Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

This not-for-profit audio archive is provided for the listening enjoyment of Daniel Ruth show fans who missed all or a portion of Sunday’s radio show.  Audio is in MP3 format and all commercials have been edited out.

Daniel, you either need to speak louder or move the microphone closer to your mouth.  There are portions of this broadcast which are hard to hear even with the audio turned up.

Full Show (1:26:01 – 19.6mb)

Read Full Post »

Email received 4/6/08


First, do you believe that oil prices would still be around $28.00 to $30.00 a barrel if the Iraq war wouldn’t have happened?  If so, you are as moronic as you sound on the radio.

Second, the next time someone wants to actually compare George W to a previous president (G. Cleveland in this case) to support his argument – based on facts something you don’t understand – please don’t change the rules of the discussion.  Your comment is and has always been – “Worst president EVER”.  That means since the beginning of the presidency – right?  You debunked his argument saying you can’t compare apples and oranges – two different times.  WHAT?????  However, another caller started down that path and you actually brought up Truman – although I don’t know why.  So which is it – can compare or can’t.  Historians will judge W as being a man who actually keeps his word and treats the presidency with the honor and integrity that it deserves, not to mention that we have not been attacked on this soil since 9/11 – I know you don’t think that that is any way related to actually keeping the jihadists occupied on foreign soil – no, no correlation exists when it favors the president – move along folks, nothing to see here.

At least do me this favor so I can contain what little blood pressure stability I have on Saturday mornings, either 1) Say W is the worst president in the last 30 years or 2)  Allow comparisons of previous presidents back to inception – which if you think some of those guys weren’t worse then you should have yourself checked by your GP.

Since you are a “mess with everyone’s life” democrat you will like this.  I think the government should make radio show hosts like you 1) be required to take a course in history, which you obviously haven’t 2) take an economics course – which with your oil statement about the Iraq war you obviously don’t understand world markets 3) run a factcheck from factcheck.org before going on air so you can’t tell half-truths (if we’re lucky).

BTW – Where did you get the phrase “drive by bloviator”.  Rhetorical question of course, because I know where you got it – RL.  Do you have an original idea?  Original ideas propel one’s career – see Glenn Beck, who I believe used to be at your very radio station, you know the one where you still broadcast from on Saturdays.

Lastly, if you think that Senator Obama will not be hurt by the Wright debacle – which by the way is the true way to use the word debacle, not when speaking of Iraq – you are sadly mistaken.  I sincerely hope he wins so that Senator McCain will be the next president.

I’ve written you before. Again, the only time I agree with you is on Father’s day when you actually make sense.  You extol the virtues of family and how being a dad has shaped your life and for that matter, the lives of your sons.  Kudos to you for at least being a wonderful family man.  However, I really don’t understand or want to understand your way of thinking when it comes to politics, the economy, or the place in history that one of the greatest men, namely W, will occupy.

Read Full Post »

Here is the CNN Larry King Live transcript from last nights show. Steve Stanton announced on the show he will not sue the city of Largo. 

KING: We welcome to LARRY KING LIVE, Steve Stanton, the former city manager of Largo, Florida. He was fired last month after disclosing he was a transsexual and wanted to become a woman. With him is Karen Doering, she is senior counsel for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. She is the attorney for Steven Stanton.

How long has this feeling gone on, Steve? When did you first say, “I’m the wrong gender?”

STEVE STANTON, HUSBAND & FATHER FIRED AFTER 14 YEARS AS LARGO, FLORIDA CITY MANAGER: Yes, very earlier, since I was a child I can remember I wanted walk into the candy store in my sister’s shoes. It was a very profound knowledge that your body didn’t match your spirit.

KING: What’s the difference between that or wanting to be or being gay?

STANTON: Yes, it’s sexual identification. Orientation is very different from gender identification. So when you’re a transsexual, it feels like your body does not match your…

KING: You don’t belong?

STANTON: Yes, yes, yes, and it’s not synonymous with the sexual orientation at all.

KING: Yet you grew up hiding all of this. You got married and you had a son. What was marriage like?

STANTON: Marriage was good. I loved my wife. I got married because I wanted to have a lasting relationship. She’s the best thing that’s ever happened to me. We had a good marriage.

KING: Good boy, good son?

STANTON: Good son, a great son. My little son is named Travis and he and I are extremely close.

KING: How’s he dealing with all of this?

STANTON: He’s been dealing with it great. He’s been dealing with it great. His school took all of the right opportunities to make sure that he was able to continue on with class and has not missed a day.

KING: How did you tell your wife?

STANTON: Initially, it was difficult because you don’t think you would ever grow up wanting to change your gender. There those things that you think are permanent. And I realized I had to, it was a very difficult decision. I actually did it in an eight-page letter, in an eight-page letter and it was very difficult.

KING: Is it difficult, Karen, for a lesbian to understand this because you’re different, right? You don’t want to be a man?

KAREN DOERING, SENIOR COUNSEL, NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS: Correct, correct. You know sexual orientation is about who you’re attracted to whereas you know gender identity disorder, the medical condition that Steve and a number of others have, is where basically your internal sense of who you are, what your mind tells you is your proper gender is inconsistent with the physical anatomy you have.

KING: And yet you became city manager, successful city manager for 14 years. You earned $140,000 a year, right?

STANTON: Yes, yes.

KING: Why didn’t you just — since you loved your wife and loved your kid, why didn’t you just live it out?

STANTON: Yes, that’s been the thousand dollar question. Why now and how come you had to do this? I guess ultimately, you want to be authentic to yourself. You want to make sure that you’re going to be around for many years with your son. And I just wanted to be true to who I am. And I actually believed — I believed that the city of Largo would be able to accept this. Even though that sounds maybe…

KING: Have you started the process?

STANTON: Yes, I have, absolutely.

KING: By doing what?

STANTON: Well, the first process is electrolysis to remove the hair from your face. It’s an extremely painful process and then hormone therapy where you start changing the outside of your body. And the last phase is when you try to actually experience life in your true gender.

KING: When will that take place?

STANTON: That will take place in about 30 to 60 days; at the end of the May is when I’ll be going as Susan full-time.

KING: Is your wife going to stay married to you?

STANTON: No, we’ll be separating probably around June.

KING: You were fired. You were surprised.

STANTON: Yes, shocked.

KING: What was the vote?

STANTON: Five to two.

KING: The mayor voted?

STANTON: The mayor voted to support me as well as another commissioner.

KING: We contacted the mayor for the record. That’s Mayor Pat Girard of Largo. And she said the city had no comment on the dismissal.

STANTON: Yes, at this point that’s appropriate. And everybody is worried about being sued and that’s been a big concern. Everybody is always focusing on litigation these days.

KING: Are you going to sue?

DOERING: We advised Steve what his options were. We looked at the law and it’s very clear what the city of Largo did is illegal. You cannot fire somebody just because they announce that they’re going to transition from male to female. That’s absolutely clear that that’s what they did in the city of Largo.

So what we did was we laid out the options for Steve, and had real heart to heart about what litigation really looks like. It’ll probably go on for years. And we talked about some other possibilities. And then we left it up to him to decide whether or not he wants to sue the city of Largo. KING: You have decided yet?

STANTON: Absolutely. I decided the first night.

KING: You’re going to sue?

STANTON: Of course not.

KING: Not sue?

STANTON: Of course not.

KING: Have you have gotten any other offers?

STANTON: Offers to sue?

KING: To be city manager somewhere else?

STANTON: Well, yes, I have some interviews scheduled. But the city of Largo has been great to me, 17 years. It is a city of progress. Other than the commissioners who were just inundated with a lot of negative email, the community was extremely embracing. I was not surprised but reaffirmed how supportive they were with me.

KING: We were told you were going to make an announcement tonight of some kind?

STANTON: Yes, I think everybody thought we were going to sue because that’s typical of what…

KING: So the announcement is you are not going to sue.

STANTON: We are not going to sue. Absolutely not.

KING: That’s the announcement?

STANTON: Well, because I think that there’s a time for healing as opposed to the decisive process of litigation. I always said from the first time that I really wanted to educate. I wanted to educate, to make people understand that just because you’re transsexual doesn’t mean you cannot lead, doesn’t mean you can’t be a productive person. I think I can do that better as an advocate.

KING: As a lawyer, would you have had a good suit?

DOERING: Absolutely. I think he had a very strong suit and we’ve actually brought and won cases for transsexual people who were fired in the workplace in Florida. We talked about that with Steve. We talked about the options.

But from the beginning, and one of the things I admire most about Steve, is he said I just want to make sure that nobody else has to go through this. He knew he was in a very high-profile job. He knew that, you know, it would make the news when he announced he was transitioning. And he hoped and believed that the city of Largo would do the right thing and he would be able to transition and keep his job. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen but he wants to educate. He wants to help people understand this medical condition, transsexualism, under what it is, and understand that these are human beings. It could be you or me or somebody’s kid.

KING: How did you tell the city?

STANTON: How did I tell the city?

KING: How did you do it? Did you go before the city council?

STANTON: Yes, we had an opportunity to make an appeal. We did that. We brought…

KING: I mean how did you tell them you were transsexual?

STANTON: Well, I didn’t really tell them. I was “outed” — quote, unquote by a local newspaper, who said we’re running the story whether you tell your community or not. And that was unpleasant. That was kind of devastating actually.

KING: So tonight you officially tell them you’re not going to sue.

STANTON: Absolutely, yes. When I told them the night of the process that — I specifically said suing the city would be like suing my own mom and it would have been. Largo’s been too good to me.

KING: Did your co-workers know? Who knew about it other than your wife?

STANTON: Well, when I first started to get very close to the point of which I would be bringing this in the workplace, I brought in four or five people that were occupationally trained to ensure some confidentiality, to talk very frankly of what the impact of this decision would be in their operation. And so about five people from the city.

KING: We’ll be right back with Steve Stanton and Karen Doering. Don’t go away.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A constant professional.

Mayor Gerard?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You have not communicated well.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Vice Mayor Krocher (ph)?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, consider stepping down.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Commissioner Arson (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I have lost confidence.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Commissioner Black?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I hope we can move forward in this city with a greater understanding.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Commissioner Woods?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But he’s lost his standing as a leader.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Commissioner Gentry (ph)?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I no longer can trust his judgment.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Commissioner Guyette (ph)?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Motion carries 5-2.

In an effort for the city manager to be put on administrative leave, I believe…


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: …we do need to appoint an interim city manager.




UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: His record has been outstanding. And if it was not then you would have never given him a pay raise in September.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But I question the performance and that has been my issue since day one with the city. And there are so many examples here, I can’t cite all of them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I’ve dealt with city managers and other managers all the time and his is one of the best performances I have seen. He has served this city well.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Steven doesn’t exist any longer and Susan basically is brand new. No social security number. No elementary school. No high school. No college. We are talking about a phlegm.


KING: We’re back with Steve Stanton and his attorney, Karen Doering. One commissioner was reported as saying, “I do feel he was the integrity, nor the trust, nor the respect nor the confidence to continue.” Any response to that?

STANTON: Yes, and that was a perspective that a few people had. I think people don’t understand the courage and conviction it took to stand up and really discuss something extremely personal like this and knowing the public reaction that was going to follow.

DOERING: One of the things we know from the medical experts who deal with transsexualism all the time and at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, we deal with people transitioning in the workplace all the time and this is the kind of reaction that is absolutely normal and human. When you tell somebody, you share a deep part of yourself. Hey, I’m transsexual. The initial reaction is how can I not have known that? How can I trust you now? You kept this from me. And that is a very human reaction.

KING: What was the plan you said had?

DOERING: Well, Steve had come up with a great plan. It’s the kind of plan that we recommend for anyone who’s transitioning in the workplace. You tell a human resources person. You tell your immediate supervisor. As the city manager, the closest thing he has to an immediate supervisor is the mayor. You bring in some of the key leaders in the organization. You set up training so that — and you plan how you’re going to announce this to folks so that you can do the education, so that yes, there’s going to be a speed bump. This is going to be shocking to people. But there are ways when it’s done properly, when it’s handled properly, it can absolutely be done well. People transition in the workplace all the time and are very, very successful.

KING: What is it like, Steve, to live in a body that’s wrong for you? Day to day, wasn’t it?

STANTON: Yes, it’s something, when I discussed with other transsexuals, it’s a situation when you wake up, it’s the first thing you think about when you wake up and the last thing you think about when you go to bed at night. It feels like that there’s something profoundly wrong with who you know you are and who you portray to be.

KING: And you want to be your wife?

STANTON: No, I want to be who I am. I don’t want to be my wife. I want to be who I am and I want to be an authentic person and I want to be somebody who can be productive. And I think I can still do that. And I can still be an extremely effective city manager.

KUDLOW: Do you expect your son to call you Dad?

STANTON: I expect my son to call my anything he’s comfortable calling me. What I do expect and I have received is his love and support. KING: Are you scared?

STANTON: I’m terrified. This is going to be a very substantial challenge. Having my reputation smeared by so many people that really thought because I’m a transsexual that I’m not able to do my job and all of the things that people sort of came up with and justified, their decisions has been devastating. So I’m very…

KING: Are you scared of the surgery?

STANTON: No, not at all.



KING: That’s what I meant.

STANTON: Yes, the surgery, no. The surgery is not — a lot of folks don’t have the surgery. My intention is to do so. But right now I need to get my life…

KING: A lot don’t have the surgery. They just, what, wear female clothing?

STANTON: Well, they live who they are.

KING: They’re hiding?

STANTON: I wouldn’t say you’re hiding but I don’t think your genitalia really defines your personality and who you are as a whole person.

DOERING: Yes. And the surgery is for a lot of people is cost prohibitive. Almost every insurance company out there puts this specific prohibition in there that they do not cover sexual reassignment surgery. And so, this is a medical condition. It’s the only accepted medical protocol but it’s not covered by insurance and not everyone has $20,000 or $30,000.

KING: What specialist does the surgery and what code of surgery?

DOERING: Well, there are many…

KING: Plastic surgeons?

DOERING: Well, there are medical standards of care and different — depending on which surgical procedure, if it’s, you know, a chest reconstruction of some sort, depending on whether it’s a male to female or female to male, then that would probably be some sort of plastic surgeon.

KING: Isn’t female to male harder?

DOERING: Female to male…

KING: Surgery.

DOERING: The bottom surgery for them is more difficult, yes.

KING: Do you know where you’re going to have it done already, Steve?

STANTON: I have no idea. It’s almost irrelevant at this point. It really is. That was a big focus. That’s the sensational aspect of this story, the sex change, what is he going to wear, when is she going to be…

KING: That’s because people think about that.

STANTON: Yes, they do. And it shows a lack of education. And that’s why I think litigation in this situation is not nearly as important as education. And I think — I had a very unique opportunity having a national stage now to communicated in ways that people don’t.

KING: Do you want to be a city manager again?

STANTON: Oh, absolutely. I was extremely good at it. I was extremely good at being a city manager. I enjoyed the city of Largo and had a lot of friends in the city. And that’s been the biggest adjustment that so many people…

KING: Do you want to stay in Florida?

STANTON: Probably but not necessarily. You know City managers, we tend to be nomadic. So I’ll go where I feel comfortable.

KING: Have you received a lot of support?

STANTON: I’ve received extreme support. We have people sending food to the house and flowers. There was an interfaith rally in the city of Saint Petersburg. Absolutely. I was not prepared for the emotional outpouring that so many people gave us the last three weeks. It’s been superior.

KING: Where is it all going to go, Karen? Do you think we’ll ever have a society that totally accepts this?

DOERING: I think we will. Again, I think it takes time. This is a new concept that society doesn’t understand very well. And I think by Steve, you know, taking the stand because he was such a public figure and sharing his story, it helps people understand transsexualism. It helps them understand that this is just another medical process. And once he transitions and starts living as Susan, people will realize that he’s the same person he’s always been. And Susan Stanton will be absolutely every bit as good city manager as Steve Stanton.

KING: You’re going to be Susan?


KING: Why did you pick Susan?

STANTON: I didn’t, my mom did.

KING: What does she think of this?

STANTON: Well, she died but she would have been proud. She would have been proud.

KING: So she knew all about this?

STANTON: She did not know about it.

KING: Then how did she pick Susan?

STANTON: Because I asked her when I was about 7, “Mom, what would my name have been if I was a girl?” And she told me the name Susan. And it just exploded in my head. That was the identification of who I was.

KING: May I be the first to welcome you, Susan?

STANTON: Thank you.

KING: He’s still Steve. He will be Susan.

Thank you, Karen.

DOERING: Thank you.

KING: Steve Stanton, the former city manager of Largo, Florida; Karen Doering, his attorney, the senior counsel for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. And again, Steve announcing tonight, he will not — repeat, not sue the city of Largo.

Read Full Post »

Back in February it was mentioned on Daniel’s show that Barack Obama smoked. Before then I didn’t know anything about it. I wrote about this on my 13 Feb post and I said I had a hard time voting for someone who smoked cigarettes. No person is flawless but this is something I really dislike. He’s free to do whatever he wants as far as smoking but I also have the choice to not vote for him. Please Obama, get the patch or something.

Well there’s a blog post by Russell Shaw on The Huffington Post. He also has a problem with him lighting up and thought he was a hypocrite as a result. Here’s his comment on the subject.

By Russell Shaw: There’s a lot to admire about Barack Obama- his views, his forcefulness, his life experience growing up in various parts of the world. And he has a lot to say about how we, the United States, can be more humane and respectful citizens of the world.

But as do many of us, Sen. Obama has had a bad habit. He’s been a smoker for most of his adult life.

Obama is trying to quit, but until he does, I have a problem with him lighting up.

The issue for me is that here is a guy while professes that we should respect the third world and its citizens, his smoking habit directly feeds the marketing and distribution engines of tobacco companies that have much if not most of the same Third World hooked. These companies are viciously aggressive in promoting their poison. Look at the billboards, and then see crowds with cancer sticks in their mouths.

The habits of our domestic smokers like Obama fatten the coffers of these tobacco companies. And then, these tobacco companies come right back and joust for position inside the mouths and lungs of Third Worlders.

The same Third Worlders who might well be the beneficiaries of a more enlighted U.S. foreign policy helmed by a President (or Secretary of State) Barack Obama.

But then what happens when these Third World chain smokers develop deadly diseases, including cancer?

Until you stop smoking for good, Senator, you are part of the problem. You can’t love Third World nations and at the same time, fatten the coffers of companies whose products kill them.

Read Full Post »

Each and every week Daniel gets callers who attack Democrats and liberals but when Daniel asks them to define liberal, they are unable to do so. Daniel read a portion of an excellent speech by John F. Kennedy. The speech defines liberalism. I have the entire speech shown below. The bold-italic parts are what Daniel actually read on the air. Daniel ended the reading of the speech by saying he’s a John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Adlai Stevenson, Harry Truman liberal and he’s proud of it.

Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word “Liberal” to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a “Liberal,” and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view — I hope for all time — two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man’s ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world’s history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children’s development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union’s future, and their country’s future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children’s time, suburb by suburb.

Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn’t make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.

In Winston Churchill’s words, “We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist.”

And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.

This is an important election — in many ways as important as any this century — and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort. The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.

Some pundits are saying it’s 1928 all over again. I say it’s 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.

Read Full Post »

Daniel said he’s really glad to see an adult running the state. He said a recent public opinion poll has Crist at a 73% approval rating. He went on to say one of the best things Crist has done as Governor since he was sworn in is methodically dismantle the Jeb Bush legacy. Daniel called Crist a very pragmatic politician. Daniel also said it’s been refreshing to see a non-ideolog grow-up in the Governor’s mansion.

How do you think Crist is doing so far after his first 2 months in office?

Read Full Post »

Daniel said he could care less how many times a Presidential candidate has been married. He went on to say Giuliani has 6 marriages between him and his wife, Gingrich has about 2 or 3 marriages, McCain is on his second marriage. He said he doesn’t think it has anything to do with an individuals ability to function as President.

I agree with Daniel, I really don’t care either. I care about what their position is on issues important to me. I strongly disagree with those who try and use a person’s divorce as a reason to not vote for them. What difference does it make?

What’s your opinion on this topic?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »