Takin' the 5th: Peyton Williams wants cousin's job

Campaign workers are meeting in the living room of the house Peyton Williams' great aunt built off JPA in the the 1930s. A reporter and photographer appear. Cars need to be moved so a volunteer can get out of the driveway and make it to an event. In short, it's a bit chaotic.

And as a man who's retired from two different careers, Williams could certainly be taking it easy, rather than trying to take the 5th Congressional District away from the man who holds it now, his second cousin once removed, Robert Hurt.

It was the House bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, that motivated Williams enough to consider a run for Congress as a Democrat. As did the intransigence of the House of Representatives, he says, which has stalled any significant legislation on topics Americans say they care most about: jobs and the economy.

"Why are you not doing what we elected you to do?" Williams rhetorically asks Cousin Robert, a Republican. "They continue to just say no."

This is Williams' first run for political office, and Hurt is way ahead of him there after Congressional incumbency and several terms in the General Assembly. Williams has had a distinguished career in government nonetheless. A member of the Army's Special Forces, he worked at the Pentagon before retiring in 1999 as a lieutenant colonel, and his second career was serving as a systems engineer for Lockheed Martin.

Before throwing his hat into the ring, Williams was busy as a part-time scuba instructor and a Boy Scouts leader.

At first it looked like Williams was going to have an easy ride to lock up the Democratic nomination. And then another retired military Dem, Brigadier General John Douglass, who had planned to run in the 10th District until his Fauquier County farm was redistricted into the 5th, decided to go for it in the new district.

"John Douglass and I made a pact: We're not going to personally attack each other," says Williams. But he doesn't hesitate to differentiate the two military Dems. "I'm trained as a research scientist, and there are only three in Congress," says Williams, who has two master's degrees, including one in ecology. "They don't have the people needed to explain science, particularly on the environmental side."

Williams also notes his military experience and getting things accomplished through compromise: "I've had to get people into the room to make a plan– even if it's not one that's acceptable to everyone."

Hurt's Chatham base is well-established, but, insists Williams, lest he be seen as an interloper, "We both have deep roots in the Fifth District."

Let's just hope the race doesn't make things awkward at family reunions.

Age: 63
Why here? Charlottesville is such a beautiful place to live. I have lived here since 1974 on and off. My house has been in the family since 1935.
What's worst about living here? Pedestrians jaywalking and bikes without lights or reflectors at night.
Favorite hangout? Any of the restaurants along the Downtown Mall, especially in warmer weather.
Most overrated virtue? Mine or generally? People tell me I’m brave because I have volunteered to go into some tight spots. I don’t feel that I’m all that brave. I just did my job the best I could.
People would be surprised to know: I like eating kimchi– fermented cabbage– though my wife says it smells more like rotten cabbage.
What would you change about yourself? Well, my wife says I’m too cluttered, and I wish I could do a better job with that– both with the clutter and with keeping her happy.
Proudest accomplishment? Probably being in US Army Special Forces. My training and experience has put me in a better position to help people in many ways and allowed me to better understand others.
People find most annoying about you: I can tell some long stories at times.
Whom do you admire? Gandhi, and the way he stood up for his people using peaceful protest and persuasion.
Favorite book? Americans on Everest by James Ullman and The Art of War by Sun Tzu.
Subject that causes you to rant? The Iraq War. I knew who Ahmed Chalabi was because of the work I had been doing on terrorism and I did not understand how our government could listen to a convicted felon who was out for himself.
Biggest 21st-century thrill? Seeing the reaction of my scuba student when an eight-foot hammerhead shark swam 15 feet in front of her. (Wide-eyed, but calm.)
Biggest 21st-century creep out? 9/11
What do you drive? 2003 Subaru, license plate “SKUBARU.”
In your car CD player right now: Quantum Man: Richard Feynman's Life in Science by Krause. I am not listening to it for the physics, but just because he was such an interesting man.
Next journey? To Florida to learn how to cultivate coral in conjunction with a Venture Scout environmental project.
Most trouble you’ve ever gotten in? With my wife when I went back into the Army instead of becoming a park ranger.
Regret: Not being a better student
Favorite comfort food: Popcorn
Always in your refrigerator: Milk
Must-see TV: As a series, PBS Mystery
Describe a perfect day. Sailing a boat out to a warm water dive site and conducting a fish census underwater. Finding a new fish and showing it to my wife, my favorite dive partner.
Walter Mitty fantasy: Being another Jacques Cousteau.
Who’d play you in the movie? With my white hair, I would go for George Clooney. Besides, I generally like his stand politically. My wife says he is too short to play me.
Most embarrassing moment? Too many for any to stand out.
Best advice you ever got? “To be the best soldier I could be.” Given by my father, an Episcopal minister, when I told him I was enlisting in the Army in 1967. Passed it on to my daughter when she decided to go into the Army. (I wasn’t worried about her being the best.)
Favorite bumper sticker? I’ve got two: the “Coexist” sticker and “Give Blood, Play Rugby”– two different sides of my personality.


Williams is right. His second cuz once removed, Robert Hurt, shouldn't be standing in the way of the progress the Dems had made in bankrupting our country. Perhaps he and other Dems can retake enough House seats so they'll once again have the majority and, dare I hope, perhaps get the nation's credit rating get downgraded yet again. Maybe even get the unemployment rate into double digits (which it technically is if the stats were more accurate and counted folks who have given up looking because of all the "Hope and Change").

Peyton is a nice guy, but I really urge everyone to take a good look at John Douglass - he's a much stronger speaker and candidate. Either one of them is leaps and bounds better than Hurt - who is just a front man for the corporate folks who bankrolled him.

@non-residenttaxpayer: You're right, of course, re Hurt's bankrolling. It's obviously preferable to have a Democrat who's bankrolled by thuggish unions and liberal special interest groups in New York. "non-resident" says it all.

Deleted by moderator.

neocon - why is blame placed solely on Dems? Bush's tax cuts are responsible for a majority of the deficit that caused the downgrade. Just cause it happened with a Dem president, doesn't make it all democrat's fault. I blame our government as a whole, both dems and republicans for making our society tolernant of a disfunctional two party system, whining without action, and the misinterpretation of "entitlement".

Why don't you listen to his ideas, first, and judge him based on his character, instead of jumping to conclusions based on the party he will use to fund his campaign?

When the economy keeps doing this badly for so long, including our nation's bond rating being downgraded for the first time in history and our national debt exploding with no end in sight, you have to ask yourself when, exactly, will Obama and company start taking some share of the blame and stop pointing fingers? When over 8% unemployment becomes the new norm because the goals and benchmarks for Obama must be set low so he can meet them and anyone objecting to his radical agenda is branded a "racist", I think this country has had enough. Personally, I never thought I'd see the day when someone as incompetent as Jimmy Carter would be President, but that day has come. As bad as Carter was, I think he had enough intelligence to know what one of the basic functions of the Supreme Court was. Or perhaps he was smart enough not to open his mouth on the subject and display his ignorance for all to see. We just can't stand 4 more years of this bovine excrement spewed by the executive branch and 4 more years of excuses heaped on excuses. You can either believe Obama or your own "lying eyes". Personally, I trust my eyes.

There is nothing realist about what you are saying realist.

Here is reality:

Republicans like to borrow and spend, and pretend that's shrinking government - right down to your bedroom. Democrats like to tax and spend, and at least tell you what they are spending it on.

Until you fix your own big spending and borrowing problem, you've got nothing on Obama, or any other Democrat for that matter. Get back to us when you can actually tell the truth.

Dems bankrupting our country? Nobody did a better job than the Gipper, the false god of the right:

"Forced to raise taxes eleven times to avert financial catastrophe, the Gipper nonetheless presided over a tripling of the American national debt to nearly $3 trillion. By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan more than equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history. It's no wonder Stockman lamented last year:

"[The] debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts.""

I would rather take another 4 years of Obama's catering to the right wing than just one of the treason routinely committed by the GOP. The only person in the GOP who understands the Consitution and respects it Ron paul, and we see how well loved he is by so called conservatives.

Reality is, we can't stand another four years of knee jerk angry dishonest 'realities,' voting.

National Debt Jan 20th 2001: $ 5.7 Trillion
National Debt Jan 20th 2009: $ 10,626 Trillion
National Debt today: $ 15,635 Trillion

Increase in national debt for Bush's 8 years: $4.926 Trillion
Increase in national debt for Obama's 3 years 2.5 months: $5.009 Trillion

Moral to the story: Obama is almost 3 times as bad as Bush at budget busting/debt increasing.

OTOH, Obama has a nice smile and is giving us "Hope and Change". That should make all Americans suffering from his incompetence feel better.

@ Old Timer: Ron Paul has the added advantage of doing a fine job editing racist newsletters:


Nice try, but no ciagr Inconvenient Truth. Yuo conservatvies can always be spotted a mile away by your desire to avoid facts.


Even that isn entirely accurate, as the budget for a President's first year in office is usually the result of the previous.

Like it or not, % of change in the national debt seems to always be 'inconveniently'greater under a GOP president than Democrat voer the last 30 or so years.

Reagan: 168%
Bush Snr %49%
Clinton: 22%
Bush Jnr: 75.2%
Obama: 37%

That we have a problem in how we are spending I can agree. But that last group I expect to solve that problem are our current crop of conservatives, who couldn say no to Dubya when he wanted to spend like a drunken sailor.

Come back when you understand the difference between wishful thinking opinions and facts.

@ Old Timer: As they say, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Some of the more interesting ones are on the Obama oil ad where he brags about increased production, not mentioning the fact that the increase was on private lands which he has no control over, as opposed to Federal land, where production is flat:


But hey, if you're happy with the job Dear Leader is doing, vote for him again. Personally, I'll believe my lying eyes and hope we can avoid being Greece in 3 years if he gets reelected. I guess if you can't run on your record, make up a record you can run on, as he does in that oil ad.

@realist - a couple of things. For starters, my tag-line is there because I pay taxes in C'ville and do not live in C'ville proper. I object to many of the boondoggles that the one-party-government in city hall engage in regularly, and for which I foot the bill, when I effectively don't get a vote. Isn't that (taxes) what 'conservatives' are always complaining about?

I do, however, most certainly live in the 5th and I was born at MJH, and my family has been in VA since 1642, so I feel perfectly entitled to call myself a "real Virginian". Sarah Failin' and the rest of the "true 'mercan" red crowd can just take a hike as far as I'm concerned. That applies to the NJ based Hurt carpet-bagger crowd too. My family was in Chatham for nearly a hundred and fifty years before the Hurts arrived and were part of the Chatham Greys. This been-here-come-here "celebrate the heritage" junk from "conservatives" is about as tiresome a fib as the claim that only the GOP joins or loves the military. It's kind of funny how we have two real combat vets running as liberal Democrats against a civilian trust-fund baby who is an errand boy for the GOP.

To answer your question: yes, in fact, it is significantly preferable to have a candidate who is funded with donations from small-donors like union members - while those donations are not nearly as large as the corporate donations, they at least represent the will of a much larger number of people. You know, that whole one-man, one-vote thing.

I'm curious why some "special interests" are preferable to other "special interests" - why is it OK for a small number of rich conservatives to exert such a strong influence on our politics, but not a small group of rich liberals?

My guess is you don't really care about a small number of people getting more of a voice in our "democracy" than others - you just care that they aren't liberals..the rest is lip service. All the shouting about "union thugs" is just to try and distract people from the reality that the GOP is owned by a very small number of very large donors.

I be one of those conservatives, and your chart is very interesting. However, it is the next column over that interests me the most as a small businessman. that is the column that I would tend to view the 'health" of my bankbook. The amount of debt I owe compared to how much money I am making.

The last three years are not very good, but really only will be judged in the long term. When I started the most successful of my businesses, I had the worst debt/income ratio ever. However, as biz picked up and debts cold be paid of in an accelerated manner it was all good.

Anyone here old enough to remember the S & L crack up? How we would be paying off the debts for years and years and years. Take a looks at those next 5 years. Very curious.

Bottom line for me is less the % of change as the % to income.

Is that wishful thinking or fact?

Old Timer's comments on statistics reminds me of that old Abbott and Costello routine about the 40 year old guy being 4 times as old as the 10 year old girl and, after 5 years go by, is now only 3 times as old, 45 vs 15 (still not doable). So he waits another 15 years and now he's only twice as old, 60 and 30, ("she's catching up", says the amazed Costello). Abbott then asks the question "How long before they're the same age?".

So it's all fun with numbers when you start using absolute dollar increases vs percentages vs rates of increase, etc. hence, the lies, damned lies and statistics adage applies.
One thing is certain, Standard & Poors has cut our country's credit rating for U.S. Treasury bonds for the first time in history and the Dems have apparently taken little notice of it, perhaps because of shame. As Reagan used to say, it's not fair to accuse the liberal Democrats (today virtually the only kind of Democrat) of spending money like a drunken sailor because drunken sailors don't spend more than they have.

But drunken sailers would spend more money than they have if it was SOMEONE else's money. And lets face it, drunken sailors are much more fun that liberal democrats.

@ jimi hendrix: Good point. As Margaret Thatcher once said, socialism works until you run out of other people's money.

@nonresident: "small donors like union members"? Are you kidding me? Like union members have ANY say in which candidates their union bosses choose to donate money to. Get real.

@Inconvenient - no, and I as a shareholder have no say in what the management of various corporations of which I'm a partial owner do with political donations. The only difference between union giving and corporate giving is the size of the donations - it's not about either one being terribly democratic (though union members do have a vote). Shareholders generally don't even get to vote on donations.

Here's another bit of "inconvenient truth" for you, regarding the deficit:


The current massive debt is clearly due to the drunken spending of the GOP from 2000-2006. I know you'd like to pretend it's only due to the parts of government you don't like - non-defense discretionary spending - but that's not factually true. I thought conservatives let the facts rule and not their emotions?


Did you actually red all of my comment?

"That we have a problem in how we are spending I can agree."

I am concerned about the debt, and how it is handled. What I refuse to accept from the " I hate Obama because he isn't my ideology," crowd is their blatant lies about being fiscally conservative, or having any intention of actually living within the government's means. They are hypocrites to the core, and try and dance around the truth's they find inconvenient. Speaking of business folk, isn't it interesting just how successful so many of those wealthy so called liberals are in business? My goodness, they must make a lot of those welfare red state boys mighty envious, with their ability to accrue millions, and still be able to share it. Do you really think they somehow don't have a clue?


I never said anything about being pleased with Obama, I just won't let you hide from facts you dislike. I never denied Obama having a big deficit, I just deny that any GOP candidate, or any GOP ideologue ( you give yourself away by calling Obama names) has any intention of being fiscally responsible. History clearly shows otherwise. You are only to happy to spend money as long as its on the programs you approve of, and what's more, especially if it isn't your money.

Like it or not, Bush Jnr was handed a good position by Billy Bob, and he handed off an economy in a death spiral to Obama, and that first year budget was Bush's, not Obama's. Those are facts. Not statistics you don't like. The more you squeal and cream and name call and use sarcasm, the more I know that you know that I am right.

@ non-resident: I tried the link you listed but it wouldn't work, even after listing it as exception on my pop-up blocker. You DO realize it's the New York Times? That's kind of like relying on NBC news for accurate reporting on 911 audio transcripts. Interesting the NYT draws the line at 2006 (based on what you wrote because I couldn't access it), the last year Republicans dominated Congress. I'm sure that was just a coincidence. I am no big fan of George Bush, though in retrospect, he seems to be a superstar compared to Obama.
If he does somehow get reelected despite his miserable record, I will at least be able to make money investing in gold, or anything else which might benefit from a Greek-like scenario in this country. You need not be a rocket scientist to know that scenario will follow. If the Dems take the House (doubtful), the dynamic duo of Pelosi and Reid will accelerate the process.

I'll help you IC, since you see data that only fits with what you want to believe.

The graph shows the new spending that happened under the Bush admin, that Obama has to budget for now. Hmmm, like he inherited two wars from the previous years. We still have soldiers in Iraq. War spending that the GOP didn't even have the spine to include as part of the budget, and Obama does. How about Homeland Defense? What would happen if Obama cut that? A grand shriek from the right about being soft on defense.

It all boils down to you owning up to the fact that the GOP doesn't care about spending, or debt, as long as it's their debt.

Old Timer, will let you spend some time gleaning all the info that is related to the 2008 meltdown. If anyone thinks that one party gets all the blame, well they need to educate themselves.

Educate yourself. I am out of this thread.


"If anyone thinks that one party gets all the blame, well they need to educate themselves."
I never suggested that one party was to blame. Why do you keep putting words into my mouth? Now you want to leave the thread? Of course, if you can't put words into people's mouths for straw man arguments, it gets kind of hard, doesn't it?

@Inconvenient - yes, it's from the NYT...so what? The data are drawn from the Congressional Budget Office. They're factual numbers, not spin or opinion; they are, in fact, what got spent. Here's the original story, which I didn't bother to link, since I figured you'd dismiss it as a biased source:


We spent the money on two wars and tax cuts. Period. You may believe those are good expenditures, but that is where the money went - not on "big government" Obama - it was "big government" Bush. You do realize that the "private sector" in Virginia is utterly dependent on the taxypayer?

"You liberals are so brain damaged that you can try to take an outright lie and use it to defend a travesty,"

I didn't know that pointing out a fact about spending made someone a liberal. Whether or not Obama screwed his base over the last few years, he was obligated to budget for those operations, and they represented the lion's share of the deficit his first year in office. The first year in office is the budget of the previous president anyways.

those are just facts, so why label them.

I am curious though; why is it folks like you flog a non GOP president for being weak on defense, and then flog them for spending money the way you wanted it spent on defense? That's being a bit dishonest, dontcha think?

Sounds like non-resident taxpayer is right. You don't care about how the money is spent, or that a few people are calling the shots, you just care that a liberal might get to call the shots once in a while, and spend money.

Hey Dick Butkus - two things for you too:

First, you know, Obama did end the boondoggle in Iraq. He did, in my opinion wisely (because Pakistan is the real problem and the real source of terrorism) try to do what many, many "conservatives" urged him to in Afghanistan: try another "surge" and try to "bring democracy" to them. Of course, Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires, is like Vietnam - a local civil action in which we can never succeed, no matter how much we need bases of operation from which to address the real problems in Waziristan. And Obama is pulling out.

But yeah, Caesonia is right: how come you "conservatives" attack Obama for pursuing exactly the policy you claim to prefer? I get why the super-lefties were unhappy with him doubling down in Afghanistan, but this is exactly what Bill Kristol, Sarah Palin and a bunch of other GOP Hawks heavily lobbied Obama to do.

You don't really care about the policy do you? Do you even understand the policies? I think all you care about is "if it's our guy, whatever he's doing is "Freedom Fries, Apple Pie and God." And if it's a "Liberal" (which Obama is not) from team D, it's the socialist-islamo-fascist takover of the US government. There is a psychological term for this, "Cognitive Dissonance". You might want to look that one up and ponder it a little.

Oh, and on that note, while we're trading psychological diagnoses (please note the order of comments here moderator)...

"You liberals are so brain damaged that you can try to take an outright lie and use it to defend a travesty, you are shameless brazen sociopaths"

...you might also want to look up "Projection".

Yeah non-resident, those are definitely two words that were rolling around my tongue. It's how I have to separate true conservatives from the faux ones - not that there are that many true conservatives any more, sadly.

@non-resident: When you wrote "And if it's a "Liberal" (which Obama is not)" you totally blew what little credibility you had. Unless your definition of "liberal" is Joseph Stalin.

I just hope all you libs continue to enjoy your "Hope and Change" as our country continues it's slide to failed socialist state. All the sorry a$$$ excuses from Obama about the Japanese Tsunami, ATMs, kiosks, under-inflated tires, Euro crisis, Arab unrest, globl warming, George Bush, etc being responsible won't change what's happening to our country.

@realist - according to conservative folks like you - your use of the term 'libs' instantly defines your ideology - anything that is not conservative speak is 'liberal', even if its not liberal. Being a centrist is liberal. Being a moderate Republican is liberal. If it ain't flaming right wing, it's liberal.

Maybe when you can start talking about facts, and just focusing on problems, instead of using terms like ' you libs' you might actually get somewhere.

Until then, non-resident has you pegged pretty accurately.

@realist - I get that you don't like the policies Obama has pursued, and the wisdom of his policies is fair game for debate. It's also perfectly fair to dislike him for just being Obama - regardless of his policies.

I don't think the guy is perfect, but when you complain about "a slide into a failed socialist state", be intellectually honest and stick with facts. Obama's signature policy initiative was healthcare reform - the one that everyone complains is "socialist". Well, the "Obamacare" plan, like the "Romneycare" plan in Mass., were originally created by a right-wing think tank - the Heritage Foundation - as an alternative to "Hillarycare" (which conservatives didn't like either). The individual mandate was the brainchild of the right-wing. That's a fact. There are historical documents to prove it. It was the 'free-market' alternative to 'government healthcare'. Here's another fact: Obama gave up on the Public Option - the only "government healthcare" part of the PPACA, and he went with just the free/private-market parts of the reform.

If you don't like his policies, then pose an alternative and lets debate them on the merits; if you think the PPACA is "socialist" then you need to be honest that you are calling the Heritage Foundation "Socialist".

Are you a fan of Ron Paul, and do you believe that our enormous government employment and business subsidy called the Military Industrial Complex should also be cut drastically? What about the huge tax dollar feeding trough known as Homeland Security? What about oil and gas exploration subsidies? What about the enormous healthcare subsidies already provided via Medicare - like the drug benefit Republicans passed (Part D)? Was that "socialist"? I'm just generally curious where the outrage and umbrage about "socialism" was in 2005-2006 when we were shoveling taxpayer dollars hand over fist - that was a GOP Congress and President.

I really don't think you care about "socialism" - I think you're just fine with handing out taxpayer dollars - just as long as the person doing it has an (R) after their name. There are no "principles" involved, just tribalism and "teams". I ask if you are a Paul supporter because Ron Paul is intellectually honest and is serious about cutting corporate welfare and government spending - and he never seems to get more than about 10-12% of the GOP supporting him nationally.

@Caesonia - no, there aren't many 'true conservatives' left anymore - there are the Paulists and Clarence Thomases - who would like to undo everything from the New Deal forward - which is a pretty radical idea, and would leave us with a world that most modern "conservatives" wouldn't like very much (indeed, Justice Thomas would like to get back to the 19th Century). Any of the rest have been labeled RINOs (see Dick Lugar - truly, a conservative) and are being hounded out of the party. Of course, what's hilarious about this is that the world of the 50s and 60s for which "conservatives" have so much nostalgia was pretty much the zenith of "liberalism" in America - "Liberal" policies gave us that world.

I personally believe this is because the "conservative movement" from Reagan on has failed - the ideology has failed. It's true the country is in bad shape, they're right about that, but they are utterly in denial that the deregulation and privatization which are the hallmarks of the modern "conservative" movement are what caused it. The empirical evidence - not rhetoric and theory - are in, and the various policies pursued as part of that anti-government ideology are proven failures. While it's true that Bill Clinton is a Democrat, he pursued the same "free market" lazziez-faire deregulatory policies of the modern GOP when it came to the financial sector and the Great Recession we are experiencing today is the direct result. Sure, it's true, lots of people got mortgages they couldn't afford - because the deregulated private finance sector handed them out, all in the name of short-term profit.

Even Alan Greenspan had the intellectual honesty to admit publicly in testimony to Congress that he was wrong and that his theory of self-regulation by the financial sector was wrong and didn't work.

The right is now just screeching socialism at every turn because they are intellectually bankrupt and out of ideas. They wouldn't accept a Lincoln, a Roosevelt or an Eisenhower in their ranks today - three of their greatest Presidents. Roosevelt with his Square Deal and consumer protections would be considered a Socialist, as would Eisenhower for his giant government infrastructure projects.

@non-resident: Re Ron Paul, let's put it this way. If he were the Republican nominee, I would not vote for President. I believe he is a racist and worse than that, he would probably wait until a U.S. city was nuked before he would do anything in defense of this country. He would have felt at home with the isolationists of the 1930s. Although these past few years I have voted for Republicans, I'm not a knee-jerk Republican. But the Democrats have strayed so far from their roots, where they actually seemed to care about this country and it's people, that I can't see myself ever voting for one. Perhaps you base your opinion of Obama on the tripe that the MSM, aka Obama Cheering Squad, puts out. Perhaps you should actually look into this guy's background and the folks he's associated with (and continues to associate with) if you haven't finalized that opinion. His election was the worst joke played on this country in history. Don't give me the racist crap because I'd vote for a black like Allan West or, if he were a politician, Thomas Sowell, in a New York minute. It's always nice to hear the no-nothings who call those who criticize Obama "racists". It's as if Obama has to have 100% approval and if you're not, you're obviously a racist. Lastly, if you're such a supporter of Obamacare, ask yourself what else the government can force you to buy if the SCOTUS says it's okay for them to force you to buy health care insurance. Where does it stop? Don't even get me started on the Death Panels, or whatever euphemism the Dems choose to call it. The ONLY way for socialized/nationalized health care to work is if rationing is used, just as it in every country that employs it. If SCOTUS okays this horrible program, we are all so screwed. But don't you worry about the Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's of the nation. They will do just fine.

@Realist - Lemme put it this way: I find it laughable that a man who has spent his entire career as a taxpayer employee - Alan West - and receives government healthcare (Tri-Care, now the Congressional plan) jumps up and down hollering about the evils of government spending and government employees. I can't take him seriously, the hipocracy is just...beyond the pale. West and Sowell are also both fairly radical right-wing - they are a long way from the centrist middle.

I don't detect any racism in any of your comments and I never suggested they were racist. I didn't bring that stuff up. I want to argue with your on the merits of the policies, not some irrelevant ad-hominem junk. And yet, you've brought up race. What's up with that? What do you want to do, talk about policy or talk about irrelevant distractions? Again, I thought conservatives were facts and substance - intellect, not emotion. Why are you bringing up such a hot-button issue?

I never called you a racist for either not liking Obama or not liking his policies? Why are you pulling out the conservative persecution complex card? When you start complaining about people calling you racist, I'd like you to see my much earlier comments about "projection". Nobody here yet has said a word about race and yet you're on the defensive.

Here's what I think about the mandate and the SCOTUS: first, I don't have any choice in the matter today under the current system. I'm "free" to buy health insurance or go without treatment. Sure, I suppose I could be a freeloader and let other insurance buyers pick up my ER tab, but I have a notion of personal responsibility - you know, that good old fashioned "conservative" American Value. So, no matter what the SCOTUS does, I'm gonna be stuck buying insurance and paying for the health care of other people. The mandate doesn't change anything about that reality today.

Here's some more "realism" for you: healthcare is already rationed. It's rationed by private bureaucrats - they're called insurance companies - and they have a panel of nurses who sit around and decide what treatment will be covered and what won't. There's no difference between that and a "government" plan. You're right: we can't have all the healthcare treatment we want for free - someone is gonna ration it - and the HMOs and Insurers already do.

Finally, yes, I'm well-aware Ron Paul's radical libertarianism and anarcho-capitalist world view says that racism is a civil right. I didn't accuse you of being a racist; I asked you what you thought of his views on cutting spending. I see you don't have any problem with spending out the wazoo for some things - like two wars of choice. You do realize that the Defense Budget is larger than all other discretionary spending, right? So, really, how much "small government" do you support, or again, is it only "small" for the things you don't like? My only point about Ron Paul (and I think the man would be a nightmare disaster) was that he is at least consistent and honest about spending.


I find it interesting that you are upset about Democrats straying from their roots but then complain continuously about 'socialism'. The older Democratic party really was socialist, and put in a lot of programs that created a number of things I find is hard to deny has benefited a large portion of our society. They cared that most Americans had access to good schools, children had access to healthy food, and old people had access to affordable health care. They started SS, and Medicare, and expanded school lunches. Ronald Reagan supported unions as a younger man.

Now the Democratic Party spends a lot of time filling the GOP agenda. An agenda you seem to support spending on, like wars, and big defense feeding trough contracts. So I can't really understand why you would be so unhappy with them and their spending, except that they refuse to cut the spending on things like medicare and social security - their original platform.

The thing about Ron Paul, is that he is totally honest, and when he means he will cut spending, he means it for everything. His rationale is that we ware less likely to be nuked if we aren't spending all our time messing with other countries' political structures, or funding antagonism between I Middle Eastern states. I think that's a valid point.

I think the only thing those like myself and non-resident and Caesonia are trying to point out is the very conflicted and intellectually dishonest dialog coming from those of the more right persuasion. We are just trying to get an conversation on issues so we can actually solve the problems. When we get close to it, suddenly hot button issues are pulled up.