The MBA President Depletes His Capital

Bush has screwed up every area that compelled me to vote for him: national security, fiscal discipline, judicial appointments, reduced regulation, and governmental competence. His one minor achievement has been not to degrade the Oval Office by cavorting with interns. But he has done something that is more corrupting to the office and the political culture: repeatedly hiring unqualified people that any objective person can see are mere cronies. At least Clinton didn’t reward Monica Lewinsky with a high government office. Bush is disturbingly willing to reward those who suck up to him with important government jobs, and it is a small consolation that they don’t literally s**k him off.

One weird thing about Bush is that he seems to work like hell to accrue and conserve political capital, avoiding controversy, throwing only the occasional bone to the right, most often through coded rhetoric divorced from any actual policy. But he's always careful, rarely bold. No vetoes for instance. No real push on gay marriage. No push for national sacrifice after 9/11. No push for nationwide concealed carry or other expansions of the right to bear arms. No demands for fiscal discipline that involve a political cost.

Then, with all of this accrued capital, he spends it doing things that piss off his natural allies and accrues no countervailing political advantage. He husbands his popularity so he can squander it on crony nominations, supporting affirmative action, and supporting amnesty for illegal aliens. Even if he believes in these things, his only means so far of replenishing reserves has been through timid and weak-willed responses to liberal criticism or waiting for the Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot, the way Kerry repeatedly did in the latter stages of his campaign. Bush wants above all to preserve his self-image as a man above partisanship. Bush is too uncurious to know that what he calls partisanship is in fact commitment to principal, to goals beyond mere temporary popularity and power. Bush's enduring principles are his own power and accuring advantages for his family, helping out people that he likes and trusts in the business community, all coulpled with a very vague concern to create an historical legacy of independence from "extremism" or other high principle. All of the excitement about Gitmo and the war and his commtiment to executive power ignores that almost every President has been passionately attached to independence, especially on military matters. But how has he used his authority? He has given almost nothing to his conservative base, and his biggest political victory--the tax cuts--he has in effect squandered through out-of-control spending.

This isn’t courage or good tactics, it’s unimaginitive, results-oriented decisions masquerading as moral superiority. When he's criticized from right and left for his inconsistent and sometimes indefensible policies, Bush will congratulate himself that he must be an OK moderate. Bush above all imagines himself to be morally superior to all of his critics because of his superior wisdom about the big picture. But in fact his vision is very narrow, it's based on very limited life experienes, and it lacks any philosophical justification or defense. It's not conservatism. It's not free markets. It's not social welfare liberalism. It's not even an aggressive foreign policy in the end. It's just Bushism, a hodge-podge of nutty policies that accrues neither a long run advantage to the country or a short-run advantage to him politically. He's like a pragmatist, of sort, but the catch is that his policies are unpragmatic from any point of view.

Posted by at October 6, 2005 3:53 PM
Comments
Comment #84081

So you’re just snapping to this guys incompetence?

Posted by: Mental Wimp at October 6, 2005 4:46 PM
Comment #84085

His failures have beenn pretty apparent for a while, particularly in Iraq. If he were running a company, he would deserve to be fired. But there was a binary choice last election, and it’s inconceivable to me that Kerry would have done a better job, on judges or anything else.

The last straw was judges. The whole conservative mantra for 5 years has been, “He’s not perfect, but at least he’ll help out with the Supreme Court.” Now that last flicker of hope is exhausted.

Posted by: Roach at October 6, 2005 4:57 PM
Comment #84086

Well, Chris, you could have listened to us liberal pukes because we told you this is what would happen. Only you conservative types think you know better because you thump your Bible and say “God will take care of those who take care of themselves.” You seem to forget that the Bible also says “Thou shall not lie” and “Thou shall not kill” and “Thou shall not covet they neighbor’s goods.”

Bush had done all of these things in his first term and yet you bozos installed him in the big house for another four years.

Well, there’s another biblical saying; “As you sow so shall ye reap.”

Your grandchildren will pay for your vote for Bush either with their life’s savings or their life.

Posted by: Billy Bob the Dem at October 6, 2005 4:59 PM
Comment #84088
Bush is too uncurious to know that what he calls partisanship is in fact commitment to principal, to goals beyond mere temporary popularity and power. This isn’t courage or good tactics, it’s unimaginitive, results-oriented decisions masquerading as moral superiority… Bush above all imagines himself to be morally superior to all of his critics because of his superior wisdom about the big picture. But in fact his vision is very narrow, it’s based on very limited life experienes, and it lacks any philosophical justification or defense.


Now you have it.

The neo-cons and the ‘morally superior’ evangelical right wingers got the leader they deserve… A man who doesn’t worry about getting screwed because he is too busy screwing everyone else (à la neo-cons) and as shallow and hypocritical as the televangelists. Today, not just the nation, but the world can see clearly who you really are. (neo cons and fundamentalist evangelicals)

Posted by: jo at October 6, 2005 5:07 PM
Comment #84106

For all his faults, he’s still better that the neolib left wing nuts thats run against him.
This is why TRUE conservitives need to leave the Republican party and join the Constitution Party.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 6, 2005 6:20 PM
Comment #84107

Ron,

i agree it is better than having the ‘neo-libs’ in power…

but i think the constitution party would be a better home for the fundamentalist right wing televangalist followers than for TRUE republicans.

Posted by: jo at October 6, 2005 6:25 PM
Comment #84109

Roach,
Oooof. Pretty harsh. Really, though, the Miers nomination is unacceptable. It’s not even a liberal/conservative or party affilitation thing. I just find it very hard to believe that’s she’s the best person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. It looks like another reward for a crony; I’d never know or care if it were to some obscure position in the Department of Agriculture; but please, not on the Supreme Court.

Posted by: phx8 at October 6, 2005 6:36 PM
Comment #84111

Its the Democrats job as the opposition party to give us indepedent minded voters who supported Bush in 2000 a better alternative. To be honest, Bush had a terrible approval rating even at the election (so people are just catching on to his incompotence)- but the Democrats put up terrible choices like Kerry, and people feel like they have no choice.

For example, I was so frustrated by Bush that I voted libertarian for the first time in my life- but i was still HAPPY that Bush won. Not because I wanted to see him as president for another 4 years, which I didnt, but because the opposition party in America is so unappealing.

Bush’s selection of Miers is only a suprize because he made one of the best choices he could have with his first nomination in Roberts. Miers selection is back to his status quo and reminds me why I Bush is not a good president.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at October 6, 2005 6:59 PM
Comment #84112

For Billy Bob the Dem, two points in response.

First, for your criticism to ring true we must conclude Kerry and the Dems would have spent less. This is a shocking assumption. Until the 1990s, only Republicans were deficit hawks and the Democrats fought agains the Balanced Budget Amendment. Even now, Democrats prefer large scale and expensive government measures to redistribute wealth. In many ways it’s the unifying feature of the fractured Democratic party.

For those ragging on neo-cons and evangelicals, I thnk that you misunderstand the Republican party and its base. It’s true, it’s made up of many evangelicals, small business types, professionals, etc. But there is a bona fide conservative movement, with philosophical roots stretching back to the founders and Edmund Burke, and it has always been somewhat aloof from party politics and continually disappointed with most politicians, with the notable exceptions of Reagan and Goldwater. Bush was able to win their support by talking the talk, especially on judges and taxes. Now he’s failed miserably and instead got on board with a very small sub-faction of conservatives, the so-called neoconservatives combined with populist and militaristic appeals to the evangelical right. Conservatism is bigger than Bush and arguably less partisan the far left, and it has shown itself willing to criticize Bush harshly when there wasn’t a greater harm to be had by Bush’s failure, as would have been the case of a Kerry victory.

Even now, I, who do not like Bush, do not think the country would be better off with a Kerry as President. And I certainly don’t think someone like him is the auger of an era of fiscal responsibility. You want fiscal responsibility; cut 25% of government jobs, substantially reduce moneys spent on housing subsidies, food stamps, raise the retirement age, eliminate all agricultural subsidies, eliminate the departments of labor, commerce, education, NEA, NEH, Energy, and probably a few others, and require by law a balanced budget with automatic pincer-like dollar for dollar tax cuts and spending cuts anytime the budget is out of wack.

Posted by: Roach at October 6, 2005 6:59 PM
Comment #84117

Roach, what you don’t realize, is that without government managing society, society would break up into factions and civil war much as Iraq is doing. The reason our government has survived and prospered is precisely because it responds to public sentiment and needs to greater and lesser degrees, which balance out rendering a populace which on the whole, is not willing to overthrow it.

Hence, you admonition to cut the agencies from government which do respond to public sentiment and needs like the Education Dept., is foolhardy to no end. Taxpayers have children, and they expect and have a right to, that government help insure their children are at least as well prepared to function in this society than previous generations were. Screw with taxpayers kid’s educaiton at your peril.

What we need is prioritization. Government, essentially exists in response to demands of the people. When government evolves to being run by ideologues whose views depart from those of the majority of the public on enough basic issues, then the government and society are in trouble.

Cut colonies on Mars, cut promotion of marriage, cut the pork spending attached to omnibus bills, cut the star wars defense system which has had yet another two miserable failures at a cost of billions of the public just in the 2 years. It is about priorities. The Public wants Soc. Sec. saved, not replaced. It is about priorities and whether government leaders are willing to adopt the public’s priorities or not. Your party is not. Plain and simple. Democrats will to a greater degree. If they can promote a candidate strong on security and fiscal responsibility, Republicans are out. It just couldn’t be plainer on this elementary level.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 6, 2005 7:47 PM
Comment #84119

David,

You might want to throw corporate welfare in that mix as well.

Posted by: Rocky at October 6, 2005 8:05 PM
Comment #84120

Believe me, without agricultural subsidies, the dep’t of eduction and the dep’t of energy no one is going to be overthrowing anything. These are just accretions over time that serve small, connected constituencies. I’m not against education; I’m against excessive federal spending. Kids were educated before the federal involvement in education began in the 1970s. They will if it goes away too. Some bureaucrats will have to get real jobs, but so do the rest of us.

The right thing and public opinion are often at odds. Public opinion can and should be educated by statesman and opinion makers. It’s what separates a mere emissary from a leader. There is not “public opinion” on many of these subjects, incidentally, but instead a small well organized coalition who wants them. The public does want roads, national security, public schools, a safety net etc. It does not want federally funded art, nor superconducting supercolliders, nor mars missions, nor lots of other things. And even if it does, it is simply wrong and irresponsible and unconstitutional to have many of these programs and I have no trouble saying that I am working towards that day.

My major point, though, was that the democrats who criticize Bush’s spending are making a mere debater’s point. They don’t have a strong ideological aversion to spending. Indeed, the central concept of their party favors it.

Posted by: Roach at October 6, 2005 8:05 PM
Comment #84122

Roach, but Democrats demonstrated clearly in the ‘90’s their understanding and acceptance of Pay as You Go, instead of the Republican tactic of passing off beligerant debt to future generations. Democrats were more fiscally responsibible in that regard. And while I won’t support Democrats, that regard is a huge and significantly more positive difference than the record Republicans have established.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 6, 2005 8:18 PM
Comment #84124

Roach…

I find it shocking that you think Kerry would have spent more money? How? Bush has approved everything put in front of him. Would Kerry have approved some spending bills twice? He would’ve only been able to spend what the congress had sent to him, and I bet there are at least a few bills he would have vetoed.

The real spending problem comes from having one party control both congress and the presidency. For 40 years, Democratics controlled congress, and therefore were susceptible to being big spenders when their guy was in the white house to approve all of the bills. Now the roles are reversed and the problem is just as bad as before, if not worse. There is no party of conservative government and apparently there never was, the Republicans just never had the chance to be big spenders.

Posted by: Benjamin J Childs at October 6, 2005 8:23 PM
Comment #84125

Chris, I guess I should thank you for throwing some light on the Bush failures from the Red column. But frankly, I’m just plain tired of hearing people talk about how much worse Gore or Kerry would have been. That’s just plain crap, IMO. We’re dealing with the worst President of the last 100 years here.

Bush didn’t win the election because Kerry was so horrible. More people voted for Kerry than any candidate ever other than Bush. If you had been paying attention, you would have realized much earlier what another 4 years of this guy would have meant. If true conservatives had stayed home on election day or voted 3rd party, we wouldn’t be in this mess. But instead, the sheep came out in force and not only gave us another 4 years, but ratified and gave an endorsement to the first 4 years - all to the shock and dismay of the entire planet.

So maybe I’m just bitter, but I say “Choke on it.” Choke on the arrogance. Choke on the debt. Choke on the failures. Choke on the lies. Choke on the multiple indictments and investigations. Choke on the dumbing down of the Republican Party. And most of all, choke on the backlash in ‘06 and ‘08.

Posted by: Burt at October 6, 2005 8:23 PM
Comment #84126

David,

” Republicans are out. It just couldn’t be plainer on this elementary level. “

As yet another independant voter, i disagree. Bush represents the GOP’s allowing themselves to be corrupted by large corporate interests and radical evangelicals.

The DNC is likewise infected with PAC and corporate corruption and gay radicals… with absolutely no history other than Clinton of any fiscal responsibility. And Clinton was never promoted as the ‘average’ Democrat.

The nation is looking for a return to stability and the protection of christian AND homosexual civil liberties. The Dems total surrender to the gay radical fringe is more widespread and complete than the republicans ever were to the radical evangelicals. This continues to make the democratic party as repugnant to moderates as the republicans are.

Both parties need to clean their houses of corruption and demand their fringe groups modify their demands or even a medicore third party candidate has an increasingly good chance of tossing all y’all out on your collective ears.

Posted by: jo at October 6, 2005 8:24 PM
Comment #84129

Roach, while I agree the majority of the public hasn’t a clue on many spending issues and projects, the majority of the voters do on some of them. And polls demonstrate that clearly enough, as in the approaching quarter trillion dollars spent on Iraq, and for what? Even if we kick every terrorist out of Iraq, and prevent everyone from entering through Syria, what have we accomplished? The terrorists will still exist, and be growing in numbers elsewhere, and in all liklihood, the Middle East will be thrown into instability by the coming Iraqi civil war between its own factions. Staying and spending dollars and American lives is something the majority of the public have spoken on in polls. They now see it as a wasted and futile effort, and want the government to devise a short term plan to exit. But, this government under Republicans know how to spend their dollars and their children’s blood better than the people do, or so Bush keeps trying to tell them.

The Republican Party is losing and they don’t even realize it yet. They will after 2006, though. The Republican Party platform of 2000 was full of many great plans and ideals. But, your parties leadership has been utterly unwilling to act to bring a great many of them into being in ways the public will accept.

Replacing Soc Sec. with another program which adds an additional 2 trillion to the national debt, is an example of Republican fiscal discipline. The voters have said in polls, they will have none of that. That is why it is off the Congressional Table. Yet, you party believes it is just the wrong time, instead of listening to the people and accepting that it is just the wrong plan.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 6, 2005 8:28 PM
Comment #84131

Jo, I pretty much agree. Democrats did cater to fringe groups, and it cost them dearly in terms of power to make decisions. Fringe issues can be sustained by a ruling political party ONLY if there is a clear Constitutional mandate for it, and the voters are aware of that fact. Civil Rights legislation or women’s suffrage for example. Otherwise, fringe issues and groups become an Achille’s heel for the party, much as partial birth abortion had for Democrats, or Intelligent Design in public schools for Republicans.

When the Republican Party backed Intelligent Design as science in schools, they committed the cardinal sin of any political party. They insulted the intelligence of the voters with their insistence that they know better how to raise their kids.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 6, 2005 8:37 PM
Comment #84132

Benjamin, your logic is flawless. For Republicans to speculate the Kerry would never have brought out his veto pen, like Bush, is preposterous on its face. That’s not to say Kerry would not have spent as much, perhaps, but, his priorities would have been different and he did back Pay as you Go spending as opposed to hideous deficits and national debt threatening voter’s children’s paychecks for decades to come.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 6, 2005 8:41 PM
Comment #84133

David,

I do not think that Intelligent Design will even be a blip on most voters radar. When it comes time to vote people will be more concerned about the plans for Iraq, the economy nad national debt. Be curious to see what effect all of that has on the 2006 elections.

Posted by: Mike P at October 6, 2005 8:43 PM
Comment #84134

Jo,

Just as a wake up call for you, it is homosexuals (Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman) in the Republican party who are shaping public policy.

Posted by: Burt at October 6, 2005 8:44 PM
Comment #84135

Burt,

i do not judge all gays by the actions of a few anymore than i judge all christians in that manner.

Posted by: jo at October 6, 2005 8:49 PM
Comment #84137

Jo,

Great. Please don’t judge all gays based on the actions of a few radicals like Rove and Mehlman.

Posted by: Burt at October 6, 2005 8:54 PM
Comment #84138

Roach,

Kerry and Bush on spending:

SCHIEFFER: All right.

Senator Kerry, a new question. Let’s talk about economic security. You pledged during the last debate that you would not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 a year. But the price of everything is going up, and we all know it. Health-care costs, as you are talking about, is skyrocketing, the cost of the war.

My question is, how can you or any president, whoever is elected next time, keep that pledge without running this country deeper into debt and passing on more of the bills that we’re running up to our children?

KERRY: I’ll tell you exactly how I can do it: by reinstating what President Bush took away, which is called pay as you go.

During the 1990s, we had pay-as-you-go rules. If you were going to pass something in the Congress, you had to show where you are going to pay for it and how.

President Bush has taken — he’s the only president in history to do this. He’s also the only president in 72 years to lose jobs — 1. 6 million jobs lost. He’s the only president to have incomes of families go down for the last three years; the only president to see exports go down; the only president to see the lowest level of business investment in our country as it is today.

Now, I’m going to reverse that. I’m going to change that. We’re going to restore the fiscal discipline we had in the 1990s.

Every plan that I have laid out — my health-care plan, my plan for education, my plan for kids to be able to get better college loans — I’ve shown exactly how I’m going to pay for those.

And we start — we don’t do it exclusively — but we start by rolling back George Bush’s unaffordable tax cut for the wealthiest people, people earning more than $200,000 a year, and we pass, hopefully, the McCain-Kerry Commission which identified some $60 billion that we can get.

We shut the loophole which has American workers actually subsidizing the loss of their own job. They just passed an expansion of that loophole in the last few days: $43 billion of giveaways, including favors to the oil and gas industry and the people importing ceiling fans from China.

I’m going to stand up and fight for the American worker. And I am going to do it in a way that’s fiscally sound. I show how I pay for the health care, how we pay for the education.

I have a manufacturing jobs credit. We pay for it by shutting that loophole overseas. We raise the student loans. I pay for it by changing the relationship with the banks.

This president has never once vetoed one bill; the first president in a hundred years not to do that.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?

BUSH: Well, his rhetoric doesn’t match his record.

He been a senator for 20 years. He voted to increase taxes 98 times. When they tried to reduce taxes, he voted against that 127 times. He talks about being a fiscal conservative, or fiscally sound, but he voted over — he voted 277 times to waive the budget caps, which would have cost the taxpayers $4. 2 trillion.

He talks about PAYGO. I’ll tell you what PAYGO means, when you’re a senator from Massachusetts, when you’re a colleague of Ted Kennedy, pay go means: You pay, and he goes ahead and spends.

Cute, George. Real cute.

Roach, do you still think it is “inconceivable” that Kerry would have done a better job with the budget keeping in mind a Republican controlled congress?

Posted by: Burt at October 6, 2005 8:58 PM
Comment #84143

With that little imcumbent chimp being such a smartass right there, I can’t believe anybody voted for him, much less a majority of people. I don’t even know why we have debates.

Posted by: ray at October 6, 2005 9:42 PM
Comment #84157

I find it endlessly amusing Republicans like Roach are whining about Bush now of all times. As has been said, you get what you deserve. At least you Conservatives can be assured that GOD is telling Bush what to do. Maybe GOD wants Meis to be in the Supreme Court? Have the Holy WingNuts ever thought of that?

Posted by: Aldous at October 6, 2005 11:44 PM
Comment #84164

Burt,
“So maybe I’m just bitter, but I say “Choke on it.” Choke on the arrogance. Choke on the debt. Choke on the failures. Choke on the lies. Choke on the multiple indictments and investigations. Choke on the dumbing down of the Republican Party. And most of all, choke on the backlash in ‘06 and ‘08.”

Damn right, Burt!
To say that the Bush administration is bad but what the Democrat’s would have given the country would have been worse is utter and complete horsesh*t.

Would the Kerry administration have stayed the losing course fighting on the side of the fundamentalist Islamic faction in Iraq, completely without a plan, or a clue as to how to withdraw our troops? Would nine billion dollars have gone missing there if Kerry had been president? Would he have allowed such a lack of oversight that the Iraqi Defense Minister could steal one billion dollars from the post-Saddam Iraqi defense fund, thereby prolonging the war for our soldiers because the Iraqi’s have no weaponry to defend their country with? Would he have continued to spend the nation broke? Or allowed our diplomatic relations with our allies and other countries to slide into the toilet? Or pick a psychopath like Bolton for the UN. Or a lawyer who finds legal loopholes for torture to be Attorney General like Gonzales. Would his choice for the head of FEMA been a horse judge that would preside over the worst natural disaster in American history with such confusion and incompetence that additional lives were lost after the disaster? And then pick someone who knows nothing, like the traitorous Rove, to head up the largest reconstruction effort the country has ever undertaken due to the fact that a large American city has been totally destroyed?
Personally, I don’t think so — because Kerry actually has a brain.

Would his Vice President have claimed the “insurgency was in it’s last throes” when it was only growing stronger, then turn around and say that we’ll be fighting in Iraq for decades as Cheney just did? Would his Vice President have arranged it so Halliburton and Bechtel could rip off American taxpayer dollars in Iraq?
I strongly doubt it.

Would the presidents Senior Strategist/Advisor/Deputy Chief of Staff (Rove), and the Vice Presidents Chief of Staff (Libby) have outted a CIA opperative?
I just can’t see how that would have happened — not when the threat of terrorism means we need every intelligence operative we’ve got.

Would the Kerry administration’s top federal procurement official (David Safavian) be arrested and accused of lying and obstructing a criminal investigation of a crooked party lobbyist (Abramoff) whose rings of corruption reach to the equally crooked House Leader (Delay) who is also under indictments, along with The House Administration Committee Chairman (Robert Ney)?
Oh, and let’s not forget Frist’s curious little insider trading problem.

The Bush Administration better for America than Kerry’s would have been?
No, I really don’t think so.
You guys need to work on a better line than this, because currently your party is simply oozing slime from every political orifice.

jo:
“The Dems total surrender to the gay radical fringe is more widespread and complete than the republicans ever were to the radical evangelicals.”

This is bunk. I don’t see legions of “gay radicals” hob nobbing at political events. Or having a direct line to the oval office in the Whitehouse. Or bank-rolling enormously influential political action committees. Or owning their own Cable TV Stations where they can preach of the sacredness of the Democratic Party. Nor do I see them trying to do away with the Constitutional rights and freedoms of any citizens who don’t think exactly the same way they do.

David:
“Fringe issues can be sustained by a ruling political party ONLY if there is a clear Constitutional mandate for it,”

You don’t actually think that such a large number of American’s fighting for fair and equal legal rights, as well their civil liberties to be nothing more than a “fringe” issue, do you?
The Black Civil Rights Movement might have been labled the same way back in the 60’s, but that didn’t mean it wasn’t an important issue.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 7, 2005 12:11 AM
Comment #84167

Well said, Adrienne.

Posted by: Rocky at October 7, 2005 12:16 AM
Comment #84168

The problem wasn’t that the Republicans gained power, but that they were willing to do anything and allow anything to get it. When power is the focus of one’s efforts, other masters are not so well served. Power is only a means to an end, and what we do with it is important. It cannot be emphasized enough that government doesn’t exist for its own sake, but for the good of the people. Republicans are waking up to the nature of the government they’ve elected. Hopefully the lesson they’ll take from this won’t be “don’t get caught”, but instead people with power must be watched, and held to standards, even if it sometimes means losing an election. Let the other side be represented by those whose behavior will become a scandal. Our parties should do their best to put the best people in office instead.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 7, 2005 12:17 AM
Comment #84169

Stephen,

“The problem wasn’t that the Republicans gained power, but that they were willing to do anything and allow anything to get it.”

Not only that but they were willing to do anything to keep it as well.

Had the war in Iraq gone stale at the same time as the huricane season, they well may have gotten away with it.

Posted by: Rocky at October 7, 2005 12:23 AM
Comment #84173

Thanks Rocky, it was a bit of a rant, but it is sincere.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 7, 2005 1:05 AM
Comment #84177

You’re welcome.

Posted by: Rocky at October 7, 2005 1:22 AM
Comment #84183

Adrienne,

This is bunk. I don’t see legions of “gay radicals” hob nobbing at political events. Or having a direct line to the oval office in the Whitehouse. Or bank-rolling enormously influential political action committees. Or owning their own Cable TV Stations where they can preach of the sacredness of the Democratic Party. Nor do I see them trying to do away with the Constitutional rights and freedoms of any citizens who don’t think exactly the same way they do.

The radical right has similar myopic symptoms, they seem to be recovering somewhat. Sad that the left is not making similar progress.

Posted by: jo at October 7, 2005 2:38 AM
Comment #84192
To be honest, Bush had a terrible approval rating even at the election (so people are just catching on to his incompotence)- but the Democrats put up terrible choices like Kerry, and people feel like they have no choice.

Misha,

Bush didn’t have a “terrible approval rating”, just a mediocre one. The economic models (based on employment, growth, etc) showed he would win in a landslide.

As for Kerry, you are entitled to think he is terrible if you want, but what terrible (frm your point of view) things could he possibly have done? Did you really buy that claptrap about him surrendering to the terrorists? Was he going to ram universal healthcare through a GOP Congress when no one was looking?

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 7, 2005 7:15 AM
Comment #84193

Misha,

By the way, if you didn’t vote for Kerry then quit whining about Bush. You had your chance…

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 7, 2005 7:16 AM
Comment #84196

Ron, as admirable as the Constitution Party’s goals are, my days of supporting 3rd parties are over. Not only can they not win national elections under any circumstances, 3rd party wins at local levels have not been the utopian answer conservatives have hoped for. We all jumped on the bandwagon and voted for Jesse Ventura a few years ago because he was spouting the conservative agenda on every campaign stop and tv commercial. Norm Coleman, a former democrat, was his Republican opponent and sounded like a Democrat in the debates, even by People’s Republic of Minnesota standards. The only conservative issue that Coleman publicly embraced at the time was pro-life. He was actually hiding a huge conservative front because he thought it made him unelectable in Minnesota. Only when he made it to the U.S. Senate did everyone realize what he’d been hiding for so long. Now he’s in my short list for favorite Republican Presidential nominees.

Ventura won the conservative vote here because most conservatives fell for his political tactics and we believed he was a conservative. And then just as soon as he got into the Governor’s mansion, his flip-flop on almost every major issue would have made even John Kerry blush.

And actually in the nearly 200-year history of the 2-party dominance in this country, it is a fact that no 3rd party has ever emerged over one of the two majors. Only by an internal collapse, consolidation, or dissolution has a 3rd party name come to replace that of a 2nd party. Unless something historic happens to the outlook of this country’s future, none of the ingredients for a 3rd party’s rise will manifest.

Posted by: Bryan Williams at October 7, 2005 7:48 AM
Comment #84197
As for Kerry, you are entitled to think he is terrible if you want, but what terrible (frm your point of view) things could he possibly have done?

Maybe you think that TWO Supreme Court nominees aren’t that important? From a conservative standpoint, this is the most significant event during the current Presidency. The selection of these two will have a bigger impact on this country’s future than all those terrorist attacks and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

Posted by: Bryan Williams at October 7, 2005 7:53 AM
Comment #84201

All
After reading and re-reading this post,I have concluded that this piece wins the award for the biggest piece of garbage ever posted on this site.
Alledgedly,this side is supposed to represent the view of the right.
Well,it doesn’t respresent my view,and I represent the right.
This piece belongs on the left…actualy it belongs on a fourth column…to the left of the left…total rubbish.
You represent the conservative viewpoint as much as Ted Kennedy resembles an honest politician….completely unrecognizible.

1.The new CIA director has completely douched out the agency and as a result much intelligence is now flowing…and being turned into results….look at the latest letter from Bin Laden’s lieutenant released yesterday as merely the tip of the iceburg
2.Roberts will prove a terrific CJ.Despite the frothing of the mouth done at the confirmation hearings,the man far and away proved he was capable and has an undenieable grasp of constitutionial issues.Any who disagree,well your are just plain wrong.
3.The economy has sustained two wars,a depleted dollar,three major disasters…and yet it is in better shape that before he took office.Please….Clinton was,is and always will be a corrupt politician..joing Kennedy,Kerry and practicially the entire Democratic leadership.Here the latest one about him asking for a donation to his library from the Saudi leadership after a US mission got bombed?Bet there was a million of those stories.
4.The newest nomination isn’t the best qualified.So what.The best qualified get crucified at the hearings by the hyneas.Think David Souter was the best qualified?Or even Clarence Thomas?Using your theory,maybe all applicants should take a test…and submit a writing sample.Bush is trying to assure that a person will keep a conservative view on the bench long after his presidency expires.This nomination assures that.It is his perogative.Plus the hynea-right will fall in line with the hynea-left very soon.
4.Every presidency is packed with croonies.Think Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General.Think Whitewater.That is why this profession is called “politics”…not”Competence”.If it were called “competence”,not a single senator,member of the House,Cabinet Secretary,or evn president would be where they are.The principle is thousands of years old.

Last comment:Calling Rove homosexual proves what?Calling Melman homosexual proves what?Who gives a flying f*****?

Posted by: Sicilianeagle at October 7, 2005 8:10 AM
Comment #84202

Chris,

How could you write these kind of rubbish while you qualify yourself as ‘Republicans & Conservatives’? The whole nation is facing a lot of challenges, and our President has done his best to pick the right persons for the jobs amidst his many other important tasks! Democrate as usual will make the confirmation so difficult, no matter how good the candidates are, in order to find a chance to discredit our President. You are so easily fooled by the Democrates and their propaganda that I do not think you are intelligent enough to be a either republican or a conservatives

Posted by: Kathy at October 7, 2005 8:12 AM
Comment #84206

Sicilian Eagle,

It looks to me like you are “attacking the messenger”. And I don’t see anything even vaguely left-wing about what Chris wrote.

Whitewater played out before Clinton was president. That the best you got?

Misha,

I was probably a little harsh there. At least you didn’t vote for Bush…

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 7, 2005 9:10 AM
Comment #84207

Kathy,

Ditto on attacking the messenger.

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 7, 2005 9:12 AM
Comment #84215

Well I, for one, applaud Chris for stating his complaints and dissappointment about his own party. If anything America needs more people like him questioning his party’s policies (not BOTH sides) rather than the blind adherence to party talking points.

Seriously it seems as if critical thought on any side of the aisel illicits a “Oh, so are you a bleeding-heart democrat now?” or “ACK! Are you a heartless neo-con now?”

I wonder, since when did belonging to a party mean blind acceptance of policy? Comments like SicilianEagle’s (by the way Eagle when I read the vitrolic first paragraph I knew it was you before even reading your sig) and Kathy’s and many on the dem column remind me why I have no party. Good job Chris!

Posted by: chantico at October 7, 2005 10:14 AM
Comment #84216

The contempt for religious people on the left is rather remarkable, and it’s demonstrated by a number of comments above. I’m not a fundamentalist, but even if I were, what standard of “extremism” labels 25% or more of the country as extreme? It’s like saying everyone who opposed the Iraq war is extreme.

Kathy, as for my conservative bona fides, you say, “How could you write these kind of rubbish while you qualify yourself as ‘Republicans & Conservatives’? The whole nation is facing a lot of challenges, and our President has done his best to pick the right persons for the jobs amidst his many other important tasks!” Guess what, conservatives have been around before Bush, Bush was never a real movement conservative and ousted most of them in the post-Clayton Williams shake up of the Republicans in Texas, and three since when did conservatism have anything to do with this cult of personality of Bush. Ann Coulter, Rich Lowry, David Frum, Pat Buchanan, and lots of other conservatives have been highly critical of Bush and in particular for this nomination. I do not buy “they’d crucify any nominee with a paper trail” either. So what, they’ll crucify Miers. I thought the point was to pick fights with the Dems to make the case for our position. Since when has Bush clearly said he wants Roe overturned; never as best I can tell, and this is your standard-bearer.

The right wing is becoming degraded in this country into a populist cult of personality focused on Bush. It’s a movement bigger than him and I’m happy to call him out when he betrays the movement. This is the last straw. Name me one advance of the conservative agenda under Bush. On foreign policy he talks like Woodraw Wilson, the architect of “idealist” liberal Democratic foreign policy utopianism. Domestically all he wants to do is expand government. Reagan tried to shut down the Department of Education, Bush gave us the government expanding no child left behind. So spare me the histrionics or the suggestions about my intelligence. I’ve been involved in conservative activism of one kind or another for almost 15 years, and I know the difference of Bush and his predecessors.

Posted by: Roach at October 7, 2005 10:17 AM
Comment #84218

So lets see, what does MBA stand for when it comes to President Bush?

How about Master of Bungling All??

How did we not collectively and individually know all this was not only possible, but inevitable. Every enterprise Bush has been in charge of, he failed as a leader.

It is past time to think only party, and start thinking about what America needs.

That his approval rating has not fallen more than it has (40%) indicates that people are not looking at this in the open and honest way that is needed as citizens.

There is still hope left, but Bush is not the answer.

Posted by: BunkMan at October 7, 2005 10:38 AM
Comment #84222

Just want to create a little image for everyone:

It’s 1978, inflation is in double digits, the economy is stagnant, the Japanese are buying America, we have hostages in Iran and a president whose effectiveness and credibility are poor and getting worse. He’s a good man, but not a good manager.

Defending Carter at that time made you a loyal Democrat and also showed you were completely out of touch with everyday reality.

The refusal of the DNC to see this directly led to Reagan and also caused them to put up Mondale and Dukakis as opponents, proving to everyone that they were out of touch with reality in America.

Well, GOP, this is your 1978. You think standing for your party means standing for Bush - I disagree. If you continue to make that mistake, then someone else will prune your Bush.

Posted by: CPAdams at October 7, 2005 11:16 AM
Comment #84225

Roach
I’m not against education; I’m against excessive federal spending.

Farm subsidies are excessive federal spending.


Kids were educated before the federal involvement in education began in the 1970s. They will if it goes away too.

And they were and most likely will be better educated with out the federal government.


Some bureaucrats will have to get real jobs, but so do the rest of us.

WHAT? And make the poor babies work for their pay for a change?


David R. Remer
Roach, but Democrats demonstrated clearly in the ‘90’s their understanding and acceptance of Pay as You Go,

Aren’t you forgetting that the Republicans controlled Congress during the 90s? Of coares we had a Democrat president. This is why we need to have a differant party in the White House than the one in Crongress.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 7, 2005 11:52 AM
Comment #84226

To Chris
“Critique the message,not the messenger”?

Gladly.

Just put your writing where it belongs…it doesn’t belong on the right column,that’s all.

If you think for one minute that You reflect My thinking as a conservative,you are mistaken.

Unless,of course you are so right wing that you belong on the fourth column on the right,not the left as previously posted by me.

Where are you,Chris?

Coulter,Robinson,Buchannan et al. are caracitures that play to a sub set of people for money…as do the Micheal Moore’s of the left.

There are morons on both sides that rush to bookstores to buy they crap…and the radicial right and left know that for every off the wall book/comment/quote they make,there is someone waiting to pay for it/lap it up/quote it.

Last I looked that was called supply side ecomomics…give the masses what they want.

Chantico
Glad you recognized my writing.

I intend to be steadfast in my support for the president and willing to fight it out here with any slander the guy.

Since 9/11,no terrorist attack has occurred on US soil.Think that is a coincidence?

As we speak,whack jobs all over the world are being killed ….whack jobs whose philosophy was created long before the Bush administration…whack jobs who want to kill us because we are the infidel…whack jobs who,the more you placate,the bolder you become.

We need a son of a bitch leader now.Someone who will spit in their eye and kick them in the testicles.Someone who doesn’t give a rat’s ass what liberals think,as he has a set of convictions and they don’t.

When the next terrorist attack happens,God forbid,maybe you and the bleeding heart “let’s placate them/cut and run/it’s our fault/Bush is a scum bag/Bush lied/haven’t a clue crowd will wake up.

But I seriuosly doubt it.

Get used to it.Bush will be president until 2008.Then either McCain or Guilliani will be president.
Despite what all the liberal thinkers/hyneas/naysayers think and feel,until the year 2016,Republicans will hold the White House.

Sorry to bear bad news,but tough luck.

Posted by: sicila eagle at October 7, 2005 11:54 AM
Comment #84232

Well SE at least we agree on the SOB president bit.

But tough on Terrorism? This about the president that holds hands with the Saudi King? That’s rich! Tell me another!

Winston Churchill was a tough leader, FDR was tough on his enemies. I would be more supportive of his efforts if I felt that he was really being tough. Like it was said in another column most americans would be fine by engaging more troops if there were better results (IE: More troops in Tora Bora=Bin Laden capture=OK). However, instead we have this nebulous war that we have to “stick to”.

Further still, you think you can easy bat you hand say “oh you’re a liberal! hahahaha!!” I’d let you know as an independent I’d gladly vote for McCain or Guiliani anyday. Someday you’ll find you can’t shoo everyone away calling then “liberals”

Also don’t mistake the war in Iraq for the war on terrorism. Most if not all of those “liberals” (AKA: Americans) that you abhor so much fully supported the efforts in Afghanistan.

You sound almost looking forward to another terror attack so those bleeding heart liberals (again AKA: Americans) can get their come-uppance. I’ll tell you what, should, heaven forbid, another terror attack hit the nation under Bush’s watch the people will indeed wake up. But not the way you think.

In the end blind faith only makes you blind.

Posted by: chantico at October 7, 2005 12:33 PM
Comment #84233

When even Ann Coulter is questioning the president’s decision-making… something is terribly, terribly wrong. Is the apocolypse nigh?

In all seriousness though I find Roach’s argument that Kerry would have been a bigger spender than Bush a little hard to swallow. Yes all candidates (Bush and Kerry included) come out for the debates claiming they will increase spending in all categories and yet somehow magically reduce the defecit by a full half. Uhh.. sorry Kerry/Bush/Everyone it doesn’t work like that.

Bush hasn’t been averse to any spending bill put in front of him, according to an economist at Yale University Bush is the only leader in the history of mankind to have simultaneously waged war while having a tax cut (and an immoral cut in my opinion at that), and he belongs to the Grover Norquestian ideology that smaller government begins with getting rid of all the money - thus shrinking government to the point where it can be drowned in the bath tub.

Just because the stereotype is that candidates with D in front of their name are big spenders and those with Rs in front of their names are “fiscal conservatives” doesn’t mean its true. If I had a nickel for every false political stereotype I heard bandied about in my lifetime… well, i’d have a whole lot of nickels.

Look at Clinton then take a long hard look at George W.
Or hell, go back before the 90s when things allegedly “changed”. Reaganomics anybody?

Posted by: Paul D at October 7, 2005 12:45 PM
Comment #84236

Bryan Williams you assert that in our nation’s 200+ year history we have never had a third party presidential candidate win over the 2 majors. That is actually incorrect.

There was this one fellow by the name of Abraham Lincoln. You know, back when the Republican ticket was the 3rd party ticket? After his presidency it emerged as a mainstream party.

Posted by: Paul D at October 7, 2005 1:06 PM
Comment #84242

“The radical right has similar myopic symptoms, they seem to be recovering somewhat. Sad that the left is not making similar progress.”

You know what is really myopic and sad? Calling oneself a Christian but somehow finding a way to completely ignore the edit: “judge not lest ye be judged.” And not thinking “that all men are created equal”, or thinking that certain people aren’t “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” if those people happen to be gay — that’s sad and myopic, too.
Because “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Not allowing every single American to share equal rights and civil liberties is certainly destructive of those ends, and it’s foundation is fear whose principles and organizing powers promote bigotry and hatred, rather than safety and happiness for all American’s.

As for progress, well, thats what liberals have always been about — even though too often we have been forced to drag our conservative friends kicking and screaming through the process of fullfilling the true meaning of the words that were written in our Declaration so long ago.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 7, 2005 1:43 PM
Comment #84243

Abraham Lincoln was NOT a third party candidate. No matter how often you say it; it’s not true. The Republican party, and Lincoln, were a transition from the Whigs.

Posted by: KC at October 7, 2005 1:57 PM
Comment #84244

KC here is a quote from PBS’s website regarding the topic of third parties:
“When the Republican Party’s candidate, Abe Lincoln, won the presidency in 1860, his was a minor party.
Now, of course, it’s one of our two main parties. But there are and have been many “third parties”. Anti-Masons, Free-Soilers, Know-Nothings, Prohibitionists, Populists, Socialists, Communists, States’ Righters and Libertarians— they’ve all nominated candidates for president in the past.”

I dont claim to be an expert on the subject but I am fairly confident that he is regarded by many historians as a third party man. Also a question, if Buchanan’s reform party were to win a presidential bid would it be considered a transition from today’s Republican party?

Granted, it was a lot easier before televised campaign coverage for a third party candidate to win. Now its virtually impossible.

Posted by: Paul D at October 7, 2005 2:05 PM
Comment #84246

Sicilian Eagle squawked:

“Last I looked that was called supply side ecomomics…give the masses what they want.”

Clearly, you have no idea what is meant by supply-side economics.

Posted by: Arr-squared at October 7, 2005 2:16 PM
Comment #84256

Arr-squared
Play on words…give me a break..cute swipe on “squaking” though…..You get 1 point.

Chantico
Bush has busted the gonads of Al Queda…please.The Tabiban are rotting in graves…happened on Bush’s watch,no?

The vast majority of returning serviceman also paint a vastly different picture of what is really happening there….re-enlistments are way up…and in two weeks a constitution will be adopted….happened on Bush’s watch,no?

One Iraqi battalion is ready per US level I standards and 26 are at a level II standard…and half of that amount will be operationial at level 1 standard within 6 months….happened on Bush’d watch,no?

One year ago there were zero security forces.Today,123.000.

Please.

Saudis?

They are dirty rotten two faced bastards.

Bush knows that.

Trouble is,Mecca and Medina are located there and a US move pisses off one quarter of the world’s population,so what would you do?

Believe me,the next step is to drill the Wabbabi sect there and bomb those tribes back into the stone age.

Sooner or later ,that will happen,but it would be far better for others,say…Shia..to do that,no?

Hoping for another terror attack?

Bullshit.

I grieve every US death.

Take your hands out of your pocket and wake up..the Third World War has started.

What’s it gonna take for you to see that?

Posted by: sicilian Eagle at October 7, 2005 2:47 PM
Comment #84258

Woody- my point is that Bush was there to be beaten, and you guys screwed up by nominating Kerry. Kerry was wrong on almost every issue- from his radical pro-abortion stance (he even opposed the partial birth abortion ban which most Democrats voted for) to his plan to partially socialize medicine to his record of increasing taxes to his protectionist rhetoric to his non-approach to foreign policy of being unable to decide where he stood on the Iraq War. I could just go on and on. Now I am not a Democrat and never will be, but i KNOW you guys can do better than Kerry- far better. If you had, Bush wouldnt be president right now.

Let me give you hypothetical that could make the point clear. Lets say there was a terrible Democrat president (take Carter- or if you like him, we can just imagine the liberal equal of George W.). And the Republicans in the mid-term selected Santorum as their nominee- most Democrats would just suck it up and vote for the bad Dem. president, and so would many/most independants. You guys, amazingly, actually chose the liberal equivalent of Santorum. And you wonder why Bush is still president.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at October 7, 2005 2:56 PM
Comment #84260

And, to round out the example, lets say that there was a Democrat Congress. If I told you “why didnt you just support Santorum, he wouldnt have gotten anything done with the Democratic Congress” you would laugh at me. Thats exactly how I feel when you ask me why I didnt support Kerry.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at October 7, 2005 2:58 PM
Comment #84263

If you don’t think I’m a conservative, check out my blog and get back to me. Lots of conservatives are very disappointed in Bush and very angry with the Miers nomination.

Someone wrote, “Just put your writing where it belongs…it doesn’t belong on the right column,that’s all.If you think for one minute that You reflect My thinking as a conservative,you are mistaken.Unless,of course you are so right wing that you belong on the fourth column on the right,not the left as previously posted by me.”

I try to speak the truth as I see it. It shouldn’t matter what column it’s in and worrying about nomenclature is a way to short-circuit your own critical thinking. The whole point of this website project, as I understand it, is to represent a range of opinion within and across party and ideological lines. Also, I don’t mean to speak for you. I speak for me. I call them the way I see them, and Bush has been a disaster for the conservative movement.

Russell Kirk—if you don’t know him you shouldn’t really be talking about who is and isn’t conservative—used to say that conservatism was not an ideology, but a temperment, that it did not yield fixed stands on policy but was fundamentally pragamatic and aimed at conserving important traditions and raising a skeptical voice in the face of so-called “progress.” So if I don’t always follow the Republican Party talking points, then sue me. The party has moved further and further to the left. Reagan on the 10 year anniversary of Roe v. Wade published a small monograph critical of the decision and in favor of the pro-life position. Bush doesn’t even have the courage to say he wants the decision overturned, yet wer’e all supposed to accept this as the price of politics. I’m sorry, my support doesn’t come free and it’s not unconditional.

Bush talks like a liberal. Conservatives have long been skeptical of democracy, yet Bush talks about liberal democracy like it can be imposd everywhere and that it does not have its own failings and challenges.

Bush has done little to control spending, not least by NEVER VETOING A SINGLE SPENDING BILL.

Bush has done nothing to control our borders, wants amnesty for illegals, and has done a lot to degrade national unity by encouraging Hispanic separatism, including tacit support for an emerging bilingual region in the Southwest.

Bush has repeatedly disrespected free market principles to help corporate interests, including the steel tariff, the prescription drug benefit, failing to veto the resotred farm subsidy bill, and lots of other nonsense.

Bush signed and supported McCain Feingold after acknowleding it was unconstitutional.

These are not conservative policies and this is not a conservative president. I don’t owe him loyalty. He owes loyalty to the Constitution and the People and to the principles he claimed he’d uphold. He basically sucks.

Posted by: Roach at October 7, 2005 3:18 PM
Comment #84267

Well, Republican/Conservatives,

Welcome to the real world of meaningful dialogue and debate on ISSUES. The Republicans have had great success largely due to their walking lock-step in league with the Republican leadership. Not every Republican - but the power players and spokesmen rarely critize their own. When you are in the minority as they were for so many years, it is a strategy that works pretty well.

The ‘talking points’ and ‘who-wrote-the-memo’ type strategies worked to create a movement. Now the policy of the leadership to operate on idealogically based decisions instead of practical ones have exposed the realities of what is needed to have a workable government.

So, let’s get some practical leadership - from either side.

I for one thought Clinton did a pretty decent job of running the day to day operations of the government. He was hamstrung by those who wanted this power which you now have.

Make something WORK for a change. Come on. I’m tired of ideology. I want practicality.

Guess what? It may be necessary for the two crappy parties we have to engage in civil debate over ISSUES.

Posted by: Rick at October 7, 2005 3:31 PM
Comment #84269

Chris,

I must say, it’s refreshing to find someone in the red column responding with wisdom rather than blind loyalty to Bush’s many failures. Good post. Not because I’m from the blue/green column, but because you have spoken with honesty and integrity…two qualities too many on the red side lack these days. Well done.

The only part where I disagree with you is when you state: “Bush above all imagines himself to be morally superior to all of his critics because of his superior wisdom about the big picture.” In reality, Bush imagines himself to be morally superior because he has personal conversations with God.

BillyBob, let’s not forget about “Thou shall not bear false witness.” Bush abuses this commandment on a regular basis.

Eagle: When you say things like “Get over it. Bush will be president until 2008,” you show an obvious lack of objectivism which Roach has given us in spades.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at October 7, 2005 3:36 PM
Comment #84289

Actually Clinton was an idiot for not appointing Monica to a post requiring his ongoing attention.

And the Democrats are supposed to be smart - HA

Posted by: steve smith at October 7, 2005 4:30 PM
Comment #84357

Way to go Roach! I have an untold amount of admiration for you standing up to write this.

A friend of mine was trying to convince me that not every conservative in the country was a penis wrinkle, and until this morning when I read your article, I couldn’t believe him. It’s about time some folks on the right open their eyes to the horror and incompetence that is GW Bush.

it’s inconceivable to me that Kerry would have done a better job, on judges or anything else.

Granted, the binary choice is and has been a giant crock for some time in american politics, however, Kerry was undoubtedly the better choice in 2004. I think you fail to see this because you bought the spin. Kerry would have made a better leader and the biggest reason why is the repug dominated house and senate. Checks and balances, reaching compromises…. these are the attributes that make American government strong.

Posted by: Taylor at October 7, 2005 6:43 PM
Comment #84432

Taylor, what about the Republican Congress which has given Bush damn near everything he has asked for. If one is going to criticize Bush, one must logically also be critical of the Congress which is designed to check and balance the President.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 8, 2005 7:38 AM
Comment #84434

Roach said: “Also, I don’t mean to speak for you. I speak for me. I call them the way I see them,”

Damn right, Roach! It is so tiresome to get comments from folks in the 3rd Party column saying my article belongs in the right column or the left column. Any writer’s article at WB belongs under the party affiliation column they most identify with. Apparently, Roach, a few of of your right wing critics would like to drive their own party supporters away. Talk about politically foolish! The left column has their fair share too!

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 8, 2005 7:46 AM
Comment #84435

Sicilian Eagle said: “Alledgedly,this side is supposed to represent the view of the right.
Well,it doesn’t respresent my view,and I represent the right.”

I have seen some arrogant comments on this site, but, this one has to win a prize. Last I checked, Sicilian Eagle was not on the roster representing the right’s leadership in the GOP.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 8, 2005 7:55 AM
Comment #84443
Taylor, what about the Republican Congress which has given Bush damn near everything he has asked for. If one is going to criticize Bush, one must logically also be critical of the Congress which is designed to check and balance the President.

absolutely. They deserve equal discredit for their lack to lead the country. Shrub is by no means acting alone. But remember, this is what the slim majority of rural America wanted.

Posted by: Taylor at October 8, 2005 10:14 AM
Comment #84457

Roach, I disagree with your assessment: “The contempt for religious people on the left is rather remarkable, and it’s demonstrated by a number of comments above.”

Die-hard atheists aside, I do not believe for a second that the bulk of those on the left have contempt for religious people. They have contempt for people who use their religion as a means to further their political agenda — as any sane person should.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at October 8, 2005 1:05 PM
Comment #84492

Aside from mismanaging Iraq, the war on terror, lack of fiscal responsibility, and several bad appointments, I’m especially pissed off that he has the gall to call the “Minute Men” vigilantes, pretends to care about national security, continues to ignore companies that employ illegal aliens, and the borders remain nearly wide open, with hundreds, or thousands of illegal trespassers per day.

NOTE: Al’Queda is crossing the Mexico border. How many? No one knows.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 8, 2005 6:12 PM
Comment #84501
it’s inconceivable to me that Kerry would have done a better job, on judges or anything else.

I agree that Kerry/Edwards and even Gore/Lieberman would have made their share of mistakes. But to make a blanket statement that Kerry would not have done a better job than Bush is just incredible. For three, Kerry would not have involved us in a war in Iraq, would not have stayed on vacation while a disaster played out in the south and would not have picked such inexperienced cronies for such important government posts.

I sure would like to see Mr. Roach or any other card-carrying conservative try to back up this “Bush is not great but Kerry would have been worse” statement. I’ve seen a lot of conservatives make the statement but not one have ever even attempted to support it.

Just my $.02 .

Posted by: spongeworthy_us at October 8, 2005 8:12 PM
Comment #84505

Agree with you, Spongeworthy. I hear a lot of folks here in Texas saying lately that they’re not crazy about Bush, but dangit, at least he’s better than Kerry. And my response is, “How bad does it have to get before you stop buying that KarlRovian propaganda about Kerry?”

Something else I don’t understand. Why does Bush get credit for “strong leadership” after 9/11? All I recall of Bush after 9/11 was his flying around in Air Force One endlessly. Guiliani was the one who impressed as the strong leader after 9/11.

Posted by: pianofan at October 8, 2005 9:14 PM
Comment #84508

And by the way, I do not question Mr. Roach’s conservative credentials. In fact, I too count myself as a conservative and I simply do not see how anyone else who counts themself a conservative can support this president or the current-day Republican party. Cutting taxes without matching spending cuts is no more conservative (and no less stereotypically liberal) than increasing spending or raising taxes. Empire-building in the Middle East for the benefit of big oil is not conservative. Corporate, especially corporate agricultural, welfare is not conservative. Imposing government control over female reproductive rights is not conservative. Intentionally demonstrating the Reagan paradigm that “Government is not the solution, it is the problem” by failing to govern is not conservative.

And finally, most importantly, installing inexperienced cronies and political supporters in critically important government positions as payback for support is so incredibly liberal - I’m just at a loss for words to describe how wrong it is. This is like the stereotypical corruption rampant in the Democrat party - Mayor Daley (the original) and the Pendergast machine that got Harry Truman his start. I just don’t understand why Republicans and conservatives stand for this. Most of them with whom I interact think it’s just great.

This country deserves the best man or woman for the position, whether Supreme court justice or FEMA director or INS director. Bush has intentionally chosen people who ARE NOT the best ones for these jobs. But it seems most Republicans and conservatives are fine with it. Why?

Posted by: spongeworthy_us at October 8, 2005 9:43 PM
Comment #84509

DITTO

Posted by: CT at October 8, 2005 10:10 PM
Comment #84510

That be DITTO Chris.

Posted by: CT at October 8, 2005 10:11 PM
Comment #84522

Chris,

As often as I can, I state that there are some Conservative principles that I actually agree with like fiscal responsibility, limited gov’t and personal freedoms. Thus making me a centrist/moderate Democrat, it also opens up the possibility that John McCain could get my vote for President.

However, knowing those who would consider your words blasphemous still maintain a stranglehold on the Republican Party, McCain getting the ‘08 nomination is as likely as you making many friends in the WB Red Column from here on out.

Yet, you’ve already earned my respect. And, I look forward to challenging your positions on illegal immigration and old stereotypes of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at October 9, 2005 5:35 AM
Comment #84524

David:
I humbly and gratefully accept your prize.

Note however,I said the right…not the hyper-right.

Right of center.

But you know that.

Neither the hyper-right not the hyper-left represent mainstream Americian thought.

Left of center and right of center thought does.

Again,you know that.

While the president’s poll numbers were at 45% last week…41% two weeks ago (Source CNN),why is it the that Congress’ poll numbers are constantly in the LOW 30’s ?(Source CNN)

Is it because the Nancy Pelosi,Ted Kennedy,John Kerry’s,Tom Delays of the world?

Or do any of the above truly represent mainstream American thought?

As bad as Kennedy is on the left,Delay is the equivalent on the right.

Neither represent mainstream thought.

Vote them out?

How?

You know as well as I that 91% of the House gets re-elected (source CNN) and roughly the same percentage of the Senate as well (sourceCNN).

Why?

Becuase of an entrenched and corrupt politicial system controlled by special interest groups and unions.

That is precisely why when an average Americian city has a voter turnout of over 50% it is considered a success.

Mainstream Americians know the story.

Am I a conservative representative?

Probably.

I,more than you represent mainstream American thought.

We want a united front against the war on terror,we believe that private enterprise,which creates 75% of all private sector jobs is more effective is keeping our economy running than a bloated and wasteful Federal beurocracy,we believe in the right of privacy,but not gay marriage,we believe that Social Security is not a 401-K plan,we believe in health care for everyone,and we believe in America.

So,yes,my friend David,I think I speak for the majority.

Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at October 9, 2005 8:24 AM
Comment #84528
We want a united front against the war on terror,

It seems as though using the full resources of the United States in killing/capturing the people responsible for 9/11 would aid this goal, but that is something Bush is not willing to do. Sorry, he fails your goals here.

we believe that private enterprise,which creates 75% of all private sector jobs is more effective is keeping our economy running than a bloated and wasteful Federal beurocracy,

Then surely you don’t support this President who has made this the most bloated and wasteful Federal government of all time.

we believe in the right of privacy,

This one is almost laughable if it weren’t so sad. If you truly believed this, you’d be calling for the impeachment of Bush.

but not gay marriage,

Both Kerry and Edwards stated during the campaign that they were against gay marriage also.

we believe that Social Security is not a 401-K plan,

Nor do democrats. But democrats don’t believe that the country should be placed an additional $2 TRILLION in debt to change the system without making it more solvent.

we believe in health care for everyone,

This is also laughable coming from a Republican.

and we believe in America.

Too bad you continue to support this dimwit who has disgraced and weakened this great nation at nearly every turn.

Posted by: Burt at October 9, 2005 11:44 AM
Comment #84529

You all are haters. Bush is the one who helped stem the tide of Terrorism against our freedoms we hold so dear. The Iraq war is necessary, it keeps the fight over there, where it belongs. The spending is a natural result of a war. They are not cheap but neither is the price of freedom. Bush is not the reason why things are bad. Economies will always cycle up and down and he has actually helped keep it a float by his spending policies in conjunction with the fed having extemely low lending rates available. Bush is far from the worst president ever and his staff is far more experienced than any in the so beloved Clinton administration which was laoded with wing nuts and morally corrupt criminals. The democrats keep thinking they have it right by attacking Bush, but they just do not get it. The problem is not Bush or the Republican Party, it is the Democratic Party and its leaders, such as the crazy Howard Dean, that continually lead democrats down the path to self destruction by continually nominating leftist losers who can not relate to the majority of Americans regardless of how the Northeast and Pacific coast Media feels about it.

The democrats need to start standing for something and not just against Bush or they will never get control of the house or senate. Can someone tell me what the democrats would do if they were in power? No! Because all they do is whine and complain that the Republicans are doing something wrong, without any real plan of their own to do something better.

So to all the democrats out there, keep up the hating and you will keep losing at election time.

So long losers!

Posted by: Bill at October 9, 2005 11:47 AM
Comment #84531

Kool-Aide anyone?

Posted by: Rocky at October 9, 2005 12:08 PM
Comment #84534

Bill-
It may be more accurate to say that the Republicans are moving out of the mainstream.

I think what keeps the Republican’s majority together despite their radicalism is their rigid control of the narrative, which a Republican Congress, a corporate-softened media, and a willing Conservative media, unconcerned by quibbles of morality or objective truth enable.

That cohesion is breaking down. All the Democrats need to do is field some charismatic candidates, and the change will be just as profound as that in 1994.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 9, 2005 12:55 PM
Comment #84551

Bill saidThe democrats keep thinking they have it right by attacking Bush, but they just do not get it. The problem is not Bush or the Republican Party, it is the Democratic Party and its leaders, such as the crazy Howard Dean, that continually lead democrats down the path to self destruction by continually nominating leftist losers who can not relate to the majority of Americans regardless of how the Northeast and Pacific coast Media feels about it.

HAHAHAHAHAHA….ROFLMFAO!!!!!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Posted by: MyPetGoat at October 9, 2005 8:39 PM
Comment #84554
One Iraqi battalion is ready per US level I standards and 26 are at a level II standard…and half of that amount will be operationial at level 1 standard within 6 months….happened on Bush’d watch,no?

Eagle, you are a riot. I can’t believe that you would tout those statistics as progress. 1 stinking battalion after 30 months in Iraq. Are you kidding me? And maybe -maybe- 13 more next year?

You need to work on your spin. Take some lessons from Bush. This is how to really screw around with the sad truth:

At this moment, more than a dozen Iraqi battalions have completed training and are conducting anti-terrorist operations in Ramadi and Fallujah. More than 20 battalions are operating in Baghdad. And some have taken the lead in operations in major sectors of the city.

In total, more than 100 battalions are operating throughout Iraq. Our commanders report that the Iraqi forces are operating with increasing effectiveness.

Really, George? Increasing effectiveness? Even though the number of Level 1 batallions has actually DECREASED from 3 to 1? Pathetic.

Posted by: Burt at October 9, 2005 9:32 PM
Comment #84605

Burt
What a pleasure it is to see your words once again.

Sad,but a pleasure nonetheless.

Did you watch The Armed Services Committee on CSPAN earlier this week?

General Casey did a terrific job in explaining the current Iraq troop levels and the new battalion grading system now in place(Exactly as ours).

This wasn’t the case a year ago.

During his testimony he indicated that the major reason the other 13 aren’t at level 1 is because of equipment upgrades that haven’t been completed yet and also experienced commanders.

With the passage of time,both will be remedied.

The assessment was far and away very positive,but as usual the spin meisters of the left hear only what they want to hear.

Watch the testimony and then we’ll talk.

Out of control spending?

Kerry and Kennedy?

Who is laughable now?

They represent mainstream American thought?

Please.

Compare those two with McCain and Guilianni.I will even let you throw in a third…Hilliary…and the Dems get slammed by 6 points points in ‘08.

Here is the issue:Pull your party back to the left of center where it belongs and move it away from the hyper-left.Retire all the old dinosauers
and get some new blood in there….new blood with a plan.Don’t make Roe the litmus test either.

Shortly the Iqar constitution will be ratified.But the fight,no the World War will go on.Have some testiculiar fortitude,my friend.

Let’s see:4 hurricanes in Florida last year,Mississippi and Lousiana under water,a war,high energy pricing ,a weakened dollar had nothing to do with that,right?

Blame Bush for the hurricanes.Mind as well blame him for the bad Red Sox pitching too while you’re at it.

Heath care?How about a sensible idea…one…that won’t cost me and the rest of middle America money.

I will be happy to pay my fair share,but what constitutes a fair share my friend?

Privacy?Or do you mean abortion on demand as a birth control mechanism?Which one do YOU and the left favor,Burt?Tell me.


Posted by: sicilian Eagle at October 10, 2005 7:45 AM
Comment #84611

DemPublicrats

A new party needs to be formed. Forget Independant as a classification. To be independant you must disavow yourself from both sides of the aisle thinking all that comes from them is purely unacceptable if you read the term literally.

The DemPublicrats

Interesting. Imagine a merger between those on the left that agree some of the time with the right and some of the time with the left and those on the right that agree some of the time on the left and some on the right.

Motive for this merger. It is known that no two Republicans are the same and no two democrats are the same. That is to say that I being a Republican do not always agree with what my party of affiliation is doing. On the other hand I do not always agree with what the democratic party is doing.

I find myself often wondering if I am a true Republican or a democrat trapped in republicans body. A genetic disorder? Perhaps stem cell research could help me return to a polar being.

Effectively, it is easy to see where our commonalities lay. For instance. We know that the most affected by tax increases are the middle class. Should not the tax cuts then benefit the middle class more. The Repub in me suggests that because there are so many more Middle classonians that relief is spread to thin to notice any major difference. The more obvious is that the fewest of our population in the top 1% of earners would benefit more individualy because their numbers of benefactors is less. The Dem in me agrees with dems in this area.

On the flip side. The Rep in me strongly disagrees with the notion that a tax increase on the middle class with cure our insolvency. Because even I know that for every dollar increase in tax per 1000 will persued by new spending and new programs.

Some would argue that new spending is always required and the national deficit always takes a back seat to disaster and emergency spending. Where to in this bastion do we allocate which programs are worthy and which are not?

I believe in God. But I do not believe that it should be force fed to those that don’t. I understand that freedom of persecution means that my right to excercise faith shalt not be thwarted or restricted. As I believe that God is not fed intraveniously nor should atheism. The mere act of hearing cases based on the elimination of religious elements in the public square is pure abomination of separation of church and state. By ruling for the removal of such icons is the government not hereby making atheism the Religion of the land. We have no laws that discriminate that religion is mandatory in the public square yet we find ourselves inundated with laws prohibiting religiousness expressed iconically in the public square. The Supreme court should hereby throw out all rulings as unconstitutional by proxy. All things religious being exluded by church and state via amendment precludes the ability for the High Courts to rule. If it is to be separate than it has no place in the court.

Posted by: Jack-o-lantern at October 10, 2005 8:53 AM
Comment #84625

Misha,

Pardon the belated response. I can see your point of view now. Your dilemma, as I see it, is that the party you agree with ideologically has nominated an incompetent (twice). I could quibble on some of the fine points, but I can see why Kerry was not appealing to you.

Nevertheless, I don’t think you are in a position to complain about the Dems — you should be complaining about the Republicans! After all, they are the ones who picked Bush. The Democrats, on the other hand, diligently tried to beat him. They could have chosen someone more ideologically appealing to you, but I am not at all convinced that that person would have won. It is hard to succeed as “Republican Lite”, because people who like the taste of “Republican” will go for the rich, full-calorie version.

I suspect you are thinking of Clinton, but I think one can make an argument that Kerry ran to his right. Remember, Clinton was pushing univeral healthcare and gays in the military. He was just a better politician than Kerry.

Incidentally, one thing I have noticed is that people almost all over the spectrum all seem to have the same solution for what is ailing the Dems: choose someone THEY would want to vote for. Obviously, they can’t all be right.

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 10, 2005 9:30 AM
Comment #84644

Eagle,

Yes, I did see much of the hearing. You heard a rosy picture from Myers, Rumsfeld, et al. How refreshing!

Here’s the response from your buddy McCain:

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: General Myers seems to assume that things have gone well in Iraq. General Myers seems to assume that the American people, the support for our conflict there is not eroding. General Myers seems to assume that everything has gone fine and our declarations of victory, of which there have been many, have not had an impact on American public opinion. Things have not gone as we had planned or expected, nor as we were told by you.

Do you consider McCain to be a spin meister from the left?

As you say, Eagle, with the passage of time all will be remedied. But how many more Americans will need to be killed needlessly while the political and military leadership continue to fumble with no discernable plan for improving the plan for victory? With the passage of time, we’ll be able to rid ourselves of the short-sighted individuals leading the occupation in Iraq.

Shortly the Iqar constitution will be ratified.But the fight,no the World War will go on.Have some testiculiar fortitude,my friend.

Sir, you and your party are the ones lacking in that area. Too weak to fight properly. Too frightened to get your skirt dirty or a run in your stockings. As the Godfather told Johnny Fontaine - “Act like a man!” Demand your President capture or kill those responsible for 9/11. Demand that he do what is necessary to crush the insurgency and bring the troops home. All else is whiny, half-assed rhetoric.

Let’s see:4 hurricanes in Florida last year,Mississippi and Lousiana under water,a war,high energy pricing ,a weakened dollar had nothing to do with that,right?

Huh? All that had nothing to do with what? I’m not following you here. But I don’t blame Bush for hurricanes. The governments response to them is something else. And I sure as hell do blame him for high energy pricing and a weakened dollar. Thank god I own lots of gold in my portfolio. I recommend the same to you, my friend.

Blame Bush for the hurricanes.Mind as well blame him for the bad Red Sox pitching too while you’re at it.

That’s just silly. You can only blame him for the Rangers’ crappy pitching.

Heath care?How about a sensible idea…one…that won’t cost me and the rest of middle America money.

You consider the President’s Medicare prescription drug benefit plan to be sensible. By law it does not allow the government to negotiate for lower prices. This is sensible?

Privacy?Or do you mean abortion on demand as a birth control mechanism?Which one do YOU and the left favor,Burt?Tell me.

No one favors abortion on demand as birth control. But as long as you can use that to try and demonize the left, enjoy your own ignorance.

Posted by: Burt at October 10, 2005 11:17 AM
Comment #84663

Burt
At least we agree on baseball….that’s a start.

McCain’s questioning at the hearing was adequately answered by Myers,Casey et al.

Even McCain nodded in agreement as they stated their case.

Kennedy nodded too.

But that was probably alcohol induced.

Despite the above, I will support McCain or Guilliani in ‘08.

There are zero candidates,nada,nein,neit,zilch on the Democratic side that has a chance.

At least admit that,for crying out loud.

If you don’t support abortion as a birth control device,does that mean you are against it?

That’s the point:Roe has been mutated and distorted so now every 13 year old kid can have an abortion without counseling or their parents knowing about it.

Isn’t that odd?

That is what mainstream America is against.

Same with the gay marriage issue.

Civil unions with the same rights I totally agree.Calling it marriage,well,I don’t.

How about you,Burt?

Health care:How much are you willing to add on to your Fed. tax to pay for Medicare increases?

My view is they have enough of my money.Get it somewhere else.

By the way,I have euros and real estate.Not stocks.

Gold is a good idea,though…from a Democrat no less

Posted by: sicilian eagle at October 10, 2005 1:35 PM
Comment #84669
There are zero candidates,nada,nein,neit,zilch on the Democratic side that has a chance. At least admit that,for crying out loud.

I won’t admit that. McCain and Guiliani both have serious issues with the Republican base that will make it hard for them to get the nomination. As for the Democrats, I’ve said before that I think Evan Bayh would be a hell of a candidate and would give any Republican a very good race. I think the backlash against the GOP is gaining enough strength that he’d be the favorite to win.

If you don’t support abortion as a birth control device,does that mean you are against it?

That’s the point:Roe has been mutated and distorted so now every 13 year old kid can have an abortion without counseling or their parents knowing about it.

I’m against abortion and would counsel anyone I knew against it under most circumstances. But I think adults should be free to make their own choice on the matter, and if they make that choice they should be able to do it safely. Democrats aren’t “pro abortion”. We just feel that a better way to reduce the number of abortions is to help single/poor mothers make other choices by supporting them if they bring a baby to term. Republicans feel that abstinence is the only answer. That’s naive, stupid, and ineffective.

Same with the gay marriage issue. Civil unions with the same rights I totally agree.Calling it marriage,well,I don’t.

I don’t understand why you don’t mind them having the same rights, but just object to the label. Why do you care what it is called? How would that threaten anyone else’s marriage or family?

Health care:How much are you willing to add on to your Fed. tax to pay for Medicare increases?

My view is they have enough of my money.Get it somewhere else.

Get it somewhere else? Haha! From my kids by tacking it on to the debt? You wanted your “world war”. PAY FOR IT!

Posted by: Burt at October 10, 2005 2:05 PM
Comment #84686

You think the Miers appointment is bad? Wait until Bush appoints an unqualified but loyal crony to be the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.

Posted by: Darrius at October 10, 2005 3:33 PM
Comment #84829

Burt

Fine.

A wager then,say a cup of coffee.

You take Bayh,I’ll take McCain or Guilliani.

I’ll archive this post.

McCain Vs Bayh or Guilliani vs.Bayh.

If that is the best shot Dems can make,taking a bench player against a first teamer,so be it.

On abortion:
You’re against it.

You say that in your opening paragraph.

The you say you “adults” should make their own free choice.

Is a 13 year old an adult?

Would it be fair for me to conclude then that you are against aboution and also against a 13 year old getting one without parential consent?

Believe me,if you agree with that then you would be moving close to what most main stream moderate Republicans believe.

Ironically,now the Dems are pushing for insurance coverage for invertro-fertilization at $12,000 a pop which will force even higher rates..when that sub-set of people would kill to adobt.

Gay marriage.
The tern “marriage” is thousands of years old and denotes a union between a man and woman.
If it’s eqaulity you want,and so do I..then what is with a word that you are distorting a basic defination and worse,pushing mainstream America even further to the right?

Health care.
Ther is plenty of money in the Federal budget to fund the war and to re-vamp health care.
For every billion spend on the war,300 million is recaptured in Federal and State taxes,plus another 150,000,000 or so in the form of hidden taxes.Same with health care.
Cut the pork in Defense spending.Stop giving the Pentagon weapons systems they neither want or can use.Close down bases that are antiquated.Streamline instead of pandering to powerful Congressmen and Senators.

You will find the money for healthcare reform in that ne budget line alone.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at October 11, 2005 7:40 AM
Comment #84935
A wager then,say a cup of coffee. You take Bayh,I’ll take McCain or Guilliani.

It’s a little early for bets of this kind, but what they hey. You’re on. I take my coffee Irish style.

Would it be fair for me to conclude then that you are against aboution and also against a 13 year old getting one without parential consent?

Yes. I’m also against cheating on a spouse, but I don’t think it should be against the law.

Ironically,now the Dems are pushing for insurance coverage for invertro-fertilization at $12,000 a pop which will force even higher rates..when that sub-set of people would kill to adobt.

Many people have insurance that already covers invetro. I don’t begrudge any couple that wishes to have their own child. Neither should any “pro family” Republican. Adoption is another great option.

The tern “marriage” is thousands of years old and denotes a union between a man and woman. If it’s eqaulity you want,and so do I..then what is with a word that you are distorting a basic defination and worse,pushing mainstream America even further to the right?

Hey Webster, give it a rest. I won’t pander to the right just so the ignorant and prejudiced won’t get upset.

Cut the pork in Defense spending.Stop giving the Pentagon weapons systems they neither want or can use.Close down bases that are antiquated.Streamline instead of pandering to powerful Congressmen and Senators.

I agree with all of the above.

Posted by: Burt at October 11, 2005 2:14 PM
Comment #85164

Roach, excellent article. I was wondering what happened to all the “bona fide conservatives”. Take your party back already. :)

Here’s a good place to start.

Posted by: American Pundit at October 12, 2005 9:07 AM
Comment #85235

I continue to see Bush do all he can to try to change public opinion…….especially with his bogus “spiritual” photo ops in the hurricane hit gulf area. Too bad all the brain-dead radcons continue to believe his prating and prattlings. When are they gonna shake off the party brainwashing and bother to think for themselves. Maybe their brains have really atrophied from lack of use!!!!!

Posted by: iq higher than bush at October 12, 2005 2:13 PM
Comment #86685

The thing that steams my turnips is that while Bush fiddles with his cronies like Meiers and Browny, he’s turned his back on real conservative principles of common decency and morality in the post-clinton world. I mean, where is he denouncing promiscuity in our movies, our tv, our culture?? I mean, come On! I’m now hearing about how kids are even going to real estate open house’s to have sex in them, while people are walking around the rest of the house! This is why we give the president a bully pulpit - now use it , Mr. President!

Posted by: Carlson Petit at October 19, 2005 5:44 PM
Comment #86686

oh, my wife just said no one will know what I’m talking about. (as usual). “house humpin” the kids are calling it. disgusting!!

Posted by: Carlson Petit at October 19, 2005 5:46 PM
Comment #86710

Hey Roach! Make sure you vote Demwit the next time…that will really help matters!!!!

Posted by: Lug at October 19, 2005 7:48 PM
Comment #86711

Yep! Let’s all vote Demwit next time!
Let’s join the 50 million plus Gorons!!!

http://www.noagenda.org/

Posted by: Lug at October 19, 2005 7:54 PM
Post a comment