Responding to the post about Clinton planting questions at a town hall, “Dirty Dennis” writes:

Tim,

I find your anger/disgust somewhat surprising. You think this is some new phenomenon? It’s been going on for as long as there’s been TV. Like Aggasi said, “Perception is everything.” Or some such thing.

Politics is a staged event. GOVERNMENT is a staged event. Everything is done according to the script. It’s how the game is played.

My point is that it’s a short and very slippery slope from what Hillary did to that staged FEMA presser a couple weeks back.

You bet I’m angry that the top Democrat in the field roped a young, idealistic college kid into her propaganda machine.

It’s not reasonable to expect candidates to free-ball every event. But politics is a hardball sport. Hillary’s team seems to want to reduce it to self-pitch softball.

Answering Why Ron Paul? with bullet-point elegance is Dlynne:

I am voting for Ron Paul, and here are some of the following reasons:

1. Paul voted against the war in Iraq. I was not in favor of the war in Iraq because I never did understand its connection to 9/11.

2. Paul supported the action in Afghanistan, insofar as capturing Bin Laden and destroying the terrorist camps. I supported the Afghanistan action and the capture of Bin Laden. I NEVER supported the idea that we were going to “build” Afghinstan into our idea of what it should be. [N]Either did Paul.

3. Paul wants to cut out all foreign aid AND close down all foreign bases. He will give the billions in savings back to the citizens who are paying for all this stuff, including me.

4. Paul will secure our borders, which is the ONLY way to thwart future terrorist attacks in our country. I am in favor of secure borders, and do not think that soldiers — stationed in Iraq — can protect our soil or citizens against the threat here at home.

5. He will cut out all unnecessary and redundant (need I say Homeland Security?) federal agencies.

6. He voted against the Patriot Act. I think he was the only Congressional member who actually read it. I am not in favor of the Patriot Act, and I am tired of my government trying to turn me into a wimp. I am not afraid, and see no reason to give up my rights as a U.S. citizen in order to feel secure. Surely, we are all made of stronger stuff than that.

By the way, I am pro-choice. But no candidate is going to meet my criteria 100%. Paul is willing to let states decide their own take on abortion, and I can live with that.

From Thread: Race Card Trumps Gender Card

Being both an African American and a woman, I am quite capable of identifing a victim appeal. I think Hillary was out of line to pull that one. Barack has done an outstanding job of standing on his own and not his race. Frankly there are a lot of Black folk that are angry at him BECAUSE he is not playing victim like they are used to.

Frankly, I wanted to support Hillary because I wanted to see a woman in the White House. I couldn’t justify it to my mind however, if she just continues the same path that we are on. She says that she is against George Bush, but her postures seem remarkably the same.

Barack is the best choice period. Not because he is a man, black, or a lawyer. It is because he makes sense.

I like a good debate so here goes day two of NA Daily vs. The Paul Patrol:

[Day one started here]

Reader Walker Pfost writes:

Mr. Dickinson…. The question to which we are all dying to hear an answer (and I hope I am not speaking out of turn when I refer to the Patrol as “we”) is: what evidence or sources can you cite that indicate that the failure of FEMA in New Orleans had anything to do with private organizations and individuals?

I could cite the many examples already given (on the popular post) of how these private organizations were on hand WAY before the federally-sponsored FEMA…

As for me, I believe in people. Ordinary people. I believe that ordinary people help other ordinary people. I believe that charities and philanthropies and churches and people are good, and will do good, and will not let the children starve, or the drowning anguish, or the homeless go naked. I believe this about ordinary, regular Joes who work long hours and drink beer and are worried about their teenage daughters. They do good things. For all of its virtues [and it does have some], the government is no replacement for the goodness of these people.

I’m right there with you in believing in the greatness and magnanimity of the American people. When I’ve run in to trouble on cross-country travels, it’s been average joes — not the highway patrol or any one else from the government — who’ve helped me out of a jam. America rocks.

But believing in people isn’t inconsistent with believing in government, and in particular in government’s role as a protector of last resort. There are things ordinary people aren’t equipped to do. Like model Class 5 hurricane damage. And pluck people off of their rooftops with helicopters. And reinforce levees. And implement evacuation plans. And rebuild a city flattened by weather of mass destruction.

It’s true that many individuals and some companies were better prepared to offer relief than our socalled first responders at FEMA. But why was that the case?

That’s where the dark metastasis of anti-government ideology that I’ve been talking about came into play. Under Republican leadership, FEMA was downgraded in the federal pecking order, staffed with cronies, and had its budget slashed.

In short: A formerly robust arm of the government with real power to save lives was degraded and gangrene-ized by small government ideologues. The government’s failures during Katrina, to my mind, are not an argument for smaller, more limited government, they’re the horrific side effect of such arguments implemented as policy.

Here’s the argument marshaled very succinctly at the time of the disaster by recently retired Massachusetts congressman Marty Meehan: (more…)

Reader Cory makes sense of Ron Paul’s platform to dismantle federal government.

Cory | 7/17/2007, 12:46 pm EST

I think the point is missed in Paul’s objections to various government departments. Aside from the IRS, a department created via the 16th amendment, all other departments are not created or specified in the Constitution.

Obvious to point out that at the time of creation, the Constitution would not see the need for Dept of Homeland Security (as the militia would serve that purpose), the Dept of Education, etc.

Unfortunately, the separation of Federalist and Republic (e.g.: state’s rights) has been lost on the American population. The advocating of dissolving various departments is NOT necessarily an argument against the function they presumably provide, or are supposed to. The argument is against the central and federal “one-size-fits-all” approach to problem domains….

Let the states, communities, and collectives determine the appropriate and meaningful manner in which these functions should be tailored and applied…

In the end, please actually read the constitution (Article X and Article V), the real text of the amendments, and the full Declaration of Independence. Perhaps follow it up with some Federalist papers research. Then come make your point.

From Reader “Jimmy Jazz” responding to the post  Haggard’s Unhappy Ending

Maybe this makes me a bad Christian, but I’m sorry, there’s a bit of satisfaction involved when a conservative, fundamentalist preacher gets caught mired in the same sleeze he condems on a regular basis.

Forget the gay angle for a minute: the man bought meth from a prostitute? I really don’t give a shit what gender said hooker happened to be, drugs and prostitution are wrong no matter what your religous beliefs.

Say the whole thing is being blown out of proportion if you want, but I’m sorry, I think it’s news when we find out the President is being called weekly by a methed-up john.

Responding to Matt Lauer’s persistent questions about waterboarding and torture, loyal reader and persistent critic Halzee writes:

I don’t give a rip if we take these terrorists and hook jumper cables to their nuts! If we can get answers out of these animals on what they have planned for us or where they hide out, then we do whatever it takes. Torture? What do you call showing prisoners on video with a gun to their head or chopping that head off? What do call dragging dead soldiers through the streets and then hanging them from a bridge for the world to see?

It was time to take off the gloves after the first attempt on the Trade Centers but our “all bark no bite” leader at the time chose to do nothing because that is what the Left does…NOTHING.

You Leftists are more concerned with not hurting feelings and being politically correct with people than protecting this country. How about the feelings of those families who still suffer from the loss of their family members on 9/11?

Bush is the right man for the job at the right time in our history. If Gore or Kerry were in office we would be trying to negotiate with these animals and Saddam would be sticking his nose in the air at us while laughing at yet another useless UN Resolution.

You keep spending all your energy on hating Bush while Bush continues to attack those spending all their energy hating us!

(Play nice in the comment thread. Seriously. I enjoy the fact that this blog attracts readers from both ends of the political spectrum. And Halzee certainly offers fodder for debate. But we’re all patriots here. Respect each other.)

Taking exception to my jab at Bill Richardson, for letting Ahnold beat him to the climate punch, reader “Enchanted Lander” writes

We should all tip our hats to California and the Governator on this one, but to be clear, New Mexico is making efforts to combat climate change. These include becoming the first state to put their money where their mouth is by joining the Chicago Climate Enchange (you have to buy credits if you don’t reduce emissions) and setting statewide greenhouse gas reduction goals.

California deserves credit, but don’t lump NM and Governor Richardson in with those who aren’t doing enough on climate change.