The largely cosmetic election coverage thus far has led to a common dogma. The Republican front runners have different ideas and are varied on the issues, while the Democratic front runners are homogenous, their electability hinging on personality, not substance.
But this is lazy coverage. A very simply carousing of the candidate’s web sites and you can find many differences between Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Yes, for the sake of conversation I will still consider Edwards a front-runner.
In what I am calling 'Look! This campaign actually has substance', over the next couple posts I will take salient issues, outline the candidate’s stance on each, and highlight the differences between the three.
First up immigration.
At the risk of being called a liar, you will have to forget what I said above about differences in policy, the Democratic front-runners stances on immigration are quite similar.
Each plan stresses securing the boarders, brining people out of the shadows and protecting families, but none explains how these goals would be accomplished.
Edwards and Obama's plans mirror one another, while Clinton's is underdeveloped and gives very little insight into what she would do if elected.
All of the candidates want to strengthen the boarders, but Edwards is the only one who steps outside of ambiguities and offers some concreteness to his plan. Under his immigration reform plan, Edwards would double the number of boarder patrol agents, both Obama and Clinton say that securing the boarders is important but offer no insight into how they would accomplish such security.
Another aspect implicit in all three plans is a path to citizenship. Both Obama and Edwards want those here illegally to pay (a yet undetermined) fine, learn English and get in the back of the line and wait their turn to become US citizens. Clinton's only says that she opposes a guest worker program, which Edwards supports, but does not further elaborate.
Clinton does emphasize protecting families. In early 2007 she authored an amendment which would have allowed legal immigrants, with green cards, to bring their immediate families up from Mexico. The amendment capped the number of family members at 87,000.
Overall, the Democratic front-runners all have weak, ill-defined immigration policies high on rhetoric and low on numbers. Obama has the most developed policy, but that is not saying much-akin to being the skinniest kid at fat camp.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
Atheism: The electorate's last hurdle
A historic election. Two once seemingly insurmountable obstacles, being a women and being an African-American, now have taken their respective positions along side being a Catholic as once unelectable qualities.
These breakthroughs are evidence that the electorate can evolve and, indeed, expand its collective tolerances. But are there limits to this evolution?
As Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama struggle for the right to be called the first, there sits a particular quality that seems light years away from even being considered electable - atheism.
There are several politicians who consider themselves atheists, but Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) is the nations first member of Congress who has openly admitted his nontheism. Stark was outed by a constituent who entered his name into a contest sponsored by the Secular Coalition for America, which was looking for the highest elected official who considered themselves to be non-believers. For their effort, the constituent received $1,000.
Despite the efforts of Secular Coalition, Stark was the only one of 535 federal politicians forthright enough to admit that he had nontheist beliefs.
This reluctance of atheists to run for public office, or for politicians to admit their atheist views, is well founded. According to a recent gallup poll, less than half of the country said they would vote for an atheist candidate, even if they deemed that the person was well qualified otherwise.
This presents an interesting dichotomy. Over 70 percent of American's agree that their should be a separation of church and state, that's good. But, those same Americans refuse to elect a president who says that as commander-and-chief their decisions will not be influenced by religious underpinnings, confusing.
It is an interesting observation. People inherently want to claim that the church and state divide is a good thing, almost reactionary. But for many there appears to be a similar divide between what they practice and what they preach.
Because democracy is a function of free citizens electing public servants, the reluctance of these citizens to vote for an atheist president, in essence, takes a wrecking ball to the wall that has always, at least in theory, stood between religion and the state, thus creating a defacto collaboration between the two.
Noted atheist and apparent supporter of all things ironic, Ron Reagan, the son of former President Ronald Reagan, sums up the reaction that any openly atheist would receive if they were to run for president:
KING: Do you ever think of running for office?
REAGAN: No...
KING: You've got a pretty good name going in.
REAGAN: It seems to work for some people.
KING: Wouldn't hurt you.
REAGAN: No, I'm not really cut out to be a politician. You know that I sometimes don't know when to shut up. That could be a drawback. I'm an atheist. So there you go right there. I can't be elected to anything because polls all say that people won't elect an atheist.
The buzz surrounding the '08 election is that Washington is broken and this is the most important election of our lifetime. This is interesting. If our political system is so broke; corruption, waste, bathroom rendezvous, could it not be deduced that a system that elects only 'religious' men might be the problem? You would be hard pressed to find a voter who would not say that change is needed, again, reactionary. But what does real change mean? If the faithful screwed it up, why shouldn't the non-faithful at least be given a legitimate chance to help fix it? Whatever it is.
These breakthroughs are evidence that the electorate can evolve and, indeed, expand its collective tolerances. But are there limits to this evolution?
As Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama struggle for the right to be called the first, there sits a particular quality that seems light years away from even being considered electable - atheism.
There are several politicians who consider themselves atheists, but Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) is the nations first member of Congress who has openly admitted his nontheism. Stark was outed by a constituent who entered his name into a contest sponsored by the Secular Coalition for America, which was looking for the highest elected official who considered themselves to be non-believers. For their effort, the constituent received $1,000.
Despite the efforts of Secular Coalition, Stark was the only one of 535 federal politicians forthright enough to admit that he had nontheist beliefs.
This reluctance of atheists to run for public office, or for politicians to admit their atheist views, is well founded. According to a recent gallup poll, less than half of the country said they would vote for an atheist candidate, even if they deemed that the person was well qualified otherwise.
This presents an interesting dichotomy. Over 70 percent of American's agree that their should be a separation of church and state, that's good. But, those same Americans refuse to elect a president who says that as commander-and-chief their decisions will not be influenced by religious underpinnings, confusing.
It is an interesting observation. People inherently want to claim that the church and state divide is a good thing, almost reactionary. But for many there appears to be a similar divide between what they practice and what they preach.
Because democracy is a function of free citizens electing public servants, the reluctance of these citizens to vote for an atheist president, in essence, takes a wrecking ball to the wall that has always, at least in theory, stood between religion and the state, thus creating a defacto collaboration between the two.
Noted atheist and apparent supporter of all things ironic, Ron Reagan, the son of former President Ronald Reagan, sums up the reaction that any openly atheist would receive if they were to run for president:
KING: Do you ever think of running for office?
REAGAN: No...
KING: You've got a pretty good name going in.
REAGAN: It seems to work for some people.
KING: Wouldn't hurt you.
REAGAN: No, I'm not really cut out to be a politician. You know that I sometimes don't know when to shut up. That could be a drawback. I'm an atheist. So there you go right there. I can't be elected to anything because polls all say that people won't elect an atheist.
The buzz surrounding the '08 election is that Washington is broken and this is the most important election of our lifetime. This is interesting. If our political system is so broke; corruption, waste, bathroom rendezvous, could it not be deduced that a system that elects only 'religious' men might be the problem? You would be hard pressed to find a voter who would not say that change is needed, again, reactionary. But what does real change mean? If the faithful screwed it up, why shouldn't the non-faithful at least be given a legitimate chance to help fix it? Whatever it is.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
40 percent in Michigan support uncertainty over Clinton
So, evidently Hillary Clinton was not running by herself. Of the 592,798 Michigan Democrats who took part in the state's primary, 236,723 (40%) voted for uncommitted, rather than for Clinton. For an explanation of the Michigan primary and uncommitted voters go here.
This in many ways represents a defeat for Clinton. Not only did 40 percent of voters select uncommitted, essentially conceding the influence they have over their vote, but another 3,835 Michigan Democrats voted for Chris Dodd, a candidate no longer in the race.
This only furthers the argument that Clinton is unelectable. It has been stated and restated that in a general election 50 percent of voters said they would not vote for Clinton, but what does it mean when over 40 percent of Democrats wont?
Some speculate that Clinton's lead in Michigan was so large that had Obama and Edwards been on the ballot, Clinton would have still prevailed. Bill Ballenger, editor of Inside Michigan Politics, estimates that had the other two front-runners been on the ballot, 30 percent of the uncommitted vote would have gone to Obama and 10 percent to Edwards, still giving Clinton a comfortable lead.
But because no candidate, including Clinton, campaigned in the state, these numbers are speculative at best.
The 40 percent uncommitted is an impressive number, but in Clinton's defense, these numbers were probably inflated by the efforts of groups advocating the uncommitted vote and powerful state Democrats. Detroiters for Uncommitted and Michiganders for Uncommitted, both Obama backers, actively informed Michigan Democrats about their ability to vote uncommitted. And Rep. John Conyers, also an Obama supporter, urged voters to select uncommitted.
In the absence of a real Clinton campaign, these pseudo-Edwards and Obama campaigns really resonated with Michigan Democrats, thus 40 percent choose uncommitted.
However, despite this, the results in Michigan do represent a bit of egg on the face of the Clinton campaign, nothing earth shattering, but an embarrassment nonetheless.
A video put out by 'Mr. Uncommitted'
This in many ways represents a defeat for Clinton. Not only did 40 percent of voters select uncommitted, essentially conceding the influence they have over their vote, but another 3,835 Michigan Democrats voted for Chris Dodd, a candidate no longer in the race.
This only furthers the argument that Clinton is unelectable. It has been stated and restated that in a general election 50 percent of voters said they would not vote for Clinton, but what does it mean when over 40 percent of Democrats wont?
Some speculate that Clinton's lead in Michigan was so large that had Obama and Edwards been on the ballot, Clinton would have still prevailed. Bill Ballenger, editor of Inside Michigan Politics, estimates that had the other two front-runners been on the ballot, 30 percent of the uncommitted vote would have gone to Obama and 10 percent to Edwards, still giving Clinton a comfortable lead.
But because no candidate, including Clinton, campaigned in the state, these numbers are speculative at best.
The 40 percent uncommitted is an impressive number, but in Clinton's defense, these numbers were probably inflated by the efforts of groups advocating the uncommitted vote and powerful state Democrats. Detroiters for Uncommitted and Michiganders for Uncommitted, both Obama backers, actively informed Michigan Democrats about their ability to vote uncommitted. And Rep. John Conyers, also an Obama supporter, urged voters to select uncommitted.
In the absence of a real Clinton campaign, these pseudo-Edwards and Obama campaigns really resonated with Michigan Democrats, thus 40 percent choose uncommitted.
However, despite this, the results in Michigan do represent a bit of egg on the face of the Clinton campaign, nothing earth shattering, but an embarrassment nonetheless.
A video put out by 'Mr. Uncommitted'
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
A list of journalists who gave campaign cash
In July MSNBC compiled a list of journalists who donated to various political campaigns from 2004 through the first quarter of 2007. Overall, 147 reporters, editors, producers, critics and a plethora of others appeared on the list, contributing over $300,000.
Some have legitimate arguments that their contributions are justifiable. Food critics, health reporters, technology correspondents, travel columnists and other non-politics, non-news positions, do not seem as ominous when making appearances on political contribution lists.
But others are in blatant violation of journalisms code of objectivity, and they know it. When the Muskegon Chronicle's Terry Judd was confronted with questions regarding $1,900 given to the Democratic National Committee, between 2004 through 2006, and $2,000 given to John Kerry in March 2004, both under his name, he was blunt:
"You caught me," Judd said. "I guess I was just doing it on the side." Judd was a reporter and chief of the newspaper's Grand Haven bureau.
But what immediately jumps off the page is the fact that nearly 90 percent of contributors gave to candidates, organizations, or causes that favored Democratic canidates. Of the 147 listed, 132 contributed to Democrats, 13 contributed to Republicans and 2 contributed to both Democratic and Republican causes and candidates.
Although, many of those who contribute did not cover politics directly, it does give fodder to those who claim the media is a mouth piece of the left. Also of note, not one of the media members listed contributed to Independent canidates. Could this give insight into why smaller and independent canidates are often excluded from debates and find it very difficult to get any sort of press coverage?
Although, vastly outnumbered by journalists giving to Democrats, Republican media members gave more per capita. The average given to Republican canidates and causes was $7,850, while that number is $1,430.72 on the Democratic side.
Here is a breakdown of major broadcast and print organizations. Go here for the complete findings of the investigation.
On the broadcast side:
ABC: 3 contributors; $7,350
CBS: 5 contributors; $7,000
CNN: 1 contributor; $500
Fox News/affiliates: 4 contributors; $8,850
MSNBC: 1 contributor; $4,200
On the print side:
The Wall Street Journal: 3 contributors; $2,300
The New York Times: 3 contributors; $9,185
Los Angeles Times: 4 contributors; $5,250
New York Daily News: 2 contributors; $2,404
The Washington Post: 1 contribution; $250
The Chicago Trbune: 2 contributors; $2,200
Some have legitimate arguments that their contributions are justifiable. Food critics, health reporters, technology correspondents, travel columnists and other non-politics, non-news positions, do not seem as ominous when making appearances on political contribution lists.
But others are in blatant violation of journalisms code of objectivity, and they know it. When the Muskegon Chronicle's Terry Judd was confronted with questions regarding $1,900 given to the Democratic National Committee, between 2004 through 2006, and $2,000 given to John Kerry in March 2004, both under his name, he was blunt:
"You caught me," Judd said. "I guess I was just doing it on the side." Judd was a reporter and chief of the newspaper's Grand Haven bureau.
But what immediately jumps off the page is the fact that nearly 90 percent of contributors gave to candidates, organizations, or causes that favored Democratic canidates. Of the 147 listed, 132 contributed to Democrats, 13 contributed to Republicans and 2 contributed to both Democratic and Republican causes and candidates.
Although, many of those who contribute did not cover politics directly, it does give fodder to those who claim the media is a mouth piece of the left. Also of note, not one of the media members listed contributed to Independent canidates. Could this give insight into why smaller and independent canidates are often excluded from debates and find it very difficult to get any sort of press coverage?
Although, vastly outnumbered by journalists giving to Democrats, Republican media members gave more per capita. The average given to Republican canidates and causes was $7,850, while that number is $1,430.72 on the Democratic side.
Here is a breakdown of major broadcast and print organizations. Go here for the complete findings of the investigation.
On the broadcast side:
ABC: 3 contributors; $7,350
CBS: 5 contributors; $7,000
CNN: 1 contributor; $500
Fox News/affiliates: 4 contributors; $8,850
MSNBC: 1 contributor; $4,200
On the print side:
The Wall Street Journal: 3 contributors; $2,300
The New York Times: 3 contributors; $9,185
Los Angeles Times: 4 contributors; $5,250
New York Daily News: 2 contributors; $2,404
The Washington Post: 1 contribution; $250
The Chicago Trbune: 2 contributors; $2,200
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
How Michigan Democrats can best use their votes
When Michigan's Supreme Court decided it was alright for the state to hold its primaries on Jan. 15, the move was against party rules and the state paid for its sins. In response to the state's early primary, Republicans lost half their delegates, reducing their number to 30. While state Democrats lost all of their 157 delegates.
As a result, the only candidates on the ballot for the Democrats are: Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, uncommitted and write-in, an overwhelmingly unimpressive collection. Because of this, Michigan Democrats face some interesting questions. Should they stay home if their Democratic candidate is not on the ballot? Vote for another Democratic candidate? Or use their vote to help try and sway the Republican results in way favorable to Democrats?
Many speculate that Michigan's delegates will eventually be seated. But because of the uncertainty, the Michigan Democratic Party is encouraging state Democrats to vote uncommitted. An uncommitted vote sends delegates to the national convention which are not bound to support a specific candidate. Rep. John Conyers, an Obama supporter, has begun running radio ads telling Obama supporters to vote undecided. Both pro-Edwards and pro-Obama groups have been hitting the ground going door-to-door and promoting the undecided cause. Reminiscent of Richard Pryor in Brewster's Million..."Vote none of the above."
The two campaigns are gitty about uncommitted, because according to Michigan law if over 15 percent of voters statewide, or in any district, vote uncommitted, the corresponding percentage of delegates can back any candidate. Both campaigns are hoping that Michigan's delegates will be re-seated, thus giving them a chance to get Michigan delegates without spending anytime, or money, there.
The Michigan Democratic Party is also behind the uncommitted push.
But, is that's what is best for Democratic voters in Michigan? There is no assurance that an uncommitted delegate will vote for who you support. Would it not be better to cast your ballot for who you think is second best, Democrat or Republican (remember, its an open primary), and have some influence over the impact of your vote? Rather, Democrats in Michigan are asked to vote uncommitted, potentially creating a delegate that is in no way bound to the voters will, in essence, creating another super delegate. It actually seems like Edwards, Obama and MDP are advocating an option that is contrary to voter interest.
Another angle may also lurk here. If enough voters vote for uncommitted, rather than for Hillary, it could be seen as a victory for the Obama and Edwards campaigns. Voters throwing their vote away in place of voting for Clinton, yeah that's a win.
I can not tell anyone what to do with their vote, that is for them to decide. But one thing I would recommend is do not cast your vote based on what Obama, Edwards or MDP says, look at the ballot decide who you think is next best and control your vote. Or just vote uncommitted, whatever.
An informative, yet boring, explanation of Michigan's Democratic Primary by Democratic Committee Chair Mark Brewer:
As a result, the only candidates on the ballot for the Democrats are: Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, uncommitted and write-in, an overwhelmingly unimpressive collection. Because of this, Michigan Democrats face some interesting questions. Should they stay home if their Democratic candidate is not on the ballot? Vote for another Democratic candidate? Or use their vote to help try and sway the Republican results in way favorable to Democrats?
Many speculate that Michigan's delegates will eventually be seated. But because of the uncertainty, the Michigan Democratic Party is encouraging state Democrats to vote uncommitted. An uncommitted vote sends delegates to the national convention which are not bound to support a specific candidate. Rep. John Conyers, an Obama supporter, has begun running radio ads telling Obama supporters to vote undecided. Both pro-Edwards and pro-Obama groups have been hitting the ground going door-to-door and promoting the undecided cause. Reminiscent of Richard Pryor in Brewster's Million..."Vote none of the above."
The two campaigns are gitty about uncommitted, because according to Michigan law if over 15 percent of voters statewide, or in any district, vote uncommitted, the corresponding percentage of delegates can back any candidate. Both campaigns are hoping that Michigan's delegates will be re-seated, thus giving them a chance to get Michigan delegates without spending anytime, or money, there.
The Michigan Democratic Party is also behind the uncommitted push.
But, is that's what is best for Democratic voters in Michigan? There is no assurance that an uncommitted delegate will vote for who you support. Would it not be better to cast your ballot for who you think is second best, Democrat or Republican (remember, its an open primary), and have some influence over the impact of your vote? Rather, Democrats in Michigan are asked to vote uncommitted, potentially creating a delegate that is in no way bound to the voters will, in essence, creating another super delegate. It actually seems like Edwards, Obama and MDP are advocating an option that is contrary to voter interest.
Another angle may also lurk here. If enough voters vote for uncommitted, rather than for Hillary, it could be seen as a victory for the Obama and Edwards campaigns. Voters throwing their vote away in place of voting for Clinton, yeah that's a win.
I can not tell anyone what to do with their vote, that is for them to decide. But one thing I would recommend is do not cast your vote based on what Obama, Edwards or MDP says, look at the ballot decide who you think is next best and control your vote. Or just vote uncommitted, whatever.
An informative, yet boring, explanation of Michigan's Democratic Primary by Democratic Committee Chair Mark Brewer:
Ron Paul's suit fails to contain his crazy
In a twitchy, irritated interview yesterday with Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room, Ron Paul's suit had a difficult time containing his crazy.
Responding to racist, anti-gay and anti-Israel newsletters, published in his name, Paul admitted that he was not human. "Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea," proclaimed Paul in a stuttering, hyper-active style that has become all his own.
I am not writing to implicate Paul as a racist, I don’t know him, he may be a racist and he may not. What caught my eye is the response to the accusations, one that can only be classified as Paul-esque.
Paul goes on to explain that racism is a collective idea and as a Libertarian he sees everyone as an important individual, thus he is above any racist thoughts. This seems to imply that Libertarians, including himself, are not human. Are those who he refers to as Libertarians immune to the feelings the rest of us sometimes have? Now, I am sure that many Libertarians (like non-Libertarians) are pure of racist thought, but for Paul to make a blanket statement proclaiming their incompatibility with any racist notion is, well, crazy.
If the Texan were to get the nomination, Stephen Colbert would seem to be a perfect fit for VP. Colbert is fond of saying that he does not see color, he knows he is white, but only because people tell him. That sentiment would seem to meld nicely with Paul's belief that, "I am the most anti-racist because I don't see people in collective groups." A Paul/Colbert ticket could have the makings of one of the most open minded in our nation’s history (Read, sarcasm).
But in Paul's defense, he does cite Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks as two of his heroes, as if dropping the name of two civil rights icons sufficiently answers question regarding passages that describe car jacking as, "the hip-hop thing to do on the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."
While the content of Paul' statements are crazy in their own right, the way he articulated them was, lets just say, less than presidential. Paul has carved out a niche as the candidate who does not have to appear stoic, poised or presidential. His grassroots supporters respond well to his non-presidential approach that Paul has adopted in interviews and debates. But generally, this disjointed style has come across as maverick and populist, rather than crazy and crazy--as it did in the Blitzer interview.
Paul's campaign has been given lots of press because of his die hard supporters and his ability to organize fund raising days in which his supporters flood his campaign with contributions via the internet. In November, Paul received $4.3 million in one day and in December he surpassed that mark collecting $6 million. All told Paul raised $19 million in the fourth quarter, only Mitt Romney first quarter totals are better.
But despite being awash in funds, Paul has been unable to make his campaign legitimate. He finished fifth in all three early contests (Iowa, New Hampshire and Wyoming) and is polling sixth in Michigan and South Carolina, in both cases trailing the sleepy Fred Thompson.
Paul's over zealous, pro-constitution message has never truly caught on with anyone beside his die hard 'Paulies'. The surfacing of these racist newsletters and Paul's crazed rebuttal to them, seem to be the final nails in the Paul '08 coffin.
Take a gander.
Responding to racist, anti-gay and anti-Israel newsletters, published in his name, Paul admitted that he was not human. "Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea," proclaimed Paul in a stuttering, hyper-active style that has become all his own.
I am not writing to implicate Paul as a racist, I don’t know him, he may be a racist and he may not. What caught my eye is the response to the accusations, one that can only be classified as Paul-esque.
Paul goes on to explain that racism is a collective idea and as a Libertarian he sees everyone as an important individual, thus he is above any racist thoughts. This seems to imply that Libertarians, including himself, are not human. Are those who he refers to as Libertarians immune to the feelings the rest of us sometimes have? Now, I am sure that many Libertarians (like non-Libertarians) are pure of racist thought, but for Paul to make a blanket statement proclaiming their incompatibility with any racist notion is, well, crazy.
If the Texan were to get the nomination, Stephen Colbert would seem to be a perfect fit for VP. Colbert is fond of saying that he does not see color, he knows he is white, but only because people tell him. That sentiment would seem to meld nicely with Paul's belief that, "I am the most anti-racist because I don't see people in collective groups." A Paul/Colbert ticket could have the makings of one of the most open minded in our nation’s history (Read, sarcasm).
But in Paul's defense, he does cite Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks as two of his heroes, as if dropping the name of two civil rights icons sufficiently answers question regarding passages that describe car jacking as, "the hip-hop thing to do on the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."
While the content of Paul' statements are crazy in their own right, the way he articulated them was, lets just say, less than presidential. Paul has carved out a niche as the candidate who does not have to appear stoic, poised or presidential. His grassroots supporters respond well to his non-presidential approach that Paul has adopted in interviews and debates. But generally, this disjointed style has come across as maverick and populist, rather than crazy and crazy--as it did in the Blitzer interview.
Paul's campaign has been given lots of press because of his die hard supporters and his ability to organize fund raising days in which his supporters flood his campaign with contributions via the internet. In November, Paul received $4.3 million in one day and in December he surpassed that mark collecting $6 million. All told Paul raised $19 million in the fourth quarter, only Mitt Romney first quarter totals are better.
But despite being awash in funds, Paul has been unable to make his campaign legitimate. He finished fifth in all three early contests (Iowa, New Hampshire and Wyoming) and is polling sixth in Michigan and South Carolina, in both cases trailing the sleepy Fred Thompson.
Paul's over zealous, pro-constitution message has never truly caught on with anyone beside his die hard 'Paulies'. The surfacing of these racist newsletters and Paul's crazed rebuttal to them, seem to be the final nails in the Paul '08 coffin.
Take a gander.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)