Boorish McCain denounces principled Rand Paul’s actions as “stunt”

Conservative U.S. Sen. Rand Paul’s principled 13-hour information-seeking filibuster concerning John Brennan‘s suitability for confirmation as CIA Director, has met with the wrath of John McCain and his sycophantic buddy, Lindsey Graham.

Sen. Paul should consider criticism from this feckless duo a feather in his cap.

Failed presidential candidate McCain and Graham took to the Senate floor to denounce Paul’s actions, claiming he was doing a “disservice” to the debate on drones.

Sen. Paul said he was filibustering to get the administration to affirm it won’t authorize military strikes against non-combatant Americans in the U.S. — and his effort was joined by more than a dozen other senators who said they, too, supported his effort to get answers.

Toady Graham said asking whether the president has the power to kill American citizens by use of drones on American soil is a ludicrous question. “I do not believe that question deserves an answer,” Graham said. The petulant Graham denounced the Republican Senators who supported Paul’s filibuster last night, and told reporters that he will now vote to confirm Brennan as a result of Paul‘s actions.

While Sen. Rand Paul was doing the heavy lifting on behalf of the American people, McCain and Graham were busy dining with Obama at the luxe Plume restaurant featuring an $85 prix fixe menu,

Graham, a South Carolinian cut from the same RINO fabric as McCain, is up for re-election next year and could face a primary challenge in his conservative home state.

Let’s hope he suffers a similar fate as Russ Feingold another senate buddy of McCain’s. In 2010, Democrat Feingold, (remember the McCain -Feingold campaign finance reform measure that undercut Republicans?) was defeated in his reelection bid by Republican Ron Johnson.

Here is U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder — the chief legal officer of the United States — dancing around the constitutionality of killing Americans, not posing an imminent threat, by use of drone attacks:

About these ads

75 Responses to Boorish McCain denounces principled Rand Paul’s actions as “stunt”

  1. shocblog says:

    Hey, wait! I thought SeeingRed loved John McCain. Did I miss something?

    • Seeing Red AZ says:

      You missed nothing. Seeing Red AZ does love John McCain. We’d love for him to retire and leave the propagation of liberalism to the Democrats.

      • eubykdisop says:

        ROFL! :-)

      • Delilah says:

        SRA, I agree, he is a useless old man who should just wither away, he knows he lost this battle.

      • Westnash says:

        Amen!

      • Louise Ann says:

        Called him yesterday (as I do often) to let him know that is was a disgusting act for someone to speak against the protection of rights provided to a citizen by the Constitution. I don’t know how simple it could be!! And to question the intelligence of the American people about their safety from the government. Well I remember Ruby Ridge and Waco. Not to mention Fast and Furious, Benghzi, and the release of dangerous illegal aliens.

    • eubykdisop says:

      Hey, shocblog, your support for B. Hussein Obama and his Liberal agenda are obviously causing you to become more confused. Better see your doctor about an increase in your Alzheimer’s medication!

      • GOP PC says:

        euby,
        As surprising as it seems, the truth is “shocblog” is the Republican District 28 Chairman, Scott O’Connor. That fact takes him out of the realm of simply being a run-of-the-mill liberal. He’s a RINO through and through.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Thanks, GOP PC. I know who he is. We’ve locked horns before.

        Just having some fun because his comment is so dorky, as usual, LOL! ;-)

  2. Kathy says:

    Sen. Rand Paul took a stand for the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the American citizens. McCain and Grahamnesty on the other hand wined and dined with Obama who is shredding the Constitution at every turn (with their assistance). Then the two establishment RINO’s blasted Sen. Rand Paul – these 2 are completely out of touch with the American citizens which was on display loud and clear. The contrast couldn’t have been greater.

    • AZ Conservative Guy says:

      You nailed it on all points, Kathy! Good assessment of a couple of asses.

  3. VINOAZ says:

    McCain is an ass and a RINO. He is an embarrassment to our state.

    • Hunter says:

      And yet he keeps getting re-elected (even in Republican Primaries). I agree with you, but there are obviously either a lot of liberal Republicans (McCain Republicans) or a lot of low information Republican voters. He even won the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 when he is barely a Republican himself.

      Maybe the elected party officials such as PCs and state committeemen should vote on who the candidate for each party should be? This would remove independents from the process and also put the decision in the hands of people more committed to being knowledgeable and informed about politics and candidates.

      • eubykdisop says:

        There is something you are failing to consider, Hunter, even though I have mentioned this to you previously. McCain takes Liberal positions on many important issues, like immigration. Why, then, would not a lot of Democrats vote for McCain? They get what they want on key issues and keep a Conservative Republican out of office!

        If we consider all votes cast for McCain in the last elections as being Republican votes and all votes cast for his opponent, Glassman, as being Democrat votes, then McCain would have garnered 89.7% of the Republican vote with Glassman having garnered only 62.1% of the Democrat vote. This lends credence to the idea that Democrats crossed party lines to vote for McCain.

        McCain got 1,005,615 votes with 1,120,992 registered Republicans in the state. Glassman got 592,011 votes with 952,931 registered Democrats in the state. Where did the other almost 361,000 Democrat votes go? We don’t know but given McCain’s positions and Democrats being intent on keeping a Conservative out of office, many of those Democrats may well have voted for McCain.

        Furthermore, it is a fact that there are Liberal Democrats who will register Republican in order to vote in Republican primary elections. If Democrats can get McCain on the election ballot then they know that with the votes of a portion of Republicans plus Liberal Democrat votes, they can, with certainty, get a RINO elected.

      • Hunter says:

        Gosh, I guess I just am not smart enough to consider things like McCain is a RINO and appeals to Democrats. I guess I’m too naive to think that some Democrats might register as Independents so they can vote in the Republican primary if it will better serve their cause – or will even register Republican if they think they should vote for the least conservative Republican candidate in a presidential primary.

        There are plenty of Republicans who vote for McCain. He wouldn’t have won the 2010 Senate primary without most Republicans voting for him even considering Independents and Democrats registered as Republicans.

        The real question is why does he win Republican primaries? The general election is trivial once a RINO like McCain wins the primary.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Hunter wrote: “Gosh, I guess I just am not smart enough…” I wasn’t going to say it but since you did, I’ll agree with you, Hunter. In fact, I agree with you so much that I’ll point out that fact in action for you.

        Hunter wrote: “…there are obviously either a lot of liberal Republicans (McCain Republicans) or a lot of low information Republican voters.” Not a mention of crossover Democrats! Not a mention of Liberal Democrats registering as Republicans and voting in Republican primaries.

        The analysis I did is my own, based upon researching the election and registration numbers myself. I didn’t read it somewhere. You didn’t do that because, as you so accurately state, you are “not smart enough”.

        The fact is, Hunter, that you didn’t address the issues I raised at all. You didn’t do the research that I did and you didn’t do the analysis that I did.

        You end your confession of not being smart enough with this statement: “The real question is why does he win Republican primaries?” That demonstrates how “not smart enough” you are when I already answered that in my post by stating: “Furthermore, it is a fact that there are Liberal Democrats who will register Republican in order to vote in Republican primary elections.”

        So sorry to undermine your Liberal idea of having party officials choose candidates but that is what happens to people like you who, by their own admission, are just “not smart enough”.

        Now run along and play with the other “not smart enough” Liberal, Westnash. The nice thing is that, since you both wear pink, you can share dresses.

        Have a nice day, “not smart enough”!

      • eubykdisop says:

        Here, do some reading, Hunter and Westnash. Educate yourselves.

        “Why Conservatives Should Be Against Term Limits”

        “By Bob Naylor”

        (Bob Naylor served in the California Assembly from 1978 -86, as Assembly Republican Leader from 1982 -84 and as California Republican Party Chairman from 1987 -89.)

        “First, a confession. I served in the California Legislature for eight years. I am a Barry Goldwater/Ronald Reagan Republican. I termed myself out by running for higher office (and losing). I voted for term limits.”

        “As Pete Wilson likes to say, “It seemed like a good idea at the time.” Turns out, it’s a very bad idea.”

        “As a conservative, I favor returning to the model of the Founding Fathers. The original constitutional qualifications for office are being a citizen, a resident and of age. There are plenty of other checks and balances without adding term limits. In California, we have added the recall and the referendum to restrain legislative abuse.”

        “If a legislator has mastered the political art well enough to deserve another term, the people of that district should have the right to grant it.”

        http://www.calbuzz.com/2009/07/why-conservatives-should-be-against-term-limits/

      • Hunter says:

        Euby, you did an analysis of the general election. I pointed out that the relevant election to consider is the primary election. Perhaps you are too stupid to figure that out or. you prefer to misdirect and distract people from the core issue if it doesn’t fit your way of thinking.

        Your analysis was weak anyway because it addressed registered voters as opposed to people who actually voted. You also didn’t include independents in the totals. In fact, it would also require polling and/or focus groups to really start to understand how people in each party and independents voted in the general election. Sometimes no “analysis” is better than badly done analysis.

        You are a big government troll with too much time on his hands masquerading as a conservative. Wear your fascist brown shirt along with your other copy and paste troll buddies who always engage in smear tactics or talk around a point rather than actually address it.

      • eubykdisop says:

        ROFL! That’s what I love about you, Hunter. When you have lost, your persist, just digging yourself in even deeper, LOL!

        Hunter wrote: “Euby, you did an analysis of the general election. I pointed out that the relevant election to consider is the primary election.” Really?

        Hunter wrote: “And yet he keeps getting re-elected (even in Republican Primaries).”

        Um, that isn’t addressing the primary! You wrote about McCain getting “re-elected”! Re-election is about the general election, not the primary!

        Hunter wrote: “Perhaps you are too stupid…” Oh no, Hunter, that’s your forte. Don’t you remember what you wrote?

        “Hunter says:
        March 10, 2013 at 12:28 am
        Gosh, I guess I just am not smart enough…”

        I agree with you on that point, Hunter. You are not smart enough!

        Hunter wrote: “You are a big government troll with too much time on his hands masquerading as a conservative. Wear your fascist brown shirt along with your other copy and paste troll buddies who always engage in smear tactics or talk around a point rather than actually address it.”

        My, my! Temper, temper, LOL!

        It’s alright, Hunter. We understand how frustrating it is for leftist, Obama Liberals, like you and your buddy Westnash, to post in a Conservative Republican blog instead of at Daily Kos where you belong. Oh, and don’t steal Westnash’s stuff. Copy and paste is his thing. Come up with your own. You know, something original, LOL!

        You have yourself a wonderful day now, “not smart enough”!

      • Hunter says:

        Euby, you are truly an idiot. How can a person get re-elected as a Republican without winning the primary?

        And your analysis of the general election was deficient. I noticed you didn’t even bother to deny it.

        You always resort to calling people who disagree with you liberals regardless of whether they are conservative or liberal. Of course, if you define liberal as someone who disagrees with Euby, then there are a lot of liberals in the world. Eventually, everybody except Euby will be considered a liberal by wise old Euby.

        Term limits is not a conservative or liberal issue. It is an issue about better government in general. There are arguments in favor and against them, but most of those arguments are not based on political philosophy as much as a practical determination of what will produce better government.

      • eubkdisop says:

        Really, Hunter? Who is the idiot?

        “TERM LIMITS”

        “Oct 29, 1995 • By CHARLES R. KESLER”

        (Charles R. Kesler (1956- ) is professor of Government/Political Science at Claremont McKenna College and Claremont Graduate University. The Claremont Institute is an American conservative think tank based in Claremont, California. The mission of the Claremont Institute is “to restore the principles of the American founding fathers to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life”, and to “remake American politics” as established by the founders in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.)

        “Term limits would be a foolish way to pursue a strategy of reducing the size and scope of government. To quote The Federalist, which argued elegantly against term limits, “It is not generally to be expected that men will vary and measures remain uniform.”

        “Finally, and most tellingly, we ought to wonder whether term limits would have unhappy effects on the American people’s character. Constitutionalized term limits are a standing invitation to the neglect of that vigilance which citizens ought to exercise over their representatives. “Stop me before I vote again!” is the pathetic cry of the die-hard term limiters. In fact, the American people are not irresponsible; they can, and will, make serious political choices, if only they are presented with serious political alternatives, as the elections of 1980 and 1994 proved. The campaign to write term limits into the Constitution is now, at best, a distraction from the momentous effort to restore the constitutional grounds of limited government in America; at worst, it could become a delusive substitute for genuine political reform.”

        http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/006/994nrbdb.asp?page=1

        What was that you wrote about me, Hunter? Oh yes, it was this: “You are a big government troll with too much time on his hands masquerading as a conservative.” Really? But it is you who supports term limits and what does Dr. Kesler say? “Term limits would be a foolish way to pursue a strategy of reducing the size and scope of government.” Ah yes, a “foolish” way. Well, there we have it, don’t we, Hunter! Foolish!

        Have a nice day, Foolish!

      • eubkdisop says:

        Hunter wrote: “You always resort to calling people who disagree with you liberals regardless of whether they are conservative or liberal.” Really? Do I do that? Why that’s just awful of me! I suppose I should be more like you and write things like this:

        “Hunter says:
        March 10, 2013 at 9:41 am
        You are a big government troll with too much time on his hands masquerading as a conservative. Wear your fascist brown shirt along with your other copy and paste troll buddies who always engage in smear tactics or talk around a point rather than actually address it.”

        That’s obviously MUCH better than calling a radical, Liberal leftist like you a “Liberal”, isn’t it? ROFL!

        Oh, lecture me on how to be proper like you, Hunter! If you had one tenth as much brains as you do hypocrisy you might actually be able to make a rational argument, LOL!

      • eubykdisop says:

        Hunter wrote: “And your analysis of the general election was deficient. I noticed you didn’t even bother to deny it.” Patience, idiot, patience, LOL!

        Hunter wrote: “Your analysis was weak anyway because it addressed registered voters as opposed to people who actually voted. You also didn’t include independents in the totals. In fact, it would also require polling and/or focus groups to really start to understand how people in each party and independents voted in the general election. Sometimes no “analysis” is better than badly done analysis.”

        When are you going to learn to actually READ, Hunter, LOL! Here is what I wrote:

        “If we consider all votes cast for McCain in the last elections as being Republican votes and all votes cast for his opponent, Glassman, as being Democrat votes…” I addressed the issues of people who actually voted and independents by clearly stating my assumptions. If you knew anything about research, you would know that that is perfectly acceptable practice. Obviously, you know nothing about research.

        Furthermore, I made these statements:

        “This lends credence to the idea that Democrats crossed party lines to vote for McCain.”

        “Where did the other almost 361,000 Democrat votes go? We don’t know…”

        Are you capable of comprehending the terms “lends credence” and “we don’t know”? Obviously, you are not!

        You critique my analysis but offer only your Liberal opinion, without even an attempt at any fact based analysis. On top of your other virtues, you are mentally lazy. Like all Liberals, you would rather criticize those who “do” than get up off you lazy butt and actually make some effort yourself!

        I haven’t failed to notice that you made no objection at all to these position statements by your Liberal buddy, Westnash:

        “Westnash says:
        February 14, 2013 at 10:17 am
        I would propose an immediate 10% cut in all military expenditures including salaries. All of us can get by on 9 out of 10…..the govt. can as well…it is nothing but would make a huge dent in the problem.”

        “Westnash says:
        January 8, 2013 at 8:00 am
        There will be some changes in gun regulations at some point in 2013 and the Republicans who only tow the NRA line of “no” will lose. Wouldn’t you rather outsmart your opponent than trying unsuccessfully in throwing up a wall, that is crumbling down around you.”

        “Westnash says:
        January 11, 2013 at 3:41 am
        Obviously, Euby, it is easy for you to blame Marxism, but impossible to offer a solution for the Arizona Republicans. Hopefully there is someone in the party smarter than you.”

        “Westnash says:
        February 18, 2013 at 3:35 pm
        What I worry that the Secure Our Borders bunch really wants is to spend Billions more in hiring and fences which do nothing but increase the size of Govt.”

        Liberals of a feather flock together!

        Have a nice day, idiot!

      • Hunter says:

        Euby, you are both an idiot and a bore as well as an Internet bully. You obviously think you more much more than you do. You also never directly address the points others bring up; you ignore them and repeat your stupid assertions. You clutter up comments areas by continually repeating the same things. I commend you on your file of quotes. Try being on topic with them instead of just trying to do broad based smears.

        If you had any balls, you’d have your own blog instead of trying to hijack Seeing Red Arizona. You’ve probably already tried that and failed, though.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Why thank you, Hunter! You are a paragon of virtue, setting a fine example with your comment of how I can make mine more virtuous, LOL!

        What you are REALLY so upset about, Hunter, is that your opinions were disputed. You seem to be obsessed with being seen not only as intelligent, but as the MOST intelligent. Did your father repeatedly call you “stupid” when you were a child?

        Furthermore, Hunter, you become incensed when someone who disagrees with you doesn’t fold. You seem to think that all those who disagree with your views will crump if you persist long enough. You should realize by now, Hunter, that that is incorrect, LOL!

  4. Tomfoolery says:

    Juan McAmnesty and Lindsey Gramnesty. What a team! For these two fools to go after Sen. Rand Paul would be laughable if not so pathetic. Rand Paul is rightly defined here as principled. That’s a term the two RINOs are unable to comprehend. And for Graham to say that NOW, just now, just because….he will support John Brennan‘s confirmation, is nothing short of juvenile. He sounds like a bratty little kid, who is going to show someone something, regardless of the irrationality of his actions. Graham.and McCain have long ago outlived their usefulness in DC.

  5. Delilah says:

    McStain, McFlake and Gramestny all need to leave the Senate, I think we finally had enough of the old fool and his protege’.

  6. BPaluch777@aol.com says:

    Video didn’t display.

    • Seeing Red AZ says:

      BPaluch77:
      You’ve mentioned the problem you’ve encountered with our videos previously. Though the problem seems to be on your end, we regret the inconvenience to you.
      This is the link:

      We hope you can access the video in this way. Let us know if it works for you.

      • PeeJay says:

        I too have this problem. In order to view videos I always have to resort to the REPLY page to get a live rendition. I use a Mac and Safari, so that may be the source.

  7. eubykdisop says:

    “Was John McCain Brainwashed While Imprisoned In North Vietnam?”

    “January 31, 2010
    By: Dave Gibson”

    “Eventually, McCain signed a letter claiming to be a war criminal and apologizing for the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. He also did many radio and television interviews, some with foreign correspondents which is a severe violation of the military code of conduct.”

    “In 1992, NVA Col. Bui Tin, who interrogated McCain in the Hanoi Hilton, testified before the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. He told the Senators (including McCain) that Soviet officers regularly interrogated and tortured American POW’s. During a break in the proceedings, Sen. McCain and Col. Tin enjoyed a hug and exchanged the kind of longing looks that a man would usually share with his long-lost father, or perhaps in McCain’s case…His comrade?”

    “However, it would appear that under extreme torture and indoctrination at the hands of his communist captors, he may have been turned…Turned against his own country and sent back to dismantle that country.”

    http://www.examiner.com/article/was-john-mccain-brainwashed-while-imprisoned-north-vietnam

  8. Night Owl says:

    Vist ‘Freedom Works’ site. Unite with those who are demanding an apology from John McCain:
    https://secure.freedomworks.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=845&S_subsrc=FBLibertariansMacApology

  9. sgtflapjaw says:

    John McCain and Lindsey Gaham could not go stand with Rand Paul. You people just don’t understand.
    Do you realize how small those two would look standing next to Rand Paul? That of course is before they even start to talk.
    The John and Lindsey B***t Buddy Club is starting to look pretty tarnished.

  10. Delilah says:

    Remember it was the same John McStain who closed the investigation into the POW/MIA’s in Vietnam. McStain was and is a traitor, but I am getting really suspect of the people of Arizona who keep voting for that traitor.

    I recieved and email from Prescott yesterday they may start a recall up that way.

    • sgtflapjaw says:

      A recall is not and should not work. Recalls are not supposed to be used to nullify elections, they are to get rid of office holders who commit acts of mafeasance and other misdeeds. They are not for when an official commits and act of being who he is and always has been.

  11. Hunter says:

    McCain makes the case for term limits for members of Congress. An incumbent can use the power of his office to help raise $22 million to run a negative campaign against all credible primary opponents. An incumbent controlling billions of dollars of Federal spending can create undue pressure for endorsements for himself and denying them to those opposing him. If we can’t get Congress to propose a constitutional amendment term limiting Congress, then we may need to take the risky step of pushing for a constitutional convention to get term limits for Congress. The certainty of the government we now have is proving itself to be worse than the risk of a constitutional convention.

    • eubykdisop says:

      Term limits is not a rational solution, Hunter. Why not? Because the same processes which have served to keep McCain in office would serve to keep an unending series of McCains in office.

      The first rational step is to take measures to bring about verifiable integrity of the voting process. If we can’t know, with certainty, that voting integrity is there, every other intervention would be a waste of time.

      First things first!

      • Westnash says:

        That is simply your opinion. Term Limits Are a major answer to do away with long serving congressional members of both parties who forget why they were sent to Washington and instead become a part of it.

        Cut their salary and send them home.

      • PeeJay says:

        Sorry, Westnash, but this is an ENTIRE Website devoted to opinion… conservative opinion at that.
        Your view on term limits is exceptionally short-sighted. When you say, “Term Limits Are a major answer to do away with long serving congressional members of both parties who forget why they were sent to Washington and instead become a part of it,” you automatically delete congressional members who did NOT forget their oath to protect the Constitution. What about a Ron Paul? Why would a genuine constitutionalist want to run him out of town?
        What you are proposing is something hatched in desperation by individuals who think they must have an automatic mechanism in place that would arbitrarily remove those with seniority (read: Scary Democratic senators). That way they will not even have to show up to vote because the ‘system’ will eventually correct their discomfort. But this will backfire if and when Repubs ever regain the Senate. Then the”good guys” will be regularly term-limited out of usefulness.
        No, Westnash, you haven’t thought this through at all.
        To put it in bumper-sticker simplicity, “Your Right to Vote IS the Ultimate Term Limiter.

      • eubykdisop says:

        And these are simply your wrong Liberal opinions:

        “Westnash says:
        February 14, 2013 at 10:17 am
        I would propose an immediate 10% cut in all military expenditures including salaries. All of us can get by on 9 out of 10…..the govt. can as well…it is nothing but would make a huge dent in the problem.”

        “Westnash says:
        January 8, 2013 at 8:00 am
        There will be some changes in gun regulations at some point in 2013 and the Republicans who only tow the NRA line of “no” will lose. Wouldn’t you rather outsmart your opponent than trying unsuccessfully in throwing up a wall, that is crumbling down around you.”

        “Westnash says:
        January 11, 2013 at 3:41 am
        Obviously, Euby, it is easy for you to blame Marxism, but impossible to offer a solution for the Arizona Republicans. Hopefully there is someone in the party smarter than you.”

        “Westnash says:
        February 18, 2013 at 3:35 pm
        What I worry that the Secure Our Borders bunch really wants is to spend Billions more in hiring and fences which do nothing but increase the size of Govt.”

        And you had this to say about Sheriff Joe Arpaio:

        “Westnash says:
        March 1, 2013 at 9:06 am
        Interesting that when you have someone like Joe who continues to hang on…you have a real vacuum behind them. Their ego just wont let them develop a successor. Joe should retire soon and develop a strong successor…but I am afraid hubris has set in long ago.”

        The Conservatives here aren’t interested in your Liberal tripe and propaganda, Westy.

      • Hunter says:

        Do you think McCain won because of voter fraud?

      • eubykdisop says:

        Hunter:

        I don’t know if McCain won because of voter fraud or not BUT, given the plethora of well documented cases of voter fraud across the nation, I wouldn’t rule it out. Do you feel that you can absolutely rule out voter fraud as the reason McCain gets re-elected?

      • eubykdisop says:

        Well, Hunter and Westnash, here is one supporter of your idea of term limits; the Democrat vice presidential nominee in 2000, U. S. Senator Joe Lieberman.

        “Lieberman urges term limits for senators in exit interview”

        “By Justin Sink – 12/17/12″

        “Retiring Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said in an interview that aired Sunday he favored both term limits for senators and replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote.”

        http://thehill.com/video/senate/273197-lieberman-urges-term-limits-for-senators-in-exit-interview

      • Hunter says:

        Euby, just to be clear, you are saying that McCain won the 2010 Republican Senate primary election because of a lack of integrity in the voting process?

      • Hunter says:

        A lot of Texas conservatives favor term limits as well:

        http://www.texastribune.org/2013/03/08/conservatives-revive-proposal-term-limits/

        And I don’t think they favor abolishing the electoral college.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Hunter wrote: “Gosh, I guess I just am not smart enough…” Your question proves you to be correct!

        Hunter asked: “Euby, just to be clear, you are saying that McCain won the 2010 Republican Senate primary election because of a lack of integrity in the voting process?”

        Had you read and been able to comprehend what I already wrote, “not smart enough”, you would realize that your question has already been answered. Here, try reading my post again and maybe you will be able to comprehend it this time.

        “Hunter:

        I don’t know if McCain won because of voter fraud or not BUT, given the plethora of well documented cases of voter fraud across the nation, I wouldn’t rule it out. Do you feel that you can absolutely rule out voter fraud as the reason McCain gets re-elected?”

        Now, Hunter, I’ve answered your question twice but you have completely failed to answer my question so let me write it big so that you can see it:

        “DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY RULE OUT VOTER FRAUD AS THE REASON MCCAIN GETS RE-ELECTED?”

        There, “not smart enough”, can you see it now? Good! Now let’s have an answer! We’re waiting! Take your time. We know that it is difficult when one is “not smart enough”.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Hunter wrote: “A lot of Texas conservatives favor term limits as well:”

        Yet once again, Hunter, you prove your statement that you are “not smart enough”, LOL!

        So what we have is the 2000 Democrat vice presidential candidate, U. S. Senator Joe Lieberman, and some Texas Republicans supporting term limits. Well glory be, it’s just like the “Gang of 8″! Ain’t bipartisanship beautiful! Maybe when Flake and McCain are finished working with their Liberal Democrat friends on “comprehensive immigration reform”, they can turn their collective attention to term limits. They could even invite Lieberman to help, since he’s now an “independent”.

        Now you and Westnash run along. Westnash has a lot of indoctrinating to do with you. For example, he needs to tell you this about Sheriff Joe Arpaio:

        “Westnash says:
        March 1, 2013 at 9:06 am
        Interesting that when you have someone like Joe who continues to hang on…you have a real vacuum behind them. Their ego just wont let them develop a successor. Joe should retire soon and develop a strong successor…but I am afraid hubris has set in long ago.”

        Have a nice day, “not smart enough”!

      • eubykdisop says:

        “Why Conservatives Should Be Against Term Limits”

        “By Bob Naylor”

        (Bob Naylor served in the California Assembly from 1978 -86, as Assembly Republican Leader from 1982 -84 and as California Republican Party Chairman from 1987 -89.)

        “First, a confession. I served in the California Legislature for eight years. I am a Barry Goldwater/Ronald Reagan Republican. I termed myself out by running for higher office (and losing). I voted for term limits.”

        “As Pete Wilson likes to say, “It seemed like a good idea at the time.” Turns out, it’s a very bad idea.”

        “As a conservative, I favor returning to the model of the Founding Fathers. The original constitutional qualifications for office are being a citizen, a resident and of age. There are plenty of other checks and balances without adding term limits. In California, we have added the recall and the referendum to restrain legislative abuse.”

        “If a legislator has mastered the political art well enough to deserve another term, the people of that district should have the right to grant it.”

        http://www.calbuzz.com/2009/07/why-conservatives-should-be-against-term-limits/

      • Hunter says:

        Euby, if you are too stupid to see that the media saturating barrage attack ads on JD Hayworth financed with McCain’s huge campaign war chest coupled with intimidation of potential JD Hayworth financial supporters was the deciding factor in that election, then you are too stupid to argue with. Election fraud, though it was probably present, was not even close to being a deciding factor in that election. No rational person could disagree with this.

      • Hunter says:

        Euby, if we don’t want term limits because it’s the way the founding fathers wanted it, then let’s also get rid of direct election of senators (which would also help resolve the problems in Congress) and allow people to serve more than two terms as President. In fact, Washington established a tradition of Presidents only serving two terms. Until FDR, that tradition established by our greatest founding father, was practiced. The founding fathers also did not anticipate career politicians in Congress which is one reason why that issue was not addressed. We addressed abuse of incumbency by Presidents with a constitutional amendment. It is not unconservative or irrational to support a constitutional amendment to do the same for members of Congress.

        There are advantages and disadvantages to term limits. As long as that is recognized, being for them or against them are both rational positions based on how you weigh the possible benefits against the possible costs.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Maybe you should actually READ the article, Hunter, LOL!

        “Why Conservatives Should Be Against Term Limits”

        “By Bob Naylor”

        (Bob Naylor served in the California Assembly from 1978 -86, as Assembly Republican Leader from 1982 -84 and as California Republican Party Chairman from 1987 -89.)

        “First, a confession. I served in the California Legislature for eight years. I am a Barry Goldwater/Ronald Reagan Republican. I termed myself out by running for higher office (and losing). I voted for term limits.”

        “As Pete Wilson likes to say, “It seemed like a good idea at the time.” Turns out, it’s a very bad idea.”

        “As a conservative, I favor returning to the model of the Founding Fathers. The original constitutional qualifications for office are being a citizen, a resident and of age. There are plenty of other checks and balances without adding term limits. In California, we have added the recall and the referendum to restrain legislative abuse.”

        “If a legislator has mastered the political art well enough to deserve another term, the people of that district should have the right to grant it.”

        http://www.calbuzz.com/2009/07/why-conservatives-should-be-against-term-limits/

      • Hunter says:

        Euby, I did read the article and I disagree. 6 terms in the House and 2 in the Senate is enough time to gain expertise without becoming a fossilized insider. My objection is to consecutive terms – not total terms served. I think that incumbency does have advantages and that an open seat is far more open than one held by an incumbent.

      • eubkdisop says:

        Come on, Hunter, bring it on! You have never had “the right stuff” and you don’t have it now, LOL!

        Hunter wrote: “Term limits is not a conservative or liberal issue.” Really? Are you sure?

        “TERM LIMITS”

        “Oct 29, 1995 • By CHARLES R. KESLER”

        (Charles R. Kesler (1956- ) is professor of Government/Political Science at Claremont McKenna College and Claremont Graduate University. The Claremont Institute is an American conservative think tank based in Claremont, California. The mission of the Claremont Institute is “to restore the principles of the American founding fathers to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life”, and to “remake American politics” as established by the founders in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.)

        “Term limits would be a foolish way to pursue a strategy of reducing the size and scope of government. To quote The Federalist, which argued elegantly against term limits, “It is not generally to be expected that men will vary and measures remain uniform.”

        “Finally, and most tellingly, we ought to wonder whether term limits would have unhappy effects on the American people’s character. Constitutionalized term limits are a standing invitation to the neglect of that vigilance which citizens ought to exercise over their representatives. “Stop me before I vote again!” is the pathetic cry of the die-hard term limiters. In fact, the American people are not irresponsible; they can, and will, make serious political choices, if only they are presented with serious political alternatives, as the elections of 1980 and 1994 proved. The campaign to write term limits into the Constitution is now, at best, a distraction from the momentous effort to restore the constitutional grounds of limited government in America; at worst, it could become a delusive substitute for genuine political reform.”

        http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/006/994nrbdb.asp?page=1

      • eubykdisop says:

        Hunter wrote: “Euby, if you are too stupid to see that the media saturating barrage attack ads on JD Hayworth financed with McCain’s huge campaign war chest coupled with intimidation of potential JD Hayworth financial supporters was the deciding factor in that election, then you are too stupid to argue with. Election fraud, though it was probably present, was not even close to being a deciding factor in that election. No rational person could disagree with this.”

        I’m rational and I disagree with it because it is more Hunter idiocy. Is it really necessary for me to list all of the candidates across the decades who were grossly outspent on ads and won? Duh!

        How about McCain courted and cut a deal with Democrat Hispanic voters? Think that might explain why Glassman only got the equivalent of 62.1% of registered Democrat voters? Do ‘ya?

        JD appeals to Conservatives but McCain, with his immigration “reform” history, could credibly appeal to and get the Democrat Hispanic vote. And yes, after what we have seen with the Randy Parraz show, it’s entirely possible that there was an organized effort, even in the primary, to have Dems register as Republicans so they could vote.

      • Hunter says:

        So you are saying that other factors – not election fraud – were responsible for McCain’s primary victory. I guess even an Internet bully can eventually admit he was wrong. Ooops, you didn’t do that. You just tried to misdirect people – again.

        Your obnoxious tactics are patently clear to anyone who sees you in more than a couple of threads.

        Just because you say term limits are a bad idea and you get some quotes off the Internet does not mean they are a bad idea. Naturally, there are risks to term limits as there are to not having term limits. I think the risks of term limits are lower than the risks of not having term limits. Obviously, we disagree on that.

        Also, this is obviously not a conservative vs. liberal political philosophy position.

        You’ve made your points and so have I. Move on and stop boring everyone with your misleading, bandwidth clogging comments.

      • eubykdisop says:

        ROFL! Now you have entered the realm of the pathetic, Hunter!

        You are wrong. Term limits is a Conservative versus Liberal issue and you are on the Liberal side of it. Here, let’s try again. Maybe you’ll be able to take it in this time.

        “TERM LIMITS”

        “Oct 29, 1995 • By CHARLES R. KESLER”

        (Charles R. Kesler (1956- ) is professor of Government/Political Science at Claremont McKenna College and Claremont Graduate University. The Claremont Institute is an American conservative think tank based in Claremont, California. The mission of the Claremont Institute is “to restore the principles of the American founding fathers to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life”, and to “remake American politics” as established by the founders in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.)

        “Term limits would be a foolish way to pursue a strategy of reducing the size and scope of government. To quote The Federalist, which argued elegantly against term limits, “It is not generally to be expected that men will vary and measures remain uniform.”

        “Finally, and most tellingly, we ought to wonder whether term limits would have unhappy effects on the American people’s character. Constitutionalized term limits are a standing invitation to the neglect of that vigilance which citizens ought to exercise over their representatives. “Stop me before I vote again!” is the pathetic cry of the die-hard term limiters. In fact, the American people are not irresponsible; they can, and will, make serious political choices, if only they are presented with serious political alternatives, as the elections of 1980 and 1994 proved. The campaign to write term limits into the Constitution is now, at best, a distraction from the momentous effort to restore the constitutional grounds of limited government in America; at worst, it could become a delusive substitute for genuine political reform.”

        http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/006/994nrbdb.asp?page=1

        Now, Hunter, why do you think that Dr. Kesler, a Conservative associated with the conservative Claremont Institute, writing in the Weekly Standard, produced an article on term limits? It’s to refute and debunk the pro term limits propaganda being disseminated by Liberals like you! Duh!

  12. LEO IN TSN says:

    Many American POWs returned from Viet Nam with memories of being beaten and tortured while forced to listen to propaganda tapes made for their captors by Juan McAmnesty, and the favored treatment he received in return.

    After Viet Nam, the US Senate formed a two-man commission to investigate remaining POWs It was Juan McAmnesty and John F’ing Kerry who served in Viet Nam and who wrote his own Purple Heart citations so he would be rotated out of theater and back to safety, and who then went to Paris to meet with the North Vietnamese and strategize the killing of American soldiers (he speaks French) and who had testified in Congress that his fellow soldiers in Viet Nam were like the hordes of Genghis Khan. These two soon learned they worked well together. (Hmmmmm, strange??)

    McAmnesty and Kerry reported to the Senate that there was no credible evidence that there were POWs remaining in Viet Nam. This was AFTER the North Vietnamese had offered to sell back our POWs for $1.5 billion, and had been turned down by Congress. (Hmmmmmm, strange????)

    In every Presidential election since 2000 when the dimocrats were trying to exclude the absentee ballots of deployed American military, McAmnesty has hidden in silence at the McHensley estate in Sedona or one of their other 8 palaces. In 2004, McAmnesty volunteered to be the VP partner of John F’ing Kerry on the dimocrat presidential ticket (Kerry refused, in french of course).

    When Patriotic American Congresswomen and men questioned the Obamao love for imbedding jihadi muslims in the American government (eg Nidal Hassan who murdered thirteen people at Ft. Hood), it was McAmnesty and his usual cohorts who attacked these Patriots over their concern for US and their questioning of Obamao. McAmnesty continually opposes the interrogation of captured muslim enemy combatants.

    So are we now surprised that McAmnety would attack Rand Paul for being concerned about Obamao droning conservative supporters of immigration enforcement and border security, pro-lifers, returning veterans, constitutionalists, bible-clingers – you know, all those “potential domestic terrorists (Janet Napolitano, April 2009”) his administration has already targeted? Nope, not me.

    God bless America, and all the Patriots who fight to protect her.

  13. Pima Pal says:

    “old bulls” need to be put out to pasture!!

  14. LD 23 PC says:

    Was Obama looking for a Maverick or a Judas at his last supper with carefully selected senators at the opulent Plume restaurant? This is a great article that answers the question of who was invited to that dinner and why.
    http://lastresistance.com/1580/did-obama-find-a-judas-at-his-last-supper/

  15. Westnash says:

    Term limits is the only way. It is like saying there is only one senator or congressman who can do the job. That’s simply not true. There are more bad examples of these clowns staying too long…and most you never hear about, than there is of a good one being term limited out.

    • PeeJay says:

      Of course you don’t hear of any senators being “term limited out,” there ARE NO term limits for senators. No wonder there is no news!

  16. eubykdisop says:

    Westnash wrote: “Term limits is the only way.”

    Well, Westnash, here is one supporter of your idea of term limits; the Democrat vice presidential nominee in 2000, U. S. Senator Joe Lieberman.

    “Lieberman urges term limits for senators in exit interview”

    “By Justin Sink – 12/17/12″

    “Retiring Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said in an interview that aired Sunday he favored both term limits for senators and replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote.”

    http://thehill.com/video/senate/273197-lieberman-urges-term-limits-for-senators-in-exit-interview

    That’s not surprising when you support the gun control of B. Hussein Obama!

    “Westnash says:
    January 8, 2013 at 8:00 am
    There will be some changes in gun regulations at some point in 2013 and the Republicans who only tow the NRA line of “no” will lose. Wouldn’t you rather outsmart your opponent than trying unsuccessfully in throwing up a wall, that is crumbling down around you.”

    Here is what poster “Observer” had to say to me about you:

    “Observer says:
    March 3, 2013 at 9:26 pm
    Bravo, euby! You had this guy nailed as a liberal early on. How right you were…despite all of his protestations to the contrary.”

    Have an nice day, Westy!

  17. eubykdisop says:

    This is for the “term limits” twins, Hunter and Westnash.

    The ideas promulgated by U.S. Term Limits are a direct reversal of the facts of recorded history and are deeply offensive to the intelligence of all who understand the wisdom and exceptional character of our nation’s founders.

    The Founding Fathers on Term Limits

    Alexander Hamilton: “Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more illfounded upon close inspection [than term limits]…. One ill effect of the exclusion would be a diminution of the inducements to good behavior. There are few men who would not feel much less zeal in the discharge of a duty when they were conscious that the advantage of the station with which it was connected must be relinquished at a determinate period, than when they were permitted to entertain a hope of obtaining, by meriting, a continuance of them.” (The Federalist, #72)

    John Adams: “There is no right clearer, and few of more importance, than that the people should be at liberty to choose the ablest and best men, and that men of the greatest merit should exercise the most important employments; yet, upon the present [term limits] supposition, the people voluntarily resign this right, and shackle their own choice…. [T]hey must all return to private life, and be succeeded by another set, who have less wisdom, wealth, virtue, and less of the confidence and affection of the people.” (A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States of America)

    James Madison: “No man can be a competent legislator who does not add to an upright intention and a sound judgement a certain degree of knowledge of the subjects on which he is to legislate. A part of this knowledge may be acquired by means of information which lie within the compass of men in private as well as public stations. Another part can only be attained, or at least thoroughly attained, by actual experience in the station which requires the use of it…. A few of the members [of Congress], as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt will they be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them.” (The Federalist, #53)

    Samuel Adams: “If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” (1780)

    Roger Sherman: “Frequent elections are necessary to preserve the good behavior of rulers. They also tend to give permanency to the Government, by preserving that good behavior, because it ensures their re-election…. In Connecticut we have existed 132 years under an annual government; and as long as a man behaves himself well, he is never turned out of office.” (From Madison’s notes at the Constitutional Convention, 1787)

    Gouverneur Morris: “The ineligibility proposed by the [terms limitation] clause as it stood tended to destroy the great motive to good behavior, the hope of being rewarded by a re-appointment. It was saying to him, ’make hay while the sun shines.’” (From Madison’s notes at the Constitutional Convention, 1787)

    Samuel Adams: “Much safer is it, and much more does it tend to promote the welfare and happiness of society to fill up the offices of Government after the mode prescribed in the American Constitution, by frequent elections of the people. They may indeed be deceived in their choice; they sometimes are; but the evil is not incurable; the remedy is always near; they will feel their mistakes, and correct them.” (1790)

    • Hunter says:

      There are some flies in the ointment. US senators were not originally supposed to be elected directly by the people and their terms are 6 years. This does not comport with maintaining good behavior of an elected official by frequent elections.

      Also, most of these people were part of the government, so why would they want term limits on themselves? Except for Washington and possibly a few others, they considered themselves indispensable – just like politicians do now.

      Term limits for US Senators are definitely more important than for Representatives because of the length of their terms. I still think limiting both is a good idea, though.

      It doesn’t look like we have enough good behavior based on the threat of being thrown out of office to be worried about getting worse behavior because of term limits.

      Do we really benefit from such “statesmen” as McCain, McConnell, and Boehner?

  18. eubykdisop says:

    Gee, Hunter, it looks like you either failed to actually read or failed to comprehend what I posted. Here, you can have a second chance:

    The ideas promulgated by U.S. Term Limits are a direct reversal of the facts of recorded history and are deeply offensive to the intelligence of all who understand the wisdom and exceptional character of our nation’s founders.

    The Founding Fathers on Term Limits

    Alexander Hamilton: “Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more illfounded upon close inspection [than term limits]…. One ill effect of the exclusion would be a diminution of the inducements to good behavior. There are few men who would not feel much less zeal in the discharge of a duty when they were conscious that the advantage of the station with which it was connected must be relinquished at a determinate period, than when they were permitted to entertain a hope of obtaining, by meriting, a continuance of them.” (The Federalist, #72)

    John Adams: “There is no right clearer, and few of more importance, than that the people should be at liberty to choose the ablest and best men, and that men of the greatest merit should exercise the most important employments; yet, upon the present [term limits] supposition, the people voluntarily resign this right, and shackle their own choice…. [T]hey must all return to private life, and be succeeded by another set, who have less wisdom, wealth, virtue, and less of the confidence and affection of the people.” (A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States of America)

    James Madison: “No man can be a competent legislator who does not add to an upright intention and a sound judgement a certain degree of knowledge of the subjects on which he is to legislate. A part of this knowledge may be acquired by means of information which lie within the compass of men in private as well as public stations. Another part can only be attained, or at least thoroughly attained, by actual experience in the station which requires the use of it…. A few of the members [of Congress], as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt will they be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them.” (The Federalist, #53)

    Samuel Adams: “If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” (1780)

    Roger Sherman: “Frequent elections are necessary to preserve the good behavior of rulers. They also tend to give permanency to the Government, by preserving that good behavior, because it ensures their re-election…. In Connecticut we have existed 132 years under an annual government; and as long as a man behaves himself well, he is never turned out of office.” (From Madison’s notes at the Constitutional Convention, 1787)

    Gouverneur Morris: “The ineligibility proposed by the [terms limitation] clause as it stood tended to destroy the great motive to good behavior, the hope of being rewarded by a re-appointment. It was saying to him, ’make hay while the sun shines.’” (From Madison’s notes at the Constitutional Convention, 1787)

    Samuel Adams: “Much safer is it, and much more does it tend to promote the welfare and happiness of society to fill up the offices of Government after the mode prescribed in the American Constitution, by frequent elections of the people. They may indeed be deceived in their choice; they sometimes are; but the evil is not incurable; the remedy is always near; they will feel their mistakes, and correct them.” (1790)

  19. eubykdisop says:

    Here, Hunter, try this:

    “TERM LIMITS”

    “Oct 29, 1995 • By CHARLES R. KESLER”

    (Charles R. Kesler (1956- ) is professor of Government/Political Science at Claremont McKenna College and Claremont Graduate University. The Claremont Institute is an American conservative think tank based in Claremont, California. The mission of the Claremont Institute is “to restore the principles of the American founding fathers to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life”, and to “remake American politics” as established by the founders in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.)

    “Term limits would be a foolish way to pursue a strategy of reducing the size and scope of government. To quote The Federalist, which argued elegantly against term limits, “It is not generally to be expected that men will vary and measures remain uniform.”

    “Finally, and most tellingly, we ought to wonder whether term limits would have unhappy effects on the American people’s character. Constitutionalized term limits are a standing invitation to the neglect of that vigilance which citizens ought to exercise over their representatives. “Stop me before I vote again!” is the pathetic cry of the die-hard term limiters. In fact, the American people are not irresponsible; they can, and will, make serious political choices, if only they are presented with serious political alternatives, as the elections of 1980 and 1994 proved. The campaign to write term limits into the Constitution is now, at best, a distraction from the momentous effort to restore the constitutional grounds of limited government in America; at worst, it could become a delusive substitute for genuine political reform.”

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/006/994nrbdb.asp?page=1

    What was that you wrote about me, Hunter? Oh yes, it was this: “You are a big government troll with too much time on his hands masquerading as a conservative.” Really? But it is you who supports term limits and what does Dr. Kesler say? “Term limits would be a foolish way to pursue a strategy of reducing the size and scope of government.” Ah yes, a “foolish” way. Well, there we have it, don’t we, Hunter! Foolish!

    Have a nice day, Foolish!

    • Hunter says:

      Oh, some guy on the Internet said that not having term limits is “idiotic.” Gee, that makes you an idiot, UB. Give me a break.

      You and your Internet quotes are also ignoring the fact that people in districts have an incentive to re-elect their own incumbents because increased seniority puts them in a better position to benefit their districts at the expense of the rest of the country. This is not good for the other districts and the country in general who cannot vote out someone else’ representative (or senator). Term limits are a way of relieving this problem and not giving politicians too much time to extract wealth from taxpayers without at least taking a one term break every several terms.

      Also, most of the founding fathers never really anticipated that people not owning property or meeting stricter residency requirements would be allowed to vote. They did not anticipate the welfare state we have today or the prolific number of low information voters. Could we realistically have less voter vigilance even with term limits? Do we have such a lack of vigilance in Arizona which does have term limits?

      One important function of term limits is to prevent the accumulation of too much personal power by an individual. It also promotes politicians having to live under the laws they helped to pass and enforce without being insulated from their effect by their political office.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Hunter, you repeatedly speak about what the Founding Fathers didn’t anticipate. I think, quite clearly, they anticipated Liberals like you who would attempt to undo what they had done.

        The principles established by the Founding Fathers were sound at the time they were conceived and they are sound now. The more that Liberals like you try to lead people away from those principles, the more this country goes down the toilet.

        If you don’t like the principles established by the Founding Fathers, go live in some country without them but don’t try to remake The United States of America into your ideal Liberal utopia.

    • eubykdisop says:

      Hunter, you don’t know when to give it up and as a result you are progressively making more and more of an ass of yourself, without any help from me! Since you insist….

      Hunter wrote: “Oh, some guy on the Internet said that not having term limits is “idiotic.” ” Actually, Hunter, if you had read and been able to comprehend the article, you would realize that you have it backwards. Dr. Kesler wrote in opposition to term limits, not in favor of them.

      Furthermore, let’s look at this “guy on the internet”, shall we?

      “Charles R. Kesler (1956- ) is professor of Government/Political Science at Claremont McKenna College and Claremont Graduate University. He has a Ph.D in Government from Harvard University, from which he received his AB degree in 1978. He is editor of the Claremont Review of Books, and the author of Keeping the Tablets: Readings in American Conservatism. He is Director of the Henry Salvatori Center for the Study of Individual Freedom in the Modern World and Claremont Institute’s Publius Fellows Program.”

      “At Claremont, he is a senior fellow of the conservative Claremont Institute, and directs their Publius Fellows Program; a summer institute. Additionally, he is the editor of the Claremont Review of Books, a quarterly political magazine. He was the Director of Henry Salvatori Center at Claremont McKenna College.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R._Kesler

      Now, Hunter, please share with us your credentials, expertise and Conservative accomplishments so that we can compare them with those of this “guy on the internet” who you hold in such low esteem.

  20. Raymond Nesheiwat says:

    If you could find Lindsey Graham questioning Eric Holder during that same meeting, its pretty sickening to hear him kiss up to the administration.. Cant trust a man named Lindsey

    • Seeing Red AZ says:

      Is this the video you are referring to, Raymond? Here Graham shows himself not simply a reliable toady to McCain, but also to the Obama administration and specifically Eric Holder. It is thoroughly disgusting.

      • Raymond Nesheiwat says:

        there it is.. I couldn’t believe that after Cruz drilled Holder on drone strikes graham saw fit to throw holder a bunch of softballs.. I thought that job was for democrats

    • Seeing Red AZ says:

      Thank you for the alert, Raymond. We had missed this disgusting display. Glad we were able to locate this for you — and the rest of us!

  21. Al Rotundo says:

    ONE THING is certain. Rand Paul is an unqualified IDIOT, only in the Senate because of his father’s legacy. Can we all agree on that??

    • Teller Of Truth says:

      No. We can not “all agree on that,“ Al! Dr. Rand Paul is an ophthalmological surgeon and a constitutionally-based, and principled US Senator. Have you attained either pinnacle? He advocates on behalf of a balanced budget, (a novel idea, since the Democrats haven‘t offered a budget in FOUR Years) supports term limits, and has authored the Read the Bill Act, which would ensure Senators actually read the bills they are voting on. What’s to argue with there?
      He is a strong advocate of reduction in federal spending and taxation — letting Americans keep more of their own money. Another idea that must be foreign to you. Who’s the idiot here?
      You sound like a fool who supports John McJerk and his swishy pal Lindsey Grahamnesty.

      McCain. Now THERE’S an idiot, who benefited from having family connections — a father and grandfather who were US Navy Admirals. That’s how he got into the Naval Academy at Annapolis, where he graduated at the bottom of his class.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 329 other followers