The sqeaky wheel gets the grease... especially with a media that's sympathetic to their causes.

Can we also ask the press to start doing its job?

Evidently not. They're now just another racket.

Or perhaps they always were, and
we're just now starting to grow up.

"So we've had nearly 8 years of lefty assassination fantasies about George W. Bush, and Bill Ayers' bombing campaign is explained away as a consequence of him having just felt so strongly about social justice, but a few people yell things at McCain rallies and suddenly it's a sign that anger is out of control in American politics?"

It's pure projection on the part of Leftists, who have a tenuous grip on reality.

When Leftists want to restrict guns, it's because if they had a gun themselves, they'd shoot the Conservative next door out of sheer outrage at their neighbor's politics.

Same thing with the "out of control American politics".

The Leftists are out of control themselves, so they see the Conservatives as an angry existential threat.
(paranoia will destroy ya)

That is why we call then "moonbats", el-cubos, etc
(before the rise of the "New-Left" not everything was political like it is today)

*
and exactly what is the deal with
all the wacky polls? i'm thinkin'
somebody just takes out a coin...
flips it up into the air...

*

Is anyone watching Mansbridge on CBC tonight? I never know what to believe anymore!

Haven't watch Mansbridge since 2004.

Does the show still feature that crazy, Hollywood like drum roll as a new "story" is introduced ?

Don't you know it's OK to say and do nasty things if you're a liberal; not so much if you're conservative??

Taranto (in one of the links at the Instapundit piece) writes, "Political hatred is not only wrong, it is counterproductive." That's true only *if* we assume that everything is more or less okay; if the goals of one's political opponent are civilized and rational, and merely different from one's own, expressions of hatred are indeed "unattractive to those who do not share the feeling" and are therefore not helpful at all. Acting like a moonbat doesn't draw the unconvinced onto your side.

But suppose, hypothetically, for the sake of argument, that a burgeoning political force emerged that advocated seizure of private property, compulsory indoctrination of one's children in state boarding schools, prohibition of non-state-sponsored speech, seizure of all firearms, state control of all newspapers and publishing with severe punishment for anyone who argues against the golden path. Would political hatred still be wrong? If so, what would be the milder, more appropriate reaction? Calm disagreement? Distaste? Unhappiness?

In such a scenario political hatred would be anything but counterproductive -- the extent of it would determine the likelihood that a free country could continue to exist. It's anger that would rouse people into defending the democracy their forebears fought and died for.

Obama is not evil personified, or anything like that, of course, but to the extent that politics might be starting to move incrementally towards the hypothetical hell-scenario described above, and that's at least arguably the case, one would expect some early oppositional noise. There *should be* a certain amount of angry reaction to the prospect of Obama getting his hands on the reins of power in the US. Here's a guy who rose quickly as pop phenomenon, without the appropriate level of public examination of his provenance, perhaps because the widespread feeling that Americans need to finally pay off some racial debt has left those who criticize him open to accusations of racism. It's rude to really vet him, in other words.

I agree with Rocker 419 (another Inst. link): "(McCain supporters) are getting angry primarily because they feel like they are being hoodwinked. They can see with their own eyes how much the media is in the tank for Obama. They can see for themselves they are giving him a pass on issues that, if reversed, they would be all over like white on Rice...They realized that Obama, whose associations would automatically make him inelligable for any significant security clearance and...ineligible for almost any serious Federal job is somehow winning the biggest Federal job of them all."

Yep. And it's enough to make you surly.

The left also raved/lied for years about Bush cheating and stealing the 2004 election.

It was their way of setting up their rationalization of the massive criminal voter registration fraud that is being conducted by lefties in the US right now.

The looney left is far more insane than the looney right. Case in point are the number of Americans who earnest believe that Al Gore is the legitimate President of the United States. The main difference between the looney left and the looney right is that the media filters out the craziness of the left.

Mark Steyn offered an interesting theory about the support Obama enjoys in the pages of the pulpwood press. What if an Obama administration intended to fetter the internet in ways that would benefit the old, dying legacy press as well as the left in general? Bit of common mode backscratching to marginalize all those pesky blogs always digging up the inconvenient truth?

Works for me.

"When Leftists want to restrict guns, it's because if they had a gun themselves, they'd shoot the Conservative next door out of sheer outrage at their neighbor's politics."

No, this, even said flippantly, is another fallacy about the left's obsession with eliminating firearms in civilian hands.

Its best to think of the left as not wanting to eliminate civilian firearms, but to eliminate civilian firepower. They will allow a food-gathering single-shot longarm for this purpose (and then, only until they eliminate the "need" to hunt).

No, the real rationale has always been to eliminate the ability of the citizen to reclaim his government. To be able to meet and overpower the agents of their state who can put them down. Its why the interest on semi-automatic and automatic weapons first. These are the equalizers in a skirmish for control. As long as the state has them and the citizens do not, the odds are tilted in favour of the state.

Same with handguns. The concern is not that citizens will shoot one another with them; its the worry that a citizen with one will come after them, quietly, surreptitiously.

David Miller isn't concerned about handguns because black dudes shoot one another at Jane and Finch. He's concerned that someone with a handgun will sbeak up and shoot him

On Tuesday, Canadians are voting to keep control of government in their hands; don't let it slip away. If the thought of a coalition of moonbats doesn't scare the bejebus out of anyone, you don't deserve freedom.

I was at the widely reported Bethlehem rally, standing in the middle of the arena. There were exactly four voices yelling, widely spaced, never in unison and never picked up by the crowd. There were about five separate instances that I recall. None were memorable or frankly concise enough to make me turn and look nor to remember what they had said. There were, I think, 6000 people in the building. The crowd's and my own typical response was, 'boo', to bad guys and their policies and obviously, 'yay', for the good guys and their policies.

We didn't get a chance to boo the MSM. Maybe we should have, the lying pricks.

They could have been planted by the Obama campaign. They certainly did not reflect the 5996 other participants.

I wrote on another thread that the Conservative sign on our fence was removed in broad daylight. It’s the only one within blocks: what kind of a penny pinching Grinch, not to mention dog in the manger—people who often begrudge others what they cannot enjoy themselves—would do that, when the neighbourhood’s a veritable sea of orange and red? Lefties can’t stand any sign—literally!—at all of dissent from the party line. They also regularly display signs of arrested development.

Re the trashed Liberal signs and cut brake lines: honestly, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if this were (this is the subjunctive tense!) the actions of lefties in order to make Conservatives look bad. These actions seem quite in line with the kind of mean-spirited mischief that the convoluted and downright dangerous thinking of lefties would produce. It’s called sabotage, an operation at which the mafia-like Liberal Party and the conniving MSM are seasoned pros.

I just hope the sheeple of Canada will finally recognize our very own despicable wolves in sheep’s clothing that are readying themselves to steal our money and keep us all in line with their totalitarian jackboots. Good Lord, deliver us!

"So we've had nearly 8 years of lefty assassination fantasies about George W. Bush"

Yes, but Republicans own guns. Democrats don't.;)

Frankly speaking, I would take a death threat from a gun-toting redneck who hates government a lot more seriously than I would take a death threat from a gun-hating Boston Brahmin.

There is a certain 'manly' blood-thirstiness about ill-informed rednecks (Obama is an Arab), than there is about those effeminate "why can't we just talk this out" city-dwelling liberals.

Who would you be more afraid of? Joe Six Pack or John Kerry?

Thought so. The Secret Service thinks so, too.

"They can see with their own eyes how much the media is in the tank for Obama."

Most of them only watch Fox News - "the most watched news channel in America", which is as partisan as it gets. Hell, they're lining up behind a leader who can't even name the newspapers she reads. Do you really think they give a damn about what CNN has to say?

" These actions seem quite in line with the kind of mean-spirited mischief that the convoluted and downright dangerous thinking of lefties would produce."

And there you have it. Malicious righties? They don't exist.

This has been sent to me: it's written by an American. It’s right in line with this thread. Read it and be very afraid!

“I came across this gem while reviewing the rise of Hitler - (I can't imagine why I would do that at this moment in time.)

“In writing about the success of the Social Democratic Press in Austria (prior to WW I) he [not named] wrote:

“‘I understood the infamous spiritual terror which this movement excerpts, particularly on the bourgeoisie, which is neither morally nor mentally equal to such attacks; at a given sign it unleashes a veritable barrage of lies and slanders against whatever adversary seems most dangerous, until the nerves of the attacked persons break down... This is a tactic based on precise calculation of all human weaknesses, and its result will lead to success with almost mathematical certainty.’

“He goes on to write about the efficacy (and importance) of physical terror toward the individual and the masses for purposes of mopping up after victory and seeding despair of continued resistance among the losers.

“I heard a BBC news segment yesterday that said Sarah Palin had abused her power in the Troopergate affair. She stands convicted, and that's that. The mechanism is global. We now have (and have had for some time) an attempt to govern by show trial, to rule by de-legitimizing opposition viewpoints on the basis of perceived (‘assigned’ is a better term) corruption. Bork, Thomas, Palin, Libby, Rove ... perhaps these are not the best examples, there are thousands of others; the list is long and growing.

“The real and serious corruption of protected personalities is ignored completely. One has only to think of Clinton's actual behavior with his intern and compare it with what was alleged against Justice Thomas. The number of such comparisons is large and growing. This is quite beyond spin. It is, as you have pointed out, a complete inversion of actuality. A lie may be a fabrication, or even an omission, but an absolute inversion of fact is something more destructive. We need a bigger word. Orwell proposed a few terms that failed to stick.

“The bottom line is that when so many are so invested in what is false, there cannot be a good outcome. The iron law of irony (you say paradox) must be served. We are doing to politics and citizenship what was done to credit. There will be a natural correction. I doubt it will be a pleasant one.”

I'd like to be able to say, "Poppycock". But I altogether agree. Kyrie eleison.

Dim, enlighten yourself and read the above.

If you actually bother reading the entire tale, you will find that while Palin acted within her rights, the uproar is actually about the role of the 'First Dude' in the day-to-day workings of Alaska government. She was elected. He wasn't. He shouldn't have any sway over government, let alone firing officials.

"But it is the issue of her husband's unusually intense involvement in state affairs which has come under the spotlight. Todd Palin, a part-Inuit champion snowmobile racer and self-styled "First Dude", has been revealed as a fixture in the day-to-day workings of government, a role some critics say amounted to that of a "shadow governor".

During the hearing, investigators heard that barely two weeks after Mrs Palin had been sworn in, in December 2006, the executive secretary to the then Public Safety Commissioner, Walt Monegan, got a confusing phone call from Mrs Palin's office: the "first gentleman" would like to schedule a meeting with her boss.

Mr Monegan arrived in the governor's office to find himself alone with Mr Palin who was sitting at a conference table surrounded by stacks of documents, including one from Mr Monegan's own Department of Public Safety.

The Palins, Mr Palin made clear, wanted Mr Wooten fired for a long record of behaviour they saw as inappropriate for a police officer.

"He kept using the term, 'We'. We went to, go talk to, we, we. And so I assumed it was he and Sarah, of course," Mr Monegan told the hearing."

Show trial? Clinton got impeached for what he did. Palin doesn't think she did anything wrong. Enlighten yourself.

And wasn't Hillary co-President? At least be consistent.

Your posts appear to prove the point of this thread: the huge double standard of the left, which doesn't see it.

Open your mind and your eyes, Dim, and things might be a little clearer.

"Testimony compiled as part of the inquiry, and a Los Angeles Times review of email logs from the Palin Administration, shows that Mr Palin was a fixture in the governor's office, spending about half his time there. He attended cabinet meetings that are supposed to be closed to the public, and was copied on a wide variety of high-level government correspondence on issues such as contract negotiations with the police officers' union, native Alaskan issues and the privatisation of a dairy near the Palins' home town of Wasilla.

His report concluded that she knowingly "permitted Todd Palin to use the governor's office and the resources of the governor's office, including access to state employees, to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired"."

So you're telling me that Clinton was sitting in on meetings she wasn't supposed to be. And you expect me to believe that the same Republicans who tired to crucify Clinton for Monica Lewinsky, would overlook this kind of abuse of power if Clinton was involved? Riight. I believe you.

I think you've become too cozy on this board, filled as it is with blind ideologues and hacks, and gotten unused to reality. It seems to be very difficult for you to accept that this lady has abused her power.

On a separate note, I might as well ask you again - if you recieved a death threat from a gun-toting redneck, or a gun-hating Boston Brahmin, who would you be more afraid of? Double standard? Perhaps. Realistic assessment of threat? Most definitely.

The MSM has been a total disgrace during the elections in the States and here in Canada.

The lib-left, Librano-cheerleading Canadian media have proven themselves to be unethical, unprofessional, and immoral both before, but especially during, this election. There should be a media blackout three weeks before the electorate goes to the polls--AND a poll blackout.

We should be hearing from only the politicians, face-to-face with the electorate and not in any way filtered through the Mansbridges, Boags, Hunters, Van Dusens, Fifes, Olivers, Tabers, or the cacaphony of Susans. One day of Dion on his own would make it abundantly clear that the man is incapable of leading a party let alone a country. As it is, he's being given MSM cover and the cheerleaders in the press are doing the heavy lifting for him.

GIVE ME A BREAK.

Ironically, a number of major dailies are now endorsing Prime Minister Stephen Harper. (They're probably beginning to imagine the "natural [unpleasant] correction" lookout mentions above that's heading our way if Canadians elect a Liberal government.) Stephen Taylor has the story at his blog.

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/ "Media Endorsements"

"On a separate note, I might as well ask you again - if you recieved [sic] a death threat from a gun-toting redneck, or a gun-hating Boston Brahmin, who would you be more afraid of? Double standard? Perhaps. Realistic assessment of threat? Most definitely."

Realistic assessment of threat? Hardly. (Do this for a living, spud). The "gun-toting redneck" (nice pejorative generalization, dude), I can handle. Its the gun-toting Bostonian that will put my hackles up - irrational, out of character, "loose, with cannon". You could benefit from medication for all of your paranoid schizophrenia.

Actually, I'm not afraid of either, since I too, have guns. Lots.

Lessee:

Stephen Harper with a gun? Nope, not afraid...

Stephanie Dion with a gun? Yep, definitely afraid, but more for those next to me, because he can't hit anytarget,

Jack Layton with a gun? Yep, because it'd likely be my gun and I'll have to wrestle it back from him,

John McCain with a gun? Nope, no fear there; he knows what they are and how to use 'em,

Sarah Palin with a gun? Hell no! We'll go shooting together along with her six-pack buddies and go get some beer and popcorn after.

Barack O'bama with a gun? Hell yes, because he'll have his various coloured shirts standing behind him loaded with their guns.

Dim, dude, you need to spend less time living in fear....

Definitely, I'd be more afraid of the Boston Brahmin. How come?

The hatred that oozes out of the righteous, “I’m entitled and you’re not” lefty's pores—while such people claim to be oh so tolerant—is truly frightening. Just for a start, check out our HRC kangaroo courts and the scathing, hate filled feminist crucifixion of Sarah Palin by such feminists as Heather Mallick, at our own, taxpayer funded CBC, and Cintra Wilson at Salon.com. (Read Bruce Bawer’s “While Europe Slept” too. He’s a non conservative—a very much out homosexual, to boot—who’s seen the light re the hypocrisy and hatred of the left. Every criticism he makes of socialist Europe could equally be made about Canada.)

Show me the equivalent of the relentless and, in Canada, monolithic, elitist, truth-averse, vitriolic attacks—via virtually all our L(l)iberal MSM and all of our left-wing parties—on the Conservative Party, on PMSH, and on conservatives—only, Christian, mind you: never on Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or any other perceived minority. Meanwhile, the mafia like Liberal party—check out Power Corp, Mo Strong, the Desmarais family, and Chretien’s, Martin’s, and Bob Rae’s connection to them, as in sock puppets—gets a free ride.

Go ahead, Dim. I’m waiting.

(Would Dim, by any chance, be a nickname for "dhimmitude"?)

Dim: So you're telling me that Clinton was sitting in on meetings she wasn't supposed to be.

Um, don't you remember Hillary's ridiculous and overly complicated "health care" plan? I'm sure she wrote it in her spare time. Just another example of how left wingers ignore contradictions.

You picked an adequate pen name, however.

Dim's recollections appear both convenient and well rehearsed. All part of the hurricane of bullsh1t we face daily.

How quickly they forget the cemeteries of Chicago, which vote Democrat every four years. No mention of Acorn either, just endless carping about Palin jettisoning some seat buffer as part of her governance in Alaska.

The creature cutting brake lines in Toronto is a minor terrorist. It is these kinds of actions that make civilized society break down.

As a conservative type, its the continued health of civilized society I'm concerned with. Demented crusaders cutting brake lines are the enemy, I don't care whose they cut. If I have to fort up and defend myself from politically driven violence, I've already lost.

" monolithic, elitist, truth-averse, vitriolic attacks"

"irrational, out of character, "loose, with cannon""

All words that apply to the Republican rallies. Don't think you wanted that, though. For every crazy lefty, there is an equally crazy righty. You name one. I name one. We can continue till Judgement day.

Barack Obama is Arab because his middle name is Hussein. Hows that for "paranoid schizophrenia"? 15% of the American population thinks hes Muslim, with all that that implies.

Nice play with the leaders. The problem is that in democratic nations, leaders are rarely dangerous. They are usually carefully vetted by people who matter. Hate the elite all you want, but at the end of the day, its the elites who make the decisions. Especially in Canada. Even in America. Its the grassroot supporter who has always been dangerous. Is Harper racist? No. Do racist people vote for Harper? Yes. Learn to draw that distinction.

McCain was booed for being decent. He knows the system inside out, and he can still say with authority that Obama is not someone to be afraid off. On the other hand you have the Republican grassroots which thinks that Obama is an Arab Muslim terrorsit. See the difference. Would I be worried of McCain? Hardly - I support him (not so hot on Palin, though). Would I be afraid of the lady who thinks Obama's Arab? Hell, yes. Her cognition skills are clearly skewed. She might think I am Arab.

It's funny how the peaceniks have been branded violent. Obama wants to go and reason with the President of Iran,but his supporters are bloodthirsty. Wierd, eh?

"The hatred that oozes out of the righteous, “I’m entitled and you’re not”"

Huh? The Rightwing should know all about righteous hatred. Ever heard of Jerry "September 11th happened because of the gays" Falwell, or Pat "I am friends with the genoicidal Charles Taylor" Roberts. Both sides have lunatics. You name one. I name one. We can continue till jesus comes back.

"hate filled feminist crucifixion of Sarah Palin by such feminists as Heather Mallick"

In all fairness, she got crucified by the conservative hacks at National Review (you know, the flagship of American Conservatism). Go to Townhall, you will find Republican pundits crucifying Palin (and you will find hordes of Republican ideologues abusing them - righteous hatred perhaps?)

"Every criticism he makes of socialist Europe could equally be made about Canada.)"

I live in Europe now, and he's spot on. That said, I am hardly a fan of Canada's system. Its a country that enjoys comfortable mediocrity. On the bright side, that emphasis on comfortable medicority has kept Canada stable during this global crisis. That aside, the right wingers are as scary as the left-wingers. Oh and the terms apply loosely - the newest batch of Dutch left-wingers are more right wing than the CPC.

"Show me the equivalent of the relentless and, in Canada, monolithic, elitist, truth-averse, vitriolic attacks"

This website and its emphasis on Islam, perhaps. I can only assume Dhimmitude is a play on the Islamic term dhimmi, in which case, well, you've proved my point. In a thread that has nothing to do with Islam, you have managed to bring Islam in - trying to discredit me, no doubt, like the emphasis on Hussein in Barack Obama's name. I haven't been following the Canadian elections. They're waay too boring. Yes, I am Canadian. No, I am not absentee voting. I don't like anybody who is running this time round. Status quo is fine by me. As for an equivalent, just for the sake of it - Campbell's attack on Chretiens face.

Don't get me wrong. I love Canada. But the politics is too boring. Sitting on the outside, they all look the same. Nothing's really changed much either. 3% less in taxes? Big deal. Still cheaper to shop in the US.

In a thread that has nothing to do with Islam, you have managed to bring Islam in - trying to discredit me,

That certainly is an assumption on your part.
and
Islam most certainly has an 'influence' on our politics and opinions of the day...in this thread and many others not to mention the hundreds of thousands of blogs around the world, but what the hell did they expect after 911?

Never talked, read or knew very much about Islam until 911...now I that I know more, I need to denounce it and
any religion that comes up against human rights, however Islam is always WANTING to be front and center as 'poor me' victim, while at the same time they never acknowledge the damage they've done, and continue to do, like killing over a rumor of the koran being flushed, and etc.
New day, new grievance, new dead..

Don't want bad PR for your religions? Then stop slaughtering the innocent in the name of a cult like belief system.

I will vote for the party that will stand up to fascist from all corners, so has to be CPC.

Boring politics?
Such folly, what you'd like spilled blood perhaps?
Peak your interest then?

Dim, you constantly support a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia for yourself. You make strawmen of every criticism, sneer at both sides of society at every opportunity. You are pathologically angry. Get help.

ldd,

Can you explain to me what I wrote that resulted in Lookout referring to me with the term dhimmitude? Sure Islam is a big topic these days, but what exactly did I say that warranted that term?

This site is full of one-trick ponies- when in doubt, blame Islam. Its almost as if you were waiting for me to say Islam so that you could get your little monologue out of your system. Whatever rocks your boat. That said, this thread is about the very strange tactics being used.

Are you one of the 15% who thinks Barack Hussein Obama is a muslim? Because thats what we are getting at. Not that Islam is good or peaceful or whatever them apologists harp on about, but that the middle name is being deliberately used to foster fear and harness the votes of people like you . A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Like that lady showed John McCain. "I read a lot about Obama and I dont trust him. He is Arab". heh.

And go ahead. Critique Islam all you want. Thats your prerogative. You're better off doing it on one of the many threads Kate provides on a daily basis for it.

And yes, I stand by contention that Canadian politics is dead boring. On the one hand you have the Liberals, who are as left wing as the US Democrats, and then you have the Conservatives, who are as right wing as the US Democrats. Everytime either comes into power, it stations itself at the center. Since Harper came into power, how much has changed? I travel back on work every couple of months, and the answer to that is - NADA.

Of course this is a very good thing, for precisely the reason you mentioned above. There are no pressing issues. I am not voting because I am absolutely fine with the status quo. What is anohter 4 years of Harper going to do that is so drastically different from the Liberals? When I come back in 4 years. Canada will still be the same. No matter how left wing or right wing the government is. Shoot me for saying it, but Harpers more of a centrist than a rightist. And the Liberals are pretty much the same when they are in power. Its the way parliamentary democracy works - the radical elements are forfeited and they all start looking the same. Educated, elitist, and centrist leaderships, with crazy left or right wing supporters, depending on the party.

Why do you think Palin's caused such a stir - she's relatively uneducated, not an elite, nor a centrist. Even the conservatives are wary of her (beyond her populist vote attracting appeal). She'll bring in the votes, but anybody who knows a thing about politics knows that shes going to be kept on a very short leash by her Republican handlers, once in office.

"Dim, you constantly support a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia for yourself. You make strawmen of every criticism, sneer at both sides of society at every opportunity. You are pathologically angry. Get help."

Ooh, we have a psychologist in the house. Or a social worker. I can never tell the difference. Prey where do you see anger in my words? I can assure you, I am not angry. :D.

I may be mistaken but weren't you one of the folk who insisted that the majority of Canadian voters are stupid or morons? I recall disagreeing with you on that, so I find your allegation that I sneer at both sides of society a bit odd. You seem to do that pretty well, yourself.

All I have said (or as you call it, sneered at) is the fact (it is a fact) that there are crazies on both sides, and not, as you suggest, just on the left side of the fence. I call that reality. Hardly anger. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion about my mental well being, but I apologize for not taking it seriously - I don't care much for the credentials of psychologists and social workers (whichever you are). Power to those who do.

So if you find Canadian politics so boring why even bother here?

Just to say so? Or to get some attention because you're bored?

Anyone who can't see the difference between Harper and Dion, Laton and the rest is being contrite and simple minded, must help with the "I'm bored excuse" for not understanding you own flailing logic.

Anyhow I'm done with the petty minded today.
:)

Hey I find the American election entertaining. Which, incidentally, is what this thread is about.

Harper and Dion are very different individuals, with very interesting and distinct personal ideologies. Great distinct indviduals.

And that will count for nought once they are in power. History favors me on this one ;). I mean, seriously, how different has the CPC been to the Liberals during its term? They are all educated men who become centrists - its the only way to rule a diverse country (and by diverse, I don't mean ethnicity, I mean a country with multiple political ideologies). Elected leaders have to cater to everyone, not just to those who voted for them. This has obvious repercussions.

Dim. It just surprises me, usually you lefties like to use a little irony in your handles.

One candidates ethics allows him to involve himself with a murdering urban terrorist to attain power.
The other candidates ethics allows for the attempted removal of a rogue cop who was threatening her family.
Go Obahma!

Found this on Newsbusters and it's not like anybody will be surprised by it but it really displays the class and superior moral stance of Obama supporters as opposed to the redneck, lynching enthusiasts found on the right.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/10/13/obama-supporters-call-sarah-palin-c-nt-where-media