Throwing the bums in

In response to my last political post, the subject of High Road vs. Low Road was brought up. One comment suggested that I thought Obama’s was the former while McCain’s was the latter. In fact I was suggesting that both roads were tactics used by both candidates, and that I feared the election would be won and lost, as it usually is, by fighting along the low road to election day.

My current favorite reporting about road-taking comes from the St. Petersburg Times, which keeps up with both campaigns via the Truth-o-Meter. To each statement by each candidate and their campaigns (including emailings by candidates and parties), they sort statements into True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True, False and Pants on Fire. Currently those3 sort out this way :

Obama Biden McCain Palin
True 39 7 25 4
Mostly True 23 4 19 0
Half-True 20 4 19 3
Barely True 12 3 19 0
False 18 4 22 0
Pants on Fire 0 2 4 0

Some of the rulings are generous. For example, they found Sarah Palin’s claim that she put the state’s jet up for sale on eBay is true, even though it wasn’t sold on eBay.

As H.L. Mencken said, Looking for an honest politician is like looking for an ethical burglar. (More good quotes — all correct — here.*)

For what it’s worth, I favor Obama for two main reasons. One is that I’d rather see the country run on the ethics of empathy rather than those of fear. The other is that McCain and Palin are both warriors at heart (McCain was ready for war with Iraq right after 9/11, and Palin preached that the Iraq war was part of God’s “plan”) — and we’ve had eight bad years of that already.

I also think Obama is more likely to nominate top-notch non-ideological judges and to reform government in general. Also that he is less likely to screw up the Internet, which is the single best thing the world has going for itself. Finally, that he’ll restore the faith of the rest of the world in the sanity of the U.S. electorate and its government.

As for the economy, I think McCain understands the private sector — and the good it does — far better than Obama. If I were voting by my economically consevative and Libertarian sympathies alone, I’d favor McCain. But this election isn’t about that. This election is about throwing the old bums out and trying some new ones.

Back to the War Issue.

A few decades back Penelope Maunsell said of a former employer that “His management style was to find a problem and intensify it”. Same goes for politicians. There are exceptions, but that’s close to a rule.

I don’t doubt that John McCain is a first-rate military man. His experiences as a prisoner of war obviously strenghtened his character and equipped him with a high degree of sympathy for those suffering injustice, as well as for members of the armed forces. But John McCain shared with George W. Bush the urge to solve the problem of terrorism with the use of force, and lots of it. I don’t doubt that this response was exactly what Osama Bin Laden and other terrorist leaders were looking for.

Even if the Surge is working (and I’m inclined to agree that, on the whole, it is), that does not excuse McCain from having supported the Iraq War in the first place. That war has not only killed countless thousands (beyond the counted thousands of our own casualties), but put the country terribly in debt, weakened our military positions elsewhere, and diminished our reputation throughout the world. It was strategically wrong, in a huge way. McCain’s bad judgement on this count alone is reason enough not to elect him.

[Later…] Calvin Dodge points to RedState’s take on’s take on Palin’s acceptance address.

Tags: , , , , , ,


  1. Emil Sotirov’s avatar

    Interesting that you think McCain understands the private sector – as if Republicans EVER did something good for the economy.

    See this NYT article…

    And my comment on it…

  2. Doc Searls’s avatar

    My business partner for many years was a hard-core Democrat and a hard-core businessman as well. He once summed up U.S. political parties this way: The Republican party is the party of wealth creation, and the Democratic party is the party of wealth re-distribution. I think that was astute, and remains so.

    I think Republicans, or economic conservatives, know in their gut how business works and how money is made — how wealth is not a fixed sum that is poorly distributed, but something that can be made through original invention and hard work… and how government often gets in the way of that.

    I think Democrats know in their gut how economic injustice works, and how business often screws people over — and how government can right some of those wrongs.

    I think McCain is the former, while Obama is the latter.

    How either will work things out once in office is an open question. Bill Clinton was in many ways an economic conservative (who took his lead from the likes of Alan Greenspan). I think that’s one reason the 90s were a period of relative prosperity. Though I think he also takes (and is given) far too much credit for that.

    At this point I think we’re better off with Obama. But … we’ll see how it goes.

  3. Harry Lewis’s avatar

    “Economic conservative” maybe, Doc. “Libertarian”? I’d love to hear why, unless you just mean that McCain loves the free market. Would you expect him to undo Bush’s record of undermining the First and Fourth Amendments — with Gov. Palin joking about the silliness of Obama’s worries about the rights of prisoners?
    To me, this is an election with two exciting and terrifyingly imperfect choices.

  4. Emil Sotirov’s avatar

    I think wealth is not “created” by the ingenuity and hard work of individuals (the conservative myth) – but is co-produced in largely networked environments (markets, national and global economies).

    Hard working individuals start the processes… markets select some of those processes (the winners) and amplify them. The wealth that matters is really the result of this amplification (think of Gates and Buffet).

    This amplification is largely social in its scale and logic… can’t really be traced (in a causal way) back to the “hard work” of those who started the process. If we were able to make the case for causality, we’d have textbooks about how to start successful businesses. We know that’s b-t. That’s why we should have a strongly progressive tax system (listen to Buffet).

    BTW… I have a huge respect for the starters of those processes – the founders of companies (disclaimer- I try to be one of them). However, I have very little respect for the executive nomenclature who typically runs the businesses once they achieve a market success. So… speaking of re-distribution of the pie – founders should be as rich as they want… but hired executives should be brought down back to earth from their ridiculous stratospheric heights.

  5. Emil Sotirov’s avatar

    Adding to my previous comment… In fact, the current breed of professional executives are mostly trained at “re-distribution” fixed sum games – “kill or be killed”, “control a larger market share”, etc…

  6. Neil Gorman’s avatar

    Just a quick thought & a link to something that I think might be relevant to the statement that Doc made about how the Obama camp is less likely to screw up the internet.

    CNet had this story on Joe Biden’s tech voting record that I found really informative.

    It shows that Biden (his voting) is pro-RIAA and pro-FBI. So if Obama was elected (and I think that he will be) and is then dies Biden’s record becomes very important.

    I agree with Doc’s statement that Obama
    “is less likely to screw up the Internet, which is the single best thing the world has going for itself.”

    I also agree with Emil’s statement that wealth is
    “co-produced in largely networked environments (markets, national and global economies).”

    (I’d even go so far as to say that because the internet is the best large scale network ever created by human beings, and that it is the best tool for the creation of wealth, it is the best thing we have going for us…)


  7. Calvin Dodge’s avatar

    Precisely how is it “generous” to say Sarah Palin told the truth about putting the jet on Ebay when in FACT she did so? No, she didn’t sell it on Ebay – but she didn’t claim to. My brother-in-law Joe would be telling the truth in saying he put his ’69 Charger up for sale on Ebay, even though he ended up selling it to someone in his town.

    And I’m curious about your claim that Obama will appoint top-notch “non-ideological” judges. Given the left’s emphasis on legislating from the bench, I find that highly unlikely. Even Bill Clinton, who was to George Bush’s right on some economic issues, appointed hard-left ideologues.

    Obama has a _history_ of not “bucking the system” (endorsing corrupt Democrat incumbents instead of reform-minded Democrat challengers), so I think your faith in his ability to reform government is misfounded. The coalition WILL be served, and its desires for bigger government and “law” created by judges will be honored.

    Given his stated desire for prosecution of people who simply broadcast an ad which truthfully mentioned his association with William Ayers, I’m not exactly interested in seeing him in the position where he can order the Justice Department to take such actions.

    I’m also not dying to earn the “faith of the rest of the world”. I’d rather have someone who puts America first. If you deem that a chauvinistic attitude, then kindly point me to other countries’ leaders who ran on the “let’s win the world’s approval” platform.

    And if you’re not interested in trying to “solve the problem of terrorism with the use of force” (which is a half-truth of YOURS), what approach do you take? The Clinton approach which led to 9/11? If not that one, then what other approach? Can you show me where YOUR desired approach has been tried – and worked? Or is it just another dreamy desire to try something else, because “there must be a better way!”

  8. Calvin Dodge’s avatar

    By “half-truth” I’m referring your NOT mentioning to the Administration’s nation-building efforts, which seem to me to be a desire to “try something different” as a reaction to the previous situation in Afghanistan (which led to the rise of the Taliban). One can certainly argue that such efforts were mistaken, or a misuse of US treasure and lives (as Jerry Pournelle did), but it’s silly to omit those efforts, then say that the Administration tried to solve the terrorism problem solely by force.

    Oh, and if you think Sarah Palin is a religious fanatic (though, to me, her ENTIRE comment is more along the lines of “pray for our leaders and pray that what they’re doing IS God’s plan”), wait ’til you see FDR’s prayer on June 6, 1944. (

  9. Doc Searls’s avatar

    Harry, I have the same libertarian leanings you find with many free/open source geeks — although I have often called myself a “lily-livered libertarian” because I’m also basically a pacifist as well (though not as absolutely as my former Quaker faith might like).

    I suppose I should stick to calling myself “independent.” That’s how I’m registered, and that’s how I like to think about my philosophy and my positions. Even if in many ways they aren’t.

    I also agree that “this is an election with two exciting and terrifyingly imperfect choices”, although I might leave out the adverb. As I said somewhere else, I don’t think the sky will fall if McCain wins. Nor do I think the floor will rise. Meaning that we can keep our positive expectations calibrated to the minimum.

    As for negative expectations, I just hope McCain is less of a warmonger than he seems to be. (I know he says he hates war, yada yada. But I don’t believe it. Worse, I believe that for McCain putting “America first” doesn’t mean “strong defense” but rather maintaining a Pax Americana on the Bush II go-it-alone model.)

    The prospect of McCain winning and Palin succeeding him in short order (not a small possibility, since we’re playing actuarial roulette with one bullet in three chambers) does scare me — especially if McCain departs quicly. Because what little I know about Palin gives me zero faith that she’ll be any good at the job.

    As for “the market,” we’re dealing with Major Complexities that are insulted by any simple economic philosophy. Thus I worry that, if Obama is elected, and with him a democratic majority in both houses, we’ll see a rash of protectionist legislation for lots of well-lobbied industries. If McCain wins, I expect his buddies will also get paid off somehow; but I think there will be at least be some traditional conservative Republican sense that more regulation = less business. I also expect him, as promised, to finish packing the Supreme Court with political conservatives, which is also a fine reason to vote against the guy.

    For what it’s worth, I much prefer Obama’s technology policies, even though they’re a mixed bag. McCain is clearly in the pockets of the carriers, which to me makes him a far greater hazard to the Net.

    I’m slowly working on a detailed response to both candidates’ tech policies. Gotta get some other stuff out of the way first, though.

  10. Doc Searls’s avatar

    Calvin, I didn’t say the administration tried to fight terrorism soley by force. I said Bush had the “urge to solve the problem of terrorism with the use of force, and lots of it.” While the administration did many things to fight terrorism, some of which will surely not get credit for many years to come (being secret and all), attacking and occupying Iraq has had the effect of fighting fire with fire. It was a strategic blunder of the first order.

    True, the administration’s nation-building efforts in Afghanistan are worthy ones, but I also think they’re irrelevant to the choice today between Obama and McCain, unless one believes that Obama won’t continue them. I see no sign of that.

    As for 9/11, I don’t think a “Clinton approach” led to that, any more than a “Bush approach” did. The 9/11 commission spread the blame rather evenly. Bin Laden slilpped through a variety of cracks during the Clinton years, and then more intelligence and communications failures leading up to the 9/11 attacks happened under Bush’s watch.

    As for supreme court nominations, I think calling Breyer and Ginsberg “hard left” is wrong. But I don’t want to get into a debate about that.

  11. Doc Searls’s avatar

    Neil, nothing has bothered me more about the Obama candidacy so far than Biden’s record as a tool of the entertainment industry. I just hope Biden’s associations there don’t contaminate an Obama presidency.

  12. Harry Lewis’s avatar

    Doc, The reasons I am terrified about the candidates are:
    McCain: His belligerence; the prospect of a permanent war (“on terror,” if nothing else) that will justify de facto permanent suspension of civil rights; a theocratic theory of correct social order, and a Supreme Court that will make it a reality. (You say you’re “scared” about some of this; that’s part way to the terror I feel.)
    Obama: A “One America” consisting of a family with a single national bank account, the Democratic President and Congress holding the checkbook and the rest of us holding the deposit slips; and the damage to our economic future that will result.
    Neither one of these birds seems much interested in liberty as Americans have traditionally understood that term. I doubt Palin even knows what’s in the Constitution.

  13. Calvin Dodge’s avatar

    The “Clinton approach” I’m referring to is, in part, treating acts of terrorism as if they were ordinary crimes – prosecuting people in court, and leaving it at that. I also include Gorelick’s “firewall’ in with the “Clinton approach”, since Gorelick was a Clinton appointee.

    The “treat it like a crime” approach is what Al Qaeda expected after 9/11, which is why they were VERY surprised at the Administration’s response (there _were_ followup attacks in the planning, which were discovered and stopped).

  14. Neil Gorman’s avatar

    This is a question (not a statement) that jumped into my head after re-reading the comments above. I ask the question because I’d like to hear what people have to say…

    Does anyone think that perhaps our “nation building” in Afghanistan could be a good intention, but the wrong idea? i.e. does the U.S. (an outside force) creating a nation in another part of the world going to have lots of negative unintended consequences (AKA “blowback”)

    I ask that because so much of the problems that happen in places like Iraq could be linked all the way back to the English cutting up the map into areas that would later become nation states, regardless of the cultural differences of the people who lived there. (Thus we have Sunni V.S. Shiite fighting today.)

    Also, take a look at what happened with the Mujahideen fighters, who were backed by many different people / governments in the west.

    Personally I think that enabling economies (or the large networks that create wealth: as per my prior comment), rather than government, would be the best way to empower the people who live in Afghanistan. What do you all think about that?

  15. Doc Searls’s avatar

    Harry, I suspect our differences are matters of degree. And perhaps in my case of a natural and otherwise groundless optimism.

    Calvin, Clinton may have been soft on terrorists in court (not clear about what you’re referring too), but struck back with military force after Al Qaeda embassy bombings. I’m not saying that strategy was a good one (it clearly failed to nail Bin Laden), just that his administration’s approach was not just to “treat it like a crime”.

  16. Chip’s avatar

    Comments :

    Watched Bill Maher :
    Wild card is 72 yr old who survived prison camp and cancer might just say – “guess what, game change time … got nothing to loose”

    “actuarial roulette with one bullet in three chambers”
    Why do you think he introduced his 96 yr old mother ( “I got good genes” )

    Thinking of the Palin move as very “Boyd”
    Act within your adversary’s decision cycle
    The action on Fri AM was a stroke of genius, at least tactically

    We do live in interesting times
    Unsure of outcome, devout and practicing nonpartisan …


  17. Calvin Dodge’s avatar

    Doc, I’m referring to the response to the 1993 WTC bombing, which – if it had been just a bit bigger – would have killed far more people than the 2001 attack (because it would have collapsed at least one of the towers immediately, with no chance for evacuation). Clinton’s response to that was to prosecute the perpetrators in court (that is, the perpetrators who were still in THIS country).

    His response after the embassy bombings was the one President Bush derisively referred to as “putting a missile up a camel’s butt” (quoting from imperfect memory here). The later “tit for tat” approach certainly didn’t stop Bin Laden and company, while the Bush administration’s post 9/11 actions DID.

    I think Bush’s position is the one which I’ve held – countries which actively, publicly harbored terrorists were engaging in what they considered to be a “safe” war – one where they could wage battle against western countries without much fear for their safety. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan put them on notice that it was no longer safe (though now Iran sure is acting as though it _is_ safe).

    Again, there were principled conservatives who disagreed with this approach ( is one example). But Bush was persuaded by his advisers that the invasion/nation-building route was the way to go.

    Then, for Harry …

    I don’t know what Sarah Palin knows or thinks about the U.S. Constitution. But I do know she vetoed a bill banning benefits for partners of gay and lesbian state workers – a bill she agreed with – because she was advised it was unconstitutional (according to the state supreme court).

    Can you point me to any actions by John McCain or Sarah Palin which support your assertion of “a theocratic theory of correct social order”? Can you describe that theocratic theory? If it includes keeping the wife barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, then you’ll have a hard time convincing me that Palin subscribes to it. When i use the term “actions’, I’m referring to things which they’ve DONE in their official capacities – prayers in church don’t count.

    People have been playing this “fear your government more than the ‘enemy'” tune since at least the 30s (then it was “our government is a bigger threat than Adolf Hitler”), so I’m kinda skeptical of people who claim some future suspension of civil liberties. In view of the multitudes of protesters at both conventions, as well as on many city streets and overpasses (when I lived in Colorado, I came to despise the lefties who hung their banners from a bridge over I-25 during rush hour), and the non-jailing of numerous entertainers who criticize the Administration, I won’t seriously entertain any suggestion that such a suspension currently exists.

    My concern is for the freedoms which we gradually lose because the causes are popular (or perceived to be so, as when Congress was snookered by lefty interest groups into passing McCain/Feingold). The Federal drug war and the Americans With Disabilities Act are prime examples, IMHO. (funny how 88 years ago people _knew_ that banning alcohol required a Constitutional amendment, but now it’s assumed the government can pretty much ban whatever it pleases).

    These are very real infringements on our freedoms (like the drug war’s Civil Asset Forfeiture, which I equate to legalized theft), but I don’t hear the ACLU and the like sounding concerned about THOSE laws. Have you spoken (or blogged) publicly about those infringements, or are they hunky-dory with you? See, I figure if you’re is going to invoke the Constitution, then you need to honor ALL of it, not just the parts you agree with. (the ACLU seems to ignore the 2nd and 10th amendments, for example)

    For Neil …

    I thought nation-building was a good idea – at least, it wouldn’t be repeating a past mistake. Ideally, Jerry Pournelle’s approach might have worked better (raze a city block or two as punishment, put up a monument honoring our dead, then spend a bunch of money on energy independence, instead of on a war), but I don’t think there wouldn’t have been public support for it. (both for the revenge aspect, and because a large number of Americans would have felt bad about the plight of the folks in Afghanistan).

    I’m not sure what I think now (at least about nation-building). Mostly, what I think is that there is NO perfect approach to take, and every possible approach will result in some negative consequences, with the other approaches’ supporters saying “see, I told you so”, as if THEIR approaches would have had no drawbacks. At the very least, I think that – given my opinion that this is a WAR (as the Islamic extremists have been publicly declaring for decades), not a criminal action – we need to be doing _something_ more than the failed “put ’em in jail” approach.

  18. Jan Searls’s avatar

    Chip – I agree with you – and Bill Maher – that McCain might just think “guess what, game change time … got nothing to lose” but not when he’s a 72 yr old President. More likely it would be when he is a 76 yr old 2nd Term president; that’s when he’ll have nothing to lose. Up until then, he will still have to please the elements of the electorate he has positioned himself to please this election.

    Of course he could announce he will only serve one term …..

  19. Neil Gorman’s avatar

    Calvin —

    You said “Ideally, Jerry Pournelle’s approach might have worked better (raze a city block or two as punishment, put up a monument honoring our dead, then spend a bunch of money on energy independence, instead of on a war), but I don’t think there wouldn’t have been public support for it. (both for the revenge aspect, and because a large number of Americans would have felt bad about the plight of the folks in Afghanistan).”

    But in your other comments I seem to hear you saying that public officials should do what is best of America (put America first) _regardless_ of the public’s opinion. i.e. do what is right rather than what is popular. Am I misunderstanding your point of view, or perhaps reading in between the lines to much?


    I think you raise some really great points about the dangers that both candidates pose. However, I find that I’m more in line with Doc’s “natural and otherwise groundless optimism” because I like to believe that the network (i.e. the U.S. and all the people and systems that make it up) will find a way to correct mistakes that get made.

    Granted the corrections may not be very fun, but I don’t think that they will be impossible to make either.

    The worst case is what Chip said the “nothing to lose” situation coming up. I just can’t believe that (short of Yellow stone’s super volcano erupting, or an asteroid impact, etc) that humans will allow one person to get us to that point.

    I might be wrong. But I choose to be optimistic.


  20. Calvin Dodge’s avatar


    I was saying “regardless of so-called ‘world’ opinion”, not American opinion.

    I _do_ believe public officials _should_ do what’s best/right, but it can certainly be hard to do so in view of the consequences (see for an example). There’s always that tension between what should be done, and what’s politically possible (which is why the Federal drug war rolls on in spite of the collateral damage).

    I think it’s easier for a President to do something which is unpopular (longer election cycle than most of Congress, and – according to MacArthur – councils of war (I include Congress in this) breed timidity). The tradeoff is that a President can’t _do_ as much as Congress (I’m pretty sure _they_ wouldn’t have gone along with the Pournelle plan). There was certainly public support for invading Afghanistan and (initially) Iraq, but I think too many people would have said “huh?” upon hearing Pournelle’s ideas.

    Note, I also said “might” have worked better, as well as saying that EVERY approach would probably have had _some_ negative consequences. It’s easy to play Monday-morning quarterback.

    p.s. you forgot to include ‘catastrophic collapse of the Cumbre Vieja volcano”

  21. zaine_ridling’s avatar

    For me, tech policy is extremely important to my vote. And while I’ve been a lifelong Democrat, I’m deeply disappointed that no action has been taken in the past two years to establish net neutrality, remaking the patent office to fit the current century, and of course, FISA, which obama supports (and Hillary did not).

    My fear with obama is that he doesn’t appear very smart, yet everyone is impressed with him. I’ve yet to see one single tangible accomplishment of all his days as a legislator, state or Senate. That tells me that he’s not serious, but rather a political dilettante.

  22. Paul Lamb’s avatar

    I think that with this election we have the choice between making history, or repeating it.

  23. Doc Searls’s avatar

    Paul, that’s a very good line.

    I think we’ll do both, no matter which candidates we elect.

    By the way, I’m reminded of what Willy Brown said about the choice between Al Gore and George W. Bush: “… between the insufferable and the incompetent.”

    With Bush we got both. IMHO.

  24. Harry Lewis’s avatar

    Many people have told me all through this election not to worry about candidates’ positions because they either don’t really believe them or couldn’t possibly get them enacted. Somehow that argument doesn’t reassure me that I shouldn’t worry about the Republicans’ views on creationism, abortion, and stem call research, where they are bent on having the government make uniform decisions for all Americans consistent with the candidates’ personal religious beliefs.
    I sure am glad that Palin didn’t act unconstitutionally after being informed that that is exactly what her action would have been. That’s great.
    Obviously neither McCain nor Obama has been an executive (except for McCain when he was in uniform), so there is no record of executive action on which to judge either one of them. On the First and Fourth Amendments, until I hear McCain say something about warrantless wiretapping and seizing laptops at the border “without individualized suspicion,” I’m going to assume that he’s going to follow the Bush perspective on how presidential authority abuts the Bill of Rights. He’s already on record in favor of COPA.

  25. Doc Searls’s avatar

    I don’t doubt that McCain will be better than Bush in many ways. (It would be hard to be worse.) But on matters of war-eagerness and perpetuation of the National Security State, he looks like Bush III to me. And that’s reason enough alone to vote against him. And to pray he stays sane and healthy if he wins.

  26. Mark D’s avatar

    First, as many here have noted, McCain’s war footing alone is reason enough to vote for anyone else.

    Second, his recent, and complete sell-out to the radical right wing of his party is further proof that he will be as easily manipulated by the traditional Republican power brokers as “W” was by Cheney and the Neocons.

    But I really must take exception to your characterization of the two parties’ economic virtues.

    Dear me, this is a big subject… but Doc, ya just got it wrong on this one.

    The evidence is very clear – both parties use wealth redistribution as a fundamental element of economic policy:

    * The Republicans redistribute wealth from the bottom to the top.

    * The Democrats redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom.

    (Of course, this is simplistic and their are many exceptions – Bill Clinton’s wide adoption of the ill-named and ill-brained “Progressive Policy Institute”‘s so-called “Third Way” was just a thinly-veiled Republican economic plan.)

    In the most simplistic, but still accurate, analysis, from the standpoint of GOOD GOVERNMENT, the Republicans are wrong. The fact is, the folks who are best at creating wealth will always “do alright”, as Warren Buffet likes to say. It’s the REST of the folks who need to have a system which FIRST looks out for their (modest) needs.

    Sadly, modern Republican, Libertarian, and Milton Friedman-esque economic policies have a basic heartlessness and greed at their core which only populist movements can overcome. Ultimately, the availability of affordable and decent quality shelter, nutrition, healthcare, education, and opportunity is FAR MORE IMPORTANT to the family of man than “X% ECONOMIC GROWTH PER YEAR”.

    My proposal to fix EVERYTHING – adopt the following rules WORLD WIDE:

    1. No prima facie corporation may have more than 1000 employees, including partly- and wholly-owned subsidiaries.

    2. Corporations must exist entirely within the borders of a single nation.

    Phase in this SINGLE draconian law over a ten year period, and within another ten years, most of our problems will be gone!

    ( Finally, regarding your update regarding the RedState analysis of Politifact – would that that fellow would scrutinize Palin’s recent history anything like as closely as he is Obama’s …)

  27. Emil Sotirov’s avatar

    Mark D… do you have a blog? I’d like to take a look at it…

Comments are now closed.