We don't need 'one of us' in the White House

These are WETSU moments for

Submitted by OldandSlow on April 15, 2008 - 8:24am.

These are WETSU moments for the television media. The media would much rather cover these rolling up the sleeves and rubbing elbows moments than cover real news.

The Federal Reserve is loaning Wall Street investment banks 38 billion a day to keep the leveraged corporate credit bubble from deflating. Ordinary folks who bit off mortgages that were packaged beyond there means get nothing. Job growth is in negative territory. The Iraq War bleeds on with no exit strategy. Those of us with jobs see our purchasing power diminishing. Talk about this stuff and you'll have polling numbers like Ron Paul.

As for HRC she could probably drink most of us under the table. Do you really want that phone answered at 3 AM?

Andrew in Austin, TX

News flash, Hillbilly keeps

Submitted by bryan mcclellan on April 15, 2008 - 8:34am.

News flash, Hillbilly keeps a go -no go gauge on her key chain in case she runs into one of her drinkin pals who's havin trouble with his 50 cal. I believe there is an old tune about, That whiskey drinkin womans, makin a poor man out a me.Think what she will do for our country.HACK! Barnums FREAK show is more like it, IGOR, ELASTIC MAN, and the lady who talks out of her ass while guzzling Wild Turkey. The image of her spread eagle for any reason makes me want to go wash my mind out.Thanks Doug.

Hillary Operative, rozz62

Submitted by GingerOaks on April 15, 2008 - 9:57am.

Hillary Operative, rozz62 got up early this morning to post the off topic smear on Obama. Is this what we can expect from her if she is in the White House? I don't want to go through four or eight years of media blitz and manipulation like the last president. I'm so sick of Hillary's people trying to win at all costs, and polluting blogs with their prepared posts. I see these smear posts all over from Hillary and McCain. This area is for discussion not negative campaign ads. Will she stop at nothing?

Rozz62: Your spamming of

Submitted by Doug Thompson on April 15, 2008 - 10:48am.

Rozz62:

Your spamming of this site with cross and multiple postings have led to your being added to our list of banned spammers. Take your hit and run tactics elsewhere. They are not welcome here.

Doug

One of us? Surely, they

Submitted by Flapsaddle on April 15, 2008 - 10:50am.

One of us? Surely, they jest!

The Clintons have an aggregate income of some $15.5 million/year, they live in an extremely expensive house in a very exclusive area and they have Secret Service protection. She is a member of the 100 Most Powerful People in the Country Club, he is a former POTUS and she is a former FLOTUS. They hobnob with Hollywood celebrities and other R&F types. They have no worries about making a mortgage payment, or health insurance, or the price of gasoline or fuel oil, or where the next meal is coming from or whether they will be part of a drive-by in the 'hood...and tell everyone how the other guy is an out-of-touch elitist?

One of us? Surely, they jest!

Have a snort, gutter a few balls, regale the yokels with rich, earthy stories of experiences with firearms at a homey cottage with a beloved relative, hang out with people you wouldn't give the time of day to if your campaign weren't in trouble...and tell everyone how the other guy is an out-of-touch elitist?

One of us? Surely, they jest!

Go to two of the most expensive and prestigious schools in the country, be a well-paid lawyer and lobbyist, sit on the board of a large national company, spend two decades of your life as the spouse of the governor of a state or of the President of the United States...and tell everyone how the other guy is an out-of-touch elitist?

One of us? Surely, they jest!

Never serve in the armed forces but vote for an unnecessary war to be fought by those you pretend to be like, marry a draft-dodger who uses his power as President to slaughter Serb civilians in a civil war, have no children or relatives going in harm's way, vote continually to fund that war and to pass laws like the Patriot Act that eviscerate our liberties...and tell everyone how the other guy is an out-of-touch elitist?

One of us? Surely, they jest!

Most sincerely,

T. J. Flapsaddle

But most of us want exactly

Submitted by Sandra Price on April 15, 2008 - 11:31am.

But most of us want exactly what you used in your list, Flapsaddle. If you look at why people did not vote for obviously better candidates, you will see that it is how they look, how they speak, were they successful financially prior to the campaign and who one would rather have a beer with.

Take a note of why people vote the way they do and you will see the problem is in the eye of the voter. What effort have you made to describe what America needs? What effort have you made to work with your Representatives to keep us out of war and out of harm's way?

We will get the government that the voters want because they have no clues to what they really need. Freedoms are gone, socialism is the new future for America and no matter who we vote for, nothing will change.

You totally missed the point

Submitted by Flapsaddle on April 15, 2008 - 1:32pm.

You totally missed the point of my post. Obviously, most of us would like to have some subset of what privileged people like the Clintons have in hyper-abundance. The point being made was that of the hypocrisy of Clinton's attempt to appear as "one of us" when she so obviously is not in that part of the demographic Venn diagram. Do you actually think that she would be rubbing elbows in a bowling alley were her campaign not in deep kimchi?

What efforts have I made to describe what is needed? None, because I think that most people already know what is needed. As I pointed out in responding to yesterday's Rant, I agree with de Tocqueville that such a plethora of opinion tends to relieve them of the need to think . I think that I know what is wrong, and I certainly recognize no need to have my opinion vetted in order to feel better about it; therefore, I try to extend the same courtesy to others.

How have I worked with my legislative representatives? Local, state or national, I call or snail-mail them on specific issues that I feel are critical. I do not sign i-net petitions, nor do I network to pass action items back and forth; I do not consider them to be especially effective since most legislator's offices are buried in mounds of such little-noted rubbish.

Most sincerely,

T. J. Flapsaddle

I did not miss the point at

Submitted by Sandra Price on April 15, 2008 - 5:47pm.

I did not miss the point at all. I'm just tired of hearing about what we don't want in the white house. I could care less if any candidate has the illusion of being one of the boys, or worse, promising to represent Jesus in all ways. I prefer the no bullshit approach of Ron Paul. He is what he is and most voters realized they didn't want.

I do not beleive that voters know what they want. I keep hearing "change" without anything specific to change. I realize you were never interesting in my action alerts and figured you were too disinterested and lazy to read them. But what you don't know is how many bad bills we were able to stop. We held the National ID program off the agenda of the 104th and 105th Congresses.

Just from this forum it should be easy to determine that very little discussions around the changes we need can be found. This seems to be the habit of most forums but this CHB gives us a chance to express what we want and how to get it. I have been very clear with my endgame. I will support any candidate who sees honestly where we have gone wrong. We did exactly what Orwell warned us not to do. Sadly we did this in gangs of political groups. We opened the world of politics to the religious right and suddenly we were faced with intrusive religious laws that have nothing to do with our federal government.

You and I will never agree on the quality of academics that will continue to fall until the schools lay down rules of manners and citizenship are demanded. You and I will never agree that simply cutting back government is all that is needed. There is too much authority given to the federal government and our states have no desire to take the proper responsibility. The movement must come from the people and in huge quantities. We cannot wait much longer or we will be receiving nukes from Iran the hard way.

When I was able to post at Reader Rant, I got a good response from the posters when I brought my Alerts. We had a pretty good set of achievements and when I met Bob Barr and Lew Rockwell in Georgia they had heard of CHB and were pleased at our support.

I cannot bring any more here as I am banned from the forum. You have always mocked my efforts for American Policy Center and Alan Caruba.

Then we'll have to agree to

Submitted by Flapsaddle on April 16, 2008 - 2:15am.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree; we have vastly different philosophies on several things.

I do not beleive (sic) that voters know what they want. I keep hearing "change" without anything specific to change.

If a voter requires that much spoon feeding, I'd tend to think him/her to be beyond any real sense of civic responsibility. That sort of person is what both parties want in a voter - someone who will be influenced by the last sound-bite that registers.

I realize you were never interesting in my action alerts and figured you were too disinterested and lazy to read them.

I use other resources that generally get information to me earlier than the i-net grapevine does. I read a lot and surf a lot, so the i-net action groups are generally behind my knowledge-curve and don't particularly attract my attention.

But what you don't know is how many bad bills we were able to stop. We held the National ID program off the agenda of the 104th and 105th Congresses.

Having gotten my information earlier in most cases than do the action-item enthusiasts, I've generally already called or written my legislator(s) by the time someone gets to me; also, I do not necessarily share a universal degree of common concern over the issues. I prefer to pick my issues rather than have them picked for me.

I see the i-net as a general tool of communication between and among people on an extremely wide range of subjects, not just on political subjects. In our electronic age, it's analogous to what Gutenburg's press did for the Renaissance and the Reformation. And, like the printed word, there are "books" enough here in the ether to satisfy all tastes without the need to restrict who may say what.

...We did exactly what Orwell warned us not to do. Sadly we did this in gangs of political groups.

Orwell was a socialist. His warnings were primarily to alert the faithful to the dangers of fascism and to the cult of personality in the Marxist-Leninist system.

We opened the world of politics to the religious right and suddenly we were faced with intrusive religious laws that have nothing to do with our federal government.

The religious right has as much freedom to enter into the civic discourse as does any other belief-set, and to attempt to leave its imprint on our society. It is the duty of all of us to make sure that they do not intrude their beliefs as a political litmus test. That disenfranchises others of different beliefs or of no beliefs at all.

You and I will never agree on the quality of academics that will continue to fall until the schools lay down rules of manners and citizenship are demanded.

I don't know what gave you that idea that I was not in favor of improving the miserable academic standards of our public schools. Unfortunately, our public school system has largely degenerated into a series of social experiment laboratories where the young are discouraged from being individuals and are taught to think of themselves in terms of membership rights-bearing groups groups with specific grievances and certain entitlements.

I am all for the best academic standards possible - not just in the schools but here on th i-net. I see numerous examples of poor preparation in many posters in terms of a lack of facts and/or an inability to logically defend their premises.

You and I will never agree that simply cutting back government is all that is needed...

If you eliminate the level of government intrusion into our lives, then that would certainly be better for the future of our long-suffering and continually-diminishing freedoms. I don't think that I've ever argued to the contrary.

I cannot bring any more here as I am banned from the forum.

I don't see why an effective argument presented here would in any way be less valuable than one presented in the Reader Rant forum. In fact, you might get more exposure to your views here, or in the personal blogs, than going down into the RR where there is a more veteran corps of posters.

You have always mocked my efforts for American Policy Center and Alan Caruba.

I simply do not share your faith in Mr. Caruba as being a particularly outstanding voice for personal freedom.

Most sincerely,

T. J. Flapsaddle

Actually Sandra, it's

Submitted by CheckerboardStr... on April 15, 2008 - 12:23pm.

Actually Sandra, it's corporatism, or more accurately, FASCISM, but I don't want to split hairs over it, just had to toss it out there.

I was thinking the other day that, after eight years of the clown in charge we have now, that maybe, just maybe...America was SICK OF having someone "just like us" in the White House.

For the last sixty years government and big business has catered to and appealed to the losers in society in order to get what they wanted...MONEY AND POWER, more of it all the time, especially the latter, and it has been the losers that got bailed out a couple of generations ago.

Then in a deft switch seemingly overnight, the losers got the idea that they could just switch labels and take their failed policies to another failed political party and weave them into the fabric like so many tiny faux gold threads.
And suddenly neoconservatism was born.

First thing you know they go to the God Losers and pitch their miserable ideas and whaddya know, the ideas took root.

And so now we have an entire crop of losers running things, and they've become winners, at our expense of course.

But if we had never given the suckers an even break we wouldn't be in this situation now.

But we were too busy laboring under the false impression that government cares about our well being and cares about the future of the country.
It doesn't and it never has.

We forgot that our government is supposed to be our servant.
We allowed ourselves to be convinced that government can answer any and all questions, about morality, about money, about energy, and about raising and educating our children.
We've allowed the government to do all our thinking for us we did it by investing our brainpower in the opinions emanating from a flickering blue soma dispenser which is largely government controlled.

We dress like a tube, we act like a tube, we even think like a tube. Is it any wonder that we elect people who look like the manufactured "just plain folks" that we watch on the tube all day long?

I thought America was ready for a critical thinker who followed the constitution.
I was wrong.

I thought, okay so if we're not ready for that then maybe it won't be so bad if we at least end up with an intellectual.
He's lacking in a few social graces but he thinks things through and isn't given to governing by emotional outbursts.
I was wrong again.

Nope, we're going to elect whoever it is that wins the
Jerry Springer Too Hot For TV Smackdown once again.

And both of the potential winners are a continuation of the dual monarchy that has lasted for over a quarter century.
The intellectual and the constitutionalist are out of the game.

America wants to elect people who cater to the loser they see in themselves. We've modeled an entire generation and invested everything we have in losers.

It's too late to turn back now.

JeffH in Occupied TX

I'd like to see someone who

Submitted by Elmo on April 15, 2008 - 12:59pm.

I'd like to see someone who can unashamedly be intellectual running for President instead of someone pandering to rampant anti-intellectualism.

The Jacksonian era killed

Submitted by Flapsaddle on April 15, 2008 - 1:28pm.

The Jacksonian era killed off genuine intellectualism in the White House.

IMCO, the only two genuine intellectuals to have ever occupied the White House were Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. The last president to have actually exhibited such traits was Woodrow Wilson. The last attempt by one of what the late George Wallace referred to as "pointy-headed intellectuals" was that of Adlai Stevenson in 1956.

I certainly do not consider Clinton to be any flavor of "intellectual" nor am I sure that Obama qualifies as one, either.

Most sincerely,

T. J. Flapsaddle

NY native One of these

Submitted by Alexandria Lupu on April 15, 2008 - 2:31pm.

NY native
One of these days, I'll open Capitol Hill Blue & find something complimentary about Hillary Clinton. Then, I'll fall down on my knees & kiss the computer.
I've listened and watch some of Obama's speeches & am totally unimpressed. He says nothing. Merely repeating the same phrases over & over & telling us why he wants to be president. He seldom offers any positive points & stoops to the level of calling Hillary names & showing no respect. I can't understand how intelligent people can back him. All show & no substance.

Upstater here. You're right,

Submitted by griff on April 15, 2008 - 3:59pm.

Upstater here. You're right, CHB is all-in for Obama. For some strange reason, people equate his incessant droning about "our" problems with the idea that he actually gives a shit about solving them.

He has seemingly convinced everyone that he's somehow different from the rest of the elite globalist facilitators that skulk the hallowed halls of our nation's capitol. Maybe I need to watch more TV, because that Kool-Aid must go down smoothly.

Ordinarily, I'd let crap

Submitted by Doug Thompson on April 15, 2008 - 8:59pm.

Ordinarily, I'd let crap like the previous two posts pass without comment but the claim that I run a pro-Obama site is so lame it deserves comment.

Did either of you actually read what I wrote:

Memo to one and all: You ain't one of us so drop the charade. We're not looking for one of us. We're looking for a leader.

Bowling a 37 while wearing a white shirt and tie or tossing back a few with politicos at a bar don't mean dick.

Where I come from, "one and all" means the three remaining contenders for the Presidential nomination: McCain, Clinton AND Obama.

Anybody who thinks I support any of these suckers has their head up their ass.

On March 3, in an story headlined: "The corrupt skeleton in Obama's closet, I wrote:

Even as he claims to represent change and campaigns as an alternative to "business as usual" politics, Obama cannot escape the fact that he is a product of old-style, corrupt Chicago politics.

Jay Stewart, executive director of the Better Government Association, an Illinois watchdog group, points to Obama's longtime relationship with Tony Rezko, a Chicago real estate developer, fast-buck operator and backroom political kingmaker.

Obama's close ties to Rezko raises questions over whether or not the Democrat is really a reformer.

In other columns, I have nailed Obama for padding his resume and other mistakes.

So don't come on here claiming that either I or my web site is pro-Obama or pro-anybody. We don't support Presidential candidates. We measure all by the same yardstick and most come up short. Just because your candidate Clinton comes up short as well does not indicate support for anyone.

Doug Thompson
Owner and publisher
Capitol Hill Blue

Just because I'm from NY

Submitted by griff on April 16, 2008 - 9:18am.

Just because I'm from NY doesn't mean I support Clinton. Where I come from, Clinton is universally despised as a carpetbagging opportunist, to say the least.

You are right Doug, we need

Submitted by juxtaposition on April 15, 2008 - 3:05pm.

You are right Doug, we need a leader in the WH. I don't care if they can bowl, shoot a gun, throw down whiskey shots or bake cookies. I want someone who will clean up the economic mess and get us out of this illegal war that is wasting not only our soldiers, but billions and billions of our tax dollars every single month. I am so sick of the 24 hour "news" shows that recycle every single stupid comment and photo-op that occurs on the campaign trail instead of addressing the real issues Americans should be concerned about.

A photo-op by any other name

Submitted by Charlie Couser on April 15, 2008 - 3:12pm.

A photo-op by any other name is still a photo-op.

As ridiculous as they all too often are, they are, none-the-less, a fixture in the American political scene.

I personally enjoy the humor in them whether it is intended or not.

Lighten up a little...

Only a power crazed

Submitted by Stratocaster on April 15, 2008 - 5:03pm.

Only a power crazed egomaniac or other mentally disturbed person would want to be President of the United States. There are only three reasons a person would want to be President. One, they are mentally disturbed. Two, they have a gun to their head. Three, they want to dismantle the position and give the power back to the people. If anyone ever runs that is in the third catagory, I'll probably get around to voting.

Strato, I disagree. We have

Submitted by Sandra Price on April 15, 2008 - 6:01pm.

Strato, I disagree. We have had some wonderful men who have seen the problems in D.C. and believe they can honestly help. I think Jim Webb of Virginia is one and I have a good friend running for the Senate in New Jersey who speaks and writes about what he sees is wrong. I met him in Atlanta in 1999 and he was strongly behind CATO at that time. He has sat back watching the actions in the White House since Bush 43 took office and he has come up with an agenda which I believe sings with corrections. He is a Republican/libertarian in the same vein as Ron Paul. His name is Murray Sabrin, PhD. I send him some small donations to make up for the fact I cannot vote for him.

It is up to us the voters, to locate these men and women who we can trust. I do not trust Clinton and certainly not McCain; and Obama is the great unknown.

I attend a lot of conferences and do meet some fine patriots but they need to be approached to see if they want a leadership position.

Many of us do not want to see America slip further into an Empire or even into socialism and we must locate the next person who will represent us to give the power back to the people.

Sandra, I included wonderful

Submitted by Stratocaster on April 15, 2008 - 6:49pm.

Sandra, I included wonderful men under catagoy three. However, none of them appear to be running for President. What I know about Clinton and McCain scares the hell out of me, and what I don't know about Obama scares the hell out of me.

We will find that person who

Submitted by Sandra Price on April 15, 2008 - 6:56pm.

We will find that person who will give the power back to the people; but we will have to support him/her and earn/take the power back. I think we are all searching for this.

Sandra, just call me

Submitted by silentSCREAM on April 15, 2008 - 10:15pm.

Sandra, just call me Killjoy. Your optimism is admirable, but all for not. You are correct in one regard... the people will have to" take the power back." BUT, the time is not yet near.It's not even on the distant horizon.

The cash corrupt Republocrat party machine status quo is far too entrenched to allow something as equitable and honorable as a mere election to topple their 'legal' strategically fortified stronghold. From the ground up, federal politics is corporatized.And to a large degree statehouses are under the influence as well.Our elected officials answer not to the will of we the people, nor do they honor their oath to the constitution. They only honor the will of their benefactors.

Though I'll give you your due.Occasionally the empowered class on the hill will throw the peanut gallery (of the people) a bone to pacify their cries. But nothing too substantial or anything drastic enough to truly upset their privileged positions. For now and the foreseeable future, real change or perhaps even a return to constitutional discipline is out of reach. The best we and our immediate descendants can hope for is to slow the march to fascist tyranny.

The pilot you search has not yet breathed the air of planet earth. They are still generations away. We are too well fed, too warm and the available quality of life too comfortable for Americans to put forth the effort that will be necessary to revolutionize our government. The government impropriety we loath will grow far worse before a shift of historical account will emerge. And that's the way of mankind... like it or not.

RichardKanePA To some extent

Submitted by RichardKanePA on April 15, 2008 - 11:01pm.

RichardKanePA

To some extent every President from Reagan to Clinton pretended to be just an ordinary Joe, until at last we finally actually got someone in the White House who admits he doesn't read much.

Perhaps we should set up a lottery of job seekers and randomly appoint them to pilot our planes, and drive our trains and buses.

When we take the next plane, we wouldn't want the pilot to think he is better than we are, or would we? Maybe football and hockey players should be selected by random selection, not even testing to see if the applicant ever been on ice skates.

No, we wouldn't want someone with top grades at Harvard to be President, perhaps we can even encourage Bush to cancel future elections so a truly ordinary Joe, instead of a pretender to being ordinary can remain in the White House forever.

RichardKanePA@aol.com
www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/6045

RichardKanePA An ordinary

Submitted by RichardKanePA on April 15, 2008 - 11:32pm.

RichardKanePA

An ordinary Joe to pilot our planes: Can someone tell me how I edit the misspelt version in my blog entry?

www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/6045

"We're not looking for one

Submitted by knockknock on April 15, 2008 - 11:05pm.

"We're not looking for one of us. We're looking for a leader."

Exactly!

Doug rocks

Yeah, we need a leader that

Submitted by Stratocaster on April 15, 2008 - 11:28pm.

Yeah, we need a leader that will reform the wrongs of our government, not someone else to lead us down the path of deception. I hsve not heard anything about govermental reforms; I have only heard jibberish about how much they are like us. LOL

Strato, you did hear a lot

Submitted by Sandra Price on April 16, 2008 - 5:44am.

Strato, you did hear a lot about government reforms, but Ron Paul was rejected! He was the only candidate who told the truth about what was wrong in D.C.

If we can't discuss these changes without being criticized by others here, we might as well locate a forum where we can! I'm afraid we can no longer recognize an honest candidate.

I just hope Cissy Flapsaddle will stop running my words into an arrogance attack at me and my work even here at CHB. I have faced her negative attacks and am frankly bored with them. I went on the internet to try and bring the voters into an attitude of fixing the problems. I will never give in to the cowardly attitude of anyone. I know what is wrong in our government and I spent 10 years trying to spread my alerts. They came from very reliable sources and far above Flapsaddle's pay scale.

Will CHB turn into a negative group who will slash any discussion of a fix? It has happened a lot where cowards like Flapsaddle play.

I receive a lot of correspondence from people who understand what went wrong in our government since Ike said goodbye. I cannot bring them here as this is a place where we should stick to the subject of the commentaries. After the election I will return to the alerts that contrary to Flapsaddle have made great changes in many of our laws, but I will do it elsewhere.

Our brains are scrambled due to the war called the election.

Here are two examples of the

Submitted by Flapsaddle on April 16, 2008 - 11:36am.

Here are two examples of the philosophical differences that separate us:

If we can't discuss these changes without being criticized by others here, we might as well locate a forum where we can!

How do you have a discussion without critical comment? If there is to be no exchange of opinions, what is the point of even having a discussion on a subject? It would be like Luther nailing those 95 theses to the door of the Wittenburg church and then refusing to allow any discussion not in agreement with him.

I know what is wrong in our government and I spent 10 years trying to spread my alerts. They came from very reliable sources and far above Flapsaddle's pay scale.

I think a person of normal intelligence is able to reach a conclusion as to the nature our problems without appeal to supposedly superior and/or esoteric sources. It sounds a bit like Gnosticism, where the key to spiritual enlightenment comes from knowledge obtained only from special sources, to suggest that only those with special access to such information can deduce the answer.

Most sincerely,

T. J. Flapsaddle

Greyhawk- I'm a recovering

Submitted by Greyhawk on April 16, 2008 - 1:26pm.

Greyhawk- I'm a recovering alcoholic. I saw the pictures of Hillary about to down a shot and thought about my drinking past. I must say it put me off a bit. I'm not one who thinks nobody should drink just because I can't handle it. The shot and beer just looked bad. Maybe it was that silly grin on her face.
The Clinton campaign seems to be desperate. Hillary has taken more hits from her own people than from McCain and Obama put together. Now they seem to be working the "You'd like to have a beer with her" angle. It worked for "W" but it doesn't seem to be working for Hillary. Her staff have done a lot of damage to her but she continues to follow their lead or maybe they're following HER lead. I don't like to see people self-destruct. Been there, done that. I'm glad the Democrats have another good candidate. My country can't take another four years of the current direction.

Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments

Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists and bloggers are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site.

Any registered reader of Capitol Hill Blue can have a blog. We also welcome comments on our stories, columns or blogs and we invite you to discuss stories and other issues in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. We believe in civility at Capitol Hill Blue and must insist that commenters avoid attacks on other readers, obscenities or threats. We reserve the right to moderate or remove comments that we feel violate our rules. Posts that contain racism, homophobia, bigotry or Antisemitism will be removed and the posters banned.

Blog Information Profile for dougthompson

Home