GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Given the liberal left domination of the MSM, leftist democrats Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry led by much larger margins over Presidents Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 in past June-Sept leap years than Obama currently leads McCain in most of the between election polls this year.
But, the un-Dukakis-like “lead” has provoked desperate Obama via surrogates Clark and Webb (and others months earlier), Clinton-like projection writ large attacks against McCain’s heroic military deeds via MSM attempted “swift-boat” covers.
The Clinton war room tactic of attacking one’s opponent’s greatest strength that mirror’s their greatest weakness is axiomatic. But the problems here are legion:
1-Obama had no Sistah Soulja moment in the primaries;
2-Kerry didn’t respond because the Swiftboat vets’ attacks were factually true;
3-McCain turned down freedom and stayed in the commie pow torture Hanoi Hilton for many years;
4-Let #3 sink in;
5-Unlike Kerry, McCain didn’t come back to America and toss medals over a fence or equate US armed forces with Khan’s Genghis; and
6-McCain’s recently read lips favor tax cuts.
Vietnam vet, junior Old Dominion Senator James Webb recently broke protocal as Obama’s limp-wristed security resume wafts:
WEBB: John McCain’s been a longtime friend. If that is one area that I would ask him to calm down on, it’s that. Don’t be standing up and uttering your political views and implying that all the people in the military support them, because they don’t, any more than when the Democrats had political issues during the Vietnam War. Let’s get politics out of the military, take care of the military people, and have our political arguments in other areas.
RUSH: Get politics out of the military? John McCain needs to calm down? This from a rookie Senator Jim Webb. Needs to calm down, don’t be standing up and offering your political views and implying that all people in the military support them. This is again more smoke and mirrors. None of this McCain is done. But Webb gets up and says it, the Drive-Bys report what he says, and that becomes the official record of what McCain says, i.e., what Webb says that McCain is doing. Who infused politics into this? Who infused the military into politics? It was Clark who claims, by the way — grab audio sound bite number four. Here’s Wesley Clark last night on MSNBC, asked for his response to being criticized for his remarks.
CLARK: I wasn’t representing the Obama campaign in anything I said yesterday about John McCain. I want to assure you, I would never, never diss someone’s service. When people choose to serve in uniform, I honor it. I came home from Vietnam on a stretcher. I was shot, I took a burst of AK, I got four rounds, so I think I know a little bit about what it’s like to honor men and women who serve in uniform. And I do, and I would never dismiss somebody.
RUSH: Twilight Zone time. This is after he did diss somebody. This is after he did diss somebody specifically on the basis of their military service. Claire McCaskill on MSNBC Live today, the infobabe asked her, “General Clark is not backing down from those comments that were critical of Senator McCain. What’s the campaign’s response to hearing that he’s not stepping away from those comments?”
MCCASKILL: Senator Obama has been very clear. It is inappropriate in any campaign ever to devalue anyone’s service to our country. That’s what they did to John Kerry four years ago. He will not be a part of it. This campaign will not be a part of it. I think he respects the service of General Wesley Clark. I think Senator Obama understands that General Clark is speaking from his own perspective. But for this campaign, for the Obama campaign, it is never about devaluing someone’s service to our country. Patriotism is about serving your country and your community, and that’s what Senator Obama wants this discussion to be about.
RUSH: What does this remind you of? Here we have two Obama supporters, Claire McCaskill from Missouri, a senator, and Jim Webb, both recasting reality. Obama, (paraphrasing) “Our campaign never said anything, why, we would never do this. We’re not going to put up with this. We would never, ever do it.” Webb said, “McCain’s gotta calm down.” I wish McCain would act in a way just one day that somebody could legitimately say “calm down” and have it mean something. The Official Obama Criticizer nailed this in his critique in the first hour of this program. Barack Obama and his campaign, he is the first black Clinton. He will not be the first black president because that’s Clinton’s. But he is the first black Clinton. That is exactly what’s happening here. Living in an alternative reality, and knowing full well that the Drive-Bys are going to cover for you and make reality whatever it is you say in response to things. So Clark gets a total pass. Obama gets a total pass. Obama gets treated as though he has rebuked what Clark has said, when he hasn’t, and then Webb goes out and says that McCain’s the one that needs to calm down. Meanwhile, the only official response from some elected Republican has been Bob Dole’s.
An astute conservative democrat in Alabama advised gamecock that Obama spoke to Bill Clinton this week, just as flip-flop moves to the center multiplied and just before Webb came to Wes, Clinton-fired former NATO chief that was about to bomb Russians, Clark’s defense for off the high-dive denigrations of McCain’s heroic service in Vietnam.
And why did Obama feel the need to declare his patriotic love for America in a post-WrighthateAmericaSermon-like context?
Why?
Because Obama’s stance in the polls at this juncture is worse than any Dem since…
Worse than any Dem.
June 1988 Plus Seventeen Dukakis, won ten states, went on to teach at Harvard.
Jim Webb will be the underside of the Obama ticket. Why else would he be embarrassing himself in public this way?
McCain will carry Virginia.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.race42008.com
Legal Editor for The HinzSight/Minority Reports @ www.theminorityreportblog.com
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” - The Chief Justice and “One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
July 4th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Webb would just reinforce Obama’s image as “unstable”. I hate to use the term “flip-flop” because it has become such a cliche. Webb is very similar to Wesley Clark in the sense that he was a Republican during the 80s for foreign policy reasons but now aligns with Democrats. Clark didn’t play well in 2004, and I don’t think Webb would now. If you actually read about Webb, picking him would cause certain problems for Obama.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I really think you should consider renaming the title of this entry. LOL
July 4th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
So let’s hope Obama picks him then! I’m not sure whether or not McCain will take Virginia however. I do think McCain will take North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida without a problem, but I think Virginia is the toughest of the four for us to take. We can’t give up though! I keep hearing Republicans say, “If Obama gets in, at least we’ll probably regain Congress in 2010.” NO!!!!! We want to get victory in THIS election, not wait for later. I didn’t give up on Dole’s chances in 1996 until the end, and I won’t give up on McCain’s chances.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
this analysis assumes of course the election revolves around national security and can over look the other shortcomings of eight years of Bush rule. Economy and Bush fatigue is huge this year
July 4th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
#4 No, it doesn’t. It assumes that Webb wouldn’t be out there apeing Clark if he weren’t asked. And it assumes that the dems will pick a white male with military cred and from a state that he could turn.
#2 Is the h silent?
July 4th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
What?
July 4th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Gamecock, only you could be so self important in your postings. The swiftboat attacks on Kerry were not infallible. One of them said Kerry lied to get medals. He didn’t. As evidence I submit to you the Republican standard bearer John Sidney McCain III.
July 5th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Gamecock doesn’t support the troops because he thinks the military is incompetent to the point that it is unable to award medals for service and bravery.
July 5th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Sampo, I am unclear as to what you are arguing. Are you saying that you think the Swiftboat attacks on Kerry were unfair?
July 5th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Has anyone been following the rumors that Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate is a fake? Supposedly a Homeland Security official who specializes in assessing forged documenst says it is a fake. The Obama supporters are crapping in their pants when they hear about this. You should see the stuff they are doing and saying to repudiate this claim.
July 5th, 2008 at 12:28 am
What Stephen is referring to…
Blogger admits Hawaii birth certificate forgery, subverting Obama claims
July 5th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Aaron,
any credibility to any of that stuff? I am just wondering if there is anything to it?
July 5th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Last night, I drew attention to a 3-month-old quote from Lindsey Graham that shot down the idea of a VP Sanford…or Graham.
“To be honest with you, from South — I don’t see any of us in South Carolina bringing a whole lot of value to the ticket. I mean, we’re talking about winning a national race that’s going to be very competitive,” Graham said.
“You know, I don’t have a closer friend in the Senate than John McCain. I’m just telling you that when it comes time to pick a vice president, that the smart money I think would be trying to add to the national security — you know, reinforce that aspect of the ticket,” he continued. “If we lose South Carolina, it’s going to be a very bad year for Republicans.”
I speculated, based on Graham’s statement in bold, if that’s in fact true, McCain will likely pick someone from a short list including Rudy, Ridge, Lieberman and, perhaps, even Petraeus.
The reason I am repeating this tonight is because I just came across an interesting article in South Carolina’s newspaper, The State:
WASHINGTON — If Andrew Jackson created the notion of a president’s “Kitchen Cabinet,” Sen. John McCain is reinventing it months before his possible election to the White House.
And Sen. Lindsey Graham seems to be McCain’s one-man Kitchen Cabinet.
Graham’s visibility as the Arizona senator’s closest political confidant has risen in recent weeks as the two men crisscross the country and travel abroad on McCain’s presidential quest.
“There’s nobody I trust more than Lindsey Graham,” McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, said by phone Thursday from Mexico City. “I’m honored to have him travel with me and give me the counsel I need.”
McCain, 71, praised Graham’s “excellent political instincts” and credited the Seneca Republican with helping him win South Carolina’s Jan. 19 presidential primary, a crucial victory that made McCain the GOP frontrunner.
The senators’ friendship, grounded in Graham’s support for McCain’s first White House run in 2000, has sparked reports that Graham could be attorney general or fill another senior post in a McCain administration.
McCain, though, said he and Graham haven’t discussed any potential Cabinet spots.
“Every indication I have is that Lindsey wants to continue to serve in the United States Senate,” McCain said. “He is the author of more legislation than any other senator that I know of who is in his first term.”
Graham, who planned to spend Independence Day with John and Cindy McCain at their Phoenix home, said his peripatetic journeys with McCain aren’t hindering his duties as a U.S. senator from South Carolina.
“The best thing I can do for my state and my country is to help John McCain become president,” Graham said from Mexico. “That is one of the most important responsibilities I will ever undertake. If John wins, the country will go in a completely different direction than Senator (Barack) Obama would take it. I can’t tell you how important it is to me.”
If McCain defeats the presumptive Democratic nominee in November, Graham said, “We’re going to have more conservative judges, we’re going to have our taxes lowered, we’re going to become more energy-independent and we’re going to win this (Iraq) war.”
Graham all but ruled out accepting a McCain administration post.
“If he gets to be president, I can be of great benefit to him in the Senate,” Graham said. “With his agenda, he’s going to need people to form bipartisan relationships and pass major legislation. I think that’s where I can serve my state best.”
Graham isn’t the only lawmaker accompanying McCain on his campaign trips.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, in particular, has also been a frequent traveler.
The Connecticut senator ditched his long-time Democratic affiliation in 2006 after an Iraq-war opponent defeated him in their state’s party primary. Running as an Independent, Lieberman won re-election in the November 2006 general election.
Though Lieberman still huddles with the Senate Democratic caucus, his efforts to help McCain become president have angered his Democratic peers.
“What Senator Lieberman is doing is heroic,” Graham said.
July 5th, 2008 at 12:52 am
OMG! HA! Aron is the most determined blogger I have ever met!
Aron, remember this quote from 35 years ago?
“The thought of being President frightens me and I do not think I want the job.”
Ronald Reagan
July 5th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Stephen,
My attitude is that until Obama presents an official copy of his birth certificate, Hawaiian state seal and all, questions will deservedly linger as to what he could possibly be hiding. If there’s a there…there, it’s probably something embarrassing to Obama such as his father’s race being listed as Arabic, or, maybe, because his mother and father were never legally married, the name on the birth certificate says Barack (or Barry) Dunham. At this point, though, Obama in my book, deserves the presumption of innocence, but if he continues to stonewall the media on this matter, I’ll treat him more like a suspected drunk driver who refused to take a breathalyzer.
July 5th, 2008 at 1:05 am
For the record, Sanford had a secret deal with Rudy to endorse him. Sanford listened to a stupid consultant instead.
http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/02/16/fitsnews-exclusive-consultants-miscalculation-cost-sanford-vp-slot/
I am still very interested in Aron’s post yesterday regarding Lindsey’s comment on the patrol boat in Colombia. Either Lindsey takes over for McCain this summer if something happens to McCain or Lindsey is the VP.
July 5th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Barack may not be hiding anything, as his campaign has shown themselves to be stubborn with issues like these. Look how long it took the campaign to stop Michelle from going around the country attacking Bush.
On the other hand, it probably says his father was Arabic. In all honesty (I am not smearing Obama), the ethnic group (Luo tribe) in Kenya his family is from considers themselves Arabic or Sudanese, not Africa.
July 5th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Regarding Gamecock’s #2 in his post… Hear your Republican nominated standard bearer of the Republican Party speak:
I condemn the [Swift Vets For Truth] ad. It is dishonest and dishonorable. I think it is very, very wrong.
-John McCain
July 5th, 2008 at 1:42 am
CNBC’s John Harwood: So could the (high) oil prices help us?
Barack Obama: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment.
**********************************************
Every time a story like this hits the front page of the New York Times, McCain needs to bludgeon Obama over the head with the Illinois senator’s own words.
As Gas Prices Soar, Elderly Face Cuts in Aid
Faced with soaring gasoline prices, agencies around the country that provide services to the elderly say they are having to cut back on programs like Meals on Wheels, transportation assistance and home care, especially in rural areas that depend on volunteers who provide their own gas. In a recent survey by the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, more than half said they had already cut back on programs because of gas costs, and 90 percent said they expected to make cuts in the 2009 fiscal year.
Public agencies of all kinds are struggling with the new math of higher gas prices, lower property and sales tax revenues and increases in the minimum wage. Some communities have cut school bus routes, police patrols, traveling libraries and lawn maintenance. The St. Paul Police Department is encouraging officers to use horses and bikes. A number of state agencies, including those in Utah, are going to four-day workweeks to save energy costs and reduce commuting expenses for their employees.
But older poor people and those who are homebound are doubly squeezed by rising gas and food prices, because they rely not just on social service agencies, but also on volunteers.
July 5th, 2008 at 2:06 am
Cockstradamus.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Obama: Sounding Like Thomas and Scalia?
In a recent interview, Obama appears to back away from his long-stated positions on abortion (and a proposed federal abortion rights law he had co-sponsored), repudiate 35 years of accepted Supreme Court rulings on the issue and embrace a view on abortion restrictions that has been expressed on the Court only by Justices Thomas and Scalia.
Obama’s remarks are printed verbatim in the interview, published yesterday in Relevant Magazine. Read them — there’s no mistaking that Obama says he no longer will support what’s long been a cornerstone of the abortion rights debate: The Court’s insistence that laws banning abortions after the fetus is viable (now about 22 weeks) contain an exception to allow doctors to perform them if necessary to protect a pregnant woman’s mental health.
‘I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that ‘mental distress’ qualifies as the health of the mother,” Obama said. “I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.”
Wow.
This has been a central battleground issue in the Supreme Court going back 35 years, to Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, when the Court ruled a woman had a constitutional right to abortion. The decisions said state’s can ban all abortions after the fetus is viable — but that any restrictions must include exceptions to protect a woman’s physical and emotional health.
In the years since, anti-abortion groups have fought hard against mental health exceptions, arguing that they create giant loopholes that make abortion bans meaningless. Doctors, they argue, can always find a “mental health” exception. But abortion rights groups just as strongly argue the mental health exception is critical to preserving a woman’s right to an abortion—and that the woman and her doctor must be allowed to make those decisions about her health without government interference.
In 1973, when the Court issued Roe and Doe — on the same day — it sided with the abortion rights groups and said states could not interfere with a doctor’s medical judgment on whether an abortion was necessary.
“[M]edical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors–physical, emotional , psychological, familial, and the woman’s age–relevant to the well- being of the patient,” said the Supreme Court in Doe, which was a companion case to Roe. “All these factors may relate to health . This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”
Obama’s comments that he does not support mental health exceptions in so-called post-viability abortions (after 22 weeks) is squarely at odds with that holding, which remains the law of the land today.
Current Supreme Court jurisprudence is understood by lower courts to prohibit those flat-out bans unless the laws provide exceptions for a woman’s mental health. Lower courts repeatedly have struck down laws that only provide an exception for serious physical issues as being contrary to Supreme Court precedent.
As an Ohio-based federal appeals court recently put it, “States must provide a maternal health exception to an abortion ban that encompasses situations where a woman would suffer severe mental or emotional harm if she were unable to obtain an abortion.”
Indeed, only Thomas and Scalia have expressly supported the position that a mental health exception is not necessary. They penned a dissent to that effect in 1998, when the Court refused to take up the Ohio case that struck down a state law because it did not include an exception to protect a woman’s mental health.
And last year’s case upholding a federal law that banned a specific type of abortion procedure — so called “partial birth” abortion — doesn’t change the analysis. It was the first to allow the government to ban a specific type of abortion procedure. And it was the first to allow that ban without an exception for a woman’s mental health.
But that case focused only on one type of abortion procedure — not an outright ban of all abortions after viability. And even there, the Court refused to rule out “partial birth” abortions in specific cases where a woman can show her mental or physical health requires it.
That case was immediately and harshly criticized by abortion rights groups across the spectrum — as well as by Obama, himself. He said last year that the decision “dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women.”
Here’s how Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards explained it:
“The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday in this case represents a seismic shift for the Supreme Court and the nation. With new Bush appointees, this court has unraveled more than 30 years of precedent protecting women’s health,” Richards said. “For the first time, the court told women that, when their health is at risk during pregnancy, deciding what to do is no longer up to them and their doctors, it is instead up to politicians. The future of legal access to abortion in this country is grim.”
Richards made her remarks the same day Congress introduced federal legislation to preserve a broad right to an abortion — including where necessary to protect a woman’s mental health.
Said Richards at the time: “It’s time for Congress to stand up for women’s health, women’s safety, and a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions. American women deserve the protection of federal law to preserve their right to make personal health care decisions free of government intrusion. We call on Congress to pass the Freedom of Choice Act.”
The Freedom of Choice Act specifically allows abortions after viability where necessary to protect a woman’s health, and the legislation refers repeatedly to the guarantees of Roe and Doe, which protect the right to an abortion where necessary for a woman’s physical and mental health.
One of its co-sponsors? Barack Obama.
So here are some questions for the Obama campaign: Does Obama still support the Freedom of Choice Act? Would he appoint justices like Ginsburg — or like Thomas, Scalia, etc.? Would he direct his Solicitor General to file a brief supporting state abortion bans that did not include a mental health exception?
And questions for the McCain campaign: How can you criticize Obama for allegedly shifting positions when McCain himself is reportedly considering as a running mate Mitt Romney — a man whose shifting views (from pro-choice to pro-life!) — make Obama seem fixed in concrete?
July 5th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis
Internal World Bank study delivers blow to plant energy drive
Is the ensuing death of ethanol imminent? It’ll be interesting to see how VP-hopeful Pawlenty, king of corn-based fuel subsidies, responds to this report — that is certain to make McCain gloat with glee.
July 5th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Any Word Yet on when mccain is announcing vp latest rumor I heard was could announce as early as monday I heard on fox news last thursday night.?
July 5th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Any Word Yet on when mccain is announcing vp latest rumor I heard was could announce as early as monday July 7th I heard on fox news last thursday night.?
July 5th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Aron, great comments and info, all!!!
July 5th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Great post as usual Gamecock,
I don’t think your prognostication has been wrong even once this election cycle so I take your predictions very seriously.
July 5th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
My own record of predictions, although respectable, has not been nearly as stellar - its been a wild cycle. It would be an interesting thread to see people comment (front page bloggers and commenters) and own up to their biggest prediction flops and their most prescient prognostications and forecasts.
July 5th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
JA Pruce,
At the risk of revisiting some of our more delusional predictions, here you go…
By the way, here’s what the Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll looked like on December 28th, 2007, the day I wrote my predictions:
Rudy Giuliani 19%
Mike Huckabee 17%
John McCain 15%
Mitt Romney 13%
Fred Thompson 12%
Ron Paul 7%
July 5th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Obama has now officially adopted McCain’s position on Iraq — that any withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq will be conditions-based.
Today, Obama told reporters: “The tactics of how we ensure our troops are safe as we pull out, how we execute the withdrawal. Those are things that are all based on facts and conditions, and you know I’m not somebody who, unlike George Bush, is willing to ignore facts on the basis of my preconceived notions. I want to pay attention to what’s happening on the ground.”
July 5th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Thanks JA and good points again AG
July 6th, 2008 at 11:52 am
This morning, on Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer asked Lindsey Graham and John Kerry, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, giving prisoners there a right to challenge their detention in American courts, what they thought should be done with the detainees:
Lindsey Graham: I think we need to look at Guantanamo Bay thru the law of armed conflict lens; not through the criminal lens. They’re not domestic criminals. They’re warriors committed to our destruction. They should be treated under the law of armed conflict. Once you’ve been properly identified to be an enemy combatant, a military threat to the country, then there’s no requirement to release you. If you’ve committed a war crime, I think the military should do the trial in a military commission setting. If you can repatriate people, fine. But, 30 have been released and gone back to the fight. One became a suicide bomber in Iraq. So, I want the military to do the trials, and if you’ve been properly identified to be an enemy combatant, there’s no requirement to let you go. Some of these people are going to die in jail because they’re too dangerous to let go.
John Kerry: I agree with Lindsey in terms of the military component of it. It could have been tried in the field. It could have been tried as combatants where they were. But to have gone through these years at Guantanamo without affording any kind of legitimacy for rights, it really runs against America’s values. We should try people. Try them. Convict them. And if they deserve to be executed on the basis of that finding, then that’s what we should do.
Looks like Kerry is now flip-flopping on his support of habeas rights for terrorists captured on foreign soil, while still, schizophrenically, questioning the legitimacy of military tribunals. I’ve been wondering what Obama’s next major reversal would be. Perhaps this is it.
July 6th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I think it was absolutely shameful how OBAMA threw Clark under the bus. Very Unfortunate. I was starting to warm up to an Obama Clark ticket. Only to get snubbed one more time by Team Obama. Obama needs to do a 180 on this stance and embrace Clark, Obama supporters agreed with the words of Clark. Lets stop being so PC team Obama. Use some discretion and put Clark on the ticket. I dont think what Wesley Clark said was negative at all. He was being honest and speaking truthful, I hope the Obama Campaign keeps him on the short list for VP, He is perfect. Just the kind of hard line straight shooter Obama needs. Thats why McCain wanted Obama to “Cut Clark Loose” The McCain camp knows that a Clark VP means a insured McCain loss. Clark dwarfs McCain. No one ever talks about the fact that Clark won the war in Kosovo with out even firing a shot. You can learn more about all the vp candidates on both sides at http://www.VeepPeek.com
mccain has nothing but being a POW to run on, http://www.McCanes.com
Why Obama needs Clark as his VP http://www.TheObamaPlan.com
July 6th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
“2-Kerry didn’t respond because the Swiftboat vets’ attacks were factually true”
What a crock.
http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html
July 6th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
#31 Kerry’s sentences are incoherent. No matter what he says tomorrow, he could not be impeached by the highlighted sentences, since they say nothing.
July 6th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
#32 we disagree