Obama and Republican Crossovers

Not since the days of Ronald Reagan have you seen or heard of so many people that will cross party politics to vote for the opposing political parties candidate. Even on talk radio there are many die hard Republicans that are running for the Democrat side of the possible ticket if McCain wins the Republican nomination for President. What’s intriguing is that they would vote for Barack Obama over McCain if that was the choice they had to face at the voting booth.

Republican’s are suffering from the same malaise today that Democrat’s faced in the campaign of Jimmy Carter versus Ronald Reagan. Our entire nation was in a state of depression over the economic status in our lives and the message the Republican Party of hope, unity, and an America that could be proud once more steam rolled with Democrat voters its nominee Ronald Reagan into the White House.

Barack Obama is not stealing from the Reagan playbook for this election and does not need too. He has the message of change and a better America for all of our people that you can actually believe when he tells you that change is coming to America. That is something Hillary or the rest of the Republican’s running in the race for President of the United States that can not converse to the people. Words are easy to speak but the speaker or candidate actually has to believe that change is possible.

Over at Newsweek they have this on the flood of Republican’s for Obama…

Barack + GOP = ‘Obamacans’
Some prominent Republicans have caught Obama fever.
By Richard Wolffe Newsweek Web Exclusive
Feb 1, 2008 Updated: 7:02 p.m. ET Feb 1, 2008

Susan Eisenhower is more than just another disappointed Republican. She is also Ike’s granddaughter and a dedicated member of the party who has urged her fellow Republicans in the past to stick with the GOP. But now Eisenhower, who runs an international consulting firm, is endorsing Barack Obama. She has no plans to officially leave the Republican Party. But in Eisenhower’s view, Obama is the only candidate who can build a national consensus on the issues most important to her—energy, global warming, an aging population and America’s standing in the world.“Barack Obama will really be in a singular position to attract moderate Republicans,” she told NEWSWEEK. “I wanted to do what many people did for my grandfather in 1952. He was hugely aided in his quest for the presidency by Democrats for Eisenhower. There’s a long and fine tradition of crossover voters.”

Eisenhower is one of a small but symbolically powerful group of what Obama recently called “Obamacans”—disaffected Republicans who have drifted away from their party just as Eisenhower Democrats did and, more recently, Reagan Democrats in the 1980s. They include lifelong Republican Tricia Moseley, a former staffer for the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, the one-time segregationist from South Carolina. Now a high-school teacher, Moseley says she was attracted to Obama’s positions on education and the economy.

Former GOP congressman Joe Scarborough, who anchors MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” says many conservative friends—including Bush officials and evangelical Christians—sent him enthusiastic e-mails after seeing Obama’s post-election speeches in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. “He doesn’t attack Republicans, he doesn’t attack whites and he never seems to draw these dividing lines that Bill Clinton [does],” Scarborough told NEWSWEEK. - Newsweek

One thing is certain and that is the fact that Barack Obama does not need to attack anyone from any political party when our nation is faced with so many problems. Selling the possibility of hope and change is not easily spoken if you are just not believable. A distinct advantage Obama has over Hillary Clinton.

With supper dooper Tuesday election day coming up, the lot in life of each of the candidates in both parties is up in the air. There is no clear winner in either party but there is a sense that our nation needs a different captain at the helm. With the vote to come and any decision for any candidate we need to think not of ourselves but who can serve the nation best. Who can make the biggest difference that crosses all political party lines. Hope is not just a Democrat or Republican state of mind or thought, it is an American belief in a brighter tomorrow.

Hillary Clinton has been too locked up in the political machine of her husband and national politics that she would not recognize her own self of twenty years ago in the mirror. How she can speak of change and believe the words coming out of her own mouth is unbelievable. Her experience and politics are far too damaged by the legacy she and her husband left behind them that makes her words not worthy of even one vote. Maybe the experience she is trying to sell is something we have seen before. Former President Clinton is not a uniting force of America and the more he speaks on her behalf, the more people look to Obama as the beacon of hope. Party politics and affiliation aside.

Anyone but Hillary is the strongest message coming from the people. I’m voting Obama and for hope. You should too!

Papamoka

Originally posted at Papamoka Straight Talk

Feel free to link to this post or borrow it…

27 Responses to “Obama and Republican Crossovers”

  1. rube cretin Says:

    “We are the people we’ve been waiting for !”

  2. Around The Campaign 2008 Sphere Says:

    […] reporting and podcasting = use of blogging’s potential.) A Flood Of Republican Crossovers? Bring It On! notes: Not since the days of Ronald Reagan have you seen or heard of so many people that will cross party […]

  3. steve Says:

    Hey… I’d have no problem voting for Obama but only if McCain doesn’t get the nod. I have a hard time with Romney (and his damn seer stone religion) :). Seriously… Romney isn’t consistent and Obama and McCain are. Straight up consistent.

  4. manapp99 Says:

    I agree that Obama is an electric and exciting speaker and will do well with in the general if he is nominated. I also agree that some Republicans will defect due to his charisma. I believe that they will be more than offset by the more conservative dems and by independents that will go for McCain if he is nominated. Obama has largely avoided specifics in his campaign so far but will be pressed more in the general and will have to make a better case for his presidency.
    There is a conservative group against McCain and this will benefit Obama with those that will not vote. However there is also the “closet racists” in the Democrat party that will not vote for a black man that will also not vote.
    Assuming the GOP will make McCain the nominee I believe he would trounce Hillary but it could be close with Obama. Personality goes a long way in political elections.

  5. Tom Harper Says:

    Very encouraging post (I’m also for Obama).

    But I think we need to guard against becoming too hopeful or too complacent. The news is full of encouraging stories like this, but it’s too early to start writing the Republicans’ obituary.

    Every day another conservative VIP endorses Obama and another rightwing shrillbag tells us how much they hate McCain. And there’s an article in Rolling Stone (2 issues ago) saying that the immigration issue has totally backfired on Republicans; millions of Hispanic voters are gonna vote Democratic because of all the Republican race-baiting. The article almost seems like a trick to make Democrats complacent and off-guard. Top Republican strategists (including Grover Norquist) are basically throwing up their hands and saying “we’re toast!”

    Again, this is all great news, but we’ve got a rough battle ahead of us and we can’t afford to become too optimistic or complacent.

  6. manapp99 Says:

    One other wild card will be the VEEP nominees. This will be critical in getting the votes of those not wanting to vote for eithe candidate.

  7. steve Says:

    You never know… McCain could pull in Condi Rice if Obama gets the nod. That would be something else!!! It also might make the Conservatives happy. McCain beats to a different drum… I almost think the guy deserves his chance to run this country. We have no idea of his impact. Same could be said for Obama… A maverick versus a new comer. We’d definitely get our change out of those guys.

    Hillary choses Obama but I don’t know if he choses her. The closet racists are fucked this time around IMHO.

  8. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    I would not cross the party lines to vote against McCain. Huckabee is the only Repubican against which I would do that. I have deeply held animosities regarding McCain and his nefarious anti-free-speech, er, that is to say, campaign reform law but it looks as though the Supreme Court will deal the death penalty to that monstrosity and, as President, he won’t be in any position to repeat that crime against humanity. :^)

    On the plus side, he makes a credible commander in chief (even if I disagree with him on things like closing Guantanamo and aggressive interrogation of high-value terrorists) and I trust him to pursue the Iraq war to victory rather than raising the white flag.

  9. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    And, at this point, he’s the only Republican candidate that has a ghost of a chance of defeating the Hillary-beast. :^)

  10. Liberal Jarhead Says:

    We the people and the journalistic profession need to press all the candidates hard for solid answers about their views and goals regarding the war, the economy, the environment, and other more or less compartmentalized issues, but most of all, we need a return to honest government that respects and enforces the Constitution and the rule of law rather than another president who says the Constitution is “just a goddamned piece of paper” and thinks he is accountable to no one, abetted by a bunch of neocons who think the ends justify evil means in pursuing their vision of the way the world should be.

    I want a president who will refuse to do wrong even to get what seems to be a good result, and who will respect even the laws that forbid him/her to do what he/she really wants to do. Especially since it looks as if we may be heading into a serious recession/depression with the accompanying social turmoil and unrest, we may not be able to handle much more of a renegade imperial executive branch and keep our Bill of Rights among other things.

    My first choice, Kucinich, has unfortunately fallen out of the race. So In the Dem caucus here, I’ll vote for Obama, because he appears to be more of a change from the “my way or the highway” school of thought than does Clinton. Come November, I’ll vote for whoever looks like the most likely to restore the rule of law. One thing I’ll give McCain, he does have a lot more respect for the American system than Huckabee, who wants to rewrite the Constitution “to God’s standard” (as interpreted by him, of course), or Romney, who has shown he’ll do or say anything to get into power and appears to want the office just to have it rather than to accomplish anything in particular with it (kind of like Bush Sr. was).

  11. Jersey McJones Says:

    Craig, I was watching C-Span the other day and a conservative editor from the Boston Globe was taking caller questions. One of them brought up the BS campaign reform issue and said that McCain wasn’t conservative because it. The editor said, and I paraphrase - I don;t know what’s so conservative about corruption.

    So, Craig, tell me, what exactly is your problem with McCain-Feingold? Do you like corruption? Do you equate cash-for-favor, quid pro quo, bribery and corruption? Do you think soft money was a good thing?

    Do you really even know what you’re talking about here, or are you just repeating Fox “News” shick???

    JMJ

  12. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    My problem with McCain-Feingold is this: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”

  13. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    Thus, the law’s restriction on Wisconsin Right to Life’s ad, which criticized no candidate for anything but which encouraged viewers to contact their congresspersons regarding some law or other that they dis/agreed with was banned from airing under the law. If there was one form of speech that was the main intention of the first amendment to protect, it was political speech. The law’s purpose and intent is to protect, rather, incumbent politicians from criticism by the people. There is no place for such restrictions on political speech in a free society.

  14. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    As for money, it belongs to the giver. The giver ought to be able to give it to any political cause for which he believes. This is America, not Stalin’s Russia. What on earth does liberty mean if not the right to do with what is one’s own?

  15. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    What exactly is liberal about protecting incumbents in office or restricting speech encouraging people to carry out their first amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievance?

  16. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    As for corruption, I have absolutely no objection to laws that punish that. What I object to is laws that perversely prevent people from engaging in political speech. McCain-Feingold did not solve the problem it set out to solve. It merely created new avenues for people to engage in their constitutional rights of speech, new avenues that McCain now wishes to further restrict. Putting him in the White House or back into private life are the two best ways I know of to prevent him from further restricting political speech. Since I like him on key issues, I’d rather put him in the White House.

  17. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    I don’t even have access to FNC, let alone parrot their talking points. I don’t read Fox News online or listen to Rush Limbaugh or any other conservative talk radio show, for that matter. Mostly, I hang out here and read the thoughts of liberals. If there’s one conservative against whom the charge of only reading and using like-minded sources for his comments is patently bogus, it is me. I read widely from sources from across the political spectrum as well as from primary sources and I evaluate for myself what I read.

  18. Jersey McJones Says:

    Money is not speech, Craig, and congress has every constitutional obligation to regulate monetary transactions in political campaigns.
    Even speech is regulated as well. Just as money can be a bribe, speech can be libelous, slanderous and even constute blackmail.

    As for the Wisconsin issue, the SCOTUS ruled that there was an exception for ads that do not mention a candidates name, so that’s not an issue anymore.

    Get with the times man! ;)

    JMJ

  19. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    Jersey,

    Television ads, like the one by Wisconsin Right to Life was unable to air, are speech. Sure speech can be libelous, slanderous and constitute blackmail but every one of those things was already illegal before McCain-Feingold and the Wisconsin Right to Life ad was none of those things — none of those things were ever even alleged.

    The Wisconsin Right to Life ad did mention names, but not in a “vote for or don’t vote for” context but in a “these are the names of your congresspersons; contact them to tell them how you feel about” a proposed bill. The mention of the names was (a) exactly what got their ad banned and (b) exactly why I despise the McCain-Feingold travesty: because (c) McCain chose to defend his bill’s restriction on straight issue political speech. In short, this is a real issue that has already had real-life unconstitutional restrictions on constitutional political speech.

    I do not favor the passage by congresspersons of blatantly unconstitutional laws (and I opposed Bush’s signing of the bill that he had opined was unconstitutional before he signed it) and then, when the blatantly unconstitutional aspects of the bill are challenged in court, continue to actively defend his law’s unconstitutionality. This sits relatively badly with my conservative constitution (double-entendre intended).

    But I go further. I believe that restrictions on political speech that names names and encourages votes for this or that candidate or argues against this or that candidate is still unconstitutional. The Supreme Court may or may not disagree with me. In fact, the Court has disagreed with me but so what? The Supreme Court gave us the Dred Scott decision (giving official sanction to such notions as that blacks have no rights a white man need respect) and Plessy v. Furguson (officially sanctioning Jim Crow) and Roe v. Wade (finding a non-existent fundamental human right to abort human babies) so I have no problem whatsoever with disagreeing with the Supreme Court’s decisions when I think they twist the Constitution to restrict real fundamental human rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) to concoct bogus shit that has no place in a free society, let alone being read into the text of the Constitution.

    In short, I am with the times. I just disagree with you. Even with the SCOTUS decision regarding WRTL’s ad, I still think McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional.

    Although money is not speech, money buys fora for constitutional speech. When you restrict the spending of money for the publishing of constitutional speech, you restrict constitutional speech so the divide between the two is not as clear-cut as you suggest.

    Which clause of the Constitution gives Congress the obligation to regulate monetary transactions in political campaigns in direct contravention of the explicit “Congress shall make no laws…” clause of the Constitution? Perhaps I missed that one. Congress has the deep desire to regulate such transactions, primarily because unfettered political speech endangers their lock on power but I’m not aware of any constitutional clause granting them the obligation to regulate monetary transactions in political campaigns. Enlighten me please. ;-)

  20. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    Furthermore, the law allows a television “news” show (60 Minutes II) to air a tendentious story by two Democrtic aparatchiks (producer Mary Mapes, who willingly put the lying scum of a source in direct contact with the Kerry campaign and Dan Rather, with two guests, one who had changed his story from previous public statements and another who was currently pushing his second anti-Bush book but no guests that defended the President’s service) based upon fraudulent documents obtained from a mentally unstable, lying Bush hater within 60 days of a national presidential election but a pro-life group can’t encourage US citizens to contact their elected representatives about a current bill in Congress? The New York Times could, within one week of the election, run a story on missing high explosives from Al Qaqaa, that reflected badly upon Bush and the Iraq war effort and the American troops, only later it being pointed out that the explosives were most likely removed BEFORE the troops’ arrival on sight, but citizens can’t air campaign speech for their chosen candidate within 60 days of an election?

    Don’t get me wrong. If Dan Rather and 60 minutes wish to embarrass themselves and their network with their tendentious reporting, that’s fine with me — I’ll vociferously shout about their tendentious reporting, of course — but I’m not the one pushing laws to silence Bush critics in an election year, McCain and Feingold and a majority of other incumbent protecting politicians were; it just seems hypocritical that “news” organizations get to criticize their opponents right up to the day of the election but citizens don’t. Hypocritical with a capital ‘H’.

    That’s my opinion…an opinion that I find both conservative and consistent…as opposed to McCain.

  21. Mike Says:

    I have to disagree with the manin thesis of this post. Yes, you have that misbegotten harpy Ann COulter saying she’d shill for Hillary if McCain got the nomination. There are other who say that they would go for Obama over McCain (perversely) because McCain isn’t conservative enough. This kind of cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face antics doesn’t even pass the sniff test.

    The reasons that the hard right wingers don’t like McCain is that he isn’t right wing enough. Too liberal on torture, too liberal on illegals, etc. So to think that hard-line conservatives would reject a guy who only disagrees with them sometimes for A. an avowed liberal (Obama) or B. a mortal enemy(Hillary) is patently absurd. A more logical situation is that the GOP right wingers succeed in demonizing McCain and put Romney or Huckabee up for the nom. THAT, my friends, will send many moderate Republicans (such as myself) over to Obama’s side.

    I sense a shift in the GOP (I hope) one that doesn’t totally marginalize the majority of us who are moderates, socially liberal, fiscally conservativ, etc. One that will remove the one-issue jackasses from both sides, and allow elections to be actually based on what needs to be done. No assholery about abortion, the death penalty, flag-burning, or gay marriage, but dealing with the economy, foreign policy, health care, and, if there is time and energy left, the environment.

    That is my fervent hope. I believe that both McCain and Obama are persons of character and strength. I believe that the rest of the field has neither.

  22. Jersey McJones Says:

    Craig, I just said that the SCOTUS agreed with Wisconsin Right to Life. Did you miss something there? I never said that the ads were libelous or such and I never said it had anything to do with the case! The ads did not single out specifically any candidate’s position or whether or not to vote for them, and that’s why the ruling was overturned.

    All interstate commerce can be regulated by the congress. Congress may regulate itself within the bounds of the constitution. States may act to regulate intrastate commerce and elections - and the federal representatives within the rules set by congress and the courts. There is nothing unconstitutional about McCain Feingold, and you have shown me no evidence to the contrary. The courts agree with me. The only dissent involves interpretation of the law and not the law itself.

    JMJ

  23. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    Jersey,

    Actually, you said the SCOTUS had said that there was an exemption for ads that don’t name names. While that’s true, it’s beside the point since the WRTL ad DID name names and had been banned on that account. So while you agreed with me, you agreed for a reason that appeared to be beside the point. But that, aside, I take your point, namely that the SCOTUS cleared up the situation that resulted in that ad and similar ads being banned.

    But my point was, in my opinion, even taking into account the SCOTUS WRTL decision, that the law is still unconstitutional because it still bans candidate-advocacy ads within 60 days and, thus, still restricts, unconstitutionally in my opinion, constitutionally protected speech. Further, the SCOTUS that largely gave the law a pass on its earlier facial challenge (McConnell v. Federal Election Commission) was a different SCOTUS. That is, the replacement of swingy Justice O’Connor with a more conservative Justice, and the replacement of another, might make for an overturning of the earlier decision since it was a narrow 5-4 majority that upheld the law and Justice O’Connor was on the side that upheld the offending bill.

    Finally, Congress being constitutionally permitted to regulate interstate commerce in general (which shouldn’t apply in the WRTL case, since WRTL’s ads were intrastate commerce and, thus, in my opinion, the feds had no business regulating it) is, by no means, the equivalent of your “constitutional obligation to regulate monetary transactions in political campaigns”, particularly in ways that clearly limit constitutionally protected political speech. I mean, you and the SCOTUS can argue that the law limits political speech for a good reason but you can hardly argue that a law that forbids the advocacy of politicians within 60 days of an election DOESN’T restrict political speech. Even if I conceded that the commerce clause permits the regulation of monetary transactions in political campaigns, that is a far cry from having the obligation to do so. Nor would it answer the question of whether the commerce clause permission to do a thing in general outweighs the first amendment’s specific and explicit prohibition against congress doing that very thing thing.

    In short, I am more concerned with preserving free speech than with whatever Congress thinks it was accomplishing by restricting free speech, while pointing to the commerce clause (which merely generally allows regulation of interstate commerce) to permit it to make a law that the first amendment explicitly forbids.

    I’ve shown you that McCain-Feingold abridges free speech (it forbids candidate advocacy within 60 days of an election, after all). I’ve shown a facial case for its unconstitutionality, too (the first amendment states “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”). So how is a law made by congress that abridges freedom of speech not unconstitutional? Not that it forbids libel, slander or blackmail, mind you, all of which are illegal anyway, but that it abridges even truthful political advocacy speech.

    Sounds unconstitutional to me. I sometimes think that even Justices of the Supreme Court, presumably highly educated people, can’t even read and comprehend the very text that they’ve been appointed to defend and protect. Weird!

    Anyway, I agree that the Courts have agreed with you on the constitutionality of the law and I never had any hope that I would convince you that the courts are wrong. You asked me what my problem with the M-F law was and I’ve told you. I’ve even showed you evidence that it’s unconstitutional. You just disagree. Well, that’s hardly a surprise. We rarely agree on anything. :-D

    Anyway, I’ve explained my problem with the law. I don’t see much point in going on. It’s not that we don’t understand one another; it’s that we disagree. C’est la vie.

  24. Jersey McJones Says:

    Craig,

    “Actually, you said the SCOTUS had said that there was an exemption for ads that don’t name names.”

    Sorry, my mistake. I was confusing two different points there. But you got my intellectual blood up. I’m still waiting for a sound constitutional stand against BCRA. How can we allow for the old soft money system? How can we abide money over real free speech. 8,000,000 people can want something, but be poor, while one person who’s worth more than all 8,000,000 of them can stifle their speech? It’s a tough legal question. The constitution never imagined such a developmentally stratified advanced society,

    What about a small group of people who have more to spend then a much larger group? What about all those myriad special interests potentially, malevolent, benign, or beneficial? And only potentially! New law changes things, and people change wit hthe laws. And thus came the 527s. Is that good? No. But can you blame BCRA or should you put the blame where it belongs - on the sleazy SOBs who created them?

    Craig, there are degrees of difference. The closer you get to the argument, the less we disagree. Think about this: may BCRA is not the problem, maybe something more sweeping is needed.

    JMJ

  25. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    MORE sweeping? In what way?

    The closer you get to the argument, the less we disagree.

    I’m glad to hear it.

    8,000,000 people can want something, but be poor, while one person who’s worth more than all 8,000,000 of them can stifle their speech?

    Who, pray tell, aside from the “wealthier than the rest of us combined” incumbents who voted for McCain-Feingold, is stifling anyone’s speech and how? The stifling of speech is the very thing that the law you are defending does…as its intended purpose.

    Look. I have read, elsewhere, your position on campaign reform. If I recall correctly, it goes something like limiting all campaign contributions to $10. Period. Then no funds to be spent other than from those $10 donations. That’s a solution that at least limits all candidates to the same more or less level playing field — although those who can gather more donors will ultimately have more to spend but at $10 per, the differences would be nominal, at least among front-runners.

    Another solution is for public tax-payer funds to be used exclusively; every candidate gets the same amount of funds and is strictly limited to those funds.

    Another solution is to mandate equal time in all markets for all candidates to have their say, and no campaign funds spent for anything like ads apart from the provided time.

    Or some combination of those solutions, like equal amounts in public funds for personal, candidate to people campaigning but no tv ads outside of that provided to each candidate. If one leaves out of the calculus the ordinary people and groups not affiliated with any campaign, then any of these would level the playing field for all candidates.

    But that still leaves individual citizens and groups of citizens collecting their voice and resources together. These individuals and groups have first amendment rights and any limits you place on people and groups not connected to campaigns amounts to an unconstitutional (in my opinion) infringement of their first amendment rights. My money is mine to darn well do with as I please. If I’m Bill Gates and I have $50 billion to spend advocating for some candidate (or for the issues most closely associated with my favored candidate and against the issues of that candidate’s opponents), then I don’t see how the Constitution allows anyone to say that I can’t spend that money to blanket the nation with self-paid-for ads that give truthful information regarding my favored candidate and or policy positions even if I have to purchase one tv station in every market and blanket the air-waves with my ads 24 hours a day. As I said, money is not speech but it purchases fora for speech and I favor speech being as free as possible for speech that is not otherwise obscene, slanderous, libelous, traitorous, or fraudulent . I’m as close to a free-speech purist as they come. If my ideas are ludicrous, irrational, or dangerous, then I will have a tough time convincing people that my ideas and candidate are right for them and for the country and those who favor other ideas and candidates will tell people so with their free speech.

    About poor people and regular folk? That’s why people collect their voices and resources together and form groups. Groups like the NAACP speak for blacks. Gay rights groups speak for gays, Muslim-American groups speak for Muslims. The unions speak for workers. Human rights groups and the ACLU speak for all. They all, too, have access to fora to spread their message. They also have access to spread their message nation-wide via newspaper columns and editorials which are, by and large, favorable to minority groups. They have NPR, which lives to spread their word. Writers of every political stamp publish books and magazine articles on the plight of spotted owls not to mention the downtrodden and oppressed in largely favorable major media outlets. Who have I left out?

    Nor am I adverse to legal groups, such as the ACLU, using courts to lobby for minority rights or politicians passing laws, such as the Civil Rights laws of, if I’m not mistaken, 1964 and -65. I mean to say that there are no voices so small or weak in this country where a freedom of speech that applies to all will not guarantee the promulgation of everyone’s message. Even the unborn have advocates. That is to say, the best protection of everyone’s right to be heard is to protect the rights of everyone to speak.

    Just please don’t try to argue me around to thinking that something yet more sweeping than McCain-Feingold is needed. It would be futile. I’m not wired to thinking that the way to free up speech for all is to infringe the speech of any.

  26. american republic insurance Says:

    american republic insurance

    vacuum Cheyenne photogenic moments rusted

  27. free credit report online with no credit card required Says:

    free credit report online with no credit card required

    proficient overcrowding barbarity dim.

Leave a Reply


Fish.Travel