JONATHAN TURLEY
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, the University of Chicago, and other schools. He is a New York Times best-selling author of The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage (available here) and “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution” (#2 on NY Times Bestseller List).
After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In 2024, a G.W. alum endowed a fellowship after him, “The Professor Jonathan Turley Public Interest and Public Service Summer Fellowship.”
In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients. He is also one of the few attorneys to successfully challenge both a federal and a state law — leading to courts striking down the federal Elizabeth Morgan law as well as the state criminalization of cohabitation.
In 2010, Professor Turley represented Judge G. Thomas Porteous in his impeachment trial. After a trial before the Senate, Professor Turley (on December 7, 2010) argued both the motions and gave the final argument to all 100 U.S. Senators from the well of the Senate floor — only the 14th time in history of the country that such a trial of a judge has reached the Senate floor. Judge Porteous was convicted of four articles of impeachments, including the acceptance of $2000 from an attorney and using a false name on a bankruptcy filing.
In 2011, Professor Turley filed a challenge to the Libyan War on behalf of ten members of Congress, including Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md); Dan Burton (R., Ind.); Mike Capuano (D., Mass.); Howard Coble (R., N.C.); John Conyers (D., Mich.); John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.); Tim Johnson (R., Ill.); Walter Jones (R., N.C.); Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio); and Ron Paul (R., Tx). The lawsuit was before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
In November 2014, Turley agreed to serve as lead counsel to the United States House of Representatives in its constitutional challenge to changes ordered by President Obama to the Affordable Care Act. The litigation was approved by the House of Representatives to seek judicial review of the claims under the separation of powers. On May 12, 2016, the federal court handed down a historic victory for the House and ruled that the Obama Administration violated the separation of powers in ordering billions to be paid to insurance companies without an appropriation of Congress.
Other cases include his representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada; the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the famous Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former United States Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation. In the Foretich case, Turley succeeded recently in reversing a trial court and striking down a federal statute through a rare “bill of attainder” challenge. Professor Turley has also served as counsel in a variety of national security cases, including espionage cases like that of Jim Nicholson, the highest ranking CIA officer ever accused of espionage. Turley also served as lead defense counsel in the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. Turley also served as defense counsel in the case of Dr. Tom Butler, who is faced criminal charges dealing with the importation and handling of thirty vials of plague in Texas. He also served as counsel to Larry Hanauer, the House Intelligence Committee staffer accused of leaking a classified Presidential National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times. (Hanauer was cleared of all allegations).
Among his current cases, Professor Turley represents Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of violent speech against the United States. (He was ultimately cleared of all charges in 2026). In 2020, the federal court found that there was merit in the challenges raised by Professor Turley and his co-counsel Tom Huff. Accordingly, the judge ordered his release to protect him from Covit-19 while the Court prepared a decision on the challenges. Pursuant to a court order, Dr. Al-Timimi was released from the Supermax in Colorado and the two drove across the country so that he could be placed into home confinement. He also represented Dr. Sami Al-Arian, who was accused of being the American leader of a terrorist organization while he was a university professor in Florida. Turley represented Dr. Al-Arian for eight years, much of which was in a determined defense against an indictment for criminal contempt. The case centered on the alleged violation of a plea bargain by the Justice Department after Dr. Al-Arian was largely exonerated of terrorism charges in Tampa, Florida. On June 27, 2014, all charges were dropped against Dr. Al-Arian. He also represented pilots approaching or over the age of 60 in their challenge to the mandatory retirement age of the FAA. He also represented David Murphee Faulk, the whistleblower who disclosed abuses in the surveillance operations at NSA’s Fort Gordon facility in Georgia.
Professor Turley also served as an expert defense witness in the extradition proceedings of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in London. Turley was asked to testify on the likely pre-trial, trial, and appellate issues facing Mr. Assange as well as the prison conditions that he could expect upon extradition to Northern Virginia for trial.
Professor Turley also agreed to serve as lead counsel representing the Brown family from the TLC program “Sister Wives, a reality show on plural marriage or polygamy. On December 13, 2013, the federal court in Utah struck down the criminalization of polygamy — the first such decision in history — on free exercise and due process grounds. On September 26, 2014, the court also ruled in favor of the Browns under Section 1983 — giving them a clean sweep on all of the statutory and constitutional claims. In April 2015, a panel reversed the decision on standing grounds and that decision is now on appeal.
Professor Turley was also lead counsel in the World Bank protest case stemming from the mass arrest of people in 2002 by the federal and district governments during demonstrations of the IMF and World Bank. Turley and his co-lead counsel Dan Schwartz (and the law firm of Bryan Cave) were the first to file and represented student journalists arrested without probable cause. In April 2015, after 13 years of intense litigation, the case was settled for $2.8 million, including $115,000 for each arrestee — a record damage award in a case of this kind and over twice the amount of prior damages for individual protesters. The case also exposed government destruction and withholding of evidence as well as the admitted mass arrest of hundreds of people without probable cause.
Professor Turley also served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British Columbia (Canada) Supreme Court. In the latter case, he argued for the decriminalization of plural union and conjugal unions. In 2012, Turley also represented the makers of “Five Wives Vodka” (Ogden’s Own Distillery) in challenging an effective ban on the product in Idaho after officials declared the product to be offensive to Mormons. After opposing the ban on free speech and other grounds, the state of Idaho issued a letter apologizing for public statements made by officials and lifting the ban on sale for “Five Wives Vodka.”
Turley has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, including with the Florida House of Representatives. He also served as the consultant to the Puerto Rico House of Representatives on the impeachment of Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá.
Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. He has testified over 100 times in the House and the Senate. That testimony includes the confirmation hearings of Attorney General nominees Loretta Lynch and William Barr as well as Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Professor Turley is also a nationally recognized legal commentator. Professor Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in the recent study by Judge Richard Posner. Turley was also found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. He has been ranked in the top five most popular law professors on Twitter and has been repeatedly ranked in the nation’s top 500 lawyers in annual surveys (including in the latest rankings by LawDragon) – one of only a handful of academics. In prior years, he was ranked as one of the nation’s top ten lawyers in military law cases as well as one of the top 40 lawyers under 40. He was also selected in the last five years as one of the 100 top Irish lawyers in the world. In 2016, he was ranked as one of the 100 most famous (past and present) law professors.
Professor Turley is one of only two academics to testify at both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings. In December 2019, Professor Turley was called as the one Republican witness in the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings. He appeared with three Democratic witnesses. Professor Turley disagreed with his fellow witnesses in opposing the proposed articles of impeachments on bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations or obstruction of justice. He argued that these alleged impeachable acts were at odds with controlling definitions of those crimes and that Congress has historically looked to the criminal code and cases for guidance on such allegations. The committee ultimately rejected those articles and adopted the only two articles that Professor Turley said could be legitimately advanced: abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. Chairman Jerrold Nadler even ended the hearing by quoting his position on abuse of power. However, Turley opposed impeachment on this record as incomplete and insufficient for submission to the Senate. He argued for the House to wait and complete the record by seeking to compel key witnesses like former National Security Adviser John Bolton. His testimony was later relied upon in the impeachment floor debate by various House members and he was cited by both the White House and House managers in their arguments before the United States Senate in the Trump impeachment trial, including videotaped remarks played at the trial.
Professor Turley’s articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications with hundreds of articles in such newspapers as the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. He is a columnist for USA Today and writes regularly for the Washington Post. In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by The Aspen Institute and the Week Magazine. Professor Turley also appears regularly as a legal expert on all of the major television networks. Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News, CBS News, BBC and Fox News. Professor Turley has been a repeated guest on Sunday talk shows with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox Sunday. Professor Turley has taught courses on constitutional law, constitutional criminal law, environmental law, litigation, and torts. He is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS). His work with older prisoners has been honored in various states, including his selection as the 2011 recipient of the Dr. Mary Ann Quaranta Elder Justice Award at Fordham University.
In 2024, the Washingtonian recognized Turley as one of the most influential persons in shaping policy. His award-winning blog is routinely ranked as one of the most popular legal blogs by AVVO. His blog was selected as the top News/Analysis site in 2013, the top Legal Opinion Blog in 2011 as well as prior selections as the top Law Professor Blog and Legal Theory Blog. It was also ranked in the top 20 constitutional law blog in 2018. It has been regularly ranked by the ABA Journal in the top 100 blogs in the world. In 2012, Turley was selected as one of the top 20 legal experts on Twitter by Business Insider. In 2013, the ABA Journal inducted the Turley Blog into its Hall of Fame. In addition to teaching a course on the Supreme Court and the Constitution, he is on the board of the Supreme Court Historical Society.
Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. In 2008, he was given an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his contributions to civil liberties and the public interest.
Twitter: @jonathanturley
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” and “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Icon made by DinosoftLabs from Flaticon
Tom,
Thanks for proving further what a right wing tool you are. I’m not a Democrat either, sport. I’ve said it time and again. I’m a partisan’s worst nightmare: a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist. I no sooner speak for the DNC than I would for the blatant criminals in the RNC. I think BOTH party’s should be dissolved. But you go ahead and keep playing your amateur night partisan hackery. I and the others will make sure to keep coming to this thread to make you look like a fool. And I truly don’t care what you think. I do care, however, what others who might be influenced one way or the other thinks about torture, treason and violating the Constitution, not out of principle but for profit, and that it is a prison worthy offense. Bush Co. committed multiple felonies under current law no matter what your apologist wishful thinking may be. And I’ve said this before too: If Bush had been DNC, I’d still want his criminal head on a stick.
AGAIN. NOT. ABOUT. PARTY.
You mistake something as being about you when it isn’t. But that’s just like a Neocon. All ego resting atop a malformed id while the super ego, the rational conscience part of the mind, goes on holiday. Everyone knows that ego worship is just the most base form of evil.
So please continue to be our negative example.
Bubba,
I hardly know where to start. “How correct I am”? Where, herein, have I alluded to correctness? “Mussolini”? Can you POSSIBLY tie this one to anything that makes sense? As far as “caring what a RWE thinks”, it appears that you DO display a great deal of agitation when trying to conjure up a “retort/retard”. If you don’t “care”, why bother? I mean, someone as Judge “Mental” ass yourself, must have bitter things to do. Ass far as “pointing out”, I consider the source. You seem to feel you are the “voice” of the Democrats (well, there ARE a few others) and must take on all “nay-sayers”, possibily to the chargrin of the sane, rational majority. Your legend will go down in infamy, along with Hitler (Ha!).
Tom Fitchue
Well gee Tom, you are even more self-loathing than I thought.
You’re about as much a democrat (not in the party sense, but the term of art) as Mussolini. You think I’m what’s wrong with society? Well first, that assumes (again) I’d care what a self-identified right wing extremist would think. Second, it assumes you understand the nature of the battle and if you were a Democrat (as in the party), then you’ve demonstrated that either you don’t AND/OR you’re complicit with the Neocon enemies within. Third, you just hate it when people point out how completely full of sh*t you are, don’t you Tommy? THEN YOU SHOULDN’T LIE IN THE SAME PLACE YOU PONTIFICATE ABOUT HOW CORRECT YOU ARE. That’s just stupid. And that’s why your side will ultimately lose – evil is stupid.
Once again, you are exposed as a Gobbels wannabe.
Come back and foam at the mouth some more, sport. I do so get a kick out your contortionist act.
Bubba,
Funny thing, I was a Democrat, voted for Obama (truth) & then found out I was a “right wing Extremist” as defined by our DHS.
Very confusing & unsettling – trying to lead a dual-life. Butt, I am dealing with it as best I can. I have serious problems with watching the demise of this country – EXAMPLE: our “government is spending $65 BILLION dollars a day on the whim of an unproven “community organizer”, (whom, I thought, would be a better choice than McCain). Who now over-seize GM and Chrylers, banks, unions, you name it. You Kool-Aid’ers go on and insult and try to intimidate anyone who dares object to the debacle. You, indeed, are what’s wrong with society today, and, I’m sure, will continue on, sadly enough, into what’s “left” of our future(s).
Tom Fitchue
Registered Democrat (that kills you, right)? That a Democrat would DARE fall under the definition of “RWE”! Seems democracy allows that, last time I looked. Even though you allude to my “hating the Constitution”, and having various other abnormalities, I doubt your thought, given your mind bent, means a great deal. {Assuming you are educated in this field – Constitutional Law, – you probably do qualify as a “liberalist” on the Supreme Court. You’re NOT in the running, are you?}
Tom Fitchue 1, May 17, 2009 at 11:03 am
“Tom Fitchue
Registered Democrat”
Would this be before or after you’re a self-proclaimed right wing extremist?
Tom Fitchue 1, April 20, 2009 at 9:29 pm
“Buddah,
I will admit to being a “right wing extremest”. Is that good enough for you?”
Riiiiiiight.
You can’t even keep your lies straight in the same thread, can you Tom? You do know that the two are mutually exclusive, right? You do realize when you get busted like that it exposes you as the propagandist and fascist apologist you really are?
Rhetorical.
Keep on showing us why people who support Bush Co. need to be disappointed and their boys need to go to prison for a very long time. If you’re lucky, maybe you can get a conjugal with Dick. You deranged old fascist you. BTW, asshat, playing nice as per JT’s request doesn’t mean suffering visible liars who back evil men. You don’t like it? Then quit being such a lying self-contradictory tool e.g. Neocon Republican. Actions have consequences. Acting like a Constitution hating douche bag has the consequence of being called out on it.
JP,
You, too, huh? Yeah, there are several CLASSIC examples of O trying to continue a speech that he started off with having a functional teleprompter that went down and left him with nothing to say except “wait a minute now”, “what I’m trying to say is, I mean….”, “Let me say this – er”, What I meant to say is…um”.
Serious embarrassment, but funny as hell. He also has a difficult time finding words when he’s lying in an open forum when asked a question he doesn’t want to/can’t give a straight answer to. Once about his “Muslim faith”, another about the plagerizing of the “Just Words” speech, where he overlooked giving credit to the real speaker; another when he was asked about his statement that he’d campaigned “in all 57 states”.
Of course, O’s the only one of this bunch schooled by Hollywood to make speechs & utilize a teleprompter, and he has used that training well. He’s even adopted some of Reverend Wright’s mannerisms and sermonly gestures- curved pointed finger stabbing away to punctuate a point, for one. Years of training to get ready for….?
I doubt this would have helped Bush, and probably wouldn’t have helped Pelosi – she’s too much of a mess.
Tom Fitchue
Registered Democrat
Who voted for Obama once, but certainly won’t again.
“Have you seen the video’s where Obama’s teleprompt(s) go down?? Hillarious!! Tops ‘em all, even P & B.”
Yeah, totally Tom! I mean, some people seem to think that Obama is a good communicator, but guys like you and me are not fooled.
Victor,
Did anyone ever have a clue what he meant? Where did the two “spellings” come from? I would guess these were spoken “words”, and not printed. Wonder who made the interpretations? I didn’t even try to keep track of Bush. I, personally, didn’t feel as “threatened” then as I do now. Seems like things feel more critical now that we’re bankrupt, and sinking into the sand deeper every day ($65 billion/day!!) Guess I’m more concerned about the kind of future we and our kids and grandkids have to “look forward to”. I didn’t worry about that before.
Now, there’s on-goings breaches of the laws set forth in our Constitution, which, I thought, early on, was what this blog was about. There seems to be a lot of agendas here-in, and some willingness to over-look these breaches, out of “who it serves”. Probably always been like that, and I’m just wakening to it now, in my dotage. Sad.
Tom Fitchue
Registered Democrat
Kelly,
Your interesting poll link is mostly overshadowed by your absurd reference to Obama as “abortion-promoting.”
Tom,
Whenever you think you hear mumbling and bumbling, you can console yourself with this quote from the former President Bush:
“A peeance, freeance secure Iraq in the midst of the Middle East will have enormous historical impact.”
Fusion,
M’ing & B’ing are good indicators, for sure!! Have you seen the video’s where Obama’s teleprompt(s) go down?? Hillarious!! Tops ’em all, even P & B.
Tom Fitchue
tom, I may be inclined to agree with you on “mumbling and bumbling” being a “indicator” for liars. There is never been a more blatant liar than George W. Bush and I would regard him is the best, or worst, mumbler and bumbler, on record for a US President.
Ronald,
I’m certainly not, in way shape or form, capable of speaking on the threat of retribution by any branch of the government regarding your Email to the DOJ. I would hope the First Amendment would be all the “protection” you’ll need.
As far as The Repub’s black-mailing the Dems or Pelosi, that seems like an unlikely scenario, at best. It could only work if they WERE “black mail able”.
Addressing Pelosi’s duplicity, she has accused the CIA of lying
to her and Congress. I can’t even imagine the magnitude of the “fall out” over that little jem. It’s highly improbable that “being lied to” happened.
In the grilling episode by the press, she obviously needed a teleprompter badly. If fumbling and bumbling IS any indication of a liar, it’s a wonder her pants didn’t go up in flames.
She is a detriment to our party, and needs to go away.
Tom Fitchue
Registered Democrat who voted for Obama once, but won’t again.
Gallup: More Americans Pro-life Than ‘Pro-choice’ for First Time since polling began
May 15, 2009 – 09:36 ET
What a difference a radical, in your face, abortion-promoting president makes.
For the first since it began surveying the question, a clear minority of Americans who are still euphemistically “pro-choice” on the question of abortion, just 42%. Pro-life has leaped to 51%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx
Dear Mr Turley
I do not know If I have made A big Mistake or not But I sent this e-mile to the Justus Department Witch I do believe That I am right in my assertion that the Republicans are Black milking Pelosi in hope to derail any possible investigation into the Torture issues . This is exactly what I have sent to them I would very much like you advice if they will start an investigation into this Should I need a lawyer or not. Below is what I sent .
I am curious If the Department Of Justus is putting a blind eye to the public black mail of the Speaker Of the House by the opposition party In the House Of Representatives and the Senate To possibly derailed any investigation into the subject Of torture .By The congress Or the Senate . I will be happy to press charges of black mail in no one else will .For the conspiracy to commit black mail Of the Democratic Party to halt any investigation into the possible practice Of torture
By the Last administration .
Ronald Holst
8014 Viking trail
San Antonio, TX. 78250
hey Mike,
I didn’t know that! yikes…I’ll have to think that over…thank you for the info-I feel like a ‘padawan learner’! LOL!!
cheers!
“One thing Tom I think we could both agree on, if there is a single politician in the world who has earned the right to lead his country, it has to be John McCain.”
thatmtnman,
Perhaps you and Tom would agree on that point but I would strongly disagree. Yes McCain did prove himself to be a survivor of years of torture, but other than that none of his success has been due to his own abilities, except perhaps in bed.
He was the wastrel son and grandson of Admirals and though a lousy pilot (four crashes) was allowed thru flight school. Got shot down in Viet Nam and immediately told the Viet Cong that his father was the Commander of the Pacific Fleet. Broke under torture and made damaging statements against the US which must have mortified his father. Yes he did refuse to go home early, but that was under orders of the senior captured officer. A man who incidentally kept trying to organize escapes and was the real hero.
Then McCain came back to the country. Let his wife, then ailing from her own traffic accident injuries, help nurse him back to life. Through his Father’s pull he got a Commandant job his experience and performance didn’t entitle him to. While there met a young Arizona Beer Heiress, who he bedded and then left his wife for. Quit the service and moved to Arizona to work for his rich Father-In-Law, who happened to be influential in Republican politics and so began his political career. Escaped the Keating five prosecution, not because of lack of guilt, but because of his phony hero status.
Real military heroes rarely use their heroism to justify their sense of entitlement. That’s what makes them heroes and makes McCain just another egotist, born on third base thinking he hit a triple, with a sense of entitlement.
Cheerios.
Jonathan P,
I have heard the more legit commentators debate this issue of torture being used against our own troops. If memory serves me Mathews and Buchanan discussed this several times.
cheers!
I think McCain’s behavior during the campaign made it seem that he was not to be trusted with running the USA. McCain, though I respect him (though not nearly as much as I used to) proved himself entirely reactionary and impulsive, which may be fine for Senator, but is not acceptable for a man with the proverbial finger on the button.
Regarding torture and politics: Although the Bush years and the Republican Congress’s refusal to provide any checks & balances made me more partisan, torture is not a partisan issue. Do Republicans really think that the public will “back off” if someone like Pelosi is implicated in illegal activity? Quite the contrary, I’d say. Lets have an investigation and let the chips (of both parties) fall where they may. The idea that torture investigations are a “partisan witch hunt” is insulting and absurd.
Further: In all the discussion about torture and whether it works or not, and whether it provided important intelligence or not, to me the most important point is missed: If we tortured (which I think we did) and do not investigate and prosecute, then torture will effectively be rendered LEGAL in all military conflicts (including use against Americans). That’s not an outcome I’m willing to live with. What shocks me most in the current environment is that I have never heard this point discussed by the talking heads, even once.
Tom,
My recollection is different. I recall that he said two things in connection to the torture issue one that as you say, he wanted to look forward, and two, that if there was activity that merited investigations, he would allow any such investigations to go forward.
And of course, he has moved off that second position now that he has office.
And btw, before I get labeled a ‘democrat’ on this issue seeking some sort of bizarre ‘revenge’ on the previous admin, let me say that I don’t care who was involved with torture, they all should be investigated, right down to the people in the room. If there was a crime they should all be prosecuted, republican, democrat or martian. A criminal is a criminal and criminality has no party. Call me naive. It is up to a judge and jury to determine if there was guilt or not. All equal before, and accountable to the law of the land, what ever the law of the land was at the time.
I have to say to, that I am mystified by the republican position on the idea of an investigation of the possibility of a crime. I can’t imagine anyone, democrat, republican or martian, seeking a what they think might be bank being robbed, and thinking it was wrong of the police to look into it. So, intellectually I just don’t get the republican strategy to prevent such an investigation. I would have thought the strong position would be to say something along the lines of ‘not on our watch, not in our name’ and to be the most aggressive in cleaning up the party reputation. I guess that is why I am not and could never be a political operative.
I just see this whole issue as very simple, very black and white, and not controversial beyond the titles of the people involved. I really don’t see how politics should be, or could be relevant. Crime is crime, the law is the law, and party affiliation seems so totally, totally besides the point.
I voted for justice and restoration of the rule of law. I might have vote for McCain had he taken that position. Oh, and had he had anyone but Palin for a running mate. And, lest you ‘go there’, I have nothing but admiration for her. She’s not ready for prime time yet in my opinion, but perhaps one day she will be. It was a fatal mistake for McCain, a man I greatly admire and trust. Had he chosen someone with better credentials (given Johns age) and took a strong restorative justice position, I might have voted for him.
One thing Tom I think we could both agree on, if there is a single politician in the world who has earned the right to lead his country, it has to be John McCain.
Cheers!