself, along with the DLC, to reduce Social Security benefits. Her foreign policy would continue to be driven by the right wing Israeli Likud party.

At least the last statement is policy-based - only problem is that it is nearly completely unsupported by the facts. I've made fact-based arguments about this until I'm blue in the face, which have seemed only to prompt even more radically unsubstantiated attacks - I guess there's just no arguing against opinions that are largely emotion-based - it's sort of like arguing against someone's religion.


The above statement was mine and it is based on facts which I have not seen disputed. I assume I missed a post or to from Pit. I'd surely like to see how these facts are just opinion.

Hillary Clinton is one of the leaders of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) whose announced goal is to move the Democratic party right of center. This is not, as you have stated Pit, a political allia
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Finally, a voice of reason!

I would have added you to my Favorite Fools on the strength of this post...except that you are already one of my Favorite Fools :-).

Wendy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I am nervous about her potential stance toward issues of war and peace, but honestly, no more nervous than I am about Obama's, since he simply has NO RECORD on that and might feel the need to prove that he's "tough enough."

It sounds as if your nervousness about Obama is based on a hunch, then. It isn't fact-based.

I wonder if you think a white candidate would feel the need to prove his toughness.

Could your reservations about Obama be based on racism, however unconscious that may be?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
>> all of the anti-Hillary rhetoric on this board prompted me to really research her voting record <<

What about her commodity trading records? Did you check those?
The woman is a freaking crook.

KB
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
No more then the "Keating Five McCain" tm

What about her commodity trading records? Did you check those?
The woman is a freaking crook.
KB


Or, Old Joe Kennedy for that matter.....;o)

Even old HST had his "ethical failures" in the days of old.....

And "Saint Ronnie Raygun the Senile"? I won't even go there and he was POTUS at the time.

Anyway - the point is "To Win in Nov" - tm

And frankly Scarlett - I don't give a damn about anything else.

KBM (not argruing wit'ya KB....;o)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Joe Kennedy was a crook, but never ran for President.
History will eventually set the record straight on Ronald Reagan.

KB
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"Anyway - the point is "To Win in Nov" - tm

And frankly Scarlett - I don't give a damn about anything else."

My priority is the total destruction of Hillary Clinton.

KB
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The only issue I have with Hillary (I did vote for Obama) staying in the race is that she seems to be looking for a way to win without...well...winning. As long as she doesn't "steal" the nomination I have no problem with her campaign continuing, it just keeps McCain out of the news. If she wins due to superdelegates or Michigan delegates I think the party will be demoralized which is the last thing you want in a general election campaign. Hopefully the party leaders understand this.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
--Hillary wants to move the Democratic party right of center. That's the announced goal of the DLC which she leads. She has positioned herself, along with the DLC, to reduce Social Security benefits. Her foreign policy would continue to be driven by the right wing Israeli Likud party.

At least the last statement is policy-based - only problem is that it is nearly completely unsupported by the facts. I've made fact-based arguments about this until I'm blue in the face, which have seemed only to prompt even more radically unsubstantiated attacks - I guess there's just no arguing against opinions that are largely emotion-based - it's sort of like arguing against someone's religion.


The above statement was mine and it is based on facts which I have not seen disputed. I assume I missed a post or to from Pit. I'd surely like to see how these facts are just opinion. Here are the facts.

Hillary Clinton is one of the leaders of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) whose announced goal is to move the Democratic party right of center. This is not, as you have stated Pit, a convenient political alliance. Bill Clinton has a long standing relationship with the DLC and its PPI which served as him as president as his right of center think tank. Among the right of center DLC/PPI initiatives he implemented was his welfare "reform" which hurt the most vulnerable part of his loyal Democratic base; i.e. poor women and children.

Among the current domestic right of center DLC/PPI initiatives is Social Security reform. To the extent that Hillary has disclosed her position on Social Security, she has mirrored the DLC/PPI initiative. Both refuse to increase the payroll tax limit at $97,000 which means wealthy Americans will continue to pay a lower tax rate than the rest of us. It also means the recognized shortfall will not be eliminated by an increase in taxes. The only option to the shortfall without increased revenue is to reduce retirement and disability benefits. Hillary has avoided committing herself to reduce benefits by saying that while she opposes increasing the payroll tax, she has no plan to address the shortfall. Instead as president she will appoint a committee to come up with her plan.

The facts are Hillary's position on Social Security is one that is entirely consistent with a reduction in benefits to the elderly and disabled. Her position is entirely consistent with the DLC/PPI position on Social Security. She is the most prominent leader of this center right organization that created a similar initiative to reduce welfare benefits that her husband implemented. She and her husband have had strong ties to the DLC/PPI for over ten years.

Maybe my concern over welfare and Social Security benefits is more acute than others. I spent a long (30+ years) public interest legal career litigating on behalf of welfare families and disabled children and families. I have seen first hand what Bill Clinton did to America's poor. Hillary is affiliated with the same people who developed Bill Clinton's welfare "reform" and has established a position that would do similar harm to the elderly and disabled.

Her war positions are no better. She was a backer of the Iraq War until it was no longer politically expedient. She says she was fooled into voting for that war. If so, she's too dumb to be president. But she's not dumb. Just dishonest even to the point of refusing to say her vote was a mistake. She even jumped on the patriotism bandwagon with her stop the flag burning now expedition.

She voted to authorize Bush to attack Iran. And she was equally dishonest in explaining her vote as one calling for more diplomacy.

Obama has a long standing position in opposition to the Iraq War. He is opposed to authorizing an attack on Iran. He had the courage to address the American Israeli PAC (the right wing Likud party counterpart in the US) and call for sympathy for the Palestinian people for which he was roundly booed. By contrast, Hillary gives and has given just what the AIPAC wants.

I am tired of the Clintons taking my vote for the lessor of two evils for granted. I do not want a president who will hurt America's poorest and most vulnerable citizens just to stake out a center right position. I do not want any more unjustified ME wars. And I would like to see the Palestinian people treated humanely.

It's easy to check out the facts on Hillary. See http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137 and check out the DLC/PPI in
Wikipedia.
Also see http://www.counterpunch.org/frank01032006.html.

And for the record Pituophis is still a particularly favorite fool of mine.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Could your reservations about Obama be based on racism, however unconscious that may be?

Well, now I guess almost everybody on this board is covered: you're either a racist or misogynistic....

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
KodiakBear says

What about her commodity trading records? Did you check those?
The woman is a freaking crook.

Yet with all the powerful people who hate her guts, no one has ever formally charged her with a crime. I wonder why...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
True - only because he was a "fascist" at heart

Joe Kennedy was a crook, but never ran for President.


Besides, I used old Joe as an example of what a crook truly is the rest of em don't come close.

KBM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And with that KB I'll let it lay.....

My priority is the total destruction of Hillary Clinton.
KB


KBM (with malice towards "none"....;o)
PS: Except for DEDCSL & HWNISNS




ledgend:
Dead Eye Darth Cheney Sith Lord & He Whose Name I shall Not Speak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yes HH "we" know....

Can we please stop beating up on fellow Dem's and start to beatup on the truly evil - real enemy? The repub's!

KBM (following the 11th commandment)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Here's your parallel to 1968. The antiwar component of the Dems and Independents have no candidate.

I guess that some would like to characterize it that way but, in reality, there's not much comparison. For one thing, both Bill and Hillary Clinton were actively and publicly against the Vietnam war. For another thing, both then and now, there is a more liberal, more anti-war candidate - then it was Gene McCarthy, now it's Ralph Nader.

But the main thing is that there is no comparison between Hubert Humphrey's position on the Vietnam War and Hillary Clinton's position on Iraq or on any other matter of war and peace. Humphrey was Johnson's VP and his shill on the rightousness of the Vietnam atrocity (even though in earlier years he had spoken against involvement). Let's look at a couple of Humphrey factoids:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_Hubert_Humphrey.htm

...With the situation in Vietnam heating up, Johnson made Humphrey his primary spokesman on war policy. The vice president duly visited university campuses to answer questions and reiterate the administration's policy line. But his new, more conservative stance began to alienate liberal supporters as he uttered such hawkish assertions as, "only the Viet Cong commit atrocities."

...shortly after hearing another of General William Westmoreland's optimistic estimates, he publicly hailed the Vietnam war as "our great adventure," which was making the world freer and better... - 1967



There is zero comparison of Humphrey's open shilling for the most unjustified homicidal rampage that this country has ever engaged in and Hillary's ONE VOTE in support of the Iraq Resolution, particularly given her public statements about the Iraq war now. I KNOW about the vote on the non-binding resolution on Iran. I'm not happy about it. But characterizing it as "giving Bush the authority to attack Iran" is just wrong.

So anyway - Humphrey was a war cheerleader and assistant to the chief perpetrator of the Vietnam War. Hillary is vehemently opposed to the Iraq War and says that she'll begin troop withdrawals immediately if elected.

I have trouble seeing a parallel.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Well, now I guess almost everybody on this board is covered: you're either a racist or misogynistic....


If you vote for McCain you can be both.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Sorry Pit, but Hillary has only gone low key on the war because of the outrage in the Party. This war is very much in the interest of Israel. If you live in the rest of the country you can't possibly understand what that means to a NY politician. Hillary maybe a little less hawkish than McCain but that is like being a little less pregnant.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
..Ask anyone who voted for a 3rd party candidate in 2000 or 2004 because they didn't like Al Gore or John Kerry and "there's no real differences between the major party candidates" how they feel about that vote now.

I voted for Nader and live in Florida. My vote DID NOT cause Bush to win Florida. No, I do not regret the vote, I regret the fact that some idiot thought it a good idea to waste congressional time over a blue dress, yet will not seek a proper impeachment. That they worry about a baseball player using drugs and allow a genocidist run the White House.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Yet with all the powerful people who hate her guts, no one has ever formally charged her with a crime. I wonder why...

Because illegal and fraudulent activity in the markets was the ONLY scandal that Republicans didn't and don't care about. This remains completely consistent with the rest of the right-wing plot. Starr only investigated charges that had no merit.

The 100k from cattle futures was to help elevate the Clintons into the upper class which, at the time, needed some new blood, but the Clintons were not yet wealthy enough. It is very similar to Bush being given a baseball team.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
My priority is the total destruction of Hillary Clinton.

Okay. That's cool.

Just as long as you don't mind the total destruction of the United States as a consequence of your revenge.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
I voted for Nader and live in Florida. My vote DID NOT cause Bush to win Florida. No, I do not regret the vote

I'll reget if for you, then. In fact, I regret it enough for both of us.

Don't do that again, dammit.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I've made fact-based arguments about this until I'm blue in the face, which have seemed only to prompt even more radically unsubstantiated attacks

Part of Hillary's problem is style. She makes my teeth grind more than any other candidate, but you have to ask how these style issues would impact her ability to lead. Her justification for her vote for the "use of force" as a vote for diplomacy, not war. Her "understanding" why the State of NY was considering issuing driver's licenses to illegals, followed by her denial of what she said not 2 min later when Chris Dodd called her on it. Her playing the victim, of a "right wing conspiracy". or the male candidates or male chauvanisim. Part of being a leader is being able to inspire others to follow. How can you be inspired by someone who repeadedly insults your intelligence?

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Part of being a leader is being able to inspire others to follow. How can you be inspired by someone who repeadedly insults your intelligence?

And McCain doesn't?

He's against torture, except when he's for it. There's someone who doesn't "insult" our "intelligence," even a little bit.

Come on. It'll be great if Obama is the nominee.

If he's not, at least Hillary's not a Republican. There will be SOME pressure, at least, to restrain herself from moving too much farther to the right. If McCain's our next president, you can kiss the Constitution goodbye.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And McCain doesn't?

He's against torture, except when he's for it. There's someone who doesn't "insult" our "intelligence," even a little bit.


Did you watch the last Repub debate? McCain repeated his charge over and over that Romney favored a set schedule for withdrawl from Iraq, when the record showed the opposite. Mr "straight talk" my big toe. McCain panders to the war monger crowd that wants Moslems exterminated.

Speaking of pandering, a guest on O'Reilly tonight, the head of a "women's issues" group, was insiting that women should receive special treatment and Hillary should more openly cater to the female vote.

I'm still at a loss as to why the ERA failed. How can anyone argue against the proposition that everyone should have the same rights and responsabilities regardless of gender?

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm still at a loss as to why the ERA failed. How can anyone argue against the proposition that everyone should have the same rights and responsabilities regardless of gender?

Look to the religious right for an answer to this question.

Also to terrified white guys with a testosterone imbalance.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
>> I'm still at a loss as to why the ERA failed. How can anyone argue against the proposition that everyone should have the same rights and responsabilities regardless of gender? <<

In what areas besides military combat are women's rights infringed?

KB
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
In what areas besides military combat are women's rights infringed?

Equal pay for equal work. For example.

Insurance companies which will pay for Viagra, but not for birth control. For example.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
In what areas besides military combat are women's rights infringed?

Why should women have any exemption from combat? The Soviets obviously didn't think so in WWII. One of their top IL-2 pilots was a woman, as well as 2 ace fighter pilots.

Famous Il-2 Pilots

Among the pilots who gained fame flying the Il-2, was Senior Lieutenant Anna Yegorova, a female pilot who flew 260 missions. She was decorated three times, the last "posthumously", as she was presumed dead after being shot down. In fact, she managed to survive imprisonment in a German concentration camp.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-2

Lydia Vladimirovna Litvyak, (Лидия Владимировна Литвяк, August 18, 1921 – August 1, 1943), also known as Lydia Litvak or Lily Litvak, was a female fighter pilot in the Soviet Air Force during Second World War. With 12 victories, she is one of the world's only two female fighter aces, along with Katya Budanova.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Litvyak

Yekaterina Vasylievna Budanova, also known as Katya Budanova (Екатерина Васильевна Буданова), (b. December 7, 1916 - d. July 19, 1943), was a female fighter pilot in the Soviet Air Force during the Second World War. With 11 victories, she was one of the world's two female fighter aces along with Lydia Litvyak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katya_Budanova

There is a large body of data showing women lag men in employment opportunity and wage rates.

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Insurance companies which will pay for Viagra, but not for birth control. For example.

But insurance will pay a small fortune for a woman to have a baby. Now explain to me what other insurance will pay for a situation where the claimant did nothing to avoid the situation and in fact intentionally created the situation that incurred the loss.

*ring ring*

"Allstate Insurance, are you making a claim?"

"yes, I intentionally ran my car into a ditch and set it on fire. I want to put in a claim under my comprehensive coverage for the full value of the car"

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Equal pay for equal work. For example."

You can walk into any Federal Court any file a suit for that now.
You don't need to wait for the ERA.

KB
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Can we please stop beating up on fellow Dem's and start to beatup on the truly evil - real enemy? The repub's!

Hi Kent

If the US is going to have a president who will attempt to achieve the long standing Republican goal of gutting Social Security, I would prefer that president to be a Republican.

In the same vein, if the US is going to have a president who will follow the Likud party/AIPAC line with a willingness to engage in self-defeating ME wars, I would rather that president be a Republican.

My reasoning is that with such a Republican president, there will be a strong (after Iraq) Democratic opposition. But such a Democratic president would negate that Democratic opposition.

That's how Nixon recognized China and Bill Clinton "reformed" welfare. Each negated his own party's inherent opposition while being greeted by welcoming approval from the opposite party.

The US IMO is going to go through a very difficult time economically. The president will have to shoulder a good part of the blame, probably unfairly. But it would be tougher for McCain representing 12 straight years of Republican rule. He would have a very weak presidency followed almost certainly by a Democrat.

So under these circumstances, a McCain presidency looks like it would produce better results than Hillary Clinton. Of course if the elderly McCain selected a fundy right wingnut to play to his party's extreme right, I'd do what I could to help Hillary.

BTW I think Pit is setting up a strawman to rail against. I don't hate Hillary. After all, politically and by himself, McCain is worse than Hillary. So if I was to hate Hillary for her politics, I'd hate McCain even more. Life's too short to engage in all that hating.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
BTW I think Pit is setting up a strawman to rail against. I don't hate Hillary.

and by including your quote, I unfairly lumped you in with the haters Harry - like I said, at least your argument was policy-based - I just disagree with your conclusions...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You can walk into any Federal Court any file a suit for that now.
You don't need to wait for the ERA.


Didn't SCOTUS recently rule that a pay discrimination suit has to be filed as soon as the discrimination starts, not years later when the discrepancy is finally discovered? As most companies keep individual pay rates a deep dark secret, it's effectively impossible to sue when the discrimination starts because the evidence isn't available.

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Re the ERA: It's been a long time but I think the ERA would have made women a suspect class for 14A equal protection claims. Right now it race, religion, ethnicity. State has to have a compelling reason to justify discrimination against a suspect class. But for everyone else it merely has to dream up a rational purpose, which is really easy to do.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Part of Hillary's problem is style. She makes my teeth grind more than any other candidate... Part of being a leader is being able to inspire others to follow. How can you be inspired by someone who repeadedly insults your intelligence?

Bingo!

Vermonter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>> How can you be inspired by someone who repeadedly insults your intelligence? <<

Get a lobotomy, then George Bush, Rush Limbaugh and Rev John Hagee will all inspire you.

KB
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Get a lobotomy, then George Bush, Rush Limbaugh and Rev John Hagee will all inspire you.

KB, you can add Saint Reagan to that list, who repeatedly demanded a "balanced budget amendment" while running the largest deficits in history.

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>> Saint Reagan ... who repeatedly demanded a "balanced budget amendment" while running the largest deficits in history. <<

I'm sure Dubya has blown those records to kingdom come.

KB
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, yeah.......

I'm sure Dubya has blown those records to kingdom come.
KB


"Saint Ronnie" looks like fiscally responsible leader compared to #43

KBM (and I won't even count the signing statements attached to the budgets of the two)
Print the post Back To Top