What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- phenry, on 09/04/2008, -0/+14FTA: "As I have said before, today's national Christian leaders are among the most gullible people on the planet. They are so desperate to be invited to sit at the king's table that they will compromise practically any principle. But accepting John McCain was a not only a bitter pill, it was a BIG pill, one they could not get down without a major dose of syrup. And that is exactly what Governor Palin brings to the table: sweet syrup to help conservatives swallow John McCain."
- Infowarmachine, on 09/09/2008, -0/+1THE MILKS GONE BAD!!
i wish i had more hands so i could give palin 4 thumbs down!!
- Infowarmachine, on 09/09/2008, -0/+1THE MILKS GONE BAD!!
- BlackBloke, on 09/04/2008, -0/+7Baldwin should've changed the end of that sentence to read "John McCain's load".
- roosevans, on 09/04/2008, -1/+4Can anyone deny the influence of Vice President Dick Cheny upon President George Bush? At one time John McCain was a true Republican, though at present he has been heavily influenced by neoconservative ideology but maybe Governor Palin can have a positive Constitutional influence on McCain. One can only hope!
- JDenigma, on 09/04/2008, -1/+7I don't know what you mean specifically when you say "John McCain was a true Republican". Whatever you mean by true republican, bottom line I don't think McCain was even ever a strict constitutional constructionist minarchist type at the very least. John McCain always struck me as being an interventionist statist type.
As for Dick Cheney, I really don't know how much influence he may really have had on Bush. It's hard to say. Maybe Bush had more influence then we give him credit for, for all we know. It does seem like that Bush comes across as being an empty vessel in which he's like a puppet for all his advisors in his administration. Bush also seems to like getting a bunch of yes men around him in his administration which is probably why Colin Powell was out the door. Sometimes I wonder if Bush may actually be more intelligent than we take him for and that we may be underestimating him. Don't take that the wrong way. It's not a compliment. Just because you're intelligent doesn't necessarily mean you're a good person and it doesn't necessarily mean you always come to correct conclusions. It may simply be that Bush may be cleverly putting up a public front to make himself look stupid so we'll underestimate him, which I don't think is likely or he's simply just not a good public speaker, which in itself isn't necessarily an indication of intelligence.
I know there is that impression that Cheney is the one influencing Bush. I don't know how much that could be true, but nevertheless that doesn't normally happen. That's an exception to the rule. You don't normally see vice presidents exert that kind of influence. I don't think we would see that with McCain. McCain comes across as a stubborn hothead. He knows what he wants and he won't let anyone get in his way.
Regardless of whether Palin would exert any influence on McCain, I think that is just all naive wishful thinking. Don't hold your breath. I question Palin's integrity and motives for simply associating herself with the McCain campaign. Ron Paul himself always refused to endorse any of the candidates because of how principled he is. Politicians make dirty deals with each other and sell their soul to the devil. You cannot trust them, particularly at the higher level. Bush fooled people with his so-called limited government conservatism. Will we be fooled again? They probably made deals underneath the table and Palin is in it for the power. I don't believe it for a second. I don't see her as a true principled libertarian. It seems she apparently has some pro-war views which in itself is enough to turn me off and even if she is a libertarian, I still don't care. I cannot support McCain because of everything he stands for and the president will have more influence.
Besides, let's not fool ourselves and think that we're going to fight government and achieve liberty from the top-down at the federal government. It's not going to happen. It's a lost cause.
- JDenigma, on 09/04/2008, -1/+7I don't know what you mean specifically when you say "John McCain was a true Republican". Whatever you mean by true republican, bottom line I don't think McCain was even ever a strict constitutional constructionist minarchist type at the very least. John McCain always struck me as being an interventionist statist type.
- DigitalBob, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3Picking Palin was much better than Lieberman, Giuliani or Romney. Baldwin may lose a few of his votes to McCain, now that Palin is on his ticket. Republicans needed some balance.
- Kent4jmj, on 09/04/2008, -0/+7Baldwins reasoning and questions concerning Palins ability to be in agreement with McCain on issues she has been against in the past is very challenging. Republicans who think of themselves as Conservative need to be asking the same kinds of questions.
If she were a true conservative and McCain is very clearly known not to be how can she serve as his VP? As VP she will be expected to "tow the line" and support the president.
The argument that she will be a positive influence has been shown to be of minimal importance. Her "influence" will be limited to non-existent. - Conspiracy20, on 09/04/2008, -0/+7As long as she slimes up to AIPAC, (which she did), she passes all tests.
- Infowarmachine, on 09/09/2008, -0/+1not the american peoples
- chessmasterjoe, on 09/06/2008, -0/+3There is no difference in the two parties. Vote for anybody other than the two parties. We cannot beat them in this election but we can show the rest of the sheeple that not everybody agrees with the CFR backed candidates. Vote for Barr , Baldwin , Nader , or McKinney.
- Infowarmachine, on 09/09/2008, -0/+2im voting chuck baldwin. its too bad the real presidential material (ron paul, baldwin) dont get the coverage and respect they deserve
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is