It’s Not Easy Bein’ Blue

Excuse me to pieces! I am certain that the last 2 little brats finished at the top of their classes at Harvard.

William F. Buckley's son, Christopher Buckley, who is a conservative Republican like his Dad, is supporting Barack Obama for President.

Christopher Buckley was forced to resign from the right wing National Review over this endorsement. Chris has written a conservative column for years at the National Review, the journal his father founded. Chris has been a poster boy for the Republican party ever since his father, in a 1985 speech to Ronald Reagan, said that his son Christopher lived in a world of freedom thanks to the fact that the USA had not been afraid to use nuclear bombs in Japan and so end WWII.

Twenty three years later, many prominent Republicans, including Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker, Susan Eisenhower and Colin Powell have come out in support of Barack Obama. Their primary reason for doing so is that they feel that Obama is the better candidate. But just as importantly, they are concerned by the growing tendency of the GOP to incite the masses based on false charges of terrorism, Muslim roots, etc. These lies feed a dark form of social unrest that is very destructive for America. (Look what it did in Nazi Germany.) They also all pointed to the inadequate choice of Sarah Palin as John's VP. These are prominent right wing Republicans speaking, not liberal Democrats.

And while I am not prominent, I too am a Republican who is voting for Obama.

Christopher Buckley's article about why he decided to support Obama:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-14/sorry-dad-i-was-fired

Which candidate will best uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States? Which candidate will most trust in the collective wisdom of the American people? Which candidate will best protect us? Which candidate will create more opportunity? Which candidate? It is all abou asking the right questions.

See: http://www.newsweek.com/id/164972
Stating that Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act wasn't what caused the meltdown, and noting that "economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been." And also:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html
Look and listen for yourself. Hear Obama in his own words discusses his links to both ACORN and the mortgage meltdown, and praises bundling and securitizing mortgages by banks as a means to float loans to the poor and spread the risk world wide. Never mind the link commentators point of view, just listen to what Obama says in his own words. A picture is worth a thousand words. Maybe more in the case of Obama comments in the last half of the first youtube link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU

See also:
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=808692&boardsparam=Page%3d2

Below is a link to C-SPAN video clips of the Congressional hearings at roughly the time McCains attempt at S.190. to fix Fannie and Freddie. See for yourself who said what.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
See also
http://www.newsweek.com/id/164732 from this web site. (oops!) stating that Freddie Mac was spending tax payer money to target Republicans in 2005 who were trying to regulate Fannie and Freddies fraud. Democrats were not targeted, as the were all in the tank with Fannie and Freddie to kill the regulations. Hear that, the article admits that Republicans were trying to regulate, and Democrats were trying to stop it from happening as a means to facilitate the Community Reinvestment Act.

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918

And the link below describes how some Democrats in Congress tried to use the original version of the bailout bill to divert money eventually recovered to groups like ACORN, a group Obama has a long association with. See: Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Parties that silence other points of view, you mean like, when slogans like "support our troops" are introduced in order to make it impossible for anyone to question the the Iraq War without being un-American and un-patriotic and ungrateful towards our soldiers? How about calling people communists when they suggest that maybe the people least in need should take a minor hit in their taxes to help the people most in need? Or attempting to quash any possibility of a well-educated person actually governing our country by labeling anybody capable of eloquently expressing themselves "élitist." Even you, saying that progressive is just another term for lacking morality, are attempting to silence another point of view by dismissing it as morally corrupt. The one truth that I see in looking at progressive vs. conservative ideals is that the fault of progressives is that they sometimes go too far in allowing certain freedoms, while conservatives often go too far in taking them away. Frankly, seeing as I live in the "Land of the free," I would prefer the former.

Meacham, to quote Ronald Reagan, "there you go again". Obama is SO far left he can't see center field much less right field. Who are you trying to kid? He is runing from wherever it takes to get him elected. Not only is he a far far left liberal, he is a radical in his belief in what government should be and do. Then, if he wins, the Republicans might as well not even show up. With Prince Obama, the Queen Mum Pelosi, and low and slow Harry Reid running everything we will truly be in the early days of socialism. I suggest you read, if you aren't already familiar with this treatise, "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky. If you read it very closely you can clearly see that it is the Obama campaign playbook. Of this, for any rational person, there can be no doubt.

See: http://www.newsweek.com/id/164972

Stating that Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act wasn't what caused the meltdown, and noting that "economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been."

OMG. Please cancel my subscription to our unbelievable trash of a magazine. My customer # is 273433698. It's amazing to see how your worthless publication has chosen the next president in every issue over the last 6 months. I am embarrassed of even throwing your unread magazines in my trash can. I don't want the garbage crews to start disrespecting me. And I am asking all of my friends to Never ever purchase or subscribe to your liberal garbage of words and pictures. As an Independent Muslim-American, I am saddened that a mainstream publication like Newsweek can so openly spread such filth and be so biased. Its nauseating. Its biased views like your magazines that help me easily lean towards the conservative side. Good job campaigning for Obama! Its working.

A teacher in Elmira , New York , who is a McCain supporter, asked her 4th grade class, "How many of you are McCain fans?" Not really knowing what a McCain fan is, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raised their hands, except for Little Johnny. The teacher asked Little Johnny why he has decided to be different.

Little Johnny said, "Because I'm not a McCain fan." The teacher asked, "Why aren't you a McCain fan?" Johnny said, "Because I'm a Democrat. "The teacher asked him why he's a Democrat. Little Johnny answered, "Well, my Mom's a Democrat and my Dad's a Democrat, so I'm a Democrat." Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, "If your mom was a moron and your dad was an idiot, what would that make you?" With a big smile, Little Johnny replied, "That would make me a McCain fan."