The 2008 Elections! (da da da dummmm)

 Newt's the Republican to beat!

Hillary's great liability is that controversy is attached to her like velcro.

Her problem is she isn't likable. Newt has the same problem, thus the laughter after you claim that he's the guy to beat.

His strong point is that he has the ability to bring the Ralph Nader sensibilities back into the Democratic party.

IMHO, it's Nader "sensibilities" that are unelectable, not just Ralph himself.

Nice analysis. Bill is bright, even if he thinks with his pecker, Hilary is not. Being conservative, how can I not like Obama who has to give up smoking to run for president.

Newt has the ability to transform himself, give him a lot of credit. Global warming makes a few social programs look like an inexpensive trip to Disneyland. Demographics will dictate some $$$.

Environmental and energy issues along with demographics will evolve into "the moral equivalent of war", maybe along with Jimmy's interest rates and sweater as uniform.

But human self interest will prevail (thankfully) and unprecedented wealth will continue to be created, even as we cook ourselves in overpopoluation.

So whether it's Newt, or Obama, or Al, pay your taxes now and put your money in a good federally tax exempt municipal bond fund and stocks and real estate. "Savers" will be punished by conservative and liberal, male and female  president alike.

Well, that's what I put it up for. So that we could handicap the long shots.

Speaking of shots, apparently Ahnold and the Rushtur are at odds these days.

...handicap the long shots.

Gore wins, seven to one odds ( at virtually no risk ). There is another freak hurricane at a critical time, and the masses sweep him into power to "fix" our climate problem.

That’s actually pretty good… Regression to the mean would indicate a medium heavy Hurricane season this year… (unless you toss Tornados into the mix, which then means we’ve been about even 05 and 06)

Tornados get to count, according to Big A.

Whoa, I like the regression to the mean idea.

Hillary: 4 to 1. She starts taking a prescription that makes her feel genuine, and it is regulated in the right dose.

Newt: 3 to 1. Already been through the learning curve, will he be derailed by the conservative intelligence curve.

Colin: 5 to 1. Wife says what the heck, run, and Obama slips but American likes the idea.

O'Reilly: 2:1. Folks decide his Masters Degree is as good as any credentials and his current anger management campaign is successful.

1:1 The anchor on liberal cable that talks baby talk: propelled by the litigous lawyer from Carolina's good looks ( who fell into a pile of hog dung), he sweeps a kinder, gentler dumbed down America.

Fred Thompson

Yeah, I heard about that...

Without Newt, I'd give him a pretty good chance (but I'd not vote for him.) But he's essentially just "more of the same". that's s far as I know, if you can tell me different, I'm listening.

What Newt has that NO OTHER candidate (aside from maybe Nader) is a solid established platform. The fact that it goes against the twisted platform of the neoconnotic Republican party (the one that got hammered, by Democrats, of all people, in the last election and need to do something different if they're going to) makes it stand out and get recognised.

Newt is not going to appeal to the middle of the road , blue dog  Democrats and will galvanize the wild eyed lefties and the MSM who are their lap dogs poodles. They hate his guts to the ground.  Newt will most certainly not appeal to the right of center Repubs and has a lot of ugly personal baggage to carry around not to mention the interminable dredging up of every claim logged against him when he was Speaker of the House. 

I personally like Newt and his platform very much.  I think he raises the IQ points of the room by just being there but I have no hope that he can win the race.

In order for the Republicans to win, they have to have someone who can appeal to the right of center Repubs and I don't think that either Rudy or Newt will be able to do this as well as the mainstream of the party.  The mid center and slightly to the right of center, Dems and especially the Independent voters who I think are mostly moderates and pragmatists would (IMHO) be swayed by a Fred Thompson. To my mind he comes across in a very much Reaganesque manner both in personal delivery and in philosophy. 

What about Jim Cramer? Wouldn’t he be shoe-in when America learns that

he’s so adept at manipulating the markets.

That idea may not be far Kvetched, since America seems to be warming to ads for day trading seminars once again. Does he get away with making us feel bad for not being as successful, and then just get to be another shmuck.

Loonie's point about Newt being able to hunt point left of the right Right makes sense, though. How about a nice cabinet post as reward for pulling it together.  Any one better known than Thompson, though?

You know, I even watch C-span occasionally…but who the hell is Fred Thompson?

Have you ever watched Law and Order, The Hunt for Red October. He’s a former US Senator from Tenn.

The last actor-turned-POTUS did pretty well.

Fred Thompson is a conservative Senator for Tennessee.  What I like about him is that he doesn't seem to waiver back and forth on issues to appear popular with each crowd he is speaking to.   He is true to his principles without being dogmatic about them.

I think he has a good chance of pulling in the swing voters who are not knee jerk Democrat or Republican voters.  The uncommitted swing voters will be the ones to carry the election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson

http://masonconservative.typepad.com/the_mason_conservative/ 2007/03/fred_thompson_f.html

What I like about him is that he doesn't seem to waiver back and forth on issues

Except for that, 'I'm an actor, I'm a politician, I'm an actor, I'm a politician' thing (I think that'll weigh him down considerably, people will be like, "what, is the presidency the best you could do? Couldn't get the Ameritrade gig 'cause Waterson won't give it up?")

I'm not a fan of Thompson's I think that he's perceived as a hard line right winger to northern middle roaders. Rightly or wrongly.

I'm not saying he wouldn't be a good candidate, but I don't think that he has built the sort of internal political base that many other candidates have. Newt has people in all 50 states who will work HARD for his organization.

This is also why Hillary is going to crush Barak, she has the infrastructure and she has a lot of  "Peckers in her pocket" (as LBJ used to refer to it as when someone owed him his political existence). She built it during her Senate Campaign in NY (the first one being against relatively gigantic odds, and she won by winning in traditionally Republican areas of the State).

At this point in the political process, what the "people" want is irrelavent, the candidates will be chosen by the powers that be in the respective parties.

This means that Hillary will be attacked from all sides as others try to show that she can't win.

Unfortunately, for the Republicans, they really have nobody. Rudy? Fuggedaboudit! (aside from the longstanding curse on NYC mayors, not one in modern history has gone on to ANY higher elected position no Govs, no Senators, no Presidents) He's sort of the worst of both parties. Yeah he's pro choice but he's pro Il Duce too (he ran NYC like a tyrant) so both sides find lots not to like about him (and don't get me started on the botch job of 9/11 he made).

nope…this country isn’t ready for a woman president and the former President wouldn’t look good in a dress or make a very good first lady either.  You’d know she was wearing an earphone and he was telling her what to do all day…talk about electing a President for a third term.  Most male egos can’t handle a woman running and that’s why they say she is a lesbian.

Newt has people in all 50 states who will work HARD for his organization

So did Nader and Perot... so what.

I'm not saying she'd win the election, but right now her poll nums are actually going up and she has a 37 to 22% lead over Obama (who's the num2) and it's not like the campaigning has begun.

The presidential election is the democrats to lose at this point. The Rupubs will need to come up with a real good reason for people to give them another chance.

[quote=babbling looney]

Newt has people in all 50 states who will work HARD for his organization

So did Nader and Perot... so what.

[/quote]

Thompson DOESN'T.

Meanwhile both Nader and Perot were third partiers, not a very prominent position in the voting booth.

Thirdly, Perot could have beaten Bush for the nomination if he hadn't dropped out and flipped out and talked about digitally enhanced pictures of his daughter and other conspiracy theory talk that sounded like sci fi back in the mid 80's.

Candidate must be likeable and qualified. If there was a woman, or "minority", America as a country is ready. 

The reason they say Hillary is a lesbian is because her husband has a pecker in every pocket.  

Obama is intriguing because he is likeable, a real person who needs to sneak a cigarette.

Hillary is dumb and doomed, squeaky nails the chalk board won't do the job.

I have not seen the TV show, but if Fred can smile, he can win.

We just need to support someone who will not screw up the economy, our little straw poll debate here is really important.

I am starting to think that Tennessee is the key in a lot of ways -  the American heartland. If Al can maintain an old strip mine there, an actor can win the white house.

Candidate must be likeable and qualified.

Uhhhmmmm... Errrrr...

"Qualified"? Must be? Perhaps you've been asleep the last ....

I'll give you this.... A candidate must be qualified OR likeable.

Cheney was seen as Qualified (which was the fall back position to millions who knew the George Jr. was NOT!) but nobody has nominated Dick for the definition of "Likeable" (to put it as gently as I may).

Obama may well be this year's Howard Dean. The press LOVED Howard Dean before the Iowa Caucus. He was the front runner (far as they knew) and he was taking the world by storm. Then they turned on him. The Iowa cheer turned into an "angry outburst" and they harpooned him.

This is the media's favorite trick. Build someone up so they can roast them right! Obama is a calf being fatted as he's being lead to the slaughter. It's gonna be a "high tech lynching" as Clancy Thomas called it.

[quote=babbling looney]Fred Thompson[/quote]
I agree.  I think he could win the primary.  I believe he could be our next president.

A candidate must be qualified OR likeable.

Alright, agreed.

So now we are back to the old testament with the fatted calf thing, and the journalists. Say it, tough on terror.

Hence, your focus on the inevitability of Hilary. What a depressing thought. Pragmatism.

Entertain a little positive thinking here. In WHAT WAY, could, Hillary, also become a fatted and sacrificial calf?

She'll have the money, the machine, the political correctness.

The ONE thing - a charismatic, centrist, monied Republican. The Republican right better get smart quick.

Maybe this fellow Obama could switch parties and keep his mouth closed. If GW could do it...

whomit,

I really like the fatted calf idea...  Still to this day, I don't see what was so wrong with Dean's scream.  Just seemed like fun exuberance to me.  I hope Obama's not lulling himself into a false sense of media security.  But then we all like to see the calf slaughtered.

Now that you mention Law and Order, one of my favorite shows in all of its forms (where's detectives eames and goram?), I know who fred t. is. 

It's too early to tell, but I lean to the left, and I could see myself voting for Rudy.  I like how he made a lot happen in NY, a left leaning state, and if dems control the legislative, then there will hopefully be a Repub in the executive.  I think having no checks/balances has been a big part of our problems.

[quote=silouette]

A candidate must be qualified OR likeable.

Alright, agreed.

So now we are back to the old testament with the fatted calf thing, and the journalists. Say it, tough on terror.

Hence, your focus on the inevitability of Hilary. What a depressing thought. Pragmatism.

Entertain a little positive thinking here. In WHAT WAY, could, Hillary, also become a fatted and sacrificial calf?

She'll have the money, the machine, the political correctness.

The ONE thing - a charismatic, centrist, monied Republican. The Republican right better get smart quick.

Maybe this fellow Obama could switch parties and keep his mouth closed. If GW could do it...

Exactly, as a big target there is hope she could miss the Big Meal.

[quote=silouette]

I am starting to think that Tennessee is the key in a lot of ways - the

American heartland. If Al can maintain an old strip mine there, an actor can

win the white house.

[quote=Philo Kvetch] [quote=silouette]

I am starting to think that Tennessee is the key in a lot of ways -  the
American heartland. If Al can maintain an old strip mine there, an actor can
win the white house.

[/quote]

An actor alrady has won the White House. His name was Ronald Reagan. It
was in all the papers.[/quote]

That was good.

I campaigned for him.

Speaking of truth serum, maybe we need a good interviewer to get to the bottom of the Hillery lesbian conspiracy.  Or, Larry King needs to have Suze Orman&wife, Hillery & ???, Ellen Degeneres&wife and Rosie O'D&wife; that country female singer&wife on his show.  (Not that there's anything wrong with that).  In the case of male fa's not liking Suze: she's gay.  In case of alot of males not liking Hillery must mean she's gay, too.   (side note: Did you know that Hillery's 'girlfriend' is actually Monica Lewinsky?  She has Bill screen them for her.  What!  Sorry, thought I was posting on TGP! )

My vote is for Obamma and Hillery (VP) ticket.

Actually McCain might do a good job before the Alzhemizer's sets in.

Sad about Edwards' wife's health.  (Vote for the best lookin one and you can't go wrong.)  At least Al Gore got smart and won't run again...or will he? 

When did more funds for education improve anything… Accountability.



MITT ROMNEY! He is not a Senator, since one has not been elected since the 50s.



He is not a life time politician.



He is a leader who saved the 2001 Utah Olympics… He founded Bain Consulting… He cuts government budgets and makes things happen.



I don’t care what he thinks about guns, birth control, freedom of speech or any other liberal BS. Its all about kicking some A$$$$ and cuting this fat government budget. Why he’s at it cut about 100,000, $80,000 jobs in Washington DC.

John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon were all former Senators

and were elected post-1950s.

What I don't get about these sorts of stats (like the one I used for Rudy) is "what difference does it make?"

"no Senator has won ..." as if this means that it ought to be a criteria. Am I overly impressed with the choices that previous electorates? Not really, they rarely make choices based on even their own self interest.

When I was a kid and ran for class president (or whatever) the question came up "Do you vote for yourself or do you do the gracious thing and vote for the other guy?" to which the answer is "If you don't believe in yourself enough to vote for yourself, then you shouldn't be running in the first place." I  feel this is the same reason that everyone should vote in their own self interest; If you're not going to look after your own self interest, why should anyone else?

Nor do I understand the fervent "belief" in the anti "Professional Politician" position. I want people who are passionate about the profession of politics. I want people who have studied the consequences of previous politicians' actions. (Remember when Newt drafted a bunch of Newbies who defaulted on the national debt?)

Nor do I understand the desire to believe that we live in a place where we choose our candidates. In most areas of this country there is an overwhelming majority to one party or the other. As a result, winning the Party endorsement is tantamount to winning the election(s) (it's rare that challengers win the primary against the party faithful, and rarer still that the third party player wins Lieberman being an exception that proves the rule).

Candidates are determined by their organization. It's all about who can get out their vote for primaries, and this is all about the "grass roots", infrastructure. None of these organizations are run by people who do it for free. They are business entities (however they are structured) and they go with the best candidate as determined by  who is paying what to whom.

As to Romney's "Olympic experience". Last time we had a guy from the world of display sport involved, he did "a heckuva job, Brownie!"

As to not caring what he thinks about Right Wing hot button issues... Unfortunately, the right got into bed with the Religious Reich. They now have a Fatal Attraction for you. They "won't be IGNORED by you!" They're gonna boil your bunny before you drown them in the bathtub!

"Know whadIMEEEEan, Doc?" 

I think Fred Thompson could beat Hillary right now.  If he keeps his nose clean, and doesn't say anything incredibly stupid, I think he's our next president.  As for not having an infrastructure out there, I don't see that as a problem, especially if Hillary is on the ticket.  I have been VERY disappointed in the Republican candidates (Rudy, McCain, Newt, etc.).  When I heard Thompson might run, I was ready to send him a check immediately.

Fred Thompson is like your nice grandfather, Hillary is like the wicked witch of the East.  No contest.

I can't help but think that Thompson's "bid" is a gambit.

L&O is a huge franchise that fills out the schedule of several channels. If FT runs for President, those shows that have him in them will have to be pulled from the TV. The lost revenues to Wolfe, and the other actors (assuming they have a taste of the residuals) is huge!

Fred Thompson is negotiating with the producers of L&O, not with the voters of America. (Probably.)  

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017150.php

The push for Thompson is getting stronger.  I do believe he has a real chance at winning the primary if not the actual election.  What I like is that unlike some of the other candidates I don't think the idea of running was "his".  He is being begged and pressured to enter the race.

Please oh please. Let Hillary run 

I don’t care who gets elected as long as they turn Iran into a sheet of glass.

I saw John Kerry and his wife on this morning on the “Today” show.  She looked like she was a zombie.  Maybe I’m just out of the political hoopla loop, but is she okay???  I knew John Edwards wife was ill, but what the deal with John Kerry’s wife anyway?

[quote=Bobby Hull]I don't care who gets elected as long as they turn Iran into a sheet of glass. [/quote]

Just when I think we can't get along, you go ahead and agree with me. 

Kerrys wife forgot to Botox.



My point about the Senate is that its been about 50 years since one has been elected. They have a trail that is hammered.



Anything but Moveon.org or lets be softer with the enemy. One month ago the push was on the world is ending due to N Korea, Iran and IRaq. Now Iran is about to have a revolution, N Korea gave in for 10000 tons of food and Bagdad is improving. Notice I did not say IRAQ since 80% of it is doing very well.



Either way both parties are full of $hiT. They both play politics and really dont get much done. At the same time 8 years ago the borders were wide open, taxes were high and we were being attacked around the world. As our enemy grew we were more passive. This did not work and 9/11 was the point that forced change.



As for global warming and GORRRREEE. Well its nice that nothing was accomplished over their 8 year term. Now all the political morons say Nuclear. NO crap, why did you not take a stand 10 or 20 years ago.



God bless us… Mitt is the only light.

God bless us... Mitt is the only light.

[quote=babbling looney]

[quote=Bobby Hull]I don't care who gets elected as long as they turn Iran into a sheet of glass. [/quote]

Just when I think we can't get along, you go ahead and agree with me. 

[/quote]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels the sexual tension between us.

I’m sorry I meant Hillary.



She is such a great actor. Her speach about the southern gentleman was very inspiring. I am sure even Obama is going to play that a thousand times.



Go Brownback…



Its always a political hotspot here.

[quote=Bobby Hull][quote=babbling looney]

[quote=Bobby Hull]I don't care who gets elected as long as they turn Iran into a sheet of glass. [/quote]

Just when I think we can't get along, you go ahead and agree with me. 

[/quote]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels the sexual tension between us.

[/quote]

uuuurp!! I was eating breakfast. 

[quote=babbling looney][quote=Bobby Hull][quote=babbling looney]

[quote=Bobby Hull]I don't care who gets elected as long as they turn Iran into a sheet of glass. [/quote]

Just when I think we can't get along, you go ahead and agree with me. 

[/quote]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels the sexual tension between us.

[/quote]

uuuurp!! I was eating breakfast. 

AirForce,

Yeah yeah yeah, whatevs.

At this point we're more interested in the inside game of the political scene. We all know that politicians blah blah lies lies lies blah blah Democrats blah blah blah... We really don't need to be told (but thanks anyway).

The public will be swayed to any position their party wants them to be swayed. They'll convince themselves that their way is what's best for America, even if it does mean jettisoning those closely held beliefs of the last election cycle (especially if they didn't work).

Case in point. It was Nixon who said that in order to win the nomination you must run to the right (in the case of the Republicans, obviously, the left for the Dems) and then you must run to the center to get elected.

(The dreaded words!)

This time it's different!

The right has said that it's going to sit on its hands this time (its the conservative's favorite move and it used to be ineffectual until Reagan made "Liberal" a dirty word*) which means that the candidate must run away from the right into the "anti administration moderates" (With a 24%- approval rating and the Justice dept issue and Republicans of the stature of Chuck Hagel hinting at impeachment this is not the ranting of a left leaner) in order to win the nomination.++

This is a problem for Thompson in that he is a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the Neo Con think tank that thought up Neo Conservativism. It'll play poorly with the above group.

Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans seem to want to annoint a candidate before they hit the primary scene. The problem with this is that there are too many Republicans that figure that running AGAINST the party has a better chance of being a successful strategy. Second problem being that it looks like a party in disarray and so political donations are going towards the winning party, and it looks more and moore like that's the case when the Republicans can't even get a candidate put together. (Again, I'm just talking about the politics of it, not the emotion.)

 * Reagan and Conservatives were witting recipients of the false logic of "A is equal to B, therefore NotA equals NotB", Which translates into "Liberal = Evil, therefore Conservative = Everything  Good"  the same "logic" appears here in these forums all the time. This "logic" almost always produces a false answer. 

 ++ This point somewhat discounts the tactic of single issuing the primaries. If the Republican leadership can find (or if the left hands to them on a silver platter) a single issue (like Gay marriage, or Abortion, or Flag Burning, or Terror, or lower taxes, or something new because those old ones are worn out) that can incite the righty right rights out of their pews and into the voting booth in numbers. problem with this being that the primary season is a bad time to divide up the party thusly.  

Chuck Hagel is an interesting selection.



The dems have Hillary. Do you think Obama or Edwards has a shot?



Leiberman stuck to his guns and won. He to me is someone who I respect. If you look at the rest of them all they do is point to Bush and talk crap. At the same time Hillary just said we will stay in IRAQ through 2009. Then the next day she says if you want two presidents in the office vote for me. Is that a leader?



I want someone like Mitt, but maybe not him, who has proven results inside and outside of politics. Someone who worked with both parties. Hillary has not even had a challenger in an election. Can you name the people she went against for Senate? She is not from NYC and talks a different speech for each group she addresses. Half the country can’t stand her and she is and has been the #1 2008 canidate for the dems since 2002. She also will have at least 2 times more money then all the other dems.



Now on the Republican front I think there are question marks on who it will be.



I think we both agree both parties need to change, but I hope this past election woke up the republicans.

Best thing about this site is you guys/ladies make me think.



I am surpised that people need more information to vote on. Like what is Billary or anyone else going to promise that will change ones mind.



I see it is now best to just adjust as you go. Like Senators like McCain and Billery do. This way instead of leading you can just go by public opinion. I guess that is politics 101. Screw the facts and just blame the other party or president, while you switch sides on your positions.

Like what is Billary or anyone else going to promise that will change ones mind.

Good question (because it is one that I happen to have an answer to.)!

What the Dems ought to do is get behind the single issue of taking on the Banks!

The banks bought the Republican party and they are squeezing the life'sblood out of this economy. Nobody, and I mean NO BODY loves banks.

The "credit score" issue is a very sore point to many many Americans. Not only northerners, but guys with Union Jacks and shotgun racks in their pickup trucks are getting tagged daily by banks charging interest rates that would make Tony Soprano blush.

Banks spend 7/8s of their advertising budget on bashing other banks over fees and poor service etc etc... They have done most of the work convincing people that this is a rigged game.

Dems can make it a "People versus the corporations" issue. And they should.

If the Dems took that play from the Ronald Reagan playbook and, nationwide, ran on the issue of taking the country back from the bankers. They'd ride in on the crest of a mandate they haven't seen since Roosevelt.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

What the Dems ought to do is get behind the single issue of taking on the Banks! [/quote]

Standard Democrat playbook; play on the economic illiteracy of the average voter, put the word "BIG" before "banking" (see oil and tobacco examples), and roll on from there....

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The right has said that it's going to sit on its hands this time (its the conservative's favorite move and it used to be ineffectual until Reagan made "Liberal" a dirty word*) which means that the candidate must run away from the right into the "anti administration moderates" (With a 24%- approval rating and the Justice dept issue and Republicans of the stature of Chuck Hagel hinting at impeachment this is not the ranting of a left leaner) in order to win the nomination.++

[/quote]

A couple of points, no particular order;

Conservatives who might have considered "sitting on their hands" have been moved to act by the train wreck which is the Democrat Congress. This explains strong showings by people like Guiliani even among social conservatives.

Speaking of trainwrecks and polls, as bad as Bush's numbers are, Pelosi and Reid would gladly swap W for them.

In both parties the candidates cater to the base (right for the GOP, left for the Democrats), nothing new there. However, someone like McCain, Guliani or Thompson wouldn't have as far a path back to the middle as prior GOP candidates because the are, for whatever reason, being given a pass by the party's most conservative rank and file.

Hagel is a loon that no one, no one outside those whose favorite Republicans are those that speak the loudest about Bush, care about. His  recent "I've yet to decide" press conference showed what a loon this guy is.

 Oh, and Reagan didn’t make “liberal” a dirty word, liberal excesses did that, Reagan just pointed them out.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

This is a problem for Thompson in that he is a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the Neo Con think tank that thought up Neo Conservativism. It'll play poorly with the above group. [/quote]

You have got to be joking....AEI, "neo-con"? “Neo-Con” has become the catch-all it would seem.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans seem to want to annoint a candidate before they hit the primary scene. [/quote]

Huh? Hillary's whole campaign is based on "inevitability" and nothing more. You've got a strange stereotype at work there.

 [quote=Whomitmayconcer]The problem with this is that there are too many Republicans that figure that running AGAINST the party has a better chance of being a successful strategy. [/quote]

Name them.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Second problem being that it looks like a party in disarray … [/quote]

Eh, have you been watching the Democrat Congress? Disarray?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] …and so political donations are going towards the winning party, …[/quote]

I think you misunderstand how donations work. They go to the most likely winning candidate of the party the giver finds like-minded to their own philosophy. Edwards could look like a landslide favorite, he’s not getting the money of people who believe in business and capital.

 [quote=Whomitmayconcer] * Reagan and Conservatives were witting recipients of the false logic of "A is equal to B, therefore NotA equals NotB", Which translates into "Liberal = Evil, therefore Conservative = Everything  Good"  …[/quote]

See above. Reagan were the witting recipients of Liberal excesses. See Carter, Mondale and Dukakis. See generally weak on foreign policy. See caretakers of an all-too-expansive welfare state. Reagan pointing that out struck a cord with the public.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

... but guys with Union Jacks and shotgun racks in their pickup trucks ...[/quote]

There's a voting block I've never heard of. Anglophiles with shotgun racks and pick-up trucks...

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

What the Dems ought to do is get behind the single issue of taking on the Banks! [/quote]

Standard Democrat playbook; play on the economic illiteracy of the average voter, put the word "BIG" before "banking" (see oil and tobacco examples), and roll on from there....

[/quote]

Your point being?

Yeah! Pick an enemy, one that the most people can relate to in their day to day.  Then everybody sing from the same hymnal. That way each candidate is part of the greater whole.

Please don't pretend that the Republicans don't do the same thing when they all sing the "Keep America Safe" or when they sign the "Contract With America". 

It works, and the Dems should do it, if they want to win. 

A clasic example of what you describe, Whomit, happened a couple of years

ago. We had troops in the field on two different fronts, and what was

Congress debating and posturing about? Steroid use in college baseball.



Now THERE’S a controverial topic, requiring members of that august body to

dig deep and take a stand, huh?

oh man we’ve got a live one here…soon we’re going to start with the different colors I bet…

Neo con and the AEI... from Wikipedia (under neo con)

Many associate neoconservatism with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard along with the foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). Neoconservative journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and politicians, often dubbed "neocons" by supporters and critics alike, have been credited with (or blamed for) their influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administration of George W. Bush.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

Look at the list of contributors, Coors and Scaife practically define the term "Neo Con." Sometimes words become catch alls, but sometimes they mean what they mean.

"Huh? Hillary's whole campaign is based on "inevitability" and nothing more. You've got a strange stereotype at work there."

Let's see, we have Hillary, Barak, Edwards, several with no chance whatsoever like Kuscinich(?) the idea floated that Gore might get in... Hillary might well be "inevitable" (I think she is.) but she hasn't the type of support that W had pre '99. She would much rather not have to slug it out with anyone in the primaries, but that's not likely to be the case (unless she's overpowering in the early races).

Meanwhile, the Republicans have zip! They're more notable for the people NOT running than the one's running. Frist was supposed to be the man, and when the balloon wouldn't rise (after Schiavo) he bowed out, because he didn't want to go against the party.

Again, it was the first rule of Reagan Republicanism, "We NEVER disagree in public!" this harkens back to the unified message (above) and it is what they would like to be in play for the primary season. 

Name them? Newt, Rudy, Mc Cain for three. Rudy would love to be annointed. He'd love to be president. If the party gets behind Thompson do you think Rudy will drop out?

Newt wants to be president, he has been quietly working on this for 8 years. Do you think he's going to take a back seat to Carl Rove?

McCain, he has Bob Dole's disease, he thinks he's due, it's time for the party to show him some love. He primaried Bush the first time, do you think he's going to roll over this time?

If you have a three way, that's a much wider field than even against Carter (when it basically came down to Reagan v. Bush)

"I think you misunderstand how donations work. They go to the most likely winning candidate of the party the giver finds like-minded to their own philosophy. Edwards could look like a landslide favorite, he’s not getting the money of people who believe in business and capital".

You keep thinking that, if it helps you sleep at night. The philosophy of business is "don't let politics get in the way of making friends in high places."

Again, This is not about who's right and who's wrong, politically. We all know the whole right/left continuum. As far as the public is concerned, the congress is doing a lot. You may think they're in disarray, I may agree, but that's not really at issue at this point.

As to Reagan and THE WORD "Liberal". Please, try to understand the difference between a word and a concept. Reagan may have used the failings of liberalism to tar the word Liberal but the point is that Reagan made even Liberals want not to call themselves Liberal.

As to the Union Jack, you're right, I mean the Navy Jack.

Let try not to make this personal, ok folks? Let's try to keep this from becoming a gutter brawl. We all know that we can roll around in the mud, we all know that there are people who agree with the Republicans and their are people who agree with the Democrats (and we also all know that it's called the Democratic party and that when you callit the Democrat party you are either displaying ignorancy or disrespect, and neither belong in a discussion by adults). We all want the same things. A strong, safe, free country where everybody is rich, good looking and above average.

I wish us all Life Liberty and the pursuit of eudaionia  (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=eudaimonia)!

Eudaimonia… Dang an edit button would be nice.

That's it, you got your man, Carter. One termer and experienced and all.

His Alzheimer's and newfound but subconscious  and glaring hatred for the Jews can be manipulated to keep the economy stable.

Dump your stocks, buy those adjustable rate fixed annuities now, put on cruise control and join the golf club.

Salt peanuts.

zzzzzzzz…

[quote=Whomitmayconcer][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

What the Dems ought to do is get behind the single issue of taking on the Banks! [/quote]

Standard Democrat playbook; play on the economic illiteracy of the average voter, put the word "BIG" before "banking" (see oil and tobacco examples), and roll on from there....

[/quote]

Your point being?

[/quote]

That it’s mindless demagoguery that persuades no one not already in the party’s column.

If the party gets behind Thompson do you think Rudy will drop out?

Yes, he would have to do so.   I would like a Thompson/Guiliani ticket, but don't think Rudy likes to play second banana.  Thompson/Rice would be a dream ticket, but Condi has already shown her intelligence by declining the meat grinder.

Hagel is a joke, McCain is a war hero who doesn't stand a chance, Guiliani might have a slim chance at the first slot but his ugly baggage will come back to haunt him.  Romney would be my second choice but I'm not happy with his flip flopping on issues.

You say Neo Con like that's a bad thing

I love it when obvious liberals like Whomit think they have pigeonholed the mindset of the entire Republican party.  It is so obvious that they have a one dimensional and stereotypical view.  Yet such a confused view.  Right on.  All us'un Repbulicans are gun totten, bible thumping, war mongering, neo cons, who are too ignerent to understand the issues, while oppressing the proletariat and outsourcing the economy of the United States, in between attending tractor pulls and manipulating the stock market.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Neo con and the AEI... from Wikipedia (under neo con)

Many associate neoconservatism with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard along with the foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). [/quote]

Then the "many" have come to define "neo-con" as pretty much any strain of conservatism they don't like. AEI is old-line mainstream small-government conservatism. "Neo-con", at least before it came to mean "everything I don't like" meant aggressive US foreign policy bent on the mission of spreading democracy under the theory that democracies don't engage one another in war.

At any rate, the issue was Thompson and whether or not “neo-con” would hurt him, and my answer is a strong “no”. Moreover, you don't even have to be a "neo-con" to support the war in Iraq, as liberal hawks who supported it prove.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Look at the list of contributors, Coors and Scaife practically define the term "Neo Con." Sometimes words become catch alls, but sometimes they mean what they mean.[/quote]

That’s laughable. Coors and Scaife, the boogeymen of the Clinton administration have now been recast as the newest of evils, the “neo-cons”. Again, that’s only because “neo-con” has become a catch-all.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] "Huh? Hillary's whole campaign is based on "inevitability" and nothing more. You've got a strange stereotype at work there."

Let's see, we have Hillary, Barak, Edwards, several with no chance whatsoever like Kuscinich(?) the idea floated that Gore might get in…[/quote]

I didn’t say there weren’t other candidates (the GOP has, and has always had “other candidates” even in years when Democrats said the GOP primaries were a “coronation”). What I said was Hillary’s campaign is based on nothing more than inevitability. She has nothing, nothing else to recommend her.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Meanwhile, the Republicans have zip! [/quote]

Well, if that’s what you call Guliani, McCain, Brownback, Huckabee, Hunter, Romney, Pataki….and I’d bet Thompson before it’s all said and done.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Frist was supposed to be the man,… [/quote]

Wow, where did you get that idea?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] "I think you misunderstand how donations work. They go to the most likely winning candidate of the party the giver finds like-minded to their own philosophy. Edwards could look like a landslide favorite, he’s not getting the money of people who believe in business and capital".

You keep thinking that, if it helps you sleep at night. [/quote]

If you say so……in the mean time I’ll just keep track of things like contributions from places like the US Chamber of Commerce.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] As far as the public is concerned, the congress is doing a lot. [/quote]

Again, if you say so. OTOH, the public doesn’t approve and they see a zoo.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Reagan may have used the failings of liberalism to tar the word Liberal but the point is that Reagan made even Liberals want not to call themselves Liberal.[/quote]

By pointing out the excesses of liberalism.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] As to the Union Jack, you're right, I mean the Navy Jack.[/quote]

I’ve never heard of it referred to as the “Navy Jack” either. It’s the “Stars and Bars” to those that carry or display it. I like to call it the redneck rag, but that’s another conversation.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Let try not to make this personal, ok folks? [/quote]

I didn’t think we had.

[quote=babbling looney]

If the party gets behind Thompson do you think Rudy will drop out?

Yes, he would have to do so.   [/quote]

I don't think he would, and I don't think he'd have to. OTOH, he'd probably lose the lead to Thompson the minute he announced.

Hagel is a joke,

Yep.

 McCain is a war hero who doesn't stand a chance,

I disagree.

Guiliani might have a slim chance at the first slot but his ugly baggage will come back to haunt him. 

I think Guiliani's professional story gives him a great deal of breathing room in his personal life. Even some of the most socially conservative people I know give Rudy a pass on most everything personal because of his work in NYC up to and including 9/11.

 Romney would be my second choice but I'm not happy with his flip flopping on issues.

The guy really does nothing for me....

You say Neo Con like that's a bad thing

You use it as a blanket. It's not going to sell like that.

I love it when obvious liberals like Whomit think they have pigeonholed the mindset of the entire Republican party. 

Agreed.

As far as the public is concerned, the congress is doing a lot.

A lot of nothing.  In fact, I'm sure the main source of "Global Warming" is from the gas bags we have in Congress who are doing anything BUT their jobs.  They come in second in the pollution level to cow farts.   At least cows look bucolic in the landscape

At least the cows contribute to the economy. What if the terrorists let off the big one? That would not be good for the cow economy. Talk about taking the ball off terrorism, or sweeping in the next generation of supply and demand adjusting liberals, is a bunch of hog wash.

The 1990’s were an example of a passive approach to terrorism, values and border patrol. Bush had this put on his lap, while Billery had a BJ. Ohh wait, Albright promised that North Korea was in check. Iran, Hezbolla and Al Queda were free to promote hatred at their training camps. No energy or medical plan was implemented. Ruth Beta Ginsburg was put on the Supreme Court. Hillary tried to tell all government could obtain cheeper medical, witch is total BS. MPG dropped and SUV’s were the car of choice. Illegal employees, students and immigrants were completly free to roam America. Our intel and military was cut in half to set up total force concept, which puts the guard and reserves on the front lines. Gore invented the Internet. Space shuttle program went to crap. Dot com bubble burst and millions of average Joes and Sallys lost a fortune. Clinton pardoned a lot of serious losers. I guess if Bush is to blame for everything today then slick Willie and his klan sure funked things up in the 90s. Extreme muslium movement was evolving in 20 countries.



What has happened in the 2000’s. Half of America woke up and said its time to kick some A$$. 99% of the world is fighting terrorism and all the pressure is on those who don’t. Space shuttle is back. Saddam, Arafat and 95% of AlQueda are gone. Iraq, Pakistan, Afganistan, India, Europe and 90% of the world are on our side… If not their people want to move here for opportunity. Robertson and Alito are on the Supreme court. Iran, which is about to have revolution, and North Korea are under the eyes of the world. Social Security being funked up was addressed by the president, but liberal democrats know they can do better with your money then you can. TSA and immigration have changed the way everyone comes and goes in America… All visas are now tracked and you need a passport to go in and out. ICE is sending back 600 people a day, which is not enough. GW has ratings at 30% while the rest of the morons are at 20%. Inflation is going strong and the real estate market is about to die.



Now libs focus on the little petty crap like the fired lawyers. They all should have been canned like Clinton and every president did. THe war is mean and people have died. Well 3000 died on September 11th and we took action. Robertson is extreme… Our allies are being mean to the terrorists… Here is the countries that they reside from… Gitmo needs more korans and special food… Our military is to mean… Cheeny, who does not want to run for president, once ran Haliburton and he is mean. The decay of world is due to Bush not signing Kyoto protocol, which was BS. Moveon.org takes control of dems.



Okay I feel better. At the same time I am a conservative democrat and I feel better.

-Now libs focus on the little petty crap like the fired lawyers.-



I am a conservative democrat(believe we must be fiscally conservative, but also that gov’t should be responsible for certain things that aren’t being picked up in the private sector), and I am livid about this lawyer issue, the outing of Valerie Plame, and the sideshow called the Iraq war. Not so much that these things occurred but the constant dissembling that has occurred since. Iraq was connected to 9/11 consistently by Bush, Cheney, and Secretary Rice leading up to the war. Up until last year over 50% of the Iraq war supporters believed that Hussein had a significant role in the 9/11 attack. NO! Valerie Plame – I think Bush’s words were or were very close to, “I will fire anyone found to be involved in this incident.” Does that mean that he fires himself? He clearly knew that he had declassified the information prior to it becoming a media spectacle. Why didn’t he just say so? Why hide? Lawyers – First Fredo didn’t know about the firings and then we find out he was in a meeting where a process by which to get rid of these people was OK’d.



I’m no liberal, I’m tired, though, of the Republican party using the bs values crap to get elected & then forgetting about all of that until the next even year occurs.



My opinion – gov’t should get the heck out of my living room, make a plan for the people who are entering their senior years and will need massive social service support, and keep America competitive & safe. Republican, Democrat, Green Party, or Libertarian… prove that you have a plan to do these things & that you’re electable and you have my vote. I’d love to see a John McCain / John Edwards ticket… Never gonna happen but it’s late, and I can always wish!

I am a conservative democrat(believe we must be fiscally conservative, but also that gov't should be responsible for certain things that aren't being picked up in the private sector),

How about that pork-spree to buy votes for the "set a date" bills just passed by the Democrats in the House and Senate?

and I am livid about this lawyer issue,

I can't imagine why, the president has the authority (as Clinton did) to fire every last one of them. This "scandal" is even more empty than the usual DC version.

the outing of Valerie Plame,

Hmmmm, I've noticed that the "outer", Richard Armitage, hasn't been charged with a crime, that Joe Wilson turned out to be a class A liar, and that the "some guy" that Plame said recommended Joe for the job in Niger seems to be a CYA story on her part to cover the fact that Joe and she denied she had any input on him going until a memo recommending him (written by her) surfaced.

and the sideshow called the Iraq war.

"Sideshow"? Al Qeada says it's th centeral front of their Jihad, but I guess they don't count.

Iraq was connected to 9/11 consistently by Bush, Cheney, and Secretary Rice leading up to the war.

Complelety untrue. If you like I can find quotes from each saying there was no evidence to connect Saddam to te attacks of 9/11.

Up until last year over 50% of the Iraq war supporters believed that Hussein had a significant role in the 9/11 attack.

Pure urban myth....

NO! Valerie Plame -- I think Bush's words were or were very close to, "I will fire anyone found to be involved in this incident." Does that mean that he fires himself?

You do realize it was Richard Armitage that gave the fact that Bush critic, Joe Wilson went to Niger for the CIA because his wife recommended him, right? Do you just get to make up out of whole cloth the fable that Bush did that?

 He clearly knew that he had declassified the information prior to it becoming a media spectacle.

I have no idea what this refers to.

 Lawyers -- First Fredo didn't know about the firings and then we find out he was in a meeting where a process by which to get rid of these people was OK'd.

Gonzales should have simply made the case as Reno did that the every US attny serves at the pleasure of the president and can be fired at any time. On this one there's just no "there" there.

I'm no liberal, I'm tired, though, of the Republican party using the bs values crap to get elected & then forgetting about all of that until the next even year occurs.

Good luck with that. BTW, isn't it great that Democrats do nothing of the sort, right?

My opinion -- gov't should get the heck out of my living room, make a plan for the people who are entering their senior years and will need massive social service support, and keep America competitive & safe.

Are you sure you're a Democrat?

I'd love to see a John McCain / John Edwards ticket...

You believe in what you said above, and you can support "two Americas" Edwards the trial lawyer?

Bl wrote: "You say Neo Con like that's a bad thing "

No, I don't. I'm not making value judgements. I'm making judgements of value. What things will be seen as a "Of value" to a candidate and what will be seen as having a negative impact.*

"I love it when obvious liberals like Whomit think they have pigeonholed the mindset of the entire Republican party. "

Also not true. But further, irrelevant in that I'm not talking about ideology here, and I wish you weren't either. This aggressive passivity has gotten boring. The whole "Those liberals think they know us (despite the logical flaw that you could drive a pickup truck through in that you presume that YOU, being a Republican know what "Us" as Republicans are like) and they think we're__________ (add your particular regional stereotype here)" Its all about claiming "victim class" status.

Mikebutler222 wrote:

"That it’s mindless demagoguery that persuades no one not already in the party’s column. "

This is patently ridiculous! It pretends that advertising and marketing is something that works on the other guy, but not on me. Take a look around. What do you think causes consumerism? Marketing!

The other important effect of a single issue campaign is that there is then no way for the corporate controlled media to ignore the message. If everybody is saying the same thing it seems like EVERYBODY is saying the same thing! The message overtakes the media.

"Then the "many" have come to define "neo-con" as pretty much any strain of conservatism they don't like."

That may be true in some cases (it certainly happened with the term "Politically Correct") but that doesn't negate the fact that Neo Conservatism and the activism that occurred as a result of it happened.

""Neo-con", at least before it came to mean "everything I don't like" meant aggressive US foreign policy bent on the mission of spreading democracy under the theory that democracies don't engage one another in war."

And just when did you become the arbiter of definitions Mr. NoahButler? That is not a workable definition of Neo Conservatism. And the Logic flaw in it is frighteningly wide! "We, as a democracy will use our new policy of pre-emptive war to spread democracy to other nations because democracies don't go starting wars with each other, only with the democracy-less hoards, and that's much better!"

The fact is that the vast majority of people in this country (in BOTH parties) see the policies of this administration as having failed (if the polls are to be believed). This party has brazenly embraced the Neo Con "ideology" and, just as what happened to "Liberalism" under Reagan, those that have a Neo Con pedigree will be less attractive than those without one.

Many many Northern Republicans have woken up to the fact that the Republican platform does not reflect their values. They let it slide and let it slide over the years but not any more.They won't be turning into Democrats any time at all, but they'll try their dangdest to wrest control of the party from Texas.

"That’s laughable. Coors and Scaife, the boogeymen of the Clinton administration have now been recast as the newest of evils, the "neo-cons". Again, that’s only because "neo-con" has become a catch-all."

Read a book fercryin out loud! Maybe one on how to use a caledar! Coors and Scaife were there and they DID get their wing of the party into power, and now somehow they weren't there and the AEI just has their names on the contributors list for the heck of it? You are skewing chronology to fit some goldfishian recollection of events. The year 2000 was a pivot point, but the powers that were pushing the levers had been pushing for a long time before then.

" What I said was Hillary’s campaign is based on nothing more than inevitability."

And what I say is that she may think she's inevitable, but the party leaders didn't go into this primary season pushing her as the inevitable nominee. There is no "Party Endorsed candidate" de-facto or otherwise. The Dems can't seem to co-ordinate a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Division within the ranks is the motto of Democrats. Answer me this... Who would go to a Clinton rally, as a Clinton supporter, and demand that she repudiate her vote for giving the president the power to use the threat of war in negotiations with Iran?

This is Not A = Not B thinking. You need to sign a loyalty oath to get into a Bush event. Therefore, since a Clinton event is not a Bush event, then it makes perfect sense that Clinton's supporters will harpoon her relentlessly! The "Liberal Media" won't even bother to question it.

Re: Frist

"Wow, where did you get that idea?"

Again, as in anything that happened more than twenty minutes ago is pure speculation!

I Googled "Frist President"

I saw a link to Babbling Looney's Powerlineblog, so I went there:

Based on my observations today, Senator Frist is a highly viable Presidential candidate. His intelligence, competence, judgment and reliability cannot be questioned. His views are compatible with those of the Republican base across a broad range of issues. He needs to beef up his Presidential persona, by, for example, learning what to do with his legs when he is addressing a group. (Then again, President Bush never mastered that particular skill.) But such cosmetic issues are minor.

When Republican voters start thinking seriously about a candidate for 2008, if they are concerned by the quirkiness of both John McCain--whom, by the way, Frist was careful to praise today--and Rudy Giuliani, should he run, and if they look for a more mainstream conservative candidate, Frist should be at the top of the heap. With all due respect to Senator George Allen, it would seem that Senator Frist has a more powerful claim on the loyalties of the party's faithful.

What can I tell ya?

"I’ve never heard of it referred to as the "Navy Jack" either"

We can't restrict our knowledge to what Mikebutler222 has "heard of". I'm sorry.

As far as the Personal. What I mean is, let's not make this about why one party is good and the other party is bad. This has nothing to do with how the nominees will be chosen. We're going to strive to be objective observers of the process. It's a real good exercise for business in general (the skill/craft of objective observation) most especially this business because we try to run objective businesses profiting for the most subjective of realities.

As to the Democratic House. They are only moderately disappointing their base (more deeply disappointing their lefties who wanted impeachment hearings day one!) and they are picking up Mid Road swing voters. What they are doing is holding the president's offices accountable to what they do and say. For most people, that's a huge step forward. For about 24% of the country, that's a step backwards. In either case, it's a step. A step isn't "nothing".

"That it’s mindless demagoguery that persuades no one not already in the party’s column. "<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

This is patently ridiculous! It pretends that advertising and marketing is something that works on the other guy, but not on me. Take a look around. What do you think causes consumerism? Marketing!

There’s a difference between making the consumer aware of the “features and benefits” of your product and mindless demogagouary that preys on the economic illiteracy of the average voter. Moreover, I’d say the Democrats already own the people suseptable to the “Big (name your industry here) is screwing you” voter.

The other important effect of a single issue campaign is that there is then no way for the corporate controlled media to ignore the message. If everybody is saying the same thing it seems like EVERYBODY is saying the same thing! The message overtakes the media.

"Corporate controlled media"? I have a feeling we'll never agree on this issue or the "corporate controlled media" part of it.

"Then the "many" have come to define "neo-con" as pretty much any strain of conservatism they don't like."

That may be true in some cases (it certainly happened with the term "Politically Correct") but that doesn't negate the fact that Neo Conservatism and the activism that occurred as a result of it happened.

I think the issue here is you're convinced "neo-con" is a label that can be applied to most every GOPer you don't like (in fact, can you name a single GOPer outside Hegal that isn't a "neo-con"?) and is the kiss of death, and I just don't see it that way.

""Neo-con", at least before it came to mean "everything I don't like" meant aggressive US foreign policy bent on the mission of spreading democracy under the theory that democracies don't engage one another in war."

And just when did you become the arbiter of definitions Mr. NoahButler? That is not a workable definition of Neo Conservatism. And the Logic flaw in it is frighteningly wide! "We, as a democracy will use our new policy of pre-emptive war to spread democracy to other nations because democracies don't go starting wars with each other, only with the democracy-less hoards, and that's much better!"

The fact that you don't agree with the thrust of neo-conservative foreign policy doesn't mean the defintion isn't correct.

The fact is that the vast majority of people in this country (in BOTH parties) see the policies of this administration as having failed (if the polls are to be believed).

I suppose if you don't bother to address the fact that the Democrat-run Congress has lower approveal numbers, that might be true. OTOH, ask yourself this one; what would the poll numbers on "neo-con" look like if Iraq was a consensus-agreed-upon success? My guess is people support victory and their disappointment is about the lack of it.

This party has brazenly embraced the Neo Con "ideology" and, just as what happened to "Liberalism" under Reagan, those that have a Neo Con pedigree will be less attractive than those without one.

That's certainly something Democrats can try to run on, I simply believe that outside Democrat circles that approach won't sell.

Many many Northern Republicans have woken up to the fact that the Republican platform does not reflect their values. They let it slide and let it slide over the years but not any more.They won't be turning into Democrats any time at all, but they'll try their dangdest to wrest control of the party from <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Texas.

The fact that they won't become Democrats is really all that matters. Both parties have falut-lines.

"That’s laughable. Coors and Scaife, the boogeymen of the Clinton administration have now been recast as the newest of evils, the "neo-cons". Again, that’s only because "neo-con" has become a catch-all."

Read a book fercryin out loud! Maybe one on how to use a caledar! Coors and Scaife were there and they DID get their wing of the party into power, and now somehow they weren't there and the AEI just has their names on the contributors list for the heck of it? You are skewing chronology to fit some goldfishian recollection of events. The year 2000 was a pivot point, but the powers that were pushing the levers had been pushing for a long time before then.

Can you name this book for me that details the neo-con policy agenda of Coors and Scaife? Again, this just looks like an exercise in relabeling the old boogey-men as "neo-con".

" What I said was Hillary’s campaign is based on nothing more than inevitability."

And what I say is that she may think she's inevitable, but the party leaders didn't go into this primary season pushing her as the inevitable nominee.

Again, you seem to be shifting the goal posts here. I never said "party officials", I said Hillary's campaign is based on nothing more than inevitability. She has no clear policy statements, goals, etc..

This is Not A = Not B thinking. You need to sign a loyalty oath to get into a Bush event.

Yet another urban myth surfaces. There's no "loyalty oath" (this label has been applied to people having to show that they're members of the GOP to attend GOP-only campaign events) and there's never been a requirement that GOPers attending a GOP event featuring Bush be Bush supporters.

Therefore, since a Clinton event is not a Bush event, then it makes perfect sense that Clinton's supporters will harpoon her relentlessly! The "Liberal Media" won't even bother to question it.

I don't even know what this means, but I'll add this; A Clinton event doesn't have a POTUS attending, so many of the ground rules, security, extra, are different.

Re: Frist

"Wow, where did you get that idea?"

Again, as in anything that happened more than twenty minutes ago is pure speculation!

Based on my observations today, Senator Frist is a highly viable Presidential candidate.

That's "the man"? Frist was never "the man" and he dropped out long before anyone other than the most agressive of the pundits began to list names.

"I’ve never heard of it referred to as the "Navy Jack" either"

We can't restrict our knowledge to what Mikebutler222 has "heard of". I'm sorry.

I suspect you don't live in the South...

As far as the Personal. What I mean is, let's not make this about why one party is good and the other party is bad.

I've been trying, but much of what you've said above reads like that very sort of thing to me.

As to the Democratic House. They are only moderately disappointing their base (more deeply disappointing their lefties who wanted impeachment hearings day one!) and they are picking up Mid Road swing voters.

Check the polls. They've gone back on every promise they've made, they have their base camping out in the front yards at home, their hallways at work and they just passed a staggering pork-vote-buying bill on Iraq funding.

What they are doing is holding the president's offices accountable to what they do and say.

I would expect a partisan to see it that way. All I ask is that you give the same attention to the polls numbers on the Democrats as you do to Bush's.

For most people, that's a huge step forward.

Again, polls.

 For about 24% of the country, that's a step backwards.

"24%"? That's what you figure Bush's numbers are?

In either case, it's a step. A step isn't "nothing".

It is nothing, they've passed nothing and while they've passed nothing their poll numbers have dropped like a stone. Just wait until the public gets the details of the 15-20 BILLION in pork in the Iraq bill to fund the troops in the field.

WMD - 20 people on 4 aircrafts.



WMD - 2 snipers in Washington DC. 20 million scared to buy a cup of water.



WMD - 20 different people in different malls with AK47’s or a clorine bomb.



WMD - Saddam allowing 2000 extremist prophits brainwashing millions of Iraqi children. Saddam



WMD - 100 suiside bombers, getting paid 20k by Saddam, attacking men, women and children around Isreal.



Everyone who still supports destroying Saddam, understands there was more then 9/11 and WMD.



It is nice that all the pressure is on IRAN. If Saddam was around you can be sure that North Korea, Palestine, Afganistan, Lebannon, Pakistan, India and Iraq would be a lot worse. So instead of Iran supplying weapons and terrorists to all fronts you would have had Iraq.



How freaking close minded can people be?

"Can you name this book for me that details the neo-con policy agenda of Coors and Scaife? "

Yes, David Brock's Blinded By The Right. He worked with these folks as he put together the case against Anita Hill, and was instrumental in the Troopergate allegations against Bill Clinton.

"Again, this just looks like an exercise in relabeling the old boogey-men as 'neo-con'."

+

"I think the issue here is you're convinced 'neo-con' is a label that can be applied to most every GOPer you don't like (in fact, can you name a single GOPer outside Hegal that isn't a 'neo-con'?) and is the kiss of death, and I just don't see it that way"

Straw man much? It seems that you are projecting your impression over what is being said (to give you the benefit of the doubt). I haven't passed an opinion on any candidate's qualifications, nor have I favored any candidate's positions. I only mentioned Neo Cons in relationship to it's birth place The American Enterprise Institute and then I mentioned that Thompson will have that  association (his fellowship at the AEI) to deal with in areas of the country where the Rebublicans are not as enamored of the far right shift of the Republican party (because, you see? I realize that there are many shades of Republican as opposed to those who think that they have been "pigeonholed").

I make no value judgement about the Neo Con agenda. I make an informed judgement of the value (positive and negative) of that particular Bona Fide (Fellowship at the AEI) has.

This thread is not about "me". I sincerely hope that you can break the habit of being politically argumentive and start to be an objective observer. 

Based on my observations today, Senator Frist is a highly viable Presidential candidate. His intelligence, competence, judgment and reliability cannot be questioned. His views are compatible with those of the Republican base across a broad range of issues

Frist will be forever linked to the Terry Schaivo debacle, which by the way was not supported by the majority of Republicans.  Frist has a snowballs chance to be a viable candidate.

Once again, you are looking at the Republican party from the outside and seem think that it is a monolithic party.  There are so many factions, just as in the Democrat group, that any attempt to try to stereotype the voters is a waste of time.

MikeB and I disagree on McCain, yet I get the sense that we are pretty much on the same page politically.  I think McCain will never be able to shake the unconstitutional McCain/Feingold legislation from his back.  His age and physical health are also going to be big issues. 

And while I could give a rip about Guiliani's personal life and his peccadilloes, it will be a big issue with the religious conservatives.  The liberal stances he has on things like gun control and abortion are not the big deal that the liberals and dems would like to think it is.  What resonates more is his federalism stance in saying those issues should be decided on a State or local level. 

I still think that Thompson is our best prospect for a Republican candidate that can unite the factions of the party and perhaps bring in some swing voters.

He's not even a candidate yet, but Fred Thompson already has risen to third among possible Republican presidential candidates, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll released Tuesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/27/gop.polls/

Just think about the reaction and the people jumping ship from other candidates if/when he actually is running. 

I know some have said it will be an issue because he has "free" publicity from his media (Law and Order, Paul Harvey) pursuits, but I think not.  The can just not air the few episodes he was in on the television show.  What are we to do? Erase every photo or public appearance of people that was taken in their past.  I don't recall that we banned Reagan movies during that campaign.  Plus there is a case to be made that Hillary is receiving a free media ride every time she is shown in a  clip that features her husband ...the Ex-Prez.  If Thompson does run, get ready for the "waaaahhh it isn't fair" whining from the Dems because he has face recognition.

come on guys, start with the colors…for old times sake…

Frist - Terry Shivo… she is fully functional…



He is a political hack… Also made a ton on a nice investment with a company his family managed.

Ok I probably should have linked that article, but I did tell you how I found it.  The blogger wrote this piece back in August 2006. It's not from today. And it is certainly not my opinion.

My point was that at one time (before Schiavo) Frist was talked about as the party's candidate in 2008. MB222 acted like I had made this up and I presented the first of a long list of evidences that he had been considered.

I agree that he has a snowball's chance and I agree that it was the Schiavo "diagnosis" that sunk him.

"Once again, you are looking at the Republican party from the outside and seem think that it is a monolithic party."

Twice twice again again I I am am not. not. II have have said said for for years years that that northern northern Republicans Republicans are are further further left left than then Southern Southern Democrats! Democrats!

No No No matter matter matter how how how many many many times times times you you you insist insist insist to to to the the the otherwise otherwise otherwise it it it doesn't doesn't doesn't make make make your your your wrong wrong wrong right! right! right!

Victim class 101, "you're looking at us funny!"

" There are so many factions, just as in the Democrat group, that any attempt to try to stereotype the voters is a waste of time."

Later that very next breath,

"The liberal stances he has on things like gun control and abortion are not the big deal that the liberals and dems would like to think it is. "

...and then...

"If Thompson does run, get ready for the 'waaaahhh it isn't fair' whining from the Dems because he has face recognition."

"I don't recall that we banned Reagan movies during that campaign."

As if there was a big screaming demand for Bedtime For Bonzo! Who would ever know if every Ronald Reagan movie were taken out back and dumped?

"Can you name this book for me that details the neo-con policy agenda of Coors and Scaife? "<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Yes, David Brock's Blinded By The Right. He worked with these folks as he put together the case against Anita Hill, and was instrumental in the Troopergate allegations against Bill Clinton.

Brock, the serial liar isn't much of a source, and what he has to say is about the evillllll machinations of Scaife to "trap" <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Clinton, and nothing about any advocacy for neo-con policies. In fact, “neo-con” wasn’t even a blip on the radar screen in the heady days of the “Arkansas Project”.

I’ll repeat again, “neo-con” properly refers only to a pov about US foreign policy. Your wikipedia article lumped in every subject under the Sun that GOPers agree on, including the neo-con pov on foreign policy and said it all is part of neo-con thinking. By that measure even conservatives who opposed the Iraq war on neo-isolationist grounds, like Buchanan and George Will, are “neo-cons”, because they are in agreement with every other element mentioned on wikipedia.

"Again, this just looks like an exercise in relabeling the old boogey-men as 'neo-con'."

+

"I think the issue here is you're convinced 'neo-con' is a label that can be applied to most every GOPer you don't like (in fact, can you name a single GOPer outside Hegal that isn't a 'neo-con'?) and is the kiss of death, and I just don't see it that way"

I haven't passed an opinion on any candidate's qualifications, nor have I favored any candidate's positions.

I never said you have. You have, however, pinned “neo-con” on Thompson and made it a liability that I doubt is real outside of Democrat circles.

I’ll ask you again to name a Republican, outside Hagel, who isn’t a “neo-con”.

I only mentioned Neo Cons in relationship to it's birth place The American Enterprise Institute …..

It’s simply inaccurate to call the AEI (note the tag attached to your wikipedia source about the questions as to bias and accuracy in the article) the “birthplace” of neo-con thought when members there run the entire conservative gamut from libertarian to social conservative. It’s earned this “birthplace” reputation because of a couple of members who are central to neo-con thought, but the problem with that theory is that some of those same members were part of the CFR, which no one in their right mind would consider neo-con.

So, in applying this broad-brush, and then attaching it to Thompson, you’ve dinged him with some damage that simply, imho, isn’t there. Again, I'm talking about your “objective judgment” and “informed judgment” not you personally or what you think of neo-con policy.

and then I mentioned that Thompson will have that  association (his fellowship at the AEI) to deal with in areas of the country where the Rebublicans are not as enamored of the far right shift of the Republican party (because, you see? I realize that there are many shades of Republican as opposed to those who think that they have been "pigeonholed").

Can you name some of these Republicans opposed to Thompson? Also, the “far right shift” thing sounds like the comments of an outsider, which is the sort of thing BL addressed in her post about your comments. Again, AEI membership runs the entire range of conservative thought. He's not going to face trouble because of it in GOP primaries.

The bet is dollars to donuts that the element of the GOP that’s talking about the “far right shift” of the party has been saying so since Reagan, and doesn’t see Thompson as a part of said “shift”.

I make no value judgement about the Neo Con agenda. I make an informed judgement of the value (positive and negative) of that particular Bona Fide (Fellowship at the AEI) has.

Your “informed judgment” is the issue, and that’s what I’ve directed my comments to, not “you” as your later comments in the post suggest.

[quote=joedabrkr]come on guys, start with the colors....for old times sake.... [/quote]

You're welcome.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

My point was that at one time (before Schiavo) Frist was talked about as the party's candidate in 2008. MB222 acted like I had made this up and I presented the first of a long list of evidences that he had been considered. [/quote]

Come on now, I never suggested you "made it up", what I objected to was your suggestion that he was "The Man". 

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=joedabrkr]come on guys, start with the colors…for old times sake… [/quote]

You're welcome.

Based on my observations today, Senator Frist is a highly viable Presidential candidate. His intelligence, competence, judgment and reliability cannot be questioned. His views are compatible with those of the Republican base across a broad range of issues

Frist will be forever linked to the Terry Schaivo debacle, which by the way was not supported by the majority of Republicans.  Frist has a snowballs chance to be a viable candidate.

Agreed, and to whom's original point, he never was any sort of presumptive favorite or, as he said it, "the man".

Once again, you are looking at the Republican party from the outside and seem think that it is a monolithic party. 

I don't think that's fair. While he misinterprets my comments on his judgements as about him personally, and while I do think he takes an outsiders POV (unknowingly) it's only fair to mention that he really hasn't talked about the GOP as a monolith.

MikeB and I disagree on McCain, yet I get the sense that we are pretty much on the same page politically.  I think McCain will never be able to shake the unconstitutional McCain/Feingold legislation from his back.  His age and physical health are also going to be big issues. 

The former issue (McCain/Feingold  anti-1st Amendment stuff) makes me cringe, I disagree about the latter.

And while I could give a rip about Guiliani's personal life and his peccadilloes, it will be a big issue with the religious conservatives.  

I think people will be surprised how the rank and file religious right types don't care, even if the "leaders" of that crowd make an issue of Rudy's past.

I know some have said it will be an issue because he has "free" publicity from his media (Law and Order, Paul Harvey) pursuits, but I think not.  The can just not air the few episodes he was in on the television show. 

I don't know that they have to even have to do that sort of thing.

I don't want to over Wiki the issue but:

"Frist had been widely seen as a potential presidential candidate for the Republican party in 2008, much in the same tradition as Bob Dole, a previous holder of the Senate Majority Leader position. On November 28, 2006, however, he announced that he had decided not to run, and would return to the field of medicine.[7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Frist#Political_Future

This is why I say that the Republican slate is more remarkable for the people who aren't running.

To say that this guy's candidacy was never touted as the front runner is to say that you know nothing of the inside game of politics.

Once again, you are looking at the Republican party from the outside and seem think that it is a monolithic party. 

I don't think that's fair. While he misinterprets my comments on his judgements as about him personally, and while I do think he takes an outsiders POV (unknowingly) it's only fair to mention that he really hasn't talked about the GOP as a monolith.

Dibs on Green:  You're right.  I take it back.  I don't want to be unfair

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

To say that this guy's candidacy was never touted as the front runner is to say that you know nothing of the inside game of politics.

[/quote]

Again you move the goal posts. You said "The man" and now th best you can do is "front runner" of a race year years away....long before most candidates even had exploritory committees. McCain, btw, the the "front runner" then, as earned by his #2 spot in the prior contested nomination.

please, if we're going to try to be objective here, don't pretend to know anything out the "inside game" of the GOP.

Addition to above; Frist’s chances ended with the Schiavo affair, the announcement in Nov 2006 was just the period to the sentence.

[quote=babbling looney]

Once again, you are looking at the Republican party from the outside and seem think that it is a monolithic party. 

I don't think that's fair. While he misinterprets my comments on his judgements as about him personally, and while I do think he takes an outsiders POV (unknowingly) it's only fair to mention that he really hasn't talked about the GOP as a monolith.

Dibs on Green:  You're right.  I take it back.  I don't want to be unfair

[/quote]

Speaking of religious right "leaders", what they have to say and Rudy and Thompson;

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070328/28dobson.h tm

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson appeared to throw cold water on a possible presidential bid by former Sen. Fred Thompson while praising former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also weighing a presidential run, in a phone interview Tuesday.

I think Dobson's about to find out how little influence he really has with people he considers to be his "flock".

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson appeared to throw cold water on a possible presidential bid by former Sen. Fred Thompson while praising former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also weighing a presidential run, in a phone interview Tuesday.

I think Dobson's about to find out how little influence he really has with people he considers to be his "flock".

Amen.

In fact, “neo-con” wasn’t even a blip on the radar screen in the heady days of the “Arkansas Project”.

Got anything to back that "fact" up with?

How about if I show you evidence of the Neo Con ideology, pre Arkansas project, will that get you to admit that you are wrong?

As to non Neo Con Republicans, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins. Not that they are the only ones, but you wanted one, I gave you two. This proves another of your strawman points to be invalid.  

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

In fact, “neo-con” wasn’t even a blip on the radar screen in the heady days of the “Arkansas Project”.

Got anything to back that "fact" up with?

How about if I show you evidence of the Neo Con ideology, pre <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Arkansas project, will that get you to admit that you are wrong? [/quote]

I'm still waiting for proof that Coors and Scaife were "neo-cons", as you know as well as I do that your site, Brock, doesn't cover that subject.

"Neo-con" came into its own when Bush adopted the pov of some neo-con advisors that US foreign policy could serve the GWOT by spreading democracy (not always with force, btw) because, as the theory goes, free democratic nations don’t engage each other in war and aren’t breeding grounds for terrorism.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]As to non Neo Con Republicans, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins. Not that they are the only ones, but you wanted one, I gave you two. This proves another of your strawman points to be invalid.  

[/quote]

Snow and Collins are social moderates who voted for the war in Iraq, tax cuts, and against the ban on partial birth abortions (if memory severs), etc.. 

Frankly all you proved here is that voting for the war in Iraq isn't the qualifying mark to be a "neo-con", but being a social conservative is, which, imho, is the opposite of reality.

Just out of curiosity, was Reagan a neo-con?

For those of you keeping score at home;

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp? idArticle=3000&R=785F27881

Irving Kristol, the "godfather" of neo-con thought on what it is.

More, and from the wikipedia article we've been discussing;

"Critics take issue with neoconservatives' support for aggressive foreign policy; critics from the left especially take issue with what they characterize as unilateralism and lack of concern with international consensus through organizations such as the United Nations.[6][7][8] Neoconservatives respond by describing their shared view as a belief that national security is best attained by promoting freedom and democracy abroad through the support of pro-democracy movements, foreign aid and in certain cases military intervention. This is a departure from the traditional conservative tendency to support friendly regimes in matters of trade and anti-communism even at the expense of undermining existing democratic systems. Author Paul Berman in his book Terror and Liberalism describes it as, "Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for freedom for others."

The underlining and red is mine as it captures my point about where classic conservatism and neo-con thought diverge. In every other area of conservitism the two are very much together.

Thought you might find this interesting, who is a "neo-con" according to this source;

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Neo-conservatives /list

Notables include;

Nice links.

Thompson's not on the list. Well he can catch up on the foreign policy terrorist control. Just install Newt in the cabinet.

I'm sticking with Looney on this one -

If Thompson does run, get ready for the "waaaahhh it isn't fair" whining from the Dems because he has face recognition.

Let's keep it simple, leverage what we got, get to work on his behalf so the liberals don't try to put a chicken in every pot and screw up the economy.

Er, one more. The above source lists Scaife as a "neo-con", yet doesn't mention an explanation for that tag in its bio on him. To me that’s just more proof that “neo-con” means nothing more than “right wing” and/or in the case of non-right wingers like Zbiggy or Martin Pertez, “supports Israel:.

BTW, even this long and curious list fails to mention Coors as a neo-con.

Richard Mellon Scaife is a billionaire contributor to the Republican Party and right-wing think tanks, one of the most influential men behind the right wing today. Scaife has helped establish their biggest institutions and supported some of their most radical ideas.

Mr. Scaife was a primary source of money used to fund attacks against Bill Clinton during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky eras of his presidency. He has also been known to purchase mass quantities of conservative books (especially those published by Regnery Press) to push them up the bestseller lists.

Among the right-wing organizations substantially funded by Mr. Scaife are the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, Judicial Watch, Cato Institute and a working group within his American Spectator publication called the "Arkansas Project," whose specific aim was to locate and create dirt on the Clintons in order to smear them, in hopes of removing Clinton from office.

People for the American Way estimates that the Scaife Foundations have channeled in excess of $340 million to right-wing groups over the last thirty years, more than any other individual.

Scaife has a long history of supporting attacks on organizations and institutions which refuse to kowtow to right-wing interests. For example in 1985 Scaife reportedly financed most of retired Gen. William Westmoreland's libel suit against CBS over a documentary, "The Uncounted Enemy". This documentary claimed that he deliberately underestimated enemy troop strength in Vietnam (Morning Call, (Allentown, PA), March 1, 1985, Westmoreland Suit backed by Mellon Heir, Associated Press).

Scaife has been criticized by sections in the media for attempting to corrupt the practice of journalism and dilute it with a very specific agenda. [1] [2] [3]

"I'm still waiting for proof that Coors and Scaife were "neo-cons", as you know as well as I do that your site, Brock, doesn't cover that subject."

No. I know better than you because I actually read the book that I cited and he does in fact name Scaife and Coors as the driving force of what Hillary described as "the vast right wing conspiracy."

"'Neo-con' came into its own..."

Oh and who is moving the goal posts now? Before it catagorically didn't exist, then it existed later, in the meantime it was the boogeyman of the liberal imagination and now it "Came into its own..." at such and such a time.

"Frankly all you proved here is that voting for the war in <?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 />Iraq isn't the qualifying mark to be a 'neo-con', but being a social conservative is, which, imho, is the opposite of reality."

Frankly, you're boring me with your insistance that words only mean what you think they mean regardless of the facts refuting your "thinking." Voting for the war (and/or voting for the approval of giving the president the authority to threaten war) does not a Neo Con make. I never asserted that it did, only you have built that strawman.

Its a notion that can be dismissed out of hand! If the powers vote makes one a neo con then there would have been such a super majority on conservatives that the deliniation would be moot.

You're just being silly.

As to Reagan being a Neo Con. No he could not have been a Neo Con because he was a Cold Warrior. The Neo Con movement grew out of the absence of the traditional enemy of Conservatives, the Communists. See? It all makes sense now doesn't it? There had to be a Neo (new) Conservative objective because the old raison d' etre had disappeared.

This is a big part of why Bill Kristol put out the memo outlining the strategy to defeat the Democrats and why they had to defeat Hillary's Health Care initiative (which we're paying for now) because, without the commie threat, Conservatives were cut loose and could very well attach themselves to the Democratic party for generations to come if the Dems delivered on Health Care.

These are not facts that need to be proved again. All parties have admitted culpability when presented with the documantation. Its embarassing for me to have to explain this to you. You should know this by now.

Just like you should know that Paul Wolfowitz wrote the whole Pre-emptive war doctrine while in the employ of George H Bush's administration. So the evidence is clear that Neo Conservatism was alive before the Arkansas Governor's name was widely known.

Yeah, I said that I think Newt can win, which ought to set another of your strawman arguments ablaze. All you need to do is admit you're wrong.

I'll comment on Irving Kristol's aticle separately. 

Ok.... So we start the article by saying that Neoconservatism is a chimera, it only seems to have existed when seen historically.

"...what we call neoconservatism has been one of those intellectual undercurrents that surface only intermittently."

"... called a "persuasion," one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect. "

And then the guy who blushes that he has been called the "godfather" of Neoconservatism goes on at some length to tell us the concrete changes that the new neoconservatism hath wraught!

One sided doesn't even begin to describe this love letter to self which Mikebutler222 proudly links in evidence of there never having been such a thing as neocon!

Written in 2003, the author has the luxury of hindsight when he's defending the actions he wishes to discuss.

Here is what makes Mikebutler222's use of this link without a major "Gee I guess I really didn't know what the eff I was talking about after all!" mea culpa attached... remember how Mike keeps saying that Neo Conism is about foreign policy....

"AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience."

But but but... Mikebutler222 says that you are defined by your foreign policy mr. Kristol! Surely he knows better than you, he "thinks" thing mean what he "thinks" they mean and you have no right thinking it means something different! 

"These attitudes can be summarized in the following "theses" (as a Marxist would say): First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. "

Gee, I wonder where they stand on mom and apple pie! Babies are good!

"Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. "

Wow, that's deep man!

"Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing."

I left in the part about the Commies so you could see how it related to the post above where I talk about the Neo Cons and the end of the Cold War.

"Finally, for a great power, the "national interest" is not a geographical term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and environmental regulation."

You gotta love how he included the Kyoto Accord in there! This is what I was saying about having the hindsight to adjust definitions to include what he wanted and omit what he didn't.

"Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II."

Excuse me, aside from the "Godwins Law" of this "logic", The author is using the second sentence as evidence of the first and at the same time using the first sentence to justify the second.

 I don't have a problem with us helping England and France in WWII but he uses "feel obligated" and then asserts as fact  that feeling obligated was why defending Britain and France was in our National Interest! That is absolute garbage!

"That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary. "

Apparently written when the Raison D' Jour for the invasion of Iraq was to protect Israel! Ah being topical is hell!

Anyway Mikebutler222, this link only proves that you don't know diddly squat about Neocons.

Now can we move on?

[quote=babbling looney]Focus on the Family founder James Dobson appeared to throw cold water on a possible presidential bid by former Sen. Fred Thompson while praising former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also weighing a presidential run, in a phone interview Tuesday.

I think Dobson's about to find out how little influence he really has with people he considers to be his "flock".

Amen.[/quote]

I'll agree with you on the primary...there's not enough differentiation between the candidates to mobilize evangelicals, BUT...in a general R vs. D (ie, "Good vs. Evil") election, I think he could exert considerable influence, assuming the candidates are sufficiently separated on issues important to evangelicals.  Where he won't is when the two candidates are close enough together ideologically that evangelicals are unable to muster sufficient righteous indignation.

Case in point was the last congressional election...my district's Republican incumbent (in a Republican-leaning district) was clobbered by a gun-toting, family-man, aborting-hating Blue-Dog Demo.  There just wasn't enough differentiation to mobilize significant evangelical support for a tired Republican incumbent.  Dobson couldn't make a difference there, but I'm convinced he did in Bush vs. Kerry.

I'll go on record right now, and I think it's stating the obvious...Republicans would absolutely LOVE to run against Hillary.  When the votes are tallied, I don't think she'd win even against a mediocre Republican candidate.  I honestly don't think the country is that stupid...(sorry...couldn't help myself...)

You are looking at the wrong Coors, You're looking at Coors Light!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Coors

This is the guy, and he ain't on the list of the living members of anything!

"I'm still waiting for proof that Coors and Scaife were "neo-cons", as you know as well as I do that your site, Brock, doesn't cover that subject."

No. I know better than you because I actually read the book that I cited and he does in fact name Scaife and Coors as the driving force of what Hillary described as "the vast right wing conspiracy."

I'm aware, too, that Brock says that, and who knows, he may be right about the VRWC stuff. OTOH the assertion you made was that Scaife and Coors were proved to be "neo-cons" by Brock. You and I know he didn't.

"'Neo-con' came into its own..."

Oh and who is moving the goal posts now? Before it catagorically didn't exist, then it existed later, in the meantime it was the boogeyman of the liberal imagination and now it "Came into its own..." at such and such a time.

Where did I say it "didn't exist"? I said "blip on the radar screen". Why would you just make something like that up?

I'm aware that Kristol wasn't born in 2000. I'm also aware that his great "mugging by reality" was when Reagan was in office and Kristol was a strong, strong supporter of Reagn.

"Frankly all you proved here is that voting for the war in Iraq isn't the qualifying mark to be a 'neo-con', but being a social conservative is, which, imho, is the opposite of reality."

Frankly, you're boring me with your insistance that words only mean what you think they mean regardless of the facts refuting your "thinking."

You’ve yet to produce a “fact”, all you’ve relied on is someone in a wikipedia article that even wikipedia says is biased and unsupported. Frankly, it’s boring me too.

Suffice it to say that Gingrich is on the “neo-con” list I provided, Thompson isn’t.

The rest of the stuff about how we’re paying for “Hillarycare” being defeated (even Democrats rejected, and you notice even she‘s let that dog alone ) is just too silly and off topic to bother with if we’re going to try to do some objective conversation about the coming election.

Yeah, I said that I think Newt can win, which ought to set another of your strawman arguments ablaze. All you need to do is admit you're wrong.

Wait a sec, Thompson will have to bear the “neo-con” burden (even though the label doesn’t fit) and can’t win, but Gingrich, who supposedly is a neo-con is burden-free and can take it all, and somehow I created a strawman about it all.

Got it.

One sided doesn't even begin to describe this love letter to self..

You expect objectivity from a partisan like Kristol? I sure didn't link to it for that reason.

I thought it would be informative if people had a chance to hear what the guy credited (or blamed, if you prefer) with giving life to neo-con thought said it was.

which Mikebutler222 proudly links in evidence of there never having been such a thing as neocon!

Again with the invention that I said "there never having been such a thing". What's up with that? Can't debate me on what I've actually said?

Here is what makes Mikebutler222's use of this link without a major "Gee I guess I really didn't know what the eff I was talking about after all!" mea culpa attached... remember how Mike keeps saying that Neo Conism is about foreign policy...."AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience."

Are you suggesting that refutes something I said? Read on to his "set of attitudes"...it's all there. Below, when the subject becomes the US supporting freedom, he says it all.

"

"Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing."

I left in the part about the Commies so you could see how it related to the post above where I talk about the Neo Cons and the end of the Cold War.

Kristol here is talking about the “mugging” of reality that lead him from his liberal pals who incessantly engaged in the moral evolves arguments that you might not even be aware of. Reagan was demonized by Kristol's old pals, and he's defending him here.

"Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II."

Excuse me, aside from the "Godwins Law" of this "logic", The author is using the second sentence as evidence of the first and at the same time using the first sentence to justify the second.

Here we go again with the oft-topic use of Goodwin. His point, agree with it or not, is that the US has an interest in FREEDOM (even if the threat is internal), and exporting it, militarily if necessary. I’m not asking you to agree with the man’s theory, simply to accept the fact that that idea encapsulates neo-con thought. That’s a massive break from “they’re bastards, but, by god, they’re our bastards” of Realpolitik, which drove US foreign policy throughout the Cold War.

You can see that pov in Bush’s assertions about the planting of a democracy in the Middle East.

Again, I’m not asking you to agree with Kristol (or Bush), simply accept that he’s expressing the sentiment of the philosophy he’s credited with.

"That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary. "

Apparently written when the Raison D' Jour for the invasion of Iraq was to protect Israel! Ah being topical is hell!

Well, you missed the point again, he’s not using it solely as the reason to support the war in Iraq, nor is he saying the war is solely to protect Isreal. He’s saying it’s a no brainer that Isreal, being the only democracy in the Middle East, deserves US support even if it costs us in trade, world affection, etc.. Freedom before all other considerations, no more dealing with dictators for the sake of "stability".

Anyway Mikebutler222, this link only proves that you don't know diddly squat about Neocons.

Now can we move on?

I think you’ve proved the opposite, and in the process proved something about yourself.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

You are looking at the wrong Coors, You're looking at Coors Light!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Coors

This is the guy, and he ain't on the list of the living members of anything!

[/quote]

And he's a "neo-con" how, and accroding to whom?

To the lengthy Kristol post above "moral evolves" should read "moral equivalency"

deep

I went back and I looked, I didn't say most of the things you say I said.

The point is, my worthy adversary, that you you have a bad habit of putting your words where they don't belong. You put them into others mouths and you put them into the mikebutler222 dictionary to define other words that have totally different meanings from the ones you think they ought to have.

After reading your explication of Kristol's editorial I can see maybe why you have this habit. You assume that everyone is talking in "code" as Kristol is, saying by not saying, not saying by saying. Still in all, your own source cut you off at the knees (in that he see the Neocon agenda as much more of a domestic agenda than you do).

That's not my style, my style may tend towards hyperbole, but I'll tell you what I think, and I'll take you at your word.

I enjoyed our conversation. Thank you.

Just as to Coors and Scaife (and Kristol too).

They funded the machinery of the Neo Con "Movement". Scaife owned the American Spectator and Coors donated millions to the cause.

Did they think that they were just plain old conservatives? I don't think so. There was plenty of controversy around the diection of the Conservative ideology (as Kristol points out, old guard Conservatives like Goldwater were dumped) and so Scaife and Coors would have been able at any time to pull their funding if they had ideological differences with the projects they were funding. They didn't fund institutes that didn't help them advance the cause.

Kristol also made mention of the other "Advantage" of Neo Conservancy  "Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters."

It is this very partnership that is most troubling to me. The direct relationship of business and government is a powerful corrupting force in both directions.

"You sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas." The AEI has no recourse, they took the money. We know who gave the money and we know what those donors were promoting.

Northern Republicans are much more likely to vote for Rudy (I'm not a fan of his) than someone who has the fleas of the dog. Even if he only has the fleas because he patted the back of the guy who actually did the sleeping. And you can be sure that, if its a close race, that card is going to be played! HARD!

This topic got way off course.

Who's running for President?

Who's on first?

What did you say?

Who's running for President?

oh, Who is.

Coors? ...heck, who cares' just get me a bud. 

This bud's for you.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

The point is, my worthy adversary, that you you have a bad habit of putting your words where they don't belong. [/quote]

I know you won't provide an example of me doing this, because you can't. You, otoh, made up a number of quotes for me, including the claim that I had said "neo-con" "didn't exist". You know better than that.

Now, rather than let the thread die because we disagree about what defines "neo-con", which is a side-issue, let's agree to disagree on it, and move to other issues involving the election.

Actually Mike, I went back and did a "He said, I said" post that was ridiculously long.

I would be stretching it to say that you said they didn't exist, but you said several times that "Neo con" (in quotes) had taken on a "boogeyman" type mythology. Since boogeymen don't exist, I stretched the meaning to say that you doubted the existence of "neo con" (with the quotes, which is important because the quotes imply that you are not refering to the actual adherents to the political movement but rather to the stereotypes that you assume everyone attaches to the term). 

As to disagreeing about the meaning of the term, I'm willing to accept the definition as laid out by Mr. Kristol. Are you?

I still say that it will come down to Newt v. Hillary. So far they are the only real professionals in the race. They both have spent the last 8 years running to the opposite parties base. This gives them the bona fides of being bipartisan.

Ther's no doubt about the fact that Hillary has "Queen Latifa"ed the Democratic left who now look more at Gore as a standard bearer.

newt has been under the radar and surprising the left when he pops up without his "red suit on and a widows peak  with a pointy tail and kinda a sulphur reek" and then when he talks about health care

Here's a site where there is a clip of Newt talking about oil dependency http://www.generationengage.org/index.html

One thing that Newt is good at doing is letting the audience agree with him by stating, not exactly the obvious, but danged near it and so his audience feels they are in tune with him.

http://www.generationengage.org/videoplayer/videos.html?gcli d=COOo7pP9mYsCFRoeUAodYDeTmA

Maybe this one will take you to the new Newt.

While Neo Conservatism was the liberal intellectual blowback against the stupidity of rank and file knee jerk liberal mindset. Newt is the vanguard of the Neo Lib mindset.

Election law requires that TV stations give all candidates equal time. Experts said Thompson -- like the last movie-star candidate, Ronald Reagan -- would probably vanish from the airwaves except in news programming. That would probably mean that he would leave "Law & Order" and that networks would not air his reruns during the campaign.

In the 1970s and 1980s, stations dropped "Bedtime for Bonzo" and other Reagan movies during his campaigns for governor of California and for president.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03 /28/AR2007032802195.html

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

I still say that it will come down to Newt v. Hillary.... [/quote]

I think this represents a gross misunderstanding of the GOP internal workings. Even Republicans suffer from Newt-fatigue. He's an ideas man, and better suited to that role, which is why he was a much better bomb-trowing back-bencher than a Speaker.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] They both have spent the last 8 years running to the opposite parties base. [/quote]

Newt's had little to nothing to do with running to the GOP base. There are still some pretty big grudges held again Newt about how he left toe Congress and his poll numbers with GOPers is in the pits, almost as low as he is with the general public.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

 Newt is the vanguard of the Neo Lib mindset.

[/quote]

This is the guy that talked about orphanages, for crying out loud. He's neo-con and liberatrian.

"This is the guy that talked about orphanages, for crying out loud. He's neo-con and liberatrian."

Tom Wolfe was on the bus with Ken Kesey and wrote Electric Kool Aid Acid Test.

That was the point, that turncoats are often the most radical zealots.

"Newt's had little to nothing to do with running to the GOP base.'

"Welp, huh hu, there you go again..." I said that he and Hillary spent the time running at base of the opposite party. Hillary has actually higher than expected marks with the Republican right (not that you particularly like her). That would mean that I meant that Newt was running at the Left base.

Bab,

Thanks for that. I sort of thought I was kidding, I'm sure, now, that Dick Wolf (and all of the actors that were regulars only during those L&O seasons with Thompson) are voicing their concerns.

What would be nice though is if the L&O syndicators would release the earliest shows with Michael Moriority as the ADA, just because we haven't seen those eps in a very long time.

A friend of mine was the broker for the guy who was DA all those years. This was the guy that went on to do the Ameritrade ads before Waterson, so I'm not entirely sure how good the relationship was.

I found this on a site where I am not known to lurk (although I suspect that they suspect that I do)... It's a site filled with artsy fartsy lefty knee jerky types (they don't like me either so it has almost nothing to do with my actual politics).

I'm not fond of Newt Gingrich......but he was on Charlie Rose yesterday and said something interesting. He was promoting more training and employees in the State Dept. He said that with the internet now......everyone can have a loud voice......and even though the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world........We should not be flaunting it/don't need to flaunt it. What we need to be doing is listening to all these people around the world who want to have a voice. We need to have a State Dept. that reaches out and quietly listens. Not a bad idea.

http://www.thirdeyefilm.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7&sta rt=34440

I'm telling you, Newt might well be the next President!

I'm telling you, Newt might well be the next President!

  Yeah.  And I might just be the next American Idol winner.

The is no way that Newt will be the next President.  He would have to be the party nominee first and that will not happen.  The Republicans would actually like to WIN the election. We are not going to put a candidate out there who would be a lightening rod and who is frankly not that popular even within the Republican party.

I can see him in a Cabinet position, however.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

"This is the guy that talked about orphanages, for crying out loud. He's neo-con and liberatrian.

Tom Wolfe was on the bus with Ken Kesey and wrote Electric Kool Aid Acid Test.

That was the point, that turncoats are often the most radical zealots. [/quote]

Radical zealots? In just what way is this? His healthcare solution is classic libertarianism, in the link you provided to his comments on energy independence he quotes Bush, just where is this “neo-lib” theme? He’s a senior fellow at the neo-con AEI, for crying out loud.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"Newt's had little to nothing to do with running to the GOP base.'

"Welp, huh hu, there you go again..." I said that he and Hillary spent the time running at base of the opposite party. Hillary has actually higher than expected marks with the Republican right (not that you particularly like her). That would mean that I meant that Newt was running at the Left base. [/quote]

Thanks for clearing that up, and as you might expect, my response is “tell me you’re joking”. Hillary has run to the GOP base? She has “higher than expected marks”? She’s evil incarnate to the GOP base (as is Newt to the left, the base of the Democrats) and if by “higher than expected” you mean they just want her head on a pike, and not to have her drawn and quartered first, well, ok.

[quote=babbling looney]

I'm telling you, Newt might well be the next President!

  Yeah.  And I might just be the next American Idol winner.

The is no way that Newt will be the next President.  He would have to be the party nominee first and that will not happen.  The Republicans would actually like to WIN the election. We are not going to put a candidate out there who would be a lightening rod and who is frankly not that popular even within the Republican party.

I can see him in a Cabinet position, however.

[/quote]

Yep, 100%.

"We are not going to put a candidate out there who would be a lightening rod and who is frankly not that popular even within the Republican party."

My first question is "what do you mean 'we'?"

Where is "we" located? This is a big country and a whole lot of it is only red because it's blushing. Newt has a better chance in Blue States than in traditional red states to be sure.

Newt knows how to read a map. He knows what his obsticles are and he knows how to turn the question to his advantage. If the media bashes him, he'll know how to use that to get the anti media voters activated. he knows that being ignored is the worst thing that can happen to him so he seeded the Liberal outlets over the years and he'll be able to get his message out through them.

If you went to the site I linked this morning you'll no doubt have noticed that the clips were from a video conference of small/community colleges across some area (I don't know how many were involved, I saw NYC and Va cited). He's active in front of potential activists (in our discussion last night I picked up my copy of Blinded By The Right and was reminded how the neo Con movement was recruiting heavily on the college campuses. It's how it's done. Meanwhile, the Republican parties' representative on the campus today is the Army Recruiter... I'd rather go to a rally by a guy who's advocating alternative energy than to one for a guy who's advocating dying in what I might perceive as a war for oil.)

20 states have Open primaries (and guess what? They're mostly "red' states, remember the last cycle where there was talk of Republicans voting to confuse the Democrats and give votes where the hurt the party the most... I don't remember it exactly...) What this means is that, especially if there is a strong showing by an unpopular among moderate Democrats candidate in the Dem race, there can be bleed over to Newt. (Of course moderates are notoriously bad at voting in primaries.)

I don't think that Newt is going to expect the powers that be in the Republican party will be happy to see him. This is what I said before, there'll be candidates who run against the administration.

"We are not going to put a candidate out there who would be a lightening rod and who is frankly not that popular even within the Republican party."

My first question is "what do you mean 'we'?"

If Bl doesn't mind me chiming in, I'm pretty sure she means the GOP, her being a member and all.

 Newt has a better chance in Blue States than in traditional red states to be sure.

You keep saying that, but I've yet to hear you lay out a position Newt holds that would make this possible, and your assertion flies in the face of everything I know to be true of my Democrat friends. They'd rather have their sister work at a house of ill-repute than vote for Newt. I doubt there's a poll that contradicts that view.

... he seeded the Liberal outlets over the years and he'll be able to get his message out through them.

Just what does that mean, other than that he's willing to show his face on MSNBC or CNN?

If you went to the site I linked this morning you'll no doubt have noticed that the clips were from a video conference of small/community colleges across some area ..

I didn't see Newt taking any position there that might endear him to the left. He's always been active on campuses (he was a history prof, and like that atmopsphere), but how that makes him a "neo-lib" I don't know.

 Meanwhile, the Republican parties' representative on the campus today is the Army Recruiter...

I'd rather go to a rally by a guy who's advocating alternative energy than to one for a guy who's advocating dying in what I might perceive as a war for oil.)

Newt isn't the only Republican talking about alternative energy or energy independence. Even Bush talks about that, and as to contrasting Newt to an Army recruiter, and calling the recruiter the face of the GOP, well....

 What this means is that, especially if there is a strong showing by an unpopular among moderate Democrats candidate in the Dem race, there can be bleed over to Newt.

You really think disappointed Democrat moderates who look to the GOP for an alternative would chose Newt over Guiliani, McCain or Thompson?

I don't think that Newt is going to expect the powers that be in the Republican party will be happy to see him. This is what I said before, there'll be candidates who run against the administration.

Newt won't be running against the administration any more than, say Gore "ran against" Clinton. All the GOPers will try to distance themselves from the most unpopular parts of the administration. That's what McCain does when he says he supports the war in Iraq, but takes pains to say it's been very mismanaged.

I really don't see where there's much distance between Newt and the administration, in fact he's even more of a neo-con (again, he's the AEI Sr Fellow) and I'd be very interested in you detailing what policies Newt supports that might attract Democrats.

Well the question about "we" goes first to what BL considers she will be able to do about it one way or the other. Is she part of the party leadership (even locally), or just a single vote?

Second it goes to the notion that the Republicans are some sort of monolithic voting borg. It points to the hypocricy of her statements from yesterday. It would seem that I as an outsider see the Republicans as a more diverse group than she does as an insider.

" I've yet to hear you lay out a position Newt holds that would make this possible..."

Perhaps you want a more detailed map of Gingrich's strategy than I am able to give. But I have provided you with links and an uninterested third party's unsolicited confirmation that Newt's idea seeds are falling in fertile fields of the left.

"...your assertion flies in the face of everything I know to be true of my Democrat friends."

I can't speak for your Democratic friends. I can speak for the clients that I have who are Republican, but NY Republicans. I have long said 'Do you know what they call Northern Republicans down south? Democrats!" Kevin Philips is a Conneticut Conservative Republican (I don't know how he feels about Newt) and I'll tell you this. He is quite vocal in his dislike of the national Republican party.

Millionaire businessmen clients that I have despise Bush's handling of the... well... of everything! Some of them took a while to come to this conclusion, some were there right away. I don't know about the Democrats you know, but I'm seeing Reagan Republicans (by which I mean guys that were lifelong Dems until Reagan) being up front, out loud critics of this administration. Thee guys would love a way to save face and not have to go back to being Democrats. I think that Newt could do that for them. 

"They'd rather have their sister work at a house of ill-repute than vote for Newt. I doubt there's a poll that contradicts that view."

I don't dispute you on either point (btw their sister is a freelancer). I'm not talking about where we are today, I'm talking about where we are going to be in six months. It's still kind of a conjecture that Newt will run at all. Wait until he starts getting press coverage and people start to hear that he is not the Newt that they thought he was. Its about lowered expectations, and exceeding them.

"Just what does that [he seeded the Liberal outlets over the years ]mean, other than that he's willing to show his face on MSNBC or CNN?"

Perhaps you missed the post from the third eye film forum where the writer was talking about seeing Newt on Charlie Rose (PBS). Newt has done a lot of travelling over the last ten years, giving interviews to local guys in newspaper and radio. Newt is an excellent politician, he has every one of those guy's names on a list and he keeps in touch with each one. When he needs to get his message out, those contacts will be invaluable. He has wowed them at NPR and his programs for education and universal healthcare, and others are the itches that liberals love to have scratched! They love it that a member of the "right" is finally agreeing with what they have been saying so ineffectually for so long.

This is a brilliant political move, not one made by someone who has not planned and plotted his course many many steps in advance. Newt is so far ahead of all the other Republican candidates (with the possible exception of Guiliani, and the absolute exception of the Republican Machine, which seems to be somewhat broken right now. And Carl Rove is likely to be otherwise occupied, rightly or wrongly for a good portion of the upcoming festivities.) that they just don't stand a chance.

" Newt isn't the only Republican talking about alternative energy or energy independence."

Now we're back to his speaking style, which I mentioned before. Newt is an excellent speaker. He doesn't ah or err or uhm, he has something to say and he says it. He speaks clearly and concisely, in well moderated tones. He has the ability to speak up to his audience while still maintaining his position of the heir of authority.  

"He's always been active on campuses (he was a history prof, and like that atmopsphere), but how that makes him a "neo-lib" I don't know."

That's not what makes him a Neo Lib. What makes him a Neo Lib is his adoption of the responsibility of the State to maintain the environment wherein we may all have Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That includes taking the medical cost off of the corporations so that they don't go bankrupt and leave millions without. (BTW, that's a great way to get GM to side with you in the election AND the UAW too! which is why Bill Kristol wrote the memo!) Elections cost money, parties cost money. Just like Bush rewarded the wealthy supporters by waging war on the Estate Tax, Newt will reward GM et el. if they help him get a Congress and Senate elected. 

"contrasting Newt to an Army recruiter, and calling the recruiter the face of the GOP, well...."

It's a bit colorful, I'll grant you that. But how do you think college kids are seeing these recruiters these days? They've been after them since 10th grade now. The thrill is gone in this relationship. If you want to join the military, chances are you had a chance before you went to college. So there you are in your college and you're a college student, which means you know everything already anyway. You're seeing the war go badly and you see the recruiters on campus looking for more cannon fodder. Who do you think you're going to relate the reruiters to? The administration, of course.

"You really think disappointed Democrat moderates who look to the GOP for an alternative would chose Newt over Guiliani, McCain or Thompson?"

I think Thompson will only run if he is the anointed one. I think that Rudy would be a choice except that he's a hot head and he's almost assured to explode somewhere along the way. Rudy is not a good politician, he's an autocrat, doesn't play well with others. He's a typical, pushy, bossy, abrasive self centered New Yorker. He'll do 'ok' in NY, they'll egg him in Boston! he'll remind the south what they hate about all the New Yorkers that have moved in all around them.

Mc Cain will split the ticket. but I think that McCain is running on the old strategy, Cozy to the extreme and then run to the center. I think that doesn't work this time (could be wrong).

As I have said before, Newt has something these others don't. He has a platform. His own platform. It shows that he thought about this. it shows that he wants to be president for a reason, not just because it's the presidency.

"Newt won't be running against the administration any more than, say Gore "ran against" Clinton."

Yeah, those situations are similar, not!

In this instance I think that it is appropirate to use, interchangably, the terms "Party leadership" and "Administration." If for no other reason than that it is clear that the real power is "behind the scenes" and that the "Neo con" movement intends to retain their control of the power in Washington.

In their minds, this end would not be achieved with Newt Gingrich in the White House. Newt has his own ideas and will insist on being the top dog in his administration (and he's smart enough that they can't play puppet master with him). That in and of itself is a Grand Canyon of difference between Newt and the "administration".

And THAT alone is enough to make Northern Republicans prefer Newt over whomsoever the current party leaders chose as their next figurehead.  

Is she part of the party leadership (even locally), or just a single vote?

A minor yes to the first one and yes to the second.  And guess what? I also know other people who are Republicans and network with people from all across the US and they feel mostly the same as I do.  Newt. Smart, good speaker, great thinker, unelectable.

I believe that I have a better insight into the general mood of the Republican party as a member of the party than you do as an outsider looking in.  You are correct in that the "flavor" of the party (Republican or Democrat) will change with geographic area.  I am not nearly as far right as, say, some one from the deep south but I am certainly more far right than the people you seem to think you know in the North East. 

People from "your neck of the woods" or dare I say it New York City have the idea that they count more than the rest of the country.

In their minds, this end would not be achieved with Newt Gingrich in the White House. Newt has his own ideas and will insist on being the top dog in his administration (and he's smart enough that they can't play puppet master with him). That in and of itself is a Grand Canyon of difference between Newt and the "administration".

No one but you sees this.  The Republican base wants to win.  They will not be able to with Newt as a front runner.  The base is even willing to hold its collective nose and vote for Guilliani or McCain.  You are so overthinking this.

Well the question about "we" goes first to what BL considers she will be able to do about it one way or the other. Is she part of the party leadership (even locally), or just a single vote?

She's a rank and file GOPer, as I understand it, and she provides some insight into the thinking of her fellow members (and I agree with her). Take it for what it's worth.

Second it goes to the notion that the Republicans are some sort of monolithic voting borg. It points to the hypocricy of her statements from yesterday. It would seem that I as an outsider see the Republicans as a more diverse group than she does as an insider.

Not even close. Just because she says the GOP rank and file won't support Newt (and every poll supports her) doesn't mean she's claiming there's a monolith. The distaste she mentions is wide-spread, and it goes from social conservatives to libertarian-leaning types. As an idea guy, fine, as the standard bearer, no. That's not to say he doesn't have his pockets of support, just that they're a real minority.

" I've yet to hear you lay out a position Newt holds that would make this possible..."

Perhaps you want a more detailed map of Gingrich's strategy than I am able to give. But I have provided you with links and an uninterested third party's unsolicited confirmation that Newt's idea seeds are falling in fertile fields of the left.

I saw the links. Can you tell me specifically what he said that attarcts "neo-libs" (or tell me what they are)? The third party liked his comments about the State Department, but what he said didn't sound like a break from the usual GOP position.

"...your assertion flies in the face of everything I know to be true of my Democrat friends."

Kevin Philips is a Conneticut Conservative Republican (I don't know how he feels about Newt) and I'll tell you this. He is quite vocal in his dislike of the national Republican party.

Kevin Phillips hasn't liked the GOP for twenty years. Seriously, he's not a Republican and hasn't been for a long, long time. He's a fixture on NPR and a pal of Bill Moyers these days. The last sort of people he'd like are neo-cons like Newt who get glowing reviews from people like James Dobson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Phillips_(political_comme ntator)

Millionaire businessmen clients that I have despise Bush's handling of the... well... of everything!

Bush isn't running for office, Newt is from the same cloth.

"They'd rather have their sister work at a house of ill-repute than vote for Newt. I doubt there's a poll that contradicts that view."

I don't dispute you on either point (btw their sister is a freelancer). I'm not talking about where we are today, I'm talking about where we are going to be in six months.

OK, but I'd like to make a little wager with you about what sort of poll numbers Newt will get from Democrats. He's practically Tom DeLay or Karl Rove to them.

"Just what does that [he seeded the Liberal outlets over the years ]mean, other than that he's willing to show his face on MSNBC or CNN?"

Perhaps you missed the post from the third eye film forum where the writer was talking about seeing Newt on Charlie Rose (PBS).

One guy said Newt was nice about Clinton. Hardly a ringing endorsement. Another guy on the same thread had a comment about Newt of the type I would expect.

He has wowed them at NPR and his programs for education and universal healthcare, and others are the itches that liberals love to have scratched!

He's not in favor of "universal heathcare" as liberals know it. His is a libertarian solution with medical savings accounts of the sort that send liberals into apoplexy. The same accounts Bush pushed for. His solution is classic GOP, putting the power of technology, choice and the market to work, the exact opposite of the single payer or government healthcare programs liberals talk about.

Newt is so far ahead of all the other Republican candidates (with the possible exception of Guiliani, and the absolute exception of the Republican Machine, which seems to be somewhat broken right now. And Carl Rove is likely to be otherwise occupied, rightly or wrongly for a good portion of the upcoming festivities.) that they just don't stand a chance.

It's hard to be objective about this part of the question, but I'd say you have it completely backwards. The GOP is odds-on favorites to win the Whitehouse in 2008. Even with the war in its current position, McCain, Guliani and Thompson all already beat Hillary and Obama head to head. A little success in Iraq between now and then, a few more Democrat decabcales in Congress, and it might not even be close.

" Newt isn't the only Republican talking about alternative energy or energy independence."

Now we're back to his speaking style, which I mentioned before. Newt is an excellent speaker.

That makes him the same as McCain, Guliani, Romney and Thompson. Remember, Bush isn't running.

"He's always been active on campuses (he was a history prof, and like that atmopsphere), but how that makes him a "neo-lib" I don't know."

That's not what makes him a Neo Lib. What makes him a Neo Lib is his adoption of the responsibility of the State to maintain the environment wherein we may all have Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Honestly, I have no idea where you get the idea that Newt has adopted any policies that liberals would find palatable.

"contrasting Newt to an Army recruiter, and calling the recruiter the face of the GOP, well...."

It's a bit colorful, I'll grant you that. But how do you think college kids are seeing these recruiters these days?

I don’t think they see them as the front for any candidate of 2008. If they did, they’d see them as much for Newt, Iraq war supporter, as any other.

As I have said before, Newt has something these others don't. He has a platform. His own platform. It shows that he thought about this. it shows that he wants to be president for a reason, not just because it's the presidency.

See above about Newt’s platform, which as far as I can see is standard GOP fare.

"Newt won't be running against the administration any more than, say Gore "ran against" Clinton."

Yeah, those situations are similar, not!

Obviously we disagree.

In this instance I think that it is appropirate to use, interchangably, the terms "Party leadership" and "Administration."

Again, we disagree. There isn’t an anti-establishment GOP candidate, (unless Hegal enters, and that would be a blood-bath. Watch for Hegal to switch parties if he runs) the most they will do is the “I support the war, but it’s been mis-managed” theme McCain uses. They all support the war and warn of what would happen if we left ala some Democrat plan.

….. and that the "Neo con" movement intends to retain their control of the power in Washington.

In their minds, this end would not be achieved with Newt Gingrich in the White House.

Neo-cons would be disappointed if the architect of the Contract With America, the Sr. Fellow of the supposedly neo-con AEI, were elected?

I think this all boils down to you seeing something in Newts polices that I don’t. I can’t think of a single theme he has now that he didn’t have in the mid-1990s

And THAT alone is enough to make Northern Republicans prefer Newt over whomsoever the current party leaders chose as their next figurehead.

Newt is a Southern neo-con libertarian who has the support of people like James Dobson. I just don’t see that selling well in the N.E., especially with McCain, Guliani, Romney and Thompson in the mix.

Thanks for your unique perspective.

[quote=babbling looney]

 The base is even willing to hold its collective nose and vote for Guilliani or McCain.  You are so overthinking this.

[/quote]

I agree 100% and the sight of that, and the end of the seterotype of the "theocratic GOP base" will cause heads to burst in places like DNC HQ and the editorial board of the NY Times. Oh, and people like Dobson will go the way of Fallwell and Robertson.

 "You are so overthinking this."

Perhaps, but then that's because I am trying to explain the obvious in terms that you and mikebutler222 will accept (it's harder than it's worth)

"the Republican party as a member of the party than you do as an outsider looking in."

Give it rest victim girl! I grew up in a heavily Republican district. I work in a heavily Republican industry. I know Republicans, I know Republicanism you have no knowledge of Republicans that I do not. Get off you victim hobby horse and grow up!

"the people you seem to think you know in the North East."

I SEEM to THINK I know?  Where do you get off saying things like this? BTW I'm NOT from NYC (and didn't you see me just exclude Rudy because he was a typical NYer? ) no wonder you think others  stereotype "your kind" people always assume that all other people act just like they do.

I think we're done here.

"as I understand it,"

That's the way I understand it too. That's part of the point that as a "rank and file" Repub, she really has ZERO effect on what happens in "her" party (notice how the quotation marks indicate sarcasm? Same with your use of QMs around Neo Con).

"Take it for what it's worth."

I did, and then I handed the guy a dollar and he gave me a one buck cup of coffee! 

"that attarcts 'neo-libs'"

No no no! And no! It's not that he "attarcts 'neo libs', he IS  THE Neo Lib.

Ok I'll try to explain, again. The Neo Cons started out as disillusioned Liberal Thinkers who were fed up with the hypocricy and abject failures of Liberalism. Its a situation that is now being replayed with neo Conservatism (the hypocrisy and abject failure). Newt is (at least in his own mind) a Philosopher King (reference to Plato's Republic where Socrates opined that the leaders of a perfect world would be the smartest men in the kingdom, the philosopher kings) and he has altered his opinions about the proper role of government in society. His outlook is decidedly more "liberal" than the Neo Con policies, which have failed. I coined the term "Neo Liberal" figuring that this would be easy enough of a line that you could follow withou me having to type 200 words to explain.

" Seriously, he's not a Republican ..."

Do you notice that you say this about everyone who disagrees with your definition of Republicanism. Its like when the Christians are asked about this transgressive christian or that one.. "Oh he's not a REAL christian."

I'd ask you what it is that makes a REAL Republican, but I really don't care.

"He's a fixture on NPR and a pal of Bill Moyers these days."

OOOOOhh! John Mc Cain is a fixture on Comedy Central's The Daily Show and Orin Hatch is best friends with Teddy Kennedy, and I don't think we're going to strip them of their membership cards.

"Bush isn't running for office, Newt is from the same cloth."

Strawman and wrong! Nobody said Bush was running for office. The context of the comment was that the party leaders are the ones who Northern Republicans (and let me say here that there are certainly some Republicans up here who are good strong members of the KKK, seriously I'm not referring to this sort of REAL Republican) have had more than their fill of.

"One guy said Newt was nice about Clinton. Hardly a ringing endorsement. Another guy on the same thread had a comment about Newt of the type I would expect."

Nobody said it was a "ringing endorsement" it was a just another guy who found that he didn't automatically dismiss Newt's comments as the rantings of the Anti Darwin.

"Even with the war in its current position, McCain, Guliani and Thompson all already beat Hillary"

Got link?

"...but I'd say you have it completely backwards."

I get the feeling you don't quite get  which "it " is what.

"That makes him the same as McCain, Guliani, Romney and Thompson. Remember, Bush isn't running."

In your dreams! Rudy stutters, Thompson growls, Mc Cain is all blinking eyes and Morse code! Please!

"I don’t think they see them as the front for any candidate of 2008. If they did, they’d see them as much for Newt, Iraq war supporter, as any other."

Then you don't know crap about people.

"See above about Newt’s platform, which as far as I can see is standard GOP fare."

As I've said before, we can't be held back by only being able to discuss what Mikebutler222 knows about.

What's so precious about your's and Bab's perspective is that it pretends that you have a choice.

It's laughable! They put up a complete MORON last time and you convinced yourselves that he was the BEST choice for America! Whatever the party tells you to do you will do! You think that you have a choice and that the "people" choose.

A small cadre of party leaders will eventually choose a party candidate and then this will be the person that is anointed as the "Front Runner" (at best you'll have what four people to choose from) this is the candidate that will get all the good press on Fox and in the Moonie Newspaper and the Murdock newspapers and the GE corporate news outlets and the New York Times will pretend to be "Liberal" as they give the front runner ink by saying "Can you believe the coverage this guy is getting?" and the spend 1,000 words on him.

Here's a bunch of polls for all he political junkies...

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

...and what little I see of Newt Gingerich doesn't look very good, whomit...

They put up a complete MORON last time and you convinced yourselves that he was the BEST choice for America! Whatever the party tells you to do you will do! You think that you have a choice and that the "people" choose.

Cue the music....."I see your true colors shining through. la la la la " Bring out the repetitive mantras and the "talking points"

So you are pretentiously trying to attempt to devise strategy for the Republican party when you really have a vested interest in choosing badly    AKA: Newt.... a loser

A small cadre of party leaders will eventually choose a party candidate and then this will be the person that is anointed as the "Front Runner"

This is exactly what the Fred Thompson movement is not about.  The draft Fred movement is coming from the ground up.  I just hope it isn't similar the the Ross Perot situation that drew people to his campaign and guaranteed a loss to HW Bush and a gain to the Clinton campgain, thereby giving us 8 years of Bill and Hillary.      I don't think it is the case, however. 

Fred Thompson and possibly Guilliani in the second postion, if he would consider that, would have wide appeal across party lines.

By the way you need to get your quotes straightened out.  I appears you are mixing in things that I have said with other posters.  It's confusing.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]It's laughable! They put up a complete MORON last time and you convinced yourselves that he was the BEST choice for America![/quote]

...you seriously think Kerry WASN'T a moron?!!  Are you KIDDING?!!!

Yes, it IS laughable...check out these fine quotes...

"You bet we might have." --Sen. John Kerry, asked if he would have gone to war against Saddam Hussein if he refused to disarm.

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." --Sen. John Kerry, on voting against a military funding bill for U.S. troops in Iraq.

...and of course, this more recent classic...

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

I'm sorry, but yes, I do think Bush was a better choice than this goof.

lost in translation..

Who's running for President again?

hmmm, maybe the guy with the super large head might do ok since he's probably is smarter...with that large cranium

newt... would do fine.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/newtscript.html

found himself a gal good in Math, too.

I'm assuming some of this is directed to me...

No no no! And no! It's not that he "attarcts 'neo libs', he IS  THE Neo Lib.

Like I've said before, I can't see, and you've yet to name, a policy Newt supports that's a break from conservative orthodoxy. You mentioned healthcare, but what he's talking about is the sort of medical savings accounts that send Ted Kennedy into wild fits, and are the cornerstone of every conservative plan. Perhaps if I could see what's "liberal" about what Newt's saying...

" Seriously, he's not a Republican ..."

Do you notice that you say this about everyone who disagrees with your definition of Republicanism.

It's not my definition that causes Phillips to be a "former Republican", that's what he says himself. It's been the case for 20 years. Look into it. He's now a Bill Moyer's liberal, he's an NPR staple. Read what he calls himself, I'm not attempting to relabel him, I'm simply taking his word for it. I gave you the link.

"Bush isn't running for office, Newt is from the same cloth."

Strawman and wrong! Nobody said Bush was running for office.

Then stop comparing the candidate to Bush on matters like how he delivers a speech. You said Newt is well spoken, and he is, but so are McCain, Thompson, Guliani and Romney. The only one that isn't, is Bush.

"One guy said Newt was nice about Clinton. Hardly a ringing endorsement. Another guy on the same thread had a comment about Newt of the type I would expect."

Nobody said it was a "ringing endorsement" it was a just another guy who found that he didn't automatically dismiss Newt's comments as the rantings of the Anti Darwin.

One guy did, another one didn't. Nothing special there.

"Even with the war in its current position, McCain, Guliani and Thompson all already beat Hillary"

Got link?

Sure;http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ national.html

"...but I'd say you have it completely backwards."

I get the feeling you don't quite get  which "it " is what.

I get the feeling you can't explain how Newt's NOT a Southern, neo-con libertarian and just what policy he proposes that's "neo-lib".

"That makes him the same as McCain, Guliani, Romney and Thompson. Remember, Bush isn't running."

In your dreams! Rudy stutters, Thompson growls, Mc Cain is all blinking eyes and Morse code! Please!

Please is right, they're all fine speakers, your comments aside.

"I don’t think they see them as the front for any candidate of 2008. If they did, they’d see them as much for Newt, Iraq war supporter, as any other."

Then you don't know crap about people.

I bow to your superior knowledge of "people", and debating...if you think college kids see Army recruiters as the face of GOP presidential candidates, except Newt, fine.

"See above about Newt’s platform, which as far as I can see is standard GOP fare."

As I've said before, we can't be held back by only being able to discuss what Mikebutler222 knows about.

But we can be held back by your inability to articulate these "neo-lib" policies you say Newt advances, it would seem. Thus far you've said "look at the videos". Well, I did. Then I returned and detailed, for example, his healthcare agenda, and how it's standard libertarian fare. Your response as been "look at the video" again, with an insult tossed it.

Don't you think it might be more effective if you'd tried to explain how, for example, medical svaings accounts, have become popular with neo-libs and why they dropped hopes for a single-payer plan or gov't run plan?

What's so precious about your's and Bab's perspective is that it pretends that you have a choice.

It's laughable! They put up a complete MORON last time and you convinced yourselves that he was the BEST choice for America! Whatever the party tells you to do you will do! You think that you have a choice and that the "people" choose.

Yawn....now you seem to have dropped any attempt to explain your theory about Newt being attractive to liberals suddenly to bashing people here, and Bush....I'm not interested in discussing the last elections, this thread i about the next one. Otherwise I'd have to explain, again, why Gore and Kerry would never get my vote, and how McCain lost my support in 2000.

A small cadre of party leaders will eventually choose a party candidate and then this will be the person that is anointed as the "Front Runner" (at best you'll have what four people to choose from) this is the candidate that will get all the good press on Fox and in the Moonie Newspaper and the Murdock newspapers and the GE corporate news outlets and the New York Times will pretend to be "Liberal" as they give the front runner ink by saying "Can you believe the coverage this guy is getting?" and the spend 1,000 words on him.

That's an interesting little world you live in. It's also a place where Newt has traction with liberals.

[quote=Indyone]

Here's a bunch of polls for all he political junkies...

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

...and what little I see of Newt Gingerich doesn't look very good, whomit...

[/quote]

The last polls I saw said the only other candidate with "over my dead body" numbers like Hillary was Newt.

For the life of me, try as I might, I just can’t see what Hillary brings to the

table that would make her a viable candidate.

That's from 1996.

bab bling,

This is the problem with dicussing big issues with some people, they can't seem to get their mind around the idea that we're just having a discussion.

I don't expect ANYTHING to come out of our conversations here except maybe some people can see how things work.

I don't intend to promote Newt or anyone else for anything. I'm only enjoying watching the process. I observing and extrapolating. I have no more effect on the outcome than I would if I were watching a mystery at the movies and trying to figure who besides the butler may have done it.

The butler here is whomever the Republican Party backs, but I'd love to see someone come along and shake the status quo. Just like I like to buy stocks that no one likes so that I can sell them when everybody likes them.

 "This is exactly what the Fred Thompson movement is not about.  The draft Fred movement is coming from the ground up. "

You absolutely don't understand what is at stake here and what people will do to maintain the reigns of power.

Every candidate needs to have a mythology that has a grown around that candidacy. But it's a myth. You are shown the finished sausage, roasted golden brown with just the perfect sheen of grease one it. There's a whole gruesome process that went into that sausage (you should know this by now). 

"By the way you need to get your quotes straightened out.  I appears you are mixing in things that I have said with other posters.  It's confusing."

I'll work on that, thank you. I thought that I had separated the qoutes last time althought I didn't identify them specifically.

OTOH, who says it isn't terribly important, I'm responding to what has been said, not who has said it (as far as I can, anyway).

INDYONE:

What does one have to do with the other, and what gives you the impression that I don't hold the general public in the same contempt whether they are Republicans or Democrats (which is why those lefties at the film forum are absolutely not fans of the old DPR). Most people will follow what they are told and will not measure what they are told against what they know to be true. Most people are willing dupes.

The case in point was George W. Bush, there is no getting around it, this guy is a clown, He wanted to put Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court! This is not a man of depth! But, because he was packaged, the country (or less than half of them anyway) were willing to believe that he was qualified for the hardest, most demanding job on the planet. Philosopher King he AIN'T! That doesn't make him the only clown that ever ran for office, but that fact that others who ran were clowns too doesn't negate the fact that he is not a smart guy. 

The question isn't really between Bush and Gore or Kerry, the question was Bush or McCain in 1999. The party convinced people that Bush was better than McCain (and they held back no dirty trick to do so).

In retrospect, who would you rather have had in the White House on 9/10? Bush, or Mc Cain (I'd have preferred Mc Cain).

"That's from 1996"

That was directed at Goforbroke's link to Frontline (which was the last post when I started typing.)

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

 The question isn't really between Bush and Gore or Kerry, the question was Bush or McCain in 1999. The party convinced people that Bush was better than McCain (and they held back no dirty trick to do so).

[/quote]

You have a pretty skewed view of history, whom. Bush wasn’t “forced” on anyone. There were dirty tricks on both sides (as there is in every election), but what you seem not to grasp is that McCain had to overcome, among GOP primary voters, his "big tobacco " stuff and his advocacy for 1st Amendment rights impinging "campaign finance reform". He had done that, to some degree, early on. His position as the press’s favorite GOPer did him no favors within the party, btw.

I worked for McCain in the primaries and I can tell you the second he lost me and I think, the entire race. It was when he compared Bush to Clinton in an ad. As to Bush, whatever you’ve come to believe of him now, in 2000 he had a pedigree even McCain couldn’t match having executive experience in both private industry and government. His work for his father’s campaign and then his administration did give him contacts among party faithful who already had doubts about McCain’s conservative bona fides.

I know you prefer to believe that this was all decided in some smoky room and the rubes (they have to be rubes, they disagree with you) in the primary voting base just went along with the plan.

Now, what your change of subject to 1999 did was skip over the fact that the alternatives to Bush in 2000 and 2004 were profoundly lame.

I'm preparing for the worst - 8 years of Hillary.  Fill the freezer with cash, grow my own garden for food, get a permit to own a gun, keep the pick-up truck full of gas (along with a small 500 gallon barrel of gasolin in my back yard).

We are seeing the future of our 'democrat' lead country by how they're reacting (not) to the hostages from the UK.  Iran is flexing their small muscles - and the dems are trying to fire Alberto G.

"As to Bush, whatever you’ve come to believe of him now, in 2000 he had a pedigree even McCain couldn’t match having executive experience in both private industry and government. His work for his father’s campaign and then his administration did give him contacts among party faithful who already had doubts about McCain’s conservative bona fides."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"Another glass of Republican Lemonade for you, Mr Butler?"

 "Bush wasn’t “forced” on anyone."

Forced? Quotationally marked (as if to say that you are quoting something that has been said, sarcastically or otherwise) forced?

I never said forced, nor did I say foisted (although...).

The point of the discussion from the very beginning has been the value of organization as opposed to zeal. Newt has an organization, Hillary has an organization, John Edwards doesn't (at least not much of one by comparison). Rudy has one, Thompson doesn't. The Republican Party has one, the Democrats (for all practical political purposes) don't (not that this is a good thing). The Howard Dean was able to fashion one for the mid term elections (with no help from Jim Carvell, whom I also like for his mind) goes to show how much the organization was lacking in the past.

"I know you prefer to believe that this was all decided in some smoky room and the rubes (they have to be rubes, they disagree with you) in the primary voting base just went along with the plan."

Did I say rubes? Oh this is you building strawmen again. Does disagreeing with me make someone a rube? Did I imply that? Well, you disagree with me, have I said you (specifically) are a rube? I described my position vis a vis people who let others make their opinions for them, if you fit into that category, it's not because you disagree with me it's because you'll let others do your thinking for you. Have a little fire strawman!

You cannot ask for a more clearcut case of money talks and BS walks than the Bush Juggernaut of the 1999 primary season. Bush was chosen by the party elite and propelled into the position of prominence. Granted, perhaps Carl Rove went to the party elite and laid out a plan that included Bush and the PE decided to get on board, as opposed to the notion that the Party Strategists built a strategy and then looked for the most viable, pliable candidate. But either way the fact remains that the party sold the rank and file on the idea of electing a moron to the White House.

This guy did NOTHING right in his private life. The only reason he wasn't a bum in the streets is that he was not at all shy about selling access to the Veep and then the POTUS!

"Now, what your change of subject to 1999 did was skip over the fact that the alternatives to Bush in 2000 and 2004 were profoundly lame."

I didn't change the subject, I refused to let others change the subject from the primaries to the general election.

I just find it amusing that you guys look at one of the premier professional politicians of this era (even Bill Clinton said so in his book) and think that you know the game better than he does.

Newt knows what his liabilities are, better than you do. And yet, he's running. Why don't you ask yourself what it is that he knows that you don't?

I'll say this, it is possible that Newt is running as a rabbit. His candidacy is there to scare moderates into the voting booth. That's a possibility. But the work he has done over the past 8 years is a little taxing for such a short term benefit. Possibly they had him ready just in case the 2004 election was looking dicey and then, when it wasn't, they kept the Newt powder dry and so now he's of use to his party this way. It's possible. It'd be like playing Star Wars Chess and Newt is the hidden Bishop from the lower dimension. Could be.

I doubt it, but it could be. 

"As to Bush, whatever you’ve come to believe of him now, in 2000 he had a pedigree even McCain couldn’t match having executive experience in both private industry and government. His work for his father’s campaign and then his administration did give him contacts among party faithful who already had doubts about McCain’s conservative bona fides."<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"Another glass of Republican Lemonade for you, Mr Butler?"

Funny response, but devoid of substance. I explained the dynamics of the primary, and from a participant’s point of view. If that’s meaningless to you, so be it.

 "Bush wasn’t “forced” on anyone."

Forced? Quotationally marked (as if to say that you are quoting something that has been said, sarcastically or otherwise) forced?

I never said forced, nor did I say foisted (although...).

My apologies. Allow me to correct myself, Bush wasn’t “foisted” on anyone. See above about the C.V. of Bush and the conservative’s doubts about McCain circa 1999.

The point of the discussion from the very beginning has been the value of organization as opposed to zeal.

It’s been your point, it hasn’t received much acceptance. Surely you see the difference.

 Newt has an organization,

Really? Does he have an exploratory committee? How much has he raised in funds? Where does he rank in those two? What are his poll numbers? Has he even officially announced?

Hillary has an organization, John Edwards doesn't (at least not much of one by comparison).

Wow, Edwards doesn’t have an organization? Says who?

"I know you prefer to believe that this was all decided in some smoky room and the rubes (they have to be rubes, they disagree with you) in the primary voting base just went along with the plan."

Did I say rubes? Oh this is you building strawmen again.

Notice rubes wasn’t in quotes. Re-read your comments about whether or not GOP primary votes had a choice. If Bush was “foisted” on them, and they voted for him on those grounds, rubes sums them up nicely.

You cannot ask for a more clearcut case of money talks and BS walks than the Bush Juggernaut of the 1999 primary season.

If you say so. I already detailed the issues McCain faced with conservatives, and surely you realize they make up the vast majority of the GOP primary voting base. You never do seem to get specific on issues, it's almost like a pattern with you. Rest assured, most primary voters are issues voters.

I’m still interested in specifics about Newt’s “neo-liberal” polices you say he espouses.

In the mean time, it’s always the same sort of  experience chatting with you, regardless of the subject.

Can we get some BLUE?  MORE COLORS MORE COLORS!!

[quote=joedabrkr]Can we get some BLUE?  MORE COLORS MORE COLORS!! [/quote]

Gee, I thought I was doing you a favor by limiting the colors and trying different fonts and italics to differentiate the lines....<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Back to the drawing board….

Allow me to correct myself, Bush wasn’t “foisted” on anyone.

Did I say he was "foisted" on anyone? No I did not.

It’s been your point, it hasn’t received much acceptance.

Of course not, you're too busy trying to spin the conversation with your miscitations and your insistance on making partisan commentary derailing the conversation (because I'm polite enough to respond) repeatedly. Surely you see the difference.

Edwards doesn’t have an organization?

As compared to Hillary's? No, not much of one. As compared to Barak Obama's? Not much of one.

Notice rubes wasn’t in quotes.

No, but you parenthetical comment made the same point, didn't it?

If you say so.

Yeah, it must be just me. How gracious of you to cede me the benefit of the doubt on an issue that is axiomatic in nature. 

I'll ask the question again. Who would rather have had in the White House on 9/10 Bush or Mc Cain? 

I'll ask the question again. Who would rather have had in the White House on 9/10 Bush or Mc Cain?

Bush.  I don't trust McCain.

JOE, the Blue's for you, pal.

Allow me to correct myself, Bush wasn’t “foisted” on anyone.

Did I say he was "foisted" on anyone? No I did not.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

nor did I say foisted (although...). [/quote]

“Although…”

It’s been your point, it hasn’t received much acceptance.

Of course not, you're too busy trying to spin the conversation with your miscitations and your insistance on making partisan commentary derailing the conversation (because I'm polite enough to respond) repeatedly. Surely you see the difference.

You figure it’s my actions (mischaracterizing them as you have) that have cause the resistance to your theory that Newt is a “neo-lib” and can attract disaffected Democrats and N.E. Republicans?

Edwards doesn’t have an organization?

As compared to Hillary's? No, not much of one. As compared to Barak Obama's? Not much of one.

How about you quantify that? "Not much of one" isn't any more persuasive than your assertion that Newt's policies are "neo-lib". Dollars raised, staff size, etc..

Notice rubes wasn’t in quotes.

No, but you parenthetical comment made the same point, didn't it?

Notice rubes wasn't in quotes. It was my word for the kind of person you described in the passage about primary voters buying a "moron". I stand by the word.

If you say so.

Yeah, it must be just me.

Well, I didn’t want to be the one to mention it, but it sure seems that way.

It would be helpful if you could actually detail some positions that Newt’s taken that are “neo-lib” or cite some source of political thought that gives some credence to this theory. Every single bit of quantifiable evinced contradicts you.

How gracious of you to cede me the benefit of the doubt on an issue that is axiomatic in nature.

Just trying to be civil. You ignored the polls I gave you with the link that showed Obama and Hillary losing just about (if not every) face to face match up with GOP types. You ignored my numerous requests for details about Newt’s positions you felt might attract Democrats, and you ignored my questions about how this Senior Fellow at AEI and writer of the Contract For America had changed in his political philosophy. So, it seemed “if you say so” was the only polite response. IOW, we can agree to disagree.

I'll ask the question again. Who would rather have had in the White House on 9/10 Bush or Mc Cain?

Not that that question has anything to do with Newt as a neo-lib, the 2008 race (the point of this thread) or the issues involved in why GOP primary voters had reason to doubt McCain; on 9/10 I prefer the guy that I had voted for in the primary, Bush. McCain would have worked out well, too.

"You figure it’s my actions (mischaracterizing them as you have) that have cause the resistance to your theory that Newt is a “neo-lib” and can attract disaffected Democrats and N.E. Republicans"

No no no no no! Can't you maintain the thread of a conversation?

"The point of the discussion from the very beginning has been the value of organization as opposed to zeal." Me<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

"It’s been your point, it hasn’t received much acceptance. Surely you see the difference." You.

The discussion is about the process, about what it takes to become the nominee.

"How about you quantify that?"

Why? Is there a doubt? There isn't a doubt in anyone's mind (that knows anything about how politics gets done) that Hillary has a massive political lead over all the late comers. Why? How about this? She was so far aghead in her Senate race that she was able to travel the country and help other candidates raise money for their campaigns, these are now people and local organizations that now owe Hillary a favor in return. Kind of like when Newt became Speaker of the House because he had helped so many of the Freshman Class get elected.

"I stand by the word.[rubes]"

You can stand where ever you want, I don't care. I don't stand next to you.

 "

If you say so.

Yeah, it must be just me.

Well, I didn’t want to be the one to mention it, but it sure seems that way.

It would be helpful if you could actually detail some positions that Newt’s taken that are “neo-lib”Blah blah blah

What does Newt's Neo Lib position have to do with what we were talking about when you said "If you say so"? Nothing! We were talking about this: 

"You cannot ask for a more clearcut case of money talks and BS walks than the Bush Juggernaut of the 1999 primary season." Me

"If you say so."You

Here's more of your miscitation misdirection:

"How gracious of you to cede me the benefit of the doubt on an issue that is axiomatic in nature." Me 

"Just trying to be civil. You ignored the polls I gave you with the link that showed Obama and Hillary losing just about (if not every) face to face match up with GOP types. You ignored my numerous requests for details ... blah blah blah" You

The point you ceded was the point that Bush had the endorsement of the power elite in the Republican party and had massive money tied up in his first campaign. It was in all of the papers! It's axiomatic (meaning it is an established, universally agreed upon truth, which does not need further explication)!

"Not that that question has anything to do with Newt as a neo-lib, the 2008 race (the point of this thread) "

It has everything to do with showing that it is organzation that pushes politicians through, not talent or zeal or even popularity. And THAT, my esteemed adversary, is what this thread is all about.

That you can't or won't grasp the concept is a handicap that apparently is beyond my powers to help you with.

"on 9/10 I prefer the guy that I had voted for in the primary, Bush. "

Well, at least here we have something we can honestly agree on. I'll agree that you preferred having George W Bush as opposed to john Mc Cain in the White House on 9/10.

(snicker snicker snort snort)

"You figure it’s my actions (mischaracterizing them as you have) that have cause the resistance to your theory that Newt is a “neo-lib” and can attract disaffected Democrats and N.E. Republicans"<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

No no no no no! Can't you maintain the thread of a conversation?

Read the thread title, “2008 elections”.  My questions to you  in that vein have centered on your assertion that he’s some sort of neo-lib.

"The point of the discussion from the very beginning has been the value of organization as opposed to zeal." Me

That’s been your point, within a thread about the 2008 election, it hasn’t been well-received.

"It’s been your point, it hasn’t received much acceptance. Surely you see the difference."

The discussion is about the process, about what it takes to become the nominee.

Again, reread the thread title. You claim the “process” is about organization.  I'm of the opinion that the process centers on ideas and appeal to the voters on that front. I even explain how that was played out in the 2000 primary.

"How about you quantify that?"

Why? Is there a doubt?

Yes, to  “not much of an organization”, there’s much doubt. The lastest polls have him in the lead and his organization looks as substantial as Obama’s and Clinton’s. Please quantify it.

"I stand by the word.[rubes]"

You can stand where ever you want, I don't care. I don't stand next to you.

Cute.

What does Newt's Neo Lib position have to do with what we were talking about when you said "If you say so"? Nothing! We were talking about this: 

-----------

The point you ceded was the point that Bush had the endorsement of the power elite in the Republican party and had massive money tied up in his first campaign. It was in all of the papers! It's axiomatic (meaning it is an established, universally agreed upon truth, which does not need further explication)!

I think you misunderstood my “if you say so”. Here it is again;

[quote=mikebutler222]

case of money talks and BS walks than the Bush Juggernaut of the 1999 primary season.

If you say so. I already detailed the issues McCain faced with conservatives, and surely you realize they make up the vast majority of the GOP primary voting base. You never do seem to get specific on issues, it's almost like a pattern with you. Rest assured, most primary voters are issues voters.

I’m still interested in specifics about Newt’s “neo-liberal” polices you say he espouses.

In the mean time, it’s always the same sort of  experience chatting with you, regardless of the subject  [/quote]

I think it’s pretty clear in the first paragraph I’m saying I disagree you (Bush had the "party elite", but McCain could have overcome that with primary voters), I’ve laid out how Bush won, and it wasn’t money talking, it was doubts about McCain.

In the second paragraph I’ve moved back to your assertion about Newt, and how I’m interested in hearing you flesh it out.

"Not that that question has anything to do with Newt as a neo-lib, the 2008 race (the point of this thread) "

It has everything to do with showing that it is organzation that pushes politicians through, not talent or zeal or even popularity. And THAT, my esteemed adversary, is what this thread is all about.

Again, I laid out my opinion, as a participant, why McCain lost. If you see it differently, fine. See: “if you say so”. It wasn't "organization", it was questions about McCain. Again, I was IN the process, I watched it close up, I saw how McCain lost me and many others.

This thread is about the 2008 election, as the title says. You’ve made an assertion that organization is paramount, and I’ve disagreed with you and attempted to return to a broad look at the race, period.

You continue to claim I’ve tried to make this about political spin (as in “my guy, and why he should win”, but I haven’t.

In fact, I haven’t made up my mind among the candidates, other than knowing there isn’t a Democrat in the race I could vote for. 

My efforts have centered on getting you to explain this Newt phenomena, how his stripes have changed and how he has new appeal. In those exchanges about Newt I’ve tried to explain how he couldn’t possibly win the GOP, from an insider’s perspective. It isn’t as if I disagree with the man about much, so I’m not casting him off based on who I might vote for policy-wise or out of a lack of objectivity on my part.

That you can't or won't grasp the concept is a handicap that apparently is beyond my powers to help you with.

You seem to find it incomprehensible that someone could understand your assertion AND disagree with it.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"on 9/10 I prefer the guy that I had voted for in the primary, Bush. "

Well, at least here we have something we can honestly agree on. I'll agree that you preferred having George W Bush as opposed to john Mc Cain in the White House on 9/10.

snicker snicker snort snort)

[/quote]

You asked, I answered, I gave specific reasons, BL agreed with me. Go figure.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"on 9/10 I prefer the guy that I had voted for in the primary, Bush. "

Well, at least here we have something we can honestly agree on. I'll agree that you preferred having George W Bush as opposed to john Mc Cain in the White House on 9/10.

snicker snicker snort snort)

[/quote]

You asked, I answered, I gave specific reasons, BL agreed with me. Go figure.

[/quote]

And I agreed. What's the problem?

You're free to believe any idiotic thing you want to believe. So am I.

I will say this is different from other conversations you and I have had. In past conversations I let you slide on this misstatement and then on that one and then by the time I knew it we were so far from reality that trying to get back would have taken too much time.

In this discussion, I'm calling you on your little twists of the facts as they occur, I'm avoiding some of your tangential deadends that you'd like us to go down. I've gotten past the point where I care if you're being opaque or obdurate, intentionally or by defect of nature or nurture. OTOH, I'm also past giving you the benefit of great wisdom, doesn't really matter if you're smart or not I'm not answering the man, I'm answering the question.

The subject of the forum is indeed election 2008. But we're using the lessons of primary seasons past to try to explain to the skeptical what is happening in this primary season.

Amazingly! We have to demonstrate the power of the party elite to the satisfaction of those skeptics. here are some contemporaneous notes from 1999. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/06/14/bush.html  Granted, they are from the Evil CNN, but they do remind the Goldfishian members of the skeptic class that George had it sewed up, it was all over but the trashing of good Americans like John McCain.

That Mc Cain followers became Bush devotees is not surprising or unique in any degree. In politics, it's about the bandwagon! it's about 'Us' v. 'Them'.

The whole "Issues McCain faced with the Conservatives" line is simple denial. The rank and file can and are convinced to back any POS that gets the party nod.  "He's a POS, but he's OUR POS!" You can't ask for better proof of this than the MORON that your party convinced you was the best man for the job.

Come on now! http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

He hasn't had disapproval ratings less bad than 47% since before 9/05! the latest FOX has him at 61 to 33 disapprove to approve. Yet your STILL insisting that he was the best choice in the entire Conservative nation in 1999? Come now! There's a difference between being skeptical and being boneheaded.

Contrapositively, they can be convinced to vilify any one that gets the thumbs down. Clinton was actually a pretty good friend to the conservatives (and not just because he helped them raise money he was fairly socially conservative and very fiscally conservative). Likewise, Nixon was actually quite liberal, but the liberals convinced the hoi poloi of his demonosity. 

You were sold a package of goods. And how did that come to happen? Bush Inc. had the organization! Mc Cain did not. The Bush team had the money, the Mc Cain team had less. Perhaps Mc Cain deserved to lose, too.

The first Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey involving Thompson shows the former Senator from Tennessee essentially tied with the Democratic frontrunner, Senator Hillary Clinton. It’s Thompson 44% Clinton 43%. (More Below)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Preside ntial%20Match-Ups/March%202007/Thompsonvs.ObamaClinton200703 23.htm

According to the telephone poll, which was conducted Friday through Sunday, 38 percent of voters who identify themselves as Republicans or independents leaning Republican, said they are most likely to support Mr. Giuliani, and 18 percent selected Mr. McCain.

But 17 percent said they had no opinion, and two-thirds of those who did choose a candidate said they could change their mind.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/new-cnn-poll/

Disclaimer: I think polls are pretty stupid in the first place because they are so subject to statistical manipulation.

But.... what I discern from the last poll is the 17% of the Republicans polled are waiting for a candidate they want, and 2/3 of the 56% who did commit to either Guilliani or McCain are ready to jump ship as soon as someone puts his hat in the ring.  I believe that the Allen supporters will definitely switch should he get in the race.

In addition Fred Thomposn is out polling Hillary, even with the Clinton machine behind her.

Furthermore, Newt doesn't have a chance no matter what kind of fancy labels you want to assign him.  Go ahead and use your "towering intellect" to analyze it all you want.  Newt is DOA.  The second place winner for most polarizing and disliked is Hillary.

If former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) is on the 2008 ballot for President, 50% of that nation’s Likely Voters way they will definitely vote against him. That’s the highest total for any Presidential candidate. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats would definitely vote against Gingrich along with 51% of unaffiliated voters and 23% of Republicans.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Dailies /March%202007/Foragainstother20070319.htm

Furthermore, Newt doesn't have a chance no matter what kind of fancy labels you want to assign him.  Go ahead and use your "towering intellect" to analyze it all you want.  Newt is DOA.  The second place winner for most polarizing and disliked is Hillary.

If former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) is on the 2008 ballot for President, 50% of that nation’s Likely Voters way they will definitely vote against him. That’s the highest total for any Presidential candidate. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats would definitely vote against Gingrich along with 51% of unaffiliated voters and 23% of Republicans.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"on 9/10 I prefer the guy that I had voted for in the primary, Bush. "

Well, at least here we have something we can honestly agree on. I'll agree that you preferred having George W Bush as opposed to john Mc Cain in the White House on 9/10.

snicker snicker snort snort)

[/quote]

You asked, I answered, I gave specific reasons, BL agreed with me. Go figure.

[/quote]

And I agreed. What's the problem?

There isn't one...and I never suggested one.

IIn past conversations I let you slide on this misstatement and then on that one ....

This from the guy who claimed I had said that neo-con "didn't exist", and a string of other things,  when I'd said nothing of the sort.

OTOH, I'm also past giving you the benefit of great wisdom,

I really couldn't give a fat rat's foot about what you grant.

The subject of the forum is indeed election 2008.

As I've reminded you...

But we're using the lessons of primary seasons past to try to explain to the skeptical what is happening in this primary season.

“We’re”? You can do that if you like, I pointed out where I disagree with you about the 2000 season.

 I'll also ask you to detail claims like you've made about Newt the neo-lib.

Amazingly! We have to demonstrate the power of the party elite to the satisfaction of those skeptics. here are some contemporaneous notes from 1999.

Here we go again. You provide an opinion piece from Time Mag, via CNN, that includes this sort of agenda language;"It is hard to watch the Bush anointment and not be shocked by the sheer, almost undemocratic nerve of it, and the risk that this could all blow up and leave the party with a choice among broken and, other than Steve Forbes, penniless understudies. ".

What escaped your attention, however,  is the fact the article was written in June 1999, before McCain won the New Hampshire vote in Feb of 2000. Some much for an annoitment…

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/06/14/bush.html Granted, they are from the Evil CNN, but they do remind the Goldfishian members of the skeptic class that George had it sewed up, it was all over but the trashing of good Americans like John McCain.

See above, New Hampshire, McCain won, the "party elite" whom you're certain have more power than the actual voters in the primaries, lost. Certainly having the party institution behind you is an advantage. OTOH, it isn’t enough to drive the voters, they have the final word.

That Mc Cain followers became Bush devotees is not surprising or unique in any degree. In politics, it's about the bandwagon! it's about 'Us' v. 'Them'.

Uh, the problem with your theory is that it should have worked the other way, with Bush supporters leaving him to join McCain after New Hampshire.

Now, when all's said and done, and the primaries are over, you can be assured that the party (either party) closes ranks and supports the selectee over the other party.

The whole "Issues McCain faced with the Conservatives" line is simple denial. The rank and file can and are convinced to back any POS that gets the party nod. "He's a POS, but he's OUR POS!" You can't ask for better proof of this than the MORON that your party convinced you was the best man for the job.

Obviously you're unable to separate your point of view from an attempt at an objective review. You're certain Bush is a moron, you're certain that this was obvious in 2000, and by that logic none of the faults of McCain, like his support for "Campaign Finance Reform" (a weight still hanging around his neck in conservative circles) and his part in the theater of "get big tobacco" matter. 

Now, since McCain is running again, and conservitives are asking the very same "is he one of us" questions, you may want to reconsider.

The problem with that, obviously, is that these things did matter to the GOP primary voting base. I was there, it mattered to me, and it mattered to the people I worked with.

Yet your STILL insisting that he was the best choice in the entire Conservative nation in 1999?

Again, you're inventing quotes and a point of view for me. I didn't have the choice of "the entire Conservative nation", I had the choice between Bush and a suspect McCain that crossed the line one too many times with his Bush=Clinton ad.

You don't have to agree with me, just don't twist what I've said and don't accuse me of lying.

Clinton was actually a pretty good friend to the conservatives....

"Pretty good friend"? I'll agree Clinton wasn't a raging liberal as he's often caricatured (nor is Bush a moron, but that's for another thread), however, the big picture during the 1992 election was a draft dodger (his letter to the AK ROTC department will be with him forever in the minds of conservatives) who talked about gays in the military, universal healthcare and his first act in office was a massive tax hike..later he blamed the OKC bombing on talk radio.

There were plenty of reasons for conservatives to overlook his vote (over the objections of his party) for welfare reform and see him as a hyper-partisan from the other side.

Likewise, Nixon was actually quite liberal, but the liberals convinced the hoi poloi of his demonosity…

Nixon was no doctrinaire conservative (see wage and price controls), but he's spinning in his grave as we hear your "quite liberal" line. Vietnam?

You were sold a package of goods. And how did that come to happen? Bush Inc. had the organization! Mc Cain did not. The Bush team had the money, the Mc Cain team had less.

You're free to believe whatever overarching theory you like that says big hands behind the screen control everything and the individual (aside from you, of course) moves like a robot at their control. I don't share your view.

Now, I’m much more interested in your theory about Newt the neo-lib. Can you flesh that out?

[quote=babbling looney]

If former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) is on the 2008 ballot for President, 50% of that nation’s Likely Voters way they will definitely vote against him. That’s the highest total for any Presidential candidate. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats would definitely vote against Gingrich along with 51% of unaffiliated voters and 23% of Republicans.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Dailies /March%202007/Foragainstother20070319.htm

[/quote]

Whomit will find a way to push Newt around that, and he won't understand the significance of "would definitely vote against".

Newt's DOA, put what I find more interesting, and what Whomit doesn't seem to want to talk about, is just what policies make Newt a "neo-lib".

BTW, here's another line from that Time piece written in June 1999 that, I think, undermines the entire "annoitment" thing...

"If he does well, it's his. If he doesn't, he could fall so fast. You could have him on the cover in June--and never hear from him again," says Steve Merksamer, a top California strategist who is working for Forbes.

How could he fall if the party elite are all powerful?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]What would be nice though is if the L&O syndicators would release the earliest shows with Michael Moriority as the ADA, just because we haven't seen those eps in a very long time.[/quote]

We get 'em on Netflix.  At some point TV (sans commercials) began to be more appealing than film on the whole.

"Again, you're inventing quotes and a point of view for me. I didn't have the choice of "the entire Conservative nation", I had the choice between Bush and..."

And WHY didn't you have any other choice? You're "the people", why couldn't you stand up and say "HEY! This guy's a fricken ne'er do well MORON! Give us somebody who's good!"?

And once you resigned yourself to Bush being the one didn't you convince yourself that he was good enough (to say the least)?

 You can't have it both ways Mikebutler222. You can't say that it is not the party that chooses the candidate and say that you only had a choice between this one and that one. There were others who wanted to run in 1999, heck, everybody figured the White House was their's to lose in 1999. The country was so sick of the Clinton administration and the Republicans had run so strong in races up until then. PLEASE, your party screwed you by putting up the clearest class A jackass since Caligula made his horse a Senator of Rome! And why did they do that? Because they knew that he was dumb enough to think that he had come up with these ideas on his own!

"This from the guy who claimed I had said that neo-con "didn't exist", and a string of other things,"

To a guy who has repeatedly misquoted and misdirected and twisted and spun.

"I pointed out where I disagree with you about the 2000 season."

Again, if we're going to have to limit ourselves to what mikebutler222 knows we're going to be in for a mighty tiny world.

"What escaped your attention, however,  is the fact the article was written in June 1999, before McCain won the New Hampshire vote in Feb of 2000. "

When I said it contemporaneous that meant that it was from the time of. So, yeah, I knew it was from 1999, and perhaps you noticed that Bush didn't bother campaing in either Iowa or New Hampshire so it was no major magilla that he lost NH. They know Bush in New England! Daddy Bush was at a state fair in Maine just a few years before and he was practically alone in the tent there. The Bushes are not particularly popular in New England. Here's 1992 http://www.historycentral.com/elections/1992state.html

1996

http://www.historycentral.com/elections/1996state.html

2000

http://www.historycentral.com/elections/2000state.html

You'll notice that George H Bush lost all of everything north of West Virginia. George W took New Hampshire by only 6ish thousand votes and he LOST Maine. It was better that Bush didn't run in New Hampshire, if he tried and lost he'd be a loser, since he didn't run and he didn't win it was no harm no foul.

It's how you play the game called politics my brother!

The reason for the citation was to remind the skeptics of the overpowering lead that Bush had as a result of his organization. It was to remind the skeptic WHY we say that it's axiomatic that Bush had the backing of the party elite. To argue against that fact set is naive in the extreme.

" See above, New Hampshire, McCain won, the "party elite" whom you're certain have more power than the actual voters in the primaries, lost. Certainly having the party institution behind you is an advantage. OTOH, it isn’t enough to drive the voters, they have the final word."

What was the final word? The final word was what the party elite wanted it to be from the start. How is it that you can think there is no "cause" to that "effect"?

"Uh, the problem with your theory is that it should have worked the other way, with Bush supporters leaving him to join McCain after New Hampshire."

Yeah because Republican rank and files never do what the monied tell them to do! Regardless of whether it's in their own best interests.

"Now, when all's said and done, and the primaries are over, you can be assured that the party (either party) closes ranks and supports the selectee over the other party."

Figured that out by yourself, didja?

"(nor is Bush a moron, but that's for another thread), "

Yes, he IS! You can have that thread all to yourself. If you aren't convinced by now there is NO reason to discuss that issue.

"the big picture during the 1992 election was a draft dodger (his letter to the AK ROTC department will be with him forever in the minds of conservatives) "

HAW HAW HAW HAW! You still think that you can hunt with that dog? The conservatives lost that "moral high ground" when they nominated a draft dodging, duty shirking booze hound cocaine snorting MORON. And vilified a man who volunteered (for all the wrong reasons) and served his country in Viet Nam! AND they nominated a man who took FIVE deferments to keep from serving in the military for VEEP! The very same MAN who was the architect of the dismantling of the military because we were never going to have to fight a ground war ever again.

It just goes to show again that you will believe whatever your leaders tell you to. You work for Merrill Lynch, don't you?

"later he blamed the OKC bombing on talk radio. "

He was right! When G Gordon tells his listeners "When the AFT comes, don't aim for the body, aim for the head, they wear vests!" and "I teach my kids to shoot rifles by having them shoot at targets with Bill and Hillary's pictures on them." There's blood on those hands!

"Vietnam?"

Viet Nam was "Nixon's war" now? Sweet! LBJ JFK and Ike all thank you for finally settling that hot "potatoe"!

"I don't share your view."

Claro que si!

[quote=babbling looney]In addition Fred Thomposn is out polling Hillary, even with the Clinton machine behind her.[/quote]

Not a chance

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]"the big picture during the 1992 election was a draft dodger (his letter to the AK ROTC department will be with him forever in the minds of conservatives) "

HAW HAW HAW HAW! You still think that you can hunt with that dog? The conservatives lost that "moral high ground" when they nominated a draft dodging, duty shirking booze hound cocaine snorting MORON. And vilified a man who volunteered (for all the wrong reasons) and served his country in Viet Nam! AND they nominated a man who took FIVE deferments to keep from serving in the military for VEEP! The very same MAN who was the architect of the dismantling of the military because we were never going to have to fight a ground war ever again.[/quote]

That's very good.  I didn't want to vote for Kerry, but when Rove's worker demons tried to make the man with (2?) purple hearts look like a whiny faker, while we all knew George was in the guard snorting lines........  Somewhere, there's a special, very uncomfortable place for Karl Rove.

Wow!  What started out was a topic about potential presidential candidates ended up between a cross between a pssing contest and a chess game…conclusion:  it’s a tie!..but as yoda says, he who drinketh more liquids will outpss the other and he who makes last move and isn’t caught cheating --winner, he is.  It’s a tie; but both a winner in their own mind. <>

"Again, you're inventing quotes and a point of view for me. I didn't have the choice of "the entire Conservative nation", I had the choice between Bush and..."

And WHY didn't you have any other choice? You're "the people", why couldn't you stand up and say "HEY! This guy's a fricken ne'er do well MORON! Give us somebody who's good!"?

First believe it or not, not everyone shares your view that he's a moron. Many of us feel that label says more about the person saying it than it does about Bush. Seceondly, people run voluntarily, the party doesn't drag them against their will to run. Third, there WERE other choices. And finally, your attempt to change the subject from the fact that you invented a pov and a quote for me is just another example of your usual pattern.

And once you resigned yourself to Bush being the one didn't you convince yourself that he was good enough (to say the least)?

You continue to miss the point that I didn't resign myself, I chose him over the others in the field. I never asked you to agree with me, I simply gave you the facts behind my decision.

Notice how quickly you drop the objective routine to get to calling Bush a moron and saying people who chose him were duped.

You can't have it both ways Mikebutler222. You can't say that it is not the party that chooses the candidate and say that you only had a choice between this one and that one.

You've created a false choice. Just because the party doesn't chose the winner doesn't mean the individual voter, or even a block of them, can force people not in the contest to run.

There were others who wanted to run in 1999, heck, everybody figured the White House was their's to lose in 1999.

Name the people that wanted to run and didn't.

Also, do you have a link to a poll that says the Whitehouse was the GOP's to lose? When you asked me for a link to a poll that said Hillary and Obama trail most every GOPer in a head to head, I provided it and you dropped the subject.

PLEASE, your party screwed you by putting up the clearest class A jackass since Caligula ....

Very objective....

"This from the guy who claimed I had said that neo-con "didn't exist", and a string of other things,"

To a guy who has repeatedly misquoted and misdirected and twisted and spun.

Show me where that's so.

The best you have is "forced" which wasn't intended to be a quote to begin with, and for which I apologized. You’re repeatedly invented quotes and attributed points of view to me that I don’t hold.

"I pointed out where I disagree with you about the 2000 season."

Again, if we're going to have to limit ourselves to what mikebutler222 knows we're going to be in for a mighty tiny world.

What I "know"? We're talking opinion, and my opinion as a participant, something you weren't should surely count as much as your theorizing. “Know” assumes your opinion is somehow “fact”. You couldn’t possibly believe that, could you?

You know, on second thought, you're such a calls A horse's ass, you can continue this without me. I've had enough of your lunacy;

Newt could attract liberal voters....

AEI is a neo-con cross Thompson will have to bear but not one Sr. Fellow Newt has....

Edwards doesn’t have an organization…

And enough of you dodging the question of just what policies Newt supports that makes him a "neo-lib"..

Every time you’re asked to support these assertions you twist, shout, change the subject or just become even more of a horse’s @ss.

"What escaped your attention, however, is the fact the article was written in June 1999, before McCain won the New Hampshire vote in Feb of 2000. "

When I said it contemporaneous that meant that it was from the time of.

It was before the time of, and that doesn't change the fact that it was an opinion piece, and it was written before Bush lost N.H., thus ending the "anointment" fable.

So, yeah, I knew it was from 1999, and perhaps you noticed that Bush didn't bother campaing in either Iowa or New Hampshire so it was no major magilla that he lost NH.

I'm glad this is ending, because it's tiresome watching you just make up things where you're cornered.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/28/sunun u.cnn/index.html

Sununu said Bush is attempting to reach every New Hampshire voter. "This is the 'see me, touch me, feel me' campaigning at its best," he said.

BTW, Bush won the Iowa caucus in 2000. Sounds like he campaigned there enough.

" See above, New Hampshire, McCain won, the "party elite" whom you're certain have more power than the actual voters in the primaries, lost. Certainly having the party institution behind you is an advantage. OTOH, it isn’t enough to drive the voters, they have the final word."

What was the final word?

The final word was McCain blew it. He made the Bush = Clinton ad. He worked too hard to get the votes of non-Republicans at the open primaries. His burdens, the twins of supporting the Clinton administration’s opportunist attack on “big tobacco” and the 1st Amendment attack of “campaign finance reform” because too much baggage.

"Uh, the problem with your theory is that it should have worked the other way, with Bush supporters leaving him to join McCain after New Hampshire."

Yeah because Republican rank and files never do what the monied tell them to do! Regardless of whether it's in their own best interests.

Ahhhh, your objectivity shines through again...

"Now, when all's said and done, and the primaries are over, you can be assured that the party (either party) closes ranks and supports the selectee over the other party."

Figured that out by yourself, didja?

You really are a piece of work...

"(nor is Bush a moron, but that's for another thread), "

Yes, he IS! You can have that thread all to yourself. If you aren't convinced by now there is NO reason to discuss that issue.

I see, I have to be convinced. It isn't as if you start with an agenda or anything....

"the big picture during the 1992 election was a draft dodger (his letter to the AK ROTC department will be with him forever in the minds of conservatives) "

HAW HAW HAW HAW! You still think that you can hunt with that dog?

Well, facts have a way of winning out, and I've accurately described the view of Clinton that conservatives had/have.

The conservatives lost that "moral high ground" when….

More of your famous objectivity. Here's a line conservatives will never forget.... "I loath the military"....it was a rallying cry in 1992 and 1996.

And vilified a man who volunteered (for all the wrong reasons) and served his country in Viet Nam!

Just who vilified whom? Never mind, I won't be responding....

The very same MAN who was the architect of the dismantling of the military because we were never going to have to fight a ground war ever again.

You still dragging up that lie? The Berlin wall, the military downsized. They cut back. Clinton came into office and dismembered what was left.

It just goes to show again that you will believe whatever your leaders tell you to. You work for Merrill Lynch, don't you?

Let's see, we disagree about the 2000 primary, I was there, you weren't. We disagree about the downsizing of the military, I was there, you weren't. Yeah, that's it, I simply believe what I've been told by my "leaders".

Is it lonely being the only person on the planet that thinks for themselves?

"later he blamed the OKC bombing on talk radio. "

He was right!

Yeah, Liddy told people to bomb the OKC government building. That's the ticket...

"Vietnam?"

Viet Nam was "Nixon's war" now? Sweet! LBJ JFK and Ike all thank you for finally settling that hot "potatoe"!

If you're going to call Nixon a liberal, you'll have to explain why he continued the war LBJ handed him. Surely a liberal would have ended it immediately

I guess that fact escaped you.

"I don't share your view."

Claro que si!

You are not only a loon, you're a genuinely unpleasant person. There’s just no reason to continue to make the effort this requires.

Sorry, Joe, probably no more colors from me...

[quote=Big Taco][That's very good.  I didn't want to vote for Kerry, but when Rove's worker demons tried to make the man with (2?) purple hearts look like a whiny faker, while we all knew George was in the guard snorting lines........  Somewhere, there's a special, very uncomfortable place for Karl Rove.[/quote]

You can pretend these guys were in Rove's employ, but that ignores the fact that they as a group, had a beef with John (Christmas in Chambodia) Kerry dating back to activities with the anti-war movement.

They felt he slurring US troops in Vietnam. John O'Neill, the guy that started the group, had been debating Kerry on the subject as far back as the 1970s. Hard to tie Rove into that.

[quote=Big Taco]

[quote=babbling looney]In addition Fred Thomposn is out polling Hillary, even with the Clinton machine behind her.[/quote]

Not a chance

[/quote]

What do you mean? Not a chance that the polls say that now, or not a chance that will be the case in 2008?

[quote=Big Taco][quote=Whomitmayconcer]"the big picture during the 1992 election was a draft dodger (his letter to the AK ROTC department will be with him forever in the minds of conservatives) "

HAW HAW HAW HAW! You still think that you can hunt with that dog? The conservatives lost that "moral high ground" when they nominated a draft dodging, duty shirking booze hound cocaine snorting MORON. And vilified a man who volunteered (for all the wrong reasons) and served his country in Viet Nam! AND they nominated a man who took FIVE deferments to keep from serving in the military for VEEP! The very same MAN who was the architect of the dismantling of the military because we were never going to have to fight a ground war ever again.[/quote]

That's very good.  I didn't want to vote for Kerry, but when Rove's worker demons tried to make the man with (2?) purple hearts look like a whiny faker, while we all knew George was in the guard snorting lines........  Somewhere, there's a special, very uncomfortable place for Karl Rove.

[/quote]

Are you talking about the ill-gotten Purple Hearts that the coward got for shooting himself in the foot? Yes. I said it...he's a coward. John Kerry didn't serve his country, he served himself.

Crap! My computer ate my response!

It was good and snarky too! The gist was that I'm sorry to see the Mikebutler222 doesn't think he's up to the task. I guess when someone takes away his bag of rhetorical sleight of hand, he doesn't want to play any more.

Then I said something like: Let me show you where you first went wrong, right in the very beginning [quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

What the Dems ought to do is get behind the single issue of taking on the Banks! [/quote]

Standard Democrat playbook; play on the economic illiteracy of the average voter, put the word "BIG" before "banking" (see oil and tobacco examples), and roll on from there....

[/quote]

Your point being?

[/quote]

That it’s mindless demagoguery that persuades no one not already in the party’s column.

[/quote]

Which just went to show that you can't/won't grasp the concept that the party can will convince you of whatever they want you to believe.

It's naive to think that "the other side does that, but we don't".

Then I went on to explain again how even if there were people who didn't know that GWBush was a moron before the primaries, the people who were backing him sure as heck did! Smart people are able to know when they're talking to a dumbass. You (No mikebutler222 I don't mean just specifically you, mikebutler222, you. I mean the generic you. I'm not trying to create a line of reasoning for you) know when you're talking to someone who's eyes glaze over as you try to make it simpler and simpler until you find the spot where they are clear, then you try to talk at that level.

Then I said a few things about mikebutler222's bag of rhetorical tricks and how, if he found me unpleasant, maybe he at least give me credit for not being as cranky as I could have got given the level of prevarication, misdirection, misattribution, disunderstanding, non linear argumentation, attempted tangentialization and outright mendacious calumny, aimed at me by him things went fairly well.

It was good. Too bad it's gone. I guess it didn't have the stones either.

[quote=mikebutler222]

JOE, the Blue’s for you, pal.

[quote=apprentice]

I’m preparing for the worst - 8 years of Hillary.  Fill the freezer with cash, grow my own garden for food, get a permit to own a gun, keep the pick-up truck full of gas (along with a small 500 gallon barrel of gasolin in my back yard).

We are seeing the future of our 'democrat' lead country by how they're reacting (not) to the hostages from the UK.  Iran is flexing their small muscles - and the dems are trying to fire Alberto G.

Can't you boys just get along and play nice?  And write less lengthy posts....way too lengthy. 

"John Kerry didn't serve his country, he served himself. "

Like I said "for all the wrong reasons". BUT, he was there. He put his life on the line. He served.

Perhaps you've read the book Catch 22 ? It's a stroy by a guy who served his country in WWII but that experience didn't prevent him fom writing a scathing Anti War/ Anti Military book.

In it the protagonist, Yosarian, has a realtively safe job as a bombadier (relative to an infantryman his position was safer) and yet hespends the entire book trying to get out of the service. He goes for the old "section 8" (insanity) which he couldn't get because of catch 22 whichsays you must be crazy to get out of the army but if you want to get out of the army it's proof positive that you're rational so you can't get out of the army.

Point being that if you got to Nam and they started trying to kill you and you wanted to get out, you're normal. If you want to stay, you're going Private Gomer Pyle!

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"John Kerry didn't serve his country, he served himself. "

Like I said "for all the wrong reasons". BUT, he was there. He put his life on the line. He served.

Perhaps you've read the book Catch 22 ? It's a stroy by a guy who served his country in WWII but that experience didn't prevent him fom writing a scathing Anti War/ Anti Military book.

In it the protagonist, Yosarian, has a realtively safe job as a bombadier (relative to an infantryman his position was safer) and yet hespends the entire book trying to get out of the service. He goes for the old "section 8" (insanity) which he couldn't get because of catch 22 whichsays you must be crazy to get out of the army but if you want to get out of the army it's proof positive that you're rational so you can't get out of the army.

Point being that if you got to Nam and they started trying to kill you and you wanted to get out, you're normal. If you want to stay, you're going Private Gomer Pyle!

[/quote]

His behavior after he came home cancels out anything "good" that he did while there.

zzzzzzzzzz…

[quote=joedabrkr]You raise an interesting point about the Dems completely ignoring Iran's recent hijinks.  Pretty disturbing example of their potential "leadership style".
[/quote]

I'm ready for ANY leadership style that's different from what we've had for 7 years. (notice I'm not even hoping for "better").

Yer doin' a great job, Brownie.

Extra! Extra!

Read all about it!

Thompson says he's running! Thompson says He's running!

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Thompson-2008.html?hp

Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson on Sunday joined the crowded field of Republicans running for the White House in 2008. ''I am the reliable conservative,'' he asserted.

Huh? Tommy? Oh..... nevermind.

Meanwhile in another part of town...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/washington/01adviser.html? hp

Ex-Aide Says He’s Lost Faith in Bush

A top strategist for the Texas Democrats who was disappointed by the Bill Clinton years, Mr. Dowd was impressed by the pledge of Mr. Bush, then governor of Texas, to bring a spirit of cooperation to Washington. He switched parties, joined Mr. Bush’s political brain trust and dedicated the next six years to getting him to the Oval Office and keeping him there. In 2004, he was appointed the president’s chief campaign strategist.

I guess the switch didn't stick!

Wow.



A politico who didn’t like Clinton and now doesn’t like Bush. And the Times

got the scoop.



Imagine that.

[quote=Philo Kvetch]Wow.

A politico who didn't like Clinton and now doesn't like Bush. And the Times
got the scoop.

Imagine that.[/quote]

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/ web/vortex/display?slug=money02&date=20070402

Hillary leads in the money race.

Last I saw (earlier today) she also lead in New Hampshire followed by Edwards who is riding a "What a nice guy" wave in re his wife's condition. Obama is third and that ain't lookin good for him. I think the bloom is off his lilly.

As to the GOP Nums http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/ne w_hampshire_republican_primary-193.html#polls

Rudy has a lead but if you add Thompson he spoilers Rudy for nearly 10 pts and McCain takes the lead. You can't say it's a very strong showing for Thompson, but it's interesting that the Fake NYC prosecutor takes the most votes from the real one. Perhaps there isn't room enough for 2 NYers... oh wait... is that Tommy Thompson or Freddie? It must be Freddie, because it was up until 3/22, and Tommy announced on Friday(?) the 30th(?).

Yes, I know Newt is nowhere to be seen on that poll, but you will note that he made the news lately. Not for something that seems to be a "good thing" among the left of the Dems but a good solid middle of the country agree that we ought to speak english here.

I signed up for the Newt Website, the level of vitriol that came in the other Right Wing Nutjob e-mails is comical. Is that all the right has is hate speech to recommend them? Before you say "it's the same from the left!" No, it isn't. Not nearly so! I've seen it, I've read it and I know the authors, they're too interested in "seeing both sides" to be as vitriolic as these folks.

I'd put up examples, but I deregistered myself from all but the Newt letters (which are no great prize either, but then, he thinks he's sending it to a member of the choir!).

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

 Is that all the right has is hate speech to recommend them? Before you say "it's the same from the left!" No, it isn't. Not nearly so! I've seen it, I've read it and I know the authors, they're too interested in "seeing both sides" to be as vitriolic as these folks.

[/quote]

ZZZZZZZZZ…

Whom:

Right WING, Newt is what? Provide some facts… Often the Libs like to just throw out some things and what sticks they like.



Liberal LEFT is what?



MITTTTTTTT IS THE MAN! Good luck to Bill Clinton… I guess Obama is going to take them the distance. Then Mitt, who has already implemented a state health plan, has a wife with a serious illness, married for 40 years, saved the UTAH olympics, previous head of governors, looks like a president, has national and international connections, cuts taxes and budgets is going to be the next president…



As for Bush he’s out in two years, so get over it man!

Got a coherent question in there somewhere there Roger Ramjet?

Mitt Romney isn't polling in the double digits anywhere. He's getting beat by guys who aren't even running.

"Often the Libs like to just throw out some things and what sticks they like. "

That won't stick, but does your throwing it make you a pinko leftie sob?

Most of the military love President Bush.

We don't have a good candidate pool - maybe Gore should consider dropping his hat in the ring again.

What's so special about Newt again?

McCain might do a good job.

Edwards might do a good job but he's way behind in the polls.

There are hundreds if not thousands of people in this country who are

competent enough to do an exemplary job as POTUS. But with that

competence comes the knowledge that these very people don’t want

anything to do with the job.

"Most of the military love President Bush."

Talk about voting against your vested interest!

Philo,

Yes, this is true.

The other day someone asked me if I would run for mayor of this city.... NO!

How about we make you the honorary Prez of the forum since you speak with such knowledge and authority.  Hail to the Chief! 

So you think Newt is the best candidate?

I think Newt's running. I think it will come down to Newt v. Clinton.

If it does, I'd be more inclined to go Newt than Hillary.

I think Newt is the one to watch because Newt has a strategy and it's always worth watching the guy who has planned, to see where it went right and where it went wrong.

I think that watching Newt and watching the Republicans who now bash Newt will be interesting, because they will eventually turn into Newt supporters and it will be funny to watch them phumph all over theirselves as they try to justify it.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

I think that watching Newt and watching the Republicans who now bash Newt will be interesting, because they will eventually turn into Newt supporters and it will be funny to watch them phumph all over theirselves as they try to justify it.

[/quote]

You just don't get it, but you are fun to watch. Newt is a conservative, a neo-con (Senior Fellow at AEI), the kind of Southern pol who gets support from the likes of James Dobson. He's the anti-Christ to liberals and N.E. GOPers (his name only recently replaced in that role by Karl Rove). He has as much appeal with them as genital herpes. Every single poll shows that in spades.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Conservatives "bash" him, while they agree with him on most every subject (you haven’t heard any conservative or Republican here “bash” him on issues), as a presidential candidate because his "I'd sooner have my sister work in a brothel than vote for" numbers are the only ones that rival Hillary's. He’s a completely unviable candidate in a general election, so he will not will the nomination. Period, full stop, end of story.

Now, should the Earth start rotating in the opposite direction, and by some freak happenstance Newt should face Hillary in the general election, I’d happily cast my vote for him, with no need to “phumph” or anything else.

[quote=jokeriswild]

Most of the military love President Bush.

[/quote]

You're right, they do. They're closest to the mission and they support it. Then again, they're not smart enough to know about their "best interests", just ask or resident expert, he'll tell you.

 I'd be more inclined to go Newt than Hillary

I'd be more inclined to vote for anyone than Hillary.

I'm about as likely to elected Queen of the World than Newt is to be the candidate for the Republican party.  Don't you remember, I said we want to win.

babbling looney - you’re not being fair.  Hillary deserves to be president - it’s her right.  She’s worked hard and has put up with a loser husband - soley for this job.  It’s not right for you to minimize this dream of hers.  It’s not about our country, or the people - it’s all about her.  Plus - she needs a new reason to go out and buy some new pant-suits.

"Yet as the numbers were tallied and Republicans found themselves staring at a $27 million gap, it was clear that the disparity between the two parties this spring was about more than money."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05assess.html? hp

Gee, whom was it that said there were problems in the Republican fund raising efforts?

"Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans seem to want to annoint a candidate before they hit the primary scene. The problem with this is that there are too many Republicans that figure that running AGAINST the party has a better chance of being a successful strategy. Second problem being that it looks like a party in disarray and so political donations are going towards the winning party, and it looks more and moore like that's the case when the Republicans can't even get a candidate put together. (Again, I'm just talking about the politics of it, not the emotion.)" Gee, that sounds like something I would say!

 And which was it that pooh poohed that assertion as a misunderstanding of the process?

"I think you misunderstand how donations work. They go to the most likely winning candidate of the party the giver finds like-minded to their own philosophy. Edwards could look like a landslide favorite, he’s not getting the money of people who believe in business and capital."

Hmmmm! I wonder!

Whom wisely retorted thusly?

"You keep thinking that, if it helps you sleep at night. The philosophy of business is "don't let politics get in the way of making friends in high places."

Probably whom you thought it was.

Which one was it that vomiturated this gem?

"If you say so……in the mean time I’ll just keep track of things like contributions from places like the US Chamber of Commerce."

See? I only put words into the mouths they came out of. I don't feel any need to create strawmen.

It is a good thing to know the difference between data and determination. Some folks take what they don't know and try to find the foctoid that will disprove it. Others are more willing to weigh factors to arrive at a logical conclusion.

Yet another in a long stream of lengthy non-sequitars.

" He's the anti-Christ to liberals and N.E. GOPers (his name only recently replaced in that role by Karl Rove)."

I'm not sure where you are from (my impression based on your comments to me about not knowing the south is that you are a southerner) and so I can't be sure what you do and do not know about N.E. GOPers or Liberals in general or specific.

I will tell you that the other evening when I went to help the lady next door we sat down for a while and talked politics. This is a semi elderly black woman who lives alone and will call me to vent about what "they're doing now!". Point being she's a bona fide big D democrat! Without any prompting from me, she said "I like Newt! He's SMART! He uses his brain."

I don't disagree that Newt has an image problem. I never have disagreed with that. What I keep saying and the rightists on this thread keep ignoring is that Newt is no dummy, he knows he has the image problem and yet here he is, running (probably won't formally announce till Fall). Why don't you think he has plotted out a way to overcome his image problem?

Newt has been working on this for 10 years. Newt came out with the Ghetto talk line at a very opportune time. He's playing the media like a fine violin. It's captivating to watch. Newt is back on CNN, when was the last time you saw this guy anywhere (aside from the "I was having an affair at the time")? And now, here he is.

Joe Biden can't get arrested and here's Newt, not only making a "gaffe" but getting to explain and not get slammed like Biden did.

I really don't care if you like Newt or not, not watching him this election season is going to be like having front row seats at Ali Fraiser and watching the ref for the whole fight. 

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Show of hands, everyone/anyone.  If you like, feel free to support your answers.

Who thinks;

1) The success in fund raising in the last quarter enjoyed by the Democrats is anything more than excitement about Obama coupled with the usual motivation felt by the party that’s been out of the Whitehouse for two terms?

2) That the success in fund raising last quarter enjoyed by Democrats means the GOP is at a material disadvantage in the general election to be held 19 months from now.

3) That the money advantage in fund raising right now has nothing to do with the Democrats getting an early, excited start, and everything to do with money flowing to the party not in “disarray” and looking like a prohibitive favorite to win in 2008.

4) That every poll showing Hillary and Obama losing to most every potential GOP nominee in a general election match up are all wrong, and shouldn’t be used to undermine the “money flowing to the winning party” theory expressed in #3.

5) That “Two Americas” Democrat John Edwards is going to be the campaign donation favorite of people who support capitalism?

6) That Newt appeals to liberals and disaffected N.E. “Rockefeller” GOP types or is anything other than the Southern conservative neo-con that he’s always been.

7) That the GOP “elites” can get the gullible rank and file to vote for anyone, issues and background be damned.

8) That the Democrats are different than suggested in #5.

9) That the GOP field of potential nominees will be “running against” the GOP.

10) If you answered “yes” to #9, who is doing that right now?

ZZZZZZZZ.....

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

" He's the anti-Christ to liberals and N.E. GOPers (his name only recently replaced in that role by Karl Rove)."

I'm not sure where you are from ....

[/quote]

I can read polls. Show me one that contradicts what I've said...

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

 What I keep saying and the rightists on this thread keep ignoring is that Newt is no dummy, he knows he has the image problem and yet here he is, running (probably won't formally announce till Fall). Why don't you think he has plotted out a way to overcome his image problem? [/quote]

Newt has a history involving an “image problem” and smart as he is, he’s never solved it;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich

Newt inflicted a temporary blow to his public image by seeming to suggest that the Republican hard-line stance over the budget was in part due to his feeling "snubbed" by the President the day before following his return from Yitzhak Rabin's funeral in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Israel. Gingrich was lampooned in the media as a petulant figure with an inflated self-image, and editorial cartoons depicted him as having thrown a temper tantrum. Democratic leaders took the opportunity to attack Gingrich's motives for the budget standoff, and some say the shutdown might have contributed to Clinton's re-election in November 1996.[21][22]

By 1998, Gingrich had become a highly visible and polarizing figure in the public's eye, making him an easy target for Democratic congressional candidates across the nation.[citation needed] In 1997 a strong majority of Americans believed Gingrich should have been replaced as Speaker of the House, and he held an all-time low job approval rating of 28%.[25] During this period, Gingrich was at the forefront of Republican calls for the investigation and impeachment of President Clinton for committing perjury by lying under oath during the Lewinsky scandal,[citation needed] and he focused on the perjury charges as a unifying campaign theme in national Republican advertising. Republicans did not focus on the tryst itself but rather the perjurious statements made by the President in connection with the incident. Democratic candidates in races across the country targeted Gingrich specifically during the campaign season.[citation needed]

He sometimes serves as a commentator, guest or panel member on television news shows, mostly on the Fox News Channel. He is listed as a contributor by Fox News Channel, and frequently appears as a guest on the channel; he has also hosted occasional specials for the Fox News Channel. (more liberal love to come with that tag)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070405/ap_on_el_pr/gingrich2008 _1

Gingrich clarifies 'ghetto' word choice

By KASIE HUNT, Associated Press Writer 4 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is mulling a presidential bid, said his "word choice was poor" when he equated bilingual education with "the language of living in a ghetto."

Yep, that’s going to endear him to Latino voters and liberals. It really demonstrates “change” on his part.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

I really don't care if you like Newt or not……

[/quote]

You’re still confused. I don’t dislike Newt, he simply stands zero chance of getting the nomination. Also, I simply don’t find your theory that he’s something different than he’s always been or that he has an appeal to liberals or N.E. GOPers convincing. In fact, other than you repeating it, you’ve offered no real evidence to support it.

"6) That Newt appeals to liberals and disaffected N.E. “Rockefeller” GOP types or is anything other than the Southern conservative neo-con that he’s always been."

The very fact that I AM the person you refer to here and that I DO find Newt appealing refutes your point.

"I really don't care if you like Newt or not……"

"You’re still confused. I don’t dislike Newt...."

Please, I'll say my words, you say your words. STOP putting words into other people's mouths! I'm NOT confused, I don't CARE if you like him or not!

I still find it amusing that you think you know more about politics than Newt Gingrich! You think you know what he's doing better than he does and you know more about what his strategies are than he does.

Meanwhile, all you've shown is that you know nothing, as evidenced by the line of  "non sequitars" in re: campaign fund raising.

Maybe what you ought to try to do, and I say this because it would be a good practice in this business as well, is to assume that the market is trying to tell you something, and then figure out what that is.

In this case, "the market" is Newt's candidacy. Maybe Newt isn't stupid, maybe Newt is smart. Maybe Newt knew that saying "Language of the ghetto" would get him coverage. Maybe he knew that this is an issue that, while dangerous, is one that most people agree upon.

Occasionally, I used to run into first generation Italian women who never learned to speak english. But their children did! And their husband did! And they spoke english in the house!

There's not a whole lot of people who are going to disagree, at a gut level with the idea that people ought to speak english. There ARE more people who could disagree with the idea of eliminating ESL programs in the schools, but few would be willing to make a huge deal of it. There is a predisposition among people to believe that if kids were forced to speak english, they would and ESL just coddles them.

Given this, Newt picked out a seemingly explosive but actually very safe position. He gets media coverage without any actual damage.

Assume he knows what he's doing. Maybe he doesn't, but that's not too likely.

Whom..yawn-yawn....itmayconcern - I think you deserve the big, 'zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz'

mikebutler222 - based on your 10 points, you must be a closet political analyst - great post!

This: "mikebutler222 - based on your 10 points, you must be a closet political analyst - great post!"

Is why

This: " Whom..yawn-yawn....itmayconcern - I think you deserve the big, 'zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz'"

Is of zero consequence.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

"6) That Newt appeals to liberals and disaffected N.E. “Rockefeller” GOP types or is anything other than the Southern conservative neo-con that he’s always been."

The very fact that I AM the person you refer to here and that I DO find Newt appealing refutes your point. [/quote]

Note I used the plural version of the word “liberal”….

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]  

“I really don’t care if you like Newt or not……”

"You’re still confused. I don’t dislike Newt...."

Please, I'll say my words, you say your words. STOP putting words into other people's mouths! I'm NOT confused, I don't CARE if you like him or not! [/quote]

I didn’t come close to putting words in your mouth. You brought up the issue of me disliking Newt, so I responded to it. You made the same weird sort of argument about GOPer’s fulminating about Newt earlier.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

I still find it amusing that you think you know more about politics than Newt Gingrich![/quote]

That’s a funny way of trying to refute the evidence I’ve brought about Newt, his standings in the polls, his past missteps with the press and public.  

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Meanwhile, all you've shown is that you know nothing, as evidenced by the line of  "non sequitars" in re: campaign fund raising.

[/quote]

Well, I guess I’m just no match for the political strategy genius who sees Newt wowing liberals and disaffected N.E. GOPers….

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Maybe what you ought to try to do, and I say this because it would be a good practice in this business as well, is to assume that the market is trying to tell you something, and then figure out what that is.

In this case, "the market" is Newt's candidacy. [/quote]

Yep, and the best indicators of this market are the polls.  Just what do the polls say about Newt? How about Newt and liberals?

In this case, "the market" is Newt's candidacy.

Are you saying we should short Newt? or short the market?

[quote=babbling looney]

In this case, "the market" is Newt's candidacy.

Are you saying we should short Newt? or short the market?

[/quote]

I think I'm saying short Newt's candidacy, but frankly, it's selling for close to zero now.  <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Sounds like you’re saying:  “take a short trip to the market for fig newtons”.  Is that correct?

"You brought up the issue of me disliking Newt, so I responded to it."

NO! I did NOT bring up the issue of you disliking Newt, I brought up the issue of not caring whether ANYONE liked or disliked Newt.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"You brought up the issue of me disliking Newt, so I responded to it."

NO! I did NOT bring up the issue of you disliking Newt, I brought up the issue of not caring whether ANYONE liked or disliked Newt.

[/quote]

Right, that’s it…and the point of you caring or not caring about something you weren't implying  someone else did or felt would be what, exactly?<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Nah, you didn’t mean to leave “dislike” hanging in the air. In fact, you never raised the issue at all….

[quote=apprentice]Sounds like you're saying:  "take a short trip to the market for fig newtons".  Is that correct?[/quote]

Correct. In fact, I recommend a round-trip to the market for fig newtons. 

"That’s a funny way of trying to refute the evidence I’ve brought about Newt, his standings in the polls, his past missteps with the press and public. "

In typical "the grass is greener than 9" logic mikebutler222 ducks the question again.

"Well, I guess I’m just no match for the political strategy genius who sees Newt wowing liberals and disaffected N.E. GOPers…."

And again he's afraid to answer the question.

"Yep, and the best indicators of this market are the polls.  Just what do the polls say about Newt? How about Newt and liberals?"

First, it's always amusing to see how polls are the be all and end all when you want them to be and yet when they go against your opinion it's 'Yeah, right, polls like they mean anything!'

Second, I appologize, I thought you were a person who had the brain power to conceptualize. My bad.

I'd try to dumb it down enough for you but I learned long ago that when there is no capacity to comprehend, there is no ability to comprehend, regardless of the simplicity. And then there is the question of "why bother?" if you can't conceptualize, then why would I care about what "insights" you're able to generate?

'Yawn'itmayconcern - chill.  Life is good - don't stress us all out with the rants. 

Other than global warming - there's nothing to worry about.

I'm sorry, grasshopper, I just find it annoying when someone lies as Mikebutler222 does.

I find it especially distasteful in a profession based chat room such as this one. If Mikebutler222 is so very dishonest in his conversations, how can he expect to be respected? The only way he knows how, by lying some more and hoping that folks like you will believe him.

[quote=apprentice]

'Yawn'itmayconcern - chill.  Life is good - don't stress us all out with the rants. 

Other than global warming - there's nothing to worry about.

[/quote]

Well there is this: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010907.html

or this: http://www.neatorama.com/2007/04/04/tiger-fish-another-reaso n-not-to-swim-in-the-congo-river/

"That’s a funny way of trying to refute the evidence I’ve brought about Newt, his standings in the polls, his past missteps with the press and public. "<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

In typical "the grass is greener than 9" logic mikebutler222 ducks the question again.

I ducked nothing, your comment was pointless, unsupported and didn't address the facts (those would be the things I provided, polls, his history of missteps, etc..).

"Well, I guess I’m just no match for the political strategy genius who sees Newt wowing liberals and disaffected N.E. GOPers…."

And again he's afraid to answer the question.

There was no question, but since you brought up the subject of dodging, how's 'bout you answer some of mine that you've been dancing around? I asked you before for poll numbers on Newt, about specific "neo-lib" positions he's taken, etc.. All simple things, things you could provide, instead you dance around them.

Failing that, I had a post earlier that had 11-12 questions, you could take a shot at those, if they didn't put you too far into deep REM...

 "Yep, and the best indicators of this market are the polls.  Just what do the polls say about Newt? How about Newt and liberals?"

First, it's always amusing to see how polls are the be all and end all when you want them to be and yet when they go against your opinion it's 'Yeah, right, polls like they mean anything!'

Nice dance, and strawman, but what about those polls?

Second, I appologize, I thought you were a person who had the brain power to conceptualize. My bad.

LOL, so if I agree with your laughable, wholly unsupported assertions, about Newt and his appeal to liberals and disaffected N.E. GOPers I can "conceptualize". I think by “conceptualize” you really mean to say “share in the delusion”.

BTW, what about those polls?

I'd try to dumb it down enough for you ..

You know, you really should put down your condescension applicator, you’re not qualified to use it. You’re not wiser than anyone here, sonny. You’re spouting gibberish and having a melt-down anytime anyone asks a question about your grand theory.

 I’ve tried to be gentle with you on this subject, but your refusal to provide any real support for your claims accompanied by your over-the-top asininities have killed any chance of that going forward. From now on you’re just a source of amusement, the guy yammering to himself at the bus stop about nonsensical things.

I’ve seen you make a fool of yourself here before on a number of issues, but you’ve set a new standard of lunacy coupled with arrogance that may well go unmatched in the annuls of internet bulletin board buffoonery. You've offered up perhaps the most bizarre bit of political theorizing ever produced, and anyone who disagrees comes in for the wrath of the loon. Pretty funny stuff.

Newt and his appeals to liberals will make him the GOP nominee. Right, and Frances the talking mule will be the next Speaker of the House…..

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

I'm sorry, grasshopper, I just find it annoying when someone lies as Mikebutler222 does.

[/quote]

"Lies"? Me?

You're engaging in projection, pal.

There you go again.

A person who tells lies is a liar. You tell lies and therefore, you are a liar.

"LOL, so if I agree with your laughable, wholly unsupported assertions, about Newt and his appeal to liberals and disaffected N.E. GOPers I can "conceptualize"

Here's one now.

No the "conceptualization" that I refer to is the idea that maybe Newt knows what he's doing. This has nothing to do with what I think other than the very rational thought that over the ten years that Newt has been thinking of this run, that he has worked out a strategy. I. me and my ideas are out of this conceptualization. I ask you to accept nothing of what I say. I only aksed that you think for a moment that Newt has a plan.

You can't even do that. Why? Because you are too busy trying to keep your web of lies together. Why? Because you are a pathological liar. I have seen your work here before and I know your MO. You lie and then you repeat the lie again and again and again until the person you are lying about bores with trying to set the record straight. And then you assume that, since he's not denying it, it must be true!

Perhaps you are so deluded that you believe your own lies. It makes them no more true.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

There you go again.

A person who tells lies is a liar. You tell lies and therefore, you are a liar.

[/quote]

The internet board comment of "seek professional help" is often a cliché, but in your case, it's genuinely applicable.

Here's another one, and an example of the "assume that since he's not denying it it must be true" BS to boot.

"I asked you before for poll numbers on Newt, about specific "neo-lib" positions he's taken, etc.. All simple things, things you could provide, instead you dance around them."

I'm not dancing around them. I have repeatedly said that I agree that newt is nowhere in the poll numbers yet. I have repeatedly said that Newt is running his own campaign in his own way, and I have repeatedly said the idea here is to keep an eye on Newt because his plan will become clearer as his strategy unfolds. I have also said that I could be wrong, and that Newt may be running as the rabbit to distract the attention from the other candidates so that they may have a primary season without much public bashing.

I don't go doing your homework for you in re Newt's positions. I know that Newt has been on traditionally Liberal meia outlets and that he has been generally well received in those appearances. I showed you counterintuitive praise for Newt from people who you claim hate him.

Meanwhile, I don't disagree with you that Newt is a piraha(?) among liberals, but as he unveils his strategem it is probable (given that he has gone out of his way to build a cornerstone of a foundation among Liberals) that (given the low expectations most lafties have of him) he will be seen by a significant number of people as someone who can "bridge the gap".

That's all the evidence I choose to give you here and now. Why? Firstly because I don't want to get into a "he's better because...." discussion. As I said from the beginning of this forum, the idea was to observe the process. That's what I am doing. You (as in you mikebutler222) want (to decide who wins and why) (no, that's too deep for you to grasp the meaning of) want to discuss the most probable outcome and why all other outcomes are invalid.

I'm looking at the process (although I do admit that I have taken the bait sometimes)  you are only interested in the result.

Guy's like you are the reason we have so many laws in this country. You're the kind of "thinker" that thinks 'This is the problem? Pass a law against doing that! Problem solved!'  It's very "Hunter Gatherer" in it's lower function hardwiring.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"LOL, so if I agree with your laughable, wholly unsupported assertions, about Newt and his appeal to liberals and disaffected N.E. GOPers I can "conceptualize"

Here's one now.

No the "conceptualization" that I refer to is the idea that maybe Newt knows what he's doing. [/quote]

That's a "lie" on your planet? The fact that I find your wholly unsupported theory that Newt is no longer the anti-Christ to liberals and disaffected N.E. GOPers laughable? The fact that you’ve yet to provide evidence that he’s anything more than he’s always been, a Southern conservative Senior Fellow at the AEI, the guy who gets props from James Dobson and is the embodiment to liberals of the nightmare that was the Clinton impeachment?

That makes me a liar?

Pal, you’re certifiable….

So he has a plan. So what, everyone in the race has a plan. Newt had a plan when he was House Speaker, it didn’t stop him from allowing Clinton to make the shutdown of the Federal government all about him and some alleged snub he felt at being asked to leave AF 1 via the backdoor. It didn’t stop him from misjudging how the press and the public would react to his comments about bringing back orphanages or stop him from recently losing the message that all immigrants should learn English by foolishly using the word “ghetto”.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] This has nothing to do with what I think other than the very rational thought that over the ten years that Newt has been thinking of this run, that he has worked out a strategy. I. me and my ideas are out of this conceptualization. I ask you to accept nothing of what I say. I only aksed that you think for a moment that Newt has a plan. [/quote]

You and your ideas have done nothing to support your claims about Newt and his liberal appeal.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] You can't even do that. Why? Because you are too busy trying to keep your web of lies together. Why? Because you are a pathological liar. [/quote]

Here we go again. I point out there’s no “there” there in your claims, that nothing quantifiable supports them and that every available shred of evidence refutes them, and that makes me a liar.

Wow…

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] I have seen your work here before and I know your MO. You lie and then you repeat the lie again and again and again until the person you are lying about bores with trying to set the record straight. And then you assume that, since he's not denying it, it must be true!

Perhaps you are so deluded that you believe your own lies. It makes them no more true.

[/quote]

You’re one twisted little fella….that’s just clinical insanity being displayed there….

There you go again.

A person who tells lies is a liar. You tell lies and therefore, you are a liar.

The internet board comment of "seek professional help" is often a cliché, but in your case, it's genuinely applicable.

There goes another one! Taking something that is obvious correct and claim that it is obviously incoorect is another one of your pervaricatious lies.

You lie mikebutler222, it's a shame, you should be ashamed, but it's true. You tell lies, and people who tell lies are liars.

There you go some more!

"That's a "lie" on your planet? The fact that I find your wholly unsupported theory that Newt is no longer the anti-Christ to liberals and disaffected N.E. GOPers laughable? The fact that you’ve yet to provide evidence that he’s anything more than he’s always been, a Southern conservative Senior Fellow at the AEI, the guy who gets props from James Dobson and is the embodiment to liberals of the nightmare that was the Clinton impeachment?"

When some one says "x" and you say that he said "p", that's a misunderstanding (maybe).

When the person then says "No, I said 'x'!" and you say 'he said 'p'!"

That's a mistatement of fact. A deliberate mistatement of fact is a lie. Period end of post! 

You and your ideas have done nothing to support your claims about Newt and his liberal appeal.

This is a mistatement of the facts, and that is a lie.

My quote clearly states that I am not asking you to accept anything I said.  Your reply only deals with what you think of what I have said.

Further it's a lie because I have shown where Newt's positions have been accepted by some Liberals.

Face it! You are an inveterate, incorrigable liar, who lies and lies and then lies some more!

Have a nice holiday.

I'm out.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Here's another one, and an example of the "assume that since he's not denying it it must be true" BS to boot.

"I asked you before for poll numbers on Newt, about specific "neo-lib" positions he's taken, etc.. All simple things, things you could provide, instead you dance around them."

I'm not dancing around them. I have repeatedly said that I agree that newt is nowhere in the poll numbers yet. [/quote]

Is that so? Perhaps I missed it. Repeatedly, eh?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] I don't go doing your homework for you in re Newt's positions. [/quote]

So you claim he’s become a neo-lib but it’s my homework to figure out just what positions he’s taken that support that claim? Yeah, that’s how it should work…

And those two things make me a liar? LOL…

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Meanwhile, I don't disagree with you that Newt is a piraha(?) among liberals, but as he unveils his strategem it is probable (given that he has gone out of his way to build a cornerstone of a foundation among Liberals) that (given the low expectations most lafties have of him) he will be seen by a significant number of people as someone who can "bridge the gap".[/quote]

I don’t have a problem with you having a theory I (and most every other observer) finds highly improbably. It’s the accompanying lunacy and condescension that makes it unpalatable.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

That's all the evidence I choose to give you here and now. Why? Firstly because I don't want to get into a "he's better because...." discussion. [/quote]

Yeah, that’s the reason. It isn’t because you’ve made a completely unsupportable claim that’s getting you laughed out of the forum and caused you to go into a “liar, liar!!!” fit of hysteria…

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Guy's like you are the reason we have so many laws in this country. You're the kind of "thinker" that thinks 'This is the problem? Pass a law against doing that! Problem solved!'

[/quote]

Another unique little non-sequitar from Whomit…..

Here’s one for you. Guys like you are why we don’t see more orange Chevy Vegas on the highway.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

There you go some more!

"That's a "lie" on your planet? The fact that I find your wholly unsupported theory that Newt is no longer the anti-Christ to liberals and disaffected N.E. GOPers laughable? The fact that you’ve yet to provide evidence that he’s anything more than he’s always been, a Southern conservative Senior Fellow at the AEI, the guy who gets props from James Dobson and is the embodiment to liberals of the nightmare that was the Clinton impeachment?"

When some one says "x" and you say that he said "p", that's a misunderstanding (maybe).

When the person then says "No, I said 'x'!" and you say 'he said 'p'!"

That's a mistatement of fact. A deliberate mistatement of fact is a lie. Period end of post! 

[/quote]

You are, without a shadow of a doubt, a raving loon.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

You and your ideas have done nothing to support your claims about Newt and his liberal appeal.

This is a mistatement of the facts, and that is a lie.

My quote clearly states that I am not asking you to accept anything I said.  Your reply only deals with what you think of what I have said.

Further it's a lie because I have shown where Newt's positions have been accepted by some Liberals.

Face it! You are an inveterate, incorrigable liar, who lies and lies and then lies some more!

Have a nice holiday.

I'm out.

[/quote]

You mean the guys with the nets finally got past the door and are taking you away?

You guys should take it offline and keep your “lovenotes” relegated to pms – you’re really muddying the topic here.

[quote=goforbroke]You guys should take it offline and keep your "lovenotes" relegated to pms -- you're really muddying the topic here.[/quote]

Don't worry, it's all over (just like Newt's chance at the Whitehouse  ).

Whom… The passive approach that DEMS/Clinton took did absolutly nothing after 1993.



Whom… Go listen to some Michael Savage. He talks that our our soldiers are our spartans. The enemy is week and not all want to strap a bomb and go blow up women and busses.



So I don’t understand your we are wrong and the end is coming. GO MITT or anyone who has some balls to make a decision and stand by the troops. Those who are passive and look more to the rights of Club Gitmo and the enemy go talk a walk around Al Sadr.

Airforce,

I don't understand what you are saying or why you are saying it.

Please translate and retransmit.

Huh, whatdo you know? Newt makes the news cycle again...

What other candidate made the news??? McCain did a "me too!" by going to Baghdad! He's gonna kick Nancy Pelosi's "little ass"* in this election!

And what's that crazy guy doing this time? He's running AGAINST the administration by calling for that ghetto language speaking guy to resign as atty general!

Sign of the times when Newt Gingrich seems like the voice of reason!

* Little ass refers to what George H. Bush's comments after his VEEP debate with Geraldine Ferraro "I think we kicked a little ass!" Smooth George! Stuff defeat down the jaws of victory!

Huh!<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

There's going to be a "debate" on the "Situation Room" with Wolf Blitzer on CNN this afternoon. I wonder who is going to be on... Could it be..............?  John Kerry?!

Yes! It is John Kerry, who has a book out about (among other things environmental)  Global Warming. And this is the capacity within which he is being asked to "defend".

But who oh who could be taking the "pro-anti global warming theory" side ? Oh yeah... Itsnoot.

Newt will be on and I am thinking that they are going to have a gentlemanly discussion wherein John K comes off as Chicken littleish and Newt basically agrees with him that there is somewhat of an issue and that we ought to be doing something about it. Newt then crafts his image away from the "Everything that the tree hugging, one world wanting, sovereignty givin away ing Leftie Democrat party says is science hokum!" mindset of this administration* and towards the "People, we got problems here and if we are going to compete in the future we're going to have to be scientific about it!" paradigm.

At least that's how I think he should play it. He may go for the throat, but there's really no percentage in that, Kerry's not running and beating him up makes you look like a bully and you never, ever know, the guy could get a lucky punch in and down you go like a bundle of yesterday's news. Newt'll prolly newter himself.

Either way, Newt is still the only Republican “candidate” getting any airtime.

* I can't say that I'm tuned in to the religious anything but I will comment that once (the once) when I was watching TBN (which is a fascinating company that somehow manages to be hugely profitable with no commercials) maybe it was a "miracle healers" day or something, but this was what the shows were all about. They seemed to attack doctors and medical diagnosis and science in general (which flips the evolutionary switches in my nervous system to raise up the hairs on the back of my neck!). Question being, do you think that there is a anti-science component to the religious right that goes beyond Evolution, or it there an anti-evolution bias because it challenges scientific though and therefore refuses the "Big Bang theory?" 

McCain was on the Jon Stewart Show last night (film of him was)

McCain makes the point that this was the first time he was able to drive from the airport to the green zone.

Next was a film op of John McCain in a market in Baghbad... Wearing a flak vest... Oh very safe! Then there was a shot of the line of 22 soldiers 10 armoured Humvees and 2 Apache Helicopters that were protecting them all (which included Congressman Mike Pense from Indiana who said the market place was like a "normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime". "God didn't make little green pineapples!")

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtm l

The clip is called Congressional Recess

So Thompson announced that HE had been diagnosed with Cancer.

Rudy had Prostate Cancer.

Edward's wife.

McCain's campaign has cancer.

Health care seems like it's going to be big this election cycle.

Maybe Frist has a chance after all!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/us/politics/16donate.html? hp

This article (which talks about whom has raised what from where and how, but mostly only about Clinton and Obama) has an interesting graphic dealing with where candidates are getting their money.

It's interesting to see how broad based (or not) each candidate is. Rudy, for example is big in the Northeast, but relatively not so in the rest of the country.

Yes, only announced candidates are graphed. 

Actually, there is a place where you can enter a zip code and find out who in your area has been contributing to whom.

In my neighborhood, there is a very successful PI atty firm.... Whom have they topped out their contributions to? Edwards!

WOW!

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

In my neighborhood, there is a very successful PI atty firm.... Whom have they topped out their contributions to? Edwards!

WOW!

[/quote]

LOL, whoda' thunk it...

Speaking of the PI atty's favorite son, he of the $400 haircuts;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

Stick a fork in him.

First of all, let me take this spot to express my simpathy towards those of and or around Va Tech.

I'm generally the guy who says yeah but.. Not this time! There's no but in this case it just plain old sux!

As to the primaries and the election.. the SCOTUS yesterday really knocked the pins out from under several candidate's soapboxes.

By upholding the Constitutionality of laws against "Partial Birth Abortions" and by excising any language about "except in the case of the mother's health" the SC turned up the heat for conservatives and for non conservatives alike (albiet different kinds of heat).

For the Right, this is seen as a positive first step (and one that is late in coming) and re energizes the "Pro Lifers" who can now demand to know what your PL bona fides really are.

For the Left, this will be somewhat of a "Gay marriage" issue for them. It's the sort of issue that will launch a billion envelope fund raising drive (he said for dramatic effect).

This issue will be one where, if a righteo runs to the fringe and then runs to the center (which is generally Pro Choice) the fringe wil roast his 'nads. If he doesn't, he might just as well not run.

For the lefties candidate they're going to be forced to be vociferously pro life even to the point of looking like the PBA procedure is their favorite after dinner activity.

Since you brought up VA Tech:

Schools should probably start beefing up their own security more due to all of the incidents especially with the latest.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Perhaps they should "screen" students to ensure welfare of all students; pay attention and take seriously any weird, bazaar behavior of anyone.  There were several indicators with this situation.  

The FBI has warned that the media shouldn't keep flashing all of the pictures of those weirdos as this might encourage copycats (this killer glorified Columbine.)  Why does it always take more tragic incidents to wake people up?

Gun debates:  yeah: we need more controls.  Potential gun owners should get evaluated by a shrink, etc.  Or report (unstable) people who shouldn't have guns and have the guns removed from them.

Violence in movies (violence in rap songs)...

More needs to be done.

Sad.  32 victims.  http://www.vt.edu/

Wow, never thought I wanted to get a gun, but my decision is made. The good people need to be armed.



There has been numerous times when I had to defend myself or help another as a first responder. In the future I will have a gun in case there is an extreme situation.



It is unfortunate that the bastard at VT did not open a door that had a professor with a 9mm. I hear a few years ago the campus shot down this option.



Often there are situations including Salt Lake City mall, where civilians with guns shoot someone who is on a rampage.



It is amazing to think there are another 1000 like this man in Iraq. They just go around and blow people away on a daily basis. Probably 10000 plus in the world.

Ha ha… That Edwards video is great! That is a 400 dollar haircut?



This NY Times map of expenses is very good.

What's unfortunate is that they didn't even have a single armed Rent-A-Cop in the hallway. Heightened alert or not!

What's unfortunate is that they don't have a metal detector (as they do at the doors of the Jr and Sr High schools here) at the door.

I wonder if there is a Metal detector stock I should be buying. I'm sure there are salesmen talking to prospects today.

I wonder if they can calibrate those things up so that they don't ring for pocket change, or calculators, or pocket knives or jewelery etc...?

I wonder if they can't make bullets with an RFid tag inside them which would set off bullet detector devices (and I wonder that they can't do the same with other explosives I know that they have tags in explosives that act as fingerprints so that CSI can track the source.)

It's not so much to control guns, as controlling the bullets.

Might be a good idea to buy a bullet proof vest and wear it...

especially if you're a student.

So a buzz would have went off and prevented this event.



If they had cameras going into the dorms they could have figured out who left within 5 minutes. If they had more info on this loser they could have kicked him off campus, under watch. Thank you ACLU for protecting the rights of a murderer.



I do agree a rent a cop with a gun or mace could have kicked some butt. A person with a 9mm would have shot the pig in the face.



THIS IS GOOD:



Nugent: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster

POSTED: 5:26 p.m. EDT, April 20, 2007

More on CNN TV: Ted Nugent participates in a roundtable discussion on gun control tonight on “Glenn Beck,” Headline Prime, 7 p.m. ET.



By Ted Nugent

Editor’s note: Rock guitarist Ted Nugent has sold more than 30 million albums. He’s also a gun rights activist and serves on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association. His program, “Ted Nugent Spirit of the Wild,” can be seen on the Outdoor Channel.



WACO, Texas (CNN) – Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby’s Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone.



Anybody see what the evil Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have created? I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and I’ve about had enough of it.



Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.



A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.



At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.



More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.



My hero, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to carry her handgun into Luby’s Cafeteria that fateful day in 1991, when due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness she could do nothing to stop satanic George Hennard from killing 23 people and wounding more than 20 others before he shot himself. Hupp was unarmed for no other reason than denial-ridden “feel good” politics.



She has since led the charge for concealed weapon upgrade in Texas, where we can now stop evil. Yet, there are still the mindless puppets of the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations insisting on continuing the gun-free zone insanity by which innocents are forced into unarmed helplessness. Shame on them. Shame on America. Shame on the anti-gunners all.



No one was foolish enough to debate Ryder truck regulations or ammonia nitrate restrictions or a “cult of agriculture fertilizer” following the unabashed evil of Timothy McVeigh’s heinous crime against America on that fateful day in Oklahoma City. No one faulted kitchen utensils or other hardware of choice after Jeffrey Dahmer was caught drugging, mutilating, raping, murdering and cannibalizing his victims. Nobody wanted “steak knife control” as they autopsied the dead nurses in Chicago, Illinois, as Richard Speck went on trial for mass murder.



Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us.



Already spineless gun control advocates are squawking like chickens with their tiny-brained heads chopped off, making political hay over this most recent, devastating Virginia Tech massacre, when in fact it is their own forced gun-free zone policy that enabled the unchallenged methodical murder of 32 people.



Thirty-two people dead on a U.S. college campus pursuing their American Dream, mowed-down over an extended period of time by a lone, non-American gunman in possession of a firearm on campus in defiance of a zero-tolerance gun ban. Feel better yet? Didn’t think so.



Who doesn’t get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?



I’ll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that’s who. People who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend themselves and their loved ones. People who are so desperate in their drive to control others, so mindless in their denial that they pretend access to gas causes arson, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause terrorism, water causes drowning, forks and spoons cause obesity, dialing 911 will somehow save your life, and that their greedy clamoring to “feel good” is more important than admitting that armed citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless ones.



Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts, demand upgrade and be certain that your children’s school has a better plan than Virginia Tech or Columbine. Eliminate the insanity of gun-free zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.

What I find interesting is that I didn't hear anyone yelling for gun control and yet I hear lots of people shouting down people allegedly calling for gun control.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

It sounds like a case of  Fire, Aim, Ready. Preemptive war so to speak.

The NRA is infamous for showing up where there have been shootings recently to have a pro gun rally.

If anything, the "Legislate something" crowd was talking about integrating the mental health database with the other legal databases.

This is a tricky issue for the left... On the one hand they'd like to keep information out of the hands of big brother (which is generally something that the right says too) but on the other hand they'd like to have more reasons not to sell people guns.

It is absolutely another measure of the failure of this administration that, here we are closing in on 6 years after 9/12 (the day that the administration started working on taking away personal freedoms) and the calls for integrated information systems between law enforcement, emergency management, domestic and international intelligence and whomnot... We still don't seem to be ANY closer!

Those of us who bought into the tech markets, post 9/11 based on the expectation of massive gov't spending to overhaul the antiquated systems have had nothing but disappointment from that.

As to the arguments that I assume are being made by Mr. Nugent; I think they are to logical discussion what Wango Tango was to Rock and Roll (unadulterated crapola!)

Virginia Tech was absolutely a failure of VT's responsibility to provide a safe environment for students. I'd be surprised if they weren't sued out of existence. There are worlds of other solutions before the "Everybody should be carrying a gun" solution is "the best" idea.

If everybody has a gun, then there would be no reason for every one of them not to be registered. We register cars, why wouldn't we do the same for guns?

The NRA is not interested in having "Gun Freedom." If there was gun freedom, then there would be no need for the NRA. the NRA is doing exactly the same thing that Sharpton/Jackson did with Imus. Their "spokesman" was Moses, but he's become a doddering fool, and so now their go to guy is Ted Nugent... Because apparently only celebrities have important points of view! As embarrassed by Sharpton's rhetoric as some here have insisted that the black community be is at least how embarrassed by Nugent/NRA, gun owners ought to be. 

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

What I find interesting is that I didn't hear anyone yelling for gun control and yet I hear lots of people shouting down people allegedly calling for gun control. [/quote]

NY TIMES;

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/opinion/17tue1.html?_r=2&a mp;oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Sympathy was not enough at the time of Columbine, and eight years later it is not enough. What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage and such unbearable loss.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/22/video-odonnell-on-vtec h-shootings-wrong-on-the-facts-wrong-on-the-law/

O'Donnell's ill-informed but loud, angry, pompous conviction is a classic, btw....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/04/17/2007-0 4-17_we_must_tighten_lax_gun_laws-1.html

Tuesday, April 17th 2007, 10:55 AM

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

32 dead: What are we going to do about it?

http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/opinion/ny-opfis205 178492apr20,0,1816756.story?coll=ny-opinion-print

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/18/ap/politics/main26 99042.shtml

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

It is absolutely another measure of the failure of this administration that,...... [/quote]

Why, of course, the VT shoot is Bush's fault, as is the fact that it rained yesterday and washed out my golf outing...

Gee, straw man much?

Is it is or it is ain't true that there is not significantly more (as compared with pre 9/11) interconnection between the intelligences emergency and law enforcement agencies?

Have they updated and co ordinated the hardware/software that the agencies use? No, not signifcantly.

But thanks for obfuscating the issue for us.

As for your links, thank you for them.

Three NYC news papers and a NYC TV station. Huh! What do you know?

As to the Brady campaign, well, come on! This is what there business IS. Meanwhile, the Brady's have a legitimate beef, I don't see how one can argue with that.

As to the other guy. Well, he's one one of those "argument" shows, that pretty much disqualifies him from the argument right off the top. He's talking with Pat Buchanan fercryinoutloud.

As to the NYT. Given that it is seen as the standard bearer for the "NYC Jewish Liberal" mindset and given that it is seen as "the Paper of record" nationally. That was a relatively mild editorial, I mean, that citation of yours was the ultimate paragraph. That's not a fire and brimstone rabblerousing, charge the gates, change the system editorial.

Does anybody disagree that it would have been better if this guy couldn't have gotten a gun? Not that nobody should be able to get a gun, but that if THIS guy couldn't get a gun it might have been a better thing? That's just about the same intensity that the NYT editorial has.

Same with the Daily News:   But we can sure make it a lot tougher for them to do that, and we can sure bring down the number of guns freely circulating in every hamlet and valley of the land. Stricter paperwork oversight alone would keep a good many folks from ever buying a gun in the first place. Add on hard-as-nails local gun laws and stern penalties for violating them. It's got to start happening.

Wow (not). And this is from another newspaper that serves a city with strong gun laws (because that's what it's people want!)

As to Newsday (a paper that cover the area where the wife of a slain business man ran was, at least, the elected congresswoman) written by/for a Washington Post writer... I did a search for the words Gun and Control, and neither one appears in the article. The author seems to be saying what I said was the main thrust of the "left". 

As to the CBS News report. Reporting that there is going to be a gun control debate in the election is not the same thing as advocating for gun control.

Thanks for the links, I think that they go to prove the point that there really has been much more bellowed about the perceived (pro gun control) reaction than the reality.

Cheeny’s fault… After all he wants to be president… Ohh wait, he is telling the truth… Libs and moveon.org GFU self…



Never thought I wanted a guy, but now I am going to get my permit. One more good guy with a gun.



Whom… What do you stand for?

Gun control…

War against terrorism…

Taxes…

Social Services…

Government jobs…

Immigration…

Voting with out ID…

Church and state…

Patriot Act…

Talking down to the troops…

Gay marrige…





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

The problem I have with libs and the left is they are not even close to where I stand on these issues.



Arm the people



Your either with us or against us… Al Queada, Iran and Saddam were not… Firm and hard policy only way to go… After 18 resolution action had to happen… Nice to see the domino effect with North Korea, Pakistan, Palestine, Indoneisha and half the world following suit.



Lower taxes…

Less government welfare… Make people work…

Enforce the borders and make illegals do what we had to do… Follow the rules and complete the process.

ID’s required to vote.



Churchs feed millions and provide spiritual guidance and values for our country.



If you are not calling IRAN weekly then you have nothing to worry about patriot act.



Kerry: Complete high school and join the military…

Reid and half democrats: We lost the war. What freaking war? The war against terrorism. Have we been bombed since 2001? Have we killed 95% of Al Queada’s leaders? Do we have more countries helping us? Is the pressure on Iran and North Korea? Do you see video’s of terrorist leaders popping up daily?



All the answers are pretty straight forward… Our troops are kicking some As. On top of that we are winning the war on numerous fronts. but the libs and other far left skum can’t help, but point out the negatives. They are invested in failure.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Gee, straw man much?

Is it is or it is ain't true that there is not significantly more (as compared with pre 9/11) interconnection between the intelligences emergency and law enforcement agencies?

Have they updated and co ordinated the hardware/software that the agencies use? No, not signifcantly.

But thanks for obfuscating the issue for us.

As for your links, thank you for them.

Three NYC news papers and a NYC TV station. Huh! What do you know?

As to the Brady campaign, well, come on! This is what there business IS. Meanwhile, the Brady's have a legitimate beef, I don't see how one can argue with that.

As to the other guy. Well, he's one one of those "argument" shows, that pretty much disqualifies him from the argument right off the top. He's talking with Pat Buchanan fercryinoutloud.

As to the NYT. Given that it is seen as the standard bearer for the "NYC Jewish Liberal" mindset and given that it is seen as "the Paper of record" nationally. That was a relatively mild editorial, I mean, that citation of yours was the ultimate paragraph. That's not a fire and brimstone rabblerousing, charge the gates, change the system editorial.

Does anybody disagree that it would have been better if this guy couldn't have gotten a gun? Not that nobody should be able to get a gun, but that if THIS guy couldn't get a gun it might have been a better thing? That's just about the same intensity that the NYT editorial has.

Same with the Daily News:   But we can sure make it a lot tougher for them to do that, and we can sure bring down the number of guns freely circulating in every hamlet and valley of the land. Stricter paperwork oversight alone would keep a good many folks from ever buying a gun in the first place. Add on hard-as-nails local gun laws and stern penalties for violating them. It's got to start happening.

Wow (not). And this is from another newspaper that serves a city with strong gun laws (because that's what it's people want!)

As to Newsday (a paper that cover the area where the wife of a slain business man ran was, at least, the elected congresswoman) written by/for a Washington Post writer... I did a search for the words Gun and Control, and neither one appears in the article. The author seems to be saying what I said was the main thrust of the "left". 

As to the CBS News report. Reporting that there is going to be a gun control debate in the election is not the same thing as advocating for gun control.

Thanks for the links, I think that they go to prove the point that there really has been much more bellowed about the perceived (pro gun control) reaction than the reality.

[/quote]

Mike's point, however, is well taken.  Larry Kudlow's show was nothing BUT gun control-pro and con- the day after the shootings.  Congresspeople are falling all over themselves trying to get the the assault weapons ban re-instated.  One Congresswoman is again introducing legislation to limit magazine size to ten rounds.  And so on, and so forth.  It is not, as you say, a strawman argument.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Gee, straw man much? [/quote]

You're joking, right? Blaming Bush for VT and you ask me about strawmen?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Is it is or it is ain't true that there is not significantly more (as compared with pre 9/11) interconnection between the intelligences emergency and law enforcement agencies? [/quote]

Show me where anyone anywhere ever suggested we construct and all-linking communications system, much less one that would have been at place in VT.

You're out of your ever-loving-mind....

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]As for your links, thank you for them.

Three NYC news papers and a NYC TV station. Huh! What do you know? [/quote]

You're a clown, pal.  NYC happens to be a media center in this country and it should be no surprise that the NY Times would be among the top responses when you type "Gun control" and "Virginia Tech" into Google. And calling the McLuaghin Group a "NYC TV station" is beyond silly. You must be aware the program shows nationwide.

You had a chance to admit you simply hadn't seen the wave of calls for gun control after the VT shooting, you should have taken it.

Once again you prove you're a waste of time and won't be detered by the truth when it comes to making outlandish claims.

"Never thought I wanted a guy, but now I am going to get my permit. One more good guy with a gun."<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Good looking bohunk like you, I'm sure you could get a guy now that you want one! You won't need a gun for that.

"If you are not calling <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />IRAN weekly then you have nothing to worry about patriot act."

That's what they said about RICO, then they figured out how to use it to punish our industry. 

"Churchs feed millions and provide spiritual guidance and values for our country. "

While that may be true, it doesn't negate the serious fraud that goes on in the name of religion. Not by lightyears (oops, that's right, lightyears are a figment of the scientists' imagination! The universe is a bowl that revolves around the Earth and above that bowl is heaven), nor does it compensate for the dumbing down of the American people such that we are now losing the international intellectual war.

Airforce, are you in this business? I seem to recall that you are not, that you are someone on the outside who likes to come here and pass the time of day. I don't really care one way or the other, I just want to be straight on it.

Gun Control... For it.

War On Terrorism... For it, so long as it is done with more brainpower than the war on drugs (which we're "winning" too I they are to be believed! Which they are NOT!) which, so far... They'd have been better off spending the hundreds of billions of dollars on Nuclear Fusion, Electric Automobiles and paying off the oils companies than this mess that we have going on here.

Social Services... What are you referring to? Social Security, I'm for it. Welfare? It's an inevitability of a collectivist society, to pretend otherwise is foolish. Health care? It can't cost +$20,000 plus per year to keep my family of four healthy! But somehow that's my out of pocket. There's got to be a better way. Police patrolling the streets, I'm for it. Municipal Fire Departments, I'm for them too. Schooling. I'm for it. Which Social Services are you referring to?

Government Jobs... Where do I stand on Government jobs? What does that mean? Do I think that the government could have done a better job than Halliburton did in supplying the troops in Iraq? Yes, I think that they could have. I think that they could have come in cheaper even with the $700 toilet seats. Do I think that there ought to be unbridled Gov't bureaucracy? No, I'm against wasteful spending.

Voting without ID... I've never heard of anyplace doing this. I have to show my ID before I vote (and if you think my ego is bad, believe me you don't want to meet my id!)

Patriot Act... An act that reversed much of what Patriots fought and died for from the Revolution on. Be careful what rights you give away! Young men have died to get them for you and old men will have to die for you to get them back!

Talking down to the troops.... I see, they're brave fighting men when there are bullets whizzing past their heads but they will cry if I "talk down " to them? I don't think they should. I think they ought to be smart enough and tough enough to take a little criticism (if they need it). OTOH, they are people who have been "broken" and rebuilt in the military mindset to take orders and respect the chain of command regardless of their own thoughts. As such they effectively have removed themselves from individual intellectual debate, so maybe they can be hurt by someone talking down to them. Perhaps if they had their own POV they would notice that they are being used as propaganda pawns in the debate, and they wouldn't see themselves as being talked down to.

Gay Marriage.. Who cares? The tax man cares and the "church" cares. Since I see the church as harmful I'm not likely to see their input as valid.

Happy now?

"You're joking, right? Blaming Bush for VT and you ask me about strawmen?"

LIE! You are lying again! I never blamed VT on Bush, I said that this points up again the failing of this administration in following up on the integration of intelligence sources in this country.

We're done!

Philo,

"Mike's point, however, is well taken.  Larry Kudlow's show was nothing BUT gun control-pro and con- the day after the shootings.  Congresspeople are falling all over themselves trying to get the the assault weapons ban re-instated.  One Congresswoman is again introducing legislation to limit magazine size to ten rounds.  And so on, and so forth.  It is not, as you say, a strawman argument."

I think that you misread. The strawman argument is the one about it being Bush's fault. I never said that VT shooting was Bush's fault. When he perverts what is said to try to make the argument go into a tangental direction, he is setting up a strawman, hoping that I will chase off in it's direction.

As to Kudlow... Didn't see the show. But if it was on Kudlow, does it really go to disprove the point? Does Kudlow put together shows to be "fair and balanced" or is he "Right on this Right on that and Right on the other thing." As such he's (perhaps) making the show to create the controversy.

I'm not a news junkie so I could be wrong about this, but I certainly didn't see the media filled with gun control blather as I have seen it filled in earlier iterations of gun related tragedies.

I just think that the NRA (as spokesman for the anti gun control mindset) tried to get out in front of the gun control "debate" which hadn't showed up in force by the time they were "rebutting" it.

It is absolutely another measure of the failure of this administration that, here we are closing in on 6 years after 9/12 (the day that the administration started working on taking away personal freedoms) and the calls for integrated information systems between law enforcement, emergency management, domestic and international intelligence and whomnot... We still don't seem to be ANY closer!

That's what I said.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"You're joking, right? Blaming Bush for VT and you ask me about strawmen?"

LIE! You are lying again! I never blamed VT on Bush, I said that this points up again the failing of this administration in following up on the integration of intelligence sources in this country.

We're done!

[/quote]

"Lying", there goes the forum loon again....

So you didn't blame VT on Bush, but "this" (I wonder what "this" refers to, if not VT, anyone care to take a guess?) has to do with a failing of the Bush administration. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

And, of course, had some incredible all-encompassing "integration of intelligence sources" been accomplish to the level that VT could have been warned, the usual suspects would have been screaming on the top of their lungs about Bush and the Gestapo state he had created.

You’re right about this much, we’re done.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Philo,

"Mike's point, however, is well taken.  Larry Kudlow's show was nothing BUT gun control-pro and con- the day after the shootings.  Congresspeople are falling all over themselves trying to get the the assault weapons ban re-instated.  One Congresswoman is again introducing legislation to limit magazine size to ten rounds.  And so on, and so forth.  It is not, as you say, a strawman argument."

I think that you misread. The strawman argument is the one about it being Bush's fault. I never said that VT shooting was Bush's fault. When he perverts what is said to try to make the argument go into a tangental direction, he is setting up a strawman, hoping that I will chase off in it's direction.

As to Kudlow... Didn't see the show. But if it was on Kudlow, does it really go to disprove the point? Does Kudlow put together shows to be "fair and balanced" or is he "Right on this Right on that and Right on the other thing." As such he's (perhaps) making the show to create the controversy.

I'm not a news junkie so I could be wrong about this, but I certainly didn't see the media filled with gun control blather as I have seen it filled in earlier iterations of gun related tragedies.

I just think that the NRA (as spokesman for the anti gun control mindset) tried to get out in front of the gun control "debate" which hadn't showed up in force by the time they were "rebutting" it.

[/quote]

Mine was in response to your opening statement, as follows:

"

What I find interesting is that I didn't hear anyone yelling for gun control and yet I hear lots of people shouting down people allegedly calling for gun control.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

It sounds like a case of  Fire, Aim, Ready. Preemptive war so to speak."

Please correct if I've taken out of context, but I believe I understand that you're saying that no one is calling for gun control, yet pro-gun is already "shouting them down".

[quote=Starka][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Philo,

"Mike's point, however, is well taken.  Larry Kudlow's show was nothing BUT gun control-pro and con- the day after the shootings.  Congresspeople are falling all over themselves trying to get the the assault weapons ban re-instated.  One Congresswoman is again introducing legislation to limit magazine size to ten rounds.  And so on, and so forth.  It is not, as you say, a strawman argument."

I think that you misread. The strawman argument is the one about it being Bush's fault. I never said that VT shooting was Bush's fault. When he perverts what is said to try to make the argument go into a tangental direction, he is setting up a strawman, hoping that I will chase off in it's direction.

As to Kudlow... Didn't see the show. But if it was on Kudlow, does it really go to disprove the point? Does Kudlow put together shows to be "fair and balanced" or is he "Right on this Right on that and Right on the other thing." As such he's (perhaps) making the show to create the controversy.

I'm not a news junkie so I could be wrong about this, but I certainly didn't see the media filled with gun control blather as I have seen it filled in earlier iterations of gun related tragedies.

I just think that the NRA (as spokesman for the anti gun control mindset) tried to get out in front of the gun control "debate" which hadn't showed up in force by the time they were "rebutting" it.

[/quote]

Mine was in response to your opening statement, as follows:

"

What I find interesting is that I didn't hear anyone yelling for gun control and yet I hear lots of people shouting down people allegedly calling for gun control.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

It sounds like a case of  Fire, Aim, Ready. Preemptive war so to speak."

Please correct if I've taken out of context, but I believe I understand that you're saying that no one is calling for gun control, yet pro-gun is already "shouting them down".

[/quote]

Am I to understand that you and Philo Kvetch are one in the same?

I wouldn't have thought so but for the way your response was phrased, as though you had passed comment previously in this thread.

Not that it makes any difference to me, just trying to keep the players straight in my mind.

Yes, that was my observation. You understand me correctly. I may be wrong, I'm passing comment that I have run into the "everybody should have had a gun" more often than I heard "There ought to be more gun control" in fact, I heard more, "Well, this guy would have passed any of the waiting periods and gotten by any of the gun control laws" it was only later after it came out that this guy had a history of mental problems that there was even talk of, "Gee, if only there was a way for us them to know that he was a nut job!"

I'll grant you that nine times out of the last ten, the Gun Control knees were a'jerking when there was a gun tragedy. It just seems that this time they just weren't.

If one read the CBS news article that mikebutler222 cited they would note that the two political parties don't want to get involved in the gun control dispute. Since that is the case, and since the parties have the biggest propaganda machines putting out opinion pieces on the news as it happens... perhaps there is some validity to the idea that it was not prime time news.

Not that it wasn't ANYWHERE, but that it was subdued.

If anything, the "Legislate something" crowd was talking about integrating the mental health database with the other legal databases.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

This is a tricky issue for the left... On the one hand they'd like to keep information out of the hands of big brother (which is generally something that the right says too) but on the other hand they'd like to have more reasons not to sell people guns.

It is absolutely another measure of the failure of this administration that, here we are closing in on 6 years after 9/12 (the day that the administration started working on taking away personal freedoms) and the calls for integrated information systems between law enforcement, emergency management, domestic and international intelligence and whomnot... We still don't seem to be ANY closer!

Those of us who bought into the tech markets, post 9/11 based on the expectation of massive gov't spending to overhaul the antiquated systems have had nothing but disappointment from that.

Whomitmayconcer

"Lying", there goes the forum loon again....

So you didn't blame VT on Bush, but "this" (I wonder what "this" refers to, if not VT, anyone care to take a guess?) has to do with a failing of the Bush administration.

And, of course, had some incredible all-encompassing "integration of intelligence sources" been accomplish to the level that VT could have been warned, the usual suspects would have been screaming on the top of their lungs about Bush and the Gestapo state he had created.

You’re right about this much, we’re done.

I figure that Justifying Mikebutler222 to the right ought to give him distinction and send a message too (note that the voice of reason is centered).

Mikebutler222, if you could read with a chip on your shoulder you would have noticed that I had already elucidated that conundrum of the left as to the giving up of privacy rights to take away gun buying rights. I also noted that it used to be the opinion of the right that the government has no rights collecting data on the un-convicted individual (they felt this way when the FBI was trying to track down members of the KKK, didn't feel this way when the FBI was after Hippies and war protestors, did feel this way when they were after militias, don't feel that way when they're "looking for terrorists", but do feel that way when they're looking for abortion clinic bombers). But, that's the zealotry for you (to say that it could be either sidedoing essentially the same thing) situational ethics with an absolutist mindset.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Mikebutler222, if you could read with a chip on your shoulder .....[/quote]

I'm really not interested in reading a change of subject attempt from you. You said you hadn't heard any calls for gun control, and without twisting a knife by adding comments, I gave you links to several. You could have simply said (as you later admitted) that you simply hadn't seen the call, but you chose to bob, weave and attack instead.

Do did the same with your "administration failure" line, bring Bush into the VT shooting in the usual BDS manner. But there you not only attemtpted to run away from the meaning of your own word, you called me a liar as well.  Frankly, you and your dance routine bore me.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] [quote=Starka][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Philo,

"Mike’s point, however, is well taken. Larry Kudlow’s show was nothing

BUT gun control-pro and con- the day after the shootings.

Congresspeople are falling all over themselves trying to get the the

assault weapons ban re-instated. One Congresswoman is again

introducing legislation to limit magazine size to ten rounds. And so on,

and so forth. It is not, as you say, a strawman argument.“

I think that you misread. The strawman argument is the one about it

being Bush’s fault. I never said that VT shooting was Bush’s fault. When he

perverts what is said to try to make the argument go into a tangental

direction, he is setting up a strawman, hoping that I will chase off in it’s

direction.

As to Kudlow… Didn’t see the show. But if it was on Kudlow, does it

really go to disprove the point? Does Kudlow put together shows to be

"fair and balanced” or is he “Right on this Right on that and Right on the

other thing.” As such he’s (perhaps) making the show to create the

controversy.

I’m not a news junkie so I could be wrong about this, but I certainly

didn’t see the media filled with gun control blather as I have seen it filled

in earlier iterations of gun related tragedies.

I just think that the NRA (as spokesman for the anti gun control

mindset) tried to get out in front of the gun control “debate” which hadn’t

showed up in force by the time they were “rebutting” it.

[/quote]

Mine was in response to your opening statement, as follows:

“

What I find interesting is that I didn’t hear anyone yelling for

gun control and yet I hear lots of people shouting down people allegedly

calling for gun control.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-

microsoft-com:office:office” /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:P></

O:P>

It sounds like a case of Fire, Aim, Ready. Preemptive war so to

speak.”

<O:P>Please correct if I’ve taken out of context, but I believe I

understand that you’re saying that no one is calling for gun control, yet

pro-gun is already “shouting them down”.</O:P>

[/quote]

Am I to understand that you and Philo Kvetch are one in the same?

I wouldn’t have thought so but for the way your response was phrased,

as though you had passed comment previously in this thread.

Not that it makes any difference to me, just trying to keep the players

straight in my mind.

Yes, that was my observation. You understand me correctly. I may be

wrong, I’m passing comment that I have run into the “everybody should

have had a gun” more often than I heard “There ought to be more gun

control” in fact, I heard more, “Well, this guy would have passed any of

the waiting periods and gotten by any of the gun control laws” it was only

later after it came out that this guy had a history of mental problems that

there was even talk of, "Gee, if only there was a way for us them to know

that he was a nut job!"

I’ll grant you that nine times out of the last ten, the Gun Control knees

were a’jerking when there was a gun tragedy. It just seems that this time

they just weren’t.

If one read the CBS news article that mikebutler222 cited they would

note that the two political parties don’t want to get involved in the gun

control dispute. Since that is the case, and since the parties have the

biggest propaganda machines putting out opinion pieces on the news as

it happens… perhaps there is some validity to the idea that it was not

prime time news.

Not that it wasn’t ANYWHERE, but that it was subdued.

It should bore you. After all, you are conversing with someone who won't let you do your usual bonfire of the mendacities.

I'm really not interested in reading a change of subject attempt from you.

How could it be a change of subject if it's directly related to exactly what I said in the first place? How can it be me that is changing the subject if I'm responding to what you wrote.

You don't even know when you're lying, do you?

 I gave you links to several. You could have simply said (as you later admitted) that you simply hadn't seen the call, but you chose to bob, weave and attack instead.

I'm sorry, am I not allowed to question the validity of your citations? Of the three newspapers, two had very weak calls for enforcing gun laws and the third said absolutely nothing about gun control.

Of the two tv sources one was a show that is only designed to create controversy and the only way to stay on those shows is to be controversial, combative and confrontational. Further, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Mc Glaughlin(?) a Sunday Morning show? So wouldn't that have been after Ted Nugent's appearance on Friday on CNN?  The other was  a CBS report on the absence of political comments about gun control among the candidates. I'm not bobing or weaving when I note these things, I'm simply discounting them to what they are worth.

Do did the same with your "administration failure" line, bring Bush into the VT shooting in the usual BDS manner.

Sorry, I don't understand what "BDS manner" means.

If I said that the situation in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina went to show the ineptitude of FEMA, it doesn't mean that I blame FEMA for the storm, nor does it mean that I blame FEMA for the state of the levies, nor does it mean that I blame FEMA for the people who wouldn't/didn't get out of NOLA before the storm hit. It means that FEMA was inept at dealing with the situation. Katrina made it blatant that the administration that spent a whole lot of blather on telling us how much better, and how much safer we were had no talent whatsoever when it came to dealing with a disaster that they knew was coming (to some degree or other).

With VT. It's not that the administration could have done anything about this (so far as I know) just like there is nothing they could have done about Katrina. It's just that every time something happens, this administration is out making excuses for why we weren't ready for it.

Why don't we have a central clearing house for information so that when a college student buys two hand guns, lots of ammo clips and lots and lots of bullets it doesn't say 'Hey, How come this guy doesn't want to learn how to lift off or land the jumbo jet?" alarms. Enough to then ask, "Who is this guy, and find out that he's a guy with a history of mental issues and harassment charges?

What is the threshold? At what point does the flag go up? He bought five guns? He bought ten guns? He bought 10 boxes of pistol bullets? he bought 100? We're supposed to be on terrorist alert! We're supposed to be ready if there's another 9/11. Nothing has shown us that this administration is prepared for this at all!

That is why I used this occasion to bring this up, this is just another example of the holes in the lies that this administration keeps telling us.

Starka,

Huh...

Interesting, As I said, doesn't make a difference to me, just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

How could it be a change of subject if it's directly related to exactly what I said in the first place? [/quote]

It wasn’t what you had said before, the comments to which I had responded. It was an attempt to change the subject from you opening your yap, saying something foolish and then getting called on it, to something else.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

You don't even know when you're lying, do you? [/quote]

I sense that you don’t get to talk face to face with humans often, and on those rare occasions I’m pretty certain you don’t pop-off then as you do here. But, for those blue-moon events in which you’re speaking to someone in real life, and you feel the need to cover the fact that you’ve been caught out speaking like a fool, avoid the temptation to question the other person’s integrity, as you do here.

That is, unless you want to spend a few weeks taking all your meals through a straw. It’s obvious from the logical and linguistic gymnastics that you specialize in here that your word doesn’t mean anything to you, but you’ll be shocked, I’m sure, to find out that others DO consider their word to be worth something and they don’t take it lightly when someone like you questions their word, especially when it’s done in a transparent attempt to undo some damage you’ve done to yourself by speaking gibberish.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

I gave you links to several. You could have simply said (as you later admitted) that you simply hadn't seen the call, but you chose to bob, weave and attack instead.

I'm sorry, am I not allowed to question the validity of your citations? [/quote]

Knock yourself out, pal. Just don’t go about it by trying to call a nationally syndicated TV show a “NY TV station” or attempt to diminish the NY Times, among others, as simply a NYC newspaper. It makes you sound like a fool. It provides even more evidence that exchanges with you are a waste of time.

Later, in another post to another person you admitted that you might have missed such calls for gun control in the wake of the VT shootings. It would have been wise for you to do that initially when I presented you with numerous sites of just that sort of call.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Do did the same with your "administration failure" line, bring Bush into the VT shooting in the usual BDS manner.

Sorry, I don't understand what "BDS manner" means. [/quote]

That’s not news, most sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome don’t know what it is that’s clouding their judgment and causing them to link Bush to every situation under the Sun, like you linking the VT shootings to Bush.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] If I said that the situation in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina went to show the ineptitude of FEMA, it doesn't mean that I blame FEMA for the storm, …..[/quote]

A pathetic attempt to weasel out of what you did say…

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

With VT. It's not that the administration could have done anything about this (so far as I know) just like there is nothing they could have done about Katrina. It's just that every time something happens, this administration is out making excuses for why we weren't ready for it. [/quote]

Nice work trying to find a way to put Bush into the VT situation without cause.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Why don't we have a central clearing house for information so that when a college student buys two hand guns, lots of ammo clips ….[/quote]

Those things alone shouldn’t set off alarms, as he didn’t do them all at once. If they did law enforcement people would spend their time looking at nothing else, as those events are so common.

The question you might want to ask, if you really cared about how this happened, would be why is it a person with a mental heath history wasn’t flagged against buying guns by the people who considered him a threat to himself and others. But, that would be a question for the people in the system in Virginia, and thus your target, Bush, isn’t involved, thus you really don’t care enough to ask.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

We're supposed to be on terrorist alert! We're supposed to be ready if there's another 9/11. Nothing has shown us that this administration is prepared for this at all![/quote]

You’re delusional. You want to take a situation of what appears to be the lawful purchase of two handguns and a few magazines, over a period of weeks, and make it proof we’re not ready for terrorist attacks in the US? You figure the next terrorist attack is going to be made with two handguns? That's what you want a system constructed across the nation to look for?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] That is why I used this occasion to bring this up, this is just another example of the holes in the lies that this administration keeps telling us.

[/quote]

No, you “used this occasion” because your infection of BDS caused you to. There’s no logical connection between Bush and the VT incident, nor is there any logical reason to place ANY form of responsibility on events there with Bush. Rational people understand this, you don’t.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liar

a person who tells lies.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

1.

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

2.

something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

It wasn’t what you had said before, the comments to which I had responded. It was an attempt to change the subject from you opening your yap, saying something foolish and then getting called on it, to something else.

What in the blue blazes are you talking about? I said "a" then you said "a" (as if it were something that was not previously considered) Then I said, "I said 'a'" and you say that I am trying to change the subject.

That is "an inaccurate or false statement" a definition of a lie. 

you’ll be shocked, I’m sure, to find

It's not what you don't know that gives you problems, it's what you're "sure" of that's just plain old wrong! 

Knock yourself out, pal. Just don’t go about it by trying to call a nationally syndicated TV show a “NY TV station” or attempt to diminish the NY Times, among others, as simply a NYC newspaper.

Let's go back to the original post again shall we?

"As to the NYT. Given that it is seen as the standard bearer for the "NYC Jewish Liberal" mindset and given that it is seen as "the Paper of record" nationally. That was a relatively mild editorial, I mean, that citation of yours was the ultimate paragraph. That's not a fire and brimstone rabblerousing, charge the gates, change the system editorial."

SO saying that I tried to diminish the NYT as simply an NYC Newspaper, hits the trifecta! It is all three of the definitions of a lie.

It would have been wise for you to do that initially when I presented you with numerous sites of just that sort of call.

Except that they really weren't all sites that called for gun control. The CBS (which is a network that is based in ...where??? NYC!) article was about the absense of the gun control conversation . I pointed this out at least three times now and yet you still try to use this article as a "gun control" evidence. The NY Newsday article (which was first printed in the Washington Post didn't even contain the word Gun or the word Control. This is something that I pointed out too, and yet you continue to make...

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive

That’s not news, most sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome don’t know

Once again, if we have to only argue what Mikebutler222 knows, there is going to be a discussion an inch wide and a sisteenie deep. All I said was that I don't know what "BDS" means.

 like you linking the VT shootings to Bush.

Well, at least you moved off "blaming" and got to "linking". It's still "an inaccurate or false statement" and I explained why before, readers are welcome to go back and read again, either the original, the cited paragraph or the paragraph in context. When they do they'll know you as I do.

Those things alone shouldn’t set off alarms, as he didn’t do them all at once. If they did law enforcement people would spend their time looking at nothing else, as those events are so common.

Have you ever heard of Google? If Walmart reported bullet purchases, and ebay reported gun clip purchases and gun retailers reported pistol sales then the central "terrorist hunters" would be able to "google" those events and spit out a name that they have in common. No, this administration is too busy using money appropriated for "Homeland Security" buying votes by protecting the Iowa Corn Festival.

This is Fricking VIRGINIA! Right down the street for WASHINGTON D.C.! If there are people accumulating bullets for a Glock, maybe Homeland Security might want to know about it.

It'll take too much cop time? Hire more cops. It's not like they don't have the money. It's that they don't spend the money where it will do the greatest good.

The question you might want to ask, if you really cared about how this happened, would be why is it a person with a mental heath history wasn’t flagged against buying guns by

If anything, the "Legislate something" crowd was talking about integrating the mental health database with the other legal databases.<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

This is a tricky issue for the left... On the one hand they'd like to keep information out of the hands of big brother (which is generally something that the right says too) but on the other hand they'd like to have more reasons not to sell people guns.

Gee, I did ask that question, right up front... That's inconvenient there.

and make it proof we’re not ready for terrorist attacks in the US?

"Proof"? No. Evidence? Yes.

BTW, this was a terrorist attack. He isn't Al Queda, but he wanted to use terror to change the perception of people that he saw as people "like him". That's terrorism.  But this is besides the point.

You figure the next terrorist attack is going to be made with two handguns?

What is the threshold? At what point does the flag go up? He bought five guns? He bought ten guns? He bought 10 boxes of pistol bullets? he bought 100? We're supposed to be on terrorist alert! We're supposed to be ready if there's another 9/11. Nothing has shown us that this administration is prepared for this at all!

Now why don't you say "We're not going to tell the enemy what the threshold is"?Our experience is that the threshold is whatever the Brits uncover.

 There’s no logical connection between Bush and the VT incident, nor is there any logical reason to place ANY form of responsibility on events there with Bush. Rational people understand this, you don’t.

Another trifecta. I never blamed, linked, or connected Bush to the incident. I pointed pointed at it as evidence of another case of the an administration not having the intelligence infrastructure that they have been given the tools and the approval to create.

Liars lie Mikebutler222, you lie, therfore you are a liar. Would I tell you that to your face? Probably not, I avoid liars. When I know that a person's word is untrustworthy I chose not to engage that person in conversation. Or, I do as I have done here, I expose the lies and let the truth be known. Usually, the person is ashamed of their lies and they stop telling them around me. You seem impervious to this shame.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liar

a person who tells lies.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

1.

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

2.

something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

It wasn’t what you had said before, the comments to which I had responded. It was an attempt to change the subject from you opening your yap, saying something foolish and then getting called on it, to something else.

What in the blue blazes are you talking about? I said "a" then you said "a" (as if it were something that was not previously considered) Then I said, "I said 'a'" and you say that I am trying to change the subject.

That is "an inaccurate or false statement" a definition of a lie. 

you’ll be shocked, I’m sure, to find

It's not what you don't know that gives you problems, it's what you're "sure" of that's just plain old wrong! 

Knock yourself out, pal. Just don’t go about it by trying to call a nationally syndicated TV show a “NY TV station” or attempt to diminish the NY Times, among others, as simply a NYC newspaper.

Let's go back to the original post again shall we?

"As to the NYT. Given that it is seen as the standard bearer for the "NYC Jewish Liberal" mindset and given that it is seen as "the Paper of record" nationally. That was a relatively mild editorial, I mean, that citation of yours was the ultimate paragraph. That's not a fire and brimstone rabblerousing, charge the gates, change the system editorial."

SO saying that I tried to diminish the NYT as simply an NYC Newspaper, hits the trifecta! It is all three of the definitions of a lie.

It would have been wise for you to do that initially when I presented you with numerous sites of just that sort of call.

Except that they really weren't all sites that called for gun control. The CBS (which is a network that is based in ...where??? NYC!) article was about the absense of the gun control conversation . I pointed this out at least three times now and yet you still try to use this article as a "gun control" evidence. The NY Newsday article (which was first printed in the Washington Post didn't even contain the word Gun or the word Control. This is something that I pointed out too, and yet you continue to make...

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive

That’s not news, most sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome don’t know

Once again, if we have to only argue what Mikebutler222 knows, there is going to be a discussion an inch wide and a sisteenie deep. All I said was that I don't know what "BDS" means.

 like you linking the VT shootings to Bush.

Well, at least you moved off "blaming" and got to "linking". It's still "an inaccurate or false statement" and I explained why before, readers are welcome to go back and read again, either the original, the cited paragraph or the paragraph in context. When they do they'll know you as I do.

Those things alone shouldn’t set off alarms, as he didn’t do them all at once. If they did law enforcement people would spend their time looking at nothing else, as those events are so common.

Have you ever heard of Google? If Walmart reported bullet purchases, and ebay reported gun clip purchases and gun retailers reported pistol sales then the central "terrorist hunters" would be able to "google" those events and spit out a name that they have in common. No, this administration is too busy using money appropriated for "Homeland Security" buying votes by protecting the Iowa Corn Festival.

This is Fricking VIRGINIA! Right down the street for WASHINGTON D.C.! If there are people accumulating bullets for a Glock, maybe Homeland Security might want to know about it.

It'll take too much cop time? Hire more cops. It's not like they don't have the money. It's that they don't spend the money where it will do the greatest good.

The question you might want to ask, if you really cared about how this happened, would be why is it a person with a mental heath history wasn’t flagged against buying guns by

If anything, the "Legislate something" crowd was talking about integrating the mental health database with the other legal databases.<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

This is a tricky issue for the left... On the one hand they'd like to keep information out of the hands of big brother (which is generally something that the right says too) but on the other hand they'd like to have more reasons not to sell people guns.

Gee, I did ask that question, right up front... That's inconvenient there.

and make it proof we’re not ready for terrorist attacks in the US?

"Proof"? No. Evidence? Yes.

BTW, this was a terrorist attack. He isn't Al Queda, but he wanted to use terror to change the perception of people that he saw as people "like him". That's terrorism.  But this is besides the point.

You figure the next terrorist attack is going to be made with two handguns?

What is the threshold? At what point does the flag go up? He bought five guns? He bought ten guns? He bought 10 boxes of pistol bullets? he bought 100? We're supposed to be on terrorist alert! We're supposed to be ready if there's another 9/11. Nothing has shown us that this administration is prepared for this at all!

Now why don't you say "We're not going to tell the enemy what the threshold is"?Our experience is that the threshold is whatever the Brits uncover.

 There’s no logical connection between Bush and the VT incident, nor is there any logical reason to place ANY form of responsibility on events there with Bush. Rational people understand this, you don’t.

Another trifecta. I never blamed, linked, or connected Bush to the incident. I pointed pointed at it as evidence of another case of the an administration not having the intelligence infrastructure that they have been given the tools and the approval to create.

Liars lie Mikebutler222, you lie, therfore you are a liar. Would I tell you that to your face? Probably not, I avoid liars. When I know that a person's word is untrustworthy I chose not to engage that person in conversation. Or, I do as I have done here, I expose the lies and let the truth be known. Usually, the person is ashamed of their lies and they stop telling them around me. You seem impervious to this shame.

Egads.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liar

a person who tells lies.

[/quote]

 You’re a despicable bit of internet road debris that says things on forums that you’ve never, never summon up the courage to say in real life.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Knock yourself out, pal. Just don’t go about it by trying to call a nationally syndicated TV show a “NY TV station” or attempt to diminish the NY Times, among others, as simply a NYC newspaper.

Let's go back to the original post again shall we?

"As to the NYT. Given that it is seen as the standard bearer for the "NYC Jewish Liberal" mindset and given that it is seen as "the Paper of record" nationally. That was a relatively mild editorial, I mean, that citation of yours was the ultimate paragraph. That's not a fire and brimstone rabblerousing, charge the gates, change the system editorial." [/quote]

Notice how we went from you "not hearing" to you quibbling about whether or not the NY Times piece was sufficently "fire and brimestone"? You admit, after your "three NY newspapers" line with an admission that the Times is the national paper of record, you hadn't read their call for more gun control and now you quibble about their tone?

How pathetic.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] SO saying that I tried to diminish the NYT as simply an NYC Newspaper, hits the trifecta! It is all three of the definitions of a lie. [/quote]

  Hmm, even though you did JUST THAT, as I show below with your opening response to my links?

A wonderful example of what makes you the pathological liar that you are.

This all began with YOU saying;

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

What I find interesting is that I didn't hear anyone yelling for gun control…[/quote]

Without calling you a fool or a liar or any other number names that would have been appropriate for someone saying something as foolish as you did above, I provided you with links. Links to The NY Times, A nationally syndicated PBS TV show, the NYDaily News, The Brady campaign website, Newsday and  CBS News. All discussing calls for  more gun control and/or the political implications of the event and the ongoing gun control debate , all citing the VT shootings.

Did you respond then as you later did, admitting you’re not a news hound and simply had missed those? Why of course not. 

 [quote=Whomitmayconcer]

It would have been wise for you to do that initially when I presented you with numerous sites of just that sort of call.

Except that they really weren't all sites that called for gun control. [/quote]

Note the shifting of the goalposts, a classic dishonest ploy on your part. Six sources and now the issue is “they all” weren’t… well, how about those you couldn't quibble about?

Perhaps we could have had a reasonable discussion about each of the six, had you not opened in your usual snarky fashion with;

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] As for your links, thank you for them.

Three NYC news papers and a NYC TV station. Huh! What do you know? [/quote]

Right, that’s a completely rational way to describe The NY Times, CBS, PBS and two regional NYC papers, all the result of a 2 minute Google search… you just ooze dishonesty.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Once again, if we have to only argue what Mikebutler222 knows, there is going to be a discussion an inch wide and a sisteenie deep. All I said was that I don't know what "BDS" means. [/quote]

You’re pretty cocky for a massively uninformed loon, you know that? I explained what BDS is and how you manifest it.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Well, at least you moved off "blaming" and got to "linking". It's still "an inaccurate or false statement" and I explained why before, readers are welcome to go back and read again, either the original, the cited paragraph or the paragraph in context. When they do they'll know you as I do. [/quote]

Let’s do that, shall we? Here’s my first comment on your lunatic insinuation of Bush into the VT shootings…

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

It is absolutely another measure of the failure of this administration that,......

Why, of course, the VT shoot is Bush's fault, as is the fact that it rained yesterday and washed out my golf outing...  [/quote]

The entirety of your line linking an alleged “failure of this administration”… is here;

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

It is absolutely another measure of the failure of this administration that, here we are closing in on 6 years after 9/12 (the day that the administration started working on taking away personal freedoms) and the calls for integrated information systems between law enforcement, emergency management, domestic and international intelligence and whomnot... We still don't seem to be ANY closer! [/quote]

Now, in a discussion about the shooting at VT, where the shooter was able, over time, to accumulate two handguns ammunition and clips, what else are we to make of your inclusion of Bush other than some failure on HIS PART allowed this to happen?

That’s not blame? That’s not linkage? That's not connection? Care to put that claim, whether you did or didn't, to a vote here?

Later, when you claim you’ve never done those things you expose yourself as the inveterate liar (not to mention loon for suggesting there should be a system that complies information as trivial as the legal purchase, over time, of the pedestrian elements the shooter used) that you are.

And just for grins, this “failure”, tell me when anyone every suggested that tracking terrorists should allow the government to accumulate (and in the grand scheme of things what the shooter bought was trivial and not at all uncommon, it’s what he did with them that caused the tragedy)  details like we’re talking about much less when was there a mandate for the government to do so?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Those things alone shouldn’t set off alarms, as he didn’t do them all at once. If they did law enforcement people would spend their time looking at nothing else, as those events are so common.

Have you ever heard of Google? If Walmart reported bullet purchases, and ebay reported gun clip purchases and gun retailers reported pistol sales then the central "terrorist hunters" would be able to "google" those events and spit out a name that they have in common. No, this administration is too busy using money appropriated for "Homeland Security" buying votes by protecting the Iowa Corn Festival. [/quote]

Now you veer from liar to lunatic. You really figure “terrorist hunters” should spend their time looking for the purchase of those, again, pedestrian elements the shooter used? That’s where you suspect we’ll trip up the next terrorist in waiting? I doubt you really believe that. Rather, I suspect your BDS causes you to grasp at just this kind of laughable straw to find anything, anyway to link Bush to VT.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

 There’s no logical connection between Bush and the VT incident, nor is there any logical reason to place ANY form of responsibility on events there with Bush. Rational people understand this, you don’t.

Another trifecta. I never blamed, linked, or connected Bush to the incident. I pointed pointed at it as evidence of another case of the an administration not having the intelligence infrastructure that they have been given the tools and the approval to create. [/quote]

What a steamy load of gibberish. You did, in fact link AND blame Bush administration failures to the VT shooting. To deny it is just another sign of your complete and total lack of integrity.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Liars lie Mikebutler222, you lie, therfore you are a liar. Would I tell you that to your face? Probably not, I avoid liars. When I know that a person's word is untrustworthy I chose not to engage that person in conversation. Or, I do as I have done here, I expose the lies and let the truth be known. Usually, the person is ashamed of their lies and they stop telling them around me. You seem impervious to this shame.

[/quote]

You really should seek professional help.

Mikebutler222,

Give it up.

You want to get technical about it I said originally:

What I find interesting is that I didn't hear anyone yelling for gun control and yet I hear lots of people shouting down people allegedly calling for gun control.

Your citations were not people "yelling" for gun control. With the one exception being the mulyock on the Macglaughlin(?) report who I discounted because he is on a show that is specifically designed to make controversial mountains out of molehills.

Kind of like what you like to do.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Mikebulter222 convicted to his point of view- YES

Mikebutler222 staunch advocate for causes and beliefs - YES

Mikebutler222 liar - NO.

Mike has a really effective way turning a point against its maker. I'd want him on my debate team. That is if I had a debate team.

[quote=BondGuy]

Mikebulter222 convicted to his point of view- YES

Mikebutler222 staunch advocate for causes and beliefs - YES

Mikebutler222 liar - NO.

Mike has a really effective way turning a point against its maker. I'd want him on my debate team. That is if I had a debate team.

[/quote]

Thanks for your kind words.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

What I find interesting is that I didn't hear anyone yelling for gun control and yet I hear lots of people shouting down people allegedly calling for gun control.

Your citations were not people "yelling" for gun control. [/quote]

As often as you move the goalposts you probably have wheels mounted on them.

BTW, if you don't know who Larence O'Donnell is, or think it's wise to discount him and the element he speaks for you're an even bigger fool that I had previously guessed.

How is it "moving the goal post" if it is what I said at the very begining? It is not.

It doesn't matter who Larry is, he is on a show that is designed to manufacture controversy.

Bondguy,

I gave specific examples of how and where he told lies. If you have a problem with the definition of lie, take it up with Mr. Webster. By definition Mikebutler222 tells lies. That makes him a liar, regardless of what you may think of him.

Honesty is not a function of popularity. Truth is not something that is voted on.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

How is it "moving the goal post" if it is what I said at the very begining? It is not.

It doesn't matter who Larry is, he is on a show that is designed to manufacture controversy. [/quote]

ROFLAMO, you get six links and none  of them, for one thing or another,  count, INCLUDING the one with Larry O'Donnell (Executive Producer "The West Wing", Panelist "The McLaughlin Group", Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, reliable Democrat hack) ACTUALLY YELLING.

If you didn't exist the USPLA (US Pathological Liar Association, no doubt you’re a member) would have to invent you.

Say, were you Joe Suzuki before your most recent screen name change?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

How is it "moving the goal post" if it is what I said at the very begining? [/quote]

How? Perhaps it is to simply claim the sources weren't YELLING (as if it's not a subjective call about what "yelling" in the printed word is) except the one who actually WAS YELLING, and he doesn't count for some newly coined reason you just happned to pull out of your, uh, back pocket at the last second. 

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

How is it "moving the goal post" if it is what I said at the very begining? It is not.

It doesn't matter who Larry is, he is on a show that is designed to manufacture controversy. [/quote]

ROFLAMO, you get six links and none  of them, for one thing or another,  count, INCLUDING the one with Larry O'Donnell (Executive Producer "The West Wing", Panelist "The McLaughlin Group", Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, reliable Democrat hack) ACTUALLY YELLING.

If you didn't exist the USPLA (US Pathological Liar Association, no doubt you’re a member) would have to invent you.

Say, were you Joe Suzuki before your most recent screen name change?

[/quote]

Any relation to Joe Isuzu?

Sorry mike, I couldn't resist. Still, good retort.

Mikebutler222,

It is the McLaughlin Group that make it not matter.

This is a show that is designed to make controversy. It is a show that gets people ratings by having people espouse the extremist POV.

If you didn't exist the USPLA (US Pathological Liar Association, no doubt you’re a member) would have to invent you.

No, I am not a member, and as such this becomes just another of your lies.

Say, were you Joe Suzuki before your most recent screen name change?

You mean Joe Izuzu, don't you?

<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />How? Perhaps it is to simply claim the sources weren't YELLING (as if it's not a subjective call about what "yelling" in the printed word is) except the one who actually WAS YELLING, and he doesn't count for some newly coined reason you just happned to pull out of your, uh, back pocket at the last second.

Pulled out of my back pocket at the last second? I said it up front. I said it in the initial post. If you didn't notice it there or you couldn't make the connection between, "That's not a fire and brimstone, rabble rousing storm the gate change the system editorial" with "I don't hear people yelling for gun control." That's your reading comprehension problem, not mine.

Face it Mikebutler222, you're just not up to the task here. You did shoddy research, after doing shoddy reading and processing what you almost read through a shoddy thought process.

All the name calling in the world isn't going to change those facts.

You have a third rate mind and you are trying to bluff your way through by telling lie after lie.

It might work, if I hadn't seen you do it before.

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

How is it "moving the goal post" if it is what I said at the very begining? It is not.

It doesn't matter who Larry is, he is on a show that is designed to manufacture controversy. [/quote]

ROFLAMO, you get six links and none  of them, for one thing or another,  count, INCLUDING the one with Larry O'Donnell (Executive Producer "The West Wing", Panelist "The McLaughlin Group", Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, reliable Democrat hack) ACTUALLY YELLING.

If you didn't exist the USPLA (US Pathological Liar Association, no doubt you’re a member) would have to invent you.

Say, were you Joe Suzuki before your most recent screen name change?

[/quote]

Any relation to Joe Isuzu?

Sorry mike, I couldn't resist. Still, good retort.

[/quote]

LOL, the post was up for maybe 30 seconds before I got an email correcting me. Too funny. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Say, I hope this doesn't mean I'll be accused of  having some hidden problem with Asians, I mean mixing up Suzuki and Isuzu. I mean some of my best friends are… oh, never mind, off to Imus-land I’ll be sent…

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Mikebutler222,

It is the McLaughlin Group that make it not matter. [/quote]

Uh, yeah, that's not a bit of last minute arbitrary CYA there...  

I mean when we're looking for someone expressing an opinion you say you haven't heard anyone express, why would we bother to use people on an OPINION show as an example?

 If we're looking for someone YELLING, well, surely we can't use someone actually YELLING on an opinion show to prove, well, that people ate YELLING a specific opinion that you claim you haven't heard.

That all makes perfect sense....

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

No, I am not a member, and as such this becomes just another of your lies. [/quote]

ROFLMAO, yeah, the quip is a "lie". Say, are you going to accuse me of taking the strawberries next?

Pulled out of my back pocket at the last second? I said it up front. I said it in the initial post. [/quote]

Yeah, show me where in your INITIAL post, the one where you said you hadn't heard anyone "yelling", that you said that.... 

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]If you didn't notice it there or you couldn't make the connection between, "That's not a fire and brimstone, rabble rousing storm the gate change the system editorial" with "I don't hear people yelling for gun control." That's your reading comprehension problem, not mine. [/quote]

Really pathetic there, Joe. You get caught out, so you want to apply a subjective test about what "yelling" on an op-ed page is.

You're digging that hole deeper by the post.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]Face it Mikebutler222, you're just not up to the task here. [/quote]

ROFLMAO, yeah, that's it. BTW, watching you try to shake, rattle and roll your way around your own words has been entertaining. Thanks for the memories.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

All the name calling in the world isn't going to change those facts. [/quote]

'Twas you, Joe, that introduced the name calling, "liar", when you were caught saying something foolish. Something you later, in another post to another person admitted, but one you couldn't bring yourself to do when presented with six links that dispelled your "I haven't heard" line...

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]You have a third rate mind and you are trying to bluff your way through by telling lie after lie.

It might work, if I hadn't seen you do it before.[/quote]

Golly, Joe, I'm just crushed.

Further as to The MacGlaughlin Group, as I noted earlier.

His appearance was on a Sunday Morning show (at least his clip showed up at 8:46 on the 22nd of April) which was days AFTER the Ted Nugent appearance on the CNN show that Airforce cited.

As a result of this, the comments are irrelavent to the discussion.

Of the two tv sources one was a show that is only designed to create controversy and the only way to stay on those shows is to be controversial, combative and confrontational. Further, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Mc Glaughlin(?) a Sunday Morning show? So wouldn't that have been after Ted Nugent's appearance on Friday on CNN?  The other was  a CBS report on the absence of political comments about gun control among the candidates. I'm not bobing or weaving when I note these things, I'm simply discounting them to what they are worth.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Further as to The MacGlaughlin Group, as I noted earlier.

His appearance was on a Sunday Morning show (at least his clip showed up at 8:46 on the 22nd of April) which was days AFTER the Ted Nugent appearance on the CNN show that Airforce cited.

As a result of this, the comments are irrelavent to the discussion. [/quote]

Joe, joe, joe, joe. I couldn't care less when O'Donnell was taped YELLING an opinion (FWIW, I believe it's taped on Fridays) you claim to have not heard anyone yelling. Moreover I couldn't care less about Nugent's timing as neither event had anything to do with the line in your post that I responded to. Better still, O'Donnell didn't mention Nugent in HIS comments.

As a result of this, I'll consider you irrelevant to any discussion involving the truth.

BTW, of all your twists and turns the "three NY papers and a NY TV station" is my fav. I doubt you'll be able to better it, but please do keep trying.

Little did I know that putting up that post would show another lie of Mikebutler222's "Uh, yeah, that's not a bit of last minute arbitrary CYA there... "<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Mikebutler222, you don't seem to get this but, when you distort the truth, intentionally, you lie. When you lie, you are a liar.

You distort the truth, you lie, you are a liar. It can't get simpler than that.

 the quip is a "lie".

I'm under no obligation to give you the benefit of any doubt. When you say something that is intentionally erroneous I will call it the lie that it is. You may make your own judgment as to which lies you are willing to live with and which ones you are willing to lie to cover-up. I'm just pointing out that you are lying. 

Yeah, show me where in your INITIAL post, the one where you said you hadn't heard anyone "yelling", that you said that....

It is common protocol for persons to understand that in a discussion points made earlier in the thread are related to ones later on. I know this is inconvenient for you, you tend to want to use a fraction of a sentence, ignoring the parts that are inconsistent with your straw man manufacturing process. But that doesn't mean that the rest of us have to play by that rule. For myself, I consider context.

'Twas you, Joe, that introduced the name calling, "liar",

I call you a liar because I can and have proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you lie. I have shown you many times that you intentionally lie. I posted the definition of lie and of liar and then I showed you several (certainly not all) of the ways that your posts fitted that definition.

That's all there is to it.  

 Moreover I couldn't care less about Nugent's timing as neither event had anything to do with the line in your post that I responded to.

Which is the definition of the strawman argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

Some logic textbooks define the straw man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation.

However, carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. Instead, it restricts the scope of the opponent's argument, either to where the argument is no longer relevant or as a step of a proof by exhaustion.

Mc Cain was on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night.

Wow Whoa WTF? Bad Bad Badly done! Yikes! Johnny boy!

I understand Mc Cain picking out a niche being Pro War and a man of conviction (while trying to have it both ways as the guy who criticized the prosecution of the war but now; gung ho!)

John came off as... as... as... well you decide... http://tinyurl.com/3alvzp (BTW, that http://Tinyurl.com is a great site for shortening links)

You'll want to see part two too.

This is not the John Mc Cain that usually showed up at the Daily Show. I believe he feels that Stewart has been rough on him since Mc Cain started "running to the right" in prep for this campaign. and I don't know that I'd disagree. But then, He has made a bit of a spectacle of himself given where he was running from, to.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Wow Whoa WTF? Bad Bad Badly done! Yikes! Johnny boy! [/quote]

Imagine this, I disagree. McCain faced a hostile crowd and a hostile host and made his point. It demonstrated courage, something he has in spades.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] I understand Mc Cain picking out a niche being Pro War and a man of conviction (while trying to have it both ways as the guy who criticized the prosecution of the war but now; gung ho!) [/quote]

It isn't a "niche" in the GOP as every candidate supports the war. He's doing nothing of the sort of "having it both ways". He's supportive of the war itself and he's been critical of the process for a couple of years now. He's been calling for more troops, and the surge answers his prayers. Nothing "both ways" about that, even though that's the new anti-McCain talking point.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

This is not the John Mc Cain that usually showed up at the Daily Show. I believe he feels that Stewart has been rough on him since Mc Cain started "running to the right" in prep for this campaign. [/quote]

That "running to the right" is another great anti-McCain talking point. Is he making bridges with the right part of the party? Sure. Has he changed his views? Nope.

That talking point is used to cover the natural transition of the role of McCain to non-Republicans and the media. The fact is that McCain was every Democrat's favorite Republican SO LONG AS he could be used as a weapon against Bush. Now that he may get elected president the need to go after him outweighs his former utility as a GOP'er that's critical of Bush. Sooooo, the excuse to treat him differently (or hate him now, if you're just a rank and file Democrat) is that "he's run to the right", as if he's become Pat Robertson's pal.

You watch, Chuck Hagel will now for the "straight talker" role as the Democrat's favorite Republican. 

should read “will now FILL the role”…

Mc Cain was on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night.\

What are these shows you are talking about?   Kidding.... I have heard of them.  The mere fact that McCain would even appear on this dreck assures that he will never NEVER be the candidate for the Republican party.

McCain faced a hostile crowd and a hostile host and made his point.

Made his point to whom? Certainly not to the crowd or the host.

McCain used to be The Daily Show's favorite Republican (and to no small degree, one of it's top 25 favorite active politicians). He may still be both things. It was just out of "Daily Show" character for McCain to bulldoze his way through, overspeaking the conversation.

[quote=babbling looney]

Mc Cain was on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night.\

What are these shows you are talking about?   Kidding.... I have heard of them.  The mere fact that McCain would even appear on this dreck assures that he will never NEVER be the candidate for the Republican party.

[/quote]

Eh, I disagree, BL, the guy's willing to go anywhere and face any audience. There's something to be said about that in a day and age when some Democrats refuse to even debate each other on Fox.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

McCain faced a hostile crowd and a hostile host and made his point.

Made his point to whom? Certainly not to the crowd or the host. [/quote]

You're confusing making his point and defending his POV in the face of a hostile host and audience with  winning them over to his side. The former is what he did, the latter was never even a possibility.

The fact that he even tried says a great deal about his personal courage. People not used to hanging on Stewart's every word as if he were something more than a comic reading a teleprompter trying to wade into weighty issues get that.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

McCain used to be The Daily Show's favorite Republican (and to no small degree, one of it's top 25 favorite active politicians). He may still be both things. [/quote]

"Still"? Nah, his utility as a Bush-basher has now been overcome by the threat he presents to the same people who used to love him (but would never dream of voting for him) as a possible president. The knives are out, things about him that were ignored in the past, like his support for the war, his pro-life position, will now become the central issue about him whenever his name is mentioned.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]It was just out of "Daily Show" character for McCain to bulldoze his way through, overspeaking the conversation.

[/quote]

Again, we disagree. Stewart was trying to jump from empty talking point (and they are, each and every one of them, empty) to empty talkinging point because none of them can withstand even a basic examination, and he didn't want to give McCain a chance to knock them down. McCain was unwilling to allow Stewart and his audience to run over him with those talking points without being given the chance to respond to each of them. IOW, McCain wouldn't allow Stewart to used the tired, old wack-a-mole approach.

If you say so.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]If you say so.[/quote]

Exactly. Differing points of view with no screaming, crying, ranting, shifting of standards/definitions or impugning of anyone’s integrity….imagine that.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

If you say so.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]If you say so.[/quote]

You remind me of Gore's line about leopards being unable to change their stripes...

Hillary might be good at getting rid of Bin Laden and other bad men

like Bobby Hall, Meanjob and the mob

A woman in office might just be the ticket.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01292007/news/nationalnews/hills _evil_joke_on_hubby_bubba_nationalnews_ian_bishop______post_ correspondent.htm

another link:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/am-clintonsid e0129,0,2397639.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

All intelligent, thoughtful, considerate people know that Hillary and her ilk

are, in fact, pigs.

Ok so over this past week, there have been a couple of TV items that caught my eye.

The first was a Bill Moyers report on how the White House lied us into the war in Iraq.

It wasn't so much about the lies as it was the complicity of the media in those lies.

The press corps sitting in scripted "Press Conferences" so absurd that even Bush couldn't keep a straight face!

The overarching theme was how the New York Times had abrogated it's duty to inspect stories for truth.

This (as much of the story) was nothing news to me (not that I'm even some shining examplar) I knew at the time (and I was a regular poster at the NYT website and got into more than one heated debate over the Time's role, generally with knuckledraggers who insisted that the Times was a tool of the Left) that the NYT was deficient and it wasn't the first time that they were so in that the did the same thing during the whole Clinton "Scandals" era.

During that era what the NYT often (as in always) did was cite an article that was in the Washington Times. Since they were reporting that there was a report (as opposed to reporting that such and such HAPPENED) there was no need for third party coroboration.

During the Bush era, the administration essentially "cut out the middleman" and leaked stories directly to the NYT which they then cited as proof of the elements of the story leaked. (The WH gives the NYT a story of supposed intelligence and then, on the day the story hits, a Sunday, Cheney is on Meet The Press and cites the NYT article as though it were independent, and due to the NYT's reputation as a liberal rag, non partisan.)

The program does explain where Judith Miller comes into play here and that is a story that I am still only mildly aware of.

Turns out the Knight Ridder had this story from the get go and knew that the whole WMD/African Nukes/aluminum tubes line was hokum. But nobody listened, because they weren't a news presence in NYC or DC.

Interestingly, the "Red States" knew (or could have if their local paper had run the KR copy) more clearly that the administration was lying, and the Blue New England had the disinformation.

It's absolutely worth seeing.

Second program is the Tenet tour. Last night he was on 60 Minutes and this morning he was on NBC at least. He's out promoting his book and so there is a grain of salt with which I take this guy. Then there is the chunk of salt you take when you notice that he's still doing a cya in defending the absolutely ridiculous charges presented by Colin Powell to the UN. (Again, not to polish my own apple, but right after Powell was finished, I said to co-workers, not only is that ridiculous, but it doesn't stand up to the rule of evidence. I said, this is a capital case, people are going to die because of this, you couldn't send a single man to the chair based on that evidence, and yet you are going to kill tens of thousands? This is the type of verbiage that was used on 60 minutes, Tenet saying you might win a civil case, but not a criminal case with that information. I didn't win a whole lot of  converts then, nor do I expect I will now. it's just nice to see that I was correct. It's rare that you get to see that with such certainty.) 

Tenet is an excitable boy and I try not to hold that against him. He has been called on one fact (when he said that Richard Pearle talked of making Iraq pay for this on 9/12. Pearle says he was in Paris at the time, and Tenet was forced to recant) which wouldn't take away from what he says otherwise except that, this guy is a self contradiction that wears shoes. He spins the story to however best fits his own agenda and the facts be damned, all the while he says that the Intelligence Community has a primary connection with the truth. When he has all the time in the world and makes mistakes like that (the Pearle timeline) it doesn't speak well for his having a meticulous nature.

Bush lied… Blaaa blaaa bllaaaa…



The man is gone… The dems are so sorry. The debate was for VP and maybe Obama won?



Either way the black vote is democratic, so maybe the’ll go with someone from the south. Ohh wait, SC don’t like the lawer John Edwards.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Ok so over this past week, there have been a couple of TV items that caught my eye.

The first was a Bill Moyers report on how the White House lied us into the war in Iraq. [/quote]

Yep, when I want straight, objective fact, I head to Bill Moyers.... and the "lies" part... that fiction never grows old....

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]Turns out the Knight Ridder had this story from the get go and knew that the whole WMD/African Nukes/aluminum tubes line was hokum. But nobody listened, because they weren't a news presence in NYC or DC. [/quote]

Uh, yeah, sure....from Tenet's new book;

Page 324-325:

In early 2001, Iraq had been caught trying to clandestinely procure sixty thousand high-strength aluminum tubes manufactured to extraordinary tight tolerances. The tubes were seized in the Middle East. The Iraqi agent tried in vain to get the tubes released, claiming they were to be used in Lebanon to make race car components. Whatever their intended use, under UN sanctions, Saddam was prohibited from acquiring the tubes for any purpose. All agencies agreed that these tubes could be modified to make centrifuge rotors used in a nuclear program. CIA analysts believed that these tubes were intended for the enrichment of uranium. Others thought they were intended to make rockets. To test the theory, CIA brought together a “red team” of highly experienced experts from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory—people who had actually built centrifuges. Their assessment was that the tubes were more suited for nuclear use than for anything else. The Department of Energy’s representative at the NFIB delivered his agency’s assessment that the tubes were probably not part of a nuclear program. He was not a technical expert, however, and, despite being given several opportunities, he was unable to explain the basis of his department’s view in anything approaching a convincing manner.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]Second program is the Tenet tour. ......I said, this is a capital case, people are going to die because of this, you couldn't send a single man to the chair based on that evidence, and yet you are going to kill tens of thousands? [/quote]

Funny you should mention that. Again, from Tenent's book;

(page 316):

In his VFW speech, the vice president reminded the audience that during the first Gulf war, the intelligence community underestimated Iraq’s progress toward building a nuclear weapon. No doubt that experience had colored the vice president’s view of U.S. intelligence gathering ever since, but it also had a profound impact on my views and those of many of our analysts. Given Saddam’s proclivity for deception and denial, we, too, were haunted by the possibility that there was more going on than we could detect.

 

Page 336:

The intelligence reports and analysis used over the years on the WMD issue, and repeated in the NIE, were flawed, but the intelligence process was not disingenuous nor was it influenced by politics. Intelligence professionals did not try to tell policy makers what they wanted to hear, nor did the policy makers lean on us to influence outcomes. The consistency of our views on these weapons programs was carried forward to two presidents of different political parties who pursued vastly different courses of action.

(page 328):

The absence of evidence and linear thinking, and Iraq’s extensive efforts to conceal illicit procurement of proscribed components, told us that a deceptive regime could and would easily surprise us. It was never a question of a known, imminent threat; it was about an unwillingness to risk surprise.

Now, you might claim that you were "right" about Saddam not having WMD (although how you reached that conclusion would be interesting to review), but it hardly makes sense that you claim to be "right" about the standard of evidence used, considering the dire implications for us all if you were wrong about Saddam/WMDs. It seems to me the standard of a capital case, given Saddam's history and the threat he could be reasonable expected to present, just isn't applicable.

He is reported thus.... "also charged today that he had been the victim of “orchestrated leaks of false, misleading, incomplete and personal information” that were “part of a conscious campaign to undermine my effectiveness as president.”

His lawyer is Bob Bennet! Who is he?

"Bill Clinton?"

No, I'm sorry, the correctER answer is Paul Wolfowitz.

Come on, that's funny, Ha ha AND peculiar!

I didn't read the above post. I'll get to it. Having not seen any of it except knowing that it is from Mikebutler222, I want you all to know that I will go into it with an open mind, expecting to find common ground for agreement and harmony.

Well, Mikebutler222, the point is that Tenet himself said that his evidence might have been strong enough for a civil case, but did not approach the standard for a criminal (not sure if he said capital or not) case.

Please keep in mind, the choice was not ever "Now or Never!" The rest of the civilized world (with few exceptions) said 'Let's let the inspectors do their job and when we see that there is really a threat, we're with you, but not until then.' How would that have been so terrible? It would have been terrible because it would have taken away our justification for a war they wanted to get into anyway.

I think that Tenet's point (one of them) was that this administration was going to go to war with Iraq regardless of what Tenet said. 

As far as my thought process. Ok, I didn't know anything. Fine.

I thought I could tell when they were lying, turns out, I was right, I could tell.

Here's a link to the transcript, http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/transcript1.html

Here's a link to the program on line: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/video_popups/pop_vid_btw1- 1.html

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Well, Mikebutler222, the point is that Tenet himself said that his evidence might have been strong enough for a civil case, but did not approach the standard for a criminal (not sure if he said capital or not) case. [/quote]

It doesn't much matter, as Tenet also said, being surprised was the fear.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]Please keep in mind, the choice was not ever "Now or Never!" The rest of the civilized world (with few exceptions) said 'Let's let the inspectors do their job and when we see that there is really a threat, we're with you, but not until then.' [/quote]

Which would have made sense, if Saddam hadn't already interfered for 11 years with the open and free inspections he had promised. There simply was not reason to trust him and the stakes for being fooled by him was too high. His massive document dump at the 11th hour was the final straw.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]I think that Tenet's point (one of them) was that this administration was going to go to war with Iraq regardless of what Tenet said. [/quote]

I know that's the mantra, but these comments by Tenet cause plenty of doubt of the "regardless" theory;

Page 336:

The intelligence reports and analysis used over the years on the WMD issue, and repeated in the NIE, were flawed, but the intelligence process was not disingenuous nor was it influenced by politics. Intelligence professionals did not try to tell policy makers what they wanted to hear, nor did the policy makers lean on us to influence outcomes. The consistency of our views on these weapons programs was carried forward to two presidents of different political parties who pursued vastly different courses of action.

(page 328):

The absence of evidence and linear thinking, and Iraq’s extensive efforts to conceal illicit procurement of proscribed components, told us that a deceptive regime could and would easily surprise us. It was never a question of a known, imminent threat; it was about an unwillingness to risk surprise.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]As far as my thought process. Ok, I didn't know anything. Fine.

I thought I could tell when they were lying, turns out, I was right, I could tell. [/quote]

There's that "lying" thing again...a claim ften repeated, but never supported...

And please, Bill Moyers? Really?

Well, Mikebutler222,

I could swear that I said that Tenet's credibility as a witness is suspect to say the best. He twists the story to whichever way suits his POV at the time.

Did you see him on 60 Minutes? http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id= 2739654n

Mikebutler222, They constantly tied Iraq to Al Queda even though there was no evidence of it. Even the administration admits that this was wrong, right before they claim that they never tried to make the connection and that, right before they imply it again.

You may want to think that this White House is simply inept and stupid enough to have been duped by malefactors outside of their control. I chose to not believe that. I chose to believe that they were complicit in the orchestration of a deliberate disinformation campaign. That's lying. It's different if you are wrong by accident, that's not what happened here.

As to Bill Moyers, did you watch the program? Did you read the transcript? I do think he's done some really dumb stuff (the whole thing with Joseph Campbell for example) but that doesn’t mean that he has no journalistic integrity and his chronicling it certainly doesn't discount the work done by Knight Ridder contemporaneously with the build up to the war.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Mikebutler222, They constantly tied Iraq to Al Queda even though there was no evidence of it. [/quote]

"No evidence" of an Al Qaeda/Saddam link? Wanna re-state that before I bring in the 9/11 commission and other sources who say otherwise? There most assuredly was an Al Qaeda/Saddam link. In fact, one thing we’ve learned, post-invasion, is how wrong the “Saddam and Al Qaeda are mortal enemies who would be at each other‘s throats” theorists were.

BTW, guess who is was announced recently that the US had captured in Iraq? Let me give you a hint, former officer in Saddam’s Iraqi army, Al Qaeda leader, mastermind of the 7/7 bombing in London…..

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]You may want to think that this White House is simply inept and stupid enough to have been duped by malefactors outside of their control. I chose to not believe that. [/quote]

Why would I want to believe that and what evidence is there of this? How about the simplest, most supported by evidence third choice, which is that US intelligence agencies believed, going back to the mid-1990s and with good reason, that Saddam was hiding WMDs and that‘s why he refused full and free inspections for better than a decade?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]I chose to believe that they were complicit in the orchestration of a deliberate disinformation campaign. That's lying. It's different if you are wrong by accident, that's not what happened here. [/quote]

An interesting false choice you offer there. And, again, the “lies” thing is an interesting claim, but one that continues to go unsupported. In fact, if you like, I can provide you with mountains of quotes from Democrats saying the same things about Saddam and WMDs that Bush said long before he came to office. I can provide mountains of quotes from Democrats with access to the same to intel reports as Bush, saying the same things about Saddam and WMDs in 2002 and 2003. Do we need to go down that route?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]As to Bill Moyers, did you watch the program? Did you read the transcript? [/quote]

I read the transcript of PBS's favorite liberal polemist. You can't possibly believe he did anything more than preach to the choir. He even raises that hoary “and they tried to link 9/11 and Saddam”, insinuating that the “link” was Saddam’s involvement in 9/11 and not the legitimate question of how we should view Saddam and the threat he posed differently in a post 9/11 world.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]... doesn’t mean that he has no journalistic integrity...... [/quote]

Please, don't embarrass yourself. It's like directing me to a Michael Moore "documentary"...

"No evidence" of an Al Qaeda/Saddam link? Wanna re-state that before I bring in the 9/11 commission and other sources who say otherwise? There most assuredly was an Al Qaeda/Saddam link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun 16.html

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

 Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

Why would I want to believe that and what

evidence is there of this?

If there is a third choice between 1. They are liars and 2. They were fooled, I'll be glad to give it the consideration it deserves.

An interesting false choice you offer there.

It's not a choice that I offer it's a statement of  fact. It is a fact that I chose to believe that "they were complicit in the orchestration of a deliberate disinformation campaign." is a statement of what I believe, you are free to believe anything else.

"How about the simplest, most supported by evidence third choice, which is that US intelligence agencies believed, going back to the mid-1990s and with good reason, that Saddam was hiding WMDs and that‘s why he refused full and free inspections for better than a decade?"

And yet they couldn't prove it, and so they made up "facts" and spoke in absolutes and insisted on the veracity of those made up "facts". If I use those techniques, I wind up in arbitration, and out of the business. If they use these techniques...

"that Saddam was hiding WMDs and that‘s why he refused full and free inspections for better than a decade"

This is a case of convicting someone because he refuses testify against himself. 

I can provide mountains of quotes from Democrats

As if this makes a difference. I've said before, truth is not about what the majority thinks it is what it is (that's why they call it  "The Truth".)

Not that you thought so, but you are not talking to someone who came recently to the idea that invading Iraq was wrong. I'm no fan of the Dems who were wrong either so quote away, their opinions mean as little to me as they do to you.

with access to the same to intel reports as Bush,

No, not really, not the same access and not the same intel and they didn't get to see the intel that contradicted the intel they were seeing. (Granted, Clinton may have seen some of the same intel, but rank and file  Dems did not). The yellowcake receipt is an example. It was presented as a "proved document" but when the document itself is seen, it's an obvious fake (according to people who have seen it.) The fact of it's existence was presented. If you had only that (and nothing else) to go on, you might reasonably conclude that there is a clear and present danger (especially if you didn't know how ridiculous it was to think that Saddam had this "Underground civilization" where he had unlimited acces to power and infrastructure and was able to hide this underground country from spying eyes, but the Kurds knew all about it, even where they were!).

He even raises that hoary “and they tried to link 9/11 and Saddam”, insinuating that the “link” was Saddam’s involvement in 9/11 and not the legitimate question of how we should view Saddam and the threat he posed differently in a post 9/11 world.

That is goalpost moving.

Please, don't embarrass yourself. It's like directing me to a Michael Moore "documentary"...

"If A is not equal to B then A equals Not B" "If Bill Moyers has a "Liberal bias" then everything that is associated with Bill Moyers inaccurate." Sorry, Mikebutler222, that's just not a logical conclusion. 

Mike just agree… People who want us to fail only view the war as Al-Queada, Oil and WMD. Each week there is a new topic for them to focus on for their political gain.



So what the terrorists in the North East corner of Iraq were Al-Quadai…:). That is not Al-Quada.



So what Saddam paid 20,000 for each Marter who killed them selves in Isreal. It was not Al-Queada.



So what Saddams people killed and raped 10’s of thousands when they attacked Kuwait. He was just a misguided youth.



So what Saddam used chemicals against the Kurds and Iranians, he wsa just protecting the Sunnies. He also wanted every Kurd dead, but thats just a minor detail that people don’t like to talk about.



Did Saddam break 18 UN resolutions and we finally had a leader who wanted to take a pro-active approach against terrorism… YES… Was this after 10 massive attacks around the world and a ton of questions when the next attack was going to happen… I think so.



Did the stars align and we accomplish the perfect war. NO!



Have we killed or captured 95% of Al-Queada or any other idiot/leader who wants to associate with this organization… YES.



The big picture is FUKC the media. Our military is disgusted by the press. As we fight and kick some butt the media supports the enemy and the quest to lose. THEY SUCK…



It amazes me how they use people like Sheehan and Tilman family to support their agenda. Either way another Al-Queada or Talaban leader dies daily so cheers to that!

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] [quote=mikebutler222] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

"No evidence" of an Al Qaeda/Saddam link? Wanna re-state that before I bring in the 9/11 commission and other sources who say otherwise? There most assuredly was an Al Qaeda/Saddam link. [/quote]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun 16.html

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
<?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. [/quote]

We’re all familiar with how the press ran with this and how “No links” was turned into “no collaborative relationship” (which any five year old knows isn’t the same thing) AND we remember how, after the press made a big thing of this the two Co-Chairmen of the 9/11 Commission (one Democrat, one Republican) said there was no disagreement between the Whitehouse and the Commission and how they couldn’t understand the hub-bub in the press.

Do you need me to produce the quotes from Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton?  Do you need me to produce the “Saddam and Al Qaeda were mortal enemies who would never meet” line from the administration critics that’s been proved to be fiction?

[quote=mikebutler222]

An interesting false choice you offer there.[/quote]

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

It's not a choice that I offer it's a statement of  fact. It is a fact that I chose to believe that "they were complicit in the orchestration of a deliberate disinformation campaign." is a statement of what I believe, you are free to believe anything else. [/quote]

It is a false choice you offered between being “ duped by malefactors outside of their control” or the “orchestration of a deliberate disinformation campaign” when there’s an obvious and logical third choice.  If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand the definition of the term.

No one’s said you’re not free to believe something that completely lacks evidentiary support.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] [quote=mikebutler222]

"How about the simplest, most supported by evidence third choice, which is that US intelligence agencies believed, going back to the mid-1990s and with good reason, that Saddam was hiding WMDs and that‘s why he refused full and free inspections for better than a decade?"[/quote]

And yet they couldn't prove it, and so they made up "facts" and spoke in absolutes and insisted on the veracity of those made up "facts". If I use those techniques, I wind up in arbitration, and out of the business. If they use these techniques...[/quote]

If you want to equate the process of arbitration to the risk the nation faced with the possibility of Saddam having those WMDs we had every reason to believe he was hiding, fine. Sounds pretty illogical to me.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] [quote=mikebutler222]

"that Saddam was hiding WMDs and that‘s why he refused full and free inspections for better than a decade"[/quote]

This is a case of convicting someone because he refuses testify against himself. [/quote]

Wow, now there’s the non-sequitar from Hell. This wasn’t a court proceeding. Saddam didn’t have 5th amendment rights. He had agreed to full and open weapons inspections after GW1, and for 11 years he had failed to allow them.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] [quote=mikebutler222]

I can provide mountains of quotes from Democrats[/quote]

As if this makes a difference. I've said before, truth is not about what the majority thinks it is what it is (that's why they call it  "The Truth".) [/quote]

Of course it makes a difference because it knocks down your “Bush lied” theory when people outside his administration and people in the previous administration looked at the same intelligence information and reached the same conclusions about Saddam having WMDs and the danger is posed to the nation.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] [quote=mikebutler222]

with access to the same to intel reports as Bush,[/quote]

No, not really, not the same access and not the same intel and they didn't get to see the intel that contradicted the intel they were seeing. (Granted, Clinton may have seen some of the same intel, but rank and file  Dems did not). [/quote]

Clinton did, and members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees (like Jay Rockefeller who called Saddam an “imminent threat” did.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] The yellowcake receipt is an example. It was presented as a "proved document" but when the document itself is seen, it's an obvious fake (according to people who have seen it.) [/quote]

You have the chorology wrong. The British believed Saddam had feelers in Niger long before any forged document surfaced. They believed Saddam DID have people contact Niger officials, something even Joe Wilson reported after his “sweet tea” visit there. Now, what export does Niger have beside yellow cake? Nada.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] [quote=mikebutler222]

 He even raises that hoary “and they tried to link 9/11 and Saddam”, insinuating that the “link” was Saddam’s involvement in 9/11 and not the legitimate question of how we should view Saddam and the threat he posed differently in a post 9/11 world.[/quote]

That is goalpost moving. [/quote]

Absolutely not. In fact, contrary to Moyer’s claims, not only did members of the administration not connect Saddam to the attacks of  9/11, Bush is on recording saying there’s no evidence to connect the Al Qaeda actions on that day to Saddam. Every time Bush or anyone else tried to make the case that the world changed after 9/11 some polemist like Moyers claimed that Bush, et al, were trying to make the case that Saddam was in on the attacks.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] [quote=mikebutler222]

 Please, don't embarrass yourself. It's like directing me to a Michael Moore "documentary"...[/quote]

"If A is not equal to B then A equals Not B" "If Bill Moyers has a "Liberal bias" then everything that is associated with Bill Moyers inaccurate." Sorry, Mikebutler222, that's just not a logical conclusion. 

[/quote]

Directing me to Moyers for objective reporting isn’t logical.

"He had agreed to full and open weapons inspections after GW1, and for 11 years he had failed to allow them."

So when he did allow for full and unimpeded inspections, how did we have justification for war? (Don't bother answering this, it really doesn't make a difference)

Directing me to Moyers for objective reporting isn’t logical.

Perhaps not, but directing you to the Knight Ridder reporters who did the work and uncovered the story is. (but OTOH it isn't because, it's not like they're going to change you mind either.) 

not only did members of the administration not connect Saddam to the attacks of  9/11,

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney _link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233810/

We could go around this stuff till the cows come home. You are going to believe what you want to believe and you're going to not believe what you don't want. I'm going to do the same. Let's just call it a draw, or you can claim you win, who cares?

I will only say that this is what I was on about in the Newt conversation. Once people want to believe something, they will let themselves believe it. You can say that right now Newt is the most hated Republican by by Republicans and Democrats. I don't care to disagree, what I say is that, should Newt get the mo, people will start to dispise him less. If he gets the Nom, people who today would say they dispise him will convert to true believers.

"He had agreed to full and open weapons inspections after GW1, and for 11 years he had failed to allow them."

So when he did allow for full and unimpeded inspections, how did we have justification for war? (Don't bother answering this, it really doesn't make a difference)

He never did allow for full and unimpeded inspections...

Directing me to Moyers for objective reporting isn’t logical.

Perhaps not, but directing you to the Knight Ridder reporters who did the work and uncovered the story is. (but OTOH it isn't because, it's not like they're going to change you mind either.) 

I couldn't care less about what Moyers SAYS another report alludes to. Particularly when we have the details available from people who were actually there when the tubes were dicussed.

not only did members of the administration not connect Saddam to the attacks of  9/11,

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney _link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233810/

Thanks for making my point with these cites.

We could go around this stuff till the cows come home.

We could, let's not bother...

I will only say that this is what I was on about in the Newt conversation. Once people want to believe something, they will let themselves believe it. You can say that right now Newt is the most hated Republican by by Republicans and Democrats.

I've never said Newt is hated by Republicans. I have said Newt is reviled by most Democrats. Until Rove took his place, he was the picture of the anti-Christ to most of them.

 I don't care to disagree, what I say is that, should Newt get the mo, people will start to dispise him less. If he gets the Nom, people who today would say they dispise him will convert to true believers.

He stands zero chance of getting the nomination, I will agree, however, that "Big Mo" has a way of changing what his foes (Democrats) think of him.

You can say that right now Newt is the most hated Republican by by Republicans and Democrats. I don't care to disagree, what I say is that, should Newt get the mo, people will start to dispise him less. If he gets the Nom, people who today would say they dispise him will convert to true believers.

Newt is not "hated" by Republicans.  I admire the heck out of the guy, but as I stated before.  We want to win, and there is no chance that a Republican ticket headed by Newt Gingrich is ever going to win a national election.  The Democrats hate him almost as much as they hate Rove (the evil genius Dark Overlord of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.  Hmmm that reminds me I need to renew my membership card.)  To win the election, we need to have a candidate who can draw in moderates, independents and conservative Democrat voters as well as the Republican Party core voters.  That ain't Newt.

Newt is not ever going to be the parties candidate for President.

We could go around this stuff till the cows come home.

We could, let's not bother...

See? I knew we could find common ground.

"You can say that right now Newt is the most hated Republican by by Republicans and Democrats."

Can is not "did". And even if you can't say it, it's not the point. I'd repeat the point, but I think it has been well made already. If you want to see what it is, then re read.

BL,

All I can say to this is to repeat the questions I've asked before. Do you really think that Newt doesn't know of his political vulnerabilities? Given that he is a brilliant politician, do you really think that he hasn't plotted out a course to win, given that he's going through the effort of running (apparently)?

Please take note of the civil and respectful tone I take with you despite the disgusting things you have said to me in the past.

All I can say to this is to repeat the questions I've asked before. Do you really think that Newt doesn't know of his political vulnerabilities? Given that he is a brilliant politician, do you really think that he hasn't plotted out a course to win, given that he's going through the effort of running (apparently)?

I think that Newt is a brilliant man. Sure he knows his political and personal vunerabilities. He can run a brilliant and strategic campaign, but that doesn't mean that he will get the party's nod as the lead.  Possibly as a second place VP candidate.  Maybe that is his aim, to be in the VP slot, knowing that he cannot carry the ticket as President.  Maybe his aim is to be appointed to a cabinet position, something that I could easily see happening.  Possibly his aim is to create a high enough profile during the campaign that some of his ideas are included in the final party platform.

Speaking as a registered Republican, which I assume you are not, I would have a very hard time voting for Newt (and McCain either for that matter of fact) for President.  I would hold my nose and do it anyway though, because the alternative is horrific. 

 "Possibly as a second place VP candidate."

Once you say you're going to settle for second, that's what happens to you in life.
John F. Kennedy

That's not the Newt I think he is.

"You can say that right now Newt is the most hated Republican by by Republicans and Democrats."<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Can is not "did".

I'm aware of that, and saying "I've never said" isn't the same thing as saying "don't falsely claim that I've ever said".

My point is/was Newt’s standing with Republicans isn’t the issue, never was. It’s perceptions about his viability as a candidate that is his problem. The polls say Democrats hate him, he’s a lighting rod to most independents, so GOPers won’t give him their nomination.

As to your second point, you seem to be asserting that as a “brilliant politician” Newt can correct whatever deficiencies he has with voters already deeply incinded to spit on the ground when his name is mentioned. Seems to me brilliance helps, but there are things in this world even brilliance won’t overcome, and Newt’s standing among Democrats is one of them.

You could have John Wooden coach a team of ten year-olds and have the Chicago Bulls coached by Rosie O’Donnell (first name that came to mind) and my money’s still on the Bulls. YMMV

Long as we're all on the same page.

For me, in this long long march towards the election, I'll watch Newt.

If he pulls it off it'll be a lesson for the ages. If he doesn't, no big loss (of my attention).

I am on the ABH train. Anybody but Hillary. Seriously though, I think it will be Rudy with Mit as his VP.

So we’ll put you down as a Sharpton vote? A Nader vote? David Duke?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

If he pulls it off it'll be a lesson for the ages. If he doesn't, no big loss (of my attention).

[/quote]

True, true...

Newt who… My point is Newt does not mean JACK Shi!..

Just like it really means JACK Shi! if push vetos every bill till he is gone…



This bull shi! that we lost the war… No wonder why the dems are around 25%… THey suck almost as much as their leadership.



The media is so stupid to support these losers. Pelousi the trader wo sends mixed signals to our enemies. Reid who declares we lost. These idiots supported Ned Lamont in CT. He and anyone else who supported cut and run is gone.



Long live the liberal negative idiots. They are gods gift to the republicans.



Mitt is leading the south and mid west. He is the man when it comes to family values, vetoes and cutting government budgets… Ohh yeah he also saved some huge companies and the olypics. Forgot to mention he also set up a state health care plan that is the benchmark for all others.



Mitt with Michael Savage as VP… I meant Michael Steel from MD.

Let me ask you this thusly.

Deadlines are a bad idea, right?

Why?

Because (according to the president) the enemy will then just sit back and do nothing until that date, at which time they'll hatch their hoary plans, right?

What is so bad about that?

The enemy sits back and the work of establishing a working government can go forward. The establishment of an effective police force can go forward. When we leave, the Terrorists hatch their hoary plans into an atmoshpere that has had time to catch it's breath and smell peace and prosperity. The enemy will say "Ok, there Moh, let's give it a go!" But Moh will be at his job, making money and feeding his family and getting a good night's sleep and regular nookie from the little missus. Moh's in no mood to go back to war! Who LIKES to be at war? Nobody! Only people with less chance of survival outside the war zone want to be in a war. (I'll say that this is among civilians, people who chose a military career are different, most combatants in Iraq are not career military types).

And did you notice the deadline that was set? April 1 2008. "April Fools! We ain't leaving! What NOW? Come ON, BRANG IT Beyatches!" All their plans were set to go off on April 2, except there are dark skies as C5A Galaxies drop 250,000 soldiers to the ground to whack the moles that stick their heads up all at once! GAME; SET; MATCH; MO FOs!

"Well if the Dems would just say that's what their plan is..." We don't tell the enemy when that we're just gonna pretend to leave!

I believe they call that the Columbo Close.

"Phew, I can't believe I just got past that interrogation, man, I'm smart! Now let me do something that would make me look guilty as heck if Columbo were here, but since he left... Lemme call my mistress/co conspirator on the phone... Hello, honeypants..."

Door opens, in come the inspector....

"Uh just one more thing sir! I forgot, I'm sorry, you said you don't have the phone number for Miss Honeypants, is that correct sir?"

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Let me ask you this thusly.

Deadlines are a bad idea, right?

Why?

Because (according to the president) the enemy will then just sit back and do nothing until that date, at which time they'll hatch their hoary plans, right?

What is so bad about that? [/quote]

Nothing, I guess, if you plan to concede the fight to Al Qeada.

BTW, you should ask Jim Webb (D-VA) that question too, since before the election he said anyone who wants to set a date-certain knows nothing about war.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

The enemy sits back .....[/quote]

Ahh, but they won't, they will, to use the military term, "continue to improve their position. Leaning on locals, undermining the efforts of the Iraqi government. Meanwhile Iraqs have to begin to hedge their bets between the US and Al Qeada, in case our date-certain proves to be earlier than the Iraqis can defend themselves and they have to expect a post-US Iraq where Al Qeada holds the cards.

Of course this says nothing of, once again, the US making it clear they won't stand by allies when the going gets tough AND signalling the enemy we don't have the stomach for a fight, something they've said of us all along.