Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Seems awfully presumptuous to me, Chops to say that all Christians have the same values regarding entertainment and freedom of speech vs. censorship values as you seem to profess in your article.

I mean what about the porn star Carey showing up at a GOP fundraiser?

Yes, not appearing in raunchy movies restricted to adult audiences is definitely a Christian value, and clearly anyone violating this standard should be brought up short for it. Remember, this is a guy who withstood years of painful, humiliating, and life-threatening imprisonment as a soldier for our country. But, by God, I draw the line at appearing in a raunchy movie. Just as I draw the line at bombing Iraqis and then occupying their country. And at reducing the resources available to the poorest and most disadvantaged while decreasing the amount the very wealthy contribute to our common resources. And at coddling someone who reveals our undercover agents identities. And at…well, you get the picture.

McCain’s doin’ nothin about the illegal alien problem….

John McCain will never become President. Anyone who fathers a Black Kid should never be tolerated. His refusal even to acknowledge his actions are proof of his corruption.

John McCain is an embarassment. He should resign and have that little Black Child put up for adoption.

Aldous

What are you talking about? Usually I can at least detect some pattern, but I have not even heard of this one.

Besides, if a old guy like Mccain fathers a child of any kind, I say bully.

Aldous, isn’t the correct term “mulatto”? At best, McCain might be able to father someone with a milk chocolate complexion.

The trouble is, Republican party wants manageable images and those come at the price of people with a strong sense of identity, who are often the real leaders.

They’re trading away their future so they can deny their candidates have a past, because pasts can mean losses and the Republican party doesn’t lose. Unfortunately, this side of the column isn’t the only one afflicted with this and it’s costing us all.

Things aren’t all bad. Just we got to realize that regardless of the new ways people can communicate, it’s still the same people, with the same needs and weaknesses.

Jack,

“What are you talking about? Usually I can at least detect some pattern, but I have not even heard of this one.”

Karl Rove, Bob Jones University, 2000 election.

This is the claim that sunk McCain’s ship in South Carolina.

Jack-
Aldous is refering to McCain’s Adopted Bangladeshi Child, who like many of that region are dark-skinned.

Somebody started a push poll in South Carolina, when they were doing the primary there, insinuating that McCain’s Child was neither adopted, nor legitimate.

This was the kind of technique common to one particular campaigner’s bag of tricks. Somebody who was working for a particular campaign at the time. This man has been in and out of controversy for some time, using morally questionable means to further political campaigns. Pushing buttons, getting people mad, then calling people partisan hacks for simply asking for the answers they demand.

This is the liability that is Karl Rove. And now you’ve got a taste of what he does to his own party members, when they’re in the way.

Indeed. They also tried to belittle McCain’s Vietnam experience. Take note that all this was done by “People not directly involved with the Bush Campaign”. HA!!!

The Republicans do not deserve McCain. Anybody stupid enough to believe the Black Child smear deserves Bush.

Karl Rove, Bob Jones University, 2000 election.

Really? I seem to remember that it was Bush who almost got hurt from BJU after their interracial dating ban came into the open, after Bush spoke there. Luckily for him, BJU rescinded the policy and he got in a prompt political apology.

Should McCain run for president, it’s reasonable to assume that he’ll face a candidate from the right.

In the New Hampshire primary in 2000, McCain handily defeated Bush. A replay in 2008 seems possible, with McCain defeating a candidate from the right in New Hampshire.

Most likely the candidate from the right will downplay expectations in South Carolina, but nevertheless McCain will have momentum. This could place enormous pressure on the candidate from the right in 2008, just as it did in 2000.

In 2000, the battle for the Republican nomination was determined in the South Carolina primary. Apparently many Red Team members are unfamiliar with what transpired.

In 2000, certain Bush supporters… I’ll just leave it at that… waged a phenomonally dirty campaign against McCain. Immediately after New Hampshire, Bush made his first stop at Bob Jones University (notorious for having banned interracial dating). On the podium, a Viet Nam veteran stood next to Bush & attacked McCain’s military service, while Bush remained silent.

Later, a fellow named Ted Sampley was very active on Bush’s behalf. Mr. Sampley ran a veterans group. He questioned McCain’s sanity, and accused McCain of being a “Manchurian candidate.” (This same fellow also attacked Kerry).

The smear campaign against McCain grew even worse. It included the allegation mentioned earlier in this post.

Bush won in South Carolina, and the rest is history.

Sorry, Red Team, but these right wing practioners of the smear are your people. Don’t take my word for it, read up on the 2000 South Carolina primary. You’ll be seeing them again if McCain runs in 2008.

Comment deleted for failing to abide our policy. —WatchBlog Managing Editor

This is big baloney sandwich. I’m sorry.

Republicans such as Reagan, a Hollywood divorcee with a small reputation for enjoying the ladies, not to mention California’s current governor, have all enjoyed trememdous Republican support. And Bush, who liked to party hard in his youth, is a hero of our movement.

The notion that Republicans require some kind of altar boy may be true with a very small number of far right Republicans—perhaps something close to the number of Democrats who require a pacifist Earth-worshipper.

I don’t buy into the stereotype of the America-hating Democrat any more than I buy into the stereotype of the uptight puritanical Republican.

McCain’s problems with the Republican base, however, are much bigger than any cameo in a film. The fact is that we don’t TRUST him for a variety of reasons too numerous to go into here.

Of course, that may change fairly quickly if McCain spearheads an effort to force through a conservative SCOTUS nomineee, which his recent statements indicate he might be ready to do. If that happens, he could go from Republican goat to Republican top dog very quickly.

Jack, the McCain’s “black baby” canard is just one of Aldous’s interchangeable and standard Republican-baiting diversions—when you hear it, you know you’re probably winning an argument based on the facts. Pay no attention and move on.

And one more thing, directed personally towards Aldous: Conservative-minded people who take the time to engage others on a board such as this, who bother to sustain a factual argument and respond to the factual arguments of others, are probably not what you think.

I respect the intellects and humanity of liberals, and am more than willing to be persuaded by them if they present themselves and their postions thoughtfully and respectfully. You should take advantage of this and try to convince us of your positions instead of stereotyping, changing the subject and tossing out one red herring and straw man after another.

You’re obviously an intelligent individual—so let’s see what that intellegince leads you (and potentially us) to. Otherwise you’re achieving nothing. I believe that you’re capable of better.

sanger:

Fascinating that you deny the Black Baby Scandal even took place. This fits my theory for Selective Memory regarding Republicans. It allows them to deny reality without thinking themselves liars or hypocrites. Examples are: South American Death Squads, Iraq WMD, Torture, etc.

It is curious that the only time McCain is welcome among mainstream Republicans is during the RNC Convention. After that, they go back to bashing him.

You do know the McCainites were banned from FreeRepublic.com, RedState.org and nearly all Rightwing Blogs, right? Ofcourse you don’t. Selective Memory thing again.

I don’t get it, Aldous. I’m at a true loss.

What if every time you brought up an intelligent and factually based argument about a Democratic postion, about the tax code, foreign policy, human rights or anything else, I responded every time with “Well, Clinton burned children alive at Waco,” although that had nothing to do with the matter at hand?

That seems to be the approach you think we should take with each other. You may take some pleasure in it, but I’d hope you’d prefer to be taken seriously.

sanger:

This Thread is about McCain and his chances for the Presidency. The fact that you don’t see the relevance of the Black Baby Scandal is your problem not mine. The fact that South Carolina Republicans were willing to believe such a ridiculous story says something about McCain’s chances.

You DO acknowledge the Black Baby Scandal took place, don’t you?

I feel that John McCain could be the candidate to unite the American people.
By the way
The term “Black Baby” is wonderful, especially to people of color, like myself.
I hope to continue to read terms of endearment directed at minorities like “Black Baby” so that I am made to feel that people of color are valued and so highly thought of by mainstream America. I’m Puerto Rican, so feel free to call me a spic,beaner or wet back,if you choose to.
Thanks and have a nice day.

Andre:

My apologies. I mean no insult. However, the term “Black Baby” was indeed used during this scandal. They certainly didn’t say “African American” that I remember.

Sure, Aldous. I can as easily grant the truth of the “black baby story” as I can the truth of the “Democrats like Clinton INCINERATE babies story.”

Neither is a worthy mantra and knee-jerk response, however, of somebody more interested in engaging the ideas of others than constantly digging up irrelevancies.

On both the left and right, there have been shameful moments in the history of politcal discourse. Is that news? Of course not. But enjoy re-living them at the expense of ever challenging your own assumptions and thinking about what others have to say—and keep paying your internet provider for that hollow privilege.

Since you miss the point yet again and refuse the olive branch of peace and good will I offered you, you’ll get no further response or attention from me. There are some left-leaning indivduals here who are interested in ideas and willing to defend them. All the rest is just static, white noise, and more than a little boring.

sanger:

You still refuse to see the obvious. Unlike your “Clinton Incinerates Story” fiction, the Black Baby Story really did take place. The fact that the average Republican would even credit such a thing says something about McCain’s chances for running. It is as relevant today as it was all those years ago. Can you honestly tell me another smear campaign like this won’t sink McCain yet again? Why were the South Carolina Republicans so willing to believe the first story in the first place?

You’re refusal to see patterns of behavior in the past has blinded you to the future. If you refuse to see that then I can’t help you.

“You still refuse to see the obvious. Unlike your “Clinton Incinerates Story” fiction, the Black Baby Story really did take place.”

Aldous,
Ask their family members if it’s fiction.

Branch Davidian Victims

Died February 28, 1993
in initial BATF assault on Mount Carmel
Winston Blake 28 British
Peter Gent 24 Australian
Peter Hipsman 28 American
Perry Jones 64 American
Michael Schroeder 29 American
Jaydean Wendell 34 Hawaiian American

Died April 19, 1993
burnt or shot to death during FBI assault
Katherine Andrade 24 American
Chanel Andrade 1 American
Jennifer Andrade 19 American
George Bennett 35 British
Susan Benta 31 British
Mary Jean Borst 49 American
Pablo Cohen 38 Israeli
Abedowalo Davies 30 British
Shari Doyle 18 American
Beverly Elliot 30 British
Yvette Fagan 32 British
Doris Fagan 51 British
Lisa Marie Farris 24 American
Raymond Friesen 76 Canadian
Sandra Hardial 27 British
Zilla Henry 55 British
Vanessa Henry 19 British
Phillip Henry 22 British
Paulina Henry 24 British
Stephen Henry 26 British
Diana Henry 28 British
Novellette Hipsman 36 Canadian
Floyd Houtman 61 American
Sherri Jewell 43 Asian American
David M. Jones 38 American
David Koresh 33 American
Rachel Koresh 24 American
Cyrus Koresh 8 American
Star Koresh 6 American
Bobbie Lane Koresh 2 American
Jeffery Little 32 American
Nicole Gent Little
and unborn child 24 Australian
Dayland Gent 3 American
Page Gent 1 American
Livingston Malcolm 26 British
Diane Martin 41 British
Wayne Martin, Sr. 42 American
Lisa Martin 13 American
Sheila Martin, Jr. 15 American
Anita Martin 18 American
Wayne Martin, Jr. 20 American
Julliete Martinez 30 Mexican American
Crystal Martinez 3 Mexican American
Isaiah Martinez 4 Mexican American
Joseph Martinez 8 Mexican American
Abigail Martinez 11 Mexican American
Audrey Martinez 13 Mexican American
John-Mark McBean 27 British
Bernadette Monbelly 31 British
Rosemary Morrison 29 British
Melissa Morrison 6 British
Sonia Murray 29 American
Theresa Nobrega 48 British
James Riddle 32 American
Rebecca Saipaia 24 Asian British
Steve Schneider 43 American
Judy Schneider 41 American
Mayanah Schneider 2 American
Clifford Sellors 33 British
Scott Kojiro Sonobe 35 Asian American
Floracita Sonobe 34 Philipino
Gregory Summers 28 American
Aisha Gyrfas Summers
and unborn child 17 Australian
Startle Summers 1 American
Lorraine Sylvia 40 American
Rachel Sylvia 12 American
Hollywood Sylvia 1 American
Michelle Jones Thibodeau 18 American
Serenity Jones 4 American
Chica Jones 2 American
Little One Jones 2 American
Neal Vaega 38 Asian New Zealander
Margarida Vaega 47 Asian New Zealander
Mark H. Wendell 40 Asian American

Sanger and Kevin, can you imagine if the Reps. had been responsible for Waco or the Elian Gonzalez debacle? We would still be re-living that daily. Aside from that and a point to Aldous, your talking points imply that all Southern Reps., or for that matter all Reps., are sheep and feed at the altar of the far right and that is why the Dems are losing. Sanger is right, McCain will never win because we don’t TRUST him. The Dems. had better figure out quickly that there alot of very bright people out there among the voting public that do see through the partisan smoke screen and are often times offended by the rhetoric and condenscending attitude from the left. I am a conservative and I did vote for Clinton, however considering the current leadership of the Dem Party, it will be along time before I consider pulling that lever for a Dem again.

Republicans have an incredibly selective memory about GOP involvement with the alleged sleaze of Hollywood. Someone mentioned Ronald Reagan. How about Arnold Schwarzenegger? How about Fred Thompson, who introduced Bush at the convention? Cape Fear wasn’t wholesome entertainment. And don’t forget The Rock, who spoke at another GOP convention.

And if Hollywood is loathsome, how about outright porn? This from Democratic Underground

Last week, Mark Kulkis of Kick Ass Productions, a hard-core porn production company based in California, was invited to “The 2005 President’s Dinner and Salute to Freedom,” held by the National Republican Congressional Committee. Kulkis had donated $5,000 to the NRCC, and chose to bring porn star Mary Carey with him to the event… let’s not forget NRCC communications director Carl Forti’s comment on Carey’s appearance at the dinner: “They’ve paid their money. No matter what they do, the money is going to go to help elect Republicans to the House.”

So apparently Hollywood’s real crime is giving money to the wrong party…

Jay,
It has turned into a sad, desperate attempt to save a dying party. Like a cancer, the problem lies within a few hardcore left-wingers who are ruining the party for their own cause. I don’t believe the Dick Durbins,Barbara Boxers,Ted Kennedys are the majority voice for the Dems. They are just the loudest and most controversial, so they get the press. I too believe the American people are smart enough to see through the “smokescreens”. Unfortunately, they don’t get it, and until they do they will continue to take desperate measures and further lose contact with the American people.

Sanger-
The incident with the push poll is a documented fact.

Boston Globe-

It didn’t take much research to turn up a seemingly innocuous fact about the McCains: John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her. Bridget has dark skin.

Anonymous opponents used “push polling” to suggest that McCain’s Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the “pollster” determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.

Thus, the “pollsters” asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that’s not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign.

Some aspects of this smear were hardly so subtle. Bob Jones University professor Richard Hand sent an e-mail to “fellow South Carolinians” stating that McCain had “chosen to sire children without marriage.” It didn’t take long for mainstream media to carry the charge. CNN interviewed Hand and put him on the spot: “Professor, you say that this man had children out of wedlock. He did not have children out of wedlock.” Hand replied, “Wait a minute, that’s a universal negative. Can you prove that there aren’t any?”

I’ll let that stand for itself.

Jay-
Dying? It’s not our party doing a Double Back Flip Pike Position dive into the lower ends of the polls. As for still hearing about Waco or Elian Gonzalez… We’re still hearing about Waco and Elian Gonzalez!

Kevin-
You’re lionizing a cult whose response to federal agents was not to cooperate and await their day in court, but instead chose to shoot and kill them, and hold up as if the federal agents were the agents of the Antichrist. I know you fellows got a lot of political mileage out of that, but did you stop to think that maybe, despite the screwups and the terrible accidents that occured there, the Branch Davidians did something wrong?

This is the relativism that’s crippling the Republican party. They want to use and extend the Government’s power, but scare people about it to get elected. They want to spend the taxpayer’s money on Porkbarrel, pet programs, and voter-bribing initiatives, but they don’t want to have to pay for it by raising taxes (or even restoring them) to pay for it.

They want to say that they are excellent on defense, but will run a dysfunctional war in order not to admit their screwups. They want to be the party of moral certitude, but the list of lies and scandals they’ve made excuses for is staggering. Individual Republicans may be nice people, good people, but their party has become exceedingly nasty, and exceeding schizophrenic about its values.

Stephen,
Thanks for proving my point,”Unfortunately, they don’t get it, and until they do they will continue to take desperate measures and further lose contact with the American people.”,

Also,
“You’re lionizing a cult whose response to federal agents was not to cooperate and await their day in court, but instead chose to shoot and kill them, and hold up as if the federal agents were the agents of the Antichrist.”

I don’t remember seeing those 1 and 2 year olds aiming their Red Ryder BB guns at any Federal Agents, I must have missed that one.

See Aldous, we Repubs. can write smart A** banter too.

I believe I follow politics as much or more than anyone. This is the first time I have heard anything said about McCain’s baby. So I assume there are a lot of people in the same boat as I am. Perhaps ignorant of some facts, but I consider them irrelevant. My problem with McCain is the same; I don’t trust him. I believe he should support the president & line up with the rest of the Republican Party. He is too much the maverick. He will never win the republican nomination.

There is nothing wrong with the Republican Party. We are united & winning elections. It appears the more democrats loose elections, the shriller they become. Can you honestly say that Dean, Boxer, Kennedy, Palosie, Shummer, & Clinton represent the Democratic Party. If they represent the Democratic Party, why is Clinton trying to distance herself and appear to be a moderate?

Perplexed

Perplexed, thank you, for a minute there I was thinking I missed something big, but I had never heard of this McCain illegitimate child thing. Leave it to the Dems to take an issue completely irrelevant and tout it as the supreme issue du jour. I guess they feel they have to win on irrelevancy because when it comes to issues that really matter, they have no platform, conviction or answers. It is hard for me to fathom that people like Reid, Pelosi, Dean and Schumer have ascended to positions they are in, that truly explains the intellectual vaccuum of the Democratic Party.

The democrats would love to see McCain win the nomination. If McCain were to win a nomination & the “08” election, we would have to listem to the democrats rant about how conservatives have lost control of their party. Speaking as a conservative, I can say I don’t believe McCain has a national future.

Perplexed

Kevin-
The Branch Davidian Compound was not a daycare center, and the kids were there because the parents weren’t willing to let them out of the dangerous situation. How is it that the Republicans can decry a liberal culture that they say lets people blame everybody else but themselves, but when things like this happen, the government is responsible for the Parent’s decision to keep their children in a dangerous situation? People are responsible for their own actions, especially those that endanger their children. The Branch Davidian’s do not deserve martyr status. They were, to be quite politically incorrect, loonies who killed federal officers and resisted arrest for over fifty days. The attempt to end that seige was undebateably botched, but the situation was the cult’s responsibility, and responsibility should stay with them.

Jay-
You should be concerned that folks like Rove have been sabotaging the vital middle of your party, the ones more interested in their responsibilities than the GOP agenda.

Please stop insulting our intelligence by suggesting that the frustrations our politicians are expressing ore not ours. The polls alone should indicate to you that support for the President’s policies are not growing, and dissent from them is. That doesn’t sound like the atrophy you so vividly present.

Stephen,
“People are responsible for their own actions”

Which is exactly why I can’t stand the Libs. Thanks for finally saying what I was trying to get out of you!

Here’s a story that explains what I mean.

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and had grown to be in strong favor for the distribution of all wealth in America. She felt deeply shamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative which she expressed openly.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and more welfare programs. In the middle of her heart felt diatribe based upon the lectures she had from her far left professors at her school, he stopped her and asked her point blank how she was doing in school.

She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she had to study all the time never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend and didn’t really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. That she was taking a more
difficult curriculum.

Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Mary.” She replied, “Mary is barely getting by”, she continued, “all she has is barely a 2.0 GPA” adding, and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies.”

But to explain further she continued emotionally, “But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn’t even show up for classes because she is too hung over.”

Her father then asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0.” He continued, “That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair equal distribution of GPA.”

The daughter visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!”

The father slowly smiled and said, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”

I think you just got punked Stephen!

Kevin:

I fail to see the relevance of your rant. I assume you are equating the vast majority of uninsured Americans to your “popular but lazy girl”. If that’s the case, I feel sad for you.

Regardless. Thanks to you Republicans one of the CIA’s Front Companies was exposed to our enemies. It will be interesting how you will whine and spin when the bottom falls out.

Aldous
I doesn’t surprise me that you “fail to see the relevance of your rant”

And YOU feeling sorry for me only makes me more sure that I’m on the right track.

No whining, the truth will come out,and is, and Dems will have egg on their face as usual, move on, and attack some other leader of the Republican party with bogus charges.

It’s nothing new, we’re used to it, But their creativity in making up things has been slipping as of late.It’s kinda disappointing on a entertainment aspect.

What ever happened to the attacks on Tom Delay? A couple of months ago that is all we heard from the left & now silence.

Perplexed

David -

Seems awfully presumptuous to me, Chops to say that all Christians have the same values regarding entertainment and freedom of speech vs. censorship values as you seem to profess in your article.

I mean what about the porn star Carey showing up at a GOP fundraiser?

I didn’t say anything about censorship. I’m “censoring” Wedding Crashers by choosing not to go see it. McCain, however, is appearing in the movie. That’s perfectly legal, but it’s a reflection of his values. The Christian Right, which I referred to as such, isn’t going to feel itself represented by a candidate who is comfortable in an R-rated movie.

As far as “porn star Carey”, I’m guessing she would have great difficulty being elected president.

This was a political piece, David, not a theological one. I didn’t say what all Christians should believe, I talked about how the Christian Right tends to vote.

Re. the “Black Baby Scandal” debate - I had never heard of that, but I had heard that South Carolina voters were asked, “Would you think less of John McCain if you knew his wife was Thai [or whatever she is]”. Sleezy, underhanded, dirty, and just one more reason why southerners make me uncomfortable being white.

My point exactly Perplexed.
Going back to what Jay wrote earlier, the American public is not stupid, at least the majority isn’t, and we see what the Libs are doing.

THEY DON’T GET IT!!

Stephen~

Your response to Kevin……

“The Branch Davidian Compound was not a daycare center, and the kids were there because the parents weren’t willing to let them out of the dangerous situation. How is it that the Republicans can decry a liberal culture that they say lets people blame everybody else but themselves, but when things like this happen, the government is responsible for the Parent’s decision to keep their children in a dangerous situation? People are responsible for their own actions, especially those that endanger their children. The Branch Davidian’s do not deserve martyr status. They were, to be quite politically incorrect, loonies who killed federal officers and resisted arrest for over fifty days. The attempt to end that seige was undebateably botched, but the situation was the cult’s responsibility, and responsibility should stay with them.”

If you replace all the “Branch Davidians” w/ “non-uniformed insurgeants/or threatening civilians” you have the exact Republican argument for the war!

Isn’t that funny…?

Chops, I quote from your first paragraph:

In McCain’s case, it’s more evidence that he’s not personally committed to Christian values, despite his Beltway harangues about crass R-rated flicks.

As you can now see, what you think you said in your reply and whay you said in your article, are two different things. Thank you though for showing how the Republican spin machine works everytime they make a mistake. (You did not say Christian Right values, you said Christian values) Black and white print in a public venue doesn’t lie, Chops.

Perplexed, DeLay’s opponent is raising as much cash as DeLay in his own district. DeLay’s goose is cooked. He is not forgotten, nor is his corruption. I know the Whitehouse is stalling on any comment about Rove hoping in the same way that some other story will come along and replace Rove’s name in the headlines. But, like DeLay, the damage is done.

If there had been a Democrat in the Whitehouse when this leak occured, the GOP in the House would have had House subpeonea’s and investigations flying to remove Rove quicker than you can say Karl. But it is one of their own, and they are willing to overlook crime and ethics violations when committed by their own. And that fact is not overlooked by voters on both sides of the aisle. If the Whitehouse thinks it is going to get away with keeping Rove, the GOP is sadly mistaken.

David,
Show me exactly what crime was commited by Rove.

Kevin, very clever story. False, But clever. The truth is there are janitors who work harder every day than folks like Bernie Ebbers. Hard work had little to do with it. Nice try at Republican sophistry, however. Most folks are aware it is a pure BS argument, however regardless of political affiliation.

Dave:
“and whay you said in your article”. I’m assuming you meant to say “what?. I guess your right, “Black and white print in a public venue doesn’t lie”. I guess we all subject to making typos.

Perplexed

David said:

As you can now see, what you think you said in your reply and whay you said in your article, are two different things. Thank you though for showing how the Republican spin machine works everytime they make a mistake. (You did not say Christian Right values, you said Christian values) Black and white print in a public venue doesn’t lie, Chops.

I use the phrase “Christian Right” when referring to the voters, both in my post and in my comment, and it’s what I meant both times. I use the word “Christian morals” in the post and “his morals” [McCain’s] in the comment; those are equivalent and contrasted terms.

Apparently my clarifying your misunderstanding of my original statement turns me into a “spin machine”. And yet, it was you who suggested that I am in favor of censorship, which I am not at all. So who’s spinning now?

For the record, I stand by everything I’ve said in the post and in this thread. And, for the record, acting in a raunchy movie is against Christian values. I didn’t think I needed to explain that, but apparently I do. I took that as assumed, given, etc. Kinda like, “thou shall not murder”. It is, of course, a generalization, but it’s a fair one.

Getting back to the case at hand, McCain has scored political points by bashing raunchy-movie-makers, but now he’s in a film, which (I also assumed this was a given) is tacit approval thereof. For a parallel, imagine if Bill Cosby appeared in a gansta rap music video. What McCain is displaying is called hypocrisy (which is also against Christian values). I didn’t want to turn the post into a smear, so I left that conclusion out, though it is implied by the facts. The corollary, however, is the subject of my post, viz., how difficult it will be for McCain to convince the right half of the Republican rank-and-file to vote for him.

David, I don’t know why you have to jump on anyone every time they use the Ch-word. If you step back a bit, you’ll see that you’re trying to create a tempest in a teapot here. So far you’ve accused me of promoting censorship and being part of the Republican spin machine. And I’m honestly not sure why. Before you level your next ad hominem smear, please put this debate into perspective.

David,
If it’s false then explain to me why MY earned $ should go to people that don’t want to work? You can try and say that “They are the minority and most people want to work” crap all you want. In a nutshell, the philosophy of the Dem. party is Socialist. You assume that people think that argument is BS but, we know it to be closer to the truth than you want to admit.

According to today’s Washington Times, even Plame’s neighbors & friends knew Valerie worked for the CIA long before Novak’s statement. In addition, she was never a covert agent. It appears Rove & Novak both learned of Plame’s CIA employment from Judith Miller.

Delay was the center of DC news until democrats started correcting their own travel records. Then, all of a sudden everything becomes silent. It doesn’t matter how much money his opponent raises. The left has been threatening republicans to be beat at the polls for years & yet we just keep taking seats.

If democrats were in the Whitehouse, the republican controlled congress would call for investigations if a crime were committed. Not rumors promoted by the liberal press & desperate democrats.

Perplexed

News Flash: democrats are dummying down on the Rove accusations. The truth is coming out. Who is next on their hit list?

Perplexed

John McCain will not get the Republican nomination. But it won’t have a damn thing to do with a minority child, or a bit part in a movie.

His movie bit dont help him any, but wouldn’t really matter much if he really was a Republican.

I’m not talking being far right, just a damn mainstream Republican!
Do those on the left side of the isle think all Rep. voters are bigots, rich, Bible thumpers, and those are the only issues that have caused your election stats to fall into the toilet?

McCain is anti-gun and pro abortion. You’re going to lose lots of votes on that one, the same damn voters that the Dem. party lost to Rep.’s!

Beyond those 2 issues, What the hell else can he be counted to vote in favor of?
John McCain is a fencesetter that mostly enjoys playing to the crowd.
The polls seem to show that he would crush Hillary in an election. Why don’t all the Dem.’s that support him draft him to run as a Democrat in 2008?
What?..You don’t want him either based on some issues? Or is he just too wishy-washy for you to know how he’ll govern?

Must be both sides of the isle vote based on many issues?

Kevin,

For every rich CEO who has “worked his ass off” to get where he is, there are thousands of minimum wage guys that work just as hard to help pay that CEO’s salary.

Perplexed,

“My problem with McCain is the same; I don?t trust him. I believe he should support the president & line up with the rest of the Republican Party. He is too much the maverick. He will never win the republican nomination.”

He is a maverick because he is able to build a concensus accros party lines?
This is supposed to be about running the country for the American people, not the Republican Party.
Even after he was thrown under the bus by the Republicans in 2000, he threw his support behind Bush for the presidency. He campaigned for Bush again in 2004.
What exactly is the definition of loyalty for the Republican Party?

There are lunatic fringes on both ends of the political spectrum, I for one, don’t want them running my country.

FYI. Tom DeLay is still very much being investigated. His good buddy Abramkoff is going to jail without question. We are just waiting for the DA to sift through the money trail to get DeLay.

As for Rove. I would believe he will go free more if your Dear Leader Bush came out and supported him. No public statement of support is forthcoming however. Kinda sucks when your own DimBulb won’t back you, eh?

Chops, more spin from you I see. I critique the words in your article, and you retort that I am engaged in ad hominem criticism. Spin, spin, spin.

You can’t possibly speak for all Christians. This country has large numbers of Christians who enjoy R and X rated materials. Simple sales numbers verify that fact. Many Christians enjoy stand up comics whose material is sexually oriented - Robin Williams has special appeal in this area and his audiences are not exclusively Buddhist, or Hindu or Muslim.

Kevin said: “Show me exactly what crime was commited by Rove.”

Aiding and abetting the outing of a CIA operative is a crime.

Perplexed, yes, we are in agreement. We all make typos from time to time. Very astute. Hardly relevant.

Kevin, your reply comment does not address my point at all. So, there seems to be no need to respond to your redirection of the topic.

Perplexed said: “If democrats were in the Whitehouse, the republican controlled congress would call for investigations if a crime were committed. Not rumors promoted by the liberal press & desperate democrats.”

Very telling, perplexed. Your statement reveals something very interesting. You say the Republican controlled Congress would call for investigations if a Crime were committed.

I love it. So Republicans would prejudge that a Crime occured before ever investigating that a crime occured. Does that mean Republicans also determine guilt before bringing a suspect to trial. Very, very telling…

David, you know as well as anyone here that many people subscribe to the teachings of religion while following the parts of it that are convenient. That doesn’t change what the values of the religion itself are. Chops’ assertion that McCain is “not personally committed to Christian values” says exactly that, and implies that he will not cater to the Christian Right (many of whose own lifesyles may not reflect their stated values). Give it a break.

A serious question if I may. Because of the way we in America live by freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and subsequent legislations and, are the worlds greatest advocates of equal rights for all, etc. it is inevitible that we will eventually have a female president and a non caucasion president (which could potentially be a conbination of both).

Because this is America I happen to believe that is a good thing because I think there are candidates meeting those criteria on both sides of the aisle who are gaining the necessary political savvy to be well qualified.

My question is that it is my impression that there are many countries throughout the world, (my guess is that a large percentage of those are in the Middle East, Asia and Africa) who culturally suppress women. I use the term culturally hoping that it encompasses politics, religion, employment, general freedoms, etc.

Would America, the country to whom all look for guidance, help, support, an example to base their own structure on, be able to retain it’s stature and credibility with a female president.

Aldous
I am a strict constitutionalist. Some would say I am conservative. Some would say I am Republican. I have supported Democratic persons before and maybe in the future. Some day when you grow up mentally you will find that it is true that everybody goes through a dim bulb period of time in their life. Just because somebody is different in their attitude or belief does not make them a negative label. Your dim bulb reference to the President needs to put into perspective. Your Democratic candidate in the last election had a lower GPA than the President. Does that make him a dimmer bulb? I don’t believe it does.
Your “Black Baby” theory is a personal affront to me. I have two adopted boys that are half-brothers. The one boy has a black father. I am very proud of my sons and whatever their background is. They are just two more human beings. I do not support Sen. McCain, who happens to be from the same state as I live in. He is not on the same page as many in the state, and is slowly losing ground.
When the protest of an incident is loud and overwhelming; when the demands for heads to roll before the investigations are done; when all the facts need to be compiled into a time line; and political ranting and raving is done, usually there is a plan to dethrone an effective individual that is hurting your side. That appears to be the case here also.

As far as “porn star Carey”, I’m guessing she would have great difficulty being elected president.

She may have a promising future at the National Republican Congressional Committee, however. By their own admission, they’ll take any paying customer. I’m sure any prostitute, stripper, or porn star would fit right in there.

Woody Mena
Shirley McClain said she would sleep with anybody for a $5000 donation to the DNC. The amount may not be the right amount, but it’s close.

Which of these words does not fit here?
1. Prostitution
2. Politics
3. Pandering
4. Purity

tom,

It seems to that as the father of an adopted African-American child, you should be deeply offended by GOP operatives smearing McCain because he adopted a dark-skinned child. Aldous had nothing to do with it. Look under “Messenger, Shooting”.

chops,

Don’t blame the entire southern US for the sleaziness of the GOP.

Oops, that was “it seems to ME”… you are entitled to be offended at whatever you want, but it seems misplaced in this case

Kevin

You have to understand that it’s not all you. We are all successful in large part because we live in this big, interconnected, highly sophisticated infrastructure which has been created by pooling our money through the government. Some of us benefit because it allows us to make a good living at what we do, be we doctors, lawyers, plumbers, teachers, scientists, or preachers. Some of us benefit A LOT, because we are captains of industries that rely on a solid educational system, nearly universal health care, reliable transportation, and a complex system of laws. And some people get left behind. They get left behind largely through bad luck, not because they’re like that one guy you heard about in the Right Wing Echo Chamber who cheated the welfare system and took your money. The philosophy of “don’t take my money” is really a thin one and isn’t at all a high moral stance, but a rather pathetic cry of fear and misunderstanding.

tom

So I suppose a strict constitutionalist is one that knows what was in the heart and mind of each person who had a hand in writing that sacred document and can uncannily average those true thoughts and feelings to determine what exactly the document means. And, of course, everyone who disagrees is not a “strict constitutionalis” because their interpretation is not “strict” like yours. What a bunch of malarkey. Everyone has to interpret the constitution. It isn’t detailed, it uses archaic language and phrases, and different authors had different ideas when the agreed to the wording.

Mental Whimp
I was explaining my stance on the constitution.
I made no claims on others and their beliefs. There are far too many people who think they can understand others by reading into a statement something that is not there. That is what you did. I did not decry what others belive or what their principles are. The father of my adopted son is black. He is not African-American. I thought I make that plain.

The various comments foreshadow just how tough the GOP situation could be in 2008.

Both parties will attempt to unify behind a candidate as soon as possible in the primary process.

It’s a long way off, of course. But at this point it seems possible the Dems will unite early behind Hillary Clinton.

And at this point it looks like McCain will run, and the Republican right will fight him. Again, with the first primary in New Hampshire, McCain seems assured of another early win.

The hundred dollar question: who will represent the right in the Republican primary? It will probably come down to a major battle in a southern state.

McCain is a known quantity when it comes to campaigning. In 2000, McCain was on the wrong end of an extremely dirty campaign.

I’m guessing it would take a lot to stop him. How far will the right go to beat McCain? McCain would probably beat any Dem candidate for the presidency from today’s point of view. Will the right run a clean campaign, & walk away losers? Or will they go back to the South Carolina 2000 playbook & play to win?

If McCain is stopped by the right in an early southern primary, it would be unlikely for him to run as an independent; too expensive, too difficult to recreate a campaign organization, and he would be too likely to lose to the 40% or so that Hillary would surely muster.

Hillary would not bother to name McCain as a VP. No need. If McCain loses in that early southern primary, he’s toast.

Tom,

From Shirley McClain I would have to have about $4995 change back from the $5000

David said:

You can’t possibly speak for all Christians. This country has large numbers of Christians who enjoy R and X rated materials. Simple sales numbers verify that fact.

This country also has large numbers of Muslims who enjoy alcohol and Jews who enjoy pork. All religions have nominal followers, imperfect followers, and hypocritical followers. Their failures do not change the religion itself. To comprehend my post, one must understand the interaction between Christianity (as a religion) and Christians (as people and voters).

The 2008 fight is going to be a doozy. Look, the right-wing Republicans have shown a propensity for bare-knuckle fights within their own party and then those same tactics are turned on the other party after the primaries select a candidate. I predict that it will be knock-down drag-out. The only question is whether the voters will have wised-up to and soured on this approach to politicking. I’m betting not, since they seem to be suckered every time by Rove’s gossip mill.

Hillary’s had enough street experience to fight back by this time. So has McCain, so I’m betting it will be very interesting to see how the RW attacks them both and how they deal with it. They have to be sure that whatever they consider their strengths, a story will be launched that makes it seem like their biggest weakness. Hillary will be attacked on her intelligence, and McCain on his attractiveness to a broad audience. We’ve already seen that tack taken here on him (viz, Beagle’s brief rant). So it’s gonna be fun!

Chops

No, many Christians don’t think sex is shameful or harmful, and besides, R and NC-17 (there is no X rating) movies are rated that way for a variety of reasons, many of them because of what any Christian would call moral repugnance, but rather bluntness about life (e.g., truthful, but violent portrayals). It is exactly this dichotomization into “good” Christians (the right wing branch) and “bad” Christians (that’s right; everyone else) that is so perverse and, dare I say it, un-Christian? To use such language as a tool to divide politically is so antithetical to what I understand the spirit of Christianity to be that I am flabbergasted you guys don’t get called on it more often. The truth is that most Christians have a nuanced, intelligent view of the world, not the black & white cartoon vision dished out by the right: gays and abortion bad, wars against Arabs good. Yes, it’s won elections for your guys, but at what price? Now your party has that stink attached to it and it’s like an addiction. Unless you feed the beast, you won’t continue to win. Those fragments you’ve collected together with this crap won’t show up at the polls and there goes the Rovian plan.

Yep, the next election should be very entertaining.

http://www.FOX_EWS.com/story/0,2933,162583,00.html

replace the _ with an N above

Fred,
Hey, given this article on how Rove was given the info about Plame by reporters, it looks like Rove will be in the clear!

Someone in the legal profession leaked this version of the Grand Jury testimony.

Gee, who leaked this version of events? Who could it be? Who would leak a story ahead of the prosecutor’s decision… The prosecutor? No, that doesn’t make sense. Hmmm. A leak with a favorable spin on Rove’s role. I wonder. Who. Could. It. Be.

Mental whimp,you wrote,

“We’ve already seen that tack taken here on him (viz, Beagle’s brief rant). So it’s gonna be fun!”

I would guess that because you didn’t respond to a simgle point in my post, it would be fair to refer to everything you write as a rant?

Do you prefer “mental wimp rant”, “mental rant”, or “wimp rant” ? Or to cover all the bases should it just be first one ?
I hate useing any of them, because it sounds like breaking watchblog rules to post anything back in a reply?

tom said: “Some day when you grow up mentally you will find that it is true that everybody goes through a dim bulb period of time in their life.”

tom, that is a clear violation of our policy. Apologize and cease making personally derogatory remarks, or lose your comment priviliges here.

Gandhi, since when is adult sexual oriented humor in a movie against Christian Values. I see nothing in the Bible or the teachings of Christ forbidding adult sexual humor which vast numbers of Christians enjoy. Why don’t you try giving the spin a break. It is a straight forward simple statement of fact. McCain’s appearance in an adult comedy movie is not ANTI CHRISTIAN.

Will you be speaking for Christ next?

Chops I understand your post perfectly. What is odd, is that your replies to my comment seem to indicate you don’t understand your own post.

Where in the Bible or Christianity is adult sexual humor forbidden, sinful or otherwise to be condemned? There is nothing anti-Christian about appearing in an adult comedy movie. Some, I say, SOME, Christians may be offended by the movie, as some Buddhists, Hindus and certainly Muslims might be. But, your claim that McCain’s appearance in an adult comedy movie is evidence that he’s not personally commited to Christian values is pure hogwash.

You don’t make the standards for what are Christian values and what is not, though you presume to in your article. Christians behavior and actions and Christ’s teachings establish what Christian values are, and nowhere, in any of these, do I see a blanket condemnation of adult sexual humor and comedy.

The bigest reason McCain didn’t carry the south in the primaries is WE DIDNOT TRUST HIM and we still don’t.

Perplexed,
There was some romer about McCains so called “Black Baby”. However I don’t belive it had much if any efect on the outcome of the primaries.
Personally I think it’s great that he adopted the little girl.
And Adous I’m HARD CORE SOUTHERNER.

Opps,
Sorry Aldous, didn’t mean to misspell your name.

And every one wonders why Republican’s can’t win the black vote.

Who cares if he was in a movie that you find offensive. You idea of a good movie would probably be the torture-flick “Passion of the Christ” Why are most conservative still living in the “Leave it to Beaver” era? I mean my father is conservative, but he understands that societies evolve.

I know I am going to get a lot of responses for the torture-flick remark, but JC is cool with it so screw you guys.

Aldous
In a posting above I was more harsh that I had a right to be. I am sorry for the words chosen in that they did not convey the message intended but only flamed the issue.
What I tried to convey is that during the learning curve of life most people go through a period of time where the process of learning does not get communicated very well. I hope you continue to learn without the flames but with a brotherly love and concern for other people and their beliefs and views.

Kevin-
People are responsible for their own actions, but not all advantages or disadvantages are earned. The children in the Branch Davidian compound are a prime example. They didn’t ask to be stuck in that compound with parents willing to have them die rather than surrender.

As for Mary, what if Mary didn’t party? What if she had a developmental disorder instead? She might have a brilliant mind, but the coursework might be constructed in a way that might conflict with her disability, or there might be profound misunderstandings between her and the students, her and the teachers that are not a result of personal failings. What would be fair would be to diagnose and deal with this problem, keep the students and teachers informed of the nature of her difficulties, and find ways to allow here to earn her degree the way it needs to be earned.

Also, what if the other girl, the one with the 4.0, wasn’t really working to get her grade point average, but was instead exploiting the rules to get unfair advantages, perhaps even cheating in ways that would not be easily detectable. Or what if the efforts of students like her pushed down standards that would have ensured that a 4.0 meant something, and not be merely an indication that somebody played the system correctly?

Work is not the only measure of fairness and unfairness. Fairness can be seeing the potential in the imperfect, or the needlessly disregarded. Fairness can be insuring that the rules that govern us, and the standards of success and reward mean something, and are not merely the product of the influence of the already powerful.

How do I know? Experience. I’ll leave it at that.

Now, when I talk about responsibility, I’m not talking about some notion that the people who have the most money and the most power deserve to keep it all, no, I’m talking about people being responsible for the right and wrong they do in life. Rove did Wrong. The people who slimed McCain, and slime him even now do wrong. The President did wrong.

We want accountability. And since you’ve asked it from us, we’re judging you as you’ve judged us. So where is the Republican moral center on this? This isn’t just some political game centered on who got what done to them by whom, this is our national security and defense at stake. The American people do not deserve to be let down on this.

Stephen Daugherty
What did Rove do wrong?
The accusations are flying life an invasion of bats. There is nothing to show he did anything wrong. When the dust settles, it will be shown that those that don’t like Rove will have to move on to another target.

David -

Normally I don’t turn theological in Watchblog, and I will not post again on this topic, so you can have the last word regarding what Christian values are (and I will not ask to have the last word on Hindu values in exchange)

You asked:

Where in the Bible or Christianity is adult sexual humor forbidden, sinful or otherwise to be condemned?

Here are a few. Check out the references at Bible Gateway to get the full context surrounding each verse. I used the common NIV translation.

Ephesians 5:4 “Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.”

Mark 7:21-22 “For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.”

Matthew 12:36 “But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken.”

2 Peter 2:18 “For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error.”

Matthew 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

Check out Christian bestsellers like “I Kissed Dating Goodbye”, “Every Man’s Battle”, “Wild At Heart”, or “Not Even a Hint” if you think that this is a neglected topic in American Christianity. If you don’t have time for a book, Rev. Al Mohler has highlighted a few of those on his blog recently.

More importantly, David, the novelty of the idea that you can posit a religion’s tenets from the unsanctioned practice of its adherents is exceeded only by its absurdity. If you produced theologians or Christian leaders who backed you up, you might be wrong, but at least you’d be on the playing field. As it is, you still haven’t sorted out the difference between Christianity and Christians (c.f. my previous comment).

As I said, I’ll stop posting on this topic. Watchblog is not a theological forum, and since only one reader of my post has apparently had any trouble understanding that part of it, I frankly think I’ve wasted my time trying to clarify it for him, since he has heretofore shown more interest in argumentation than in comprehension.

Bats? Whew. For a moment, I thought I’d strayed into Hunter S. Thompson territory. Wait a minute…

Look, this has been a relatively unimportant issue for two years, but as I posted in the Bush Machine Thread, we have Rove allegedly contradicting Rove. He said he didn’t know her name, didn’t leak it. Now, apparently, it seems like he did know her name, and according to his NDA did leak it. (I know the Republicans are making a big deal of how her name wasn’t revealed, but that’s dealing with the case we know about, and the fact is he gave information that unquestionably identified her)

So, the fact is, Rove did exactly what the President said he would fire him for. Rove seems to have a merciful Boss. But as is always the problem, your merciful boss might be lenient at the expense of taking heat from their boss.

In this case, the american people.

Stephen
Let me re-phrase the question.
What law did Rove break?

Ask John Dean.

Tom, Rove is guilty of helping to deliver the White House to George Bush twice. He’s guilty of helping Republicans deliver the Senate and consolidate gains in the House. In the eyes of many, he can never, NEVER be forgiven for this. No amount of exonerating evidence in the Plame affair will make any difference.

If for no other reason than the fact that an agent with NOC must have been permanently stationed overseas within five years to qualify under the statute, it’s obvious that no crime was committed. No crime—no firing. It’s as simple as that. Nothing to see here, and time to move on.

When Bush said he would fire anyone involved, he obviously meant that he would fire anyone involved the kinds of wrongdoing being alleged. At that time, none of us knew if there was wrongdoing or not.

Now we know that if there was wrongdoing (and perhaps the prosecuter will find some and announce his findings), Karl Rove is not the guilty party. In fact, the prosecuter has already stated that Rove is not being investigated. I wonder what part of “not being investgated” some can’t or won’t understand?

To put it another way, Bush is not going to fire and innocent man whose true crime, in the eyes of those who hate him, was to help Bush get elected.

Chops, I like this one best: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

So what about all those pretty gals, Ronald Reagan kissed in the movies? I mean he actually kissed them in the movie, he didn’t just appear and do nothing lascivious himself like John McCain. Guess this standard makes Reagan anti Christian values as well, eh? NOT! Argument refuted.

The argument you made as stated, just doesn’t hold up.

Chops,

I don’t get it.
Am I supposed to belive that the Republicans wouldn’t nominate McCain because he isn’t “Christian” enough?
That’s just plain silly, not to mention just a touch bigoted.
This is a man that has given all for the American people. This is a man that is truely capable of being bi-partisan, and therefore able to run the country for all Americans.
The Republicans don’t deserve a man this good.

Sanger, couldn’t have said it better myself, you hit the nail on the head.

Rocky -

Notice that I didn’t say McCain was not worthy of being president. It’s just that the way the political system happens to be set up in this country, he’s not likely to succeed.

I’m not alone in this analysis. Check out this editorial from the Sun News, as well as the story about the Michigan G.O.P. that I linked to in my article.

By the way, I don’t think Lieberman could ever win the Democratic nomination, precisely because he’s too Jewish. And Wesley Clark couldn’t win because he’s not liberal enough.

Sanger-
You don’t care about who wins an election unless you’re motivated. You haven’t asked yourself what motivates us. Before you get any bright ideas about this yourself, let me tell you what it is: Concern for the safety and future wellbeing of this country.

Rove’s crime is not getting this president re-elected, it’s revealing classified information. At the very least he broke his non-disclosure agreement that stipulated that even negligent revelation of classified information was considered a breach. As for negligence, if he was contacting multiple sources with this information, there isn’t negligence, there’s intent.

Plame may have been home longer than the limit, but as my previous posting from John Dean’s findlaw article suggests, that may be no defense, anymore than quibbling definitions about what sexual relations were, and the notion that lying about sex wasn’t perjury defends Clinton.

At the very least, with the Cooper notes, you have Rove talking about an agent that really he should not even know the identity of, much less confirm her existence. If he was unclear on whether it was alright to reveal Plame’s identity as an operative, he should have asked the relevant authorities before opening his trap. As for whether he knew she was covert, there the accounts differ.

The trouble here is that you’re attempting several different defenses at once, and what one explanation concedes, the other jealously disputes. This might be fine if you’re trying to confuse people and muddle the waters, but if you’re trying to convince the rest of us Rove did nothing wrong, it fails, not the least of which because many of the defenses you cite have him as only technically innocent, while others deny the offense ever took place.

As for Bush’s belief in Rove’s innocence, he has not commented on any such belief. If his advisor’s career implodes, he doesn’t want to get sucked in to the catastrophe.

I think you’ll use any defense precisely because he does win elections for you, and you’ve got to thinking we’re such a threat to the country that losing elections or majorities is unthinkable to you. Well, you keep this up, you’ll lose for all your winning, because eventually, it’ll be harder to fight back against the consequences than it is to win the election on your merits.

Rocky, you wrote;

“This is a man that is truely capable of being bi-partisan, and therefore able to run the country for all Americans.”

I guess you could put that way, Another way to say it is, He’s wishy-washy on most issues?

“The Republicans don’t deserve a man this good.”

I must agree with you 100% on that one, Rocky.
Republicans neither deserve, or want him.
Thats why I thought that Dem.’s should draft him to run for them in 2008.
It would be fine for Independants to swoop him up also. Jeffords could be his running mate?

Stephen, I can see that no matter what you’re going to just keep saying that Rove “leaked classified information.” And it isn’t going to make any differenct if Rove wasn’t the leaker, the information wasn’t classified—or even if the “information” wasn’t information.

And you’re absolutely right that I use “several defenses at once.” That’s because the case against Rove is shot full of holes and the only way to keep up the smear against him is to isolate one or two facts out of centext while deliberatly avoiding other facts.

For you Clue players out there, if you want to prove that Colonel Mustard commmited murder with a lead pipe in the ballroom, then you can’t just prove the existence of Colonel Mustard, the lead pipe or the ballroom. You have to connect the dots—this isn’t optional on your part because you have the burden of proof. Even one missing piece and your whole theory is shot. And then it would looks pretty silly if you found out there was no muder after all but kept on speculating about whodunit.

Stephen, I share your outrage. I can not believe that a high ranking government official has attempted to cover up vital information pertaining to terrorism and the war. Sandy Berger should be prosecuted for attempting to steal classified documents preceeding his appearance in front of the 9/11 commission. I am sure you will join me in decrying this breach of security.

To all who say a crime was not committed:

Mexico just released a mass murderer, because technically, the prosecutors did not prove their case. Point: Because the law fails, does not mean a crime was not committed. Ethics Committees have the ability to partially compensate where the law fails regarding gov’t. official behavior. But, the GOP is taking a pass …

Excuse me David, but I believe the jury is still out on this one. Rove has been convicted and exonerated by all of you, yet the Grand Jury has yet to decide. Here’s a novel concept, let’s wait for results of the inquiry before we all get our panties in a bunch.

Beagle,

“I guess you could put that way, Another way to say it is, He’s wishy-washy on most issues?”

If that is what you truely belive, the Republicans really do have greater problems than just the Democrats in the next election.

David, is the technicality in the Mexican case that all the mass murderer’s victims turned up alive and in good health? If not, I don’t see the relevance to the Plame case.

So what about all those pretty gals, Ronald Reagan kissed in the movies? … Guess this standard makes Reagan anti Christian values as well, eh? NOT! Argument refuted.

David, since Chops has declined speaking in his own behalf to honor the rules on your blog, and he’s one of my good friends, I will speak in his defense.

The Bible also says this: “How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

Chops merely called McCain on his own hypocracy. Reagan (who Chops never gave reference to as having “Christian values”, by the way) was no angel, but I’ll say this about him: he changed - from a Democrat to a Republican, from supporting abortion on demand to becoming pro-life, from a player to a faithful husband. Show us some instances of Reagan telling others that they couldn’t kiss or get a divorce, and you’ll have a case for comparing him to McCain.

Anyway I think it’s pretty damn arrogant of you to get in a last hit to make the other party’s arguments look stupid, after he has gracefully given you leeway to have the last word. I would expect better of someone of your age.

Rocky,

Yes I DO truely believe that.

I don’t think McCain is a bad person, just a loose cannon that will pander to anyone to stay in the limelight.

The only issues you can know where he’ll stand is being anti-gun and pro-abortion.

That won’t sell in the heartland.
They same goes for Rudy and Arnold, they could never win running for President, any future they have in politics is local for the area they live in.
I can be moderate and debate and compromise on some issues, not those two issues.
In historical terms politically, they are fairly new and have started the downfall of the Democrat party.
Republicans started taking control once they knew those issues wouldn’t sell in a nationl race.

Beagle,

“The only issues you can know where he’ll stand is being anti-gun and pro-abortion.”

Let’s talk about the anti-gun first.

This is from:

http://www.impactsites2000.com/site3/news/news88.htm

“The so-called “loopholes” that these Senators want to close are

actually freedoms that are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

Both proposals would virtually ban the private sales of firearms at

gun shows, unless a buyer submits to a registration background

check.

It is outrageous that Senators in Washington, D.C., would even

consider banning a constitutionally protected activity that

law-abiding, consenting adults are peacefully engaging in.

Both of these gun proposals could also drive gun shows out of

business, as the liability for promoters would be immense — they

could land in jail for very technical violations of procedure.”

I think that the most important words in the above are “virtualy” and “could”.

Let me give you an example.
Achbar is the product of a mixed marriage between an middle eastern father and a caucasian mother. He looks for all the world like you or me. The problem is that Achbar has been a bad boy and he is on the government’s terrorist watch list. He walks into a local gun show, in, say, Iowa. There, with out any controls, he can buy as many weapons as he wants to. He then moves freely on to Missouri and the next show and does the same thing. Then to Illinois and does the same, etc….
Shortly, he has, for all intents and purposes, assembled quite an arsenal that he is going to share with his buddies that got him on the watch list in the first place.
And all this because there is no control at all at these gun shows.
Now because McCains bill wanted to place some control over this senario, I guess that is why you want to call him anti-gun.

Then we have McCain’s pro-abortion stand.

Let’s see how McCain voted on this issue.

These are from:

http://www.issues2000.org/John_McCain.htm

“Prosecute abortion doctors, not women who get them. (Jan 2000)
?Family Conference? if daughter wanted an abortion. (Jan 2000)
Abortion OK if raped; and no testing for rape. (Jan 2000)
Supports fetal tissue research; against over-intensity. (Jan 2000)
Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)
Support adoption & foster care; work together on abortion. (Oct 1999)
Wants Roe vs. Wade made irrelevant, but would not repeal it. (Aug 1999)
Opposes partial-birth abortions & public financing. (Aug 1999)
Nominate justices based on experience, and values. (Jun 1999)
Restrict abortions; no partial-birth; no public funding. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on disallowing overseas military abortions. (May 1999)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)

So I guess that his record doesn’t speak for itself.

Beagle,

BTW, Arnold wasn’t born here, therefore he can’t be president.

Rocky,

Try looking him up on projectvotesmart.com

Its totally non partisan and you can find whatever groups do/don’t support anyone running for office.

His voting records, and groups that support him are his baggage, not mine.

I know this is an odd-ball question, but what chance does Condoleeza Rice have running for President? I, personally, think Condoleeza Rice VS. Hillary Clinton would be an interesting race.

I have no personal stake in Rove, one way or the other. For all I know it’s his “fault” the Constitution party wasn’t on the ballot here in Wisconsin, but I must ask…

Why isn’t Rove innocent until proven guilty? You know, that is (supposed to be) American law.

Stephanie, with regard to crime, he is. With regard to ethics violations he is as well. What chaps many voters on all sides here is why Congress is not conducting its own ethics investigation into this matter.

Political retribution against the family members of political opponents is a serious abuse of power at the ethical level. Yet, the Republicans has no stomach for investigating its own unless the public pressure becomes so great as to threaten reelection as in the case of DeLay.

This Congressional behavior establishes a climate in which ethics violations are received with a blind eye if committed by Republicans. This is not representing the interests of the people or the nation. This is a clear case of putting politics ahead of the nation and public’s interests.

This is a classic example of how power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even if I support a particular candidate, I will never again vote to have the same party in majority status of Congress and the Whitehouse. It is too much power for any political party to handle, responsibly.

David, you do have a good point re: one party dominating two of the three branches but might I remind you that there was a complete investigation into the Delay matter and nothing of substance was found as I suspect might end up being the same result of the Rove case. Personally, I don’t vote for a party, I vote for the person (hence my voting for Clinton, twice). I sincerely believe that deep down ALL Americans have this country’s best interests at heart, it just a matter of their approach. I would very much like to see new leadership in the Democratic party for, in my opinion, the current leadership have lost their vision, conviction and platform. Two (maybe three) healthy political parties are needed to invoke debate and compromise and that is when and where America succeeds.

John McCain can really unite the voters from both partys.

His staring in a raunchy movie will really win the heartland, and this tidbit from a new article on drudge will certainly win over the left;

“one friend of Hillary’s told me, he’ll be 72 years old, he’ll have had cancer twice, and he has a reputation for being erratic. Remember that Chelsea joke? It was a terrible joke - about Janet Reno being her father - that insulted both a teenage girl and her mother. Hillary has told off-color jokes, but sticking a knife in the back of a kid?”

Is it any wonder the left wants him to get the Republican nomination?

Beagle, the left should worry about who gets the Democratic nomination, not the Republican nomination. Again, it’s that, platform, conviction, vision thing.

Jay,

I think we agree on that.

If the right was losing ground in every election, I would welcome honest opinion from the left about the issues and reasons for that, as it stands now, we have the winning plan/issues.

Beagle,

So no one that is, let’s say, left of Gengis Khan, has a valid opinion.

Your smugness will be your downfall.

Have a life.

Rocky,

I sometimes agree with the left side of the isle on some issues.
In a debate of, basically, political engineering, I can’t see how having a different view makes me “smug”?

I do have a life,TY, I also wish a long and happy one for You.

I enjoy differing points of views on the issues.
If everyone only wanted agreement on everything, couldn’t they just talk to themselves in the mirror?

Beagle,

“I would welcome honest opinion from the left about the issues and reasons for that, as it stands now, we have the winning plan/issues.”

Beagle,

Actually, you’re right, my support for McCain can’t possibly be my honest opinion.
I couldn’t have heard anything about him.
He is my Senator, after all, why would I support him?

Rocky,

You missed part of that statement, and totally missed context.

I’ll add it for you. Always willing to help.

“If the right was losing ground in every election, I would welcome honest opinion from the left about the issues and reasons for that, as it stands now, we have the winning plan/issues.”

David,

You contradict your own claims that you consider Rove innocent until proven guilty.

David said here:

Stephanie, with regard to crime, he is. With regard to ethics violations he is as well. What chaps many voters on all sides here is why Congress is not conducting its own ethics investigation into this matter.

David said in the Dem. thread “Trying America’s Patience”:

Ethics violations occured by Rove at the very least. And that is so obvious as to create a plan by Republicans, obfuscate, redirect, and establish credible deniability wherever possible, after the fact.

It may be that no ethics investigation is going on because there isn’t enough solid evidence to justify it, yet you claim that both Rove and the Congress is guilty of ethics violations without having proven them so by any stretch of the imagination.

You may very well be right that both the Rove and the Republican congress committed ethics violations, but stating it as fact or as obvious is going out on a partisan limb. Or, in your case, an anti-partisan limb.

Beagle,

“If the right was losing ground in every election, I would welcome honest opinion from the left about the issues and reasons for that, as it stands now, we have the winning plan/issues.”

How does that change the statement I made in or out of context?

What it looks like to me is that, because the right has finally gained the position of power, it could care less about any other opinion, honest or otherwise.

Stephanie, the facts are in the CIA documents and memos. Ethics violations do appear to have occured and an investigation is warranted. A headline just today discusses CIA memos indicating Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff is also involved now. Looks like a conspiracy to me. And that is why an investigation is mandated by Congress, independent of the criminal investigation taking place by the special prosecutor.

If you are trying to make the claim that there is insufficient evidence to warrant an investigation by Congressional Ethics committees, you are not reading about the documents that have been uncovered or you are choosing to ignore them.

Yes, they are innocent until proven guilty, but, there is more than ample evidence to warrant the ethics investigation, and it is unethical that Congress refuses to launch one against its own.

There is nothing inconsistent about this line of reasoning.

Jay said, “I would very much like to see new leadership in the Democratic party for, in my opinion, the current leadership have lost their vision, conviction and platform.”

You and me both, Jay. Dean is a carbon copy of that attack dog McCauliffe, whom I laid a great deal of the responsibility for Democratic election losses. And what does the party do, install a carbon copy. They need a head of the party who can BOTH rally the loyal AND reach out to moderates and centrists. Dean appears totally ill-equipped for anything but rallying the loyal far left fringe.

David,

I wasn’t saying there wasn’t cause for an investigation. I was saying YOU hadn’t backed up your statement that there was cause for an investigation. You made a statement that, standing on it’s own, was invalid. You have now corrected that, and for that I am grateful. I’m certainly willing to play the naive country girl (since that isn’t so far from the truth about me) if it helps people back up their statements.

Now, as per the CIA documents and memos, are they supposed to be classified? Is this yet another example of classified material being un-classified by the media?

On a personal note, I do try to keep up with current events, but get very frustrated when you can read articles that contradict each other. I don’t trust the press and I don’t have the time to sift through the various articles to discern the truth. That’s one of the reasons I am so glad I found Watchblog, which was a total accident.

Simply put, I have read one report of such documents. I am not choosing to ignore them. I just don’t trust them very much, when there are other articles that refute the claims of the documents.

Thank you for assisting me in my efforts to stay informed.