Third Party & Independents: Archives

This is a tempest without even a teapot.

Frist appeared on a program with otherwise legitimate (if a little extreme) personalities. He is obviously politicking and using religion. Yes. As Democrats know from campaigning in black churches, such things work.

So each time a Democrat appears with Reverend Jesse Jackson, or when Reverend Al Sharpton appears on Democratic podiums we should recoil in fear and loathing that they are mixing religion and politics?

Did Frist say anything that offended you? I read the article you included. The article’s headline implies what the articles text doesn’t fulfill.

Frist is NOT QUOTED anywhere in the article. Most of the space is devoted to Democrats making preemptive strikes and putting words in his mouth. And people wonder why conservatives complain about a liberal media bias. I think they call articles like the one in the Washington Post hatchet jobs.

People should take Hillary Clinton’s advice. Take a deep breath and calm down.

Jack:

Since when did Democrats call Republicans UnAmerican, UnPatriotic Traitors? Now you call them Anti-Christian too. Trying to equate the Campaign Methods of both Parties is trying to compare the Nazi Party Propaganda to a standard Democratic Ad. They are not the same.

Edward:

Viewing the problem through their eyes, (the eyes of the religous right) this is a fillibuster against them. With the fillibuster rule in place the Democrat party will always fillibuster a judge who is prolife and proud of it.

Kerry on the other hand flat out said he would only nominate judges that are prochoice. Why should Bush not be able to say “I will only nomimate judges who are prolife?” It takes 60 votes to get a prolife judge in place but only 50 to get a prochoice judge in place.

In the end this appears to me to be a battle over Roe v Wade. By the way, I do support overturning Roe v Wade, because it would return the issue back to the states where it belongs.

Craig

I think this is just a distraction from the real Issues. Create enough loud noise and people won’t notice the ship is sinking. I just found this more important:

GOODBY PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM?
by Larry C. Johnson

Just when you thought the Department of State could not top last year’s debacle in failing accurately to count the number of international terrorist incidents, it appears that the State Department is going one step better—they reportedly have decided to not issue a report to the public. This move has been prompted by the Department’s discovery that the new methodology used by the recently formed National Counter Terrorism Center has produced statistics that shows an enormous jump in the number of international terrorist attacks.

[…….]

For Secretary of State Rice these numbers are a disaster. It is tough to argue we are winning the war on terrorism when the numbers in the official Government report will show the largest number of incidents ever recorded since the State Department started reporting on terrorist incidents. …

The ‘time honored tradition of the fillibuster’?

Have we been going around rewriting history again?

The fillibuster is a parlimentary procedure that is employed from time to time, nothing more, nothing less. Trying to apply an ‘honored’ status to it is really sad, IMO. The much more interesting tale is the sheer hypocrisy that is going on by those who have in the past said that fillibustering an a judicial nominee was abhorrent and are now employing just that procedure.

I don’t care if they fillibuster or not, let ‘em. It’s a legal tactic that they are taking. But let’s not starting throwing out such language just to be on the right side of the issue when it was the wrong side 10 years ago.

Another attack on the Christian right.
They are the vermin of the earth. For anyone who is interested, read this article. Then tell what they believe and who the left quotes. This article is word for word the arguments of the left.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/kurtz_25_2.htm

Aldous,
“Nazi Party Propaganda to a standard Democratic Ad”
I thought some ‘Blues’ were already comparing some ‘Reds’ to Nazis???

Craig,
Kerry is a ‘Blue’. As long as the ‘Reds’ are in power the ‘Blues’ can get away with that stuff.

Aldous,
The terrorists know that the big bad U.S. of A has woken up from a deep sleep and no longer sits around believing ‘it ain’t so bad’ and ‘if we ignore it, it will go away’. (Clinton and his cronies?)
It will take time to get people to believe that there is another option besides being a terrorist.
You do not believe any of the tactics against terrorism will work. I hope you are still around in 20 years for those who do to say ‘I told you so’..

Bugcrazy:

I think for Democrats the Judicial branch is their last “stronghold”. It is like a fortress that muct defend to the death. I understand a bit. I remember the elections of 1974. Democrats were advertizing to “veto proof” congress from Republicans. Wow, they were knocking on the door of two thirds majorities in both houses. Now to have lost the Congress in the nineties and two close elections must be heartbreaking. Not to mention the statehouses and state legislatures.
Imagine what it must feel like for the Robert Byrds and Teddy Kennedys, to see each two years a little more power slip away.

I think it may take a new generation of Democrats to bring back the party. There is just too much deep bitterness and dispare from those who have witnessed all the party has lost in the last 30 years. They may feel they have nothing else to loose.

I read today on Drudge that Dean is promising to make Shiavo a campaign issue in 2006. That is so negative. I only wish they (liberals) would say “I am liberal and proud of it, and here are out ideals, and here are our proposals”.

This thread is about the fillibuster. Novak today said that he thinks the Republicans have the votes. We will see.

Craig

Craig:

I completely agree with you.

Craig.
You make alot of sense.
The same people that the Dems call their ‘leaders’ and are SO proud to have them leading their party(Kennedy,Byrd,Dean) are the same ones that those who vote against Dems cannot stomach.
It works the same with the Reds.
A new generation is needed on BOTH sides.
When we get leaders in there who can disagree without the personal attacks (used to ‘fire up’ the base) we will all be better off.

Aldous

You miss the point of my post and of the article.

My criticism is textual. Everyone accused Frist of all sort of things. The headline in the article mentioned talks about Jihad. Martin’s post provides a definition of jihad. The text of the article doesn’t have any Republicans using the word. Nothing Frist said is mentioned at all. It is really not about Frist at all. It is about Democratic attacks on Republicans.

So the problem is you and others are arguing with yourselves. You create the “Republican” position. Then you tear it down and declare victory. It is bad enough when you use the more extreme and intemperate (instead of the mainstream) comments to create your fantasy position, but it is worse when you don’t even bother to use Republicans at all – as in this article.

Awhile back, in response to a criticism of President Bush’s position on Islam, I quoted his actual words. They were too moderate, I guess, so none of his opponents picked up on them.

And yes, Democrats call Republicans lots of names. They rarely call Republicans un-American. That is true. Maybe that is become they so rarely behave in ways that can be called un-American. But in this very blog, Republicans are called fascists, Nazis, bigots, zealots and jihadis. You all live in a glass house; you might be more circumspect about tossing stones.

bugcrazy,

“The terrorists know that the big bad U.S. of A has woken up from a deep sleep and no longer sits around believing ‘it ain’t so bad’ and ‘if we ignore it, it will go away’. (Clinton and his cronies?)”

Oh please… Give me one example where Clinton was any more negligent than Bush.

“It will take time to get people to believe that there is another option besides being a terrorist.”

Time? These people are so brain-washed they’re doing suicide runs willingly. You really think “time” will change this?

I only wish they (liberals) would say “I am liberal and proud of it, and here are out ideals, and here are our proposals”.

Here it is (again) Craig. From our leader, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid: Our ideals and proposals.

Oh please… Give me one example where Clinton was any more negligent than Bush.

I agree Zeek. By every account I’ve ever seen, the Bush administration just didn’t take terrorism as seriously as the Clinton administration before 9/11.

Well, I for one, am glad there are those from the Right here ready to mount a distorted defense of ‘the nuclear option’.

Viewing the problem through their eyes, (the eyes of the religious right) this is a filibuster against them. With the filibuster rule in place the Democrat party will always filibuster a judge who is prolife and proud of it.

This is a good example of the argument the Republicans should not be making right now, however it’s a result of having an even weaker case to sell than the one they botched on Social Security. Their partisan indictment of the use of the filibuster falls apart, when it is pointed out that moderate Republicans have always been needed to invoke the rule. Which bolsters the Democrat’s case that the filibuster is a bi-partisan insurance, that only judges pledged to uphold the Constitution and current laws, will be confirmed.

I read today on Drudge that Dean is promising to make Schiavo a campaign issue in 2006. That is so negative. I only wish they (liberals) would say “I am liberal and proud of it, and here are out ideals, and here are our proposals”.

Nice distortion and spin here Craig. The correlation that’s already being made by the Dems, is rather the craven, political strong arm tactics by the Republican Party in the Schiavo tragedy - at the behest of the wing nut social Conservative groups that control your party - are being repeated on ‘the nuclear option’.

There is no principled stance here for Senate Republicans, win or lose. Yet once again, you’re doing the bidding of a ruinous segment of your party, that has already won many elections for you with such hateful rhetoric that brands Democrats as an ‘enemy of Christianity’.

“Oh please… Give me one example where Clinton was any more negligent than Bush.”

Instead, why don’t you give us all the examples of what Clinton did to fight terrorism. Tell us all the policies he put in place to fix the problems festering in the Middle East. Tell us why his agreement between Sharon and Arafat fell through and why he didn’t demand that they work harder to create peace. Tell us why dropping bombs was such a good idea when there was virtually no follow up. Tell us everything he accomplished in getting at the root cause of the problems with those who hate the West.
There was an attitude of ‘no big deal’ as long as the attacks did not hit us at home.
I have heard the terrorists being compared to revolutionists. That they are no different than any other ‘political party’ that is trying to make a stand. That is crazy.
Sending the PC Police around the world will not fix the problems. We are fighting against people who use violence and hate and want to live in the past. What do you expect Bush to do? Hold a Barbecue Summit in Texas and invite Bin Laden and Zarqawi?

Yes. Time. Do you really think it can’t be changed? With time and the right policies?

Well it appears that no matter what a so-called Republican leader does the rank-n-file will support him. If Frist decided to burn down the Senate chamber, you folks would find some justification for it. Republican are not infallible it certainly doesn’t help the debate that fault cannot be found with a Republican without a democrat being dragged into the fray. This is not intelligent, healthy debate, it is elementary school yard finger pointing.

I can’t remember the last time Jesse Jackson smeared the persona of the Republican with an anti-Christian label. The vitriol of these attacks on the judiciary by the religious right, under the pretext that they are being persecuted—give me a break please—can only serve to undermine the institution in the minds of Americans and cause society to, over time, loose faith in the institution. And that serves the greater good of none of us. Ignorance serves only those who seek to hold power over those whose minds are enamored of it. I find this continually and habitual ignorance of the way our government is supposed to work by the (now) majority of Americans appalling, maddening, and just plain sad. Make no mistake we will all pay for the continued willful adherence to a faith(s) governed by a book of pure fiction. I do not make choices in my life based on faith in anything; I make them based on verifiable, tangible facts.

It is plain to me that the majority of Americans no longer believe in the underlying principles upon which this (once) great nation were founded. It is only a matter of time before they, Holy Bible in hand, sweep the constitution away bit-by-bit and replace it with God’s fictional law. Would that be okay with those who see nothing wrong with Frist’s and other conservative Republican’s romance with the religious right? Would you welcome the institution of the Morals /Thought Police? When and if they start telling men what they can and cannot do, will you then take notice?

V. Edward

Disturbing IF true.

A lot of the sound and fury from the Democratic side is caricature. Republicans do the same and did the same under Clinton.

The evidence in the article you mention does not support the conclusions you reach. There are some big weirdos on the Republican and Democratic side. The article includes attacks by Democrats about statements Republicans didn’t make.

Liberals (which is not all Democrats) tend to set up caricatures of conservatives and then knock them down. I know a lot of conservatives. I regularly visit Heritage Foundation, AEI and Cato. These are the conservative think tanks. You might find many things you don’t like there, but you will recognize the stereotypes. I also know many Republican politicians. They are generally a reasonably sort of people (so are most Democrats, by the way)

Politics is just that – politics. Parties have to play to various bases. Republicans have to make gestures to the evangelical movement. Sometimes there are extreme positions that look silly. The Dems have to make gestures to the civil rights establishment and teachers unions. Sometimes there are extreme positions that look silly.

The big problem is the abortion debate. That is the cause for the big debate on judges. It is controlled by weirdos on both ends. To placate his base, Kerry explicitly promised a litmus test for judges. Bush has a de-facto one. Roe was a terrible decision that has poisoned American politics for more than a generation. It is a decision that should have been made by legislatures and in a more decentralized way. Let’s send it back to the legislatures. Laws will vary in the states, but it will reflect the will of the people.

“There are some big weirdos on the Republican and Democratic side.”

Jack,

Unfortunately, they are the loudest voices coming out of Congress. Lobbing stink bombs at each other isn’t going to solve the nations problems. To make this only about Roe v Wade misses the big picture.

Bugcrazy,

Please,

Bush had no agenda before Sept 11th. Clinton at least focused on the problems here at home. Other than the first bombing at the Trade Center, the only terrorists America had to deal with were McVeigh and the Weathermen. We had a much greater threat from within than anything that was going on abroad.

Not to jump on the band-wagon or anything but:

” … Give me one example where Clinton was any more negligent than Bush.” — Zeek

You mean tic for tac, or would his Pre-Presidential laundry count? The Ives/Henry case, in particular, is something you might consider Digging up.

Just one example of why, to me, that this isn’t about “the two parties”. It’s twisted men like our boys Frist/Bush or Kerry/Dean who cloak themselves in the ‘Liberal’ and ‘Conservative’ labels to push their personal agendas. An even better question would be WHO in any house or branch is NOT actively distorting our republic in a greed-driven power grab? Que the crickets. :)

V. Edward:

I can understand some of your frustration. I remember watching Michael Moore sitting in the presidenial booth at the Democratic National Convention. Wow the symbolism was incredible!!! Michael Moore in the Presidential booth!!!!! View that one through Republican eyes!!!

The religious right are part of the Republican party just like the wacko left are part of the Democratic party. Obviously, leaders need to pay some repects to each “faction”. That does not however meen that James Dobson and company speak for all Republicans.

Please tell me there are some Democrats who do not think like Michael Moore!!

Craig

Rocky wrote thus:

Other than the first bombing at the Trade Center, the only terrorists America had to deal with were McVeigh and the Weathermen. We had a much greater threat from within than anything that was going on abroad.

I don’t know which option is worse, that you believe this or that you are willing to spin this to people who are willing to believe it.

Let’s take a look, shall we?

From http://www.state.de.us/cjc/history.htm

Between 1993 and September 11, 2001 seven terrorist attacks were committed against the U.S. in which the destruction was the point of the attack. The 1990’s returned to terrorism, religious extremism and hate being enough to justify the use of terror.

1993 WTC - 6 dead, major damage to the WTC
1995 Saudi Arabia - 5 dead - bombing of the U.S. Military Headquarters
1996 Saudi Arabia - 19 dead - Khobar Towers
1997 Egypt - 58 tourist dead - terrorists open fire in the Temple of Hatshepsut
1998 Kenya and Tanzania - 224 dead - bombing of two U.S. Embassies at the same time
2000 Yemen - 17 sailors killed - U.S.S. Cole

The Clinton’s response? Pardoning of terrorists.

Richard Clarke’s response to President Clinton’s pardoning of the FALN members in 1999?

The chief executive of the United States must stick to a tough, consistent counter terrorism policy: to deter, pursue, bring to justice and punish to the full extent of the law those who wreak terror on American citizens. On this important matter, the president has failed the American people.

Nice!

The US has a history of dealing horribly with terrorism since at least the 70’s, and before. No US president has done anything other than look at terrorism as an external issue that doesn’t really touch us. However, when the attacks started here, (WTC 1993, OK Bombing, Waco, etc, all under Clinton’s watch) the response was COMPLETELY WRONG. Bush came in and may or may not have had intention to continue the Clinton policy or be more aggressive, but did nothing productive before 2001.

But, he is at least taking the issue seriously NOW. It’s a shame that others (from both sides of the aisle) for political reasons are not.

Rhienhold,

Yet, the greater threat to the American way of life was still from within. We had local militias all accross this country. We also had a bombing at the Atlanta Olympics.
Please tell me you remember that.

When Oklahoma City happened I was in Italy, my first thought was that the shit had hit the fan at home, and the militias were responsible.

When Sept. 11th happened my first thought was of Oklahoma City, and those same local militias. I thought we had done it to ourselves.

If you were around during the late sixties, early seventies, we had the Weathermen, the Symbionese Liberation Army, and the Black Panthers amoung others reeking havoc in this country.

These things all happened on OUR soil.

Of the seven incedents you mention, six happened somewhere else and I don’t downplay their importance. I did however, mention the first WTC, and that was the only one of the seven that happened here.

That Colared Fella:

I said:

I read today on Drudge that Dean is promising to make Schiavo a campaign issue in 2006. That is so negative. I only wish they (liberals) would say “I am liberal and proud of it, and here are out ideals, and here are our proposals”.

You responded:

This is a good example of the argument the Republicans should not be making right now, however it’s a result of having an even weaker case to sell than the one they botched on Social Security.

I tend to agree with you. I think Republicans should focus on 2006 and try to increase their margin. With Democrats so disgruntled with their party leadership, I think there is a real shot in the trenches for a good outcome in 06. If the Republicans take the nuclear option now, there could be a backlash.

As a moderate Republican, the fillibuster works great because the left wingnuts and right wingnuts are eliminated making the Supreme Court moderate!! In theory over the long haul there should be more judges who are in the middle. Although it is nice for people like me, I am not sure it is good for the country.

I would like to see Roe v Wade overturned however. Mostly because I would prefer the states handle it.

There is no principled stance here for Senate Republicans, win or lose. Yet once again, you’re doing the bidding of a ruinous segment of your party, that has already won many elections for you with such hateful rhetoric that brands Democrats as an ‘enemy of Christianity’

I will leave you with a quote from your leader.

“I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for,” former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean told Democrats gathered at a Manhattan hotel, in quotes picked up by the New York Daily News.

When you talk about hate rhetoric of the Repubicans, sadly it is the pot calling the kettle black.

Craig

Good article, and great follow-up post, Mr. Martin.

Craig,
You & I often disagree, but this time we’re on the same page. Personally, I think the midterm elections could be very good for the Dems. I believe that Bush is bad for the country; that we’re looking at a two-recession president; and that another unnecessary war is a good possibility. This nuclear option could be a boon for the Dems sooner rather than later.

Having said that, I just don’t think it’s a good idea, for the same reasons you state. It’s ultimately in most of our interests to leave in place tools which tend to moderate.

By the end of the Clinton presidency the Special Prosecutor statutes were bringing the government to a standstill. As much as I dislike Bush, and would like to see him similarly dogged by Special Prosecutors, it’s simply not good for the country. There are other tools available if a president’s actions cross the line.

If one side or the other used filibusters to bring government to its knees, I’d rethink the position. We’re far from that situation right now. But I hope Frist & company give it careful consideration. Are 10 judicial nominations (and maybe an upcoming Supreme court appointment?) worth the price over the long term?

subverter-

An even better question would be WHO in any house or branch is NOT actively distorting our republic in a greed-driven power grab? Que the crickets.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Labels form the encircling mists which obscure true motives, and you put your finger right on it.

phx8:

We have had some disagreements!!! Bush might be a two recession president, but the economy should be fine through the 2006 elections. We should slow some, but no recession.

These elections could be very interesting. My case for the Republicans doing fine is their unity. I saw a poll that shows support for democratic leadership by democrats is only 57% and falling. The basic problem I see democrats having is not being able to turn Bush’s lack of popularity into their own. I don’t see a surge in Democratic support.

On to fillibuster, as a Repubicans if there is a “nuke option” and it’s successful, then there really isn’t a need for more republicans. All ya need is 50 with a President in power to run the world. It would make sense to me, to use the issue of judges to motivate Republicans to “vote and vote often” on 2006 to get 60 Republican senators.

Waiting with eagerness for your fierce return on why Democrats will be the new majority after the 06 elections.

Craig

Rocky,

Thanks for making my point for me.

Terrorism happening is important, even if it doesn’t affect Americans. Not putting an end to it just because it doesn’t happen to you have proven to be a bad course of action, the same ‘action’ that former administrations have employed, and led us right to this point.

And yes, I do see our Ships and Embassies as being part of US soil. So when you say ‘here’ you are just referring to American North American soil? What about the Phillipines or Puerto Rico or other US territories? Bombing US embassies is ok to ignore?

And even worse, you suggest that we should ignore terrorism abroad just because we have terrorists inside the US. Yes, we should focus on those terrorists in the US *AND* those abroad. I’m pretty sure the US is capable of doing two things at once (something I kept hearing from Democrats during the election that we were incapable of doing).

Rhinehold, the 9/11 commission report covers the topic well. You should check it out.

I was reading Christine Todd Whitman’s book, “It’s My Party Too”. She makes a good point when she says catering to the “social fundamentalists” doesn’t buy you a mandate-making majority. Of course, neither does running the moderates out of your party. It’s unsustainable, and the only viable alternative is the Democratic Party.

catering to the “social fundamentalists” doesn’t buy you a mandate-making majority. Of course, neither does running the moderates out of your party. It’s unsustainable, and the only viable alternative is the Democratic Party.

AP, I would agree with all but the last sentence which states that “the only viable alternative is the Democratic Party”.

The leadership in the Democratic Party appears to be moving even further to the left. This is in turn running many moderates out of that party as well. This to, I believe, is unsustainable.

As such I believe that most moderates will continue to vote with their current party. The one that they believe best represents their current views (the lesser of 2 evils approach). IMHO most will continue to do so until a viable moderate alternative presents itself (and by viable I mean one they feel actually has a chance to win the presidency).

VEM
IMHO, you must know the difference between Republicans and conservatives in order to see what is going on.
Not all Republicans approve of the religious overtones we are seeing today. They vote for conservatives because they have been brainwashed into believing that conservatives also support their ideas of individual freedoms and such. Same goes for liberals and democrats.

The minority neo-cons and liberals and their extreme views are tearing this country apart and pitting the serf majority against each other.

Frist is a neo-con and this ploy to get more votes will probably backfire.

I tend to agree with you. I think Republicans should focus on 2006 and try to increase their margin. With Democrats so disgruntled with their party leadership, I think there is a real shot in the trenches for a good outcome in 06.

Actually Craig,

That Colored Fella was me Bert, sorry. I had just erased my cookies and was not paying attention. Of course, I’m thunderstruck that you’d agree with something I’d said, but again let me correct your above statement as well.

Apparently, my personal blog is considered an influential voice in the Lefty blogsphere, because I got an email today from Senator Harry Reid’s office. They are launching an online bloggers outreach to open a line of communication with the Democratic leadership.

In my reply to the young man overseeing the effort, I told him about my many blog post comments recently praising Reid & Co. for their brilliant strategic and deft political maneuvering - and I’m not the only blogger who thinks that!

Craig,
I’d be very very surprised if the Dems came out of the midterms with majorities in the House or the Senate. As we all know, the deck is stacked in favor of incumbents. However, I do expect the Dems will make gains better than average.

It’s not really a matter of unity among Republicans or Democrats, or even of national leadership. Both show unity in some respects, and divisions in others.

I think it’s going to be issues- not so much the social hot-button issues, but more traditional bread and butter issues, particularly Social Security, employment, & the economy. It should be more visible in the Senate than the House.

There’s a huge opportunity for one party or the other that’s being left on the table. Pursuing a geo-green strategy and taking a deficit hawk posture would yield big dividends, if someone would just take the stand.

Bert:

I probably agree with you for differing reasons. As a Republican, I would like to see us increase our numbers a bit more. However, if we take the risk and take the “nuke” option and win, why would we be motivated in 06? Actually, it increases the motivation for the Democrats to keep the Judiciary from moving to the right.

Right now, I would position the party to increase numbers in 06.

(It is kinda weird agreeing you!! )

CH

phx8:

I think it’s going to be issues- not so much the social hot-button issues, but more traditional bread and butter issues, particularly Social Security, employment, & the economy. It should be more visible in the Senate than the House.

You make a pretty good point. Bread and butter issues do favor democrats in polls. Although my memory is only from the 04 elections. I haven’t seen anything current. What I have seen that is current is that the political landscape looks about the same as November. Bush is just about as popular etc.

I did read a poll from Rasmussen that said Americans favor benefit cuts over increases in taxes to lower the budget deficit. That poll favors Republicans. I am not too sure about those polls. I would have to think about them for a while.

I think you might be right. Bush nailed the election in 02. He will be out there again in 06. This time the war seems to be winding down as an issue.

If the presidential election were this year instead of last, I wonder is Kerry would still have been nominated. And I wonder if Bush would have been reelected!!

Craig

However, if we take the risk and take the “nuke” option and win, why would we be motivated in 06? Actually, it increases the motivation for the Democrats to keep the Judiciary from moving to the right.

Fortunately for us Democrats Craig, too many of you on the Right do not realize that a victory on ‘the nuclear option’, is the absolute worse thing the Republican Party needs right now!

There is a line from Sen. Harry Reid’s statement on Frist’s planned move, reverberating around the web. He said, ‘…this is a Democracy, not a Theocracy’. Frist is scheduled to appear at James Dobson’s group’s ‘Justice Sunday’. And, the press releases announcing the event, are accusing the Democrats of hating Conservative Christians because of their faith! Your party is doing the bidding for the same groups whose hate rhetoric burned you on the Schiavo mess.

And second, I will again insist that the Republicans have not made anything close to a solid, principled case for revoking the filibuster rule, which on the other hand, the Dems have already successfully done. In addition, if Frist prevails and the Dems follow through on a Senate shutdown, Reid & Co. will make it clear the government will continue to function without interruption.

But, there will be a log jam nonetheless and carried all over the news. Whereupon, it will be left to the Republicans to go on TV and convince the American people of why they did it.

And you thought Social Security was a hard sell.

“And even worse, you suggest that we should ignore terrorism abroad just because we have terrorists inside the US.”

Rhinehold,

Please, take a deep breath.

Where do I suggest that we should ignore terrorism abroad?

All I said was that Clinton focused on domestic issues and that Bush had no agenda before Sept. 11.

BTW what did Reagan do about the Marines being killed in Lebanon?

Damn little.

Which was my point.

The US has a history of dealing horribly with terrorism since at least the 70’s, and before. No US president has done anything other than look at terrorism as an external issue that doesn’t really touch us.

And yes, you state that Clinton’s more pressing matter was internal terrorism (even though there were fewer internal attacks than external attacks during his presidency) as the reason why he did feck all to stem terrorism or even respond to US citizens being killed by outside forces. Apart from liberating them from jail, I mean.

You can try to stand behind your man if you like, it just doesn’t wash. Clinton did some good things and some bad things, how he handled terrorism in the 8 years in office was BAD. Carter, terrible. Reagan, too concerned about Big Russia to be bothered. Bush SR, too much of a political appeaser. Etc., etc…

First, if it is wrong to politicize the Terry Schiavo case, then the first offenders were the Republicans. They passed laws they knew were questionable, constitutionally speaking so they could get their reward from the churchgoing public. They went out and made their speeches about erring on the side of life, and about how we Democrats were such heathens.

Double standard, folks. There are people outraged by what’s going on, The Republicans don’t have the support to take a strong position against us on it, and what’s more, it is utterly in harmony with our sensibility as a party. We don’t want the Government in our private lives, and we certainly don’t want the legislature doing the courts job for them, or our elected official talking lik a bunch of brownshirt thugs about there being consequences for unpopular decisions.

What irks me is this notion of the Democrats being anti-Christian. First, good Christians should not be passing judgment on their peers in the Democratic party. Second, the basica principles of the Democrats have much in common with Christ’s messages. Third, their intensely belligerent attitude casts shame on a religion that is founded primarily in mercy, forgiveness, and peace.

Christianity is a religion where the ends do not justify the means, but where means and ends are united with the integrity of the ethics and morality preached by Christ. Just being the good guys in your own mind is not enough to make you so in God’s eyes.

Craig,
“…the political landscape looks about the same as November. Bush is just about as popular…”

Slightly less. Inexplicably, Bush continues touting his ideas concerning Social Security. Republican congressman have made it clear this idea is going nowhere. They won’t touch it with a ten foot pole. Meanwhile, some politically tone deaf Republican attack dogs attacked AARP for refusing to endorse SSI privatization. It’s a colossal miscalculation, and despite the attempts of Republican congressman to distance themselves, I suspect this issue will cost them dearly in ‘06.

“… a poll… said Americans favor benefit cuts over increases in taxes to lower the budget deficit. That poll favors Republicans.”

It might, had Republicans shown an iota of fiscal responsibility.

Greenspan, quite correctly, lowered interest rates to stimulate the economy. The Bush administration introduced tax cuts. While I disagree with the way the cuts were apportioned, applying that stimulus was correct as well. At the same time, Congress increased spending, another fiscal stimulus.

During the recovery, Greenspan has increased rates, effectively placing the Fed in a position to provide stimulus when the next downturn comes. However, Bush refuses to roll back tax rates, and Congress continues to spend money. The budget deficits pile higher and higher.

As do the trade deficits. I believe outsourcing of manufacturing and jobs have occurred to such an extent that a growing economy actually increases trade deficits- the more growth, the more is imported. And the dollar cannot fall fast enough to compensate.

This is the crux of the economic problem. It’s not just oil, though that obviously contributes. With woefully inadequate domestic job creation due to outsourcing, consumer spending isn’t supporting the domestic economy.

Like I said, the issue is on the table. The country needs leadership to make some very hard decisions about revenue & spending.

The Bush administration has wasted its time. In addition to the ill-conceived SSI privatization idea, major legislation to date includes a bankruptcy bill (which will create no voter support, but lots of contributions from the credit card companies), a truly disappointing tort reform bill (which paid off WalMart & a few other corporate donors by pushing class action suits from state to federal courts, not what most people had in mind), and some grandstanding around the Schiavo case.

Frist and others continue grandstanding for their core constituency, oblivious to the implications for ‘06. Republican politicians hold almost every card, yet seem incapable of anything other than grandstanding and selling legislation to corporate interests.

They’re setting themselves up for a drubbing in the midterm elections.

Stephen:

What irks me is this notion of the Democrats being anti-Christian. First, good Christians should not be passing judgment on their peers in the Democratic party. Second, the basica principles of the Democrats have much in common with Christ’s messages. Third, their intensely belligerent attitude casts shame on a religion that is founded primarily in mercy, forgiveness, and peace.

Putting on a “Christian hat” is extemely painful. The truth of the matter is that Jesus used his sharpest language for the religious right of his day. For instance he said to the Religious leaders of his day:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs! Which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous, but on the isnde you are full of hypocrisy adn wickedness.”. Matthew 23:27-28.

On the other hand, Jesus drew those whom the religious right of his day labeled “sinners.”
The closest parallel I can see today to those the RR of Jesus day labeled “sinners” are gay people of today. Jesus behaved in a way that drew these people to him.

Jesus “knife” would cut both ways if he were speaking today. He would rip into the RR as “whitewashed tombs” and he would gently hold a gay person pr others rejected by the Church in his arms and without judgement tell them their sins are forgiven and to go and sin no more.

And then the Religous Right would kill him.

Craig

Why is it that though we have much second hand reporting of this man (some of it contradictory), Jesus Christ, we have nothing atributed directly from him?

“Why is it that though we have much second hand reporting of this man (some of it contradictory), Jesus Christ, we have nothing atributed directly from him?”

The show where he appeared doesn’t air until the 24th, but whatever exactly he said, it was done on a show where the entire premise is to portray Democrat’s as “against people of faith” for wanting to block Bush’s judicial nominations.
The show was organized by the Family Research Council — a Christian conservative advocacy group, under the title “Justice Sunday”. On the flier for the show the heading reads: “The filibuster against people of faith.” Under that it says: “The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith.”

From an article in the NYT:
“Dr. Frist will join the telecast through a four-minute videotape, his spokesman said yesterday. Its organizers hope to enlist the grass-roots support of conservative Christians for an imminent Senate battle over Republican proposals to change Senate rules that have enabled the Democratic minority to filibuster, blocking Senate votes on 10 of Mr. Bush’s appeals court nominees.”

This is the Republican Majority Leader doing this — and on that kind of television show. That is a DISGRACE.
It’s also bloody feckin’ ironic too, since the Republicans during the Clinton administration blocked so many Democratic nominees with much less open and accountable procedures — like secret holds, for instance.
In fact a full one-third of Clinton’s appeals court nominees from 1995 through 2000 were kept off the bench – many without even getting a hearing or a committee vote, while others were delayed for as long as FOUR YEARS.
They keep saying the filibuster creates a constitutional crisis because of no final “up or down” vote is held on a nominee — when the truth is, they were willing to prevent many more votes en masse during the Clinton administration — blocking over 60 of his nominees — and often through the actions of just a single Republican senator.
These scum trying to do away with a 200 year old tradition meant to protect two of the Senate’s main purposes — to have checks and balances on presidential power and to defend the rights of the minority — and want to do so simply in order for this president to get approval for his every wish.
It’s also obvious that they want to turn the clock back to a time when states’ rights and property rights trumped the protection of individual liberties and the ability of Congress to act on behalf of the common good.
If they get their nuclear option we can all wave goodbye to the Voting Rights Act, laws protecting our clean air and water, worker protections, access to contraceptives and legal abortions, and affirmative action — and perhaps most importantly of all, and to bring this topic full circle, the separation of church and state.

What’s worse, the Republican’s hypocrisy or your own? Do you think that the Senate should have an open debate and vote on all judicial nominees or not? If you agree that they should, and complain that the Republicans did it before, then you should be joining with them now to end it here as well.

Adrienne:

If they get their nuclear option we can all wave goodbye to the Voting Rights Act, laws protecting our clean air and water, worker protections, access to contraceptives and legal abortions, and affirmative action — and perhaps most importantly of all, and to bring this topic full circle, the separation of church and state.

This sounds very extremist. I do think Roe v Wade may be overturned and the abortion issue returned to the states. That one could happen!!

Craig

Craig

Rocky:

Why is it that though we have much second hand reporting of this man (some of it contradictory), Jesus Christ, we have nothing atributed directly from him?

I think the question is why is this man relevant today? The relavancy to these discussions is obviously because the religous right is politically active, and even broader than that, most Americans espouse faith, and that influences their votes.

My point is simply to point out that those who use faith in politics have a much higher bar to pass in terms of their conduct because their faith says they do. They claim to be followers of Christ and are in public. It is fair for the rest to measure them against their own teachings.

As a religious conservative and political moderate (interesting combo), I think it’s wrong lead with faith in politics. I would much rather have politicians be more modest is their religous beliefs.

Although I think Adrienne is a bit extreme in her fear of what will happen, and underestimates the goodness of our democratic system, I think it is wrong to directly call on conservative christians to lobby congress as a matter of faith. I think it is fine to lobby all Republicans to influence Congress to allow all judges to be examined by the whole of Congress should they get out of committee.

Craig

“Although I think Adrienne is a bit extreme in her fear of what will happen, and underestimates the goodness of our democratic system, I think it is wrong to directly call on conservative christians to lobby congress as a matter of faith.”

Craig I have the same fears as Adrienne. I have quite a few friends that have the same fears as Adrienne.

You can take things on faith, I cannot. I still would submit that quite a few of those that claim to be Christian are the least “Christ like” amoung us. They claim to walk Christ’s path but do not.

I am not sorry that I don’t feel the need to live up to the “Christian Morality” of those folks.
I treat people the way I want to be treated. That is a philosophy around long before Christianity.

Christ did not impose, Christ taught.

Rhinehold:
“What’s worse, the Republican’s hypocrisy or your own? Do you think that the Senate should have an open debate and vote on all judicial nominees or not? If you agree that they should, and complain that the Republicans did it before, then you should be joining with them now to end it here as well.”

Oh, the Republican’s hypocrisy is much worse. Definitely. Always is.
They used every trick in the Senate rulebook to stonewall Clinton’s judicial picks, but you didn’t hear the Dems calling that a constitutional crisis then, did you?
Funny how those tricks included using the filibuster which Frist is now pompously and self-righteously is saying must go. The truth is, more than two-dozen current Republican members of the Senate voted more than 200 TIMES to block a final confirmation of Clinton’s judicial picks — and those choices weren’t anything close to being ideological hardliners the way Bush’s picks have been.

But let’s be completely honest with ourselves, this isn’t just about Frist wanting to change the number of votes required to end a filibuster from 60 votes to 51 (making it a simple majority) to force a vote for the lower courts. No, the real issue we all know is at stake here is the High Court, because Rehnquist’s days are numbered.
Bush has already called Scalia and Thomas his favorite Supreme Court justices — which means one of them is going to be chosen as Chief Justice upon Rehnquists stepping down (something that seems very imminent).
They know that the nomination of either of these hardliners is going to ignite a battle in the Senate because the chief justice plays the pivotal role in molding judicial opinion and arguments, and guiding the philosophy when it comes to the really key cases.
That’s what they’re really wish to control — and they have to be fully aware that civil liberties, women’s, civil rights and environmental groups are going to furiously hound the Senate Democrats to oppose the nomination of Thomas or Scalia — and their only weapon to stop one of them from ascending to the top of the judicial heap is THE FILIBUSTER.
Of course, Scalia or Thomas as Chief Justice is only the beginning of Bush’s grand scheme to pack the court with rigid ideologues who we know will wreak colossal damage to civil rights and civil liberties protections, and trash consumer protections, and give everything away to big business, and surprise!, surprise!, at long last fulfill the cherished dream of the Religious Right to crush Roe vs Wade.
Ultimately this filibuster question comes down to much larger and much more serious questions concerning the balance of powers and whether the wall of separation between church and state will be allowed to stand or fall in America.

but you didn�t hear the Dems calling that a constitutional crisis then, did you

Um, yeah. They didn’t say those words, but the rhetoric was just as bad and always has been (starving children, stealing from grandma, etc). Please, the dems are just as bad as the repubs in this area, take your partisan blinders off. If they had thought of the phrase at the time you BET they would have. There are a dozen quotes by current democrats employing the filibuster now saying that they would never support such a tactic no matter who was in office…

only the beginning of Bush’s grand scheme to pack the court with rigid ideologues

As opposed to democrats who want to pack the court with rigid ideologues (just a different ideal).

Let’s cast a reflective look back on FDR who didn’t want to wait until the court lost a member to pack it, he threatened to add 3 more justices if he didn’t get his way (which he did and we’re still paying for it).

Please PLEASE stop the rhetoric! I can get all of this from democrats.com or Daily KOS, I had hoped that we would be a little bit better than that…

Rocky:

Craig I have the same fears as Adrienne. I have quite a few friends that have the same fears as Adrienne.

If you look at Adrienne’s list, I just don’t see it happening politically. Bert has been mentioning the backlash concerning Terri Shiavo. While I don’t think it is as big as he states, (Bush’s poll numbers have returned to near where they have stood for sometime), I think in general there would be a huge backlash should Republicans in Congress try to tackle those issues she mentioned.

I do think the public would tolerate a Supreme Court “one click” to the right from where it is now. “two clicks” and I think the public would elect a Democratic Congress.

From the 2004 election repeatedly the polling data showed Democrats leading on domestic issues, and Republicans on war and peace issues. The lest Adrienne gave was 100% domestic.

Although there are areas where Democrats are out of touch with the American public, (Gay marriage, (not civil unions), the sex and smut (my word) on TV, raising taxes, there are also areas where the Republicans are out of touch. (Fiscal responsibility, prayer in schools etc). On balance, I think Democrats win with domestic issues right now.

phx8 was making this very point to me about 2006 in an earlier post.

For the Republicans to tackle the issues you fear and Adrienne listed would be the best possible thing for the party to do to bring about a Democratic landslide in 2006, which is why you do not need to worry about it.

Look at the gay issue. I think gay marriage is over reaching. However, I would venture to say that if you listed out the benefits of marriage one by one, and put them to a vote in terms of allowing gay couples to have those rights WITHOUT using the word marriage, the American people would support it. Americans when looked at as a whole are moderate to moderately conservative. We are are not liberal, Nor are we right wing.

This is a huge opening for the Democratic party. This issue like the Social Security issue is a chance for Democrats to take the middle ground and come up with a sensible moderate appoach that the American people will accept. If Republicans move to the right and embrace the Religious Right, just take over the moderate area they vacate and win!!!

Craig

“Look at the gay issue. I think gay marriage is over reaching.”

Craig,

The conservative problem with gay marraige is one of misunderstanding. You guys can’t see past the sex.
Other than that, gays are just like you and me. The perception of their promiscuity is grossly overblown. Yes there are a few promiscuous gays, there are also quite a few promiscuous straights. The vast majority of gays couples are in commited relationships that have lasted years. It is a pity that straight couples can’t say the same thing.
These people are just as American as the rest of us. We are relegating them to second class citizenry, because of unfounded fears which are stoked by people in power with agendas to keep the populace stirred up.
You yourself say that most Americans would accept gay marraige if the word marriage were not included.
With the divorce rate at better than 50%, these people deserve the chance to prove their love for each other by the most serious vow two humans can make to each other, a vow that far too many Americans fail to take seriously.

Rocky:

You yourself say that most Americans would accept gay marraige if the word marriage were not included.

I wasn’t trying to say what is right or wrong. I was trying to say what is doable in politics right now. Pressing for Gay Marriage hurt the Democratic party in 04. If The Gay community had gone for “civil unions” instead the election would closer or Kerry might have won.

I just don’t think all the evils in the world will happen if the fillibuster is removed. As a Republican I am hoping that it stays. If it is removed then there isn’t a reason for more Repubicans in Congress!! If it is removed it gives Democrats an even bigger motivator to reverse the Senate before Roe v Wade is overturned.

CH

Adrienne:

Ultimately this filibuster question comes down to much larger and much more serious questions concerning the balance of powers and whether the wall of separation between church and state will be allowed to stand or fall in America.

It comes down to majority rule.

Craig

Of course, some of us wish the unanimous rule had won out at the federal level when the constitution was being written… Or at least 2/3rds rule. Leave the majority rule to the states.

How many Dems would approve of that atm?

Actually, I hope the Republicans fail to get the fillibuster rule overturned. I recently got a mailing from the Family Research Council asking for my signature on a petition lobbying a certain senator to “stand firm” in his support of an issue. I had no problem with the issue, but the petition was essentially worded “stand firm and be willing to repeal the filibuster” … and that’s where I balked. At the moment, the filibuster is the Democrats’ weapon to be extremely annoying. And they are. In the future (if the Democrats ever regain power), it will be our weapon, so I don’t want it tossed aside. I might even want it made more secure.

However, I do wish that Republicans would force the Democrats to actually filibuster - to actually get up there and talk for days and days and hold up all business. Eventually media attention would get to it and the average American would hear that the Democrats are holding up all Senate business because they don’t want a judicial nominee coming to the floor for a vote … and I would like that.

Jesus “knife” would cut both ways if he were speaking today. He would rip into the RR as “whitewashed tombs” and he would gently hold a gay person pr others rejected by the Church in his arms and without judgement tell them their sins are forgiven and to go and sin no more.

How do you tell someone “without judgment” their sins are forgiven? If there is no judgment, there are no sins to forgive. I’m glad you didn’t leave off the last part of his statement - “go and sin no more.” It’s an important part.

I’m not sure about the Religious Right at the moment (which is odd, because I’m probably part of it). I can certainly see parallels between the RR and the Pharisees. I’m just not sure what to think. I wish Jesus would come back again … but then, I wonder if the RR really would condemn Him, just as the Pharisees did? I wonder, if He really came back, how would I see Him? Would I love Him? Or would I have the same attitude as the Pharisees? I wish I knew for sure.

Earlier someone asked “Why are we still talking about Jesus today as if He were relevant?” Heh, heh, heh … because He was (and is) the Son of God. You don’t get any more relevant.

Day for day I surf around in net to meet interesting people and international places. It’s great to see that it really works.

because He was (and is) the Son of God. You don’t get any more relevant.

And your proof is…?

I don’t mind changing or enacting laws based on verifiable facts. We know the sun comes up every day because it a verifiable fact, we see it happen and can predict it happening every day at a specific time and it does.

If we are going to enact a SINGLE law based on the notion that Jesus was (is) god, or that there even is a god, then surely we should be able to PROVE it, right? Otherwise we would be forcing our BELIEFS onto other people with the rule of law, backed by the power of the state to turn it’s guns upon us, and I really don’t think that is a good idea at all…

So, if you can provide such proof, I saw we move forward with doing so. But, since we all know that can’t be done…

“However, I would venture to say that if you listed out the benefits of marriage one by one, and put them to a vote in terms of allowing gay couples to have those rights WITHOUT using the word marriage, the American people would support it.”

Craig, I’m speaking from a political view here.
You said it yourself, “allowing gay couples to have those RIGHTS.”
Barring some type of criminal record, ALL AMERICANS DESERVE TO HAVE THOSE RIGHTS. It is not fair to determine whether a person has rights or not through a vote.
This is no different than the lefts views on our 2nd Amendment rights: Guilty until proven innocent. That is not how rights work.

Using religion to get votes will end up hurting the GOP and this country.

Rhinehold:
“Please PLEASE stop the rhetoric! I can get all of this from democrats.com or Daily KOS, I had hoped that we would be a little bit better than that…”

I give you facts and my honest opinions and you call it nothing but empty rhetoric.
You want nasty rhetoric? Fine, I can give you that. No problem at all…

So. They want to call the fact that a few of Dubya’s choices are being filibustered a “constitutional crisis”?
This, despite the fact that Dem’s have only blocked the worst of Dubya’s nominees?
Despite the fact that 204 of his judicial nominees were confirmed in his first term (the highest number for a first term since 1980)?
Despite the fact the judicial vacancy rate is the lowest it has been in 16 years?
What idiots. That’s not a constitutional crisis!!!

Of course, it was Orrin Hatch who first to called it a “crisis” — actually his exact words were that it was: “unprecedented, unfair, dangerous, partisan and unconstitutional” before he called it a “constitutional crisis”.
This, despite the fact that in 1994 during a Republican led filibuster on a judicial nomination (Henry Foster for surgeon general) Hatch himself said that the filibuster was: “one of the few tools the minority has to protect itself and those the minority it represents.”
Unprecedented? Unfair? Dangerous? Partisan? Unconstitutional?
HYPOCRITE!!! LIAR!!!
Has he no shame?
There is no constitutional crisis!!!

Oh, it’s just so glaringly a case of the Neocon’s wanting to do away with the only tool that might force the Administration and Congress to engage in a little bipartisan cooperation.
This is just the far-right hardliners (and their constituencies, naturally) rejecting the one way that questions regarding the nations critical issues might be answered by consensus, in order to diabolically force their narrow political ideology on the entire country so they may rule completely unimpeded — like a dictatorship.

Constitutional Crisis?
BULLSHIT!
They are the constitutional crisis!
With their Patriot Acts, and their blank checks for pre-emptive war on pathetically weak evidence, and their cutting of soldiers benefits, and their unchecked spending and astronomical deficit, and their wish to end Social Security, and their rollbacks of environmental legislations. and their Evangelical faith-based government, and their special rules for Crooks like Tom Delay, and their special bills for Terri Shiavo, etc., etc., etc.
THEY ARE THE F*CKING CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!!!

How is that for nasty rhetoric?
I think it’s not too bad, but since it’s only around 8:30 Pacific standard time, I feel I might have done better a bit later in the day.

Well said, kctim. Hey, you were right, it’s nice to see we do sometimes agree! :^)

Adrienne,

You need to cut back on the coffee.

Rocky:
“Adrienne,
You need to cut back on the coffee.”

:^D
Nah, I was just giving Rhinehold what he asked for — over-the-top rhetoric. And what’s rhetoric without a little passion, eh?

Adrienne,

Well you did say that it was posted at 11:33 in the morning. You live on the west coast if I remember correctly, that would mean that your day was just starting.
Amazing that you can be that passionate that early in the morning. ;^D

Rhinehold,

On the subject of internal terrorism, you should check out this from CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/

Rhinehold,

I’m probably premature. The transcript should be available soon.

The story was about Aryan Nation trying to align with al Qaeda.
Nothing to fear there right?

Rhinehold,

“Aired April 20, 2005 - 19:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Enemy within: are homegrown terrorists a bigger threat to you than al Qaeda? Tonight, meet a white supremecist who wants to build an alliance with bin Laden.

COOPER: Good evening again. For three-and-a-half years, we’ve been worried in this country about foreign terrorists. But here is a startling fact. CNN today learned there are more than 300 active FBI field investigations targeting 22 domestic terror organizations. We’re talking about a variety of groups, but notably white supremacist including the National Alliance and the Aryan Nations.

And there are worries those domestic groups may be trying to reach out to foreign terrorists as well. CNN’s Rick Sanchez sat down with the leader of the Aryan Nations and heard his chilling offer to al Qaeda. We are warning you some is full of hate and disturbing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RICK SANCHEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): August Kreis is a white supremacist and the leader of a group of the Aryan Nation. Not someone you would think would be making a common cause with the Islamic terrorists who attacked the U.S. on 9/11.

AUGUST KREIS, ARYAN NATION: You say they are terrorists, I say they are freedom fighters. And I want to instill the same jihadic feeling in our people’s heart, in the Aryan race that they have for their father who they Allah.

SANCHEZ: Kreis, who is trying to build this unholy alliance between al Qaeda and the Aryan Nation from of all places, Florida. (on camera): I want to show you something that ironic about this particular story in relation to the state of Florida. This is Palm Beach County Airport, one of the places where Mohammed Atta the supposed mastermind of the 9/11 attack came to try to learn to fly one of these planes.

And now we’re in the orange groves of Central Florida. This is where Aryan Nation has now set up shop. And there’s more. This is where Aryan Nations leader is now thanking al Qaeda and praising those very same hijackers that we just told you about.

You want Americans to appreciate the efforts of the very people who attacked us on 9/11.”

You can read more here:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/20/acd.01.html

Rocky,

Re: internal terrorism — you might be interested in this AP article.

Adrienne and Rocky
Finally, something I know something about, lol.
I hope to be able to make this a discussion topic one day.
Just alittle something realy quick.
There are more “radical” extreme left groups than there are “violent” extreme right groups out there right now.
The left ones commit more crimes and create more damage every year than the right ones do.
Groups such as CI and the Aryans are few and far between. They are more prone to commit larger but fewer acts.
Since much of what they stand for includes racism, they are heavily monitored by the govt. and are easier to infilitrate than the ELF type nuts. They are pretty much under constant watch.
And, to be honest, they arent really the sharpest pencils in the box.

Militias are a totally different story. They are mainly just average people who believe in the Constitution. Maybe, 1 out a 100 are violent.

Sorry to get off topic, but it thrilled me to see your posts. Thanks.

kctim,

It matters little to me whether the groups are from the right or the left.

Thanks though.

LOL! Animal Liberation Front! That’s hilarious. “Follow me to victory, my monkey brothers!” :D

Me either Rocky, the point is that we DO have plenty of internal problems and that those problems will continue to escalate over the next years. Especially when another liberal is elected president.
I was going more for a cycle thing and not trying to defend one side over another.
This is a serious problem that most Americans have forgotten about.

Breaking news!!! An amazing discovery was made today in Jefferson County, KY. A small underground colony was unearthed where an entire community has been living in total isolation for the past fifty years. They immediately jumped into the current political foray.

… several hundred people gathered at a Presbyterian church where progressive religious leaders condemned Frist and others for using the pulpit to spread a political message.