Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

“On the other hand, unlike the South, Kerry will never rise again.”

Jack,

I’m not a big Kerry supporter, but you never know.

How many trys did it take Reagan to win the nomination for President?

For that matter, how many times did Nixon lose to Brown for Governor of California?

Stranger things have happened.

Tsk, tsk, Red Team. Deep in denial, are we?

Jack, are you too discouraged to talk about US? It’s been a remarkable week, the most remarkable one in a long time.

Today The Senate refused to close debate on the Bolton nomination. Seems the Bush administration is refusing to release classified documents concerning Bolton’s use of intelligence concerning WMD’s in Syria, among other things.

For the second time in one week, moderate Republicans crossed the line to vote with Democrats. For the second time in one week, Republican Senators ignored Frist and the wishes of President Bush.

And the first time, Bush finally appears likely to cast a veto on… get this… stem cell research. Not spending. Nothing related to the deficit. Wow. There’s great leadership for you. The Senate will probably override the veto- yet another slap to the lame duck- though the House will probably not override it.

Guess the Red Team is busy putting their collective hands over their ears and singing ‘LA LA LA. I can’t hear you. LA LA LA.’ Let’s talk about faith… let’s talk about greatness… or European elections…

Not the approval polls- ‘LA LA LA’- not Iraq- ‘LA LA LA, singing louder now!’- not Social Security privatization…

Yeah, anything but domestic politics.

Can’t say I blame you.

I believe Blair won the Uk elections because his opponent, from the conservative party, supported the war more than he did. Also, Blair had a better domestic record than his opponent despite the overwheming unpopularity of the war in Britian.

If Bush were truly the best candidate for this job, he would have been reelected in a heartbeat. How can you be a war leader, a leader people flocked around after a great disaster, yet end up only squeaking by in an election. This guy could have ensured bipartisan cooperation and the Republican Domination of the legislature for years to come. He could have been re-elected in a walk. Yet he decided he had to pit one part of American against another. He had the real gold in his hands and he blew it. That’s the tragedy of a win like this.

When do you think Bush will visit Iraq again? Its been a long time and another visit is long due. Maybe he should leave the Airport this time instead of cowering behind a plastic Turkey.

Odds are he will send his wife instead. Laura has the balls in the Bush Family afterall.

Excellent post Phx8. Republicans really are good at distraction and denial. :)

To elaborate on Warren’s post, Howard won because Australia’s economy was going like gang busters. I was there during the election and it was all about the economy. Iraq was hardly a blip. After all, the Australians only have a few hundred troops over there anyhow - and I don’t think any of them are actually inside Iraq.

Stephen, Bush said he was “the peace president.” No wait, he said, “I’m a war president.” Wait, he said both. Is he insane of just confused?

No matter how you frame it, Kerry lost.
He came in second place and like any competition 2nd place is still losing.
Bush won the election because 52% of the voters wanted him to win and no matter what you think or how you try to spin it that is still a majority. The Democrats on here remind me of a school bumper sticker I see a lot. “My kid is an honor student at XYZ school” The problem is that all kids at that school get the same bumper sticker. Is your self esteem damaged because Bush won? Sorry, but I’ll display my bumper sticker that says “My kid can beat up your honor student”.

A Kiowa Helicopter was shot down in Iraq today killing 2 US Soldiers.

Another great victory for Bush and the Republicans.

I think Jack makes a good point and am glad he supports the Labour Party. Now, anybody want to talk about Latin America? Beep beep.

Aldous,
Actually, I think it is another victory for the liberals, it is amazing the way the left cheers when soldiers die, another chance to bash the right and say that the war was wrong.

Newsflash:

WE ARE AT WAR! When at war, soldiers die!

Now, I’m not saying that I’m glad these soldiers died, but I am saying that it is part of the cost, and that I believe the cost was necessary. I know that you disagree, “There were no WMDs”. So? There were hideous acts being done upon the citizens, freedom is expensive! Compare this to the number of deaths bringing freedom for African Americans, i.e. the Civil War. Was that worth it? I think so!

danny:

I do not cheer when Soldiers die. I am, however, struck by the non-existent flood of Wingnuts to volunteer to Serve. US Troops are into their 2nd or 3rd Tour in Iraq with an Army of Lawyers making sure they stay in the Army. Where are the Bush Twins? Where are the 52% who supported the War? Why are the Army and Reserves facing critical shortages?

Also, the Civil War was not about Slavery. If you ever bother to ask a Southerner, you will get a very different and violent answer.

So many points to address.

Rocky – John Kerry is no Ronald Reagan. When you read Reagan’s speeches and letters (you can even look at the hand written ones) you find a man with real vision and a consistent set of values. John Kerry is nothing but … well nothing. The Dems chose him last time because the others were worse. I don’t think they will make the same mistake again.

Phx8 – yes I think it is appalling that the Dems already have violated their filibuster truce. I worried it was too good to be true. Let’s gird on the armour for the Supreme Court. We got a fight coming and soon. You guys will no doubt win the PR war, but we will win the fight, much like the November election.

Re Tony Blair – As far as I am concerned, Tony Blair has earned my eternal gratitude. As Sherman said of Grant, “I took care of Grant when he was drunk, and he took care of me when I was crazy.” So I guess we will stick together no matter what. Sometimes loyalty should trump party.

Aldous – speaking of the Civil War, it was about slavery. Slavery was not the only issue, but without slavery there would have been no war. I live in Virginia and some people I know don gray uniforms to reenact the glories of their ancestors. Even they acknowledge this. Talking about the war without slavery is It is like asking, “Besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”

BTW

What does annoy me about the issue of the Civil War is the vilification of great men like Robert E. Lee. A while back, somebody desecrated his picture – in Richmond.

I think it is appalling that the Dems already have violated their filibuster truce.

The compromise was concerning judicial filibusters, not filibusters in general. Last I checked, Bolton is up for UN ambassador.

RE: “On the other hand, unlike the South, Kerry will never rise again.”

Jack, I doubt this is true. We all know that SH*T floats.

Fred

Joseph

It certainly violates the spirit of the thing. And it makes the Dems look like weasels.

John Kerry is nothing but …

Well, an actual war hero, for one. And a man who, when he got home, stood up against something that he thought was wrong, a position that was used against him in the last election. Also…a man who was the target of Richard Nixon, which probably means he was doing something right. Also, a man who dismantled Bush in the debates, and a man who was vilified by people who are quite adept at the art.

Please, don’t compare a B movie actor who ran up massive deficits and alluded to welfare queens with John Kerry just because Reagan gets credit (for which he should receive only a meager amount, given the group effort from Truman to Bush) for “bringing down” the Soviet Union. Pish posh.

Reed

John Kerry is no doubt an impressive man, but he clearly is not an impressive leader. That is demonstrated by the fact that he doesn’t have a large number of loyal followers. There are people who love Reagan. You can buy pictures for your dining room wall and sculptures for your living room mantle. (If you leave out the pictures of Easter Island, nobody not related to John Kerry has his picture on the wall) The people in E. Europe who lived through the Cold War adore him. They might be wrong to believe in him, but the test of leadership is to have followers. And Reagan had loyal followers before his election as President. He impressed people at the 1964 convention and they were with him ever since.

The only reason anyone would follow John Kerry is out a vague sense of curiosity about where a guy like him was going. Nominate him if you want in 2008 and see how well he does.

John Kerry is nothing but … well nothing.

John Kerry is no doubt an impressive man

Now who’s the flip-flopper?

See how easy it is?

To me, John Kerry is about as much of a hero as Hanoi Jane Fonda, and I think she should be convicted and shot for treason.

Jack,

I too live in Virginia and I can remember years ago going to watch the reenactment of the Battle of New Market. It was never a question of who won or lost, is was reliving history.

Reed and Stephen,

Close only counts in horseshoes. Bush won the election, Kerry did not. Belittling Ronald Reagan doesn’t change the election results, Playing the war hero card (controversial at best) doesn’t change the election results.

Aldous,

I know you don’t cheer when soldiers die and you are keeping us current on todays death total which is informative. However the sarcastic and hurtful comment that it was “another great victory for Bush and the Republicans” is by any stretch of the imagination uncalled for and inappropriate.

To me, John Kerry is about as much of a hero as Hanoi Jane Fonda, and I think she should be convicted and shot for treason.

Posted by: tomd at May 27, 2005 10:15 AM

That might be too good of a punishment for her. Our friends representing the many faces of the Democratic Party might think it better to send her to GITMO where we commonly torture people within an inch of their lives, NAH-let’s shoot her to be on the safe side.

Reed

I don’t see the contradiction. He is an impressive man. I expect you and I are also impressive men if you look at our achievements. But that doesn’t make us presidential material. When I say nothing, I mean nothing of sufficient distinction.

Ronald Reagan inspired and electrified his audiences.

John Kerry is not only dull himself but he inspires dullness in others (i.e. Dems of who think he has a chance of winning in 2008).

Jack,

As you know, Tony Blair is from the Labor Party. I don’t think the people voting for him were sending a love note to Bush.

There are people who love Reagan. You can buy pictures for your dining room wall and sculptures for your living room mantle.

Of course, you could stay the same thing about Mao or Lenin, or Elvis, or Brett Favre, or…

tom and steve smith,

I don’t see anyone here saying that Bush didn’t win in 2004. He did have a historically narrow win for an incumbent. You can say “close only counts in horseshoes”, but look at where his second term agenda is going. So far all he has to show for getting reelected is a bill making it harder for the working class people who voted for him to go bankrupt.

Jack,

One more thing… to see a vote against the new EU constitution as a vindication of Bush, that is just bizarre.

The Rhinocrats made a deal to keep the “Byrd” option from being used, agreed that the fillibuster wouldn’t be used except in very extreem cases, within 72 hours they broke that deal.

Sure, Bolton isn’t a Judge, but its still an appointment of the President and theres little difference.

When a spoild child throws a fit and momma gives them what they want, they learn to throw fits rather than grow up.

Don’t worry though, Daddy will be home soon to spank their lil ass and send them to their room with no supper.Once they learn the rules they will grow up to be responcible adults.

So far all he has to show for getting reelected is a bill making it harder for the working class people who voted for him to go bankrupt.

Posted by: Woody Mena at May 27, 2005 10:38 AM

A case could be made for it being a good thing that it is harder for working class people to go bankrupt. It challenges those people to fight rather than give up, it minimizes the subsidies that have to be granted to those people, it keeps the creditors from losing their receivables, it prevents people from losing their dignity entirely. Will everyone make it?-probably not but, some will and ALL will have the opportunity.

Woody

Those things are not a vindication of Bush. In fact, the U.S. would support Chirac’s position on the EU.

I made the point during our own elections that the Euro opinion was not as fixated on Bush as his detractors here thought. Some people were trying to use world opinion as a reason we should not vote for Bush.

That is why I think it is ironic now. I am just enjoying it and sharing my joy with others.

Of the two, the German case is more interesting. I can’t think of any downside of Schroeder losing power. And just as Blair earned my gratitude by standing with us, Schroeder earned my enmity for his base use of anti-Americanism in the 2002 elections. I don’t know what we will get, but I know what we have had, and prospect of change doesn’t frighten me.

Jack,

People buy Reagan pictures for the same reason they buy Elvis ashtrays. They were both great performers and people often see the past with rose colored glasses.

Of course, I think most people will look back at Bush43 redux and say “WTF was I thinking when I voted for that $@*&%$ ?!?”

Beagle,
There is a big difference between a (temporary) cabinet level appointment (UN Ambassador) and Judge-for-life appointment. Also, the vote Frist wanted was for cloture. It’s not a fillibuster and it’s not just Democrats who want to see transparency return to our government.

Dave,

Good point!

If its temporary there was even less reason for it.

Bush won the election, Kerry did not.

Um, that’s not the point. The discussion was about whether Kerry has done anything of distinction. I simply argue that he has, and I think Jack flipped flopped on it and then tried to “clarify” the flip flop. How liberal of you, Jack.

No, the obvious truth is that Kerry is a man of distinction compared with most of us, but he will not be seen in the same light as any president, even Reagan.

Another obvious truth is that virtually anyone can be made to look like a flip flopper, even men of distinction.

Then there’s a comment like this:

John Kerry is about as much of a hero as Hanoi Jane Fonda, and I think she should be convicted and shot for treason.

Yes, well, Kerry obviously does inspire dullness in some others. Dullness in what, I’ll let you decide.

It’s not a fillibuster and it’s not just Democrats who want to see transparency return to our government.

Quite right. Biden and several Republicans say as soon as the documents they requested from the State Dept are turned over to them, everybody’s ready to vote. The only thing holding up the works here is President Bush’s reluctance to hand over some memos that the committee requested.

In memory of President Ronald Wilson Reagan: 1911-2004

Quotes from the Greatest President of the 20th century

The other day, someone told me the difference between a democracy and a people’s democracy. It’s the same difference between a jacket and a straitjacket.
Remarks at Human Rights Day event, December 10, 1986

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Remarks in Arlington, Virginia, September 25, 1987

A friend of mine was asked to a costume ball a short time ago. He slapped some egg on his face and went as a liberal economist.
February 11, 1988

The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.
Attributed

Republicans believe every day is 4th of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15.
Attributed

Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor’s fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can’t socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he’ll eat you last.
Address to the nation, October 27, 1964

See the date on the last one? 1964! Regan realized the evil of socialism in 1964! You want to talk about vision! Regan?s greatness was in his vision and passion, the revisionist are already attempting to rewrite the facts, Regan alone stood up and drew the line in the sand and said Communism must die and it does so now. He was the first to not compromise, or appease, but to stand firm. The world is a much better place because of Ronal Wilson Regan. Bush is no Regan, but who could be? as men of greatness are few and far between

I am looking forward to the revolution, when the seditious will be made to answer for their treason and be called to account for their actions.

MAY GOD ALMIGHTY SAVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM ALL THOSE WHO WOULD SEEK TO DESTROY HER.

Sean

One thing that never changes is the sniveling, pissing, and moaning from the Democratic leadership. If you extract Bush bashing and Republican bashing you hear nothing at all from them. I would like to read something the Democratic party introduced that would be a change for the better, but I never see anything but them bitching about how terrible everything is, and how it is ALL Bush’s fault. Am I the only one who is tired of reading about how the election was stolen? The sad thing is I read what is written here and I see nothing but complaining about the way things are run but I see nothing on how to run them better. I saw nothing from Kerry that offered alternatives to the programs Predident Bush had at that time. Like the president or not, at least you get what you see and he isn’t afraid to act on his convictions. You don’t have to pay much attention to realize the Democrates don’t like the Republicans nor anything they want. I wouldn’t have a problem if I could ever figure out what the Democrats would do other that bash the Republicans. Wouldn’t it be great to read that there were some suggestions from the Democratic party that might improve something, ANYTHING! I have no difficulty finding a quote begining with; We don’t want, or WE don’t like. I can’t see to find anything that starts out with; We would like to, or We could improve this if……
Nobody can earn respect by just bitching about something. If you want to earn respect, come up with a solution to the problem. Show how it can be improved by doing it your way. Give people something to think about, other that how you don’t like the way things are being done now. It is a “No Brainer” to sit back and watch what is going on and snipe at the people who are running the program. It is much more difficult to be constructive.
Maybe Kerry could raise again with Jane Fonda as his running mate. Those two “Fine Americans” would take their party to new heights.

Nobody can earn respect by just bitching about something.

You said it. Now read your own post.

See the date on the last one? 1964! Regan realized the evil of socialism in 1964!

Sean, that makes Reagan a slow learner. Truman was all over that in the 40s when Ronnie was still cavorting with chimps.

I am looking forward to the revolution, when the seditious will be made to answer for their treason and be called to account for their actions.

Yes, the American fascist revolution. Can’t wait.

Who here in this Thread said the Election was stolen?

As for bashing Republicans, that’s what you get when you control all of Congress and the Presidency. It’s ALL the Republican’s fault!!!

May I suggest that instead of saying, “Come up with your own plan”, the Republicans initiate a Plan that works? A little something in Iraq would be nice.

I compare the Democrats (and the fringe groups that align with them) approach to politics and addressing issues with real effort to the actions of some teams participating in sports events who play “not to lose” rather than play to win.

In this approach you play almost entirely defensive, never really attacking but, occassionaly threatening to attack (as a ruse), double and triple teaming an opposing player attacking them, etc. The approach is designed so that they can claim not to have been defeated by a team which had stronger players, more technique and skill, were better prepared and more aware of the game and rules. In the end they blame not winning on the coach, field conditions, weather and so on.

Show me someone who never made a mistake and I will show you someone who never made a decision.

AP

Parties and labels are not people.

I admire Truman (and Roosevelt and Kennedy and many other Democrats) Ronald Reagan was still a Democrat when Truman was in office. The Democratic Party moved away from Reagan, as it has moved away from many Americans. In Truman’s time, it was the Dems who believed in standing up for liberty around the world and they had no doubt that America was the greatest country in the world. They had the courage to order operations like D-Day. When they saw the picture of the flag going up at Iwo Jima, they didn’t second guess the men who raised it.

If Democrats had remained true to their values, they would still be the majority party. They would control the Senate and the House, and they could stop crying about the unfairness of politics.

Reed,
“Now read your own post.” Hilarious.

JC,
Umm, don’t know if you noticed, but the Republicans are the majority party in the House, Senate, & they control the White House. Republicans control the committees in the House & Senate. They control who receives nominations, what bills are introduced, which ones pass, etc.

The Dems are the minority, opposition party.

Why on earth would the majority party need ideas from the minority one?

Does anyone else see it as odd that Democrats can blame everything on Republicans because they control everything, and in the next breath say they must block, stall, and fillibuster, because if they didn’t…Republicans would control EVERYTHING!??

With just the right ammount of spin that could make sence?

A couple of comments…

1.) Aldous is right…the War For Southern Independance was not about slavery. Space here does not permit me to go into greater detail, but a small example of what the War For Southern Independance was about is in the telling interview with Abe Lincoln with a New York Post reporter. When asked if he was going to let the South go, Abe replied, “What? Let the South go? From where will we get our tariffs?”

2.) There were two majority groups of voters and one minority group in our last elections. The two majority groups of voters were A.) People for Bush and B.) People against Bush. The minority voters were those that thought Kerry would actually be a good president.

American Pundit

Are there not Democrats who are on that committee who have already seen those so called stalling tactic documents. That is part of oversite isn’t it. That’s why certain names are blacked out.Senator Roberts and Kennedy are that committee but they would not vote for Bolton anyway. Anytime there is a cloture vote it’s called a Filibuster.

PHY8X

Did you the recent news that states are taking in record revenue from taxes and that is because the economy is so bad. It’s erasing deficits in many states.Let’s talk about the first Quarter tax revenues reported last month sometime by the fed they where like 40% greater then they had predicted! Damn that bad economy again. Why provide funding when we don’t even look at the other ways in retrieving those cells. Why fund the most extreme way of doing things like this when the less invasive path is the way the Koreans are doing it from female doners. Veto it damn straight. until we can put it place a system that will allow women to donate there eggs that already have these cells there.

Stephen
Yes he won by 4.5 MILLION VOTES and BEAT John Fairy oops I mean John Kerry. Get over it already.

Yeah Those so-called moderates look like fools and as predicted running for the hills! Let the spin begin Mike Dewine. So now we know we can’t trust the Dems to keep there “compromise” because in there own words every Supreme Court nomination is a E C.

Chris,
Listening to Rush Limbaugh? Exercise extreme caution whenever percentages are used in reference to the economy. Be even more careful if listening to Rush. He has a bad habit of comparing apples to oranges, or worse, simply making up numbers.

For example, I made a general comment on FEDERAL deficits, & the unwillingness of Bush to veto out-of-control spending.

You replied that the good economy is erasing deficits in many states. Ahhh… tax revenues improving? Reallly? That would cause deficits to ease; but so would cutting spending, wouldn’t it? Or increasing STATE taxes, income or sales, etc. So it’s a considerably more complex situation than Rush would leave you to believe, and lower deficits/increased tax revenues may or may not have something to do with the economy.

In other words, comparing apples to oranges doesn’t fly for a second.

No need to go into the stem cell debate. However, you & I both know, the reasons you give have nothing to do with why Bush might veto the bill.

In Truman’s time, it was the Dems who believed in standing up for liberty around the world and they had no doubt that America was the greatest country in the world.

The Dems still stand for liberty, Jack. And honesty and justice, and a lot more so than “that other party.” They WANT America to be the greatest country in the world, and they STRIVE toward it. But they aren’t going to simply assume it, worship the concept, or salute the proposition just because you or anyone else decide to run it up a flagpole.

By the way, Truman would have taken care of Afghanistan and then found a way of dealing with Iraq short of lies, false hopes and botched military planning. In other words, he had both honor and brains. That’s all we’re really asking for a president. Too much to ask? If so, then I think it’s you underrate America.

Yes, the American fascist revolution. Can’t wait.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at May 27, 2005 12:14 PM

Reed America is already involved in a fascist revolution, called progressive politics, and political correctness, if you disagree with them you are a hate monger, racist, southern, bible-thumper etc.. etc?

Why diversity is good, till you mix political diversity, I make no bones about my alignment, I do not like certain groups- and before you even get out the racist card, I am referring to criminals, and traitors.

Socialcrats only want tolerance of their views, much as you may think I am a fascist, but I do not disagree with your right to espouse what ever you like, but you would restrict my right to call it tripe as hate speech. You may march against the war, but you would wish me jailed for marching for the war, and supporting our troops

You have the right to believe that criminals are simply misunderstood, but I am evil for advocating the death penalty and wanting to defend myself by being armed.

So yes I am looking forward to the revolution, when the people wake up and realize that some one wants to put the yolk of mediocrity on them, by making us all equal wouldn’t that be a good thing, all the same?

Pronunciation: ‘trA-t&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English traitre, from Old French, from Latin traditor, from tradere to hand over, deliver, betray, from trans-, tra- trans- + dare to give — more at DATE
1 : one who betrays another’s trust or is false to an obligation or duty
2 : one who commits treason

Pronunciation: ‘trE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Old French traison, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray — more at TRAITOR
1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family
I am looking forward to the revolution, when the seditious will be made to answer for their treason and be called to account for their actions.
MAY GOD ALMIGHTY SAVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM ALL THOSE WHO WOULD SEEK TO DESTROY HER.
Sean

Sean, that makes Reagan a slow learner. Truman was all over that in the 40s when Ronnie was still cavorting with chimps.

I do not disagree that Truman may have known that, but the question is what did he do?

I do find it interesting that the left will forgive almost anything, but if a man makes a movie with a monkey he must surely be less of a person for it.

This from a group that is proud to claim that tolerance and diversity is good.

I am looking forward to the revolution, when the seditious will be made to answer for their treason and be called to account for their actions.

MAY GOD ALMIGHTY SAVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM ALL THOSE WHO WOULD SEEK TO DESTROY HER.
Sean

Reed

Think about Roosevelt’s behavior just before WWII. I greatly admire what he did and he did the right thing, but telling the truth to the American people was not among his virtues.

Truman would have dealt with Afghanistan and Iraq in a much more straightforward manner. I agree. Those sorts of options were available then. Not so much now. It is hard to fight a war if you have to make sure nobody gets hurt.

It is right to criticize your country when it is wrong, but not right to assume it is wrong most of the time.

I found this article (probably by a liberal) in CSM. This is a reasonable criticism.

Charge: America is an arrogant bully intervening around the globe for its own benefit.
Rebuttal: In the past 60 years, US policies and interventions have resulted in the liberation of roughly 750 million people in Eastern and Western Europe, South Korea, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Charge: The US acts only in its economic interests.
Rebuttal: Despite two so-called neocolonial expeditions to plunder Arab oil, the price hovers near record highs. US intervention in Kosovo, on behalf of an oppressed Muslim minority, came in a region that only goat herders and medieval historians consider strategic.

Charge: US soldiers are committing widespread acts of unspeakable cruelty.
Response: Yes, there have been damnable abuses, and it seems that amid the swirling controversy over abuse at Guantánamo and Bagram, we’re likely to see more examples of such cruelty. A shamefaced condemnation is the only adequate response to individual abuses, yet America’s military record remains worthy of spirited defense. A rational look at US wars and interventions of the past 60 years shows a pattern of liberation rather than imperialism or repression. By and large, under the stress of combat, US troops have shown restraint, professionalism, and compassion.

Charge: America often supports right-wing dictatorships while mouthing support for human rights and democracy.
Rebuttal: Support for autocrats like Chile’s Augusto Pinochet is indefensible; but, it occurred in the context of a successful 40-year effort to contain and dismantle communism. Democracy flourishes in places once unimaginable. Though US policy wasn’t the catalyst for change in every case, there’s much to be said for its role. US support for Pakistani President Musharraf can be seen in a similar framework.

Charge: America is stingy.
Rebuttal: Private American philanthropy is also a powerful force for good. This year, Bill Gates pledged $750 million in support of the fight against childhood diseases - an amount that exceeds the Austrian government’s budget for foreign aid. The US may rank nearly last in the world in percentage of national income spent on foreign aid, yet American taxpayers did provide $19 billion in aid in 2004 - double that of the closest European competition.
There is much room for criticism of US foreign policy, yet on balance one may fairly argue that absent the hysterics often clouding perceptions of current events, it’s easy to see the historical outlines of a coherent project.
It’s never easy to play the Philistine, so venture these rebuttals with care because, as any shepherd will tell you, giants make easy targets. I somehow suspect that Goliath fared as poorly as I do at dinner party tête-à-têtes; nevertheless, I think he’d agree that in the face of slings and arrows, the time for apologies has passed.

Reed America is already involved in a fascist revolution, called progressive politics,

Sean,

Really? Will the “progressive politics” police come knocking on your door tonight to drag you away for the vehemence of your beliefs? Kinda doubt it.

On the other hand, if a seriously heavy-handed government of the kind you seem to wish for were to read, “I am looking forward to the revolution…,” they might indeed believe your expressions were seditious. Here’s a definition of the term from Random House: “incitement of public disorder or rebellion against a government.” Be careful what you ask for. The jackboots may give it to you.

Just an observation.

In looking at the comments here, there are two types of people:

1.) Those that see the glass 1/2 empty and those that see the glass as overflowing!

2.) Those that have a bumpersticker that reads,”51% is NOT a mandate!” and those that look at that bumpersticker and say, “Well, 49% sure as HELL ain’t!”

Jack, Here are some wise words:

One suggestion (and I do mean this as a friend, since I respect your opinion) could you make it a bit shorter? My attention span comes from watching sitcoms in the 1960s.

No, actually, I appreciate your post. And I agree with much of it, though I’d quibble with some of the details. In fact, I make some of the same arguments at dinner parties, where I’m often (you’ll laugh) seen as far too rightward leaning. But I do believe that the invasion of Iraq - while hopefully paying dividends in the future for both Americans and Iraqis - was badly bungled and ill-conceived. It has damaged America’s reputation, which was founded on many of the events you’ve listed.

Do I hope Iraq becomes a flourishing democracy that serves as a kind of democratic domino? You betcha. But the ends do not always justify the means. There are right ways and wrong ways to get things done, just as there is right and wrong. I don’t hate America. I fear for it. And I wish we had a tough, wise and Democratic American president at its helm.

Reed

You got me on the length.

I didn’t actually have to write it, so I sinned.

Jim,
Half empty or half full? Overflowing? Personally, I just get a bigger glass.

And before you take a swig from that glass, check the contents, make sure it isn’t kool-aid, or…

before you take a swig from that glass, check the contents

Amen

Sometimes I look at some of the posts here (liberal AND conservative) and I only wish I could offer them a large glass of Jim Jones Kool-Aid.

Maybe we all need some Jim BEAM…

As I noted not long after the election, the real definition of a mandate is being able to get a program through Congress. The rest is just symbolism.

phx8 posted: Tsk, tsk, Red Team. Deep in denial, are we?

Seems to me I saw this exact same self-satisfied little gloat in response to a different piece. Dear, dear, Team Blue. Getting a bit “fixated” on your own “brilliance”?

ET

John Kerry is not only dull himself but he inspires dullness in others

It amazes me that people who supported Bush, a man who can’t even pronounce nuclear and who consistently sticks his foot in his mouth when speaking even the simplest of phrases, can say with a straight face that Kerry is dull and uninspiring…

… no, wait, I just realized that they’re looking for entertainment, not leadership. That explains it all.

tomd,
“To me John Kerry is about as much of a hero as Hanoi Jane Fonda, and I think she should be convicted and shot for treason.”
I COULDN’T AGREE WITH YOU MORE IF I TRIED.
Only John Kerry needs to be shot for treason along with all the rest of those commie loving war protester.

There are those who have said close is only important in horseshoes. I’d say it represent a trend. I recall Bush’s numbers being sky-high, his approval good across the board. His position at the time of the election represents a decline. His inability to get his way on things in congress represents a decline.

I’m not unaware of how the cookie crumbled. There’s no need to browbeat the awareness of that fact into me. I just think the triumphalism that Jack shows is misplaced. Bush held on to the nominal power of his office only to sacrifice his real power in the process.

You cannot run so divisive of a campaign and defer facing so many political liabilities and not end up having it come back to haunt you after the election is over. Those who supported him in the fervor of the campaign are relaxing back to their normal states of minds and the buyers regret is seeping in.

If Kerry is dull, I could care less. After Twelve years of having interesting personalities in office, I could settle for some wisdom, intelligence and good judgment, especially in times that require cooler heads to prevail. I’m sick of image. I’m sick of a president who registers high on favorability scales, but low on Job ratings, sick of the divorce between a good image and good performance. It’s not worth it to have president who only looks good on television, policies that only work on paper.

I look at Clinton’s years and Bush’s now, and see a whole lot done for the sake of far off legacies at the expense of things in the here and the now. The image of a presidency must be cast down as the false idol it is.

Stephen

I don’t mean to appear to gloat (really).

What drives me in that direction is that the opposition constantly implies that the President is somehow illegitimate and lacking a mandate. I don’t mean a mandate in the sense of a crushing triumph, but Bush got the job. He is the one the American people chose to make the decisions. That various constituent constituencies have also voted in a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, the Senate and in a majority of governorships.

The Dems keep raising the bar. Now they seem to believe it is an entitlement that 40% of the Senate can veto legislation or appointments. They have taken what was an extraordinary occurrence (a filibuster) and made it a normal part of doing business.

Interestingly, they compare the record of Clinton’s nominees with those of Bush. Clinton got a larger percentage through, but that is not the story. Republicans controlled the Senate during Clinton and most of Bush. You would expect them to stop MORE not fewer Clinton nominees. They would have the right as the majority.

It is NOT an equal thing. This is NOT payback. This is a whole new game.

Anyway, I am much fond of coming to a bottom line and this is it. Dems keep on talking saying Bush is such a loser. But he – and the Republicans – keep on winning elections. That is what made me think of the coyote and the roadrunner. The coyote thinks he is doing everything right. He hatches elaborate plans. They just don’t work. That really does remind me of the Democrats.

Jack… Whatever. Nice spin, and the tone of this thread doesn’t put me in the mood to quote facts countering your opinions.

I do not disagree that Truman may have known that, but the question is what did he do?

Jack, do you want to educate your colleague on this, or should I just derisively tell him to go read a book?

AP & Sean

Truman was an admirable president and he stood up to the Communists when it was not fashionable to stand up to old uncle Joe.

The best book on Truman is the one by David McCullough. I would recommend everyone read that book. I actually prefer the audio book version, because it is read by the author, who is a wonderful narrator. I read the book and I still listen to the tape when I drive on long trips.

Generations of Americans, left/right, Dem/Rep/other, have made our country great. Sometimes we lose our way and have to be reminded, but we come back right. We should never let the conflicts of this day blind us to the fact that we all share the American heritage.

Jack,
Ability to filibuster hardly consists of “raising the bar.” As it is, the Dems lack the ability to move legislation thru committe & bring it to the floor. They lack the ability to make nominations. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is relatively conservative. It’s a weak hand.

Harry Reid has been masterful in orchestrating events of the past week. He outmanuevered Frist, split his Republican oppostion, and pulled the political center of gravity towards the center. It’s a remarkable achievement.

Reid, Byrd, & Warner have moved the the political center of gravity from the Executive Branch & the Republican right wing towards the Senate, and the liberal/moderate side. Truly, I’m in awe.

They had help. Frist overplayed his hand, as did the right wing, the Republican ‘majority of the majority.’ An ill-advised Social Security initiative, the Schiavo affair, and an unwillingness to compromise made Bush, f Frist, & the right look foolish.

A politician who is unwilling to compromise invariably fails.

‘With us or against us’ is not smart politics.

As others have pointed out, the divisive nature of the presidential campaign did not help.

Finally, politicians read polls, and the polling numbers are horrible for the Republicans and the Bush administration. You can bet Reid, Byrd, Warner, and the defecting moderate Republicans took it into account when they crafted the compromise, and recreated the center of power.

ET
“Brilliant”? I’ve been called a lot of things, but that’s a first… there’s probably a good reason no one has said that before!

It is NOT an equal thing. This is NOT payback. This is a whole new game.

Jack,

This gets exhausting. You really ought to admit that the Republicans bear a huge part of the responsibility for the “new game.” They are, after all, the ones who did much of the rule changing. How so, you wisely ask? First, they began ignoring the blue slip tradition. Second, President Bush stopped conferring with members of the opposite party about judicial nominees. Both of these were just as much historical precedents as the judicial filibuster. The Democrats had to respond to this abuse of power. Third, and on a more bipartisan level, is an increasingly dangerous disregard for etiquette and tradition, both which are so critical in the Senate. These things count. That’s why I enjoyed the moderation of the moment. It made me believe, however briefly, in the sanity of the American system again. But those wise old institutionalists are a dying breed. The decline of the Senate is very likely to continue.

On that depressing note, I would like to ask if you’d recommend a balanced book on Ronald Reagan. I detested his domestic policies so much that perhaps they’ve blinded me to foreign policy achievements. I really should grit my teeth and try to see the other side of the argument. After all, who am I to argue with all those fiesty Eastern Europeans?

but you would wish me jailed for marching for the war, and supporting our troops

Actually, Sean, if you’re still listening, I like to think that I would literally die for your right to march, for what that’s worth.

The Dems still stand for liberty…. And honesty and justice, and a lot more so than “that other party.” They WANT America to be the greatest country in the world, and they STRIVE toward it.

My father’s mother loved us all. She was very emphatic in telling us that. But I never heard a word of praise from her except grudgingly, one time, when she acknowledged that I didn’t care to hear my parents badmouthed. Instead, she regularly told me how far short of ideal I was in appearance and demeanor, and what I should do to improve. Pointing out the flaws of her sons and their families was her way of striving for their improvement. It often seemed that she despised us one and all, regardless of her claim to love us.

My mother’s mother was no pushover. But even though she thought short skirts were immodest, she bit her tongue when she saw that her daughter, my aunt, had made fashionable short skirts for her daughters, because she knew that my aunt had been scorned by her in-laws for being “dowdy” and fashion, or lack thereof, was therefore a sore spot with her. Grandma saved her comments for less superficial matters.

Father’s mother was a tongue-lashing looking for any excuse. Mother’s mother was firm but kind, aware enough to avoid the sore spots whenever possible. Guess which of them got better results.

It tends to work that way with groups of people as well as individuals ….

ET

John Kerry is nothing but …
Well, an actual war hero, for one. And a man who, when he got home, stood up against something that he thought was wrong, a position that was used against him in the last election.

John Kerry is a man who told Congress under oath that he himself had committed war crimes. So either he’s an admitted war criminal, or he’s a felon whose lying word means nothing to him.

Or both, of course. But he has to be at least one of the two.

Also… a man who was vilified by people who are quite adept at the art.

Well, I notice that people who are quite practiced at the art of vilification have been busy vilifying GWB for years now - ever since the first time he started running for office. If being vilified indicates greatness, both Bush and Reagan are very great men and Kerry is a mere piker.

Will the “progressive politics” police come knocking on your door tonight to drag you away for the vehemence of your beliefs? Kinda doubt it. On the other hand, if a seriously heavy-handed government of the kind you seem to wish for were to read, “I am looking forward to the revolution…,” they might indeed believe your expressions were seditious. Here’s a definition of the term from Random House: “incitement of public disorder or rebellion against a government.” Be careful what you ask for. The jackboots may give it to you.

Interesting you should say that. In that context I note that: never did Republican protestors carry signs urging the assassination of Clinton, but Dem protestors have not infrequently carried signs urging the assassination of GWB; that it’s liberals that have recently been assaulting conservative speakers, not conservatives that have been assaulting liberal speakers.

Liberals are tolerant of diversity? Couldn’t make a case for it from the news. Are the “progressive police” going to drag me away? Well, not tonight; after all, they are currently the minority and haven’t yet overthrown the lawfully elected government.

I wouldn’t want to bet that a violent overthrow by a leftist cabal could never happen. It has happened in other places, after all, when the left could see that the majority was not going to willingly allow them to rule.

The rhetoric and protests of the left are getting more violent, not less. Are any of you liberals aware of how lawless that looks to us conservatives?

The Dems are the minority, opposition party. Why on earth would the majority party need ideas from the minority one?

So the majority party should automatically ignore good ideas just because they come from a member of the minority? Does that sound right to you?

Oh, but I forgot you’re a Democrat. And if I remember correctly, ignoring the opposition’s good ideas is one of the sins that lost the Democrats control of the House in ‘94, to people with ideas that sounded good to the voters.

We Republicans learned something there. Democrats don’t seem to have figured out yet that good ideas, not mere gripes, are the wares of an effective politician and essential tools of a great leader.

ET

Great points and well put ET

ET:

Can’t help but note, Ann Coulter’s “High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton” featured the rather memorable line “The only question is do we assassinate Clinton or impeach him?”

You can find such nuts on either side of the political aisle. Drawing conclusions about the ideologies they associate themselves with based on such examples is pretty futile.

Shall we characterize the entire conservative movement as violent because of abortion bombers? Certainly, they have committed far more violent acts than the ones you cite liberals doing against conservative speakers, which are usually little more than fist-fights during protests. And too, what about incidents like the shop-owner who was beaten for exhibiting a painting depicting prisoner abuse? Or the man who struck a man protesting the war in iraq at a pro-military rally?

I do not think there is much point in characterizing one side or the other as violent. There will always be people who use violent means to support their political ideologies, quite apart from the values and goals accepted by the majority of that ideology. Focusing on this distracts us from real dialogue, and plunges us into a spiral where each side will simply accuse the other of being the instigator of more acts of violence, which their own side is then painted as simply responding to. That gets us nowhere.

Reed

Reed

I don’t know of any books about Reagan that are the equal of McCullough’s on Truman. Maybe we have to be a little farther from the events. Truman was vilified in his own time.

Reagan came up with his own ideas and there are various compendiums of them, so you can get to know that man through his own words. His genius was in vision, not in details and this you will see in his words.

I have read three decent biographies by Edmund Morris (Dutch), Peter Schweizer (Reagan’s War) and Denish Desousa (I don’t recall the title). None of them are complete. Reagan’s War has the most about his active role in bringing down communism in the 1980s.

Much of my own knowledge and opinion on the subject is personal, however. I am ethnically Polish and lived there for almost eight years. Anyone who has seen the effects of communism close up either hates it, was a collaborator with it, or has a bad memory. I hate it.

Re partisanship

I can understand how Dems think Republicans started the fight. Republicans clearly are not treating Dems as equals. But this should not be a surprise. The Republican won more elections. They should expect to work together, but the Republicans have the right to expect compromises to be mostly in their favor most of time. When the Dems win a majority again, I expect they will behave the same way. It is the way they behaved during the time when they were the majority party.

They should expect to work together, but the Republicans have the right to expect compromises to be mostly in their favor most of time.

I never get tired of this,

The American people expected genuine debate. Yet Republicans limited floor discussion on one of the most dramatic changes to Medicare in its history to a mere two hours. Two hours. And this behavior was not limited and confined to the vote on Medicare. For some reason, and I think it should be obvious what it is, the Republicans insist on having votes that are of great import to the American people, where they are clearly on the wrong side of the issue, taken in the middle of the night.

On a Friday in March at 2:54 a.m., the House cut veterans benefits by three votes. At 2:39 a.m. on a Friday in April, House Republicans slashed education and health care by five votes. At 1:56 a.m. on a Friday in May, the House passed a leave no millionaire behind tax cut bill by a handful of votes. And at 3:38 a.m. on a Friday in June, the House GOP passed a Medicare privatization and prescription drug bill by one vote. At 12:57 a.m. on a Friday in July, the House passed a Head Start bill by one single vote, and that Head Start bill was to undermine and unravel a very successful Head Start initiative. And then after returning from a summer recess, at 12:12 a.m. on Friday in October, the House voted $87 billion for Iraq, an issue that Democrats and Republicans were on both sides of the issue, as were the American people. They deserve to hear the debate in the light of day.

Reed, I recently read “Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended”. It’s pretty fascinating. I didn’t know that Reagan actually offered to share SDI with the USSR right from the start. He wanted Soviet scientists working in US labs alongside our researchers. Even Gorbachev thought he was nuts,

“Excuse me Mr. President,” [Gorbachev] said, voice rising, “but I cannot take your idea of sharing SDI seriously. You are not willing to share with us oil well equipment, digitally guided machine tools, or even milking machines. Sharing SDI would provoke a second American revolution! Let’s be realistic and pragmatic.”

Amazing. It’s also interesting that Reagan never tried to bring down the Soviet Union. That kind of chaos was the last thing he wanted He just wanted a peaceful Soviet Union that could co-exist with the US: “[A] Soviet leadership devoted to improving its people’s lives, rather than expanding its armed conquests, will find a sympathetic partner in the West.”

Excellent book.

Mother’s mother was firm but kind, aware enough to avoid the sore spots whenever possible.

You’re right. We could all learn from your mother’s mother. Among the people on the GOP side are Mr. Delay, Mr. Bolton, Mr. Frist, and even Mr. Bush. My positive feedback to them to emulate her. Thanks.

never did Republican protestors carry signs urging the assassination of Clinton, but Dem protestors have not infrequently carried signs urging the assassination of GWB

ET -

Actually, it’s infrequent enough to where I’ve never ever seen one and have seen a number of such protests. Seems to me there was a column in some UK paper but that’s not exactly Democrats. On the other hand, Jarin’s examples (BTW, thanks Jarin) are documented. I don’t want to get into a “cite your sources” battle, but I would like to have a story from a mainstream media source showing that some Democrat in the U.S. was publicly calling for the assassination of Mr. Bush. It would, well, quite unDemocratic.

I have read three decent biographies by Edmund Morris (Dutch), Peter Schweizer (Reagan?s War) and Denish Desousa (I don?t recall the title).

Thanks for those recommendations, Jack. And to you, too, American Pundit, for “Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended”.

It is the way they behaved during the time when they were the majority party.

Actually, it’s not, Jack, which was part of my point. Yes, the majority always pushes the minority around to a degree, but the extent of that degree is important.

John Kerry is a man who told Congress under oath that he himself had committed war crimes. So either he’s an admitted war criminal, or he’s a felon whose lying word means nothing to him.

Fair point. I imagine he did take actions that would probably be considered war crimes. I think that many did during that war. And I think the young Kerry also may also have exaggerated some things based on hearsay from his fellow soldiers. There are historical reasons but no excuses in either case.

And it is considerably less likely that Mr. Bush committed any war crimes from his rather comfortable circumstances stateside. I won’t even get into issues regarding lies and possible war crimes during Mr. Bush’s tenure as president. We’ll let history sort that one out and, in the meantime, do our best to protest alarming actions as we see them developing. For which we’ll no doubt be called “whiners” or “partisans” or worse rather than patriots. So be it.

I don’t want to get into a “cite your sources” battle, but I would like to have a story from a mainstream media source showing that some Democrat in the U.S. was publicly calling for the assassination of Mr. Bush. It would, well, quite unDemocratic.

I haven’t read the book you cite, but from what I have read of Coulter, I won’t question that she wrote it. It certainly sounds like her brand of biting sarcasm.

The source I best remember is the Oregonian a couple of years ago, regarding a “disturbance” when GWB was in Portland. I forget the exact date, unfortunately. Somebody got hurt (not too seriously) in a scuffle that managed to avoid becoming a riot because the police were prepared to deal with Democrat agitators who had been bragging that they intended to incite a riot.

The reporter talked to a person holding a sign that recommended assassination. Didn’t sound to me from what that person was quoted as saying that the protestor was being sarcastic. Sounded to me as though the protestor was full of hate and rage.

There have been other similar incidents reported, but that’s the one I specifically remember most clearly; I live here.

I don’t understand why all the liberal hate talk about GWB. Truly I don’t. He’s way too far left on certain aspects of domestic policy for me to be entirely happy about him.

I mean … starting a major new entitlement in the middle of a recession, when we were doing the invasion of Afghanistan? Not the most rational thing to do, IMO, and about as far from fiscally responsible, a traditionally conservative concern, as I can imagine. I don’t like those deficits, either. We are at war, true, but I remember what the economy did after LBJ started his “War on Poverty” program during the Vietnam war. Yes, I was just a kid, but I could read the news.

And that new Social Security proposal GWB has out there is a lot more liberal in the fine points than it is conservative. The private accounts aspect is a minor sop to the base, if one realizes that the proposal also includes a major tax increase on the upper income brackets, in the form of lifting the cap, and a corresponding *decrease* in benefit growth for the same upper income voters who would see their FICA taxes exploding.

I’d think the Dems would gloat about having seduced a Republican president to the Dark Side, if they were being rational instead of spiteful. They have an opportunity to sign on to the most liberal SS fix they are going to get with a GOP majority in Congress, and all they can do is demand no private accounts, which is the only thing that comes close to making the program acceptable to the conservative majority.

We Republicans need a supermajority in Congress. We really do. We just can’t work with most of the current incumbants, especially not with their current leaders. They are flaming irrational in their hate. And I suspect that come 2006, the voters might agree with that.

Yes, the majority always pushes the minority around to a degree, but the extent of that degree is important.

I don’t know how far back your memory goes, but I’ve been reading political stuff since I learned to read. My parents let me stay up ‘til midnight on a school night in ‘60 to listen to the election results; they wanted me to be aware of a larger world than home and school and church. I cast my first vote at age 18 in the ‘72 election, and I was even then an informed voter. I remember when the Dems were the majority, how they would shut down Republican attempts at debate …. how the crucial committees were all Dems, with no minority representation ….

Don’t try to convince me that it was an illusion. I remember. This attempt at power sharing that the GOP is doing, that’s not what the Dems used to do. The GOP is being gracious to the opposition in a way the Dems were not.

And it is NOT WORKING.

I’m not saying that we need to be arrogant and rude, the way the Dems were and still are. I seriously deplore those activists who are rude and arrogant. We definitely need a bit more backbone when standing up to political extortion, but we can be polite and gracious AND firm all at the same time, I think. Although if they don’t get their way the Dems will probably throw their usual tantrums for the press. “Good loser” doesn’t seem to be anything their leaders want to bother with, even when they no longer have a choice about the “loser” part.

We need a supermajority. And I think we might find the votes for it, too, bearing in mind how nasty and arrogant the Dem leaders are behaving these days. Even people who still think that the Dems stand for “the little people” (which IMO they stopped doing quite a while ago) don’t like that sort of attitude. It’s increasingly undeniable that the Dems are just obstructing, not pushing a positive agenda of their own.

ET

ET,

Thanks for the response. You’ve done a considerable amount of writing but cited very few facts or specific sources. Perhaps this accounts for your viewpoints which, ironically, seem based more on emotion than data.

Don’t try to convince me that it was an illusion. I remember.

Memory is a tricky thing, largely influenced by our own perceptions and emotions. Scientists find it is a disturbingly creative process. My memory is that the Dems were considerably less rude and yet we’re evidently speaking about the same era. Probably better to stick to the facts, such as:

1) The Reps have killed the judicial blue slip process. I’ll cite sources if you like.

2) Unlike every president in the modern era, President Bush has not been consulting with the minority party on judicial nominees. Again, the sources are available.

We Republicans need a supermajority in Congress.

If you can win it fairly, instead of having the Supreme Court give it to you, that’s fine with me. I think the subsequent ever more massive deficits, the ever more obsene tax breaks to the wealthy, the ever shrinking minimum wage, the enactment of more laws such as the recent bankruptcy legislation, the inevitable political erosion of liberties through things such as the Patriot Act, the neglect of genuine homeland security, and the nomination of far right-wing judges will subsequently turn Americans against the GOP for at least a generation. Good luck on that.

ET,
Very well done! The Dems have been so good at throwing rocks they have become masters at it. The problem still remains they can’t come with anything to improve the country! Thay can however complain about how they have the elections stolen from them and how bad the government is now that they aren’t in control.
What do you do when the best your party has to offer is Slick Willy, Yo Yo Kerry, and that viper Hillery? Piss and moan, piss and moan, piss and moan.

JC, the Democrats have many excellent ideas to improve the country. Here are our ten key pieces of legislation that the Republican majority will ignore to the detriment of our security and our way of life, and I’ve detailed on WatchBlog here three vital homeland defense measures that the Republican majority will also ignore to the detriment of our national security.

BTW, any of you Republican “patriots” want to explain why the Pentagon and even Donald Rumsfeld are having to fight tooth and nail to keep Republican lawmakers from undermining the morale and effectiveness of our US military and degrading the Pentagon’s ability to plan for action in North Korea?

I don’t want to say Republicans are traitors, but at the very least your representatives are demonstrating some dangerously poor judgment by eviscerating our armed forces in the middle of a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, with threats from North Korea, Iran, and China looming.