The Democratic Underground Post Of The Day: How Do You Feel About The Troops?
Boy, the Democratic Underground is just an ever flowing wellspring of great material for conservatives. Today, there's a thread at the DU called "How do you feel about our troops?". Here's the text of the original post...
Jackie97:"How do you feel about our troops? Some people think that because we're the democrats and against the war means we hate our troops or something. I just want to see it. How do most people on here feel about them? I don't support this war, but I don't want them to die. In fact, just about every person against the war I know talks about the idea of bringing them home "alive"."
This is basically just a plea for everyone posting to say something nice about the troops to prove that Democrats don't hate them....and there were quite a few people who did just that.
There were also a lot of people who also used the same dodge that Jackie97 did, saying that they in essence support the troops because they don't want them to fight. Well, that's like saying you support firemen because you don't want them to fight fires or support the police because you don't want them to risk their lives confronting dangerous criminals. The job of these soldiers is to fight and if you don't support them while they're doing their job, then you don't support them period.
But of course, this being the DU, we did have more than a few people, even in this little "come to Jesus" thread about the military, who don't support the troops and are happy to say so. Here's how those people answered the question, "How do you feel about our troops?"...
el_gato:"they made the decision to join up. quite a few are hot to kill impoverished brown skinned people but there are others who were fooled by the nationalistic propaganda and thought they were doing the right thing only later to realize they've been had. my point is you can't comdemn or praise them categorically since every member of the military has a unique story."
kostya:"I'm d@mn sick of all those yellow magnetic ribbons to tell you the truth. It's mindless and I suspect most people's motivation for those is the same as wearing their religion on their sleeve, they want to pretend that they have cornered the morals market and want to lord (pun intended) it over on the rest of "pagan society". It doesn't really do a d@mned thing for anyone on either side in Iraq.
I have nothing personally against any of our troops, but I can't support their actions to invade a non-threatening country and kill unarmed civilians. In fact, I feel sorry for what they are doing to themselves when they do that. It doesn't matter that they were ordered to do it. That's the same excuse Hitler's troops had. - K"
BBG:"Player? How is it play to take advantage of those less fortunate? We are a player because we beat the shit out of those we want to take advantage of. This is so wrong.
Our need for a grossly overbuilt military is justified by the arrogant and selfish manner we project ourselves onto the world stage which is justified by the grossly overbuilt military we maintain.
We are way overdue for recognizing that this military we "support" is used to kill and maim and in no way protects us. It only serves to kill and maim others. And ourselves when we vounteer to participate in the charade."
T Wolf:"Though it is a minority opinion, I do not unconditionally "support the troops."
I do feel sorry for them, being put in an unfortunate position of having to choose between "following orders" and "doing the right thing." But haven't we heard that excuse before, say about 60 years back?
And while there would be consequences for making the more courageous decision to resist what may be "legal" but definitely immoral orders, I cannot give them a pass.
Flame away."
manic expression:"I cannot support the troops on this mission. I sympathize with their position, and I wish them the best. I cannot, however, support murder. Again, this is not exactly personal against them, but it is my objection to the mission they are carrying out.
Just my opinion."
ernstbass:"It's hard to support the troops when I read that 70% of them support Chimpie."
lonestarnot:"Majority volunteer to kill people. Others like doctors, lawyers, nurses those types of career fields have better motivations. Bring 'em ALL home! Even the gung ho killerjarhead types. America better with all the crazies! Nuts sluts and whores killers criminals they all have a place in America! America the land of the free and home of the brave... are we either?"
BlueManDude:"I don't support the troops -their presence in Iraq makes us all less safe. sorry."
Stew225:"Good question. I don't have a yellow magnet on my car. Do I support the troops? For what? Occupying a country and carrying out an agenda that borders on the breaking of the Geneva Convention. I don't support that. Indiscriminately shooting civilians; I don't support that.
Being a brainwashed bunch of mostly lower middle class to lower Southern people who are not in the upper echelon of the critical thinking skills area makes it hard to support them, since in doing so, I'm supporting their superiors who, as we known, are greedly non-compassionate idiots.
I support our troops doing their best to get the hell out of Iraq and muscle up enough brainpower to think for themselves. That, by the way, is not easy to do considering the Army's brainpower training regimens.
So, yeah, I support the troops. I don't support what many of them are doing."
Mr.Green93:"Like Ted Bundy's parents felt about Ted."
"Political extremists find recreation in pointing out how outrageous and offense their counterparts can be, and I generally try to avoid those battles. That said, this entry is an interesting example of what might be called search sabotage. We've seen Google bombing campaigns, and we've seen amusement over what search terms return what results, but I think this is the first time I've seen a site predict its own impact on another site's search results."
Here are the passages from the post that he's referring to...
"But, you know what's going to be really funny? Right Wing News is a pretty good sized website and I'm sure there will be more than a few links to this post. Fast forward a month or two and when people do a search for the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, you know like Republican Alumni who are thinking about donating or Republican parents who are wondering where to send their kids, this post should be fairly close to the top.
That means those Republicans will learn that members of the faculty publicly joke about murdering people like them and that's apparently A-OK at UWSP! Personally, I expect that some of those folks may consider another school or place to send their money, perhaps one where the teachers don't consider America to be a "pitiufl deluded sh*thol of a country". Now that's my idea of funny..."
Although I won't be able to give you any real details (for obvious reasons), I can tell you why I was thinking about that when I wrote the post. To make a long story short, I got a call from someone who was trying to get a government job in DC and it was getting hosed up because of something I wrote on RWN (and it wasn't even a negative post) that was showing up as the #1 listing for their name on Google. So in order to help them out, I actually yanked the post so it could be taken off of Google.
In these days and times when so many people research things on Google, getting torqued on a blog can actually be a big deal. Sure, it may be that only a few thousand people (if that, depending on the size of the blog) will read the original post. But, from then on, for YEARS and YEARS, customers specifically searching for information about your product or service may run across what that blogger had to say and it will influence their decisions.
In this case, Google's spiders are still crawling around the web because this is such a new story, but already, 10 pages deep, you already find...
"Random Thoughts From Marybeth: University of Wisconsin-Stevens ...... December 16, 2004. University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. (Link via Right Wing News). If a high school student wrote something about ...
www.findercreations.us/ randomthoughts/archives/000595.html - 11k - Dec 16, 2004 -"
Blogs might not have the sheer number of readers that the MSM has, but the things we write can still make more of a difference than people might think at first...
Frank Advice For Restoring The Democratic Party By Frank J.
The Democrats are in disarray and need a new leader, if you haven't heard. I think I have the perfect person: me!
"But you're loyal to the Republicans!" you're probably now saying.
True, but, like any good loyalty, it can be bought.
So, for the right price, I will help Democrats with ideas like these:
* Make a great recipe for nachos. Then, if someone says, "You're nothing but tax-happy, whiny, pacifist wussies," you can answer, "Yes, but try our nachos."
* Democrats need to train hard to stop being such "girly men." There will be a rigorous exercise routine every morning, afternoon, and at dusk. Finally, Democrats will be dropped into the middle of a forest with nothing but a survival knife. Those who return will be fit to run for office. All others shall feed the worms!
* Democrats need a cool name. The current name is just too ugly sounding.
"Honey, I just finished cleaning some crat out of the gutter."
Instead, change name to something that's popular, like N'Sync.
* In a popular book among dejected loser Democrats, it’s explains how using euphemisms can help Democrats convince people to there side. Why stop there? Instead, let's come up with completely made up, nice-sounding words for bad things. "Taxes" can be skooble. "Abortion" can be chirpy-diddle.
"We need more skooble to get chirpy-diddle for the poor. Who could be opposed to something so cromulent?"
* Enfranchise monkeys. Studies show that monkeys respond better to the simpler shape of the 'D' than the more complex shape of the 'R'. This should make them a solid Democrat voting block. Be careful, though - they bite!
* Two word for attracting more people to the Democratic Party: Free hat.
* Have a gladiatorial arena for settling inter-party disputes. Those who survive will once again be the stronger candidates. All others shall feed the worms!
* Poisoning your opponent seems to be all the rage in Ukraine; maybe we should import that.
* Since Republicans seems to have a monopoly on the Christian God, try gaining the support of the gods of old like Zeus of the Greeks and Odin of the Norse. Have them challenge the power of the one God. Hopefully that will work out well.
* If worse comes to worse, you can always put LSD in the water come election day.
With all this advice, Democrats should do super-good. Now give me money!
If you enjoyed this satire by Frank J., you can read more of his work at IMAO.
RWN reader Matt Enlow sent me an email that said the following,
Every time you've written about school vouchers, I've found myself agreeing with you. Of course, I knew very little to begin with, and I thought I would go looking for opposing views. I found some, of all places, on the NEA website.
It would be great, for ignoramuses such as myself, if you could tackle
these or other common objections in a future post.
Great site, keep it up,
Matt Enlow
Somerville, MA
I took a look at the case the NEA made against vouchers and quite frankly, I found it to be extraordinarily weak. Here's what the NEA had to say (in italics) and my responses follow...
The Educational Case Against Vouchers
Student achievement ought to be the driving force behind any education reform initiative. See what research says about the relationship between vouchers and student achievement.
Actually, I've read a lot about this issue and I've never seen any "research" that says children learn less in private schools than public ones, however I have seen lots of stories like this one that feature public schools doing a mediocre job.
Americans want consistent standards for students. Where vouchers are in place -- Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Florida -- a two-tiered system has been set up that holds students in public and private schools to different standards.
There's absolutely no reason why private and public school students can't be asked to meet the exact same standards -- if the kids taught in public school can keep up.
NEA and its affiliates support direct efforts to improve public schools. There is no need to set up new threats to schools for not performing. What is needed is help for the students, teachers, and schools who are struggling.
If our public school system was doing a great job, you wouldn't have so many people agitating for vouchers. People push for vouchers because our public school system isn't doing the job.
The Social Case Against Vouchers
A voucher lottery is a terrible way to determine access to an education. True equity means the ability for every child to attend a good school in the neighborhood.
I favor every parent being given a voucher and being allowed to vote with their feet on which school, private or public, that their child goes to.
Vouchers were not designed to help low-income children. Milton Friedman, the "grandfather" of vouchers, dismissed the notion that vouchers could help low-income families, saying "it is essential that no conditions be attached to the acceptance of vouchers that interfere with the freedom of private enterprises to experiment."
The quote listed has nothing to do with dismissing the "notion that vouchers could help low-income families". Furthermore, vouchers obviously benefit poor and lower middle class families who can't possibly afford to send their kids to private schools.
A pure voucher system would only encourage economic, racial, ethnic, and religious stratification in our society. America’s success has been built on our ability to unify our diverse populations.
Arguing that letting parents decide which school to send their children to would encourage stratification seems like a fairly specious argument. Should we all be forced to go to the same movies, restaurants, and plays in order to prevent "stratification"?
The Legal Case Against Vouchers
About 85 percent of private schools are religious. Vouchers tend to be a means of circumventing the Constitutional prohibitions against subsidizing religious practice and instruction.
#1) There simply is no "Constitutional prohibitions against subsidizing religious practice and instruction". It's unconstitutional for Congress to make a "law respecting an establishment of religion". Big difference.
#2) If vouchers came into play on a widespread scale, the percentage of religious schools would drop precipitously because private schools would then be catering to the general public, instead of a "niche group", people concerned about sending their kids to "Godless" public schools.
The Political Landscape
Each year, about $65 million dollars is spent by foundations and individuals to promote vouchers. In election years, voucher advocates spend even more on ballot measures and in support of pro-voucher candidates.
And?
In the words of political strategist, Grover Norquist, "We win just by debating school choice, because the alternative is to discuss the need to spend more money..."
That's true and as we've seen over and over again, spending more money on public schools doesn't appear to improve performance.
Despite desperate efforts to make the voucher debate about "school choice" and improving opportunities for low-income students, vouchers remain an elitist strategy. From Milton Friedman's first proposals, through the tuition tax credit proposals of Ronald Reagan, through the voucher proposals on ballots in California, Colorado, and elsewhere, privatization strategies are about subsidizing tuition for students in private schools, not expanding opportunities for low-income children.
This is a bizarre argument since the "elite" in society can already afford private schools and therefore the people who would benefit the most from a voucher program would be the poor and lower middle-class.
The fine folks over at Premiere Speakers Bureau have hooked me up with some autographed books to give away. If you're looking for great speakers like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Oliver North, Neil Cavuto, Michael Reagan, Zell Miller, David Limbaugh, Dick Morris, Ben Shapiro, Vince Lombardi, Peggy Noonan, Neal Boortz, & G. Gordon Liddy for an event, Premiere can arrange it for a fee
Now on to the autographed books. I'm going to be doing a number of different contests, from now until December 16th, in order to give away the books you can find (and buy if you want) here.
There are only two things to keep in mind. First, I'm only going to allow each person to win one autographed book between now and the 16th. Also, after you win, you'll need to send me your address via email so I can forward it on to Premiere (They'll be sending the book directly out to you at some point after the 16th).
Rumsfeld: 'You Go To War With The Senate You Have' By Scott Ott
Embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld today responded to criticism from Senators John McCain, Trent Lott, Susan Collins, Chuck Hagel and others by saying, "You go to war with the Senate you have. It's not the Senate you might want or wish to have at a later time."
Meanwhile, President George Bush said he will not request additional funding in order to "up armor" Mr. Rumsfeld.
"I give Secretary Rumsfeld what he requests," said Mr. Bush. "He has expressed no fear of the insurgents in the Senate. It looks like he has all the steel he needs."
If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface
I want to thank RWN's top referrers for 2004. So, here they are (followed by the number of hits sent), I hope you'll give them a look...well except for Jeff Rense...he's crazy...
There's a concerted effort being made, mostly by the weenie Republican brigade in the Senate, to take out Donald Rumsfeld.
We've had John McCain, the Republican conservatives love to hate, trash Rumsfeld along with his ally William Kristol over at the Weekly Standard go after Rummy. Then Trent Lott hopped into bed with Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, & Chuck Hagel, who are all in their own way giving their votes of "no confidence in Rumsfeld".
Ostensibly this is about Rumsfeld telling a soldier who complained about having to rig up hillbilly armor for his vehicle that,
"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
Of course, that answer is absolutely correct and it was actually part of a larger, more detailed, reply...
"I talked to the general coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they're not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I'm told that they are being – the Army is – I think it's something like 400 a month are being done. And it's essentially a matter of physics. It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it.
As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe – it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously – but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment ..."
However, this soundbite did give Rumsfeld's many enemies on the left an opportunity to attack him and there are Republicans joining in for a number of reasons.
Rumsfeld has been trying to transform the military and as you know, pioneers take all the arrows. You make changes in the way things are done and you make a lot of people angry, including Senators who use the military to pump pork into their state.
Furthermore, these Republicans likely want to use Rumsfeld as a scapegoat for the casualties in Iraq, get favorable press for going after a hawk who's hated by the press, and fire a little warning shot over the bow of the Bush administration that they don't think is paying enough attention to them.
Will they get Rumsfeld's head? That's hard to say for sure, but it's entirely possible that they will because having several Senators in your own party undercut you this way in public is a very damaging blow to a cabinet member.
Personally, I think they're making a huge mistake and not just because I think Donald Rumsfeld is the right man, in the right place, at the right time for the job of Defense Secretary. Rummy has a lot of conservative fans, quite frankly, more fans than any of these Senators have. If Rumsfeld does quit, I expect that his resignation will hang around their necks like an albatross in the Party the same way that the betrayal of Robert Bork has forever tainted Arlen Specter in the eyes of a lot of conservatives...
The fine folks over at Premiere Speakers Bureau have hooked me up with some autographed books to give away. If you're looking for great speakers like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Oliver North, Neil Cavuto, Michael Reagan, Zell Miller, David Limbaugh, Dick Morris, Ben Shapiro, Vince Lombardi, Peggy Noonan, Neal Boortz, & G. Gordon Liddy for an event, Premiere can arrange it for a fee
Now on to the autographed books. I'm going to be doing a number of different contests, from now until December 16th, in order to give away the books you can find (and buy if you want) here.
There are only two things to keep in mind. First, I'm only going to allow each person to win one autographed book between now and the 16th. Also, after you win, you'll need to send me your address via email so I can forward it on to Premiere (They'll be sending the book directly out to you at some point after the 16th).
Here are the rules today: one guess per person, in the comments section, and the first person who gets the answer right wins the prize.
The Democratic Underground Post Of The Day: The Horrors Of Patriotism, Unity, & Supporting The Troops
This may be one of the most fascinating threads I've ever read on the Democratic Underground. Here's a synopsis of what's going on.
Some school in the Denver area had a 3rd grade Holiday Concert. So did they sing songs about Christmas or Christ? Oh no, like so many liberal dominated schools today, they stayed away from that whole concept.
You see, despite the fact we're in a country founded by people seeking religious freedom, despite the fact that kids studied the Bible in public schools in the days of Founding Fathers, despite the fact that Christmas is a Christian holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, we have schools that are so full of liberals who hate and/or fear Christianity, that they don't even want to touch on the reason for the season.
In any case, this school put on a holiday concert that was EVEN MORE offensive to the libs than a concert full of songs like "Silent Night" or "We Wish You a Merry Christmas". What do they do? Well, they put on a show featuring songs about patriotism, unity, and support for the troops in a time of a war.
Now this was very upsetting to the people at the Democratic Underground who are apparently reminded of Nazi Germany by songs like the "Star Spangled Banner". As if that were not amazing enough, many of the people in this thread seemed to take for granted that things like patriotism, unity, and support for the troops were, by their very nature, things that only Republicans would support.
Liberals get SO UPSET if you question whether the left on the whole is patriotic as right or if you point out that many liberals hate America. Then you read a thread like this, full of liberals not even trying to hide how they feel, and you wonder why so many libs even try to deny it.
Just read these posts and you'll see what I mean...
walldude: What a cute little display of Fascism. I went to my sons 3rd grade Holiday Concert tonight. I went expecting to hear the kids sing some holiday songs. HA! Not in G.W's America. This was the song selection for the show:
1.This is America
2.I love My Country
3.Star Spangled Banner
4.Wishing You Were Here(dedicated to the troops that are defending our freedom in Iraq)
5.American Tears
6.The Mighty United
7. The Lights of Freedom
These songs were interspersed with little speeches about the glory of being an American. One actually said "America is made up of Moms and Dads and Teachers and Soldiers. Soldiers who defend our freedom and liberty." There were at least 5 references to soldiers in the 35 minute concert. I have to say that my favorite part was The Mighty United section where they made the kids talk about how great and mighty America is as long as we are united. I swear all they needed was a giant George Bush banner for us to pray and pledge our allegiance to.
It's bad enough our poor country has gone from being the lovable underdogs to the big bully on the block, but to brainwash little kids into thinking that being the bully is "right" is pathetic. My oldest son is in 5th grade at the same school and this is the first time in 6 years that I have seen the school do anything like this. I'm looking forward to confronting the music teacher to see if she chose this little "program" or if it was chosen for her.
brainshrub: Remember: It's not facism when Republicans do it.
nadinbrzezinski: What is next? Bush's Youth? Oh and didn't the voice from the WH told is this was coming? Yep I think he was right, and the rallies are not that far off.
idiosyncratic: Reading that just made me sick. Excuse me while I run to the bathroom to (puke).
Slit Skirt: unfrigginbelievable. I tell ya what...if it were my kids school........ooooohh..I can not even tell you how pissed i would be.
Maat: God bless you for going through it! my nice progressive, inclusive rainbow-appreciative One-Energy God). Anyway ... I appreciate your stamina.
I don't fight it with my 8-year-old anymore. When she sings, 'I'm proud to be an American,' I just smile. I talk about Americans we can be proud of ... like Michael Moore. I'm sure her teacher appreciates that.
donheld: That is just sickening. Much of Colorado needs an exorcism.
maumcc1: This scares the hell out of me. I don't like this, don't like it at all. Young minds can be so manipulated.
Sugarbleus: Wow, that IS pretty aweful... Good for you in speaking w/ teachers. You are right; the image that comes to mind reading this is:
SADDAM Hussein. All HIS pics all over the country; kids praising HIS rule and his dictates etc etc... (Hitler also comes to mind) "Praise the Fatherland" etc... holy cow!
Very chilling. Let us know how your conference with Music Teacher goes.
What a sad note for your kid's school holiday "celebration".
BiggJawn: Raising good little Buschjugend. There was a speech in the movie "Destination Tokyo" with Cary Grant where his character told the crew of the Sub a story about how the Japanese gave their 5-y-o boys knives and we gave ours toy trains.
"More than half a million Florida students sat in classrooms last year in front of teachers who failed the state's basic skills tests for teachers.
Many of those students got teachers who struggled to solve high school math problems or whose English skills were so poor, they flunked reading tests designed to measure the very same skills students must master before they can graduate.
These aren't isolated instances of a few teachers whose test-taking skills don't match their expertise and training. A Herald-Tribune investigation has found that fully a third of teachers, teachers' aides and substitutes failed their certification tests at least once.
The Herald-Tribune found teachers who had failed in nearly every school in each of the state's 67 counties.
But it is the neediest of children who most often get the least-prepared teachers.
Students in Florida's rural outposts and inner cities, those from housing projects and migrant camps, and those from black and Latino families were far more likely to have a teacher who struggled.
An analysis of the test scores of nearly 100,000 teachers found that children from Florida's poor neighborhoods were 44 percent more likely than their wealthier peers to have a teacher who failed the certification tests.
...The Department of Education study, the first of its kind, found that students learn less under teachers who had failed more than three times, said DOE spokesman MacKay Jimeson.
Nine percent of teachers failed portions of the tests at least four times, according to the Herald-Tribune study.
....The vast majority of teachers who fail a test eventually pass, usually on the second or third try.
But the Herald-Tribune found teachers who struggled for years to pass the test. Some were never able to pass and received a waiver that awarded them certification anyway.
...The two worst performers on Florida's exams failed 59 times each. Both are physical education teachers.
Teachers who failed more than 40 times teach everything from middle school social studies and grade school to mentally handicapped and learning disabled children.
Nearly 1,400 teachers failed 10 times or more.
In Miami-Dade County, one teacher failed more than 40 tests. She has taught language arts to middle school students for nearly 10 years.
...Under President George W. Bush's sweeping education changes, encompassed in the No Child Left Behind Act, every student in the country must have a certified teacher by the 2005-2006 school year.
The law also bans districts from putting more uncertified teachers in poor and minority schools than in wealthy white ones -- an attempt to ensure that all children have an equal education."
Just about anything that's run by the government is going to be full of incompetent people, tied down with unneccessary red tape, and poorly run compared to private industry. The problem is just endemic to government run agencies and it's not unique to the public school system. Hell, the reality is that if the government ran all restaurants, we'd all be waiting in line for 25 minutes at lunch every day to get our $9 Mcliver sandwiches in restaurants that lost 50 million dollars a year average.
You want to improve education? Unleash the power of the market with school vouchers. Let the Federal Government give parents a school voucher for the amount of money they'd pay out for their child and then let the parents vote with their feet.
If the parents have a choice between an efficiently run private school and poorly run public school full of teachers who can't pass the tests they're giving to the kids they're teaching, they'll go to the private. That means the kid will get a better education, our tax dollars will be better spent, and the public school that's doing a poor job will either have to improve its performance or go out of business as all of its pupils move on to better run private schools.
If we want to improve our public schools, competition is the answer...
The fine folks over at Premiere Speakers Bureau have hooked me up with some autographed books to give away. If you're looking for great speakers like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Oliver North, Neil Cavuto, Michael Reagan, Zell Miller, David Limbaugh, Dick Morris, Ben Shapiro, Vince Lombardi, Peggy Noonan, Neal Boortz, & G. Gordon Liddy for an event, Premiere can arrange it for a fee
Now on to the autographed books. I'm going to be doing a number of different contests, from now until December 16th, in order to give away the books you can find (and buy if you want) here.
There are only two things to keep in mind. First, I'm only going to allow each person to win one autographed book between now and the 16th. Also, after you win, you'll need to send me your address via email so I can forward it on to Premiere (They'll be sending the book directly out to you at some point after the 16th).
Here are the rules today: one guess per person, in the comments section, and the first person who gets the answer right wins the prize.
Anyone who regularly reads RWN knows that I genuinely dislike John McCain. Take a look at what you're about to read and you'll get a pretty good idea of why I feel that way...
"Personal grudges between House Republican leaders and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) led to a series of legislative maneuvers in the last days of the session, sources say.
McCain threatened to hold up every piece of legislation in the Senate while House leaders refused to go along with McCain’s pet project of establishing a national boxing commission. The dispute kept the Senate in session past 10 p.m. on its final legislative day, signaling that intraparty squabbles will prevail when Republicans return with a stronger majority next month.
...In the end, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and McCain reached a deal on the boxing bill. McCain, in turn, allowed a package of telecommunications bills to clear Congress. According to a Senate Commerce Committee spokesman, McCain received assurances from Hastert “that boxing legislation similar to that passed by the Senate in the 108th Congress would receive fair and prompt action” by the House “before the first August recess.”
The spokesman added, “Senator McCain takes this offer in good faith and has always taken Speaker Hastert at his word.”
But relations between McCain and Hastert have not always been warm. Last spring, Hastert joked that he didn’t know McCain was a Republican. Asked about a comment by McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, about tax cuts and the need for sacrifice during war, Hastert responded, “If you want to see sacrifice, John McCain ought to visit our young men and women at Walter Reed and Bethesda [military hospitals]. There’s the sacrifice in this country.”
McCain responded that he fondly remembered a time when Republicans stood for fiscal responsibility. “Apparently those days are long gone for some in our party,” he said.
House and Senate aides familiar with the legislative dispute said it had little to do with the boxing bill’s substance or with the telecom bills to which McCain attached it. Some Capitol Hill insiders suggested House leaders refused to take up McCain’s bill to retaliation for his vote against energy legislation, a high leadership priority last year.
“The word I got from my lobbyists was that it was payback on McCain for the energy issue that they held that up,” said one telecommunications industry source. “Word was the House didn’t want to vote on it as a stand-alone. Privately, it was because there was just payback there. They didn’t want to give in to McCain, and they were just pissed off about the energy vote.”
A House Commerce Committee aide denied that, saying, “We’ve heard it … but I don’t think there’s any truth to it. I hope we don’t get to the level where we don’t vote on people’s bills because they voted against our bills.”
Among bills that have passed the House are measures by Sens. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and McCain, all of whom voted against cloture on the energy bill.
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) has a bill to create a national boxing commission, and other House committees were reluctant to move Senate legislation at the end of a session.
Nevertheless, when McCain learned that House leaders were refusing to act on his boxing bill, he attached it to every remaining bill in the Senate, including bills dealing with universal-service transactions and other telecommunications issues.
House Republicans balked. “We wanted the telco bills to move forward as telco bills — not as something that’s diluted [with] the boxing bill whose relevance was questionable,” the Republican committee aide said.
McCain finally relented, but not until Hastert told Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) that the House would take up the boxing bill. Aides said Rep. Charles Pickering (R-Miss.) helped negotiate the solution."
First, we had McCain piddling around with steroids in baseball, now it's a national boxing commission. Is McCain a US Senator or some sort of US sports' Czar? What business does a US Senator have getting involved with either of these issues? Watch out or McCain might try to legislate your kid's dodgeball game next.
Then, when something interferes with McCain's silly little pet project, he throws a tantrum. He attaches his bill "to every remaining bill in the Senate" & then threatens "to hold up every piece of legislation in the Senate"....all over a BOXING BILL???
On top of all that, note that McCain went out of his way to slam Donald Rumsfeld this week by saying he has "no confidence" in him, he's been feuding with Dennis Hastert, and according to this article, he's fighting with Republicans in the House...but he gets along with John Kerry well enough to have serious discussions about whether or not he'll become his VP.
In my view, McCain is a mediocre, narcissistic, buffoon who has become prominent in large part because of his willingness to trash other Republicans in an effort to get the liberal press to praise him as a "straight talking" "maverick". The only thing that could be more horrifying than having this doofus as a prominent Republican Senator, would be to have him running for President where he'd likely have half the base hating his guts by November 2nd, which would lead to Democratic victory. And the only thing worse than losing with McCain would be having a doddering, country club, RINO like McCain in the White House fighting for abortion, illegal immigration, and of course, let us not forget what appears to be the most essential part of McCain's agenda, his precious %$%$%%$%$^$%^ boxing commission!
Google Brings 'Thrill Of Public Library' To Your Desktop By Scott Ott
A cooperative venture between Google, the internet search engine company, and several major universities promises to bring "the thrill of the public library" to home and office, making it easier for millions of ordinary people to access the contents of books that few want to read.
"Studies show that 80 percent of U.S. families did not buy or read a book last year, and 58 percent of adults never read another book after high school," said a Google spokesman. "When this project is complete, we'll place tens of thousands of volumes of classic literature at their fingertips, where they can fail to read them in the privacy of their own homes."
If the project succeeds, the source said, public libraries could dispose of their collections of flammable dust-magnets (trade jargon for 'books') and could finally focus on their primary mission -- reheating homeless people while they surf the net at broadband speeds.
"And for those who enjoy a lazy afternoon reading a book, doing so online will enhance their enjoyment of this leisurely pursuit," said the Google source. "In fact, with a dial-up internet connection it could take as long as three leisurely minutes just to turn the page."
If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.
If you want to understand why Americans don't trust liberals with foreign policy, this column by Harley Sorensen from the San Francisco Chronicle will give you a pretty good idea. Not every liberal agrees with the sort of tripe you're about to read, but far too many of them do.
Let's read what Sorenson has to say, shall we?
"Like egomaniacal rulers forever, dating back to the cave, Mr. Bush demonized the people he wanted to kill. (Iraq has) "weapons of mass destruction," he asserted. Yeah, like we don't. Like India doesn't. Like Israel doesn't. Like Pakistan doesn't. Like China doesn't. Like Russia doesn't. Why don't we invade them? Or ourselves?"
The implication here is that it doesn't matter which countries hold WMDs and which ones don't. Whether it's Israel or Iraq, India or Iran, North Korea or Britain, what's the difference? Why doesn't Sorenson know that already? Why does he look at a friendly democracy like Israel that's allied with us and a nation like Saddam Hussein's Iraq that was hostile to us and not understand why we'd be concerned about one having WMD's and not the other? Would it make things clearer for Sorenson if he considered whether it mattered who got nukes first, the US or Nazi Germany?
In and of itself, this paragraph shows that Sorenson doesn't even have a childlike understanding of foreign policy. After all, even a small child can figure out that he should be more leery of people who want to hurt him than people who don't.
Here's more from Sorenson...
"It turned out the Iraqis didn't have those terrible weapons. But, the Iraqis are evil, Mr. Bush asserted. Well, at least their leader was, so, by extension, they all were. And, by gosh and by golly, they might have harbored terrorists at one time or another.
Quickly now, name a country that harbored the Sept. 11 terrorists! Ah, that was too easy. You got it right away. The answer: the United States of America. That's who sheltered the 19 terrorists before their attacks on Manhattan and Washington. That's where those terrorists worked and played, ate and slept, plotted and rehearsed right up to that tragic day. The U.S. of A."
Setting aside Sorenson's deliberately misleading claim that Bush asserted that all "Iraqis are evil," we're again back to a subject a child could understand, but a liberal writing for a major newspaper doesn't. Sorenson is unable to distinguish between a country like the US, which had terrorists furtively sneaking around on its soil and a nation like Saddam Hussein's Iraq which deliberately sheltered, trained, funded, and protected terrorist groups. This sort of moral blindness, which sadly is quite common among liberals, makes it impossible for them to tell friend from foe on the foreign policy front.
Next up for Sorenson, it's Nazi time...
"But not all young people are eager to die for Mr. Bush. Military recruiters are having difficulty finding enough cannon fodder to fill their quotas. More significantly, men and women already in uniform are rebelling. They're refusing to fight for Mr. Bush and his secret ambitions. They're deserting by the thousands. According to "60 Minutes" last week (quoting the Pentagon), more than 5,500 servicemen have deserted since the beginning of Mr. Bush's war.
That's an amazing number. And it offers hope that perhaps not all our young people are locked into caveman mentality. At least 5,500 of them have advanced to the level of thinking demonstrated at Nuremberg, Germany, in 1945.
Nuremberg is where the Nazi war criminals of World War II were tried. Their common defense was that they were just following orders. The court refused that defense, suggesting that soldiers never have an obligation to follow illegal orders.
Aware of that thinking, at least 5,500 of our troops have decided to desert rather than take part in senseless killing."
So Sorenson sees our troops in Iraq, who are helping to bring Democracy to that country, as the equivalent of Nazi war criminals. So does that make the terrorists who are sponsoring suicide bombings and beheading civilians the good guys?
Moreover, isn't it fair to say that Sorenson and indeed a lot of liberals who think like him don't support the troops? I mean, if you believe our troops are nazi-like soldiers with a "caveman mentality" and that deserters should be praised, why would you support the troops? Obviously a lot of people on the left, like Sorenson, detest the troops. They just learned after Vietnam that being that honest about that issue led to political death and since then they've had to pretend to support the troops out of political necessity.
Here's more from Sorenson on the deserters...
"Now, if you've been overly influenced by Mr. Bush's clever propaganda, you might declare these deserters "traitors." But if you haven't been taken in by the Bush machine, you might call them heroes in the finest tradition of the United States. They are putting their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor at stake to serve the cause of Right rather than the ambitions of the current president."
The deserters are "heroes in the finest tradition of the United States"? At certain points, the left's hostility to the military and their own country can make their remarks practically indistinguishable from those of our enemies. This is one of those times.
Last but not least,
Perhaps, in our barely civilized world, someone should inform Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld of this travesty. He thinks our troops should learn to cope with less than the best equipment. But he seems to think differently on the subject of manpower. Perhaps someone should tell him, that, when the president orders up an illegal war, "You go to [that] war with the army you have, not the army you might want."
You'd think that the sort of lefties who ramble on incessantly about nuance and shades of grey would understand that there's no such thing as perfection when it comes to the military. You do indeed go to war "with the army you have, not the army you might want" because you will NEVER HAVE everything that you want. You can't afford everything that you want for the military, things take time to prepare, and you can't possibly anticipate every situation.
Besides, what does Sorenson care if a bunch of guys he was painting as the equivalent of Nazis earlier in the column doesn't have the best equipment? That just makes it easier for the "good guys" to kill them right? And aren't liberals always the ones who want to slash funding for the military in order to spend it on all varieties of utopian projects and largesse for their constituency groups?
I'll tell you why Sorenson brings this up: because most liberals don't truly understand foreign policy or care very much about it and therefore they generally only use it as a way to bash 1) Bush 2) Republicans or 3) America in general.
In summary, people with this mentality don't belong in the White House, especially when we're prosecuting the war on terrorism. That's why we should be thrilled that we don't have to worry about John Kerry and all the Harley Sorenson style liberals that he would have brought with him into the White House if he had won...
The fine folks over at Premiere Speakers Bureau have hooked me up with some autographed books to give away. If you're looking for great speakers like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Oliver North, Neil Cavuto, Michael Reagan, Zell Miller, David Limbaugh, Dick Morris, Ben Shapiro, Vince Lombardi, Peggy Noonan, Neal Boortz, & G. Gordon Liddy for an event, Premiere can arrange it for a fee
Now on to the autographed books. I'm going to be doing a number of different contests, from now until December 16th, in order to give away the books you can find (and buy if you want) here.
There are only two things to keep in mind. First, I'm only going to allow each person to win one autographed book between now and the 16th. Also, after you win, you'll need to send me your address via email so I can forward it on to Premiere (They'll be sending the book directly out to you at some point after the 16th).
Here are the rules today: one guess per person, in the comments section, and the first person who gets the answer right wins the prize.
Prophets, False Prophets and Profiteers By Paul Driessen
Some ten thousand delegates, scientists, activists, politicians and journalists have convened in Argentina for the COP-10 confab on “solutions” to the theoretical problem of “dangerous” and “catastrophic” global climate change. Months of hype and consternation preceded the event, to pressure the United States and Australia into ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.
“The Day After Tomorrow” and interminable activist group press releases provided appropriate horror movie scenarios. A hearing chaired by Senator John McCain promoted his prophecy that a climate Armageddon is near – and his legislative palliative.
A new report warned that North Pole temperatures are rising. Science magazine asserted that not one of 928 studies supported the position that climate change is naturally occurring.
UK science advisor Sir David King said global warming is a greater threat than terrorism, and greenhouse emissions will have to be cut by 80% by 2050 to avoid massive coastal flooding due to melting Greenland ice sheets. European Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy hinted that the EU would give preferential access to its markets for poor countries that accept Kyoto.
The hysteria and caterwauling swamped essential facts. (Cont)
"Pat Rothfuss, a University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point faculty member, has been writing his sarcastic, satirical column in UWSP's student newspaper for years.
He started "Your College Survival Guide" while still a UWSP student, continued writing while away at graduate school and has kept up the column since becoming an associate lecturer of English.
The column, which Rothfuss pens under his own name and describes as "about 80 percent stupid humor," is an outlet for an almost fictionalized, crazed version of himself as the perpetual student, he said. Irreverent advice from past columns, which are published in The Pointer, UWSP's student newspaper, has included everything from corporate America to voodoo and prostitution.
But a group of students from the UWSP College Republicans organization wasn't laughing Nov. 4 when a post-election Rothfuss column included phrases like "punching smug-looking Republicans in the mouth" and "key every car you see with a Bush bumper sticker." The column's premise was that Rothfuss was drunk while writing to himself, and it suggested, "why don't you go on a killing spree? I pet you can take out fixteen for sisteen republicans beofre they gun you down. Duke, youd' be like a heroe."
Ha, ha, ha, going on a "a killing spree," "punching smug-looking Republicans," and keying cars with "Bush bumper sticker(s)," oh the HILARITY! If you look at his actual column, you'll also see that he also calls the people who voted for Bush "retarded" & refers to America as a "pitiufl deluded sh*thol of a country". Is this guy funnier than Carrot Top or what (wait, don't answer that). Someone call Showtime at the Apollo, I think they have a headliner for next week.
Of course, the mirthless College Republicans at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point didn't understand the comedic genius of Pat Rothfuss and complained, but they got nowhere....
"The issue isn't Rothfuss' right to free speech, some College Republicans have said, but rather the appropriateness of a faculty member making such statements. Conservative or Republican students might feel uncomfortable or intimidated expressing their opinions in Rothfuss' classes, said College Republican Josh Schroeder.
"I understood that he wasn't being serious," Schroeder said. "But I also feel that if someone with a conservative point of view would have said anything half as incredulous in a satire article, ... we would have had the book thrown at us."
But Rothfuss maintains that his teaching persona and column-writing persona should be kept separate. He refused to apologize for the incident, a request made but then retracted by organization vice president Aaron Michels. Michels wrote a response to Rothfuss' column - minus the original apology request - in a letter to the editor published in The Pointer. Rothfuss also attended a College Republicans meeting to discuss the issue."
Come on you College Republicans, you're being too sensitive. Why, if you'd written a "comedy piece" that suggested keying the cars of faculty members, punching them in the mouth, and shooting 15 or 16 of them, why I'm sure they wouldn't have immediately expelled you, they would have just laughed and laughed and laughed!
But, you know what's going to be really funny? Right Wing News is a pretty good sized website and I'm sure there will be more than a few links to this post. Fast forward a month or two and when people do a search for the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, you know like Republican Alumni who are thinking about donating or Republican parents who are wondering where to send their kids, this post should be fairly close to the top.
That means those Republicans will learn that members of the faculty publicly joke about murdering people like them and that's apparently A-OK at UWSP! Personally, I expect that some of those folks may consider another school or place to send their money, perhaps one where the teachers don't consider America to be a "pitiufl deluded sh*thol of a country". Now that's my idea of funny...
Victor Davis Hanson is one of the most brilliant and insightful writers about foreign policy you're ever going to run across. Nobody and I mean nobody is better able to point out the relevance of past events to today's affairs than VDH.
That's why I've compiled a list of his best quotes from 2004 which you can read by clicking here. Enjoy!
Move The Democratic Party To Left -- If You've Got The Guts
Ace from Ace Of Spades HQ ponders the latest salvo fired by the lefties at MoveOn across the bow of the Democratic Party,
"We bought it, we own it, we're going to take it back."
and says....
"The left-liberals have been convinced for some time that America really wants a left-liberal or "progressive" agenda, and that what's holding them back has been the political cowardice of the Democratic leadership and candidates. Just like on at least thirty-seven West Wing "cliffhangers," the solution to declining popularity is to stop being mealy-mouthed and moderate and equivocating and just give the people what they so desperately crave-- uncompromising, unabashed, unafraid old-school fire-and-brimstone economic populism and pacificism/UN "multilateralism."
Here's the thing: this theory will continue to distort Democratic politics until it is actually tried. Until it is given a shot to work -- or fail -- we're going to continue to have a Democratic Party which simply refuses to take a clear stance as to what they actually believe. So many Democratic positions aren't coherent political positions at all, but mere positionings, incoherent shuffle-steps between the left-liberal wing and the centrist-liberals of the party.
Ace is right. For the last three election cycles, the Democrats have lost because they're too liberal and too out of touch with most Americans. In 2000, they decided that Al Gore was robbed and didn't he get the most overall votes? So there was no need to change. Then in 2002, a year in which the party not in the White House usually makes significant gains, the Democrats again went backwards. Well, that was chalked up to bad luck, bad candidates, you name it. Well, Bush defeated Kerry again in 2004 and now the margin in the Senate is 55-44-1, the House is locked in for the GOP until 2010 at a minimum, and the GOP holds a majority of governorships. But, what are we hearing? "Well, Kerry didn't lose all that badly," "they probably rigged the vote," "we've just got to learn to frame the issues better"....that's all hogwash.
The reality is that liberalism is pure political poison and if people like Michael Moore and MoveOn don't believe that, I'd encourage them to back candidates who'll run on it. Personally, I'm tired of Democrats like John Kerry who run as hawkish, religious, tax-cutting, shotgun waving moderates, then govern as liberals and then hope they can get judges in place to install the agenda they can't ever get the American people to vote for.
Run on reparations, Affirmative Action, socialized medicine, abortion on demand, higher taxes, signing up for Kyoto and the International Criminal Court, taking orders from the UN, getting rid of the missile shield, overturning the Patriot Act, unlimited illegal immigration, banning animal testing, gun control, pulling out of Iraq, gay marriage, persecuting the Boy Scouts and all the other ideas that get taken seriously by liberals. Don't pretend to be a conservative when election time rolls around and see what happens.
You see, the Democratic Party isn't losing because Karl Rove is a genius, fraud, "framing" of issues, or anything else except the fact that they're TOO LIBERAL. That's why Al Gore lost, why John Kerry lost, why the Dems have lost the South, and why the GOP is dominating the House & Governorships.
Run a candidate for President who'll admit he's a liberal and run on a liberal agenda, Dems. I dare you, because that candidate will be buried so fast and so deep, that we'll put this issue to rest once and for all. Then the Democrats can go ahead and ** cross your fingers ** marginalize the left & truly move back towards the center which would be good for the country...
*** Update #1 ***:House of Wheels took a look at the liberal issues I mentioned above and gathered polling data on them. As expected, the numbers aren't pretty for the left...
My dog Patton has a new toy and as he was nodding off to sleep, he was keeping a paw on it to make sure I didn't get any funny ideas about making off with his orange bone =D....
If there was an award for "The 2004 Al Gore Sore Loser Of The Year" (*** note to self, create such award ***), it would have to go to Lancaster PA, Democratic City Councilman Nelson Polite...
"LANCASTER, Pa. (AP) - A Democratic city councilman is demanding that a baker remove photos of President Bush from his stand in Lancaster's farmers market, saying the city needs a "healing period" following the bitterly contested election.
City Councilman Nelson Polite asked baker David Stoltzfus last month to remove the pictures. When Stoltzfus refused, Polite threatened to try to enact a city ordinance that would ban all political material from public places.
"I just feel that since it was a close election and the city's so divided, that we should have a healing period," Polite told the New Era of Lancaster on Friday.
...The baker said he is enjoying the attention, and other standholders have shown their support by putting up photos of the president.
"It's fun," Stoltzfus said Friday. "Even the Democrats come to me and tell me, 'Don't take that picture down.'"
I'm not sure if this story should fall under "the arrogance of the power," "get over it already," or "haven't you ever heard of the First Amendment buddy," but all three of them apply here...
The fine folks over at Premiere Speakers Bureau have hooked me up with some autographed books to give away. If you're looking for great speakers like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Oliver North, Neil Cavuto, Michael Reagan, Zell Miller, David Limbaugh, Dick Morris, Ben Shapiro, Vince Lombardi, Peggy Noonan, Neal Boortz, & G. Gordon Liddy for an event, Premiere can arrange it for a fee
Now on to the autographed books. I'm going to be doing a number of different contests, from now until December 16th, in order to give away the books you can find (and buy if you want) here.
There are only two things to keep in mind. First, I'm only going to allow each person to win one autographed book between now and the 16th. Also, after you win, you'll need to send me your address via email so I can forward it on to Premiere (They'll be sending the book directly out to you at some point after the 16th).
Here are the rules today: five guess per person, in the comments section, and the first person who gets the answer right wins the prize.
To win, you'll need to guess at least 3 of the last 5 Playstation 2 games that I bought used from Blockbuster.
We have a winner! NZarathustra guessed 3 of the 5, Red Dead Revolver, Medal of Honor: Rising Sun, Mortal Kombat: Deception. The other 2 were Alien Versus Predator & Manhunt.
Send me an email with your address NZarathustra...
Bush Nominates Nanny to Replace Kerik by Scott Ott
Just hours after Bernard Kerik withdrew his name from consideration as the next director of Homeland Security, President George Bush is reportedly set to nominate his replacement.
A senior administration official said the nomination would likely go to the illegal alien who once worked for Mr. Kerik as a nanny and was paid "under the table."
"The president sees the nanny nomination as win-win-win on several fronts," said the unnamed official. "She obviously knows how to penetrate our borders, so she'll be terrific running Homeland Security. As a gainfully-employed illegal alien, she'll help promote Mr. Bush's guest worker visa initiative. And since Kerik didn't pay into Social Security for her, she'll help Bush promote private retirement accounts."
The White House is withholding the name of the alleged nominee until she can be located and naturalized.
If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.
The Third Annual Most Annoying Liberals Of 2004 Moved To Next Week-End
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to complete the " Third Annual Most Annoying Liberals of 2004" article and since I have quite a bit left to do on it, I'm going to have to put it off until next week-end. Sorry folks, but you'll have to wait another week...
The Quick And Dirty, Super-Early, Guide To The 2008 Race For The Republican Nomination!
There has been an enormous amount of interest in who will be running for the Republican nomination for President in 2008 and what their chances are. So here's a quick and dirty guide to who may be running in 2008...
Tier 1 Candidates
--------------------
Rudy Giuliani: Rudy is probably the early front-runner because of his charisma, help to Bush during the last election, and clutch performance after 9/11, but he is far to the left of the base on abortion, gay marriage, and gun control. Rudy may simply not be conservative enough to get the nomination and he would undoubtedly turn-off a lot of social conservatives even if he did.
John McCain: Gets great press, has big name recognition, and definitely has a fan club in the Republican Party. He will also be 72 in 2008 (3 years older than Reagan was in 1980) and has a large block of people in the party who can't stand him because they believe he torpedoes the Party on a regular basis for no other reason than to get favorable coverage from the press.
Bill Frist: Frist doesn't have the stature of Giuliani or McCain, but as Senate Majority leader, he's guaranteed to be able to acquire the money and talent he'll need to make a serious run. And if Giuliani & McCain falter, which is entirely possible, Frist might be there to pick up the pieces.
Jeb Bush: If Jeb Bush were to run, he'd immediately become the front-runner. He can guarantee Florida, he's a fiscal conservative, he does well with Hispanics, and he would be able to raise money and put together the kind of organization needed to win the nomination. On the other hand, he has said he isn't running and his last name is Bush. Since by 2008 we'll have had a Bush in the White House for 20 out of the last 28 years, people will be ready for someone other than a Bush in 2008
Tier 2 Candidates
--------------------
Bill Owens (Colorado), Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota), and Ernie Fletcher (Kentucky): All three of these governors have a good buzz around them and any of them might have a chance to get the nomination if they were to run. Governors tend to make better candidates than Senators because they've had experience of being "solely in charge", they don't necessarily have to make any of the squishy compromises that Senators inevitably end up making, and best of all, they're outsiders not infected with the "taint of Washington". The question is whether any of these guys will run and then whether they can gather up the money and organizations needed to catapult themselves into the top tier.
Tier 3 Candidates
--------------------
Chuck Hagel, George Allen, Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback: These are Senators that are unlikely to be able to raise the money, get the name recognition, or generally make a big enough splash to be big factors. I'm not saying count them out, but I don't see any of these guys as top 5 candidates unless they get very lucky early on.
George Pataki (New York), Mitt Romney (Massachusetts), Bob Ehrlich (Maryland): All three candidates are governors who are probably a little bit to the left of the base. I doubt if they'll be able to raise the money, get the name recognition, or generally make a big enough splash to be big factors. I'm not saying count them out, but I don't see any of these guys as top 5 candidates unless they get very lucky early on.
Longshots
-----------
Arnold Schwarzenegger: Would need a Constitutional Amendment to run and he isn't going to get it. Even if he did, Schwarzenegger would be too liberal for most of the base.
Condi Rice: Condi's name keeps circulating in the blogosphere as a presidential or veep pick, but her domestic views are largely unknown and she has never run for public office before.
Colin Powell Powell has never run for office, says he has no interest, is to the left of most of the party and would be 71 years old in 2008. On the other hand, Powell is very popular and would immediately become a tier 1 candidate were he to run.
Tom Ridge: Ridge is a former PA Gov and the current lame-duck Homeland Security Secretary and his name has been tossed around as a possible candidate. However, Ridge didn't exactly cover himself in glory as the Homeland Security Secretary and how is he going to keep himself fresh until 2008? I'm not sure Ridge has what it takes to make it to the top of the GOP heap in 2008...
