joyfulchristian

The Pied Piper of Arkham Asylum

Now that, made me laugh. From a defense of Ron Paul. (Via Instapundit)

Vodkapundit » In Defense of Ron Paul

All that said, Paul has publicly praised — in his own, non-ghostwritten words — Martin Luther King, Jr and Mohammed Ali. And, again in his own words, Paul has denounced racism as “simply an ugly form of collectivism.” Now it’s no secret that you’ll find a lot of closeted (and not-so-closeted) racists in Paul’s legion of fans. Just check out the comments over here. But there are nutcases of every stripe attached to Team Paul. He’s like the pied piper of Arkham Asylum.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Number one reason to vote down Hillary

Justice Clinton. (Tremble in fear.) Via How Appealing.

Iowa

Well, Fred's still in it, but didn't fair as well as hoped. Obama spanked Hillary, which was somewhat fun. Ultimately, will Iowa mean anything? No idea.

Should a candiadate enjoy the process of running

Paul Marks thinks not (and I agree):

It is not even enough to have a long record of service, going back to Watergate and taking down a corrupt Governor of Tennessee in the 1970's. And having one of the most Conservative voting records in the United States Senate - before leaving it in disgust at how the system did not allow real reform.

No - someone has to enjoy the prospect for office for its own sake, not to reduce the size and scope of government and restore a Federal Republic. One must enjoy the whole process of politics - i.e. be crazy. Or one must pretend to enjoy it - i.e. be a liar.

And then people complain that politicians are either crazy or corrupt. When they shoo away anyone who comes along who is neither crazy or corrupt.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Joe Carter responds

Joe Carter has responded to my post from last night. I had a lengthy post going to reply, which I've lost. I may try again later, but I'm pretty disgusted with the whole process right now. Suffice to say, still not convinced.

Hey, wait a minute!

11 Iranian Special fources killed in Al Kut.

US and Iraq forces continue to target the Iranian-backed Special Groups in southern and central Iraq. The latest raid in Al Kut in Wasit province resulted in 11 Special Groups fighters killed, Multinational Forces Iraq reported. Al Kut, a logistical hub for the Special Groups and center of power for Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army, has seen an uptick in activity over the past two weeks.

But Ron Paul said they didn't have an Army? How can they be fighting in Iraq. This must be a neo-con plot!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Narrowing the field

So who do I support for the Republican nomination?

Well, let's look at the field. (This will not be a systematic look. Just my thoughts.)

John McCain- On the plus side, he's strong on defense. On the downside, he's John McCain. Yes, he's a war hero, and not the John Kerry kind who came home to bash the troops and whose heroics many doubt, but an honest to goodness POW and hero. Of course, he seems to think that qualifies him to be president, which is a dubious proposition.  But being McCain also means Campaign Finance "Reform", giving a group of "moderate" democrats an effective veto on many judicial nominations while Republicans held the Senate, and, of course, his ego which is roughly the size of Jupiter. The country can, and has, done far worse as Presidents go, but I can't support him for the nomination.

Rudy Giuliani - Strong on defense, although I've never seen any evidence that he's smart on defense. You might argue that this can be cured by choosing smart advisers in the area.  I might even fall for that if not for GWB. Bush's choice of Condoleeza Rice as his National Security Adviser and the Sec. of State should have given him a lot of strength. Instead, Rice seems to have been ensnared by the establishment and losing IQ points on a daily basis.  Again, we can, and have, done worse for President, but ultimately his support for abortion rights, gun bans, and his positions on gay rights make it hard for me to support him for the nomination. I'm not even sure I could vote for him in the general election.

Mike Huckabee - Joe Carter's efforts aside, I just can't take this man seriously. Putting aside for the moment that I'm afraid they may have permanently damaged Joe's ability to intelligently defend his positions (the quality of Joe's discourse has been in steady decline), there numerous reasons I have trouble supporting Huckabee. There's his approach to foreign policy which is truly naive, his dubious outside income while governor of Arkansas, (There may be a good explanation for all this, but I haven't heard it yet.) his misuse of religion, and from what I've read an inability to separate in his mind the difference between rejoicing over the changed lives of criminals and deciding to let them off the hook for their crimes. As far as I can tell, Mike Huckabee crosses the worst traits of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. That I happen to hold some of the same political positions as he does doesn't let him off the hook for this.

Duncan Hunter - Actually, most of what I know of Hunter from a policy position seems pretty good. I honestly don't know too much about him, but given his amoebic polling, I haven't seen much point in finding out more.

Ron Paul - The man believes that tucking our head in the sand will be enough to defend us from harm, and in fact, doesn't appear to believe there's much in the way of anyone actually wanting to do us harm. (Except for those evil North American Union Types.) His response every time someone asks him if he would fight a war under a specific set of circumstances is that he would, "if Congress declares war." He keeps falling back on the constitutionally true statement that "presidents can't declare war." The question is though, is there any war the man thinks is worth fighting? Would he ever ask Congress to declare war? As far as I can tell, not unless we were actually invaded and I'm not even sure he would then. The man is running for an office that would make him commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in the world but he doesn't seem to understand what armies are for. (Also, he apparently thinks our enemies don't have also raise armies, navies, etc.)

Mitt Romney- The candidate of THE ESTABLISHMENT^TM. Frankly, I don't care what Romney's positions are on anything. I don't believe the man can be trusted, so his positions are irrelevant. I feel slimy just thinking about him. Still, the country could, and has, done worse.

Fred Thompson - When National Review endorsed Mitt Romney, they essentially said that Fred Thompson was just as good on policy as Romney but lacked management experience and they didn't think he could win. The experience factor should not be discounted. It is the reason former governors almost always have an edge in these races. The personality and skill sets of those who have been governors are typically different from, and better suited than, those of legislators to fill the presidency. Still, that's not an end all analysis. From what I've seen, Fred shows a remarkable ability to know when to stand up and when to step aside and let others do the work. I think he'll do fine in that regard. My only real concern with Fred is his support for McCain-Feingold. Ultimately, though, he seems to be the best of the candidates on the issues overall, one of the few I would trust to truly defends us. (He understands we're in a WAR!)

Overall, gotta go Fred.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are apparently whisling "Dixie"

... or something.

The Washington Post has a piece entitled "Democrats Enter Stretch in Iowa." I guess none of the Republicans could be found campaigning that day?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Things that make you go hmm

This story got me thinking.

NewsChannel 5.com Nashville, Tennessee - Clinton's Tennessee Committee Renounces 2 Reported Members

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Hillary Clinton's 100-person Tennessee Steering Committee reportedly includes two people convicted of felonies in the 1980s.

According to The Tennessean, Gladys Crain of Halls was convicted in 1981 on federal charges connected with a scheme to rig bids on a state highway construction project, and former state House Majority Leader Tommy Burnett of Jamestown was imprisoned in 1984 for failure to file an income tax return.

While it's certainly easy to use this to take pot shots at Hillary, this bit about Burnett makes me curious. Failing to file a tax return, in itself, does not get you thrown in prison. If someone fails to file a return and the IRS believes they owe tax, they have alternative means for calculating your income and computing your tax. They will file a substitute return on your behalf and hit you with a tax bill.

So what did Burnett really do?

The first story I found wasn't much help on the original offense, but it turns out he was imprisoned more than once, "Burnett, who was convicted for failing to file an income tax return, was re-elected from his jail cell, but was later caught up in Operation Rocky Top federal corruption probe and went back to prison for another year on federal conspiracy and illegal gambling charges."

This is actually rather difficult to find, as it turns out. The stories popping to the top are all of the recent Hillary hitting variety and all basically say the same thing. This time line of Tennessee history mentions "income tax misdemeanors" but doesn't go into details. Slightly better is this story which mentions a "willful failure to file". "Willful failure to file" is another matter. Section 7203 lists the penalty for willful failure to file as a $25,000 fine and 1 year in prison. However, it doesn't really tell you what differentiates a failure to file from a "willful" failure.

At this point my curiosity has run out. It's clear that the conviction was for more than a "mere" failure to file, but how much more I don't know. If anyone knows more about what happened, feel free to leave it in the comments.

Powered by ScribeFire.

It's the power of her evil stare

Elect me and oil prices instantly drop, says Hillary Clinton in Iowa

MANCHESTER, N.H. - Hillary Clinton predicted Saturday that just electing her President will cut the price of oil. When the world hears her commitment at her inauguration about ending American dependence on foreign fuel, Clinton says, oil-pumping countries will lower prices to stifle America's incentive to develop alternative energy. "I predict to you, the oil-producing countries will drop the price of oil," Clinton said, speaking at the Manchester YWCA. "They will once again assume, once the cost pressure is off, Americans and our political process will recede."

So OPEC will be so scared of her that they will instantly drop their prices? Can she honestly believe this?

Powered by ScribeFire.

I like the guy

... but I didn't even know Tancredo was running.

Opponent of illegal immigration ends White House bid - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. Tom Tancredo abandoned his long-shot bid for the Republican presidential nomination Thursday and endorsed Mitt Romney's candidacy, saying the Massachusetts Republican "can go the distance."

Powered by ScribeFire.

One of the most serious accusations against Huckabee

Paul at Powerline argues that Huckabee's characterization of Bush foreign policy as a "bunker mentality" is not merely wrong on the merits, but evidence of a lack of serious thought on foreign policy matters. Given that Huckabee's statements were from an article on foreign policy published by the Council of Foreign Relations, this is a serious charge indeed.

I think he's right. I have yet to see anything from Huckabee that makes me think he's thought seriously on foreign policy. This from a man who wants to be President of the United States.


Technorati Tags: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/12/019292.php

Powered by ScribeFire.

So that's what threatened looks like

Frank J demonstrates to Ron Paul supporters what being scared of a candidate's chances really looks like.

Powered by ScribeFire.

National Review has chosen

The Editors on National Review Online

Many conservatives are finding it difficult to pick a presidential candidate. Each of the men running for the Republican nomination has strengths, and none has everything — all the traits, all the positions — we are looking for. Equally conservative analysts can reach, and have reached,different judgments in this matter. There are fine conservatives supporting each of these Republicans.

Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate.

I believe the last sentence I quote here is vital to understanding this. If you parse this article, you'll find that NR is not endorsing the candidate they think best advances conservative ideals. Instead, they went for a candidate that they think is a decent conservative and who also has a high chance of winning. In other words, they allowed odds to trump policy to trump policy.

In fact, the editors seem to admit that, from a policy perspective, Fred Thompson is as good or better:

Fred Thompson is as conservative as Romney, and has distinguished himself with serious proposals on Social Security, immigration, and defense. But Thompson has never run any large enterprise — and he has not run his campaign well, either. Conservatives were excited this spring to hear that he might enter the race, but have been disappointed by the reality. He has been fading in crucial early states. He has not yet passed the threshold test of establishing for voters that he truly wants to be president.

So, basically, Thompson would be be better (they note his policy proposals which, as far as I know, have been earlier, more frequent, and more detailed than any other Republican), but we don't think he could win.

Missing, of course, from their odds of winning calculus, is that we still have a very fluid race; If National Review had chosen to pick a candidate they thought was better on policy, they could have dramatically increased that candidates odds of winning. I've written before about the problems of choosing the electable candidate over the best candidate. National Review appears to be following poor precedent.

If they truly believe Romney to be the best conservative in the race, so be it. (If so, I think they're wrong, but that's another issue.) However, it looks more like they're following in the steps of many Democrats who dumped their first choice for John Kerry solely because they thought he could win.

Joe Carter, of course, attacks NR on totally different grounds. As part of the Huckabee campaign's public face, he of course, believes his guy would be a better choice. I find it curious, however, that he starts with this opening, "Has National Review jumped the shark?"

By so opening, he implies that NR has completely left their moorings and entered into fantasy land. While he doesn't quite go that far, the purpose of his post is in fact, to argue that their endorsement is a sign that they have far departed from their conservative roots.

I found Joe's response long on assertion and short on explanation. I must say, I'm somewhat disappointed. I've always been impressed by Joe's writing and reasoning skills. His affiliation with the Huckabee campaign seems to have hampered both.  My respect for Joe is great enough that his opinion would normally bear great weight with me. So far, however, he's not done or said anything to convince me that Huckabee isn't a poor choice.


Technorati Tags: http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004124.html

Powered by ScribeFire.

Best case scenario

Is that Huckabee was very careless

On CNN’s “The Situation Room” Wednesday, Mike Huckabee disavowed a contentious quote he provided in a lengthy New York Times Magazine profile published online, and said he never expected to see the remark in print.

However, both the article’s writer and editor have a different take.

In the article, Zev Chafets wrote that Huckabee, “in an innocent voice,” asked him, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”

Huckabee wants us to believe that he wasn't trying to attack Romney or address theological questions:

The Huckabee campaign stated on its website Wednesday morning that the “full context of the exchange makes it clear that Gov. Huckabee was illustrating his unwillingness to answer questions about Mormonism and to avoid addressing theological questions during this campaign.”

However, Huckabee himself characterized his question like this:

Huckabee went on to say that Chafets was telling him “things about the Mormon faith, because he frankly is fairly well-schooled on comparative religions. And so as a part of that conversation, I asked the question, because I had heard that, and I asked it not to create something — I never thought it would make the story.”

So, let me get this straight, we're supposed to understand that, in context, we'll understand that Huckabee wants to avoid discussing theology. However, by his own account, Huckabee asked a question of a reporter about the theological components of his opponents religion. Assuming we take him at his word that he just wanted to learn more about Mormon theology, how else could he possibly believed this question to be taken given the context? (This was an interview with a reporter in the height of the GOP primary.)

It would be best for Huckabee if he really did try to avoid theology during the campaign. Even if you are making valid theological points, the chances that the nuances involved will be picked up and correctly reported in the press are slim. There's very little chance even an innocent question about a difficult theological question will come out as anything good for you.

So, if we spin this the best possible way for Huckabee, he showed very poor judgment. However, I doubt his campaigns spin. I think it's far more likely, in context, that he was taking a cheap shot.

Powered by ScribeFire.

So would I

Mark Steyn on what he wants in a candidate:

Instead of a state church, Europe believes in the state as church — the all-powerful beneficent provider of cradle-to-grave welfare. “Freedom requires religion,” said Mitt Romney, and, whether or not one agrees, in Europe big government has led naturally to small religion — a point Governor Huckabee might want to ponder. I would rather we talked less about religion in America (which can take care of itself) and more about government, which seems to be trending in an alarmingly European direction, Democrats and Republicans disagreeing merely on the speed at which we’ll get there. Yet the two are explicitly connected. Europe’s religious decline derives in part from the state’s usurpation and annexation of so many of the other supporting structures of society, including the church. I am in favor of a free market in religion and a free market in housing, but right now I’d like a conservative candidate with a clear-headed commitment to both.

That would be nice.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Three cheers

CNN.com - CNN Political Ticker Thompson: Don’t let the government tell you what to eat «

"I'm telling you, I don’t think that it’s the primary responsibility of the federal government to tell you what to eat," Thompson said to applause when asked if his health care plan included any details on preventative care, a priority for Democratic candidates.

"The fact of the matter is we got an awful lot of knowledge,” said the former Tennesse senator. “Sometimes we don’t have a whole lot of will power, and I don’t know of any government program that's going to instill that."

Thompson, ever a fan of small government, said healthy living should be the responsibilities of families first.

You mean Fred wants us to responsible for our choices? What fun is that?

Powered by ScribeFire.

If there's substance to this

Huckabee should be toast.

Who knows, maybe Joe has an answer forthcoming.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The good thing about having a little known blog

... is that I don't have to deal with the barrage of Ron Paul supporters in comments like I'm seeing elsewhere.  We've got one Paulista at work, which is fine, except she just won't stop talking. And she's LOUD. Sometimes you can here her raving 4 rooms away.

It's going to be a long election cycle.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Joe's never going to convince me to vote Huckabee

... but he thinks people aren't being fair to him on tax increases. Just passing it along. I am curious why he doesn't link to more contemporary sources.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Harvey gets serious

IMAO: I Fear Ron Paul for the Same Reason Terrorists Don't

Any free or semi-free nation has the right (although not the duty) to invade any dictatorial slave state for the purpose of liberating it, or to extinguish a threat to the free nation's existence.

In 2001 we put the world on notice that they would either have to root out the terrorist organizations in their midsts, or we would do it for them. Ron Paul is against this policy, which is why I'm against Ron Paul.

Conversely, W is only moderately supportive of this policy, which is why I'm only moderately supportive of W.

Hopefully the next president will understand that the War on Terror doesn't just need to be fought, it needs to be won.

Harvey is right that Bush seems only moderately supportive of a policy that was initially dubbed, somewhat ironically in retrospect, the Bush Doctrine. Of course, as I just mentioned, when he pursues the policy, he tends to do it ineptly, so I'm not sure it matters that much.

Powered by ScribeFire.

If the Dems keep this up ...

Only about 4 states will end up with delegates.

VIENNA, Va. - Democratic leaders voted Saturday to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules.

In spite of the vote, some party leaders and officials said they believed the delegates would eventually be seated at the convention.

Michigan, with 156 delegates, has scheduled a Jan. 15 primary. Democratic Party rules prohibit states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina from holding nominating contests before Feb. 5. Florida was hit with a similar penalty in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.

Update; To be fair, the GOP has done this too. However, the Dems seem to be more invested in the whole process.

Heh

Paul Marks complains that CNN not only tried to rig the debate, but that they were so incompetent about it:

CNN people get paid a lot of money, and no one pays me anything to engage in media politics. Yet I could rig a debate much less crudely than they did. It would be easy - I would simply pick questions, from the thousands of suggestions, that would make the Republicans look bad. I would not pick Democrat activists to ask the questions, on the contrary I would pick Republicans or real independents. There is no need to present Democrats as Republicans or undecided people.

For example, on the Log Cabin (i.e. homosexual) Republican question - I would have picked a real Log Cabin Republican, not got an Obama supporter. Nor would I have got two John Edwards supporters in to pretend to be undecideds. And I certainly would not have got a person who is on two of Senator Clinton's committees to ask a "when did you stop beating your wife" question (about why the evil Republican candidates did not think American men and women in uniform "were not professional enough to work with gays") - and then given him a come back after the replies so that he could denounce the Republicans again.

It was just so crude, as were the "we did not know who these people were" lies afterwards. After all the "General" was not a random face on the internet - he had been carefully chosen and had been flown in. Why are the CNN people paid so much money, when then can not even rig a debate with any skill?

He's got a point.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The "electable" candidate

A lot of conservatives in the Republican party seem to think that the most important thing about primary season is finding a candidate who can beat Hillary. That's bull.

First of all, by the end of George Bush's presidency we will have had a Republican in office for 8 years. Of that time, we will have had Republican majorities in the Senate for a little over 4 years. (Would have been 6 if not for "Jumpin' Jim Jeffords") 6 of those 8 years we've held a majority in the House. Despite that, apart from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, I can't name any major policy concerns for which we've won conservative victories in all that time. Is that really worth it?

To be sure, George Bush showed a commitment to national defense we would never had gotten from Al Gore. However, you have to weigh that commitment against his absolute incompetence when it comes to prosecuting wars. Does anyone seriously doubt that the Bush administration gave short shrift to the idea of what we'd do with Iraq once we'd beaten their army? Further, is it not obvious that Bush should have cut Rumsfeld loose far before he did? I like Rumsfeld, but his approach to Iraq clearly wasn't working, yet he remained.

While I believed then, and still believe, invading Iraq was the right thing to do, both because it improved our security and it removed a ruthless dictator who had tormented his people for decades, we would have been far safer if the insurgents and al-Qaeda had been effectively combated 4 years ago instead of now. Things have been so poorly run that I'm not convinced we're that much better off security wise than we would have been with the Al-bot.

So, if we've had Republican control for this long and accomplished so little, why are conservatives ready to jump for Giuliani, Romney, et al who either firmly stand against many conservative values or who just discovered them when they got ready to run for office because we think their electable? If one of these jokers is elected, do we really think we'll make conservative gains while they're in office?

Winning with a candidate who doesn't really support your goals and values isn't likely to accomplish anything. It can even be a long-term negative because the public will still associate them with us. (We told them too.) They'll rightly wonder, if we failed last time, why should they give us another chance.

Besides all this, many Democrats chunked their personal preferences in the primaries for John Kerry because he was "electable". How'd that work out for them?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Bill Quick on CNN's travesty of a debate

Daily Pundit » Collapsing News Network

Maybe the GOP should just hold all their dog and pony shows debates on FOX. At least the Fox people might actually check into the backgrounds of those whose questions they front.

Actually, I think CNN does, too. In fact, I think CNN knew the background of everybody who asked a question in the debate. They just hoped - and still hope - that nobody ever finds out that they did know.

He's almost certainly right. They say you should never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence. I have trouble believing that, given the sheer numbers of leftists CNN pushed as "undecided Republicans", that incompetence can cover this.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Given the field, I have no doubt I'll vote for Fred Thompson in the primary

Sarah, consider yourself warned. I'm about to talk taxes. On the other hand, I'll also be talking Fred Thompson so roll the dice and make your choice. :)

However, I'm not sure what to make of his tax plan yet. The idea of an optional pseudo-flat tax system (it's being called a flat tax, but my understanding is that there are actually two rates plus a capital gains rate) with very few deductions is interesting.  However, unless this is a one time election, it won't make the tax system any less complicated.

If people have the option of using the simplified system every year, then it is in their best interest to calculate their tax under the regular method and the simplified system every year and pick which ever one comes out lower. If you go to a tax preparer, they'll do it for you. (Our software system is very capable of running this type of optimization.) A lot of the do-it yourself packages will be able to do the comparison too.  However, you'd still have to know enough about the regular system to get all the information together. Otherwise, you'll always be wondering if you could have paid less under the other system.

Thompson proposes eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax. I like this idea. The AMT is cumbersome and catches people unawares. It also tends to catch people who were never intended to have to pay the tax. (This was originally a tax aimed at insuring that the "rich" couldn't take so many credits and deductions that they'd pay no tax. Now it's hitting the middle class.)  But one of the problems with the AMT is that it requires taxpayers to calculate their tax twice under two different systems.

If the opt-in system isn't a one-shot deal, then you're still left with having to compute your tax liability twice. On the other hand, if it is a one-time shot, people are going to pay a lot of money to accountants to try to guess which way is best for them over their WHOLE LIVES.

Overall the idea is interesting, but I'd have to see a lot more information to be sure I liked it. If I see more and think of it, I'll let you know what I think.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Not too bad

USA has posted a candidate match game. It's better than some others I've seen because it allows you to weight the issues according to your priorities. Regardless of how I weight it, it keeps kicking up Romney, Thompson, and Duncan Hunter. No matter how I weight the issues though, it kicks up Romney ahead of Thompson. Since I know, for a fact, that I far prefer Thompson to Romney, I find that curious.

Powered by ScribeFire.

That about sums it up.

ScrappleFace — News Fairly Unbalanced. We Report. You Decipher.

The president noted that “the very fact that Sen. Clinton is now debating with rookie Sen. Barack Obama over who has more experience serving in an executive position, which neither senator has ever done, further demonstrates that among Democrats she’s seasoned, prime beef. As my friends in the ranching business say, ‘It’s what’s for dinner’.”

I love Scott Ott.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Not worthy of Joe

Joe Carter sets out to "rebut" an NRO editorial against Mike Huckabee. Unfortunately, he does no such thing.

With very little exception Joe's post amounts to attempting to show that Romney is worse on the same issues than Huckabee is. Apparently he believes if NRo won't speak out against Romney, who they support (although I'm not sure that support is as strong as Joe makes out), than they shouldn't criticize Huckabee either.

While Joe may be right abort Romney, he utterly fails in an attempt to defend his man. I like and respect Joe, so I found this all rather disappointing.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Did Hillary just rule herself out?

Clinton says economy needs experience

KNOXVILLE, Iowa - The economy needs help and fast, Hillary Rodham Clinton declared Monday, claiming the experience for the job and saying the nation can't afford to break in a newcomer.

And Hillary got experience helping the economy when?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sums it up for me, too

John Hawkins the field:

Out of the top tier candidates, without question, my favorite is Fred Thompson. In fact, after Fred, from my point of view, it's practically pick your poison -- strychnine, arsenic, belladonna, or ricin.

Yup.

Powered by ScribeFire.