Barack Obama or John McCain

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I was very impressed with McCain’s concession speech.

Yes, nothing about his campaign became him so much as his farewell. It was a grand concession speech without a false note anywhere. I got the distinct impression that McCain was not surprised by the voting, and, and not very upset either. He knew this was his last hurrah and he enjoyed the hell out of it.

[Craig Lamson]

Why should I be gracious? The US has just elected the slimest person ever to the White House, who promises to enact policies I find deplorable. We will rue this day for many years to come. America has spoken, and now we must live with the choice, however poor that choice may be. America youth don't know it yet but tonight they sold their future down the river.

I hope they enjoy the party for the next few weeks, cause it ain't gonna last.

Maybe you should try to explain in detail of how he is going to destroy the United States or otherwise people will dismiss your views as the rants of a right-wing bigot.

It is ironic that the Republican Party is now only really strong in the Deep South. LBJ was right in the short-term about how the passing of Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s would hurt the Democratic Party. However, in the long-term, it hurt the Republican Party.

In 1968 Robert Kennedy said the US would have a “Negro president” in 40 years. That was quite a forecast.

So after two years you STILL don't understand the policy differences ? And of course all you hard left wingers have already dismissed anyone who finds Obamas positions objectionable right wing bigots. So whats the point?

Edited November 5, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

So Craig how do you prefer your crow? I suggest you have yours stewed? Or perhaps it’s better you stuff it.

The RCP average of Obama by 7.6% was very close, according to ABC, CBS and CNN with 95% of the votes counted Obama lead by 5% but crunching the numbers the results were 52.45% to 46.55% or a 5.9% lead for Obama. Out of 51 “states” (including DC) they only erred in NC the one they projected to be closest, predicting McCain by 0.4% but he ended up losing there. Though the averages were a bit high for Obama compared to the final count nationally they were a bit low in several states. If we look at the 13 closest states we see that RCP’s projections were quite close, generally they underestimated the victor’s margin. (see chart below).

So your theory that polls favored the Democrats because they weighted by artificially high party ID for them has been shown to be false. I’ll tell you why your “proof” didn’t prove what you thought it did. I’m referring of course to the Mystery Pollster blog entries.

Yes I missed the ones where he said some polls do (or did) weigh by party ID, I was wrong about that, but whether that reflects worse on me for not having read them or on you for providing the wrong link I’ll let the others decide.

The first problem and no I didn’t notice this at first the entries were from 2004 and there is no guarantee such practices continued in 2008 unless you can cite other sources that indicate this is the case.

The second and perhaps more serious problem is that even in 2004 the polls didn’t weigh in the way you alleged. Several polls weighed by “rolling averages” taken over a few months, i.e. if the previous polls averaged 36% Democrat but the most recent found it to be 40%, respondents from that party would be weighed down by 10%. Zogby weighed by the previous presidential election (i.e. 2000), since party ID was tied in 2004 if Zogby had used the same approach this year the results would have artificially undercounted Democrats. Some polls combined the two approaches. The blogger made no mention of weight by artificially derived party ID.

The party ID numbers seem to have been accurate. McInturff (McCain’s pollster) said his candidate was running a few points ahead of party ID and most polls bore him out and this is what happened in most past presidential elections back at least to 1976. Obama won by 6% add 2 -3 points and you get 9%, the number polls average and the number whether you want to accept it or not that McInturff accepted in June

RCP averages vs. final results nationally and in the 13 closest states (a more legible version is attached)

State- RCP Split- Final result- Error

National- Obama + 7.6- Obama + 5.9 -Obama + 1.7

N. Carolina- McCain +0.4- Obama + 1-Obama – 1.5

Missouri- McCain +0.7- McCain +1- 0

Indiana- McCain +1.4- Obama + 1 -Obama – 0.5

Florida- Obama +1.8- Obama + 2- 0

Ohio- Obama +2.5 - Obama + 4-Obama – 1.5

Arizona- McCain +3.5 - McCain + 9-Obama + 5.5

Montana- McCain +3.8 - McCain + 5-Obama + 1

Georgia- McCain +4.0 - McCain + 7-Obama + 3

Virginia- Obama +4.4 - Obama + 5-Obama – 0.5

Colorado- Obama +5.5 - Obama + 7-Obama – 1.5

Nevada- Obama +6.8 - Obama + 12-Obama -0.5

Pennsylvania-Obama +7.3 - Obama + 11-Obama – 3.5

N. Mexico- Obama +7.3 - Obama + 15-Obama – 7.5

YOu just can't stop spinning can you mrgoogle. I've no problem to admit my opinon of the party id was not born out by the actual election results, Some you win and some you don't. Admitting it part of being an adult. YOU however simply cant admit your errors. I gave you the sources for polls weighting by party id... the polling companies themself. That you STILL refuse to deal with this simple fact speaks volumes. In fact is just the standard mrgoogle tactic. And that is why it is you who is still STUFFED. You spin about me giving you the wrong link is bs as well. I started you at the very beginning of the discussion, thnking maybe you mihgt actually be able to LEARN somthing. Instead in standard mrgoogle fashion you cut and paste the first few paragraphs you find and then claim victory. Stabdard mrgoogle stuff...suoerficial! Greatly diminishes any sense of victory you might feel because you STILL can't act in an intellectually honest manner.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Fox News just called OHIO for OBAMA.

Looks tough for Magoo, says their expert, Karl Rove, unless Magoo wins Hawaii

Not looking good for Magoo in Florida, either, as if that is going to matter.

End of the line for me Ray, congrats and god help the USA now....

I was very impressed with McCain’s concession speech.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/...008/7710025.stm

Maybe, Craig can summon the same kind of graciousness.

Why should I be gracious? The US has just elected the slimest person ever to the White House, who promises to enact policies I find deplorable. We will rue this day for many years to come. America has spoken, and now we must live with the choice, however poor that choice may be. America youth don't know it yet but tonight they sold their future down the river.

I hope they enjoy the party for the next few weeks, cause it ain't gonna last.

Being gracious is of course not in Craigs nature.

So Craig do you care to tell what is so slimey about Obama? The worst you could pin on him is that MAYBE he had a ghost written bio. But the evidence for that is quite weak unless yu think any Ivy Eductaed lawyer who grew up in Hawaii wasn't familier with the word balast or put faith in an authorship detection method rejected by numerous linguists. Even if true that puts him on the same scale as JFK and well, well below Bush II and Nixon.

Oh please mrgoogle, this one is weak, even for you. Anyone who has looked cloesly at Obama can see by his history, actions and deeds, the true measure of this man. Of course don't expect to find it in the MSM, given that Joe the Plumber was vetted to a higher degree than Obama. The data is there for those will to see.

I'm a bit busy today but I'll destroy your stuff on the ghost writing tomorrow.

[Craig Lamson]

Why should I be gracious? The US has just elected the slimest person ever to the White House, who promises to enact policies I find deplorable. We will rue this day for many years to come. America has spoken, and now we must live with the choice, however poor that choice may be. America youth don't know it yet but tonight they sold their future down the river.

I hope they enjoy the party for the next few weeks, cause it ain't gonna last.

Maybe you should try to explain in detail of how he is going to destroy the United States or otherwise people will dismiss your views as the rants of a right-wing bigot.

It is ironic that the Republican Party is now only really strong in the Deep South. LBJ was right in the short-term about how the passing of Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s would hurt the Democratic Party. However, in the long-term, it hurt the Republican Party.

In 1968 Robert Kennedy said the US would have a “Negro president” in 40 years. That was quite a forecast.

Here is what the left just bought...and why its a very sad day for the republic

THE "I WANT MY MOMMY" ELECTION

I brought this up several months ago ... a slogan for this election. "I want my mommy." The phrase really says it all. This is not an election where the American voters were looking for someone to protect their freedoms. Instead, it was an election where people were looking for someone to take care of them. Self-sufficiency seems a bit old-fashioned right now. Why work so hard to be self-sufficient when candidates are falling all over themselves to provide the American people with womb-to-tomb or, if you will, cradle-to-grave paternalism. The voters who put Barack Obama into office bear little resemblance to the people who fought for independence 124 years ago. Colonists fighting for our independence actually left their bloody footprints along the icy roads of New York and Pennsylvania while marching to engage the British troops. Today we can't even drum of a decent plurality of voters who will vote for liberty, let alone fight for it.

This has been a "what's in it for me" vote. Are you going to give me health care? Are you going to make sure my job is guaranteed? Are you going to cover my child care costs? You aren't going to make me pay taxes, are you? How about all those evil rich people? Aren't you going to take some of their money away from them and give it to me? After all ... I work for my money, they cheated and stole for theirs. Make them pay their fair share of taxes. Me? I'm tired of paying any share.

The big question for me today is whether or not freedom, economic liberty and self-sufficiency can make a comeback in America. Right now it seems that a dismaying number of Americans think that they are owed a living; that it is the government's job to guarantee their economic security. Can we ever turn that around and return to a time when people accept the responsibility for their own lives and eschew the idea of using government as a tool of legalized plunder?

Several times in the last few day's I've mentioned the concept of "The Tipping Point." I'm using that term in the context of voting and taxpaying. Right now we are at the point where about 43% of American income earners pay absolutely NO income tax. I've been saying for years that if the Democrats ever gain absolute control in Washington we're going to see that percentage climb ... climb to over 50%. That's the tipping point. Imagine a political campaign where the majority of voters do not pay income taxes. Imagine a campaign where the majority of voters actually get a check from the government instead of writing a check to the government. Can you hear the Democrat campaign themes then? "Vote for the Republcians and they're going to make you pay income taxes."

In fact ... I've already developed the Democrat campaign themes for the next several presidential elections:

2012: "Vote for the Republicans and they're going to make you pay income taxes."

2016: "Vote for the Republicans and they're going to make you pay your own Social Security and Medicare taxes."

2020: "Vote for the Republicans and they're going to make you pay for your own health care."

2024: "Vote for the Republicans and they're going to make you pay for your own place to live."

Here we are my friends. We're at the point where virtually every voter out there understands that they can use their ballot as an instrument of plunder. For those of you who went to government schools, that means they can use their vote to take money away from other citizens. That would be the difference between a Democracy (rule of man) and a Republic (rule of law).

BUT WAS IT A MANDATE?

One thing you can say is that Barack Obama didn't necessarily get the landslide. Yes, he has the momentum. But liberals were expecting for him to knock this one out of the park FDR-style. The popular vote was close - 51.3 percent to 47.5 percent.

THE DEMOCRAT GAINS

It is still hard to tell for sure the full extent of the damage in the Congress. But it basically went as expected. The Democrats won't get their magical 60 seats in the Senate, but they will have enough. Already with a majority in the Senate, Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and John Sununu of New Hampshire lost their seats to Democrats. Also, Virginia and New Mexico picked up seats from retiring GOP Senators. Some races (like in Minnesota) are still too close to call.

In the House, the Democrats were able to knock out at least 12 Republicans so far and gain 9 open GOP seats. There were a few Republicans who were able to win over Democrat incumbents (four, to be exact). But a lot of these races are still going. The last we heard, Democrats had over 250 seats in the House and at this rate, they are expected to gain 20 seats in total. That would put their somewhere around 255 seats.

Oh and let's not even get started on Governor's races.

AT LEAST GEORGIA GOT IT RIGHT

It appears that Saxby Chambliss got his majority over that anti-FairTax xxxx Jim Martin. This is one victory I am really glad the Democrats cannot claim today. Imagine how much damage could have been done with this Jim Martin adding to their 57+ Democrat majority.

WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK FORWARD TO

The end of the secret ballot in union elections A return of the Fairness Doctrine A tax code punishing the wealthy, businesses, entrepreneurs, achievers More federal government in government schools Universal healthcare Cap-and-trade policies on coal (no nuclear power, no drilling) Supreme Court justices who favor a vaporous idea of "fairness" over the Constitution The security of our nation and our allies (particularly Israel)

So now it's all up to the Democrats ..... it is there turn to prove that they can somehow tax the achievers, increase spending programs and still get federal spending under control. Isn't that what the people want? Change? Oh, that's right. The people forgot to ask what exactly we were going to be changing to.

IMAGINE THE DISAPPOINTMENT

I keep thinking about that foolish woman at the Obama rally who said that with a Barack Obama presidency she "wouldn't have to worry about putting gas in her car and wouldn't have to worry about paying her mortgage." There are so many like her – people who sincerely believe that an Obama presidency is going to be a substitute for work. Give these people about six months and they're going to be wondering what happened ... where their gravy train went ... why they're still having to work for a living.

INTEMPERATE ELECTION THOUGHTS

If you don't think that the dumbing-down of America through government education had anything to do with Obama's victory, then you ought to be sentenced to reading some of the comments from Obama supporters we've received. You would soon be of a different opinion.

Get ready for retroactive tax increases. When the Democrats begin their punishment of achievement you can bet that that they'll make any tax increase on the high achievers retroactive to January 1, 2009.

An idea for small business owners: Make note now of which of your employees voted for Obama. When the tax increases hit and you're looking for a way to cut expenses to offset the higher taxes, they should be the first to go. They voted for it, let them suffer the consequences.

Did you see those black militants at the Philadelphia polling places? There they were in the black berets brandishing nightsticks guarding the entrance to the polling location. Not much screaming over that. But ... what it if had been skinheads "guarding" the entrance to a predominately white polling place. Yeah .. just imagine the reaction to that for a moment.

I wonder what percentage of the vote can be attributed to the media's fawning over The Chosen One? Not only do Republicans have to fight to win the hearts and minds of Americans again .. but they have to battle the media as well. Nothing there will change. One commentator last night said that Obama will scratch their stomachs every once in a while and they'll roll over like puppies.

While we're on that topic, you cannot imagine the number of "Wait until Barack Obama is President, and see what happens to you" emails we've received here at the Boortz show. We generally chose not to comment on or post them ... but they were there nonetheless – in large numbers. I cannot remember a previous election where a candidate was wielded as a weapon like this.

Do you realize that way back yonder at the founding of our Republic the word "Democrat" was an epithet? Back then if you called someone a Democrat you might well be challenged to a duel --- or just get the snot knocked out of you. In the late 1700s a Democrat was "someone who panders to the whims of the masses." Not much has changed insofar as the definition has changed ... but now we elect them.

Rhetorical ability is so very important in politics. Obama has it, McCain does not. Smooth talkers win at single's bars and in politics .. often with similar outcomes for the listener.

I wonder how many people voted their jobs away yesterday?

Looking ahead to 2012? Unless someone better shows up, Huckabee is my choice on the Republican side. As for the Libertarian ... well, I have a favorite choice, but don't know if he'll run, let alone if he could win the nomination. A lot of peace-at-any-price Libertarians aren't too fond of him.

I still remember in the days after the Republican voter revolution of 1994 when I heard a talk radio colleague telling listeners that liberals are finished .. done. The suggestion was made that we should save a few liberals and put them on display just so we can remember what they were like. "Yeah," I thought. "Don't kid yourself. They'll be back with a vengeance.. looking for conservative blood." Hellllooooooooo!

Here in Georgia Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss won reelection. He defeated a Democrat weasel who told voters that "Saxby Chambliss wants to add a 23% sales tax to everything you buy." You see .. there is something to smile about today.

WHERE DO REPUBLICANS GO FROM HERE

What is clear is that the Republican Party has failed on so many levels. I'm not talking about John McCain, I'm talking about the Republican Party. A party that was supposed to reflect the Conservative values of limited government, fiscal restraint, among others, got completely drunk with power. Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed.

Republicans also failed to communicate a message that people could understand. Only in the last days, when Joe the Plumber arrived, did a light bulb flicker. But it shouldn't have taken one man in Ohio to do it. John McCain should have spent months hammering Obama's Marxist tendencies -- his 95% tax cut lies -- his cutting capital gains for small businesses. As a party Republicans failed to rally a base that reflected its core values. Maybe that is because those core values no longer exist for the Republicans in power. Just take a look at the past eight years. But somehow, before the next election, they must figure out which direction they want to take their party, and they must believe it, market it, and most importantly – live up to it.

If the Republicans don't learn from this, that is their own fault. They created Barack Obama. They created a Congressional Democrat majority. But they also have the power to re-create their party. Some pundits are worried that this "new direction" will be more socially Conservative. Perhaps that's exactly what we need! My preference would be to see a move back to basic principles of individualism, freedom, economic liberty, self sufficiency and pride in our Country ... with a highlight on individualism. Barack Obama is merely a continuation of the leftist war against the concept of the individual. Democrats look at us as tools ... tools to be used to create some sort of an egalitarian society. Can the Republicans make this point to the voters? Hint: Republicans need to look to the Libertarian Party for some ideas on how to promote the idea of individualism and fight the concept of the individual as government property.

NEW VOTERS

And there is no doubt that "new voters" turned out in this election. When they say "new voters" they are talking about people who have never voted in an election before. And of these new voters, 6 out of every 10 were under the age of 30 years old. So we are talking about the college kids and those people who have barely begun to formulate a mature thought about politics ... I know, I am going to catch hell for that ... "but not ALL college kids!"

My point is that these young voters turned out for Barack Obama in numbers close to 70% in some states. They came out to vote for their American Idol/MTV candidate. And these people are the future of this country. Maybe they will one day realize the repercussions of putting a Marxist in the White House when they try to open their own business. Maybe they'll look back and think "Gawd, how could I have been so ignorant? How could I have bought into this "change" rhetoric?" They will get what they voted for, and you can thank government schools, by the way.

I've been doing talk radio for almost 40 years. This is my 10th presidential election as a talk show host. A lot of younger listeners – the type who voted for Obama, I suspect – love to send me emails making fun of my age. The "hey old man" messages come now with regularity. Well .. tell you what. It's not my future that has been endangered by this election. I don't have to worry about the MoveOn Democrat party robbing me of my opportunity to make a good life for myself and my family. Been there, done that. Some of you younger voters might want to stop and take a moment to think about your own future though. Many of you will succumb to government paternalism and do just enough to get by ... collecting your "tax break" checks from the government and making sure that those checks never go away by keeping the Democrats in power. Some of you, though, are going to become ambitious. You're going to experience the desire to work hard, to work smart, and to go the extra mile. When you do you're going to find the government there ready to stand in your way and, if you manage to succeed, rob you of the fruits of your labor.

I have a friend who's daughter received her first paycheck a few weeks ago .. a check for one day's work as a substitute teacher. Now remember ... we're talking teacher here ... as in government schools. She earned $60 dollars for that one day's work ... but the check was for $52. She was shocked. "But dad!" she said, "They told me I was going to make sixty dollars!"

Hey, lady. You ain't seen nuthin' yet.

THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

Making the rounds on Election Day, Senator Chuck Schumer reiterated his support for the Fairness Doctrine. He says he supports it because all people should support coverage that is "fair and balanced." He said, "The very same people who don't want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air. I am for that... But you can't say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That's not consistent."

Okay, folks. I know that you are tired of hearing about this. And this may not be something that Barack Obama champions, but the fact is that there is huge momentum for House Democrats right now. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (a close friend of Obama) says that it is time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein has stated her strong support for the Fairness Doctrine. My point is that these Democrats in Congress could get greedy. They could feel like they have a mandate of the people and push for legislation like this.

A 'LESS ARROGANT' AMERICA

Not sure if you caught some of the world's reaction to an Obama presidency. I kept hearing this line about America being "less arrogant" with Obama in the White House. I can only assume that by "less arrogant" they mean that Obama will fail to put his country and its citizens first. That he would be willing to talk with directly with nations that have called for the destruction of our allies. That he would be absolutely against the Bush Doctrine of preemptive strike. That he would pull our troops out of Iraq in defeat, because it would look good to the rest of the world. I guess there is nothing arrogant, to the outside world, about a man who wants to punish success in his own country so that every can be more "equal."

Obama using the words "less arrogant?" Amazing.

PALIN 2012?

One of the rumors circulating has been the fact that Sarah Palin has no intentions of leaving the national political stage, and that she would be a top contender for 2012. At that rate she would have been a mayor, a governor, and a vice presidential nominee ... but for Democrats, I'm sure that will not be enough experience for Palin to be considered. A lot can happen in four years. Heck, we've learned in this election that a lot can happen in just days. It wasn't but a few weeks ago that Joe the Plumber entered the scene. But the Republican Party has a lot of work to do before it can even think of another election.

http://boortz.com/nuze/200811/11052008.html

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I brought this up several months ago ... a slogan for this election. "I want my mommy."

That's what Republicans are whining this glorious morning, they want their Momma.

Get used to it guys, Obama is yo' momma.

[Craig Lamson]

I brought this up several months ago ... a slogan for this election. "I want my mommy."

That's what Republicans are whining this glorious morning, they want their Momma.

Get used to it guys, Obama is yo' momma.

No problem Ray, I'll live with it and now zero gets all the blame.....

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

No problem Ray, .... now zero gets all the blame.....

Perhaps Craig you might want to wait until he has been in power for a few days before you start playing the blame game.

[William Kelly]

I brought this up several months ago ... a slogan for this election. "I want my mommy."

That's what Republicans are whining this glorious morning, they want their Momma.

Get used to it guys, Obama is yo' momma.

No problem Ray, I'll live with it and now zero gets all the blame.....

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Of course Craig can't blame anybody for this turn of events except George W. Bush.

BK

[Len Colby]

YOu just can't stop spinning can you mrgoogle. I've no problem to admit my opinon of the party id was not born out by the actual election results,

Of course you don’t have much option other than to admit error

Some you win and some you don't. Admitting it part of being an adult. YOU however simply cant admit your errors.

I admitted that I was wrong about polls weighing for party ID and wrong about McInturff disputing party ID gap over 7% days before the elelction.

I gave you the sources for polls weighting by party id... the polling companies themself. That you STILL refuse to deal with this simple fact speaks volumes.

All polls or most at least ask voters about their party ID, only some of them used it for weighing. Until you posted the link to the “Mystery Pollster” blog you failed to produce any evidence it was used in weighing, even then you posted a link to the wrong essay (or wrong part of the essay if you prefer).

And speaking of failure to admit error Mark Blumenthal (aka the Mystery Pollster) never said polls were weighed for party ID in the manner you alleged. Nor were you able offer an explanation as to why if party ID was so wrong Fox had numbers comparable with other polling groups. Even McIntuff accepted 9% in June and only days before election indicated he thought it had been under 8%. McCain’s pollster never claimed polls were off because of party ID weight rather he challenged the reliability of polls based on their party ID.

You wrote, ““The dim/rep/indie ratios are PRE-DETIRMINED before the pollster makes the first call. They throw the respondents so the results FIT their "special sauce" weighting. The answers you see in the question ARE A DIRECT RESULT of the oversampling of dims...as preplanned by the pollster prior to the start of the poll. Sheesh mrgoolge”

That was only half true at best because

1) only some polls weigh by party ID, and

2) the way weighing is done wouldn’t oversample Democrats if anything, since some base their weighing on previous elections, they would undersample them. Polls that only weigh by average party ID over a several month period won’t shift the sample over the lon term and any shifts from poll to poll would be party neutral.

In fact is just the standard mrgoogle tactic. And that is why it is you who is still STUFFED. You spin about me giving you the wrong link is bs as well.

You did give the wrong link. Normally when people give links they quote at least a snippet of the appropriate passage or link to a short page. I don’t think any one but you would think they provided proper citation for a claim when the info is found in parts 2 – 4 of a lengthy essay and they provided a link to part 1.

I started you at the very beginning of the discussion, thnking maybe you mihgt actually be able to LEARN somthing. Instead in standard mrgoogle fashion you cut and paste the first few paragraphs you find and then claim victory. Stabdard mrgoogle stuff...suoerficial! Greatly diminishes any sense of victory you might feel because you STILL can't act in an intellectually honest manner.

You can call it superficial if you wish but ultimately I was correct and you ultimately were wrong. That is why you could only find sources that back parts of your theory. No one that you turned said that any polls weighed by party ID in a way that artificially increased Democrats.

To John in another post

And of course all you hard left wingers have already dismissed anyone who finds Obamas positions objectionable right wing bigots. So whats the point?

Perhaps it is your inability to coherently explain in your own words why exactly you find him so abhorrent. A long rant from a far-right nut claiming Obama has Marxist tendencies doesn't count.

[Len Colby]

I'm a bit busy today but I'll destroy your stuff on the ghost writing tomorrow.

A bit over due aren’t we?

[John Simkin]

I'm a bit busy today but I'll destroy your stuff on the ghost writing tomorrow.

A bit over due aren’t we?

I would also like Craig's views on the future of the Republican Party.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13655

I expect Craig is busy selling his Halliburton shares.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I would also like Craig's views on the future of the Republican Party.

Craig thinks that the Grand Old Party has a great future behind it!

[Craig Lamson]

I'm a bit busy today but I'll destroy your stuff on the ghost writing tomorrow.

A bit over due aren’t we?

What the problem? You in a hurry to get spanked?

I was scheduled to be in Georgia today for a two day shoot.

The product I was to shoot was completed early, so I drove to GA on Thursday. I returned late last night. I have 30 images files to process, retouch and deliver.

When I'm finished I'll get around to you, mrsuperficial.

[Craig Lamson]

I'm a bit busy today but I'll destroy your stuff on the ghost writing tomorrow.

A bit over due aren’t we?

I would also like Craig's views on the future of the Republican Party.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13655

I expect Craig is busy selling his Halliburton shares.

No worries about the Republicans John, things swing right and then swing left, then back again and so forth. They will return to power in due course. Its the dims turn to muck things up and I'm sure they will do just that.