HI DAn,

On Thu 2037-May-07 16:48, Dan Ceppa (1:138/666) wrote to Richard Webb:

 RW> THat was pretty obvious.  McCAin wanted it too bad, and had
 RW> to know that choosing something like that was a real shot in the foot
 RW> with large caliber ammo. 

DC> Too bad the McCain of 2000 wasn't in the race.  He helped in in his 
DC> own laming.  

I hadn't learned as much about McCain in 2k and would have
marked my ballot for him that year.  I wasn't too sure at
the time Al was ready for the big gig in the sky yet and
McCain looked like the man to me, but then Bush got the nod
from the party by pandering to the right, which I figured
was gonna happen.  tHen McCain was somewhere on my radar
though and I began paying more attention to him, and
suddenly realized this wasn't what was presented to me in
2000 after all.

HE had to accept something like a SArah though, because
otherwise he wasn't pallatable enough to the wingnuts.  but, they still
didn't have enough real muscle behind 'em yet to
get Huckabee or RUdy, and almost nobody could take ROmney
seriously.  McCain was their better bad choice and they knew it, but then
there was the task of selling him to the
religious right, a tough sell as he's lukewarm on the
subject and comes off that way.  HE doesn't even pretend
real well.  HEnce, Sarah.

 DC> Goldwater is down right progressive compared to today's wingers.   

 RW> But still a true conservative.  YOu don't spend what you
 RW> ain't got, you study your move before you make it, and you

DC> There are times you have to.  Not a good example, but look at W's
DC> war.  Look also at a budget surplus under a Dem turned into a  major
DC> deficit.  

Barry I think would have studied that long and hard before
committing troops.  Barry was an intelligent person whom I'd be glad to
vote for even today.

 RW> themselves in the foot.  Big government and the nanny state
 RW> is still not the solution.
DC>  
 DC> Yet, the hands off attitude of libertarians play into wingers'
 DC> hands.   

 RW> BUt that's just where I want the hands of the state, off.
 RW> The libertarians are consistent in that.  education and self reliance
 RW> are most important.  WHEther I"m screwed by big business and religious
 RW> politics as usual or the nanny state it makes no difference, I"m still
 RW> screwed. 

DC> Run right, only the gvt will stand up for the little guy.  


But in the last 30 years they haven't been doing the job,
and can't do the job, no matter which party you put in
there, so long as they're coopted by big business.  Hands
off means that the playing field is leveled, and the rules
don't penalize the little guy at the expense of the big
operator.  He can then use the same tactics the big operator does,
ethically questionable or not.  As your tagline says,
either less corruption or a chance to participate .


LEss time and effort peering into bedroom windows and
hassling a man for sittin' on the porch smokin' a joint,
especially if we're spending less time making sure that big
oil cleans up its mess, etc.


DC> ... 4th Amendment search warrant - It's not a Discover Card! ---

depends on whom its against.  LEt them come busting your
door down at 4:00 A.M. because there's a reported drug
dealer lives there, and they've got the wrong house.  AT
that point you have no fourth amendment rights.
IT's carte blanche.

NOW, if you're Ollie NOrth, and you're shredding important
documents you can keep on keepin' on right in front of the
chief law enforcement dude of the United STates.


Regards,
           Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+