Sarah Palin Endorses Clint Didier For Senate

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time - Blogs from CNN.com (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/?fbid=F2niPvRuPmn)

...and I really loved Clint as a Redskin.

For the record i don't care about Didier's political belief's, per se. Just interesting that most people that either hate or like Sarah Palin could care less about who Clint Didier is.

Good for him. Better than having the President endorse him, he seems to be the kiss of death.

VA Governor = L
NJ Governor = L
MA Senate (Brown) = L
PA Senate (Spector) = L

Chicago Olympics...

:D

Damn you, Buster. i was hoping my homie Firstdown was going to reply first! Oh well...

Yeah, Obama's endorsements are fail big time. I think he needs to chill for a while. Hell, maybe he should endorse a Tea Party candidate!

I could make a case about Coakley and Spector, but I really don't feel like going there. That is until Firstdown weighs in!!

Poor bastard is going to get crushed...hopefully Dino will cut the crap and enter the race...then again who wants to be a 3 time loser?

Yeah after Rand Paul's latetest blunder, I have a feeling that the Tea Party and it's candidates will start to finally come under more scrutiny. But again, that's not what this thread is about:)

Yeah after Rand Paul's latetest blunder, I have a feeling that the Tea Party and it's candidates will start to finally come under more scrutiny. But again, that's not what this thread is about:)

What was Paul's blunder?

I was about to say that with his win the other night, that's a sure sign that the national parties no longer get to dicate to the voters who the candidates will be -- and that's a good thing.

How about being against the 1964 Civil Rights Act? You know, the one that bared business from treating black folks like animals?

What was Paul's blunder?

I was about to say that with his win the other night, that's a sure sign that the national parties no longer get to dicate to the voters who the candidates will be -- and that's a good thing.

From the Rachel Maddow show:
Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that 'We don't serve black people?'

Paul: I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. Butdo discriminate.
But I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires is that
we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it...

Oh good christ. They're after him because of what he said about legislation passed over 40 years ago when he was a year old? :doh:

It looks as though he has problems with the idea of government forcing private businesses to accept customers they don't want to accept -- much like the reasons Barry Goldwater was against the law. Not because he was a racist or that he hated blacks. Mainly that it was not an area where the federal government has any constitutional jurisdiction.

From a strictly libertarian point of view -- can anyone articulate what the difference is between being forced to allow a customer into your private business and being forced to allow someone into your home?

At what point does the question of freedom of association come into this?