Letter to the Editor from Randall Rolph - Clinton not an option

[Debi]

http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2007/10/21/opinions/letters_to_editor/de6f546018a6688286257378006477e9.txt


NASHUA --- Listening to Hillary Clinton in New Hampton on Sunday, I came away with the opinion that if she were elected president, the country would be faced with more of the same from Washington. No real change and could possibly be worse.

Clinton's refusal to answer for her voting record while accusing me of receiving my question from an outside source, in essence being a "political plant" --- which is something I'm not --- made clear to me that she is not in our country's best interest. To defend one's record by making baseless accusations demonstrates a foundation of poor judgment.

Considering the past 6 1/2 years, it is my belief that having another president that engages in such poor judgment is something this country cannot afford. My discomfort with Mrs. Clinton is also based on the manner in which she answered questions from others. In particular, when asked by a gentleman about paying for the programs she proposes, she replied by stating she would raise taxes on the country's wealthy. However, the reality of raising taxes on the wealthy in this country will not be enough to cover the costs of what she advocates.

Had Mrs. Clinton been honest and mentioned that real change will not come without some sacrifice by everyone, I would have applauded her. Unfortunately, her answers lacked substance and appeared to be tailored to what she believes others may want to hear.

I have ruled out Senator Clinton as a viable candidate worthy of my support.

[guruoo]

1. So what are our options if Hillary is the nominee? Move to Canada?

:rofl:

[Debi]

4. No knowing him, but seeing his record of ltte's and activism

I believe he will vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is.

[Jim Sagle]

2. Looks like this dumb jag has a serious case of Hitlery Klintoon Fever.

And yes, he was a plant. Still is, judging by the freeper hogwash he's spreading.

[Debi]

3. He is a very active Democrat

The only reason I posted the ltte was to allow him to respond to some of the hate spewed about him after the news articles ran. And yet here we are. If he's not a fan of Hillary Clinton then he's a freeper plant :eyes:

Is this the way you invite people to support your candidate of choice? If you're not with us you're a freeper? :shrug:

[Jim Sagle]

5. Please read for comprehension.

That's an Edwards avatar, not a Hillary pic.

I take a dim view of Hillary, but I'd like to see substantive criticism, not this soap opera bullshit.

And if this guy's a Democratic activist, that just makes him a double agent.

[Debi]

6. I apologize for not checking out your avatar prior to posting.

I don't see how confronting the potential nominee about a point of disagreement is soap opera bullshit (his question wasn't about which band should play at the Inaugural Ball but on laying the groundwork for war with Iran).

He has been in the news about attending events for all Democratic candidates and asking pointed questions - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/us/politics/12web-zeleny.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1192997585-Q31Lc+QFEs40S+93eMNmwA Seems he is doing his homework and preparing to make an educated decision at the Iowa Caucuses rather than serving as a double agent.

[guruoo]

9. I wish more DUers (and Mr. Rolph) were as rational in their approach

to debate as you have so far been in this thread, Debi.

edited to add 'so far'.

[Debi]

13. Thanks, but I don't think he was being irrational in his question to Senator Clinton

Passionate maybe, but not irrational.


On edit:

Being...not bing x(

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. His question was predicated on a falsehood, so he seems like kind of a dope to me

I'm not saying he's evil, but he is sure satisfied with himself, and for little reason I can see.

Truth matters.

It is foolish to believe everything you read on the internet.

It is something more than foolish to print out a fake story from a blog somewhere saying that somebody voted for something they did not actually vote for, and then get in the candidate's face demanding that she explain some false blog-smear as if it were true.

And it is WAY beyond foolish, when confronted with the fact that you are waving around a printed out version of an internet hoax, to cop an attitude about it.

And it is bust out MORONIC to then bitch about how you were not satisfied with the candidates answer to your fake question.

I am sure the guy believed what he was reading from was true... because he's a silly person who believe that every post on DU or daily Kos diary entry is true because he WANTS it to be true.

They guy is a dope.

[Debi]

23. Okay. n/t

[guruoo]

26. ...

[jillan]

7. She should have answered his question.

Compare that to Biden getting out of the car to talk to people that were holding signs saying "Impeach Biden" (over his vote for funding MRAPs)
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071021/OPINION01/710210337/-1


Sometimes you just have to face negativity head on.

[Debi]

8. You've posted this story inside two threads - you need to post it on it's own

We saw the Bidens shortly after that visit and I asked Dr. Jill Biden about it. She said it was all part of campaigning and everyone has a right to their opinions. She's right, answering our questions IS part of campaigning to be our representative - even if the end result is agreeing to disagree.

[guruoo]

11. Why shouldn't one be allowed to post the same link in more

than one thread? :shrug:

[Debi]

15. I meant that the story was so good that it deserved it's own thread

:hi:

[guruoo]

25. Oh, ok.

How silly of me!
:hi:

[wyldwolf]

10. who?

[Debi]

12. Here ya go.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/us/politics/12web-zeleny.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1192997585-Q31Lc+QFEs40S+93eMNmwA

[wyldwolf]

14. Again, who?

[Debi]

16. Just an Iowa caucus goer who felt he deserved an answer to his question n/t

[wyldwolf]

17. I suppose if the question had been honest, things may have gone better

... IMO, he either tried to catch Clinton with a "gotcha" or he genuinely misunderstood the meaning of the amendment and what "non-binding" means.

[Debi]

18. Or he felt that the 'non-binding' amendment was openning the door

for Bush to start the march to war with Iran and disagreed with Senator Clinton's vote for the amendment.

I posted his ltte b/c so many folks have spoken against him or on his behalf here on DU. He took the opportunity to respond.

[wyldwolf]

19. well, if he felt that way I'd ask based on what?

[Debi]

20. Maybe that's what the Senator should have done - but she did not. n/t

[wyldwolf]

21. The Senator quite plainly told him he was misinformed

[Debi]

24. Yes she did. n/t

[Perry Logan]

27. Fortunately, nobody gives a shit how Mr. Rolph votes.