Remember when I said, "Here's to hoping that voters in New Hampshire do a better job of taking care of our national freedom" in my last post? Well, so much for that.
New Hampshire, arguably the most freedom-minded state in the union, voted for Clinton and McCain, two candidates who have have no issue with nation building, or forced government health care, or corporate subsidies, or the federal government conducting domestic spying without reasonable cause and acting on what it finds without oath or affirmation, to name just a few, tasty treats that come with those candidates.
Before I say anything else, I'll say this:
2. The Free State Project might want to re-evaluate where it has decided to set up shop.
Moving on, I must also say that McCain was elected because of his tendency to supposedly "bridge the partisan divide", though I think he does it in a way that often dilutes the original perspectives, which is not the way to bridge a divide.
Clinton was elected on her new development of honesty, after her breakdown in front of voters and a brief moment of crying. New Hampshire voters then saw her as open and honest.
Judging by Iowa and now New Hampshire, it seems that honesty and bridging the partisan divide are going to be in great demand this election. And, these are important traits in our elected officials because both traits enhance our freedom.
But perhaps one should ask where honesty and bridging the divide stop and where the candidates' actual POLICIES, such as the ones I mentioned above, start.