I think it was my study of history that convinced me that the Democratic Party was more on the side of the average American.

Governments that use violence to stop democratic development will not earn themselves respite forever. They will pay an increasingly high price for actions which they can no longer hide from the world with ease and will find themselves on the wrong side of history.

I do have to say that I think that President Obama is the greatest President in the history of all of our Presidents and that he can do no wrong in my book. So how's that for prejudice on the Democratic side?

I think the Democrats are catering to them but you know in the entire history of the United States of America there has never been a judge who has been refused a vote when there was a majority of Senators willing to vote for his confirmation never in history.

The Democrats co-opted the credit for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But if you go back and look at the history a larger percentage of Republicans voted for that than did Democrats. But a Democrat president signed it so they co-opted credit for having passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats it's not about taxes they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.

Terrorism takes us back to ages we thought were long gone if we allow it a free hand to corrupt democratic societies and destroy the basic rules of international life.

Democratic nations must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.

Seven presidents before him - Democrats and Republicans - tried to expand health care to all Americans. President Obama got it done.

Democrats believe we must have comprehensive health care reform that includes giving the federal government authority to negotiate lower prices with drug companies.

The reason Gov. Romney passed Romneycare as governor of Massachusetts in 2006 was because many Republicans viewed health care reform mandates and all as a way to inoculate against Democratic charges that Republicans didn't care about people who lacked health insurance.

I don't know if there is a Democrat who necessarily doesn't believe health care is a right instead of privilege. There is a significant between us and the Republican Party on that issue.

I don't know of a Democrat - whether they're a conservative a centrist or a liberal Democrat - that doesn't think that it's important to have quality jobs that pay decent wages so that families can support themselves so that they can have the dignity of being able to afford health care put money aside for pension buy a home.

Make no mistake a 'yes' vote on the Democrats' health care bill is a vote for taxpayer-funded abortions.

What is at stake in the debate over health care is more than the mere crafting of policy. The issue is now the identity of the Democratic Party.

Yes Democrats can prove that America pays more for health care than other countries yes they have won the dispute that private health insurance is needlessly expensive. But what they've lost is the argument that we are a society.

One thing governors feel Democrats and Republicans alike is that we have a health care system that if you're on Medicaid you have unlimited access to health care at unlimited levels at no cost. No wonder it's running away.

The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by private citizens.

I speak directly to the people and I know that the people of California want to have better leadership. They want to have great leadership. They want to have somebody that will represent them. And it doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican young or old.

The debates of that great assembly are frequently vague and perplexed seeming to be dragged rather than to march to the intended goal. Something of this sort must I think always happen in public democratic assemblies.

You've got the Democratic Party that now depends on more government spending and actual building the dependence on government in order to increase their political party.

There's something fundamentally wrong with a system where there's been 17 years of a Tory Government and the people of Scotland have voted Socialist for 17 years. That hardly seems democratic.

Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government.

To Republicans I humbly suggest that we make it possible for Democrats to give up their quest for redistribution of income and wealth by our acceptance of an appropriate role for government in financing those public goods and services necessary to secure a social safety net below which no American would be allowed to fall.