Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Robert Novak :: Townhall.com Columnist
Rove's Diagnosis
by Robert Novak
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


WASHINGTON -- Karl Rove, President Bush's political lieutenant, told a closed-door meeting of 2008 Republican House candidates and their aides Tuesday that it was less the war in Iraq than corruption in Congress that caused their party's defeat in the 2006 elections.

Rove's clear advice to the candidates is to distance themselves from the culture of Washington. Specifically, Republican candidates are urged to make clear they have no connection with disgraced congressmen such as Duke Cunningham and Mark Foley.

In effect, Rove was rebutting the complaint inside the party that George W. Bush is responsible for Republican miseries by invading Iraq.

MCCAIN VS. THOMPSON

Sen. John McCain, trying to keep his sinking Republican presidential campaign afloat, scheduled a fund-raiser for the same day -- Monday -- that Fred Thompson is holding his first Washington money event. McCain's reception is in the same suburban Virginia neighborhood where Thompson lives.

McCain's $1,000-to-$2,300 per person "intimate lunch" is being held at the McLean, Va., home of Wes Foster. He is chairman and CEO of Long & Foster, a major Washington area real estate firm. Thompson is holding a reception that night at the J.W. Marriott hotel in downtown Washington.

A footnote: Alabama Atty. Gen. Troy King, McCain's state chairman, attended a private fund-raiser for Thompson in Mountain Brook, Ala., last Monday night. However, as an invited guest, King did not pay the $1,000 price of admission and said he was still committed to McCain.

PENTAGON EARMARKS

Sen. Tom Coburn, frustrated with the Pentagon winking at earmarks, wrote Defense Secretary Robert Gates July 19 requesting a critique of all Defense spending items asked by members of Congress to determine whether they "are for necessary national security purposes or to satisfy the parochial self-interests of politicians and defense industry lobbyists."

Coburn has experienced difficulty in getting information from the Pentagon on more than 300 earmarks contained in the Defense Department authorization bill. Over the past five years, such earmarks have cost taxpayers $55 billion. Coburn has not received a response from Gates at this writing. He has failed to mandate such critiques by legislative action.

Earmarks cited in Coburn's letter to Gates include more than $40 million for 21st Century Systems Inc. (21 CSI), sponsored by Sen. Ben Nelson. In defending the earmark for a company that employs his son, Nelson claims support from the Pentagon.

TIM JOHNSON'S RETURN

Solicitations for a Sept. 12 fund-raising reception in Washington on behalf of ailing Sen. Tim Johnson give the impression he will be present at the event, but in fact there are no such plans.

Sources close to Johnson say he will not decide his schedule until he is back in the Senate, and there is no firm schedule yet for that. Johnson has not been seen publicly since suffering a brain hemorrhage last Dec. 13, but his staff has been raising funds for his re-election campaign in South Dakota. His campaign has $1.75 million cash on hand.

The $1,000-to-$2,300-a-ticket reception will be held at the home of Johnson's fellow South Dakotan, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and his wife, transportation industry lobbyist Linda Daschle, on Foxhall Road millionaire's row in Washington. It has been speculated that if Johnson cannot run, Daschle could attempt a political comeback.

GROUCHY GINGRICH

Contrary to reports that Newt Gingrich lost control in one of his temper tantrums at a breakfast last Monday sponsored by The American Spectator magazine, the former House speaker was variously described as "grouchy," "cool" and "arrogant" in assailing his critics.

Gingrich made clear he would not be seen anytime soon engaging in multi-candidate debates with opponents for the presidency, disdaining them, as he said Charles DeGaulle once labeled his competitors, as "pygmies." But he did not rule out an eventual candidacy.

A footnote: Republican leaders report that the most enthusiasm among grassroots activists is for Gingrich and libertarian Rep. Ron Paul.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Robert Novak (1931-2009) was a syndicated columnist and editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Go Ron Paul!!
"Republican leaders report that the most enthusiasm among grassroots activists is for Gingrich and libertarian Rep. Ron Paul."

The problem with the party
They abandoned their limited government principles, so we're abandoning them. Their long-brewing problems really came to a head when they banned Internet poker, as it showed the hypocrisy of the party in its claims of believing in limited government. It became obvious that the party simply wished to limit the government to doing what they wanted it to do.

Funny how the federal government is now supposed to monitor YOUR banking transactions and Internet usage to make sure you don't decide to spend your own money on a friendly game of poker, yet claims it cannot monitor and identify illegal immigrants.

Letter to McCain
I've posted my last letter to Sen. McCain here before, but I'll repeat it here, as it's pertinent to the article.

I have a lot of respect for McCain as a patriot and as a person. I do strongly disagree with him on amnesty and on McCain-Feingold. Also, I wish he were stronger on the Second Amendment. That being said, as he's still in the race, I figured I'd share my opinions with him on how to succeed:


Senator John McCain
United States Senate
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator McCain:

I am writing regarding your recent slip in the presidential polls. I think perhaps some of this has come from a change in perception over what the Straight Talk Express stands for. If you were to refocus your campaign by acting as a spokesman for individual freedoms and limited government, I believe you could win back significant support. I hope you will – real conservatives desperately need a champion.

As a limited government conservative in the tradition of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, I and many like me are disappointed by the takeover of our party by big government social “conservative” CINOs (conservatives in name only) who seek federal legislation outlawing everything to which they are personally opposed while spending like drunken sailors on everything else. The Republican Party used to believe in limited government and in individual rights. However, the big spending, big government social conservatives won’t ever go back to that, now that they’ve tasted the sweet, tantalizing flavor of government power. It appears that it is up to the rest of the Republican Party to reclaim the limited government mantle that is rightfully ours.

I ask you to stand strong for limited government and individual rights. A great place to start is with Internet poker, as this issue in particular demonstrates the divide between real limited government conservatives and the big government CINO infiltrators. The CINO thought process is as follows: “I don’t like Internet poker, therefore I want federal legislation to ban it for everyone”. That’s not conservative by any definition of the term. The conservative mindset (of someone who does not play Internet poker) is: “I don’t play Internet poker, so I won’t play…problem solved, and it required no federal restrictions on the liberties of others”. This is especially true given that the June 8 House Financial Services Committee hearing on Internet gaming conclusively proved that Internet gaming can be effectively regulated for underage gambling, compulsive gambling, fairness, tax collection, and other issues. I urge you to publicly support the right to choose to play poker by being the Senate sponsor of H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007.

Thank you for your consideration. I wish you the best of luck with your run.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

Frist was the real problem
Frist took a once-proud limited government majority party and helped turn it into a big government, big spending, nanny-statist minority party, where Democrats look like small government proponents in comparison. Frist's most egregious offense was in ramming the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act through the Senate by adding it to the SAFE Ports Act, thereby using the power of the federal government to censor the Internet and to force banks and Internet service providers to spy on the American people in case we're....gasp!...playing poker with our own money in our own homes on the Internet. OH, THE HORROR!!! Actually, the horror is that the Republican Party became the party of big government.

Frist wrecked the party and the limited government movement. I’m glad he’s gone.

Social conservative statists
Many social conservatives WANT big government, in hopes that they can somehow legislate the morals they wish Americans would have. I guess they don’t believe in free will, or even in freedom. Unfortunately, they've recently gone even more overboard, especially as they try to move their freedom-restricting issues into the Internet age. For example, they used to oppose gambling based on issues related to physical casinos. Now they wish to prohibit people from playing poker in their own homes, and they clearly cannot make nearly as an effective case. In fact, they look like they don't believe Americans can make their own decisions. They don’t trust us with freedom, and the party is listening.

This is dangerous for many reasons. One reason is that we rely on the Republican Party to protect our right to bear arms. Do we really believe our party can effectively claim we cannot play poker at home but can own semi-automatic weapons? As an NRA life member, I'm very concerned. The party is willing to pander to us for our vote, but they don't seem to understand WHY we're permitted to defend ourselves, as they likely don't believe government tyranny is even possible anymore.

Here’s a communication I had with Focus on the Family. The level of delusion is amazing. They believe Americans require laws on negative behaviors, as if we’re incapable of surviving without the direction of the government. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao believed this. Sad that many Americans are moving in the same direction:

Dear Amy and Focus on the Family,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply to my inquiry on your stand concerning Internet poker. I read it with much interest and felt compelled to reply. I honestly don’t feel your advocacy of a total ban on Internet poker is in the best interests of your organization, and I’d like to share my thoughts with you on this.

Your organization thrives under freedom. The power you wish to give the federal government over our lives is the power the government will one day use against all Christians, including Focus. As I mentioned in my initial letter, you’ve essentially told the federal government that Americans cannot be trusted to make their own decisions, so I hope you won’t be surprised when preachers are prohibited from speaking against homosexuality and other issues (at risk of losing at least their tax exempt status). As you know, many feel discrimination is a moral issue as well. Many also feel the same way about gun possession, and I’m certainly not willing to initiate any process by which I end up surrendering my Second Amendment rights simply to keep people from choosing to play poker. Many of my fellow conservative Republicans feel this way, and we’ll vote for our freedoms. How will Focus fare under the Democratic majority you’re helping to create?

You mentioned that all laws are based on morality. I respectfully beg to differ. Theft may be immoral, but laws against it are based on property rights. Laws against murder are based on the right of the victim to life. Many pro-life people, me included, are pro-life not because of morality, but because we believe the unborn child has a right to life just as a “born” individual does. Even if you do believe freedom should be curtailed in the name of morality, you have not made the case that poker is immoral. Gambling is not prohibited anywhere in the Bible. In fact, your tortured “proof” that poker is a sin really only proves that your organization simply doesn’t like poker. Perhaps it doesn’t “seem” Christian to some. Sorry, but most of us believe God gave us His marching orders in the Bible and that we shouldn’t be in the business of inventing new sins. Does Focus feel the work God actually asked of us is done, such that you all feel compelled to figure out what’s next? If not, how much time and money is Focus taking from God’s work to work on curtailing freedom in America, and how much is too much? After all, you know my fellow poker players will be fighting hard for our freedom. Your ill conceived fight for big government will consume a lot of cash and political capital. Is it worth it?

Your citing of the experiences of Atlantic City, NJ was telling. First of all, it seems disingenuous that you chose the example with the most manipulable statistics to cite as average. The use of per capita stats appears disingenuous, as Atlantic City has many more tourists now than it had pre-gambling. As such, the city’s average daily population (which includes these many money-spending tourists) of Atlantic City is now much higher than the city’s resident population (which is used for per capita statistics). Were you trying to imply that crime rate increases were caused by former law-abiding citizens who were drawn to crime by gambling addictions? I hope not, as the reality is that crime went up simply as a result of increased economic activity, growth, and increased tourism; in fact, many believe any economic stimulus would have caused a similar outcome. And, the reality is that Atlantic City is far better off today than it was the day before gambling was legalized. Finally, this whole argument is better suited for “bricks and mortar” casinos and related zoning issues. As Internet poker does not cause any of the issues you attempted to show with the example of Atlantic City, it seems odd to cite this case as justification for an Internet poker ban.

Also, not all Internet gambling has been banned. Many Republicans schemed behind the scenes to allow Internet wagering on horseracing to continue. Why no Alert Warnings about this? Is Chad Hills okay with horse betting? Or, could it be that you all oppose all gambling…just some more than others? I imagine it’s hard to oppose your friends in Congress. It does seem hypocritical, though. After all, Internet horse betting is no less susceptible to the issues you cited than Internet poker. You can be sure the proponents of Internet poker will ask you why you support Internet horseracing wagering (at least implicitly by not opposing it with the same vigor as you do poker). What will you say? Will you stand for your friends, or will you stand for your principles?

Finally, I think your organization fails to understand the realities of poker. Poker is a game of skill that we play because we enjoy the challenges of the game. I think you feel everyone who plays is some kind of addicted gambler. I assure you nothing could be further from the truth. A recent Harvard study concluded that only 0.4% of gamblers develop addictions. Why deprive the other 99.6% of their liberties when you could be at the forefront of helping those who actually need it? After all, they’ll find a bet somewhere. HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, funds treatment for compulsive gamblers while regulating the industry for fairness, age verification, and other issues. Wouldn’t your organization be better suited to providing this treatment and to airing public service announcements warning of your concerns, so that Americans could make their own choices? I think you would.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Kind regards,

xxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message ----
From: Focus on the Family
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 8:35:11 AM
Subject: Gambling [Incident: 070704-000293]

Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.

Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you.


Subject
Gambling

Discussion Thread
Response (Amy Campbell) 07/11/2007 09:35 AM
Thank you, xxxx, for contacting Focus on the Family.

We appreciate the time you took to offer your personal insights on the controversial issue of gambling. In response, what some people don't realize is that the pragmatic downside to gambling, including poker, is serious. The hard facts indicate that legalized gambling is responsible for a host of social ills (a suggestion that can be validated by looking at virtually any area where gambling has been introduced on a widespread basis). Take Atlantic City, for example, where from 1976 to 1992 the community’s police budget tripled to $24 million while the local population decreased by 20 percent. And despite spending $59 million yearly to monitor casinos, during the first three years of casino operation Atlantic City jumped from 50th to 1st on the nation’s per capita crime chart! Even more disturbing is the astronomical price tag associated with the costs of “cleaning up the mess” left in gambling’s wake. John Kindt, Ph.D., professor of commerce and legal policy at the University of Illinois, asserts that for every one dollar of revenue generated by gambling, taxpayers must dish out at least three dollars in increased criminal justice costs, social-welfare expenses, high regulatory costs, and increased infrastructure expenditures.

In addition, gambling can quite literally have a devastating effect on individuals. Millions of Americans now have a compulsive gambling problem, which not only causes great personal financial hardship for the gambler, but also disrupts and, in some cases, destroys families. Countless studies show a direct link between legalized gambling and gambling addictions, as well as drug and alcohol abuse and suicide.

On another note, if it be contended that Dr. Dobson wants to “legislate morality,” or that we are attempting to force individuals to conform to our idea of what constitutes godly behavior, we respond that nothing could be further from the truth. But Dr. Dobson believes that a nation which recognizes no transcendent standard of accountability is headed for moral bankruptcy and social chaos. All laws place restraints upon human behavior by declaring one act socially acceptable and another unacceptable. To that extent laws are statements about morality. We can’t avoid “legislating morality,” then. The question is, whose morality will be legislated? To what standard do we appeal in seeking a rationale for our laws? As Chuck Colson writes in his book, _Kingdoms in Conflict_, “Without transcendent norms, laws are either established by the social elites or are merely bargains struck by competing forces in society ... laws rooted in moral absolutes do not vacillate with public taste or the whim of fashion.”

Again, thanks for writing. We hope this response has clarified our perspective. God bless you.

xxxxxxxxxxxx
Focus on the Family
Auto-Response 07/08/2007 08:07 PM
Recently you submitted a question or comment to Focus on the Family. Please know that we are currently experiencing higher than expected volumes of e-mail. Should your situation require a response, we ask that you please allow a few additional days for handling. We appreciate your patience.


Customer 07/04/2007 08:05 PM
I’m writing to let you know many Americans find your organization’s outspoken (and often inaccurate to the point of being deceitful) advocacy of banning Internet poker offensive, particularly FoF’s assertion that the American people need the federal government to act as their nanny. Americans are capable of making their own decisions. We don’t need a bigger federal government to do that for us. Actually, we need a smaller one. After all, the power you give government today is the power they’ll use against us tomorrow.

For example, do you feel safe in saying the IRS could never revoke a church's tax exempt status for refusing to hire a innapropriate pastor? Do you feel safe in saying the IRS could never revoke a church's tax exempt status for preaching that homosexuality is a sin? If you answered "yes, that cannot happen", are you certain that couldn't come to pass within ten years? And, why shouldn't it? YOU decided government should involve itself in issues of morality, and many Americans do think discrimination against gays is immoral. That's the power you're advocating giving government today!!! After all, YOU said the American people are incapable of making their own decisions. YOU said government should have a role. And, YOU condemned yourself to this outcome by chasing limited-government conservatives like me from the Republican Party, assuring the party of minority status.

I urge you to let this one go. Support limited government. Support regulation over prohibition. Fiscal conservatism plus government out of your life = true conservatism. Government control of one’s life = statism.

Sincerely,

xxxxxxxxxx
Auto-Response 07/04/2007 08:05 PM
Focus on the Family

Tannabear
I remember those two names. Cunningham I used to respect and when he came to trouble he finally stood tall and truely accepted responsibility for his actions, by cooperating with authorities and publicly denouncing his actions as the vile and reprehensible acts they were. Unlike so many other public personalities who get busted then claim to take full responsibility for their actions while continuing with their current office. Case in point was Mark Foley and the congressional leadership who did little to end his stay in congress. Thus I think they were great examples of why republicans are haveing trouble with their base.

Prepare for impeachment.
< < Even better, Republicans should bring up impeachment charges against Jorge Bush and Dick Cheney. > >

I wholeheartedly agree. Both sides of the political spectrum have just cause for impeaching Cheney and Bush, and support for impeachment proceedings is growing (it's already a majority in regards to Cheney).

The two sides may not entirely agree on what constitutes serial gross wrongdoing, but an effort can be made for joint support of what clearly constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. That is the first step.

The second step is for Republicans to pick their President Ford. Republicans of all stripes should start formulating a plan for this, because the dual impeachment is not about installing President Pelosi but about serial gross wrongdoing.

They need to pick a competent, honest, and ethical Republican whose values represent the GOP's supporters but who also doesn't alienate the rest of the country. Have that person ready to step in to replace Cheney, who will either be oustered or will quit. Then go after "Jorge Bush," as THers have been calling him lately.

This will show future leaders that we take the presidency seriously and that they are not elected despots. It will show the world that we take seriously the American values embodied in our Constitution that made this a great nation that other countries would do well to emulate.

But we must acknowledge the pragmatic reality: Republicans would not want to give up the White House to the other party, and certainly not Speaker Pelosi, so now is the time to look for that President Ford.

It is probably none of the GOP candidates right now. It should be someone who is capable of the office, but perhaps no longer interested in pursuing it in November 2008.

Despite his age, I would think Bush41 would be a good choice for this task, remaining as president for the remaining year or so. He is qualified to serve as VP and even president for the remaining of the term, since the constitutional amendment limiting presidents to two elections actually allows for them to be president for up to ten years.

Bush41 is presidential, and after the botched Iraq War, a great many in the middle and among the Democrats see him in a far more positive light than in the past. Choosing him would raise the level of competence and honor in the White House, but with the least amount of disruption for the nation.

Who else? Were he to agree not to run, I would say Fred Thompson. Though he is considered a RINO by many on the far right, Lincoln Chafee would be a choice who would enjoy wide support as an interim President.

Perhaps Bob Dole, though his age also brings with it the same problems as Bush41. Maybe Libby Dole then, or Christine Todd Whitman (either of which would deny Hillary the chance of being the first woman president).

But it's got to be someone. Who? Now is the time to check résumés and see who is up for the task. Time is running out for this to not be a disaster for the Republican side if it were to happen. Momentum for impeachment is building.

Rove has been hailed in
the past as a "political genius" and the libtards have had their stakes out for years waiting for the chance to hammer it home. Too bad they will not get him. The fact is, he is no genius. In the two elections that Rove is credited for seering through to victory, Bush won not because of a brilliant political play or even great support for Bush. Bush won the first election because of Clinton fatique and the fact that the Dems ran a cigar store indian who was a parady of himself. As bad as Bush's speaking abilities are, Gore's were worse. With all of that it was still a major squeeker and Gore would have won if Nader the green had sat it out. The second election saw Bush win by a larger amount. Bush won because the public did not wish to change during the WOT and the fact that the Dems ran a candidate who was even worse than Gore.

Now everone says Iraq is the cause of the 06 failure and Bush drop in support. I say the drop in support is due to his abandoning the base. The people who were against the war did not change, it was the base that changed.

Canuck or not?
Halo says, “far more Americans-- 70pc of US -- want out…” and then “ refusing to take US out of Iraq”. Have you not stated that you are CANADIAN? If so, then you are respectfully requested to MYOB.

This is hilarious.
What a wonderful panoply of editorial blurbs, all with basically the same theme: Republicans are totally out of touch with the average American voter.

Yeah, I think I'll just go sign up for that $1000-$2300 a ticket "reception." I'm sure I'll fit right in with that crowd...

But I must say that BBQ held for Ron Paul at $25 a ticket was priceless. The food was good, and the food for thought was historic.

Love that footnote: "Republican leaders report that the most enthusiasm among grassroots activists is for Gingrich and libertarian Rep. Ron Paul."

Well, duh. It's about TIME they woke up. See you at youtube, Ron!

Ron Paul 2008
For the PEOPLE

Karl uncoded
"Rove's clear advice to the candidates is to distance themselves from the culture of Washington."

Maybe that is codespeak for distance yourself from Dubya.

The clear message is
distance yourselves from liberal Repubs who are nothing more than Roosevelt commies. Liberal socialists who support the war.

Robert
I know as a Liberal you see the Republicans as the cause of 'Mess' you describe in Washington. Changing management at the political level will have almost no effect on those areas you gave as examples or for the most part any other area in which the government malfunctions. The problem is government. The men that set up our form of government understood the limits of government's ability to be effective and as such limited the governments role in our lives.

No matter which party is in power 99% of the people implimenting policy and managing things day to day never change. The American people appear to be picking up on this. They view government as not being able to function effectively. In attempting to do too much it does nothing well.

A gauge of this perception on the part of the public is the approval polling of both houses of Congress (controlled by Democrats) that is much lower than the President's. Obviously a lot of people think Bush's performance stinks. Even more think the job being done up on Capital Hiil is worse.

Internet gambling...
...Engineer,Congress has no problem with internet poker or any other internet gambling.Their problem is TAXES.They haven't figured out a way to tax the winnings of American citizens yet.When they do that,it will be legalized.They want their cut,that's all.

What is this thing about impeachment?What high crime or misdeamer has Bush,let alone Cheny,commited deserving impeachment? Just because you don't like their politics doesn't mean they qualify for impeachment.I can see ahead to 2009,when the elected president of either party lowers their hand after being sworn in,and a great cry will go up:IMPEACH THEM,IMPEACH THEM!Has our national politics sunk this low?I'm afraid I've lived too long.

Duke Cunningham
was a fighter pilot/war hero. After he was elected to congress he went on the take and got caught at it. He didn't try to weasel out of it by the usual methods: claiming alcoholism & going into rehab, or being 'born again', etc., etc. He admitted his mistake and took his punishment like a man. It's really a sad case that we shouldn't take any joy in. There are numerous slimeball politicians as crooked (or worse) than Cunningham was that are still walking around free and continuing to line their pockets.

Ron Paul
Since the Ron Paul advocates tell us that RP is against this war my question to RP would he go to war to maintain the free flow of oil for the U.S.? One more thing why doesn't he write columns on TH like Fred.I am sure TH and all readers would like to learn more about him,I know I would.

Impeachment?
I'm with you Nam65-66, what are the articles of impeachment that show high crimes and misdemeanors? Libs can't even find that Bush has lied about the war much less find some "crime".

Now, I can't stand the position that Bush takes on the border. I was heavily involved with the NumbersUSA fight against the amnesty bills but that doesn't mean that I think he should be impeached for his position. He was pursuing (idiotic) legislation to get his way, not using presidential fiat to open the borders.

And Cheney? He, in my opinion, is a great public servant. I have never heard him say anything I didn't generally agree with and he has no illusions of being president one day (one of the few VPs in history with no such aims). Just because the left has made him out to be some scary boogyman does not mean that they are right. In fact, the more they complain about him, the more I like him given how wrong they always are about such things.

As for Rove, he has been blinded by the notion that Hispanics will run to the GOP if we open the borders. Even brilliant political consultants like Rove can get swept up in groupthink sometimes.

Bottom line, I'm with those who think that the GOP has abandoned its base one too many times. The War on Islamism is what has kept us with the Republicans but they are fighting it like a bunch of liberal wussies. Time to get back to shock and awe or see the GOP go down in flames of their own lighting.

-B

P.S. Great satire purplestater regarding the President Ford idea. I especially liked the concept of impeaching the son and installing the father in his place :-)

It's not your typo's...
...that I am laughing at,Gabby.It's your statements.A Ron Paul kool aid drinker is as humourous as Ron Paul.

ROVE'S DIAGNOSIS
When the blind lead the blind, they both shall fall into the ditch.
I love the way Foggy Bottom veterans rarely admit the obvious, much less their part, despite the fact that everyone else knows the king--King George II in this case--has no clue.
Yes, Rover, it's all congress's fault.
Frist and Denny are idiots, but they are not the chief idiots.
George II took us into a war of choice. And he and his version of Bob McNamara, Rummy, had no plan once Saddam was deposed. No plan, no clue. Criminal negligence, which has resulted in tens of thousands US KIA/wounded/maimed and God knows how many locals.
And when has The Great Moralist spoken out publicly about congressional corruption?
How about presidential and vice presidential corruption?
I think Iraq is a red herring, to distract from the north american union bush is illegally conspiring to create. With George as its first king?
What Rover doesn't mention speaks volumes.

enthusiasm
Bob Novak reports: "Republican leaders report that the most enthusiasm among grassroots activists is for Gingrich and libertarian Rep. Ron Paul."

Now THAT is the most frightening thing I've heard all week.

GOP "enthusiasm" for Ron Paul is the mirror image of Democratic "enthusiasm" for Cindy Sheehan.

Beeblebrox...
...The important thing is not what Bush-Cheny did,it's the charges that are important.See Tanabears rant above.Typical.

Internet poker, the hot issue of 2008
TheEngineer writes: "Now they wish to prohibit people from playing poker in their own homes, and they clearly cannot make nearly as an effective case."

What is it with you and Internet gambling anyway? This is the second or third post you've griped about it. Are you designing websites for online casinos or something?

Single-issue voters are funny sometimes. I can understand why abortion is a hot button issue--it involves the deepest philosophical questions of sex, procreation and life itself. But Internet poker? Give me a break!

Why Republicans are being shunned
The reason America is shunning the GOP is because it's obvious to everyone that the GOP is incapable of being self-critical and then learning from it's mistakes.

Just look at how many articles there have been on townhall.com about the AG. I haven't seen one yet that is critical of the guy, yet everyone with a brain knows that Gonzales is lying his butt off. It's straight out of the GOP playbook: When faced with bad news ignore it and pretend it isn't really happening; and if that doesn't work, blame the democrats.

We can see this in war on Iraq too. Ignore the bad news as much as possible, and when that doesn't work, blame the democrats. They're shameless.

Of course, all of this only serves to leave a stain of corruption on the GOP brand. No one is going to trust the GOP until they can be honest with themselves about corruption and cronyism in their ranks. And fortunately for us moderates, I see no signs of this trend turning around anytime soon.

Keep it up fools.

Phylo out

why choose?
hosekuervo writes: "Rove's in denial. His remarks were totally self serving. People hate the war along with the arrogance and incompetance of a President who is so obviously over his head. And the previous poster was right. People don't know who Duke Cunningham was and barely remember Mark Foley."

There's no reason to keep trying to figure out which is more important to the voters, corruption or the screwups in Iraq. Why choose at all?

If the GOP is to have a chance in 2008, they need to handle BOTH issues.

First, the GOP needs to convince Americans that they have learned from the mistakes Bush made in Iraq and won't repeat them. I would like to hear a GOP Presidential candidate say, "If as Commander-in-Chief, I ever have to commit U.S. forces to war, it won't be with 'limited footprints,' 'minimal force,' and limited Rules of Engagement. I will either use at least as much force as the military believes is necessary to win quickly and decisively, or I just won't go to war till that much force becomes available. We will never underestimate an adversary again."

Second, the GOP should prove it has learned from the corruption scandals of the past. If there are any more Duke Cunninghams or Mark Foleys hiding in Congress, NOW is the time for them to be outed so the issue can be defused. Not two weeks before the 2008 election.

The example of Senator Vitter is not encouraging. He continued to have staunch support from the GOP base and his GOP colleagues in Congress right up to the time the brothel scandal broke, even though rumors about his marriage and consorting with prostitutes had swirled around him for years. The GOP is real good at picking up on those vibes and following up on them when it's a Democrat (such as Bill Clinton). But once again, they gave Vitter a pass, only to be embarrassed when it got revealed by Larry Flynt.

Just once, I would like to see the GOP get out in front and clean their house BEFORE the Democrats and media do it for them.

Voting by proxy
I agree with Tanabear and some others that Rove is totally in denial over the reasons for the GOP debacle in 2006. Corruption may have played a small role, but the major reason the GOP lost both houses of congress is the public's appraisal of the party's standard-bearer. G.W. Bush.

Voters could not directly vote for, or against, Bush in 2006, so they did the next best thing...they voted against his party. Voting by proxy.

I believe the war in Iraq loomed large in the minds of most voters, even if they are against a precipitate withdrawal of our forces. They still have no confidence in Bush's ability to manage what has turned into a fiasco. In fact, they blame him for it becoming a fiasco. Related to Iraq, the general perception among voters is the breathtaking incompetence of this administration on a whole host of issues.

Voter perception of this administration's incompetence, especially reflected on the debacle of its handling of Iraq, was the motivating factor in their turning away from the GOP in 2006.

Its the same ole
Concert that 90 percent or more of the threads are about.

Whose fault is thus and thus as the violin strums the same notes, over and over again.

Democrats are corrupt.
Republicans are corrupt.

My party is pure
Your party is sinister, blah blah blah.

Back and forth and neither party belongs to we the people.
Pathetic how we have allowed them to cut us all up into squabbling children as they ignore the citizens of both parties and serve their true masters.

The voter who keeps either party in power is the real problem.
We need to see a Custer's Last Stand against every rotten politician in DC and State Governments to ever have any hope of recovery.
Wipe out the memory of both parties and toss the lying egotists out of power.

Vote anyone in, a ditch digger would be a step up from what we have now.

In the Dark
Think Bob Novak needs to take Roves advice and get out of the Beltway himself. Not one mention of immigration. He himself never saw the damage that this issue did to the party and the tragedy is that in the future when the party continues to go up in flames it's demise will be blamed on the "bigots" that kept the Hispanic vote from Republican hands.

If Rove was honest and as smart a politico as they say, he would advise any Replublican officeholder to distance yourself from himself and the president who is poison to any fool that stands beside him.

val34
Immigration was/is a huge issue.

Bush cannot alter his views on immigration. He truly believes in the amnesty scheme he and Ted Kennedy attempted to foist upon the nation.

Actually, the elites of both parties, academia, journalism and much of corporate America, all believe in this scheme.

In one of the truly unique events of our time, the amnesty scheme Bush, Ted Kennedy, most journalists, most of academia, and much of corporate America, attempted to force upon the nation was resoundingly rejected by middle America.

But these forces have not given up. They even now are still trying to get this enacted into law, piece by piece.

purplestater, et al
If Bush and Cheney are removed, Peolosi would be president.

It might be amusing to see a real rolling-on-the-floor catfight between her and Hillary for the nomination at the Dem convention.

Iraq weapons
Evryone with the brains of a one celled slime mold knows that the weapons were there and were moved in the final few weeks before we invaded. They are now in Syria.

Vic
"Evryone with the brains of a one celled slime mold knows that the weapons were there and were moved in the final few weeks before we invaded. They are now in Syria."

Source? With all our vaunted intelligence we could not see that in the most watched piece of land in the world? Time to kick the kool aid

Not good for McCain ...
... and now Bob Dole is set to "jump his ship" for Fred Thompson's "ship"!

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/07/bob-dole-to-abandon-john-mccain-for.html#links

HalD
I'm sorry that the Dem's biggest and first lie about Iraq was exposed. That was a long time ago. It has been published in the papers, it just didn't get carried to a large extent by the PR agents for the Dems at the NYT and MSM on TV.

Reagan coal. is now Ron Paul Revolution
If Republicans want to win in November of 2008, they must nominate Ron Paul.

If they nominate anyone else, they will assuredly lose.

The Reagan coalition has turned into the Ron Paul Revolution.

---------------

“...the two American political figures Ron Paul strikes me as being the most similar to are Thomas Jefferson and Barry Goldwater.” – Chuck Muth

“I strongly support Ron Paul. We very badly need to have more Representatives in the House who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom” – Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Economist

"If the framers of the Constitution were somehow to come back, Ron Paul is one of possibly only three people in Congress that they'd even talk to," said Mr. Williams, adding that most politicians have a "generalized contempt" for the values of the Constitution. – Walter Williams

“...in his heart and in his head, in his character and in his intellect, in what he has done and in what he will become, the Thomas Jefferson of our day, Ron Paul is one of us!" --Judge Andrew Napolitano
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8

"Texas Congressman Ron Paul's pro-gun credentials are impeccable and he has been a leading proponent of rolling back the past 40 years of gun control." -- Gun Owners of America

Ron Paul for President '08 -- "HOPE FOR AMERICA"
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/
http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html
http://gunowners.org/pres08/paul.htm

His new book on foreign policy:
http://www.mises.org/store/Foreign-Policy-of-Freedom-A-P359C0.aspx?AFID=2

Mental Derangement vs. Mental Vacuum
Liberal "La-la Land" wishful thinking in a non-perfect world politics as opposed to Neo-Con "Let's steal 'La-la landers' and create a new base and forget about what got us here."

That's the problem. Re-inventing "Conservatism" to fit political models is antithetical to Conservatism. Simple! And when you play those political games with such a simple concept, you get what you deserve. That's why I'm Independent beacuse of foolishness like this.

The day after Republicans were turned away in shame by a non-voting base, the radio waves were filled with Conservative explanations of "the election was not about the war as much as it was about forgotten Conservative values." And now our brilliant neo-Con "strategists" have finally come to a brilliant conclusion after studying and ruminating for over 6 months. Maybe they need to Rush to judgments by listening to more Talk Radio and Savage the opposition with backbones and one day they may Hannitize themselves for a more immediate cure to their weakened malaise which is all but destroying this country.

War approval ratings aren't low because we're fighting. It's because the same political game as Viet Nam in controlling our men and women in uniform instead of letting them get the job done without fear of being brought up on charges for doing their jobs. It's war not a Liberal appeasement exercise as Bin Laden and his ilk grab their aching midriffs from the extreme belly laughs politically correct America has inflicted upon them . . .

Yes, I would vote disapproval if asked in a poll. But it's not because we're there but because we don't seem to want to do what it takes. And that's not worth the life of our fighting forces to die in ambivalence.

Neo-Cons . . . drop the "Neo" crap and get with the program.

Vic
"I'm sorry that the Dem's biggest and first lie about Iraq was exposed. That was a long time ago. It has been published in the papers, it just didn't get carried to a large extent by the PR agents for the Dems at the NYT and MSM on TV."

They missed all the world press too. Amazing how a conspiracy of this scope could be pulled off by all these entities. And the wonderful Bush Regime even agrees with them too. Just how do you explain all this? Are you really THAT far out there??? I bet you think Iraq attacked us on 9/11 too right?

NO, indeed-
So Robert, not quite sure about your New Orleans reference but I do believe that Louisiana has been under democratic control for decades. I firmly believe that the first responders, ie, local and state failed miserably. They had 4 days to prepare and did nothing. Blance refused to call out the guard. Now, enough about NO because I'm sure your side will use it in the campaign. Remeber race baiting and class envy has always been the base of your party. Divide, if not, destroy.
You'd have to explain your foreign policy to this ole conservative a bit more. Not sure of your point and just who would decide the "need for military intervention?" I do believe Congress gave President Bush the power to go into Iraq even though your party's cries of lying have yet to be proven.
As for your domestic policy, do you mean govern by focus group and polls? That's how bubba did it.
As for the wmd's and your snide response to Vic-prove they WEREN'T moved.

sorry about the
mispell and typo's. Fingers were moving too fast. Meant Blanco and remember.

Bob Dole to leave McCain for Thompson!

I gave up trying to answer for
the uncommunicative people in the current admin a long time ago. Of course as stupid as they are, they are levels above the one-celled protozoa libs that frequent this site instead of their home at DU and Kos.

Nam65-66
"Nam65-66 writes: Saturday, July, 28, 2007 9:10 AM
Internet gambling...
...Engineer,Congress has no problem with internet poker or any other internet gambling.Their problem is TAXES.They haven't figured out a way to tax the winnings of American citizens yet.When they do that,it will be legalized.They want their cut,that's all."

That's the common perception. However, taxing Internet gambling is relatively easy. Taxes could simply be part of regulation. While we all love freedom, many Americans would prefer to not ship their money overseas, hoping the sites are fair. They'd rather have the sites U.S. based (or at least accountable to U.S. law). There is a bill in the House that does just this -- HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act. There was an excellent hearing held on June 8 where it was conclusively proven that Internet gaming can be taxed and regulated for age verification and other issues. Hearing documents are on the committee website, at http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml ; the hearing webcast is at http://financialserv.edgeboss.net/wmedia/financialserv/hearing060807.wvx .

So, it's possible to regulate Internet poker for compliance with our laws, including taxation. The actual hold-up has been from the right, from fascist groups like Focus on the Family. It seems we believe in limited government...that is, until we want something from the government. Then, anything goes!

blustrmom/grndmomx2
"Now, enough about NO because I'm sure your side will use it in the campaign. Remeber race baiting and class envy has always been the base of your party. Divide, if not, destroy."

First point, no other State in the Gulf has a major city like New Orleans. Second, any urban and state plan includes the arrival of outside help. That outside help effectively never arrived. Then this regime even turned away help for the area from abroad. Make light of the Bush Regime performance if you will but know it would have been no different if it was a major terrorist attack on Atlanta or Houston. They are simply incompetent.

"Divide, if not destroy" LMAO you have to know that is the conservative prayer and look how well you have done this to the country. We are divided and now Bush is destroying the military what next. You should be ashamed. shaking head here


tanabear
The only reason the UN was there was to facilitate bribery from Saddam. If you believe anything you hear from the UN then you are more stupid than the Democraps......

Vic
"I gave up trying to answer for
the uncommunicative people in the current admin a long time ago. Of course as stupid as they are, they are levels above the one-celled protozoa libs that frequent this site instead of their home at DU and Kos."

Please do not forget Huffington who I sometimes write for. I notice you are missing facts and forgive the Bushies for their part in your conspiracy...

SteveL
SteveL: "What is it with you and Internet gambling anyway? This is the second or third post you've griped about it. Are you designing websites for online casinos or something?"

To me, the "prohibition" on Internet poker represents the canary in the mine shaft; it marks the point at which Republicans officially stopped working against the unconstitutional growth of the federal government and started working for their "fair share" of government largesse. That doesn't bode well for America.

I don't personally gamble (I define gambling as wagering money on a hope of winning, despite being at a mathematical disadvantage). I do play poker -- I have a quantifiable advantage and I enjoy engaging in a challenging game of skill with fellow afficionados. I reject the idea that what I do in my own home with my own money is any concern of the federal government.

I'm not a single issue poster or voter. I've posted here several times in favor of smaller government and for our Second Amendment rights. It all works together. Either the government sees us as free citizens, or they see us as unwashed masses to be controlled. I'm sorry you don't see the urgency of this. I guess you will when they come for your freedoms. Of course, by then there may not be many left.

Put up Vic
"The only reason the UN was there was to facilitate bribery from Saddam. If you believe anything you hear from the UN then you are more stupid than the Democraps"

UNMOVIC had U.S. inspectors as part of the team as well. If you have evidence that UNMOVIC was in Iraq facilitating bribes, which also impugns the U.S., I would be happy to see it.



SteveL
And, I've posted in favor of Ron Paul a few times. I sent him a copy of a letter I sent to that prohibitionist Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), and he replied with the following:

Dear xxxxxxxx:

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office with your kind and supportive words and with a copy of your letter to Rep. Spencer Bachus. It is reassuring and encouraging to hear from those, such as yourself, who understand the issues and the positive impact of a pro-freedom philosophy.

Such active citizen participation, as the founders well understood, is absolutely vital to our form of government and to the preservation of the liberty they entrusted to us.

As I serve in the 110th Congress, rest assured that I shall continue to take very seriously my oath to uphold the Constitution of limited federal powers and work to make ours the freest, and hence most prosperous and tranquil society in the history of mankind.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to communicate your thoughts. I always appreciate hearing from those to whom power is vested by our Constitution, "the People of the United States."

Sincerely,

Ron Paul

-----------------------------

The Honorable Spencer Bachus
2246 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Cc: President George Bush; Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; my Representative (on the House Financial Services Committee); both of my Senators; The House Financial Services Committee; The House Judiciary Committee; Rep. Ron Paul; and Michael Duncan, Republican National Committee

Dear Congressman Bachus:

I’m writing in response to last Friday’s House Financial Services Committee hearing on Internet gambling (June 8, 2007: Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?, at http://financialserv.edgeboss.net/wmedia/financialserv/hearing060807.wvx). I was very impressed with quality of the hearing, especially with the witnesses who testified in favor of regulated Internet gambling. I felt the expert testimony of Michael Colopy of Aristotle Inc, Jon Prideaux of Asterion Payments, and Gerald Kitchen of SecureTrading Ltd. proved that Internet gambling can be regulated effectively (and has been successfully regulated in Britain). This pleased me, as I do share your concerns for underage gambling, compulsive gambling, and other issues. Fortunately, this is an issue we can effectively address with technology and regulation, rather than with a “feel good” unconstitutional prohibition. America is far better off with effective regulation than with a prohibition that relies on banks to snoop through our financial transactions and Internet service providers to snoop through our Internet usage history.

Further, I concurred completely with Radley Balko of Reason Magazine (and a regular Foxnews.com contributor) in that what Americans do in their own homes with their own money is their own business. As a limited-government conservative in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, I am distressed by the amount of government intrusion in our daily lives. I think many Americans feel the same way. In fact, it pains me to see our party acting as the agent of big government. I imagine you will consider the validity of Mr. Balko’s points relative to our freedoms and liberties, as I know you are a man who believes in these core American values regardless of your personal opinions concerning Internet poker.

Speaking of Mr. Balko, I was perplexed by your question to him concerning Ross Boatman and his biography on the FullTilt Poker web site. You seemed very concerned that, as a youth, Mr. Boatman played poker with his brother at the kitchen table, likely for pennies, baseball cards, or valueless chips used simply to keep score. Certainly you were not suggesting passing federal legislation to prevent brothers from playing poker at the kitchen table, were you? I certainly hope not, but one never knows, given recent Congressional history. Were you suggesting that Mr. Boatman was playing on the Internet with his brother when he was twelve? Aside from the age verification software present on all online gaming sites, certainly you understand no site ever permitted more than one player from the same IP address to play in the same poker game, due to collusion. I assume you do, as you claim expertise in this area. Also, as Mr. Boatman is in his 40s, he would have been twelve back in the pre-Internet 1970s. Anyway, regardless of the point you were trying to make, fortunately for Mr. Boatman this was prior to the current era of big government Republicanism. Also fortunate for Mr. Boatman, he grew up in England, where poker is not seen as something the national government has any business trying to prevent its citizens from enjoying. As such, he was able to play poker for pennies at his kitchen table with his brother without federal intrusion.

As for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, you noted that it does not make any gambling illegal that was not already illegal. Rather, it provides legal mechanisms for enforcement of existing state and federal gambling laws. Well, Internet poker is not illegal under existing federal law. As for state laws, very few states have outlawed Internet poker. Conversely, the vast majority of states permit online “games of skill” (such as the money skill games on yahoo.com and other sites that are not affected by UIGEA), and I think we can agree that professional players like Doyle Brunson are certainly skilled. It seems that if states wished to ban Internet poker, it seems they would have done so in an unambiguous fashion … especially if they wished to have the federal government enforce it.

HR 2046 provides real regulation, rather than a porous prohibition. A regulated Internet gambling environment will facilitate age verification and collection of federal and state taxes. It will also reduce any potential vulnerability of gambling websites to being used for money laundering, drug trafficking, or terrorist financing. With regulation, potential problems can be controlled without taking freedoms from Americans. After all, Russians and Eastern Europeans can gamble online; it seems the U.S. should trust its citizens at least as much as Russia trusts theirs, right?

Proponents of online gambling prohibition often mention endorsements UIGEA received from some in the religious community, some family groups, some financial services groups and some professional sports organizations. I hope you’ll consider the fact that these groups do not necessarily represent the majority of voters in our nation (or even the majority of Alabama Republicans). As for religious and family groups, there is no prohibition against gambling in the Bible, as was noted at the hearing. As a Christian, I personally find it offensive that some in the religious community are willing to give away our freedoms in pursuit of a goal not even defined in the Bible. As for financial services groups, some credit card issuers may like UIGEA (due only to the risk of losing players refusing to pay up), but I do not believe banks wish to be the enforcers of UIGEA. As a result, I think you’ll find financial services groups to be net losers as a result of UIGEA. Finally, I believe the concerns of the major professional sports organizations you mentioned relate only to sports betting. As HR 2046 permits them to opt out, this concern has been addressed.

In closing, I urge you to reconsider your strong opposition to allowing Americans to make their own decisions concerning playing poker in their own homes via the Internet. Online gambling will continue to exist with or without the participation of the United States. We’re losing our opportunity to control the games via regulation as well as the opportunities for U.S. companies to operate the games both domestically and internationally. This is costing America jobs and tax revenue.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

tanabear mendacity
It really does the Bush haters no good to try to tar Bush as a liar using a pack of lies tanabear. This is what is called "slander". You have ZERO evidence of crimes by Bush or Cheney, and thus, have failed miserably in your attempt to show impeachable offenses.

To wit:

"forged Uranium-Niger documents"

This is a red herring and even a little reading would show that the "forgery" meme is a dishonest canard of the left.

For those who have forgotten:

a.) Bush based his SOTU speech 16 words on British Intelligence, not the Niger docs.

b.) American intelligence had a set of REAL niger docs and an additional obviously forged doc. So poorly forged in fact, that it was immediately seen to be forged. To anyone's knowledge, Bush made no policy decision or public statement based on the content of this obviously forged doc. He didn't need to, he had a genuine one upon which to base his assessment. This issue has been thoroughly researched and is summed up nicely by well-known liberal, atheist gadfly, (and ironically firstnamed) columnist, Christopher Hitchens, He wrote early last year:

"A NATO investigation has identified two named employees of the Niger Embassy in Rome who, having sold a genuine document about Zahawie to Italian and French intelligence agents, then added a forged paper in the hope of turning a further profit. The real stuff went by one route to Washington, and the fakery, via an Italian journalist and the U.S. Embassy in Rome, by another. The upshot was—follow me closely here—that a phony paper alleging a deal was used to shoot down a genuine document suggesting a connection."

Read his article on the Niger Documents here:http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/?nav=navoa

The Downing Street Memos

Even Bush critics like Fred Kaplan of Slate Magazine say that there was no duplicity evidenced by the the DSM.:

"The memos do not show, for instance, that Bush simply invented the notion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or that Saddam posed a threat to the region. In fact, the memos reveal quite clearly that the top leaders in the U.S. and British governments genuinely believed their claims."

Read the whole article "What's really in the Downing Street Memos" here: http://www.slate.com/id/2120886/ and Christopher Hitchens take at Slate here: http://slate.com/id/2121212/


Tanabear continues:

"Bush not enforcing our immigration laws"

If not enforcing laws was impeachable then pretty much every cop, every FBI agent, every cabinet official, every judge, every DA, and every president in history should have been impeached. Laws go unenforced every day of every year. Sometimes this is a good thing (sodomy laws anyone?) from the perspective of some and sometimes it is infuriating to most (as is the case with border security). Regardless, it is a silly (IMHO) basis for articles of impeachment.

Final reason for impeachment according to tanabear:

"warrantless wiretapping"

Register Headline: "Warrantless wiretap opponents lose brace of court cases"

"In a 2-1 decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals last week dismissed a legal challenge to the warrantless surveillance program brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/09/warrantless_wiretap_court_latest/


'Nuff said on that


Then more mendacity spews forth from tanabear:

"Those who are familiar with the writings of the neo-cons know that that they are con-men extraordinaire."

We know such thing tanabear!

Neoconservatism, for those like tanabear who are seemingly uneducated about the various ideologies, is simply a strain of conservatism that optimistically belives that exporting democracy is a worthy goal. I think it is often overly optimistic but that is simply my opinion.

Tanabear, if you have evidence that neoconservatives are "con men" and that Bush has committed impeachable offenses then kindly prove. Otherwise, kindly SHUT UP!






http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/09/warrantless_wiretap_court_latest/



Robert
I do stand corrected I was thinking only the other half of the gulf. There are important sites all over the gulf coast. I always referred to it as a "target rich" environment when planning to predict and respond to possible attacks on the US. This is not new at all. I guess that is my point, these incompetents not only lost a major US city; they demonstrated they were incapable of handling a single major disaster let alone several.

What did you fly

Incompetents?
HalD:

"This is not new at all. I guess that is my point, these incompetents not only lost a major US city..."

I assume you are talking about the Democrat controlled state and local governments right?

By the way, if you have a complaint about federal response to Katrina, that would be a FEMA responsibility. FEMA is a last responder. As such, they had no authority nor are they really set up to do what the governor and the mayor are SPECIFICALLY required to do.

Why are we even talking about this anyway? If the problem was local it is a Democrat scandal, if it is a federal problem then it proves that the feds are incapable of handling direct response activities such as, oh, I don't know maybe... HEALTH CARE!!



Redtooth
One of the US Inspectors did get bribes from Saddam. That was Scott Ritter. That also was published in the MSM. In fact, there were so many people at the UN getting bribes from Saddam it would be easier to list the people at the UN who were not getting bribes.

Robert does it all.
HalD, Robert is a pilot, teacher, rock star, nuclear physicist, flies the space shuttle (sober even), and writes poetry. He is the Walter Mitty of Townhall. I only wish he would keep his life more... secret.

Beeblebrox
"I assume you are talking about the Democrat controlled state and local governments right?"

They certainly deserve a share but in a disaster of this magnitude it falls to the regional and federal governments. They showed the world how incapable the country is to react.

"By the way, if you have a complaint about federal response to Katrina, that would be a FEMA responsibility. FEMA is a last responder. As such, they had no authority nor are they really set up to do what the governor and the mayor are SPECIFICALLY required to do."

Not true, if required the federal government can indeed take control in a disaster. And the American people know it. Bush lies about how well things were going in Iraq held up until people saw how truly incompetent this Regime was in New Orleans. The confidence in this regime began to collapse right then and rightly so

"Why are we even talking about this anyway? If the problem was local it is a Democrat scandal, if it is a federal problem then it proves that the feds are incapable of handling direct response activities such as, oh, I don't know maybe... HEALTH CARE!!"

FEDS led by extreme conservatives are obviously incapable but the American people expect more from their government. They now know that extreme conservatives are incompetent of leadership.

to The Engineer:
Please go play in the street or something. Your constant blah, blah, blah posting shows severe developmental issues and is annoying.

Beeblebrox
"HalD, Robert is a pilot, teacher, rock star, nuclear physicist, flies the space shuttle (sober even), and writes poetry. He is the Walter Mitty of Townhall. I only wish he would keep his life more... secret."

Really he sounds like he just might be able too after all it is "only" rocket science as they say LOL

Robert?

SizzleLean
"to The Engineer:
Please go play in the street or something. Your constant blah, blah, blah posting shows severe developmental issues and is annoying."

No. Advocating for limited government is the duty of every conservative. Sorry if that offends you big government CINOs. Actually....I'm not sorry.

The next election will be a real bloodbath, and it will because of people like you.

Robert
Most of my time was phantom but did finish up my operational flying in the Tornado with the Brits.

Cheney didn't kill just aviation it now looks like he may well have killed the guard and reserve too

Robert
Ever work at Sandia? I have a bit of time there

Robert
Ritter has NOT been cleared, in fact just the opposite. You should get your lies straight.

Vic
Source????? You sound so desparate to "believe"

VIC
"One of the US Inspectors did get bribes from Saddam. That was Scott Ritter. That also was published in the MSM. In fact, there were so many people at the UN getting bribes from Saddam it would be easier to list the people at the UN who were not getting bribes."

Nice try, but Ritter was not a member of Blix's UNMOVIC team. The charge that Ritter was getting bribes from Saddam Hussein is without merit though.


Actually one of the original
sources was the NY Times, but not the front page. He simnply denied the charge and no federal bribary charges were filed. Robert is probably thinking of the charges for soliciting sex from underage girls on the internet. Those charges were dropped after he agreed to undergo councelling.

Yeah, real reputab;e man that Scott, but then so was all of the other people in France, Russia, Germany, and all the others that were opposed to doing anyting to Saddam.

It's ok with me if you guys want to hitch your star to that discredited organization on the Hudson. I guess it's no different than hitching your star to the discretited Dem Party.

Letter to McCain
Senator John McCain
United States Senate
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator McCain:

I am writing regarding your recent slip in the presidential polls. I think perhaps some of this has come from a change in perception over what the Straight Talk Express stands for. If you were to refocus your campaign by acting as a spokesman for upholding the law, protecting individual rights, and promoting public virtue while furthering limited government in the economic sphere, I believe you could win back significant support. I hope you will – real conservatives desperately need a champion.

As a social conservative in the tradition of Jerry Falwell and Mike Huckabee, I and many like me are disappointed by the takeover of our party by libertarians seeking to establish themselves as “conservative” CINOs (conservatives in name only) who seek to eliminate morally sound federal legislation everywhere it makes sense, such as preventing the genocide of the unborn or banning pornography and other sordid material from television. The Republican Party used to believe that morality predicated on a notion of individual rights was paramount, but that personal freedoms were not absolute because they could be abused and as such required a certain degree of temperance and prudence. However, the absolutist libertarians while insisting on individual freedoms and rights appear incapable of admitting that with freedom comes responsibility, that such little legislation is effectively a state of lawlessness permitting easily-abused freedoms to open a Pandora's box so that libertarians often become libertines, eroding at the very soul of a society. It appears that it is up to the rest of the Republican Party to reclaim the moral vision and conscience that is rightfully ours from these self-interested pretenders.

I ask you to stand strong for individual rights, personal responsibility, and against the hedonism that has led to America's downward spiral. A great place to start is with free speech, as this issue in particular demonstrates the divide between real morally-guided conservatives and the self-interested CINO infiltrators. The CINO thought process is as follows: “I don’t like any slight abridgment of freedom, no matter how sensible, therefore I will fight any federal legislation or authoritative body so that I can continue to act in an immature, reckless, or immoral fashion”. That’s not conservative by any definition of the term. The conservative mindset is: “I want government to ensure that everyone gets a fair shake, and that people act in a decent, civil manner towards one another, so let's put into action what we believe in our hearts”. This is especially necessary now given that the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case demonstrated just how puerile some in our society can be, by demanding the freedom to cause a scene while bragging and foisting lewd behavior and vile values on the rest of us. I urge you to publicly support the betterment of our society's character, and never to submit to its worst elements.

Thank you for your consideration. I wish you the best of luck with your run.

Sincerely,

Stoic Patriot

Robert
"Someday we will have to get together and fly some of the "light iron" I have. An Ercoupe, TriChamp and a Champion Lancer...are the "war bugs" of the fleet. My late wife and I liked rebuilding airplanes."

The DNC Military and Families Council should be able to your info to me. For obvious reasons I would rather not post my personal info here.

Hey, I thought we were Americans first
What's a conservative???
Let's see: A conservative must have the following qualifications:

1. A hatred of President Bush since he believes that he really was elected and is supposed to make decisions (not obey each one of his critics); how dumb of him; who does he think he is? The President of the United States, twice elected. (And please; stop with the stolen election lie. The only president who stole an election in my lifetime was JFK. By way, I live in the Chicago area and know what I'm saying.)

2. He didn't speak personally to each of you who "call" yourselves convervative because you think Reagan was God. (I have great respect for President Reagan, but if he were president today, you so-called conservatives (whinners) would crying for his impeachment.) Reagan's greatest accomplishment was the destruction of the "Evil Empire")

Again, I fear that too many of you haters of President Bush forget the hatred of President Reagan expressed by both sides of the isle. I still remember the vicious attacks leveled on him.

3. A "true" conservative desires to let the democrats stay in control so that we can have UHC, more socialism, higher taxes, etc. (If the dems get control again, they will put these items in place and it will take years, if ever, to reverse them.) This will teach those "NEO-CONS" to listen to you.

4. A desire to get out of Iraq; bring the troops home immediately, and ask the Islamo-nutcases to please be nice to us (US); gee, it was all a "Bush - Cheney" plot so that they can personally benefit from the BIG bugaboo; BIG OIL!

Let's see; who is getting the money from the Iraq oil? Better check Karl's bank account.

5. Make sure that good men like Romney, Gulliano, etal, are "spit at" since they are, horror of horrors, RINOs. They do not subscribe to every issue proposed by Laura, etal. The elite CONSERVATIVES!

But the holy protector of the constitution will ride to the rescue. Now who could that be? Hmm, let me think. Oh, I know, Run Paul! (if you believe his first name is Ron, YOU are confusing him with Ron Reagan, he who had little of vALue to say about his father.)

6. A desire to spend millions of dollars to find every illegal alien and deport them. WE CAN DO IT! Especially if they are Hispanic. The best way to accomplish this is to round-up every one with Hispanic genes and make them prove they were born in the US.

I could go on and on; but it would be a waste of time. All you socialists who are posting here are just "fakes." (Very few of you can think and post at the same time); YOU ARE PLANTS from WEAKLY CUSS! (I meant Daily...something)

Now, some of you may have seen some of my posts in the past(I really don't have a lot of spare time)and may know that I am 76 years old and I have personally seen more than most of you have any clue about. (I also have a beautiful 24 year old autistic daughter with more civility than many of you. (By the way, ENGINEER, we don't have coal burning locomotives any more; the trains now in service don't require YOU to shovel coal; just thought you might lighten up, no one reads your "stuff."

When any of you can tell me that you have personally milked a cow by hand, or rode a horse in a rodeo, or hauled a load of hay; I may believe you have enough experience to call anybody a RINO, alien, CINO, etc..

I support President Bush and his toughness on the WOT. And, don't give me all this nonsense about not planning properly. I was in the military; no war is or ever will be planned properly. If you don't believe that read the history of every war we have ever had. "WE CAN PLAN WHAT WE WILL DO, BUT, WE CANNOT PLAN FOR WHAT THE ENEMY WILL DO."

Finally; a conservative, by my definition, is someone who is a patriot; who remembers that those who established this great republic; those who strengthened it and preserved it were not perfect. They made mistakes, but they did not turn tail and run.



Vic
"Yeah, real reputab;e man that Scott, but then so was all of the other people in France, Russia, Germany, and all the others that were opposed to doing anyting to Saddam.

It's ok with me if you guys want to hitch your star to that discredited organization on the Hudson. I guess it's no different than hitching your star to the discretited Dem Party."

First you forgot to add Bush 1 to the list "that were opposed to doing anyting to Saddam." Second, why do you always attack the messenger is it because you cannot attack their facts and message?

As far as discredited I would think that is the entire Republican Party. when it gets to the point that starngers on the street and in crowds come up to me and apoligise for being Republicans I would say you are finished.

Robert
How can you be 'more or less' for limited government? I think there is merit in saying the government attempts to do too much and for the most part does a bad job. Your concern for the military is well founded . In not too many years all the money the government takes in will be eaten by entitlements. There won't be money for anything else. What will we do at that point?

Right about one thing
Rove is right that the war, which didn't help, was not the reason that republicans lost power. They lost because they did not walk the walk. They didn't support the social conservatives, they didn't support the fiscal conservatives and they failed miserabley on securing the border and enforceing law and order. That's why they lost. When are they going to learn that the media will always campaign for the dems these days, encourage the terrorists and push liberal ideology. Republicans need to outline their objectives, ala the contract with America, and get that word out. Then stand by their principles and the heck with the dems and the media and their sound bites.

Nice try Vic
"
It's ok with me if you guys want to hitch your star to that discredited organization on the Hudson. I guess it's no different than hitching your star to the discretited Dem Party."

So you make allegations that UNMOVIC is facilitating bribes for Saddam Hussein, then you change the charge to Ritter who was not a member of UNMOVIC, and then you never back up your assertion that UNMOVIC was facilitating bribes for Saddam.

If you want to see a fraud, look in the mirror.




Al
The Republicans could not do all that and not raise taxes. I really do think incompetence in Iraq and New Orleans just finished them. They do not have the tools to govern specifically they are unable to see reality and adjust....

In PA Santorum was crushed for two reasons he could not lead effectively and he was an extremist. Those are deadly sins and the infect your whole movement

Stoic Patriot
"the takeover of our party by libertarians"

What takeover? We have no power in the Republican Party. You guys run it now (and have run it into the ground).

We've always been willing to work with the other interests of the party. It's you all who have consistently had this "my way or the highway" attitude. Well, 2008 is shaping up to be a real bloodbath. Hopefully the party will rediscover its roots after this debacle.

Internet poker is a classic overreach of social conservatives. First of all, what I do in my own home is not the business of the federal government. Second, the Bible doesn't say playing poker is sinful. It's something invented by social conservatives who felt the Bible wasn't sufficiently restrictive. I believe this overreach will empower the "homosexual lobby", by marginalizing social conservatives and the Republican Party.

Oh yeah, I am pro-life.

So, keep advocating for a bigger federal government. I imagine you'll get all you want when the Democrats run it all, as a result of actions of folks like you.

robert
in your box

Robert
If all we were talking about was interstate highways I think there would be little disagreement. The need for Federal action in that area is one I agree with. I see Federal action in the area of education as resulting in massive expenditures with bad results.

We are still left with the situation being that the big three entitlements in a few years are going to take it all. There will be no money for roads or education or the military, What are we to do?

One of the few domestic initiatives that Bush brought forth that I agreed with was Social Security reform. This was beaten down by Democrats and Republicans. That is one of the reasons I think Congress is held in such low regard.

Cites Hal?
"They [local governments] certainly deserve a share"

This is true if the "share" in question is 100%

"but in a disaster of this magnitude it falls to the regional..."

This being the Democrat Governor right?

"...and federal governments."

Hal, hate to break it to you but states and municipalities have ALWAYS been responsible for local and regional disaster response. It is a usurpation of states rights for the Feds to come blowing in and take over without being invited. California handles its own earthquake and fire response, Washington State, its response to the St. Helens eruption, Florida to its Cat 5 hurricane responses, etc. The feds can only unilaterally assume a lead role in matters of national security.

How, all of the sudden is the federal government now, a first responder to Katrina? This is a rhetorical question given that we all know you are blame shifting to cover for the totally incompetent (and in the case of the Chocolate mayor, criminal) response by the Dems.

"They showed the world how incapable the country is to react."

Again the "they" in this sentence can only refer to local and state officials. It has never been the job of FEMA to be a first responder (and, as we found out with Katrina, they are not really equipped very well to be a last responder if the local first responders are idiots). Should FEMA have KNOWN that Nagin was going to completely abdicate his responsiblities? If yes, then FEMA can be held somewhat accountable for not recognizing that Democrats are corrupt and useless. But maybe FEMA thought that Nagin had it under control.

"if required the federal government can indeed take control in a disaster."

Yes, under certain circumstances they can as mentioned above. They offered and were turned down. Next?

"Bush lies about how well things were going in Iraq"

Examples to prove your point? Unless you have some YOU are the liar Hal.

"people saw how truly incompetent this Regime was in New Orleans"

Again, by "Regime", I assume you are talking about the Nagin regime?

"The confidence in this regime began to collapse right then."

Well, most of us had never heard of Nagin until the Katrina debacle. The man is a sorry excuse for a human being. But then the NO locals got the very government they wanted; corrupt, incompetent, lazy, racist.

"FEDS led by extreme conservatives are obviously incapable..."

Just how is this "obvious" Hal? When was the last time that the federal government was run by "extreme conservatives"?

Please provide a cite.

"They now know that extreme conservatives are incompetent of leadership."

Again, there is no way for ANYONE to know how well an "extreme conservative" would run the federal government given that its been about 180 years since this could have been tested. We did have a conservative heading the federal government during the 1980s and, while not extreme, managed to overcome the failures and incompetencies of his predecessor who, as I recall, was a liberal Democrat.

Since Reagan, there have been no conservatives running the Exec and, unless James Dobson is elected president, I doubt we are going to see an "extreme conservative" in the white house next time around either.



Beeblebrox
"Just how is this "obvious" Hal? When was the last time that the federal government was run by "extreme conservatives"? Please provide a cite."

Let's see how about the last six years? I realise you are trying hard to disown them but "baby they are yours"

"They now know that extreme conservatives are incompetent of leadership."

"We did have a conservative heading the federal government during the 1980s and, while not extreme, managed to overcome the failures and incompetencies of his predecessor who, as I recall, was a liberal Democrat."

Ronnie was a conservative who worked very hard and very effectively to keep you extremists at bay. He did replace Carter who was the worst president our country hard in living memory but this Bush has passed him there now.

"Since Reagan, there have been no conservatives running the Exec and, unless James Dobson is elected president, I doubt we are going to see an "extreme conservative" in the white house next time around either."

See above Bush is you and he is extreme you cannot disown him because he failed that tends to be the outcome of extreme anything.

Beeblebrox
I am not going to argue every point with you on this NO thing but I thought Robert pretty much said all that had to be said:
Robert writes: Saturday, July, 28, 2007 4:00 PM

Well Folks
I must run but be well and enjoy the rest of the day

More farce
Hal,

Congratulations on proving just how far left you must be in order to think Bush is an "extreme conservative". Your post is actually a string of non sequiturs given that you claim that Reagan kept us "extreme conservatives" at bay. So Bush is on the extreme right of Reagan?

Whatever you are smoking Hal, it must be some pretty darn potent stuff ;-)

Clearly you have no comprehension of what a conservative is much less an "extreme" one.

But hey, maybe you are teachable...

If Bush truly were even a standard issue conservative, this would be his America:

1. Law abiding citizens would be free to defend themselves with a gun without restriction.
2. Children would be free to be born without risk of being murdered while trying to do so.
3. There would be no income or property tax.
4. People would be free to send their child to a school of their choice (on their own dime of course but they wouldn't be paying property taxes so they could afford paying their own way).
5. All illegals entering this country would be considered enemy combatants and would be treated as such.
6. The U.S. would be ardently pro-Israel with no pretense about "roadmaps" or negotiating with the Hamas, et. al..
7. Public schools would have no federal meddling. Public teachers unions would have no power in Washington DC.
8. Judges would allow schools to teach Design Science side-by-side with other theories on origins.
9. All judges would be strict constructionists.
10. Children would be free to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public.
11. The rule of law would trump personal judicial philosophies.
12. You could say "Merry Christmas" in any venue you wanted to without being censured.
15. Social Security would have been reformed, the departments of HUD, Education and HHS would have been disbanded, the border would be locked up tight, and spending would be going DOWN.
16. There would be no such thing as welfare (for individuals or corporations).
17. Individuals would gladly rise to the challenge of meeting the needs of the poor through private charitable giving.
18. Religious symbols (of every religion) would be allowed on state property.
20. No one would pay attention to Janeane Garofalo, Susan Sarandon, George Clooney, Michael Moore, Martin Sheen, Danny Glover, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, Tim Robbins, Julia Roberts, Mike Farrell, Jennifer Aniston, Ed Harris, Richard Gere, Woody Harrelson, Ed Norton, David Clennon, Dustin Hoffman, Robert Redford, Jessica Lange, Woody Allen, Johnny Depp, Kate Hudson, Harrison Ford, Dixie Chicks, Barbra Streisand, Eddie Vedder, Madonna Ciccone, Bruce Springsteen, Michael Stipe, Chris Martin, Chrissy Hynde, Sheryl Crow, Dave Matthews, Neil Young, Bono, Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Patty Murray, Howard Dean, Paul Begala, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Robert Byrd, Ken Livingstone, Henry Waxman, Bob Graham, Janet Reno, Patrick Kennedy, Charlie Rangel, Sheila Jackson Lee, Fritz Hollings, Al Gore, Al Sharpton, Gray Davis, Hans Blix, Ashleigh Banfield, Norman Mailer, Mike Tyson, Bill Moyers, Ted Turner, Martha Stewart, or Jesse Jackson (but they would still be free to be idiots).


Hal
I see a conservative as someone that believes in limited government and more individual freedom and responsibility. Given that definition there are very few conservatives in Washington and even less in the White House.

Are you of the opinion that Bush expanding Medicare is conservative? How about campaign finance reform and stabbing the First Amendment. It may be that if Bush had an ideology that guided him he would not have the trouble he now has. In that respect he mirrors his father.

13, 14, 19
In case you were wondering, I had three other examples of conservatism but they were a little too libertarian for the post so I took them out.

Beeblebrox
Beeblebrox writes: Saturday, July, 28, 2007 4:36 PM

Bush is no conservative -- this can be shown easily by his budget-busting spending and his lack of concern for the border (or worse, his desire to roll out the welcome mat). Sounds like you should support Ron Paul. I am.

Beeblebrox
"13, 14, 19
In case you were wondering, I had three other examples of conservatism but they were a little too libertarian for the post so I took them out."


Conservatism is based on limited government. Please share the other three.

Ron Paul not my choice
The problem is TheEngineer, Ron Paul has the most important issue of our time, the Global War on Islamism, completely wrong. If he would swap his view for Rudy's I think he could garner huge support. As it is, he comes off as nutty as the left on this issue.

Duncan Hunter is actually a much better example of a true conservative but whether he can jump into the first tier is hard to say. I like FDT and if he chooses Hunter as his VP there will be no stopping them.

13, 14, 19
13: Elimination of all federal funding (grants included) of education including higher education. This is somewhat problematic given the nature of higher education funding. However, it is no secret that government subsidies drive up the cost of higher ed.
14. No foreign adventurism (this, of course, is very difficult to quantify. Was going into Europe FDR's "foreign adventure"? What about Clinton's in Bosnia or Kosovo?)
19. Abandon the war on drugs (I see some value in doing this but the problem is, we would also have to completely eliminate any government funding of programs to deal with the fallout from increased drug use).

TERM limits for Congress
Congress can never be responsible to the Public which it serves so long as their primary focus is remaining in POWER. Congress (all Representatives and especially Senators) MUST be RESTRICTED to a single term. Only then can they be entrusted to put the will and concerns of the People ahead of their own.

We have allowed the inmates to take over the asylum. No where else in the world do they make their own rules, set their own pay, or bastardize legislation to take in every special interest that supports them. "Earmarks" are the bane of any good government.

We absolutely must retake our government from the power elite.

TruLib has it nailed
You go to the heart of the debate with your comment about Bush (father and son).

I always find it amusing when liberals like Hal call obvious liberals like Bush, "extreme conservatives". If Bush had a "D" after his name he would be beloved by the left. Amnesty, drug programs, more medicare, over-reliance on the State department, and "get alongism" with the opposing party (this may be the single biggest thing that irks conservatives about Bush), etc.

Bush went in trying to be a uniter but the Dems saw this as an opening to gain power by taking advantage of his good heartedness. Indeed, trying to be liked by your enemies usually gets you nothing. The Dems took advantage of a man that rarely, if ever criticizes the opposition because he thinks that such comments demean the office of the president. He doesn't veto liberal legislation, in fact, he joins with liberals to push their legislation as a way to show that the president can stay above the fray. He didn't want to appoint constructionist justices so he appointed centrist justices and hoped they would past muster with the right. Meanwhile the left called both Roberts and Alito "right wing extremists". What a laugh.

A true conservative would nominate all Judge Bork types and nothing less. He would play hardball by vetoing any legislation with pork in it or with any affront to the constitution. Bush never does this.

Bush is a nice guy who wants to be liked and wants to have a legacy of reaching across the aisle and across the borders. I think his real legacy will be that he managed to halt domestic terrorism for 7 years (maybe more if another Republican is elected). He will also be known for proving that lowering taxes does work (but we already knew that) to strengthen the economy.



Almost right Robert
Elections are the most constitutional form of term limits for sure. Here's the problem Robert, Congress has managed to find a way to subvert the intentions of the founders by strengthening the fundraising power of the incumbent:

1. McCain/Feingold prevents candidates from spending as much money as they can raise for their run. Capping the amount of money and from whom is also a limitation on free speech and always works more against the challenger than against the incumbent.

2. Congresscritters use taxpayer dollars in their election bids while challengers cannot. They can have "townhalls", send out letters, ride in taxpayer funded SUVs and private jets to campaign, all on the public dime. Furthermore, some run for other offices (like POTUS) while still being paid to show up for work on Capitol Hill. Remember Kerry? He basically stole a couple year's worth of Senate salary while running for the presidency. Rarely showing up for his actual job.

Any place else this gets you fired.

3. Pork barrel spending. Legislators can bribe constituents with goodies that challengers cannot.

There are probably other things that are unethical (but legal) that incumbents use to keep themselves in office but these three seem to me to be the most obvious.

Are you against earmarks and McCain/Feingold Robert? Just curious.

Robert
So-- going back to the fixes you see needed I see that you perceive a problem and your solution sounds like more big government intervention. You think the government from the 40s on was well managed and produced the economic advances we experienced.

My view is that from the 30s on the whole thing has been badly managed. We have a lot of problems because of the overinvolvement of the Federal government. They have set us on a course that leads to a financial disaster. I have queried you on what to do about the coming wreck that is entitlements and haven't heard anything that substantive.

Actually I didn't really expect anything. Not because I think you intellectually deficient (I don't) but because there is no answer. Nothing that might work has a chance of being passed.

What is going to happen is that the fecal matter is going to hit the fan. Every time that has happened in our past the power of the government has grown. Many howl about the Republicans being Nazis. We may see the real thing as a result of the willingnes of the American people to be bribed with their own money.

People may look back to the good old days when there was a Bush in the White House.

Keep your powder dry.

michigander
"There are numerous slimeball politicians as crooked (or worse) than Cunningham was that are still walking around free and continuing to line their pockets."
================
Beginning with the top leadership in both House and Senate!!!!

It is time to bring on that "ethical" government Pelosi promised! No more relatives lobbying - no more land deals fattening the coffers of Senate leadership - no more defense contracts for spouses of senators - no more jobs for House Leader's son who doesn't have to show up to collect the $$ - how about an inquiry into the frozen $90,000 - what's the status of this little misstep?? Corruption prevails and the halls of Congress are stinking as bad as if they were a cesspool!

We made them listen re: immigration...guess we are just going to have to holler as loudly re: ethics!

tanabear shows his true colors
Tanabear, based on how you throw around the word around, I don't think you even know what a neo-con is. The fact that you think I am one simply proves this point.

But you do further injury to your credibility when trying to discredit Hitchens (which you spectacularly failed to do) by calling him a "liar, communist and admirer of Trotsky" while telling us of your admiration for the United Nations which, I think we all know, is largely made up of a bunch of liars, communists, and admirers of Trotsky. Nice how that works out.

Also, I notice that you couldn't defend your other listed impeachable offenses.

Bottom line, you are a glittering pompous jewel of ignorance and hypocrisy. But you go ahead and continue to slander the President if it makes your feel better about yourself.

Robert
You aren't seeing what is coming. You think your future is protected by a government pension and personal investments. The New Deal set us on a path to a financial meltdown.

Obviously we will have to fund a military and pay for vital services. That means that other obligations will not get funded. What will those obligations be? Your pension check? Payments on the Bonds in your 401K?

The other alternative is the government debases the money in order to wipe out what it owes. The 500,000 in T Bills in your retirement account turns out to be enough to buy bread and a gallon of milk. Governments have pulled that trick for thousands of years.

A lot of old people are betting that the system will hold together a little while longer. Just long enough to get them to the end of their lives. The rest of us will be left holding the bag.

TruLib
It will cost paying what is owed. We must accept responsibility something abhored by the conservatives and figure out what must be done. After WWII our people knuckled down, payed high taxes and built the US into a world power. What the conservatives have done is use their sacrifice and not maintain or replace it. Answer our children will have to work harder

Robert
I know you do not agree but when Bush et.al. are finally out of office I will work pro bono with any country that wants to drag him and his before the Hague.

Other than that I certainly hope you are correct about: "I think we are headed into a period of consensus politics sprinkled with more reality then exist right now."

Rove on corruption in congress
I was so happy to hear that someone finally spoke about the real problem with the midterm elections. Congressional corruption and lack of productivity. Blaming the President and the war in Iraq for losing congressional races sidesteps the real issues...the people in office were doing a lousy job. They weren't defending our contry any better than the Democrats. They weren't showing moral courage in their stands and choices. They deserved to lose.

WHY?
The death of 30 plus prisoners while under government interrogation. That is enough to literally hang the man.

Julia
"Blaming the President and the war in Iraq for losing congressional races sidesteps the real issues...the people in office were doing a lousy job. They weren't defending our contry any better than the Democrats. They weren't showing moral courage in their stands and choices. They deserved to lose. "

GW had zero responsibility????

Well Folks
Enough! Be well and have a great tomorrow

Come on Rove!
Really, to blame Republican loses on Duke and Foley is ridiculous. If one where to take a pole, 1 in 30 whouldn't know Duke Cunningham or Mark Foley!

Look in the mirror Karl,there is the real culprit. The architect of this nightmare!

Fear, ignorance, and hood winked.
Those are the oft repeated excuses as to why any person could actually be supportive of the war in Iraq, or the current republican leadership. I say to all those that continue to arrogantly ascert those premises are full of BUNK to whom am I referring Robert, tannabear, and any others that continue to claim intelectual superiority to those that would dare to believe there is right and wrong and that America is mighty becouse it is right not the other way around. I have several sources of info on why we should have gone to Iraq and the historical precedent as to why this is a tuff long suffering conflict. I also have the historical precedent as to why this will eventuallly be a win win for all involved if only this Great Nation resolves to see it through to the end. But of course to display these reasons would obviously be of no consequence to those bound and deterirmined to cause this nation another devastating defeat. As for Roves assertion that scandle was a large factor for loosing support from the base for me he nailed it on the head I remember the Mark foley scandle and the statements by republican leadership and was dissapointed. The other factors were the continued weak response to attacks on republican principles, and failure to lead and present helpful assistance rather then opisition to the Iraq situation and the WOT.

Robert again with the we
Caved to fear, hogwash! Plain and simple our national security was deamed to be at risk by the right and leagal authorities of the Nation and a coarse of action was set into motion, Period. We no more caved to fear in 2003 then we did when confronted with the axis powers of 1942.
Should America have ran back to its shores the moment the death toll went above the number of dead at pearl Harbor? For all your genious what a stupid way to determine wether or not to continue the execution of any armed conflict!


Bush Plan Death of GOP
Commanders plan for Iraq presence through 2009

Why would we stay two more years to give Iraq more time to form a strong federal government that they do not want? Do you think that the Iraq parliament would of gone on vacation while our troops are dying in they were serious about political compromises? Is it not time for U.S. Congress to put aside the politics and get a real plan?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The senior U.S. commander in Iraq is preparing a plan for military operations that sets summer 2009 as the goal for achieving a sustainable level of security throughout the country, his spokesman said on Tuesday.

The draft, developed by Gen. David Petraeus’ staff, lays out a series of security-related goals over two years, envisioning U.S. troops in the war zone through 2009.

The plan, first reported by The New York Times, comes as Democrats in the U.S. Congress press for a strategy change that leads to withdrawal.

The Bush administration, however, has called for more time to establish security in Iraq so that Iraqi politicians can make progress on benchmarks seen by Washington as critical to long-term stability.

READ MORE

UP DATE

Sunni bloc suspends membership in Iraqi government

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq’s largest Sunni Arab bloc said Wednesday it has suspended its membership in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s coalition government, dealing a serious blow to the Shiite leader’s efforts to achieve national reconciliation.

The Iraqi Accordance Front, which has six Cabinet members as well as 44 of parliament’s 275 seats, said it was giving al-Maliki a week to meet their demands or it would quit his 14-month-old Cabinet altogether.

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/commanders-plan-for-iraq-presence-through-2009


NEOCONS LOVE HILLARY!

The NEOCON global elitist, who got us into Iraq, promoted a failed big government education policy (No Child Left Behind), Out of control spending, disastrous immigration and trade policy and now they support Hillary. Are we going get stuck with a choice between two global elitist candidates?

ST-Since when is Hillary Clinton the idol of conservative pundits?

After Clinton delivered a foreign-policy haymaker to Barack Obama’s head during a Democratic presidential debate Tuesday:

• Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard, a neoconservative weekly, wrote that she answered the now-famous “would-you-meet-with-despots” question “firmly and coolly.”

• Rich Lowry of National Review, a conservative weekly, gushed: “She excels. … Clinton has run a nearly flawless campaign and has done more than any other Democrat to show she’s ready to be president.”

• David Brooks, conservative columnist at The New York Times, wrote that Clinton “seems to offer the perfect combination of experience and change” and is changing perceptions in a way that may persuade voters to give her a second look.

• Charles Krauthammer, conservative columnist at The Washington Post, summed up the Clinton-Obama smackdown: “The grizzled veteran showed up the clueless rookie.”

All this from a crowd that has spent the better part of two decades demonizing Clinton and her husband, former President Clinton.

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/neocons-love-hillary

beetlebrox
"The problem is TheEngineer, Ron Paul has the most important issue of our time, the Global War on Islamism, completely wrong. If he would swap his view for Rudy's I think he could garner huge support. As it is, he comes off as nutty as the left on this issue."

Ok Beetle. I'll bite. You claim that Dr. Paul has it wrong. But yet, what he told us is completely substantiated by CIA Intelligence, the 9-11 Commission, multiple foreign policy experts, Michael Scheuer (Chief of the CIA's bin Laden Unit) and even Paul Wolfowitz. Apparently, 'ol Rudy has not even read the 9-11 Commission Report, yet is making millions by running around the country giving speeches, claiming he is a terrorism expert. It's laughable!

Paul's response was based on deep study of the CIA based on the blowback principle and on the 9/11 Commission Report. I realize it's more comfortable to believe that "they hate us for our freedoms", but it simply is not true. Check out the following:

"His [bin Laden’s] rhetoric selectively draws from multiple sources -- Islam, history, and the region's political and economic malaise. He also stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War..."-- 9/11 Commission Report, pages 48-49

"There are a lot of things that are different now [after the invasion of Iraq], and one that has gone by almost unnoticed -- but it's huge -- is that by complete mutual agreement between the US and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al-Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so- called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things."-- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair, May 2003

"One of the greatest dangers for Americans in deciding how to confront the Islamist threat lies in continuing to believe -- at the urging of senior U.S. leaders -- that Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than for what we do. The Islamic world is not so offended by our democratic system of politics, guarantees of personal rights and civil liberties, and separation of church and state that it is willing to wage war against overwhelming odds in order to stop Americans from voting, speaking freely, and praying, or not, as they wish."-- Michael Scheuer (former head the CIA's bin Laden unit), Imperial Hubris, page 8

"We assume, moreover, that bin Laden and the Islamists hate us for our liberty, freedoms, and democracy -- not because they and many millions of Muslims believe U.S. foreign policy is an attack on Islam or because the U.S. military now has a ten-year record of smashing people and things in the Islamic world."-- Michael Scheuer (former head the CIA's bin Laden unit), Imperial Hubris, page 165

"The U.S. invasion of Iraq is Osama bin Laden's gift from America, one he has long and ardently desired, but never realistically expected."-- Michael Scheuer (former head the CIA's bin Laden unit), Imperial Hubris, page 213

"Although suicide terrorism is virtually always a response to foreign occupation, only some occupations lead to this result. Suicide terrorism is most likely when the occupying power's religion differs from the religion of the occupied, for three reasons. A conflict across a religious divide increases fears that the enemy will seek to transform the occupied society; makes demonization, and therefore killing, of enemy civilians easier; and makes it easier to use one's own religion to relabel suicides that would otherwise be taboo as martyrdom instead."-- Robert A. Pape, Dying to Win, page 22

"An attempt to transform Muslim societies through regime change is likely to dramatically increase the threat we face. The root cause of suicide terrorism is foreign occupation and the threat that foreign military presence poses to the local community's way of life. ... Even if our intentions are good, anti-American terrorism would likely grow, and grow rapidly."-- Robert A. Pape, Dying to Win, page 245

"The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001 did not 'attack America,' as political leaders and news media in the United States have tried to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy. Employing the strategy of the weak, they killed innocent bystanders, whose innocence is, of course, no different from that of the civilians killed by American bombs in Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere."-- Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, page XV

"The term 'blowback,' which officials of the Central Intelligence Agency first invented for their own internal use, is starting to circulate among students of international relations. It refers to the unintended consequences of policies that were kept secret from the American people. What the daily press reports as the malign acts of 'terrorists' or 'drug lords' or 'rogue states' or 'illegal arms merchants' often turn out to be blowback from earlier American operations."-- Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, page 8

Press conference at National Press Club with Ron Paul and Michael Scheuer (former Chief, CIA bin Laden Unit):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA

Interview after the press conference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A45NG8tOCQ

Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/1400063175

Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Consequences-American-Empire-Second/dp/0805075593

Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror
http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Hubris-West-Losing-Terror/dp/1574888625

The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
http://www.amazon.com/Commission-Report-Terrorist-Hardcover-Authorized/dp/0393060411

Heat Rises Between Iraq PM and Petraeus

Is it not clear now that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s has no attentions of sharing power with the Sunnis? Do we have any choice but to recognize each group separately and stop pushing a strong federal government?

AP-A key aide says Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s relations with Gen. David Petraeus are so poor the Iraqi leader may ask Washington to withdraw the overall U.S. commander from his Baghdad post.

Iraq’s foreign minister calls the relationship “difficult.” Petraeus, who says their ties are “very good,” acknowledges expressing his “full range of emotions” at times with al-Maliki. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who meets with both at least weekly, concedes “sometimes there are sporty exchanges.”

It seems less a clash of personality than of policy. The Shiite Muslim prime minister has reacted most sharply to the American general’s tactic of enlisting Sunni militants, presumably including past killers of Iraqi Shiites, as allies in the fight against al-Qaida here.

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/heat-rises-between-iraq-pm-and-petraeus


38 miles for Ron Paul
Get business cards from Ron Paul's campaign staff. Pass them out in the grocery store. There is serious inflation out there. 2 gallons of milk cost $4.29 which was $3.89 a year ago. The message is people's wallets.

Do what this lady in New Hampshire is doing.
http://www.fmnn.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=46457

union dude -- Ron Paul
"One more thing why doesn't he write columns on TH like Fred.I am sure TH and all readers would like to learn more about him,I know I would."

As a Congressman, Dr. Paul writes articles all the time. He has been one of the most prolific in D.C. However it is my understanding that because he is a sitting Congressman, Federal Election Commission rules do not allow his Presidential campaign office to publish them here.

You can read them here though:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/
http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html
http://gunowners.org/pres08/paul.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/#art2

His new book on foreign policy:
http://www.mises.org/store/Foreign-Policy-of-Freedom-A-P359C0.aspx?AFID=2

Financialsense.com - Financial reckoning

To all of you libtards who are
posting on this thread:

This thread is about Karl Rove and the politics of the Republican Party. It has NOTHING to do with you, liberals, Democraps, or anything that you people have. Why don't you get lost and shut up.

Gabby
Thank you for the comment! BTW that is the same NEOCON group going after Ron Paul!

Robert
"the Armed Forces have performed with as much honor as these cretins have performed with dishonor. There are Marine regiments that are virtually exhausted and yet they continue. They summon the courage and drive that these idiots wouldnt know if they saw it straight on.

Having said that...the entire nation is culpable. Good men who oppossed the war didnt do enough and the entire nation was stampeded by fear...yet we are all rational people and we as a country must pay for our fear.

Bush lead the stampede but the entire nation went along. It is this generations dishonor."

You are right concerning the above but just one example of how bad the news was and often is. I opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning to include walking with nearly 2000 veterans in DC saying it was a rush to war, People walked off the sidewalk to join us and most impressively guards on the top of government buildings stood up and saluted us. Press? Japanese TV and Brit ITV all US news covered a support our troops rally at the Lincoln Memorial with less than 200 people present. That said I lost business and my wife was abused at work for not supporting the invasion of Iraq. Fellow workers went so far as the old leave the country you are a traitor - her answer was take out her military ID and say "show me yours". To a person it was the end of the conversation.

"We dont crimilize political mistakes. (and yes I said that during Clinton...oddly enough it got me tossed from my moderator/sysop position on the GOP Compuserve forum!)"

But we should criminalise criminal behavior like making torture, rendition and secret prisons national policy. Did they happen in the past we both know yes but they were never national policy that is the dangerous and criminal part.

"The Republic is stronger then even a moronic President.

Long Live The Republic and special honor to those who serve it in the field..."

Amen

Rove as usual is Lying.
President Bushes problem is Karl Rove. The man has no honor and as such is soiling the Republican party.

Vic
"Why don't you get lost and shut up."

1. I never want you to think everyone agrees with you
2. There are a few soul here that are actually willing to listen, consider and learn
3. I often learn a few things too

IT IS TIME TO GO
Neither party is worth keeping. We desperately need Term Limits. Nearly all members of Congress are guilty of selling their votes to special interest groups, and sticking earmarks into bills to buy votes from voters in their district. Too bad we can not just start over ever 8 years and vote in all new members of Congress. Senators like Kennedy should have been gone 20 years ago.

RR

Horse
"President Bushes problem is Karl Rove. The man has no honor and as such is soiling the Republican party."

No horse Bush and Rove are a team but you are right about the rest

BUSH COULD HAVE...

Held the conservative line and labeled these congressional creeps as "Closet Liberals". Which is simply what they are.

Allowing "closet liberals" to call themselves Republicans, just to get elected, is ruining the Party. Bush needed to be a leader here... and Carl should have advised him better. We have now lost the Congress, and soon the Presidency, to a bunch of opportunist thugs.

Sure, we'll win both back, after America is taken down the drain. All we can do now is retake the Party, let liberals be liberals, and say in 4 years, "I told you so".

To HalD
Perhaps we could start a thread to list all the things that are wrong with the Demoncrap Party. There is an obvious problem though, TH doesn't have enough bandwith to list it all. maybe we could list everything that is good about the Dems. Look between these two peiods; .. That is what is good about them....nothing.

And don't think that I agree with anything you say.

Robert
".. but the failure of both the Dems and the GOP (and it is both I agree Bush is mainly at fault) to take care going in, and to now find a common ground which will ensure that their sacrifice has enabled something positive is just horrific. ...The odd thing is that pre the war General P who is now on the hot seat I belive forcefully as he could argued against going. The rumor in the military is that William Odom was stating General P's position in all his pre "war" commentatry."

That is a reliable rumor from all I hear and I also hear that while he will try his best to put lipstick on this pig he will still say it is a pig. That is what I am waiting for.

"The daughter and sones of a prmoinnent Navy Admiral who came out against the war...they are all in Iraq, they volunteered to go as have several of his grandkids. Now they are what is left fighting it."

I have had two close nephews over there one is back yet again. For the record he agrees with our point of view.

"Now we are in a position where most Dems just want to "walk away" and say "sorry guys we wasted you" (and most of the Dems who are saying that voted for the war and dont hae children there)...and most of the Republican candidates for President dont have a fracken clue about how to deal with the public situation back home. "

Actually most of the Dems do not want to just walk away. I suspect when all is said and done a Biden type situation may develop. I do know that Carney, Seztek, P. Murphy are all commited to a responsible solution of some type

Must run more later

Robert one last thing?
Was your wife a tall thin lass with a sponser who was air boss on the Coral Sea? If so I may have met her a few times

Rove IS a genius...
.. when it comes to his base.

His base is, of course, BIG TEXAS BUSINESS.
The BTB base with Rove's engineering built the Bush Presidency to do 4 things:

1. Lower taxes
2. Provide defense contracts
3. Ensure the continuation of NAFTA
4. Provide an unending pool of cheap labor.

The first three could be done with a Republican controlled Congress. The last required a Democrat congress. Unfortunately, Bush's "Comp-rehensive" Immigration Plan was not sucessful EVEN with a Democrat congress. Not really Karl's fault- the silly voters ruined the plan!

TheEngineer
And I'm opposed to banning internet poker.

As for working with other constituencies of the party, social conservatives have no problem with a balanced budget so they get along nicely with fiscal conservatives, and they're a perfect fit with the neoconservatives when it comes to liberating other nations ruled by dictators. Libertarians can also get along with fiscal conservatives, but they end up opposing both the neoconservatives and social conservatives, more often than not on extraordinarily petty matters (libertarian's most major movement-thinker being someone as callous and self-centered as Ayn Rand doesn't help matters).

We run ourselves into the ground when we don't take the high road, but rather appeal to our decadent base instincts. We run ourselves into the ground with corporate welfare. We run ourselves into the ground when we abandon conservative principles in favor of "reaching out" to liberals by shifting the policies we advocate.

Social conservatives are hardly the enemy you're looking for, so don't go looking for a fight if you don't have scruples with 'em.

Arogant and ingnorant again
Robert in the fact that you try to correct my statement without even so much as trying to understand the correlation between the timetable that I gave. I am quite aware that we were attacked Dec. 7 1941. Are you aware that we're attacked by Islamic radicals pre 2003? Are you aware that our major war efforts for the first year of WW2 went toward Germany and not the attackers of Pearl Harbor? I am, and if instead of attacking others as fearful and irrational and trying to rewrite what they tell you you would take the time to understand their points of view maybe you would begin to understand the position of Americans rather then running inadvertently to the cause of Americas enemies.

Karl Rove should've...
...resigned on 11/8/06. Along w/Ken Mehlman. He and the President have steered the GOP from the superhighway that it was once on off into a muddy bog. And Rove continues to refuse to move out of the the navigators seat and let someone else try to get the party right again.

President Bush and Rove are damaging "our" GOP and ruining our chances for 2008. The truth is - they could care less about the GOP winning in '08. Its simply not a priority for them.

The only GOP hero's that we can still find are the few that are in Congress. The absolute gaul of Rove. Brazen arrogance. Its mystifying. Darvin Dowdy

Robert writes.... "In 1941
not 1942 we had a demonstratable enemy. The Japanese had done a "preemptive" war against us.

When we went into Iraq we had zero solid information that Iraq was on the verge of attacking us.

NONE NADA...we had smoking guns and smoking mushrooms and FEAR."
*************************************************
If we can agree that the actions of 9-11-01 was a "preemptive" war against us, similar to the 1941 attack by the Japanese, the only difference of opinion we have is where the current battlefield should be in the war against terror. You say it shouldn't be in Iraq. Maybe you're right. Where then should it be? We never did send combat troops to Japan -- we fought them in venues mostly of OUR CHOICE, NOT THEIRS. Bush sees it the same way -- Iraq's as good a place as any to fight the bastards; better than NYC or LA, and get rid of Saddam while we're at it.

It's all the fault
of them dang DimoCraptastics. Them bas*ards have ruined our great nation! The gaul! of trying to help the little guy in this country! What is wrong with them slimy liberals?!?!?!
Lynch 'em all!
Peace my brothers and sisters

Robert Writes... "What I would have
argued for is 1) to kill OBL. Find him and that is a mixture of good intel and serious special ops action. 2) start strengthening the various friendly governments in the region and simultaneously start pushing them to evolve in a manner consitent with their culture to some "linK' with their people past, "I am the ruler" and 3) done some very serious strengthening of internal state security."
*************************************************

This is all well and good, and I pretty much agree with it. But I hope you will concede that it contains a large dose of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Or did you really have all these details figured out on 9-12-01?

Because you
say it is rediculous to compare one world wide conflict to another makes it so, I think not! The more I research the lead up, fighting and immediate actions surrounding WW2 the more I see simularities between our current situation. With some minor differences. Thanks to Bush we are not facing a foe that is as powerful militarily as the old axis was and thus will be faced with an extremely reduced rate of casualties in the current conflict. As for the Reagan administration facing a similar problem only due to the morale cowardice of Ivan did we not face direct combat with him. You being a military man should have recognized the several incidents that had Ivan not backed down would have led to a world wide conflict. this is not degrading in any way the courage or wisdom of Reagan it is merely stating the obvious fact that we face a foe of entirely different determination of mission.

Robert is too!
What a total lack of reality on your part.
Was there an attack on American soil in both situations? Yes
Is there a movement which through force wishes to destroy those that would stand in their way of world domination? Yes
Are we fighting in more then one region of the world against the same enemy? yes
Oh heck the list goes on and on. It doesnt matter what the details of both entities are other then the fact that they are set on destroying Free people every where.

Stoic Patriot
Stoic Patriot writes: Sunday, July, 29, 2007 1:01 PM

"And I'm opposed to banning internet poker."

Cool. So much of the "new" Republican Party sees stuff such as this as their new mission. This ban is even in the last Republican Party platform.

I realize it sounds trivial to you, but it really is a big warning flag to me. I think we have to be careful to draw a line between laws that protect our traditional values from federal interference and laws that restrict freedom without very, very good reason.

As for discussing my issues with "social conservatives", I'm certainly not referring to you. I'm referring to extremists (as illustrated in the Focus on the Family letter I posted earlier) who think of the government as a convenient means of enforcing their ideas on the masses (rather than trying to convince people to freely choosing that path).

I'm happy to work with the party, but it seems they've decided to move away from the conservatism of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, towards that of social extremism. I hope the party realizes it needs all conservatives, before its too late.

Vic & doug, et al: Man, you guys have

done a noble job of "fighting the good fight" on this thread. Good for you.

Heaven knows, it's not an intellectual challenge, but rather frustration, especially with roberto and HalD.

I don't know when I've last read so much tripe from those two... and a few other useless idiots, in a long time.

And, oh yeah, you are absolutely right, Vic, about the Iraq weapons. They WERE shipped and flown to Syria, and there they remain under the sand. (If roberto knew so much, he'd at least know THAT!)







oh please
one is.........(shoot you almost side tracked me I mean SJP)......neither have tried to kill a former President nor have they carried out terroist attacks...uh you could make a case for Rosie ......... Again I digress due to your amazing debating skills. The details may matter if you are going to allow them to fulfil their wishes toward you but that has never been a wise move to allow someone else to control your fate. Which is exactly why Rove was so spot on when he talked about republican scandle being one of the problems and not the Iraq war in the outcome of the '06 election. Had republicans stood firm on their principles and were quick to effectively deal with scandles they would not have lost their seats in congress.

Of course Rove was exactly right when

he said, "... it was less the war in Iraq than corruption in Congress that caused their party's defeat in the 2006 elections."

Cripes, even the hildabeast voted "for" funding the WOT, and said that even her husband the president knew Iraq has WMDs.

But, when Kerry couldn't pull it off, and they didn't get the WH back, that's when the fur began to fly... And it's been flying ever since.

Then, when they finally get the control in Congress, what do they do??? They manage a DISAPPROVAL RATING of 86%, and they managed to do that in a matter of a few months.










seeing
your post througout TH it is a compliment well taken Anne thank you.

Stoic Patriot
One more thing about Internet poker. I know it sounds trivial to some, but this is how the government takes our freedoms. They take the rights they think we won't fight for, then they use these taken rights as justification to take more rights. People get so conditioned to this that they stop fighting back, even for what they believe in, under the assumption that the federal government knows best. It's time we fight this encroachment. And, for the record, I'm just as vocal about our Second Amendment rights.

As for Internet poker, the reality is that most House Republicans do support banning it. Of the 202 House Republicans, only 15 support allowing us to play. The rest of them are either generally neutral or are working for the ban (guys like Sen. Kyl...seems he should worry more about enforcing our border). It seems Republican politicians no longer support freedom. I posted my analysis at http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=11322467&an=0&page=0#Post11322467 .

Hopefully we'll restore our party to one of true conservatism, one that's more concerned about protecting traditional values from big government than in promoting values via big government.

For folks who do care about freedom.....
1. Sign the petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/306149419 . It will be delivered to Washington D.C. by a reputable group.

2. Write to Congress and demand freedom. Go to http://activate.pokerplayersalliance.org/start.php?rindex=1 for an auto-mailer. Former Sen. Al D'Amato (R-NY) is leading the PPA, to preserve core American values of freedom and liberty.

3. Call your senators and rep and ask them to stop the growth of government, even in areas you generally support. There's nothing conservative about big government.

TheEngineer
Signed.

Thanks S.P.
If you have a petition or are writing letters for our Second Amendment rights, pro-life protection, lower taxes, smaller government, reduction in federal government interference in public schools, or any other cause common to all conservatives, let me know. :-)

HuffPo & DK websites must be down...
Anne writes: Sunday, July, 29, 2007 5:12 PM
Vic & doug, et al: Man, you guys have done a noble job of "fighting the good fight" on this thread. Good for you.

Heaven knows, it's not an intellectual challenge, but rather frustration, especially with roberto and HalD.

I don't know when I've last read so much tripe from those two... and a few other useless idiots, in a long time.
----------------------------------------------------

Great observation to which I would also add Beeblebrox to the list of noble 'combatants'! I greatly admired your clear thinking and intelligent responses, even if they did fall on deaf ears!

At this posting (unless they slip another few posts before I get done typing)
Of 198 comments...40 have been from Roberto (often 2 and 3 posts in a row) and 28 from HD.

Throw in a few diatribes from the Ron Paul cool-aid crew and I had to check and see if I was still on TH or had been transported in some kind of bazaar 'time warp' to a distant galaxy where up is down and right is left!

I was even beginning to wonder if this isn't some form of a new 'filibuster tactic' being used by the resident loony lefties to dominate the discussions on TH....but if I came to that conclusion.... I'd be one of those conspiracy theorists like Liberty! :)

Pun! Raul! Pun! (I think I'll go throw up now!)

Mole
It could be that Rove is a genius after all! He has been living as a Republican for all these years for just the right moment to destroy the party that he secretly hates! That is the only explanation that works! So far so good, and the greatest thing of his plot is that he continues to fool the usefull idiots of the party, the sicophants of GWB. Barnes, Novak ,HH, etc.

Maybe it's RDS...after all
It just dawned on that maybe the reason libs have been frothing at the mouth so much on this thread is that besides their suffering from BDS, they are also carrying the RDS 'virus' in their infested brains!

(The Acronym RDS standing for Rove Derangement Syndrome of course...)

Little Iraqi political progress


Scott Ritter, a former Marine intelligence officer, served as a chief weapons inspector for the United Nations in Iraq from 1991 to 1998 points out that “both Shiite and Sunni view one another as deviants from the pure form of Islam as taught by Muhammad, and as such functioning as apostates deserving death”.

That is why I wrote years ago, which is supported by the NIE report, that we must recognize each group and stop forcing a strong federal government for any hope of containment. If not we will deal with another strong man after massive blood shed or we will see a regional civil war.

Do you not think it is odd that NEOCONS think they are conservative and they always support a strong federal government like liberals?

USAToday- Adm. Michael Mullen, President Bush’s choice to replace Gen. Peter Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday the Iraqi government has made little progress toward political reconciliation and that a “strategic reassessment” of U.S. policy in Iraq would be required if that has not changed by mid-September.

While Mullen said there had been some improvement in security following the recent buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq, “there does not appear to be much political progress.”

“Failure to achieve tangible progress toward reconciliation requires a strategic reassessment,” Mullen said in a written statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee at his confirmation hearing to become Bush’s top military adviser.

“If we aren’t making progress in that realm, the prospects for movement in a positive direction are not very good,” he said. “But waiting until then, I think, is important.”

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/little-iraqi-political-progress
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.