OT The latest defection ...

but I doubt it will be the last.

http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/

The intellectual class of conservative thinkers is bailing out
on McPalin and for that I have to give them their due. David
Brooks is gone, Kathleen Parker, Christopher Buckley and now
Christopher Hitchens. I sure would enjoy the mea culpas of
Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer but I suppose that would
be more schadenfraude than I could safely handle. LOL !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:16:27 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

but I doubt it will be the last.

http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/

The intellectual class of conservative thinkers is bailing out
on McPalin and for that I have to give them their due. David
Brooks is gone, Kathleen Parker, Christopher Buckley and now
Christopher Hitchens. I sure would enjoy the mea culpas of
Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer but I suppose that would
be more schadenfraude than I could safely handle. LOL !!


I'm 95% sure you could add richard to that list. The real question is
whether he'll vote for Barr or Obama.


hth


GeoC

On Oct 14, 5:16*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
but I doubt it will be the last.

http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/

The intellectual class of conservative thinkers is bailing out
on McPalin and for that I have to give them their due. David
Brooks is gone, Kathleen Parker, Christopher Buckley and now
Christopher Hitchens. I sure would enjoy the mea culpas of
Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer but I suppose that would
be more schadenfraude than I could safely handle. *LOL !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

Pretty much my thoughts as well. McCain is one of my personal heroes
for his steadfast behavior as a POW, but that was then, and this is
now. Actually, I started the campaign supporting him, but when the RNC
shot down his VP choice, (Lieberman), and foisted Palin on him, and he
accepted, that convinced me that the "old' McCain is gone. If he still
had the "stuff" he had years ago, he would never have stood for it.
And Hitchens is correct, Palin is a disgrace as a VP candidate. I
don't consider myself an Obama supporter, (he's full of **** on the
economy, as is McCain), but he is the only other viable choice, and
McCain has lost my vote. (Not that it really matters in the People'
Republic of MA)

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:44:29 -0700 (PDT), george9219
wrote:

On Oct 14, 5:16*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
but I doubt it will be the last.

http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/

The intellectual class of conservative thinkers is bailing out
on McPalin and for that I have to give them their due. David
Brooks is gone, Kathleen Parker, Christopher Buckley and now
Christopher Hitchens. I sure would enjoy the mea culpas of
Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer but I suppose that would
be more schadenfraude than I could safely handle. *LOL !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

Pretty much my thoughts as well. McCain is one of my personal heroes
for his steadfast behavior as a POW, but that was then, and this is
now. Actually, I started the campaign supporting him, but when the RNC
shot down his VP choice, (Lieberman), and foisted Palin on him, and he
accepted, that convinced me that the "old' McCain is gone. If he still
had the "stuff" he had years ago, he would never have stood for it.
And Hitchens is correct, Palin is a disgrace as a VP candidate. I
don't consider myself an Obama supporter, (he's full of **** on the
economy, as is McCain), but he is the only other viable choice, and
McCain has lost my vote. (Not that it really matters in the People'
Republic of MA)


O.K.. This is from the Huffington Post, so its not an unbiased source,
but other people at the meeting have confirmed what Matthew Dowd,
Bush's campaign strategist in 2004, said:

"Saying that Palin was a "net negative" on the ticket, he went on:
"[McCain] knows, in his gut, that he put somebody unqualified on the
ballot. He knows that in his gut, and when this race is over that is
something he will have to live with... He put somebody unqualified on
that ballot and he put the country at risk, he knows that.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_134570.html

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:44:32 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:16:27 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

but I doubt it will be the last.

http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/

The intellectual class of conservative thinkers is bailing out
on McPalin and for that I have to give them their due. David
Brooks is gone, Kathleen Parker, Christopher Buckley and now
Christopher Hitchens. I sure would enjoy the mea culpas of
Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer but I suppose that would
be more schadenfraude than I could safely handle. LOL !!


I'm 95% sure you could add richard to that list. The real question is
whether he'll vote for Barr or Obama.

If you are referring to me, you most certainly cannot add me to any list
that maintains that Obama is the best choice of the lot for Prez...OTOH,
you won't find me on the list that maintains McCain, Barr or Nader is,
either. I'm truly undecided - I don't see any clear choice in the
bunch. If it had, by some miracle, been McCain/Obama or McCain and
Biden, either order, the choice would be clear, but it wasn't and so,
for me, it isn't. I will say that I don't completely trust Obama's
motives, but McCain appears to have gone completely "pol." As much as
it pains me to say, I can truly understand those who say they cannot
bring themselves to vote for Prez.

And there you are,
R


hth


GeoC

wrote:
snip
I'm truly undecided - ...

Three weeks out, after an interminable election season, you're
*UNDECIDED* !! Un-****in'-believable.

... I will say that I don't completely trust Obama's
motives, but McCain appears to have gone completely "pol." ...

What is that supposed to mean, you don't trust Obama's "motives" ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 07:25:32 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
snip
I'm truly undecided - ...

Three weeks out, after an interminable election season, you're
*UNDECIDED* !! Un-****in'-believable.

That's right, "undecided." I don't feel either of these guys has a
large, clear and objective advantage over the other, and frankly, anyone
who claims that one or the other does is blindly partisan. Yep, I think
you and the rest of the Obamanics are just as blindly partisan,
uninformed, and wrong about this as the McCainiacs, demonstrated
repeatedly by your claims that Obama is SO much "better" of a choice
than McCain (or even Palin). I can understand someone leaning one way
or the other, indeed having chosen already, but to claim that one is
leaps and bounds ahead of the other? Hardly. If a neutral third party
stepped in and enacted completely what either of the these two promise
as they have promised, the US economy would be so ****ed up it would
take many years to recover. Obama impresses me as little more than
wannabe, cut-rate Bill Clinton (and no, that's in no way a compliment).
And McCain has said so much in an attempt to get elected that I'm not
sure the guy he once was is still even there and Palin doesn't exactly
give me the warm and fuzzies.

... I will say that I don't completely trust Obama's
motives, but McCain appears to have gone completely "pol." ...

What is that supposed to mean, you don't trust Obama's "motives" ?

Well, for one, he never answers a question, even easy, obvious ones,
just like a cut-rate, punk-ass Clinton. Of course, that alone doesn't
disqualify him from office IMO, but it means that I don't completely
trust him or his motives. I suspect, but am not 100% convinced, that he
nothing but a power-grasping little **** whose first and primary REAL
interest in all of this is Obama, goaded on by his bitch of a wife,
whose primary interest is herself...again, ala the Clintons.

HTH,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
snip
I'm truly undecided - ...
Three weeks out, after an interminable election season, you're
*UNDECIDED* !! Un-****in'-believable.

That's right, "undecided."

Right before the second "townhall" debate it was explained that
the onstage audience consisted of "undecided" voters. My response
was, "What bar or asylum did they scrape these idiots out of ?"
My wife simply said, "Morons".

... I will say that I don't completely trust Obama's
motives, but McCain appears to have gone completely "pol." ...
What is that supposed to mean, you don't trust Obama's "motives" ?

Well, for one, he never answers a question, even easy, obvious ones,
just like a cut-rate, punk-ass Clinton. Of course, that alone doesn't
disqualify him from office IMO, but it means that I don't completely
trust him or his motives. I suspect, but am not 100% convinced, that he
nothing but a power-grasping little **** whose first and primary REAL
interest in all of this is Obama, goaded on by his bitch of a wife,
whose primary interest is herself...again, ala the Clintons.

Sounds like "Mississippi Code" to me.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 06:37:07 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
snip
I'm truly undecided - ...
Three weeks out, after an interminable election season, you're
*UNDECIDED* !! Un-****in'-believable.

That's right, "undecided."

Right before the second "townhall" debate it was explained that
the onstage audience consisted of "undecided" voters. My response
was, "What bar or asylum did they scrape these idiots out of ?"
My wife simply said, "Morons".

Ah, so anyone who has decided to support McCain isn't a "moron" or
"idiot" in your view. Well, in my view, anyone who has decided firmly
on either of these guys is too blindly partisan and/or ill-informed to
merit much consideration. There is simply too much "wrong" with both of
them to support an objective stance of one being vastly "better" a
choice than the other. Hell, I've politely asked repeatedly and stated
plainly that if anyone could convince me that Obama is even half of what
is claimed, I'd vote for him. All I've gotten is a bunch of partisan
crap, mostly anti-Bush or anti-GOP. So I'll repeat: Give me your sales
pitch on Obama - _on Obama_ - hell, you don't have to convince me he's
the second coming, the "real deal," or anything else, well, impossible,
just convince me he's even marginally the better candidate, and like I
said, he can have my vote.


... I will say that I don't completely trust Obama's
motives, but McCain appears to have gone completely "pol." ...
What is that supposed to mean, you don't trust Obama's "motives" ?

Well, for one, he never answers a question, even easy, obvious ones,
just like a cut-rate, punk-ass Clinton. Of course, that alone doesn't
disqualify him from office IMO, but it means that I don't completely
trust him or his motives. I suspect, but am not 100% convinced, that he
nothing but a power-grasping little **** whose first and primary REAL
interest in all of this is Obama, goaded on by his bitch of a wife,
whose primary interest is herself...again, ala the Clintons.

Sounds like "Mississippi Code" to me.

If that's what you want to call it. Here's the translation:

Well, for one, he never answers a question, even easy, obvious ones,
just like a cut-rate, punk-ass Clinton. Of course, that alone doesn't
disqualify him from office IMO, but it means that I don't completely
trust him or his motives. I suspect, but am not 100% convinced, that he
nothing but a power-grasping little **** whose first and primary REAL
interest in all of this is Obama, goaded on by his bitch of a wife,
whose primary interest is herself...again, ala the Clintons.

And as far as Mississippi, Chuck Taylor, a Dem Congressman from S. Miss.
who has plenty of cross-party and cross-racial support (he's white)
isn't supporting Obama. And no, he's not vulnerable in the least - he
could hold Obama rallies on the beach every day and he'd be safe. Hell,
he'd probably get some white Republicans voting for Obama. But he has
pointedly _not supported_ him. And as far as racism, from what I can
tell, the bulk of Obama's black support is based solely upon his race.
That's no different from folks who won't vote for him based on his race.

Would anyone be calling McCain a racist if Obama was white...?

HTH,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
snip
I'm truly undecided - ...
Three weeks out, after an interminable election season, you're
*UNDECIDED* !! Un-****in'-believable.
That's right, "undecided."
Right before the second "townhall" debate it was explained that
the onstage audience consisted of "undecided" voters. My response
was, "What bar or asylum did they scrape these idiots out of ?"
My wife simply said, "Morons".

Ah, so anyone who has decided to support McCain isn't a "moron" or
"idiot" in your view. Well, in my view, anyone who has decided firmly
on either of these guys is too blindly partisan and/or ill-informed to
merit much consideration.

Total piffle and pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Obama and McCain disagree on virtually every major issue facing
this country in the foreseeable future. Anybody who hasn't figured
that out by now has been living in oblivion.

There is simply too much "wrong" with both of
them to support an objective stance of one being vastly "better" a
choice than the other. Hell, I've politely asked repeatedly and stated
plainly that if anyone could convince me that Obama is even half of what
is claimed, I'd vote for him.

LOL !! The day you vote for Obama I'll hop a train to Hamburg and
go on a date with The Loon.

All I've gotten is a bunch of partisan
crap, mostly anti-Bush or anti-GOP. So I'll repeat: Give me your sales
pitch on Obama - _on Obama_ - hell, you don't have to convince me he's
the second coming, the "real deal," or anything else, well, impossible,
just convince me he's even marginally the better candidate, and like I
said, he can have my vote.

Forget Obama. Look at the issues and decide who is going to assemble
the better administration to address those issues in ways with which
you can agree.

... I will say that I don't completely trust Obama's
motives, but McCain appears to have gone completely "pol." ...
What is that supposed to mean, you don't trust Obama's "motives" ?
Well, for one, he never answers a question, even easy, obvious ones,
just like a cut-rate, punk-ass Clinton. Of course, that alone doesn't
disqualify him from office IMO, but it means that I don't completely
trust him or his motives. I suspect, but am not 100% convinced, that he
nothing but a power-grasping little **** whose first and primary REAL
interest in all of this is Obama, goaded on by his bitch of a wife,
whose primary interest is herself...again, ala the Clintons.
Sounds like "Mississippi Code" to me.

If that's what you want to call it. Here's the translation:

Well, for one, he never answers a question, even easy, obvious ones,
just like a cut-rate, punk-ass Clinton. Of course, that alone doesn't
disqualify him from office IMO, but it means that I don't completely
trust him or his motives. I suspect, but am not 100% convinced, that he
nothing but a power-grasping little **** whose first and primary REAL
interest in all of this is Obama, goaded on by his bitch of a wife,
whose primary interest is herself...again, ala the Clintons.

Sounds like "Mississippi Code" to me.

--
Ken Fortenberry