jmsatb5{at}aol.com wrote:
> On Dec 31 2007, 11:19 pm, Amy Guskin  wrote:
> 
>>>>On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:14:38 -0500, cmulder wrote
>>
>>(in article
>>):
>>
>>
>>>According to Wikipedia JMS has endorsed Ron Paul for President.
>>
>>>When did this happen?  Did he give the reasons he is supporting Ron
>>>Paul?
>>
>>>Ron Paul isn't my first choice (nor my last), but it still sounds a
>>>little strange to me. <<
>>
>>Since when can anything on Wikipedia be trusted as being accurate?
>>
>>Amy
> 
> 
> The entry is accurate.  I donated $2K to his campaign, in order to
> encourage a more moderate voice on the Iraq war.
> 
> Then I discovered that he wanted to overturn Roe vs. Wade and a lot of
> hard-won civil rights legislation.
> 
> So much for that.
> 
> jms
> 
I have to say that as much as I dislike the barrage of politicking going 
on (and I'm in California--can't imagine what it's like in Iowa or New 
Hampshire right now!), there is an upside to the length and depth of 
this campaign year.  When W was running, we were never able to get 
inside his mind (what there is of it)--all we ever got was "I've got a 
plan" or some such statement.  There wasn't enough scrutiny or time to 
get beyond the talking points. It's seems that in this cycle we are 
getting that--with enough debates (some would say it's too many; I 
disagree, but I think they're too short and still rely on soundbite 
answers), we are finally getting closer to the real views of the candidates.

In a previous environment, Mike Huckabee would be the darling of the 
GOP; now, however, we're finding out just how scary he can be 
(reinforcing the borders to keep *Pakistanis* out?  Please!).  Same with 
Ron Paul, as Joe's noted.  The sad news on Democratic side is that we 
are slowly beginning to find out more about Biden, Dodd, etc, but I 
think it's too late for it do them any good.

Blair
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32