Tuesday, December 4, 2007


Date: Dec 4, 2007 6:57 PM
To: Al Telford <alleetelford@yahoo.com>

i couldn't agree with you more.  as you  may have noted, she's no higher than
4th or 5th on my list.     hillary has more 'balls' than many republicans.

what i'd like to know is how is anyone who voted for bush is in a position
to identify who's smart or not.   your last statement is all the truth we
need.  i assume that calling it a "no win situation", you knew, well in
advance of our Selected Acting President ( e.g. SAP for short), that
it wasn't "Mission Accomplished", but Hell on Earth.  

As to Hillary, there are any number of issues on which I agree with her,
but, to me, she is "Cheney light", -- just like Cheney, she is way to coy
with her answers, more like an evasion.   take for example her recent
vote (to support this failed administration) that Iran is a current nuclear
threat.   you should like her more than I do.

to be real for a moment, consider that the republicans have shown
they are incapable of selecting a presidential candidate.   i have a
friend from the last decade who blindly insists bush will go down as
one of the greatest.   i don't write to him any more as i consider him
blind to observable data.   so, you will have to get used to it; the
next president will be the Democratic nominee.  i didn't vote for
Bill twice, and i consider anyone who voted for bush twice in need
of redemption.   i may be lucky enough to _never_ have to vote
for hillary, but, at the risk of getting you started, there is no
republican candidate worth listening to anymore.

 consider mccain.  had he been president, we would likely NOT
have had to deal with iraq.   now he supports an indefinite extension
of the troops.   not unlike nixon, who was elected because of
dissatisfaction with LBJs handling of vietnam, who really prolonged
and deepend that conflict.  there is no other republican who has
_any_ credibility, huckabee and paul included.    there are plenty
of good republicans out there, all of whom are too smart to get
in the meat-grinder bush has made of presidential politics:   colin
powell would have made a much better president than bush, but
i'll bet you didn't hear how b-c made him the lap-dog who would
do their bidding:  they locked the doors of the cabinet meeting
when they told all the others to be there ten minutes early or
get locked out.  

and on to rudy g:   as he was leaving the mayors office and
facing an opportunistic mike bloomberg take over, he was heard
to say  "there have to be 50 people here who can do the job better
than I".  i agree completely, and it's still true.   where i disagree,
why aren't those people running?

as a liberal, i say, rhetorically, "i could be wrong".  implicit in
that statement is the challenge: "until you show me some
evidence".   i'm not cowed by your suggestion my "support"
for hillary is evidence of ignorence.  take your pick: show me
why, or take the easy alternative:  show me why support for
bush isn't!

-=-.. Marty

On Dec 3, 2007 9:44 PM, Al Telford < alleetelford@yahoo.com> wrote:
mickey,when we were in school i thought you were suposed to be smart.  if you are for hillery, your not as smart as i thought you were.  we dont need a woman leader in this country, at least not her.  what we need is a pres. with a pr. of balls and not an oil man.  irac is just another viet nam.  a no win sit. .

No comments: