Posted by GC2006 on January 10, 2008 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Conservatives, Please support Fred Thompson. He is far more conservative than Huckabee. Both of these men are fine Christians. In fact, the National Right to Life Association actually chose to endorse Thompson, not Huckabee. Other than his faith Huckabee is a LIBERAL. He raised taxes $500 million dollars while governor of Arkansas and he was soft on immigration. Huckabee also has no foreign policy experience. Fred Thompson is conservative on all of the issues. He has a tax plan that will actually pass and reduce taxes significantly. Fred is tough on immigration and has a great deal of foreign policy experience. Evangelicals, follow the National Right to Life's and support Fred Thompson.

Posted by GC2006 on January 10, 2008 at 8:52 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by rollo on January 10, 2008 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So, the 2004 candidate who proclaimed that he could win the White House without the south, then selected the candidate who won the first Dem primary in the south as his running mate now dumps support for his former running mate to support the shiny new model!

If I was a Dem, I'd be insulted, If I was an Edwards supporter, I'd be knocking on doors and pitching hard. Since I'm neither, I'm just happy that I never supported Kerry.

Posted by since1648 on January 11, 2008 at 2:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ron Paul is a Christian too only he does not wear it on his sleeve.

He is a strong opponent of abortion and he is a Pediatrition.

He is a man of integrity who deeply cares about our country and its citizens.

Please read his views on all the issues.

www.ronpaullibrary.com

I am shocked and dismayed at the way this fine man was treated tonight by Fox and the other canidates.

He was right in his assesment of the Iran Boat situation especially since the news report tonight calls into question as to just what happened and was it possibly a mistake,some radical group trying to get us into another war which I pray does not happen.

He would handle it as a statesman while the other canidates seemed very anxious to pull the trigger and Romney acted like a complete idiot in making fun of Dr. Paul's Diplomacy first stance.

Posted by loukel on January 11, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Meet Mitt Romney yourself and you will find a man of integrity, strong family values, strength of character and intelligence with the capability of making the now famous CHANGE in Washington that both parties are embracing as the watchword. As a New Hampshire voter and Catholic Christian who has been in Mitt's company several times I have had the chance to look past the media bias and the weak criticisms of his opponents. In regard the the Right to Life issue, when did we not welcome those who have come to understand what is at stake? Concerning religious membership isn't it unrealistic to expect everyone to believe exactly as we do? The Holy Father did not rule Washington when JFK was President, nor will the Mormon Church with a President Mitt Romney.

Posted by denwa on January 11, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama promised us “change” in Illinois too -- but failed to deliver anything. He has NEVER inititated or supported the kind of fundamental changes that would improve our lives or rid Illinois of the politics as usual that has crippled it. On the contrary, he has supported, and benefited politically and financially from our corrupt system here.

The media has an obligation to provide a more insightful and meaningful exploration of Obama's record -- or rather lack of a record – on the issue of “change” in Chicago and Illinois.

This guy is a con man, folks. He hasn't done anything while on our payroll as our senator but cut deals to enrich himself (e.g. Rezko) and his wife (tell us, Michelle, what was the deal Obama cut that more then tripled your salary to $350,000 at the U of Chicago Hospitals immediately after he was elected to the senate?).

Posted by jammanofdi on January 11, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Romney is a joke - if he didn't have the money that he has, he'd be hocking used cars on Rivers Ave. McCain is okay, but he may be a little too aggressive in regards to his foreign policies. Thompson looks like he could care less, and just because he was in Days of Thunder and Law and Order doesn't make him vote worthy. Huckabee is almost okay (and could definitely gain some brownie points if he did give Colbert the vice presidential nomination - but that won't happen), but other than that, I think he may be a little more evangelical than what we need at this time. Guiliani?? 9-11 was the best (and only) thing that ever happened to his political career. Voting for any of the democrats is definitely a vote in the wrong direction. I still stand by Paul as the true authentic candidate, but our media has painted him as a whack job, and because the people of our country cannot think for themselves, they've lapped up what the news organizations have told them to believe about Ron Paul. It's such a shame...

Posted by Country_Boy on January 11, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well Kerry Changed my mind. Obama lost my vote When he got the i don't need the south to win loser Kerry to support him.

Posted by Cindiluwho on January 11, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Have you noticed the lack of extensive coverage on Fred Thompson in the media? Is it, because he actually weighed his decision to run before jumping into the race?

If so, then it's indicative of Thompson, who doesn't make weighty decisions lightly. I think that's the kind of man we want in the White House--a non-knee-jerk thinker. But also a man of action. After considering the facts, Thompson makes the tough decisions and then pursues that course with everything he's got, and he's got a lot.

I don't ask you to put your brain on the shelf and vote for Thompson. I ask you to use it. Go to his website at http://www.fred08.com/; read his position statements--clear, concise, and incisive (who knew people were still doing that?)--and make your decision. I think you'll find, as I did, that no one in the current political race can match him in any area. Unless, that is, you want higher taxes, liberal government, and less and less personal freedoms.

Posted by ji_john on January 11, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear denwa,
Greetings from a fellow Illinoisan who has followed Obama since his US Senate campaign. First, the Republicans couldn't find anyone in the state to run against him, so enter Alan Keyes and a landslide victory. Second, while State Senator, he authored a sweeping ethics bill, collaborating with both Democrats and Republicans alike to get it passed. Moreover, he authored a bill requiring mandatory videotaping of murder suspects by police, prompted by alleged police torture by Chicago police district commander Jon Burge. This in spite of opposition from Law and Order Republicans, state and local police organizations, and Democrats who didn't want to look "soft on crime". And Obama now sits on various US Senate committees and has sponsored and co-sponsored legislation during his short stay. Kind of gives a new spin on "I'm a uniter, not a divider". Oh, by the way, stay tuned for some fireworks over Fox's interview of Senator Clinton shortly before the New Hampshire Debates, as she commented about Obama's speeches by saying, in essense, that LBJ had more to do with Civil Rights today than Martin Luther King. One Representative Clyburn seems to be miffed by that statement (NY Times-Today, authored by last name, Hulse). As they say in boxing, 'Let's get ready to Ruuuumble'.

Posted by TReid on January 11, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For those voters thinking of choosing Romney, I would advise that, before you do, discuss the subject with non-mormons who have spent years living in Utah. Unfortunately, devout Mormons, in general, lack the ability to keep their personal religious dogma seperate from their goverening duties. One should consider this before electing someone who has the real risk of subverting the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

Posted by weena on January 11, 2008 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am from NH and I am an infuriated 62 year old woman. Obama gave all of our NH US Reps and all of Iowa's thousands of dollars. (see opensecrets.org) He paid students "gas money" to go caucus for him. He bought endorsements and he bought caucusers. Obama was nasty and arrogant to our first lady in 2 debates. He has no experience either nationally or internationally. What he is is a good orator. So what. He thinks he's JFK and Lincoln all rolled into one. Well all other countries that had slaves abolished slavery without a civil war but us thanks to Lincoln. Kennedy led us into Vietnam. Hillary would crash through the glass ceiling and save all of us...men and women. Don't be fooled by talk. Choose action (Hillary) instead! Hillary can fix the economy and deal with the Iraq mess, She can arrange for healthcare and she can fix our broken schools. We in NH did all the research. Trust us and vote for Hillary.

Posted by ivorygirl on January 12, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SOUTH CAROLINA VOTERS - VOTE THOMPSON!!
Mike Huckabee is as liberal a republican as they come when it comes to EVERYTHING other than social issues. He raised taxes by 500 million in AK to "help the children and fix the roads", he pardoned over 1000 convicted felons, lobbied aggressively for the addition of a Mexican consulate in Little Rock, at the taxpayers expense of course. This consulate served as a resource for illegal immigrants living in Arkansas, and some Huckabee opponents claim it drew additional illegal immigrants to the state. Mike Huckabee said that we should follow the "golden rule" when it comes to fighting terrorism... I'm sorry, but terrorists do not appreciate the golden rule.
We don't need a guy that will make the federal government even bigger. Mike Huckabee will definitely do that and makes us less safe in the War on terror in the process.
Do true conservatives really want this guy as President???
Thompson is the ONLY true conservative in the race both socially and economically with an 86% conservative rating (the highest of all the candidates) and consistent on right to life issues, lowering taxes and spending and strong on national defense.
I hope everyone will wake up and realize this before it's too late. We don't need a great Chuck Norris sidekick in the White House, we need a leader. We need Thompson.

Posted by osirisravanz on January 12, 2008 at 9:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

check this out people

This page is an evolving compilation of outstanding citizen investigation of the highly suspicious New Hampshire primary voting results. We are borrowing and synthesizing from many sources cited and credited here.

Thursday 1/10: Bruce O'Dell writes:

Theron Horton and I have confirmed that based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of State web site, there is a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, when you look at votes tabulated by op-scan versus votes tabulated by hand:

Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%
Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%

Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%
Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%

The percentages appear to be swapped. This seems highly unusual.

Recall that the specific model of Diebold op-scan [1.94w] and central tabulator in use in New Hampshire are proven by demonstration [Hursti Hack] to be vulnerable to insider manipulation.

Theron Horton and I are proceeding with the intra-county and demographic analysis.

More to come.

Bruce O'Dell
Co-Coordinator for Data Analysis
Election Defense Alliance
Bodell[at]ElectionDefenseAlliance[dot]org

Posted by jimmcgough on January 14, 2008 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I find it hard to believe that any South Carolina Democratic voter supporting labor unions would vote for a former member of the board of directors of Wal-Mart, i.e. Hillary Clinton, who served 6 years as a director while a corporate lawyer in the Rose law firm. She served as a director for other corporations as well. Wal-Mart is the arch enemy of labor unions. Wal-Mart recently paid out millions to female employees who were discriminated against in promotions and over time. Hillary was on the board when these injustices occured.

Posted by webwe on January 15, 2008 at 6:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SOUTH CAROLINA VOTERS - VOTE THOMPSON!!

Yep, it takes character to withstand the rigors of indolence. :=)

McCain is very good on POW related issues, torture and that kind of stuff. However he is kind of scary - Lyndon Johnson's nuclear-fear campaign ad used against Goldwater in ’64 would resonate today with some voters.

Republicans need a candidate with gravitas, charisma and the common touch ... the Huck is the best fit.

Posted by gneubeck on January 15, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hillary's exit strategy:

Having meticulously planned their coveted return to the White House for several years now, the Clintons will certainly not exit the scene with grace or dignity. This is the political duo that honed "The Politics Of Personal Destruction" into an artform; and, most certainly will not tolerate, who is in their mind, the "upstart Obama" to derail Hillary's pre-choreographed coronation.
With regards Slick's comments on Obama's Iraq record; and, the draft dodger's false accusation of flip flopping on the Iraq issue against Obama: It was actually Hillary who was the serial flip-flopper on this issue. Obama to his credit, as a matter of conscience, refused to deny American troops the funding for the bullets and equipment that they required to survive in ongoing combat. Hillary, on the other hand, with no such compelling principles, was one of only two U.S. Senators who voted to deny funding for essential equipments for our troops who they had "previously" voted to commit to lethal combat. A despicable breach of trust with the young men and women laying their lives on the line in defense of our Nation. Obama made the classical rookie error of not responding to Slick's false accusation, which he could have easily turned to Hillary's well deserved detriment
Barrack and his supporters best be prepared for the "Political Lynching" that will rival anything previously witnessed in Presidential politics.
Slick and Hilla-the-Hun have repeatedly demonstrated a vicious mud-slinger demeanor that is unprecedented whenever their political dynasty has been threatened in the past. Just ask anyone of their innumerable victims.

Greg Neubeck

Posted by issues2008 on January 15, 2008 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Open Letter to SC GOP

Alexander J. Madison – January 11, 2007

Dear South Carolinians,

Your state has the opportunity to help shape the election at this historic time in our nation’s history. In fact, you have the opportunity to turn it on its head, for the sake of our shared conservative principles. This year, after many years without the option, South Carolina has a chance to select a rock-ribbed conservative Reaganite in the primary. His name is not McCain, Romney, Thompson or Huckabee. It is Duncan Hunter. And he deserves the support of every serious conservative. Allow me to explain why.

http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/2008/0...

Posted by lauren on January 16, 2008 at 12:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ron Paul cares about people
he stands by our constitution!

Thank you South Carolina

Posted by webwe on January 16, 2008 at 6:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

>>…we need a leader. We need Thompson.<<

Well, Fred’s main attribute is that he was born in a neighboring state, Tennessee, although there’s a rumor going around that he doesn’t order sweet tea. You disqualify as southern if you don’t fish, hunt, follow college football, order sweet tea, appreciate Lynrd Skynyrd or drive pickups. :=)

Anyway with Romney blowing McCain away in Michigan you have an exciting three-way Republican contest now. It’s all up for grabs. Looks like SC will be the tiebraker.

Posted by issues2008 on January 16, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ivory girl wrote
"Thompson is the ONLY true conservative in the race both socially and economically with an 86% conservative rating (the highest of all the candidates) and consistent on right to life issues, lowering taxes and spending and strong on national defense"

I don't believe that to be true. Duncan Hunter has a 92% conservative rating, so I believe Duncan Hunter has the highest rating of all the candidates.

Posted by halfsheli on January 16, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't want to even know about the candidate's religious beliefs. That is COMPLETELY IRRELEVENT to running the nation of MANY faiths and religions and beliefs. Besides, being Christian certainly does not make one moral!!!

Posted by TReid on January 16, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I disagree Halfsheli. If a person who may be elected to the Presidency would allow his or her personal religous dogmas (whatever they may be) to unduely influence his ability to uphold the Consitituion, every civic minded voter should become aware of it. As any non-mormon who lives in Utah can tell you, Devout mormons, in general, cannot seperate their religious dogmas from the laws their are sworn to uphold. As shown by this recent investigation by the Salt Lake Tribune on a former Utah Governor this occurs even at that high level of state goverment. Those voting for the leader of the free world need to consider the risk that this could occur if Romney is elected president

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7840906

Posted by webwe on January 17, 2008 at 6:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The significance of the SC primary is that it’s the “gateway” to the South per Governor Mark Sanford. It gives a good forecast of what’s to come in the rest of the region.

It's really boiling down to a two-man Republican contest here in SC: The Huck vs. McCain. The RNC deprived SC of half of its delegates because the contest falls before Feb. 5. That leaves 24 delegates compared to 34 in Nevada where Romney is wisely concentrating his efforts.

The Huck has the upper hand in one domain: McCain’s arm must be getting terribly sore from patting himself on the back too much so he may wear himself out before it’s all over .... also as the Huck will tell you PRIDE is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. :=)

Posted by otherside on January 17, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I see plenty of rhetoric back and forth concerning religion. Why is this so important? Religion has ruined American politics. We should all step back and read the writings of Thomas Jefferson, arguably the greatest statesman in the history of America. The seperation of church and state is a must. Over the past 50 years we have muddied these waters tremendously. I tend to sway towards the right side of the aisle, but I am disgraced that religion has become such a factor in politics. One could argue that if Thomas Jerfferson, James Madison, or Alexander Hamilton attempted a political run today they would be laughed at because of their deist views. This is sad. The ability to run this country should not be measured by ones religion, but by ones intelligence and fortitude.

Posted by AFWally on January 17, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ron Paul = True Conservative, big fan of the Constitution as written.

Huckabee = Tax and spend Liberal with friends at the CFR, US Sovereignty and the Constitution will be in grave danger under Huckabee.

Fred Thompson = Good dude, big, strong, has big hands, plenty of experience and calls Huckabee a Liberal Democrat to his face. My second choice under Dr. Paul.

Posted by AFWally on January 17, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I figured I'd "sandwich" in hucleberry the liberal between two conservative's in my last post, I hope he feels that crushing sensation.

Posted by dgran7147 on January 17, 2008 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Huckabee just hired Ed Rollins to run his campaign.
Rollins was quoted the day after he helped Christy Todd Whitman win the NJ Governor's race that they worked "hard to supress the black vote" in the 1992 NJ election. The next day he said that he didn't mean it but had had too much to drink when he said it. This was widely covered by NJ state wide newspapers.

Posted by 1980Elephant on January 17, 2008 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Vote Fred Thompson, he is by far the best candidate. At a recent rally, Fred said that we should nominate the man that would be the best president, not the best candidate. The other candidates are good, but not the best. The good is always the enemy of the best and we should elect the best. Join me in voting for Fred Thompson!!

Posted by charlestonnative1963 on January 17, 2008 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As a former Republican...I am glad I dont have to pick ONE of those PEST on Saturday...Religious fanatics, Oen lies about his divinity diploma and one wears secret underwear, If I were going to vote in that one I would have to pick McCain

Posted by charlestonnative1963 on January 17, 2008 at 6:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OH MY GOD>>>>HUckabee JUST defended that stupid COnfed. Flag.

Posted by shelby on January 17, 2008 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Guess what Mike Huckabee has in common with Hillary Clinton?!

THEY BOTH MADE JUDICIAL WATCH'S 2007 LIST OF 10 MOST CORRUPT POLITICIANS !

http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-wa...
list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007

Posted by webwe on January 18, 2008 at 6:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ALL the candidates deserve high praise for running but I’ll be happy to see their backsides – it’s a living purgatory!

My phone line is tied up with robo calls, unsolicited prerecorded messages, push-pull polls, and trash talk from paid spin-doctors leveling abuse at the competition.

Using an answering machine to screen calls doesn’t eliminate the problem: Telemarketers don’t leave messages -politicians do!

Robo calls are by far the worst. Recently my answering machine cut one short after 45 seconds which triggered another one, then another one and at least two more before the misery ended.

Posted by moonpie on January 18, 2008 at 6:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You know this means crap as for how this will effect a national election. We in SC, should send these morons a clear message and vote for Ron Paul. I believe in his message of getting out of all these countries, stopping the $$ flooding to these countries, send the illegals back, support OUR constitution and OUR people. We cannot afford to police the world and take care of the world. WHERE in our constitution does it say we have that responsibility? People our government on both sides is completely out of whack! Why don't we shake it up a bit tomorrow?

Posted by ChipShirley on January 18, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

--------------H U C K A B E E----------------

The two biggest problems facing America today are,

National Security and The Economy…

Mike Huckabee is devoted to a plan for,
American Energy Independence and this alone will go a
long way towards solving our security and economic
problems.

Because, not only will becoming energy independent
create jobs and secure our fuel supply, it will also
stop the flow of money from America to radical middle
eastern regimes and terror groups.

These are tough times and we need a president with
better ideas than the ones we’ve been using.

Mike Huckabee is tough and smart and experienced and
only he has pledged from the beginning and all along,
to make America Energy Independent for these reasons.

If you’ve watched the campaign throughout you’ve seen
that Mike competed and did well in every single
primary so far and he won in Iowa by 9 points. Only
Mike and Mitt Romney can say that. But if you have
watched all along you’ve noticed something else.

Every single day the rest of the candidates in the
field sound more and more like Mike Huckabee. Mitt
Romney and John McCain had given up on getting
American jobs back just a few weeks ago and now
they’re practically quoting Mike in their speeches and
ad’s, but they don’t have a plan.

We can’t afford another ‘insider’ politician or
‘corporate glamor boy’. And we sure can’t afford a
candidate in Fred Thompson who just woke up in a
cranky mood, to the fact that there was a campaign
going on, and now is slinging mud in a desperate
effort to get noticed. Fred is good at going ballistic
over terrorism, but if you ask him about the economy
he’ll just smile and tell you ‘Don’t worry, everything
is fine’. Everything is not fine Fred and we need a
president who is ready to get to work.

Vote for Mike Huckabee or don’t vote at all!
MikeHuckabee.com

Posted by jimmy on January 18, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I will never vote for Huckabee.
He is just like Clinton when he was govenor.

The liberal Hucakbee pardons a murderer:

http://www.huckabeefacts.com/

Posted by AFWally on January 18, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Huckabee = Hates gays, abortionists, aids victims and minorities. However he loves Jesus because he's a good christian. He's nice to criminals and illegals, you know to make up for "past sins"

Posted by AFWally on January 18, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Huckabee = likes buying toys with campaign pledges, likes taking things that don't belong to him like furniture, lied twice about having a Theology degree than implemented damage control on what he really meant. Lied about not having "any" involvement or influence in the release of murderer/rapist Wayne Dummond.

Posted by AFWally on January 18, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ron Paul = Tows the line, does the right thing, no ethics violations, no lying or stealing, Jesus thinks he's cool.

Posted by AFWally on January 18, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Fred Thompson = Calls Huckabee out on his BS, always gets the best of him, makes Huckabee look like a horses a$$

Posted by issues2008 on January 18, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, and Huckabee is taking his "fair trade" talking points from Duncan Hunter. He is also claiming the fair tax plan is "his". It is not his. Many people support it, including candidates Cox, Keyes, and Paul and Duncan Hunter is a co-sponsor of the bill.

Posted by citizen123 on January 18, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SOUTH CAROLINA! WAKE-UP!
BOTH HUCKABEE AND McCAIN SUCK! BOTH ARE BAD FOR THE COUNTRY.

Both have hurt our economy. Both have voted in ways that hurt industry; hurt our national sovernemtiy, and against middle-class citizens.

John McCain's senate voting record is abysmal! Likewise Huckabee’s record as Gov. of Arkansas is bad too.

MITT ROMNEY IS THE ONLY COMMON SENSE PERSON TO BE OUR CANIDATE. HE IS THE ONLY ONE WITH PROVEN SUCCESSFUL ENCONOMIAL SKILLS.

Romney has 5 kids and has very pro-family values. As Gov. of Mass. He did not accept any salary! He donated it all instead! Mitt Romney has the best record of any candidates.

Posted by citizen123 on January 18, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John McCain's PRO-ilegal alien Amnesty votes in the senate!

Pro-Illegal alien is Anti-U.S. citizen!

Supporting mass amnesty. The May 29, 2003, Tucson Citizen quoted Mr. McCain as stating that "Amnesty has to be an important part of" any immigration solution. He was part of the bipartisan coalition that tried to pass amnesty legislation in 2006 and 2007. In 2006 he voted in favor of S. 2611, legislation that would reward between 10 and 11 million illegal’s with amnesty if they apply for legal status and pay a $2,000 fine.

Supporting in-state tuition for illegal aliens. Mr. McCain was a cosponsor of S. 774, the Dream Act, providing in-state tuition for illegal aliens. The legislation would have enabled illegal aliens who entered the United States before age 16 to obtain a green card and then use their newly acquired status to obtain green cards for the millions of parents who illegally brought their children with them into the United States. Mr. McCain missed a Senate vote on the issue in October. He said that he would have opposed it on the Senate floor had he been there to vote.

Voted to kill border fence. In 2006, Mr. McCain voted for an amendment to S. 2611 offered by Sen. Arlen Specter to require consultation with the Mexican government concerning the construction of fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. According to Numbers USA, an organization that lobbies against illegal immigration, this amendment would have effectively guaranteed that the border fence was never built.

Voted against permanently barring gang members and terrorists from the United States. Last year, Mr. McCain voted against an amendment (Senate Amendment 1184) introduced by Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, that would have permanently barred gang members, terrorists, sex offenders, alien absconders, aliens convicted of domestic violence and aliens convicted of at least three DUIs from the United States. The Cornyn Amendment was rejected on a 51-46 vote.

Voted in favor of Social Security benefits to illegal aliens who commit identity fraud. In 2006. Mr. McCain joined with Mr. Kennedy in working to defeat an amendment by Sen. John Ensign, Nevada Republican, that would have barred Social Security credits for work being done prior to their receiving amnesty — in other words, while working under a false Social Security number. The Ensign Amendment, (Senate Amendment 3985) was defeated on a 50-49 vote.

Posted by citizen123 on January 18, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SOUTH CAROLINA!

McCAIN’S OWN STATE OF ARIZONA DOES NOT EVEN WANT HIM BACK!

You heard it in the last Republican debate; John McCain is still planning to grant mass amnesty to millions of illegal aliens that are ready to take jobs away from millions of law-abiding U.S. citizens.
The last thing the state of South Carolina needs is amnesty for illegal aliens! Illegal’s undercut jobs and depress paychecks of middle-class and lower-class Americans.

Proof in fact; in McCain’s home state of Arizona a new a study by a Harvard University economist just came out that shows illegal aliens depressed the wages of Arizona citizens to the tune of $1.4 billion in 2006 and dipped lower-skilled legal workers' pay by 4.7 percent.

Heck; even John McCain’s own home state does not want him back!

It is only common sense for South Carolina; that needs so much attention paid to its economic sector to boost the state’s economy; to support someone with the most practical experience in that; and that is MITT ROMNEY!

Posted by citizen123 on January 18, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

HUCKABEE IS LYING ABOUT HIS LATEST "NO AMNESTY" PLEDGE.

Huckabee fully intends to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.

Under Huckabee's plan illegal aliens would never actually have to leave the USA. I call that amnesty.

We know that Huckabee’s policy for illegal’s will require them only to go vist their nearest Embassy consulant, still inside the USA, and fill out some paperwork.

They still will be here mooching off our tax dollar!

Posted by AFWally on January 18, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The evangelicals don't care what Huckabee does as long as he loves Jesus and is against abortion.

Posted by littlehouse on January 18, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Proud to be a GOP Voter. Don't forget the First Ladies:

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg312...

Posted by jacksondaley on January 18, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

South Carolinians: This is your opportunity to be heard. If you believe in conservatism -- fiscal, social AND as to national security -- please cast your vote tomorrow for the one candidate who's solid on all three: FRED THOMPSON. If you'd like to learn more about him in detail, I encourage you to read these commentaries: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?i...
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?i...
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?i...

There's a reason Human Events has endorsed Fred Thompson. (As have many others, including that National Right to Life Coalition and South Carolina Citizens for Life.) He is the candidate best suited to (re)unify the Reagan Coalition and to uphold core conservative values. Please vote for Fred Thompson!

Posted by Preston on January 18, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John McCain is just too liberal. I'm voting for Thompson

Posted by Preston on January 18, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Huckabee hiked taxes by $500 million, gave in-state tuition to the children of illegals, allowed the government of Mexico to open a conculate in Arkansas to defend illegals, and is too weak on defense issues. He'd be worse than McCain.

Posted by AFWally on January 18, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Even if Huckabee wins here it won't be by much, he'll have his work cut out for him elsewhere......hopefully Fred Thompson will fair much better here than in previous places.

Posted by Guilden_NL on January 18, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am an Arizona citizen and want to highlight why John McCain is bad for America.

First, McCain has been entrenched as a fat cat Washington DC Beltway politician for 22 years.

In 2007 McCain didn't vote on 56% Senate bills. Heck, even the two front Dims did better than McCain: Hillary Clinton missed 25% of all votes in '07, Barack Obama missed 35%.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congr...
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php...

McCain angrily denounced those of us who fought his legislation of "amnesty first, enforcement (maybe) later" as racists. Most of us are anti-fat cat politician and are angry that our representatives were taking money from big money agriculture and businesses to keep the flow of indentured servants heading north.

So please, don't waste your vote on this fat cat politician.

One last thought about another candidate - Huckabee is a Dim in GOP clothing. Plus he learned his lessons well about how to get dirty money; he was tutored by the Clintons. Why is it that Arkansas just LOVES dirty governors?

Posted by 1980Elephant on January 18, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you are undecided, please vote Fred Thompson, he is the only choice that can lead a united party to victory in November. John McCain and Mike Huckabee are so divisive they will split the conservative party resulting in a dramatic loss in November.

Posted by Guilden_NL on January 18, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks to shelby for this link about Huckabee being on the top 10 dirtiest politicians for 2007:

5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY): Giuliani came under fire in late 2007 after it was discovered the former New York mayor’s office “billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons…” ABC News also reported that Giuliani provided Nathan with a police vehicle and a city driver at taxpayer expense. All of this news came on the heels of the federal indictment on corruption charges of Giuliani’s former Police Chief and business partner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to accepting a $165,000 bribe in the form of renovations to his Bronx apartment from a construction company attempting to land city contracts.

6. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR): Governor Huckabee enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls in December 2007, which prompted a more thorough review of his ethics record. According to The Associated Press: “[Huckabee’s] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office.” And what was Governor Huckabee’s response to these ethics allegations? Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.

Posted by AFWally on January 18, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Huckabee will probably give Mr. Bill and his sidekick George H W Bush cabinet level jobs, you know....help get the Country back on its feet.

Posted by TReid on January 18, 2008 at 5:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If a person who may be elected to the Presidency would allow his or her personal religous dogmas (whatever they may be) to unduely influence his ability to uphold the Consitituion, every civic minded voter should become aware of it. As any non-mormon who lives in Utah can tell you, Devout mormons, in general, cannot seperate their religious dogmas from the laws their are sworn to uphold. As shown by this recent investigation by the Salt Lake Tribune on a former Utah Governor this occurs even at that high level of state goverment. Those voting for the leader of the free world need to consider the risk that this could occur if Romney is elected president

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7840906

Posted by Guilden_NL on January 18, 2008 at 7:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TReid,
Horse Pucky!
I live in AZ and know many, many Mormons. I have never encountered a situation where they had a religious problem and refused to move ahead. I HAVED encountered people that I happened to know were Mormon that did protest about generally poor moral decisions at work. But the same could be said about Lutherans, Catholics or even Hindus.

If you have a bias against someone's religion, keep it to yourself. I lived in Michigan as a teenager under Romney's father as governor. He was considered a moderate Republican, yet he raised a very nice family that went on to do many positive things. How many politicians can you say the same thing of?

I am Lutheran but am supporting Romney because I believe that he's a moderate which America needs right now, and because he's demonstrated success in tough situations and hasn't just sat on a fat arse in a legislative body screwing around with words on paper. AND Romney has demonstrated as Governor of Massachusetts that he doesn't let his religion drive his governing positions.

Sorry that you hate Mormons. Do you hate Atheists, Agnostics, Methodists and Catholics too? What's YOUR personal problem with others' religion?

Uh huh, just as I thought. You must be a rabid Baptist pushing the Reverend "dropyourmoneyinmypalm" Huckabee.

Posted by TReid on January 18, 2008 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Arizona is not Utah. How many mayors, state representatives or governors in your state were LDS? Try living in a state where the line between church and state is no line at all. If you had you would well aware of this inability to keep their religous dogma out of the way they govern. By the by, I don't "hate mormons". I would have the same concern if a Catholic Priest ran for the presidency. I've learned from long experience the facts of which I speak--voters ignore them at this country's peril.

Posted by gneubeck on January 18, 2008 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In selecting your Presidential candidate, please reflect on the dire consequences of a docile retreat before a relatively small band of Islamic extremists; and, attempt to formulate your own opinion as to the most prudent course of action in the defense of our Nation. It might assist to consider the following scenario: the infiltration of a group of terrorists similar to the Atta cabal with a quantity of weaponized anthrax procured from a rogue state; the acquisition of a single crop-duster aircraft fitted with a dry-agent disseminator; and, the dispersal of that dangerous toxin over an American population center. The loss of American life would be catastrophic. -Or-, is it preferable to pre-empt such fanatics by destroying them on their home turf, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, before they secure the capacity to threaten our homeland? The latter is in fact a key element in current American strategy. Is it advisable to support any candidate who would reverse course and sacrifice the impressive gains against Islamofacists that young Americans have shed their precious blood to achieve? The fact that we have not experienced another 9/11 is not a by-chance occurrence. Further, it's critical to appreciate the pivotal role that our own border security plays in our "war against terrorism", keeping in mind that "Amnesty" is anathema to border security. A Nation without enforceable borders will not long survive as a Nation. Mitt Romney is exceedingly strong on each of these principles.

Greg Neubeck

Posted by Guilden_NL on January 18, 2008 at 10:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TReid,
Romney grew up in my home state of Mich and his father George was a successful governor who was considered a moderate by both Dems and GOP. Mitt Romney went on to do the same in the very liberal state of Mass where he was successful by most accounts.

Your constant bashing about a Mormon who has never personally, (nor has his father), ever displayed anything resembling "Mormon dogma" appears to be a personal smear campaign.

Though I don't agree with the basic tenants of the Mormon faith, I can state that Mitt Romney has lived a life that is positive and appears to fit well with the Mormon "big picture." Oh, and it fits with mine as well.

Now Mike Huckabee on the other hand, is an ordained Baptist minister, yet look at his political history: Judicial Watch's Top Ten List of Washington Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians. Should I begin watching all Baptists for signs of their "inability to keep their religous dogma out of the way they govern"?

You ignore publicly recognized history of Mitt Romney and his father's governing history to make accusations based on your personal demons.

Me thinks you either have a personal problem or are a Huckabee or McCain worker.

BTW, I could also support Ron Paul as well. Prior to being a Congressman, Paul was a Gynecologist, I am sure that you have some thoughts about him bringing that dogma into office. I'm sure he'd say "anyone hung up on a candidate's religion is most likely the object of my previous career."

Posted by pacomarj on January 19, 2008 at 1:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe Ron Paul is the best candidate. He has been in Washington for years and his voting record proves that he has never wavered. Also, from prior debates, his knowledge of the economy has really impressed me. When the other candidates laugh as Ron Paul speaks at the debates, it makes me realize how much they don't understand about what is currently going on in the US, and makes me worried about what could happen if one of them became president.

Posted by webwe on January 19, 2008 at 7:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

>>Mike Huckabee …, is an ordained Baptist minister…<<

Someone’s denomination or religion shouldn’t be a factor in the decision making process. However “love thy neighbor as thyself” (in Old & New Testaments) should strike a chord even with people who are not particularly religious, dare I say even “liberals.” The Huck has quoted or made reference to this in several speeches and he seemed sincere to me.

Granted there is a lot of hypocrisy. If Christ (the Son) manifested himself in a prosperous community defending the poor and oppressed, members of the local congregation would likely have him tossed in jail on a vagrancy charge or something similar.

Posted by dixiesc on January 19, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As conservatives, we should be done supporting people simply to win the election to put another so-called "Republican" in the Executive Seat.

I support Ron Paul because he is right, I care not whether he can win. He has worked in congress for over 30 years and has done the right thing every time. He has never caved. He deserves my vote and yours.

One of the canvassers here in Charleston told me 2 nights ago that at least 30% of the people he talks to when going door to do say that they would

vote for Ron Paul if they thought he could win.. 30%!

How brainwashed have we become to think that the media controls who will be our next president. If that is the case, we should all stay home on election day.

Ron Paul is the best chance the nation has of righting itself. Win or Lose, you should do what is right.

Just as Robert E Lee said in September of 1870:

Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand.

Having ALREADY gone through the war and having already known the outcome, he would have answered the call to Duty even if on the losing side.. that is

the stuff we must be made of to change this nation.. to do what is right regardless of the outcome. That is how heros are made.

On Saturday, the 201st anniversary of Robert E. Lee's Birthday, I will go cast my vote as he would.. and chart the course of Heros..

I would ask that you do the same.

Posted by seartangel on January 19, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Cindyluwho, 1980 Elephant, and Ivory Girl:

FRED THOMPSON?! Are you kidding?!

Ahhh yes! The ghostwriter extraordinaire! Tha man who donated to SCOOTER LIBBY'S defense -

Scooter Libby authored Project Anabasis; he was front-and-center as a key player in the Office of Special Plans / AEI unit that dreamt up the so-called Iraq strategy that landed the US into its' current quagmire in the Middle East. Libby, the same guy that helped out Valerie Plame Wilson - the man who helped twist intelligence; who willingly sacrified US servicemen and women - RESEARCH, please research!

MITT ROMNEY??????? No way! This guy traveled with Newt gingrich to AIPAC to serenade them - appease them before stumping in front of a huge banner that reads: WASHINGTON IS BROKEN! He's a puppet - period.

The puppet, the neo-con, and the lobby - here we go again!

Posted by AFWally on January 19, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gen. Robert E. Lee was the man.....Salute to Parse Robert

......and to Ron Paul the true conservative

Posted by TReid on January 19, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Guilden takes the low road with personal attacks.

Of course it sounds like you've never lived in Utah as a non-mormon, so in point of fact, you have no idea what you're talking about. Try living in Provo for a couple of years before you open your mouth in this subject.

Posted by bluegreen on January 19, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Senator Obama's short 2 years in the Senate, after campaigning for his US Senate Seat, voted to keep the war going, not even supporting Senator Feingolds Bill to end our occupation.

In this time period, after campaigning against the Patriot Act, Senator Obama managed to vote for Patriot Act 2, the Reauthorization.

Senator Obama also is for Free Trade and supported adding Peru to the Free Trade agreement.

Senator Obama also did not support the citizens over Financial institutions, when Bankruptcy amendment to cap interest rate to a maximum 30 percent, he did not vote to support that.

He also supported Cheneys 2005 Oil Industry and Nuke Plant loaded Energy Bill, even though he said he only supports Nuclear plants if we find a way to store the waste.

Senat Obama also pushed the Lobbyist backed Liquified Coal Bill, for a 2nd time, even though it would have added so much CO2 to the environment, it would have been like replacing every car with a Hummer, and use our tax dollars to fund it.

...that's just a sample in his short 2 years.

AND NOW he wants to bring us back to the start of the NeoCons with Reaganomics, busting unions, decling social programs, largest deficit, increased poverty with wealth at the top. GEE THANKS OBAMA, now you decide to look at the past and that's what you've chosen for America? NO THANKS

Posted by The_Mouth_of_the_South on January 19, 2008 at 5:19 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by Guilden_NL on January 19, 2008 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TReid,
I believe that you're the person making personal attacks on Romney. No, I never lived in Provo. But neither did Mitt Romney or his father George. They both were excellent governors that displayed NOTHING of the behavior you accuse them of because of your hatred of all Mormons.

Sorry that you have a personal problem with Mormons. I'm glad that this Lutheran has an open mind about individuals; I don't stamp people with a label because of their religion, skin color or country of origin. I prefer to experience their individual characteristics and personalities. I'd be very happy to have Mitt Romney as my neighbor or as President.

Posted by TReid on January 19, 2008 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for confirming my assertion. When you've been on the receiving end of religious bigotry of the group in question, let me know...

Posted by AFWally on January 19, 2008 at 11:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The "Fred" factor was masterful

Posted by Guilden_NL on January 19, 2008 at 11:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just heard the news in a very back handed way. AZ media is really touting NV as the replacement for SC due to the growth here in AZ and NV. On the local NBC affiliate, after a 5 minute breathless rundown of NV's outcome complete with video, the reporter took 10 seconds to mention the SC outcome. Then on to why NV is so much more important than an old southern state that hasn't seen much growth.... Had a NBC national political reporter on agreeing with the locals.

On to channel 15 and the local ABC affiliate, and though at the tail end of their report, more of the same. Missed the other three broadcasts due to the time watching the first largest channels. Looks like SC is irrelevant these days.

I'll catch Fox on the reruns at the top of the hour and see if I can also catch UGH! CBS and their traitorous bunch left behind by Dan Rather.

Posted by webwe on January 20, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The phone calls from purgatory continued even after voting yesterday. The last and loudest message received was from Fred shooting his mouth off in an absolutely crazy fashion.

Posted by TReid on January 20, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Results for the GOP in Nevada were fairly predictable. From Yahoo News...

"Mormons gave Romney about half his votes. He is hoping to become the first member of his faith to win the White House."

Can Romney win any state that does not have a significant mormon population-or a state that he grew up in?

Posted by dasheight on January 20, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

South Carolina: do NOT READ DENWA'S COMMENTS. That is a PLANT by the Clinton's campaign.

Denwa has repeated the SAME EXACT lies about Barack Obama in EVERY STATE NEWSPAPER since this election began. I've followed it.

I would please ask the paper to REMOVE those comments. The Clinton campaign is doing the same thing on Oprah Winfrey's site, spreading racist filth.

The Clintons are DESPICABLE.

Go to BarackObama.com, read his record - not NOT BELIEVE HER LIES. Her campaign has been the worst thing that's happened to America in decades.

Do NOT believe the commenter, DENWA. Or HILLARY08 or HILLARYNOW.

They are PLANTS BY THEIR CAMPAIGN to distribute LIES about Barack Obama.

Thank you.

Posted by dasheight on January 20, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ALSO - WEENA is also a PLANT. She has been hired by the Clinton campaign, as well. DailyKos has documents to prove it.
Do not believe DENWA or WEENA.

They have repeated the same lies in EVERY NEWSPAPER WEBSITE IN EVERY STATE.

Posted by dasheight on January 20, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HEY! JOSH62!

Here's what you conveniently CENSORED from the news story - so convenient you didn't even provide a link, but here it is:

"The Illinois senator isn’t accused of any wrongdoing. And there’s no evidence Obama knew contributions to his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign came from schemes Rezko is accused of orchestrating."

NICE TRY, IDIOT.

Posted by dasheight on January 20, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

P.S. Please read and think:
http://www.therant.us/staff/swirsky/0313...

Posted by Truth2u on January 21, 2008 at 2:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nation of Islam?
Louis Farrakhan?
Black Power?

Check out Barack Hussein's churches website www.tucc.org

While there, check out their magazine on the left links. Trumpet Magazine http://www.trumpetmag.com

Notice the honorable and empowering Louis Farrakhan on the cover.

This guy Barack Hussein is bad bad news people. WAKE UP! We can't afford the kind of change Barrack Hussein Osama,
Reverend Wright, and Louis Farrakhan want to bring us. Wright (Osama's minister and best friend) says America
deserved the 9/11 attacks because of their racism.
Louis Farrakhan says the same thing and Barack Hussein is only best friends with both.

Farrakhan on his buddy running for president: "If avoiding me would help him to become president,
I'd be glad to stay in the background".

Minister Wright:
“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in a church-affiliated magazine.
( TrumpetMag.com )“White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away,
faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”

In one of his sermons, Wright said, “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!...We [in the U.S.]
believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”

As for Wright’s repeated comments blaming America for the 9/11 attacks, Obama has said it sounds as if the minister
was trying to be “provocative.”

Is that all? The minister was being feisty? wake up!

Sources:

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/Obama_Chu...

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2937953

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

http://www.trumpetmag.com/home.cfm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZXeNk7H3...

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/ko...

It's all facts. Wake Up!!

Posted by webwe on January 21, 2008 at 6:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

>>The "Fred" factor was masterful<<

McCain of course outspent Huckabee but there are some other factors contributing to his win including the “Fred factor.”

First off all the major SC newspapers endorsed McCain and not just on their editorial pages. The Dems of course will highlight the legitimate negative stuff or his “baggage” in the general election.

Second, the paid spin-doctors working (or appearing to work) for Fred did McCain’s dirty work attacking Huckabee. Remaining high above the fray made McCain look good.

Lastly the easily discounted ridiculous negative material coming from outside the state made McCain a figure of sympathy.

All things considered it’s small wonder that McCain edged out Huckabee.

Posted by iowan on January 21, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am a 65 year old activist woman who has participated in the political process here since 1965. I followed Obama for 10 months here, saw him 15 times, Michelle 4 times, Edwards, Clinton and others about 2-3 times each. I was a precinct captain for Obama and am honored to have helped him carry my state.
We too had negative info circulating about Obama but everytime it turned out to be crap. Go and hear him if you can, read his two books and then do what you can to get people involved. He voted against the war, he forged political alliances in Illinois to get things done, he is financing his campaign without PAC money or money from federal lobbyists. As president he will send a powerful message to the world that America has turned the page of history. At 46, this middle aged man convinced us that the constitution can be restored, that we can have health care reform and a restored foreign policy. I think he may be the next Lincoln.

Posted by pagebike on January 21, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hillary is a less polarizing figure for the Presidency than Obama. It may be hard to elect the first female President in the United States, founded in 1776 and recognized women as human and gave them right to vote 150 years later, but imagine how hard it would be for white Southerners to elect a black man. Do not waste your vote! While Argentina and Chile -- those bastions of dictatorship -- have elected females as presidents this year; America, the land of the free and democracy, acts like it has a males-only monarchy. Even Germany, once the land of Nazism, broke down and elected a female president. If all these formerly dictatorial governments can elect a woman, why can´t freedom-loving America?

Posted by soapboxcom on January 21, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Beware the Clintonistas....they are everywhere. So much so that this crap (Obama's a muslim, obama's a druggie, obama's Beezelbub incarnate because his middle name is Hussein)...is actually commented on by mainstream media.

Funny how I haven't seen such tripe posted or circulated about Hillary...she of Whitewater and cattle futures and disappearing witnesses and failed national healthcare (and a hefty campaign check FROM healthcare to boot)...she of looking the other way not once, not twice, but for at least three confirmed affairs by her husband...

If you look at the drivel posted by the Clintonistas...you'll see politics as usual.

If you vote for Hillary...you are VOTING for politics as usual. And if you're okay with politics as usual, you're either rich or stupid.

We need a serious change from the leglock held on our nation by two very powerful families. We're NOT a monarchy, folks. And certainly (IMO) not the kind of people who'll sit there and allow the continued political destruction of our nation.

Obama, Edwards, hell...even Kucinich...there are voices out there that don't echo from duplicitous hallways. Beware the Clintonistas and their ilk--they, like the Bush's before them...thrive on a policy of fear rather than hope.

Posted by archdude on January 21, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

iowan

--I hate to disagree, but Obama will not be the next JFK, the next Lincoln, or the next president. How did he vote against the war? He was not even in office yet (he won office in 2004 and the Iraq war started in 2003--so obviously he can vote no on measures after the start). In my opinion he is about the worst thing that could happen as he appears as trustworthy as most of the rest in Illinois politics.

Posted by AFWally on January 21, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

webwe

spot on

more than likely a rerun in Fla. Mac's got plenty friends there.

Posted by jjfnikki on January 21, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OBAMA SURFACES IN FEDERAL CORRUPTION CASE.WWW.CHICAGOSUNTIMES.COM-1-20-08

Posted by webwe on January 21, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>>...more than likely a rerun in Fla. Mac's got plenty friends there<<

Yep, and Fred’s “role” in helping Mac should show-up on his w-2 forms as an actor playing the rube. :=)

Posted by jjfnikki on January 21, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OBAMA KEEPS TALKING ABOUT BRINGING US TOGETHER,BUT ALL HE IS DOING IS DIVIDING US.THATS CHICAGO POLITICS FOR YOU MY FRIENDS.

Posted by eabraham on January 21, 2008 at 11:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As a Democratic voter in the NH Presidential Primary and local Dem activist, I voted for John Edwards. I still believe he is the best candidate for integrity, bringing people together, and good proposals.

The reason for this letter is my concern that Hillary mailed a very last minute ad (arrived Sat., Jan 5, before the Jan 8 primary)that was deliberately misleading and deceptive, attacking Barack Obama on reproductive rights. As a 30 year NOW member and past officer (and I first marched for repro rights 1971), the ad riled me up. AFTER the primary, I learned that his votes in Illinois to which Hillary referred were specifically requested by Planned Parenthood, and they give him a 100% perfect rating. See Newsweek, p. 39 and Washington Post.
Hillary deliberately deceived me and many other voters. In my opinion, that may be why she narrowly won the NH Pres Primary. Consider this before you vote

Posted by pagebike on January 22, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama must be the Messiah. Who else could change politics as usual. If you really do not like the way politics works in this country, do something real like amend the Constitution or throw it out. The government and corporate businesses are out of control. That is politics as usual. To get to be President you have to swear to support the Constitution. That is the problem of politics as usual. How will Obama: a complete unknown, a complete novice, and someone with a messiah complex change the Constitution -- all by himself?

Posted by soapboxcom on January 22, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I talk business with my wife. She gets/understands what I do, gives me input on things I ask her about, is there to support me on the bad days and celebrate the good days. She is bright, affable, engaging and intelligent in every respect--a Mensa member, even.

But this does NOT make her qualified to RUN my company--gives her NO hands-on experience, no "special insight" that she can claim as her own qualification to DO what it is I do for a living.

Hillary spends 20 years as a first lady (between Arkansas and Washington) and we're supposed to BUY that as experience? Ribbon cuttings and globetrotting photo ops do not a substantive policymaker make. The one cause she took on...she failed at miserably because she had the arrogance to believe that big insurance and big pharma weren't allowed a seat at the healthcare negotiating table.

She got her ass handed to her...but didn't go away empty handed--big pharma and big insurance paid her off handsomely in the late 90's...in fact, FUNDED the bulk of her carpetbagged campaign in New York.

I actually think she's done a fine job as a Senator...better than anyone could have expected. But if I hear one more yabbo claim "First Lady" is Presidential experience...then Giselle Bunchen is qualified to take Tom Brady's place as quarterback in the Super Bowl. (she's his girlfriend, after all...)

OH...and had I, or IF I, ever cheat on my wife...believe you me...she a strong enough woman to kick me to the curb, leave me behind, and exoriate me for being a lousy husband. Hillary possesses no such strength, as evidenced by two LONG TERM affairs (Flowers and Jones) plus the Oral Office incident that embarrassed the nation she so claims to love.

If she was running as the SINGLE female Senator from New York...I'd have a helluva lot more respect for her. She is politics as usual. Obama? Edwards? Perhaps these candidates represent politics we've never seen before.

What's worked better for you?

Posted by jjfnikki on January 22, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OBAMA KEEPS TALKING ABOUT BRINGING US TOGETHER,BUT IT IS REAL CLEAR THAT HE IS ONLY DIVIDING US.JUST LIKE RONALD REAGAN.

Posted by pagebike on January 23, 2008 at 6:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama hates women. That is why Bill Clinton is forced to help his wife`s campaign. Obama has not attacked Edwards in anyway. Obama has not even attacked a Republican candidate to date. In fact, Obama backs down when Bill challenges him. Obama is a pussy.

I have yet to hear him say a nice thing about any woman, even when he was pimping Oprah. Put a dress on, and he`ll go after you. He has demeaned and derided Hillary so much, that I am just waiting for the day when he starts calling her a bitch.

Posted by jjfnikki on January 23, 2008 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OBAMA KEEPS TALKING ABOUT BRINGING US ALL TOGETHER,BUT HE IS ONLY DIVIDING US.JUST LIKE RONALD REAGAN DID.WHY IS IT THAT OBAMA WILL NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANYTHING?GUESS HE DOESNT KNOW ANYTHING.WELL,THATS CHICAGO POLITICS FOR YOU.

Posted by Summerwheat on January 24, 2008 at 12:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I write this comment as an out-of-state Obama supporter:
Three things are clear from an objective view of Obama's record:
(l) He is a strong supporter of women's rights. While in the Illinois Senate, he worked with women's rights and reproductive rights group on a host of bills, always with the goal of strengthing women's individual rights and strengthening educational and other opportunities for their children. Before the New Hampshire primary, his opponent sent out a flyer questioning this record. It was false. As a result, one of her supporters, a women's rights leader in Chicago, is now supporting Obama. You can see a video of her on the obama website.
(2) He is honest and principled. He passed an ethics reform bill in Illinois and he passed an ethics reform bill in Washington. This was hard to do, but he did it because, as they say in grade school, he "works well with others." Good quality in a President on whom we will need to rely for health care reform, a sound foreign policy, etc.
(3) He as just as much, if not more, relevant experience as his competitors. He has more total legislative experience than either Senator Clinton or Senator Edwards. In Illinois, he expanded health care coverage to over 150,000 children who had not been covered. He also helped pass legislation to improve efficiency & fairness in the criminal justice process.
Now, a few things are also clear from the current campaign. (l) The stuff about Obama and Reagan is extremely silly: No one seriously believes that Obama approved of Reagan's policies. Most of Reagan's policies are totally the opposite of what Obama would do. Obama was talking about political history and what he said has been distorted to throw up some dust, a lot of dust, to distract from the fact that there isn't really the usual kind of dirt to throw at Obama.
(2) Obama has run an exceptionally positive campaign. Because the opposition is twisting his positions, he has been forced in recent days to push back to correct the record. But, the fact remains that he has not gone "negative" on Senator Clinton. She and former President Clinton have gone negative on him. It appears that Bill Clinton is anxious to go back to the White House so that he can hear Hail to the Chief again whenever he walks into the room with his wife.
(3) Obama, who graduated from Harvard Law School, was the President of Harvard Law Review, taught law at the University of Chicago, had 8 years of service in the Illinois legislature almost 3 in the US Senate,is an extremely intelligent and capable candidate. It is not clear why posters are saying "he is dividing us." All that he is doing is dividing the Clintons from what they thought was an easy shot at a third term in the White House.

Posted by bkosegi on January 24, 2008 at 5:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My Vote is for Barrack Obama.I'm sick of the Bush-Clinton Dynastys.There should be no doubt who is the better person here.The Clintons started all this"trashtalk"then turned it
around and blamed the Obama Camp.He has a right to defend himself.Bill Clinton is an Ex-Impeached President who struts
around spewing out smut with no shame.He ought to look in the mirror at the image he presents.Its pretty bad that Hillary is willing to take a back seat to this womanizer.We
need a fresh start to get away from these Bush Tactics and
I'm hoping and praying the people will vote for Obama.

Posted by soapboxcom on January 24, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And now...the attack radio ads from the Clintons...parsing together short snippets of recorded conversations to attempt to paint an ugly picture of a candidate who's just trying to elevate the political game beyond party lines, and beyond traditional thinking.

Does anyone have a clip from the debate the other night? You know, the one where Hillary SNARKILY replies...."We both have supportive, committed spouses who are outspoken on our behalf...."

There are many words that have been used to describe William Jefferson Clinton. "Committed" cannot be considered one of them when it comes to his wife.

I'm pointing this out because this clip IS available...and NOT being used by the Obama campaign. Obama could choose to remind the nation that Hillary's loudest supporter lied to a nation (and a grand jury) and embarrassed the office of the Presidency. But he CHOOSES not to. Bill Clinton as a committed spouse? JUICY stuff that could derail the whole Clintonista machine for a period...and Obama leaves it on the table.

Folks? He's TRYING to keep his message out there...but the attacks (since so many seem to buy into just about anything they read or see) ...need to be refuted and responded to.

Before you make up your minds this Saturday...please remember all the material that Obama or Edwards COULD be using...but aren't. And ask yourself who is more interested in politics as usual versus substantive, groundbreaking change.

Posted by jjfnikki on January 24, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OBAMA IS IN ANOTHER TIME AND ANOTHER PLACE.HE NEVER ANSWERS ANY QUESTIONS.THE ONLY THINGS THAT WE KNOW ABOUT OBAMA IS THAT HE IS ONE OF THOSE CHICAGO POLITTITIANS,AND HIS NAME HAS SURFACED IN A FEDERAL CORRUPTION CASE.

Posted by nurseratchet on January 25, 2008 at 2:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I, TOO, HAVE A PROBLEM WITH OBAMA NOT ANSWERING QUESTIONS PUT TO HIM. HE SEEMS TO GO ALL THE WAY AROUND THE QUESTION WITH A LOT OF SPEECH BUT NO REAL ANSWER. HE'S YOUNG, ARTICULATE AND EXCITING BUT HE IS NOT READY TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. HE NEEDS MORE SEASONING! AND, NO, I DON'T MEAN BOILING ALL THE HOPE OUT OF HIM, I MEAN EXPERIENCE. WE WILL KEEP OUR EYES ON OBAMA BUT WE ARE VOTING FOR HILLARY CLINTON!

Posted by jwestTexas on January 25, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Huckabee is proving himself more and more as huckster not as a pastor. His statement that Americans will spend their tax refunds on goods Made in China, and thus the Chinese economy will benefit, not the USA, is absolutely Insulting and UnAmerican. If nothing else he's done and said has failed to assist the voting public to see him clearly, this singular statement should be the final eye-opener.

The local and national media, the other candidates, both Republican and Democratic, should be all over this comment, and Huckabee shown the final exit door in this election by the voters.

Posted by jjfnikki on January 26, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON CAN AND WILL BEAT THE REPUBLICANS IN NOVEMBER.

Posted by jjfnikki on January 26, 2008 at 7:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

THANKS TO EVERYONE THAT VOTED FOR SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON.

Posted by soapboxcom on January 27, 2008 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For me, the stirring Obama victory gave me a sense of cautious hope for the future--there's still significant possibilities in the air along with the challenges to be met heading toward Super Tuesday.

The two most amazing moments for me, other than the speech?

1. News that The NY Times today will be running an op-ed column called "A President Like My Father" written by Caroline Kennedy. (jaw drop. goose bumps).

2. The surprising feeling of empathy I had for Hillary voters and organizers and stumpers across the State, none of whom merited more than two sentences in a press release from her campaign before she abandoned the state entirely--having lost her use for South Carolina.

I think you deserved a little more for your effort; hard-fought and controversial as this campaign was. 140,000 votes isn't chump change, you know...and you deserved to be congratulated in person by your candidate for your efforts.

Politics is politics, sure...but people are people. She could have hung around a few hours and thanked you guys in person, is all--since this was by far the most high profile of all the primaries to date.

Thank you, South Carolina!

Posted by archdude on January 27, 2008 at 7:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah--Obama won SC due to a racial divide and his folks are at it again already claiming that statements that Bill Clinton's claims that Jesse Jackson's wins in 84 & 88 were due to a good campaign much like Obama's win yesterday was due to a good campaign is racist. What a sack of (fill in the blank). Everything someone says about him is said to be a race remark--that is flat bulchevic. His character is why I would never vote for him. And, honestly, the more his campaign tries to play the race card the less support they will gain from the non-black community--this I have heard from across the country.

-----------------------------------------------------
Here is the rest of my commentary:

Obama = November Loss

Last night I really hoped the early results would change since they were called before any votes were counted--based off an exit poll of 1000 people. Hell, if that is how they are going to do why should people be inspired to vote?

At the same time, every time someone views information on the campaign on TV (or radio or in the paper), I am hearing the word "race" (not as in political race) over and over and over and over and over and over and over again! Who is injecting the race card? OBAMA'S camp! They are trying to make it a race war of black versus white! The poor Hispanic vote must not matter to them.

I know certain people will most likely try to call me racist on this (and you KNOW I AM NOT) but enough is enough. You cannot claim something someone else said brought up race--and that the campaign is not about race--and then keep using the whole race issue as a major covert platform. That type of Chicago sleaziness is what will most definitely keep OBAMA from having ANY change in Nov and reinforces why I will vote republican if Obama is the dem nominee.

***However, if they go into the summer with no clear candidate I am hearing speculation that Gore may step in to gain all the super delegates and the nomination. He would then run on a Gore/Edwards ticket and send Barack and Hillary back home whining and crying.

I apologize for the rant, but if I have to hear Obama's camp say something is racially motivated and how black people are coming out the woodwork to vote for a black candidate (1/2) one more time it will make me physically ill. They just keep playing the race card. Anything said against them is racially motivated (they claim) yet they think they can call a rally around race? What hypocrisy!

Posted by webwe on January 30, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

>>Huckabee is proving himself more and more as huckster not as a pastor. His statement that Americans will spend their tax refunds on goods Made in China...<<<

I feel compelled to come to the Huck’s defense.

First he said that we’d borrow the money from the Chinese which is where the money has got to end up coming from because of the trade deficit.

Then he went on to suggest that we’d spend it on Chinese goods at Walmart and some of the other discount stores, which is also hard to argue with.

Rather than that he suggested that we invest the money in the infrastructure here in America.

Here’s a Huck quote from a recent CNN interview:

>>Every billion dollars we spend on infrastructure creates 47,500 jobs. And we do it with American labor, American cement, American steel. That's why I'm saying that that's a real long-term stimulus package. But it does more than just stimulate the economy, it actually stimulates jobs for Americans for a change.<<

Posted by lillycollette on July 3, 2008 at 3:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This story is so -- SWEET -- that I just had to share it.

The SC House introduced and passed a resolution on 25 June 08 with 125 signatories all recognizing and commending family court judge Francis P. Segars-Andrews for ten years of volunteering in the Charleston County Drug Court and to honor her for the exceptional difference she has made in Charleston County.
See, http://www.scsenate.org/sess117_2007-200...

WOW—WHAT A GAL !!!

One of the contributions she made in a case I was working was to defraud a disabled man out of 65 % of his Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) for the support of an illegitimate child—he could not have fathered—by a woman that he was never married to.

I dare say Francis has made exceptional differences in Charleston County. Where else could a criminal aspire to the family court bench and reap such legislative praise.

YOU GO GIRL !!!
(Straight to hell I hope.)