vote for Bob Barr, does not remember he and Henry "Youthful Indirection" Hyde were guilty of also being adulterers along with many prosecuting Clinton during his Impeachment trial by Congress.

Just more of the same problems in Washington, not real change.

by Stanimal (2 articles, 226 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 1254 comments [234 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 31, 2008 at 2:05:27 AM

  (0+)

But your comment has nothing to do with the point of the article.

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 400 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 31, 2008 at 5:10:53 AM

  (0+)

My take on third parties this time had Barr as the only one likely to be spoiler.  So when you analyze the NRA connection, there's all the more reason to think McCain has a right to worry.  Georgia was placed in the iffy column by some polls against a sure Republican win. If Barr is endorsed, Palin can keep her day job IMHO.  

by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1851 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 31, 2008 at 8:46:41 AM

  (0+)

I am sure Palin's position on the Second Amendment was a factor.  Given his C rating by the NRA does not make him a strong candidate for the NRA to support but he is much preferred over Obama who was rated an F.

I think there are several other reasons as well.  She is very pro-life, including her personal decision to give birth to a baby she knew had Down Syndrome.  She is an evangelical Christian.  All of this more appealing to conservative Republicans who believe McCain is not conservative enough.

And I am sure her selection was a not-so-subtle ploy to encourage PUMAs who are not happy Hillary is not the Democratic Party nominee and Obama did not give her the VP nod.  McCain already has focused ads for Dems to vote the McCain/Palin ticket.

I don't think McCain's strategy will work.  We'll find out in November. 

by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 31, 2008 at 10:31:18 AM

  (1+)

It started out as an organization of hunters and gun enthusiasts.  Now it is full of liars and bullies who think guns are good as a defense.  Yes, they are if you enemy is incredibly stupid and unable to figure out how to stab you in the back.  Guns are limited.  Smarts are better.  Like every other racket (including Cable TV) the suckers pay crooks to give them rat poison with their bait.

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1760 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 31, 2008 at 10:40:54 AM

  (0+)

IMHO, they represent the gun manufacturer's interests over the gun owners. They definitely don't stand for any kind of gun rights on principle. That's why they should change the name to National Republican Association.

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 400 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 31, 2008 at 12:04:10 PM

  (1+)

Darren Wolfe wrote:  "(The NRA) started out as an organization of hunters and gun enthusiasts.  Now it is full of liars and bullies who think guns are good as a defense."

The government helps the NRA with its propaganda by claiming that it is for self-protection that police are issued handguns.  They don't want to say that police are armed so they can kill people on command.

by Frank Silbermann (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 2, 2008 at 6:41:55 AM

  (0+)

That quote is from someone else.

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 400 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 2, 2008 at 11:27:22 AM

  (0+)