Huey Freeman

Don't worry, this question will be a little shorter (haven't been on here in a while).

I just ran through a couple questions essentially saying that the solution to this recent defeat is to purge even more members of their party. Progressives, libertarians, anyone not remotely Reaganesque. But seriously, is it possible for the Republican party to win in 2012, or even two years from now by continuously courting the minority and demonizing "RINOs" like McCain, Hagel, Powell, and others that "don't fit in"? And if so, how?

Samuel Wurzelbacher, known to most as "Joe the Plumber" has been the latest craze, between the McCain campaign and Mainstream Media. Problem is, he isn't a plumber, nor is his name even Joe. He also currently has a lien on his house, the man doesn't even pay his taxes. And yet this is the straw man that McCain wants to focus his campaign on, a compulsive liar? Not to mention Fox wants to give this guy more time. He was on Bulls and Bears this morning, he's on Huckabee tonight, and he's supposed to appear on Fox and Friends.

He's had his 15 minutes of fame. Please stop making him relevant. That goes to both campaigns and double for the media.

I mean after all, he's against the War in Iraq, and he's an Obama supporter. Is Senator Chuck Hagel with the terrorists?

Look, I feel sorry for the little girl, I really do, but considering everything else that has gone down, should the Republicans, the ones who legitimately began the venomfest, be the one's waving the white flag and crying mercy?

As far as I'm concerned, wives aren't a legitimate target, but that hasn't spared Michelle Obama, who's been smeared as an America-hating black extremist, nor had it spared Hillary Clinton unnecessary scrutiny, as in prior to her running for Senate.

The dead, not only not legitimate, but a truly disgusting topic. Yet still; Fox News smeared Tim Russert posthumously, as did several liberal outlets with Tony Snow and Jerry Falwell.

Bristol Palin shouldn't be attacked, I get it. But how about those who've lost children and husbands as a result of 9/11 or the Iraq War. Liberals shouldn't be talking about Ronald Reagan's dementia as if it were some sort of karmic retribution, nor should conservatives even assume that Jon Stewart's pain following 9/11 was anything but legitimate. And since when was questioning the patriotism of the actual candidate acceptable?

And last but not least, the Democrats are far from the first to attack children. In the 90's, Rush Limbaugh was going around talking about how Chelsea Clinton was the daughter of not Bill and Hillary, but Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno, as if there were some sort of comedy. Then, in just this past primary, David Shuster's comments about the Clinton Campaign "pimping Chelsea".

Aren't we a little far to be calling mercy, especially the side that has used it the most?

I just saw some post about Europe, what they think of Palin or whatever. The responses were hilarious, by which I mean completely slamming the European media for whatever reason. Yet with this vitriol, this rage, the almost non-sequitor "we don't care what they think".

Let's take a trip to Iraq. We invaded because there were believed to be WMD's. There ARE in Russia, but let's move on. When that caved, we decided to "liberate" the people. All under the guise of "we would be viewed as liberators, as heroes." If it was for their betterment, or ours, why do we care what they think?

Take a short walk to Pakistan. Intelligence says he's hiding out there, yet for some profound reason, we won't invade. Our "ally" Musharraf, recently uprooted, either wouldn't let us in, or agreed with our president that he was an irrelevant matter. Why didn't we invade? Why didn't we infiltrate, if Osama bin Laden was/is there? Why care what the Pakistanis think of us, considering how little Osama thought of us when he attacked us?

This whole "we're Americans, we don't care" fake patriotism B.S, I don't understand it. It's just like this totally un-conservative idea of constant interventionism. Can anyone rationalize any of this for me?

Look, I'm not exactly a Republican strategist, but it's fair to state that considering what McCain needs and what McCain has to work with, concerning himself and his opponent, Sarah Palin was an extremely unwise choice. Barack Obama was new to a few unfamiliar with the party (he spoke at the 2004 DNC, he's also been a prominent Bush critic), but we got to know him for better or worse during the Democratic Primaries. The whole hope question: laid out extensively last night. And the addition of Joe Biden to the Democratic ticket added foreign policy.

Why did I outline all this? Mitt Romney has the same gubernatorial experience Palin has, plus he adds economic credentials to a campaign that looks to be and most likely will be centered around money. Palin adds nothing significant to the ticket, aside from "the gender card", yet another thing, along with age and race, that the MSM will have to tip-toe around. And who is she? It's hard to talk about uncertainty or experience and then pick a year-and-a-half governor of Alaska, essentially an intern, should the worst case scenario play out during a McCain presidency. With Romney, he could even the playing field and make economics less of a disadvantage. Hell, if he picked Ridge or Lieberman, he would have done something better: actually have a chance at stealing votes from the center, and even the left.

Palin also serves another possible drawback, or more accurately, backlash. If this is some way of getting the Hillary voters, it's more of a slap in the face than an invitation. Why not Condoleeza Rice? Why not KB Hutchison, or 2000 presidential candidate Elizabeth Dole? Why someone so unknown, particularly in a campaign based slightly on how little we know, or knew about Obama?

Can someone explain how McCain gains any advantage in this selection?

Think long and hard about this. I will not consider the Keating 5 scandal (some 20 years ago), McCain/Feingold, McCain/Lieberman, or and of the other recycled talking points that have been accessed time and time again. And as much as I respect him for his service in the Vietnam War, that is not a valid answer as to why he should be in the highest office in the land; especially since for Bob Dole, Al Gore, and John Kerry, it wasn't enough to be elected, nor was it enough for Bush I to be re-elected.

I know the statement is coming (as opposed to an actual answer), so here's what I know about Obama, whether or not I disagree:

He intends to end the War in Iraq. Despite the fact that violence is clearly down, he still refuses to acknowledge that the surge has worked.

He intends to go after Osama bin Laden. In fact, with Obama lies the possibility of invasion, even war with Pakistan.

He supports tax cuts for the middle class, but not for the rich. A minus, I guess, if you happen to be Tiger Woods.

He also supports a windfall tax on "Big Oil". That too, doesn't seem like a minus to me.

He opposes offshore drilling, yet he has yet to exactly outline his energy initiative. However, odds are, he's against funding research in coal as an alternative. Minus.

He's one of the most religious Democrats that I know, and a threat to McCain on the evangelical front. His religion (Christian, by the way) has gotten him into trouble time and time again. As someone who prefers the separation of Church and State, whatever his religious views are is irrelevant to me; no plus, no minus.

When we touched down in Iraq in March 2003, we went in with the goal of liberating Iraq and eliminating the threat known as Saddam Hussein. They held elections last year or so, Saddam and his sadistic sons are long deceased, and yet the war continues. Osama bin Laden is on the loose, but the war in Iraq continues. China continues to give us poisoned products, and we continue to give them our jobs. And yet, the war in Iraq continues. Russia and China both claim stockpiles of nuclear weapons, none of which we even complain about, despite their leadership and direction, ask Georgia and Tibet respectively. North Korea was taken off the "Axis" after getting rid of one nuclear plant that we know of. Not all, but one. And we still don't know how many more plants they contain capable of producing weapons. And yet the war in Iraq continues.

Considering the foreign issues that plague us today, and that did in 2003, why are we still in Iraq? I won't say win or lose, because if they're living under a democracy (unlike Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, countries we consider allies in the "war on terror") and Saddam Hussein is not only out of power, but deceased (Unlike Osama bin Laden), by all means, we've won. Number two, considering the atmosphere in 2003 and now, should Iraq have been our number 1 priority, and/or should it still be?

When we touched down in Iraq in March 2003, we went in with the goal of liberating Iraq and eliminating the threat known as Saddam Hussein. They held elections last year or so, Saddam and his sadistic sons are long deceased, and yet the war continues. Osama bin Laden is on the loose, but the war in Iraq continues. China continues to give us poisoned products, and we continue to give them our jobs. And yet, the war in Iraq continues. Russia and China both claim stockpiles of nuclear weapons, none of which we even complain about, despite their leadership and direction, ask Georgia and Tibet respectively. North Korea was taken off the "Axis" after getting rid of one nuclear plant that we know of. Not all, but one. And we still don't know how many more plants they contain capable of producing weapons. And yet the war in Iraq continues.

Considering the foreign issues that plague us today, and that did in 2003, why are we still in Iraq? I won't say win or lose, because if they're living under a democracy (unlike Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, countries we consider allies in the "war on terror") and Saddam Hussein is not only out of power, but deceased (Unlike Osama bin Laden), by all means, we've won. Number two, considering the atmosphere in 2003 and now, should Iraq have been our number 1 priority, and/or should it still be?

McCain in 2000: He wasn't afraid to stand on his convictions. He wouldn't stand for hate speech on the left or the right, i.e. Farrakhan and Falwell, respective. His stance on abortion, similar to my own: I'm pro-life, but that doesn't mean everyone else in the country is. He disagreed with how Bush handled the war and was the first saying we need a surge.

McCain in 2006: Either he actually changed, or he's being something he's not so that he can win the conservative vote. I don't have to list everything he's changed his mind on, but it's obvious he isn't the same Maverick from the 2000 campaign. But will it be worth it in the long run?

Get over it. That was Phyllish Schlafly's stance on the failure of the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment), and of course the prominent stance by Bush Republicans over the 2000 election. So the question is, why can't we get over it?

Why can't we get over Roe v. Wade? Why can't we get over the Clinton presidency? And now, with everything going on in this country; the economy, border security failure, the Iraq war, and gas prices, Republicans are pushing to make gay marriage an issue because they overturned some ban in California. Why can't THEY "get over it"?

China has been committing human rights violations since Mao, probably before. They've been growing in political and economic power by way of their brutal means, not to mention the fact they have nukes. Our response: give them our jobs and take their poisoned products. Oh yeah, and award them with the Olympics.

North Korea also has nukes, despite our telling them to get rid of them. And despite the fact that Osama bin Laden's still out there, we've been directing some 10% of our military force towards him and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (the rest is in Iraq).

With that said, we've directed almost all of our military force on Iraq. And don't get me wrong, but we've accomplished a lot. But in the long run, are we safer? And have we done enough in the right places to get there?

First off, I think it's about time they did do a Democratic debate on Fox News. Now, I'm not their biggest supporters, but there are impartial people on the channel, or at least people capable of being impartial and still asking relevant questions. Personally, I would suggest Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith. And after the ABC debacle, I really can't see Fox doing any worse.

Second, Barack Obama increased his lead dramatically last night, in pledged delegates and in the popular vote. The only real reason Hillary Clinton is in this race is the hope the superdelegates will give it to her. If this happens, what does this do for the party, its supporters, and her own chances for the White House? Second, how much of an issue would this be if the situation was reversed? Would Obama have bowed out, would he have remained diligent?

Finally, what are the odds of this being the last Democratic primary to use the so-called superdelegates?

Earlier tonight, conservative pundit Glenn Beck opened his show talking about Obama's speech. He mentioned his charisma, his "slickness," and basically, how the speech was plain politics that fooled people into voting for him and supporting him, and that those who didn't were intelligent, in lesser words.

Now what's interesting to me, first off that he rails Obama about dirty politics, only to have Ann Coulter on his program to back up his sentiments. Second, his argument about how only the naive and lesser intelligent are actually supporting him. This is particularly interesting. The daughters of several past presidents are supporting him, as are several well known and well respected politicians and most of the Kennedy family. He's also being backed by Bush's spiritual advisor Kirbyjon Caldwell and Edwards' political advisor Ed Turlington.

Can anyone who makes this claim point out one thing that Jeremiah Wright has said that was racist? Can anyone name anything he said that was anti-American? There's an awful alot of talk about his "racist, anti-American" views, based on the 20 second snipits, but I bet half the people saying this never even saw the whole thing. And he volunteered for the service. He wasn't drafted, he didn't dodge the draft, he volunteered. Most political pundits, like Hannity and Limbaugh, can't say that. Nor can former president Clinton.

See for yourself. These are the "hate filled" sermons in their entirety.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw&feature...

The fifth year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq has come and gone. Several people are against the war and refuse to serve, others simply too scared. As such, those over there are being given more than they can handle, being made to do more tours than they signed on for. Yet despite this people are being released from the military, not based on misconduct, but for being openly gay.

Here's the issue. If we have hundreds, possibly thousands of potential soldiers, than regardless of sexual preference, shouldn't we utilize them?

The fifth year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq has come and gone. Several people are against the war and refuse to serve, others simply too scared. As such, those over there are being given more than they can handle, being made to do more tours than they signed on for. Yet despite this people are being released from the military, not based on misconduct, but for being openly gay.

Here's the issue. If we have hundreds, possibly thousands of potential soldiers, than regardless of sexual preference, shouldn't we utilize them?

As this race rolls on, Hillary and her committee seem devoted to dragging Obama through the mud, moreso even than McCain. Between her raising questions about his religion, her attacking his pastor* (a week after the event), Carville's "Judas" comment, and her belief that the superdelegates should overrule the people's choice, practically negating the purpose for voting in the first place, she may be just handing McCain the election. Why, exactly, is she still in the race, when all she's doing is damaging the party.

*As far as his pastor's comments, it's strange people are still dwelling on it. He's apologized time and time again, and both president-to-be John McCain and former pastor himself, Mike Huckabee, both Republicans, have let it go. Water under the bridge, folks. The Reverend Wright controversy has gone on long enough. Speaking of which, where's the outrage, or controversy over Reverend Manning?

Can't we all just focus on being American? Shouldn't we all focus on being American? This whole "liberals are trying to give our country to the enemy," rhetoric is just a waste of time. Same with the nuts on the left convinced EVERY conservative wants to turn the US into a dictatorship. All this separationism based on political beliefs is just helping to separate the country Why are we so hung up on political colors in this country? Why not be Americans first?

...so, if there is, who would you state as the best thing going for the DNC? I'm not looking for any specific answer, just the most well reasoned in who and why.