Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
McCain Looks Back At His First Term
By California Yankee Posted in 2008 | John McCain — Comments (45) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Senator John McCain gave a terrific speech today in which he took a look back at the accomplishments of his first term as president.
The McCain campaign also released the following ad focusing on what John McCain envisions achieving during his first term in the White House:
In the speech, McCain's vision of accomplishments includes the following:
Read on ...
NATIONAL SECURITY
After four years of a McCain administration, America will be more secure and working with its allies and partners around the world to make us safer. In 2013:
The United States maintains a military presence in Iraq, but a much smaller one that does not play a direct combat role.
The Taliban threat in Afghanistan has been greatly reduced.
There is a functioning League of Democracies that has effectively applied pressure on Sudan to agree to a multinational peacekeeping force to stop the genocide.
There is no longer any place in the world al Qaeda can consider a safe haven. An increase in actionable intelligence leads to the capture or death of Osama Bin Laden and his lieutenants.
Through increased international cooperation and concerted use of American power, we have disrupted terrorist networks and exposed plots around the world.
The United States and its allies have made great progress in advancing nuclear security.
The size of the Army and Marine Corps has been significantly increased, and are now better equipped and trained to defend us. A substantial increase in veterans educational benefits and improvements in their health care has aided recruitment and retention.
THE ECONOMY
After four years of a McCain administration, the economy is stronger, Americans once again have confidence in their economic future and businesses are empowered to thrive. In 2013:
The economy is growing and Americans again have confidence in their economic future. Congress has lowered taxes and passed fundamental tax reform offering a choice in how taxes are filed.
The spending binge in Washington has ended. After John McCain exercises his veto pen in his first year in office, Congress has not passed an appropriations bill containing earmarks for the last three years. A top to bottom review of government and reforms yield great reductions in spending.
New trade agreements have been ratified leading to substantial increases in exports.
Americans who have lost jobs in the global economy are assisted by reformed unemployment insurance and worker retraining programs.
Public education is much improved due to measures that lead to increased competition, higher quality teachers, a revolution in teaching methods, higher graduation rates and higher test scores.
Health care is more accessible to more Americans than at any other time in history.
Medicare's solvency has been extended and both parties have worked together to fix Social Security without reducing benefits to those near retirement.
The United States is on its way to independence from foreign sources of oil with a cap-and-trade system spurring innovation, advancement in clean coal technology and the beginning of construction on 20 new nuclear reactors.
OTHER ISSUES
After four years of a McCain administration, new judges have been confirmed who understand they are not there to write laws, the border is secure and more Americans are called to serve. In 2013:
Scores of judges have been confirmed to the federal bench who understand they were sent there to enforce our laws and make sure they are consistent with the Constitution.
Border state governors have certified and the American people recognize that after tremendous improvements, our southern border is now secure. Illegal immigration is under control, and the American people accept the practical necessity to institute a temporary worker program and deal humanely with illegal immigrants.
Voluntary national service has grown in popularity.
For the sake of comparison, lets consider what America’s economy and national security would look like after four years of an Obama presidency.
MIDDLE EAST
Obama’s premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq would lead to “devastating consequences,” according to our commanders in Iraq. As a result we could be re-entering a more chaotic situation in 2013 after an Obama Administration.
Gen. David Petraeus Testified Before The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Of Which Obama Is A Member, That A Premature Withdrawal From Iraq Would Have “Devastating Consequences.” Gen. Petraeus: “In describing the recommendations I have made…I believe Iraq's problems will require a long-term effort. … Our assessments underscore, in fact, the importance of recognizing that a premature drawdown of our forces would likely have devastating consequences. … Lieutenant General Odierno and I share this assessment....” (Gen. David Petraeus, Committee On Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Testimony, 9/11/07)
Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen: “I do worry about a rapid withdrawal... in a situation that wouldn't call for that in terms of the conditions on the ground, which would then... basically turn around the gains we have... struggled to achieve and turn them around overnight.” (Jim Garamone, “Mullen Says Rapid Withdrawal From Iraq Would Negate Security Gains,” American Forces Press Service, 2/28/08)
NUCLEAR TERROR
Obama’s pledge to unconditionally meet with Ahmadinejad would strengthen a regime pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening our allies.
Obama’s Foreign Policy Pledge Would Strengthen Ahmadinejad. “Middle East experts said Obama's strategy holds potential pitfalls. In Iran, they said, Sen. Obama could strengthen Mr. Ahmadinejad if as U.S. president he moves too quickly to hold direct talks with Tehran's leader. They note Mr. Ahmadinejad is facing presidential elections in 2009 and could use a summit with Sen. Obama as proof of his enhanced stature. They said Mr. Ahmadinejad also could seek to sell to his people that talks with Washington were a direct result of his hard-line stance. ‘If Obama comes into office in January 2009, I wouldn't advise him’ to hold talks with Mr. Ahmadinejad quickly, said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran specialist at Washington's Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who said he is generally supportive of Sen. Obama's agenda. ‘Only two things can rehabilitate Ahmadinejad politically: bombing Iran or major efforts to engage’ him ahead of the vote.” (Jay Solomon, “Obama’s Foreign-Policy Pledge Sparks Criticism from Rivals,” Wall Street Journal, 3/26/08)
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
Obama’s windfall profits tax would reduce domestic oil production and increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil, just as it did under Jimmy Carter.
The Non-Partisan Congressional Research Service Found That The Windfall Profits Tax Reduced Domestic Oil Production And Increased Our Dependence On Foreign Oil By As Much As 13 Percent. "From 1980 to 1988, the WPT may have reduced domestic oil production anywhere from 1.2% to 8.0% (320 to 1,269 million barrels). Dependence on imported oil grew from between 3% and 13%." (Salvatore Lazzari, "The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Of The 1980s: Implications for Current Energy Policy," Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06)
The Wall Street Journal: The Windfall Profits Tax Reduced Domestic Oil Production, Increased U.S. Dependence On Foreign Oil, And Increased Prices At The Pump. "The last time Congress imposed a form of the windfall tax was the final gloomy days of Jimmy Carter, and the result was: a substantial reduction in domestic oil production (about 5%), thus raising the price of gas at the pump; and a 10% increase in U.S. reliance on foreign oil. A windfall profits tax is the ultimate act of economic masochism because it taxes only domestic production, while imports and foreign oil subsidiaries bear almost none of the cost." (Editorial, "Windfall Accounting Tax," The Wall Street Journal, 11/30/05)
WASTEFUL SPENDING
Budgets are bloated, wasteful spending continues, as Obama continues his poor Senate record on pork.
Citizens Against Government Waste Gave Sen. Obama A Lifetime Rating Of 22 Out Of 100. (Citizens Against Government Waste, "CCAGW Challenges Presidential Candidates On Earmarks," Press Release, 12/27/07)
The Club For Growth Gave Obama A Score Of 33 Percent For His Votes Against Anti-Pork Amendments. "[T]he Club for Growth released its 2007 Senate RePORK Card, compiling a scorecard of all senators' votes on fifteen anti-pork amendments throughout 2007. ... Obama (D-IL) Score: 33% Ratio: 2/6." (Club For Growth, "The Club's 2007 Senate RePORK Card," 11/5/07)
ECONOMIC CONFIDENCE
Consumers struggle as Obama’s increases on income taxes, Social Security taxes, investment taxes, and corporate taxes, and his "massive new domestic spending," undermine economic confidence.
"Obama's transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list?" (James Pethokoukis, "Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?," U.S. News & World Report's "Capital Commerce" Blog, 2/12/08)
Need I ask which future do you prefer?
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | We seem to be missing some data. — Comments (8) »
McCain Looks Back At His First Term 45 Comments (0 topical, 45 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Latest bad news
by shooflyguy68
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10366.html
This would be disasterous. A 70 seat deficit in the House would mean that all spending bills would originate in a House chamber that will have only token opposition to big spending. Add a 60-40 Dem advantage in the Senate and we could be in big trouble on the spending and deficit side.
It'll be worse than that
by SIConservative
Note that according to strategists we could "easily" lose 20 seats. With the kind of effort we've been making lately, I would put that number into the 40s. What's more, recent polls are showing second and third tier Senate races moving into the top tier, and we're on defense in all of the seats that show movement. One recent poll even put McConnell on the vulnerable list. If the Democrat gains that all but certain to come this year aren't enough, things will only get worse in 2010. Remember all the Senate seats we gained in 2004? Well, we're going to have to defend them all.
Stroke of genius
by shooflyguy68
This was a fantastic idea on McCain's part. It shows American voters that he is his own man and will make it more difficult for the Dems to stick the "3rd Bush Term" label on him. He obviously wants to continue President Bush's steadfastness on the GWOT but he also lays out ways in which he would do things differently. This speech is a winner, in my opinion.
Got to walk before you run
by tankertodd
And man, the GOP can barely crawl right now.
Unrealistic?
by Kansan
Maybe or at least to an extent. But he's set out what he hopes to acheive.
"It is true of the Nation, as of the individual, that the greatest doer must also be a great dreamer." - Teddy Roosevelt
By doing so, I think he's completly disconnected himself from the "100 years" distortion, and makes those that are gullible but undecided understand he doesn't envision the war going on for much longer.
This speech is going to be turned into a negative ad
by massyankee
We've seen what Dems have done with the 100 years quote, now they're going to take his comments here out of context and make it look like McCain was talking about 2008 instead of 2013. Check this out, I think it's dead-on: http://mamacoke.blogspot.com/2008/05/mccain-tapes-negative-ad-against.ht...
"Government cannot make us equal; it can only recognize, respect, and protect us as equal before the law." - Justice Clarence Thomas
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
The cap and trade nonsense.
by SESummers
The whole thing about how great the economy is going to be is total nonsense. When he and the (other?) liberals institute their cap and trade scheme, energy costs will go through the roof, driving up the cost of everything, and crippling the economy - far worse than $4/gal gasoline is doing now.
If they want to actually accomplish reduction in energy dependence, they should abolish the per gallon tax on gas, along with all subsidies on alternatives, and replace them with a $50/barrel tax on IMPORTED oil.
That would reduce dependency on foreign oil imports, increase profitability (and therefore supply) of domestic oil as well as alternative fuels and energy sources, and keep the price of gas high enough to reduce demand.
In addition, we should split the revenue from the new tax equally among all citizens (not in proportion to fuel use- that would just negate the demand effect) with quarterly rebate checks to help pay for the price increases.
Cap and Trade will only enrich scammers like Al Gore and companies similar to Enron, who figure out ways to game the system. A tax would produce useful revenues that could be returned to consumers to soften the effects.
a little less blubber is a good thing, arterywise, for the campaign.
No New Tone, and
no Saint (sic)
in the White House!
Way too generic
by sinz52
This list of promises is so general and so vague, Obama could use the same ad.
All three candidates want the same general goals: Solve the Middle East. Fight terrorism. Improve the economy. Improve health care.
The question is, what's McCain's "value added"? There's nothing in this ad that tells me why McCain can deliver on those goals better than Obama or Hillary can.
A better ad would have said more specific things like:
"The private sector: Unleashed and free to make us all better.
Osama bin Laden: Tried, convicted and executed for his crimes against humanity.
Health care: Portable, forever removing the fear of losing one's health insurance due to job loss."
McCain shouldn't be trying to compete with Obama's airy "Hope and Change" theme. It doesn't fit him well. He should be taking Hillary's approach: Hard-nosed, brass-tacks policies, to marginalize Obama as an airy idealist. That means writing off the college liberals who love airy idealism. But they wouldn't vote for McCain anyway.
555 nt
by aesthete
Your typical Spartan warrior clinging to spears and gods:
Great speech! And, um, RedStaters - WE are part of the
by streetwise
leadership team of this party. We have to run with the positives and be LEADERS, not has-beens whining about the imperfection of candidates and cruel fate.
This does not prevent criticism of McCain - a little now and a LOT after he gets elected. In fact, I'm looking forward to the latter!
Obama - you walked into
the party like you were
walking onto a yacht!
Have you heard the speech?
by Spartan4Life
I'm sorry, but it is lame. Both in terms of content and delivery. Rush is playing excerpts now.
I wish McCain was a better candidate. Unfortunately, he is on his way to a historic drubbing.
McCain will be remembered for his tenacity, his commitment and hopefully his electoral victory and the policies that ensue from that. His speeches are memorable for their content, not their delivery.
Nobody can out-orate Obama
by sinz52
When it comes to delivering a prepared, polished speech off a TelePrompter, nobody in either party can beat Obama. He's terrific--a natural-born actor.
McCain can't compete there, and he shouldn't compete there.
Where McCain is superior to Obama, is speaking off-the-cuff to small groups, even when those groups are suspicious or even hostile.
Obama ain't that good in that type of forum. He gets rattled when he has to depart from a script. We saw that in the Reverend Wright business.
I still think McCain can take Obama in a one-on-one debate. He can even beat him in a "town hall" forum where both candidates have to speak off-the-cuff to respond to questions.
I will not vote for McLame
by Warner Todd Huston
#1- He will be surrounded by Democrats. And, with his constant claims that he'll "work with anyone" THAT means EVERYTHING he'll do as president will be for Democrats, with Democrats, and by Democrats.
#2- Since #1 is the case, we will be voting for Pelosi's party, NOT the GOP if we ballot with McLame
#3- His claims about proposing conservative judges is a joke. Since #1 is true, he will have to give Democrats what THEY want. Our vote for McLame will NOT get constructionist judges.
#4- His globaloney ideas are extremist.
Sum- since our vote for McLame will be a vote for Democrat's and their ideas, I'd prefer not to defeat my own principles by voting for him. A vote for McLame is a vote for Obama-esque ideas anyway.
So, faced with a loss no matter what (even if McLame wins it's a flat out loss for every conservative policy and idea) I will not lower myself to assist the enemy to win. There just is NO difference between voting for McLame and Obama.
My vote, then? It will remain blank. I will vote down ticket only.
----------
Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!
For ALL his faults, there is a HUGE difference between McCain and Obama.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
You don't get it...
by Warner Todd Huston
In your rush to call names and scold, you miss the point.
Yes there are differences between Obama and McLame (not a "HUGE" difference, but enough of one).
But McLame will not be able to DO any of the things we like or want, nor will he be inclined to do so. He will have a giant enemy Congress against him. Then, pile on top of that his willingness to constantly "cross the aisle" and you will end up getting a president that will kowtow to Obama on his OWN. WE won't have any say in the matter. WE won't even get the option to kowtow to anyone. It will be done for us and WITHOUT our permission.
McLame will NOT fight for conservative ideas. He will bend over backwards for the enemy.
And SINCE THAT IS THE CASE, I cannot waste my vote on him. If I felt he would fight for conservative ideas even in the face of an enemy Congress, I could vote for him. But he WILL NOT DO SO. So, I won't waste my vote.
If you vote for John McLame you WILL be voting for Democrats. I don't know about you, but I don't vote for Democrats.
Therefore, no vote for president will come from me this time. A non vote is NOT a vote FOR something, by the way, so save your claim that a non vote is a vote FOR Obama. It is no such thing.
----------
Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!
In MY??? rush to call names?
by BrianH
I don't see where I called names, but I will accept the charge of scolding. And you deserve a bit of scolding.
Your use of "McLame" is pretty juvenile. I haven't agreed with all of your postings (some I have), but in those you always at least behaved like an adult. These postings are worthy of a 12 year old or a KOSSACK.
And wether you accept it or not, withholding a vote just gives the decision of who to elect to others. It's likely that many of those "others" will pick whichever socialist the Dems pick. Withholding YOUR vote makes their job easier. So yes, a non-vote supports your enemy.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Not in this case
by Warner Todd Huston
A non vote does not support my enemy., however A McCain vote does.
McCain (if your prefer) is NOT a conservative, barely a Republican, and stands equally against Christianity just as much as his pals across the aisle. He has expressed his hatred for conservatives just as much as any average Democrat has. He has announced support of globaloney and claimed he'll fill his cabinet and adviser positions with Democrats and has already tried to put in place people who are antithetical to conservative views. Over the years he has strayed far, far away from the conservative voting record he started out with in Congress.
So, I will not support the Democrats by voting for Obama. I will also not support the Democrats by voting FOR McCain.
I may find a third party candidate worth voting for (tho I doubt it), but I will not vote for the principles and power of the Democrat Party whether in the person of Obama OR McCain.
Now, if I may use your logic that a non vote is a vote for a Democrat,I maintain that a vote for McCain is ALSO a vote for Democrats.
You'll be hard pressed to prove otherwise.
----------
Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!
Political capital
by sinz52
McLame will NOT fight for conservative ideas. He will bend over backwards for the enemy.
Job One for whoever the next Republican President is, whether that's 2009 or 2013 or whenever, is to start to restore the GOP brand with the public, after the way it's been tarnished these recent years.
If President McCain is popular with the public (i.e., has a significantly higher approval rating than President Bush), he can leverage that political capital to win fights with the Democrats in Congress. If the public begins to trust the GOP brand again to lead the nation, that will make it much easier for the GOP to win political battles.
But until some nationally known Republicans are able to start restoring the GOP brand, the GOP won't be able to win fights with Democrats anywhere. Not in Congress, and not in the Executive Branch. Because the public won't be on the GOP's side.
If McCain loses the election, and the congressional Republicans get decimated too, then how will the GOP brand get restored? Who will restore it?
The Dem's will restore the GOP brand
by AzHat
Four years of disasterous Jimmy Carter-esque policies will show that liberals are/were wrong for the country. Note that we will get this with Obama and to a slightly lesser extent McCain. Especially with a heavily liberal Congress.
If McCain is president, then all of the failures will be blamed on the Republican President (and Conservatism by default). I for one, would rather the Dem's and liberal be put in the spotight for all of the country to see who is to blame.
I have 100% confidence that conservative ideals are the only way to run this country, and the sooner everyone else figures it out, the better.
the plate on stuff like the above.
I'm all for venting, but occasionally there are limits. If people can not accept the primary verdict, they should take a hiatus from this conservative AND Republican site until Election Day.
Or RS management should make them an offer they can't refuse. (Damn, Rudy would know how to do this :>))
Saint in the White House?
Thanks, but no thanks!
See the response below by a director (nt)
by Neil Stevens
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Fighting for the GOP
by sinz52
I understand that Republicans would like a fighting partisan who will take on Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats and fight them tooth and nail.
But what they fail to understand, I think, is what a poor position the GOP is in right now. The GOP brand has become so tarnished, and the GOP base has shrunk so much, that a GOP partisan would have very little political capital with which to win elections or legislative fights.
The kind of hard-right conservative candidate (like Fred Thompson) who would be near and dear to the hearts of staunch Republicans, wouldn't have a prayer of getting elected in the current political climate. The only reason why McCain, Giuliani and Schwarzenegger have relatively high approval ratings (for Republicans) is that the public doesn't perceive them as traditional Republicans.
Right now, the most important thing for the GOP is to start restoring their brand in the eyes of the public. And that means winning elections, even if it means moderates like McCain. It means getting on the scoreboard with some legislative victories, even if those victories involve compromise with Democrats. It means showing that the GOP can get things done--any things--that haven't been done under Bush.
Remember:
Nothing succeeds like success.
Hey there friend
by krempasky
I'm rather glad you keep using "McLame" - for a moment there I was worried that people would take your ranting seriously. I mean, seriously - grow up or get gone.
I'm SO excited,McCain to appoint Democrats to his administration
by General Confusion
Wow John your really know how to excite your base!
I guess it make's your trip across the isle is a lot shorter when their in your office.
Oh and while I'm at it, what economy to you expect to have left after your CAP (the economy) and TRADE (our prosperity overseas).
I could go on, but I won't...
For those interested, text of McCain's speech is here:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/15/america/15mccain-text.php?page=1
Some of you sound like Democrats
by Kansan
with your ability to take anything he says and twist it.
He was obviously referring to Joe Lieberman, who has been mentioned quite a bit as a possibility as Secretary of State or Defense.
McCain Kool-Aid Drinkers
by Spartan4Life
I guess you haven't noticed that Senator McCain is in the process of leading our party over a cliff.
Thanks, McCain.
Show me McCain's record on taxes, free trade, wasteful spending, judges, and defense. This idea that he'll somehow weaken his stance on these issues because of his positions on others is ludicrous.
OK, your right, sadly he isn't going to change...
by General Confusion
Judges: Gang of 14. You don't think he's going to cross his buds on the left just because he's President.
Taxes: Opposed because it’s for the rich. (See: Won't cross buds on left)
Wasteful Spending: Cap and Trade. (Ref: Won't cross buds on left)
Defense: The only good border is an open border. But he will build the G** D*** fence...eventually (Citation: Won't cross buds on left)
See a pattern here, some of us are very troubled about what the future will hold.
Yeah, he won't cross his buds...
by Kansan
Yeah, funny how he campaigned more so than any other Republican in '04. No loyalty there. Funny how he's so willing to campaign for any other Republican this election cycle as well. Again, no loyalty there.
His stance on the majority of the issues makes him more conservative than the majority of the Republicans that are in office at the moment. Your dream like candidate isn't ever going to show up.
Big whoop, the campaigned for some Republicans...
by General Confusion
But he helps enact Democrat priorities.
BTW, my dream candidate would be one that ran as a REPUBLICAN and not a “We can be the Democrat party, only just a little less so.” We haven’t hit the general and look how far left we are already.
The McCain administration, now with Democratic priorities AND actual Democrats. Coming in 2009 to a failed Republican party near you.
Twist it? IT'S HIS QUOTE! Geez
by General Confusion
"I will ask Democrats to serve in my administration."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/15/america/15mccain-text.php?page=4
BTW, what's wrong with appointing Republicans to a Republican administration? John has on hell of an idea of loyalty. Strictly a one way street.
Lastly at what point did Joe Lieberman start sounding like a good idea, I guess there’s no Republicans good enough for the State Department in a McCain administration.
What's
by Davidmanman
What's wrong with Lieberman as SecDef? That's pretty much what he probably meant.
The guy has a pretty liberal outlook ...
by General Confusion
The guy has a pretty liberal outlook on just about everything other then the war.
I'll restate myself, do we really want to argue that putting all Republicans in a Republican administration is a bad thing, McCain seems to think so. (Gee, if we had all Republicans in my administration that wouldn’t be "bipartisan")
The more he says the more he sounds like a Democrat running mate. (Now who was the guy Gore picked for VP....hmmmm)
OK, maybe Lieberman is a good pick for Mr. Cap and Trade.
What about defeating the space aliens?
by WoodenWeasel
I mean, while issuing platitudes, why not go all out? This is one of the most mockable ads I have ever seen.
I'm pretty sure any space alien invasion force
by jonlester
will have a team of political operatives in its vanguard.
Don't know...
by General Confusion
But if those aliens, even if illegal, are a perceived to be a big enough voting bloc I think John is willing to be flexible. In other words defeating them would not be his first priority.
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
The Fannie/Freddie situation is truly outlandish...
by blackheddLOL!
by Rod PatrickI have no other words...
by tsquareNew One: Pennsylvania: Dozen
by dld1717dglenn nt
by dglennGeneration Gap (Cont'd)
by nivlemI just got a phone call from Arnold..
by speciallistThis is a very winnable race
by dld1717I didn't think a west coaster could pull it off..LOL
by speciallistGeneration gap
by nivlemThanks...
by RottDawgspeciallist
by simpson316Also bogus ...
by LeverkuhnThere never was a 15 point lead ...
by LeverkuhnAre we there yet?
by 29VictorIn a perfect world
by Chris-64Neil says, One more step to Redstate 3.0
by speciallistFnord. (n/t)
by FinrodOh believe me
by Chris-64
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
in congress at the time, he may be able to do some of that.