Q&A Friday #35: Who Do You Think The Republican Nominee Will Be In 2008?
Question: "We've seen who everyone LIKES for the Republican presidential nominee, but who do you think will actually be on the ticket? And who do you think will be the VP? Remember, no dream ticket (Thompson - Rice) but the people who will, in all likelihood, be on the ballot. (I realize that it is pretty far out in the future, but use your telescopic vision)." -- jasamc
Answer: Here's my current opinion of the chances some of the favorites have to capture the Republican nomination (Two things: Don't hold me to this, because it's still too early to know for sure and this is my opinion of their chances, not just a list of my faves).
George Allen: He has the best chance because he's a reliable conservative, has low negatives, and is liked by a lot of insiders. He has very little name recognition right now once you get beyond us political wonks, but that'll change.
Condi Rice: Her grass roots support is much bigger than most people realize and the fact that she's almost a blank slate on domestic issues would actually be an advantage. On the other hand, the fact that she's pro-abortion would hurt her tremendously.
Personally, I'm completely unenthusiastic about Condi as a candidate, but if she were running, my gut instinct is that she'd definitely be an "A-List" candidate with a shot to capture the nomination. On the upside, at least from my perspective, I don't think she's going to run. Could she be considered as a veep? Absolutely, although the fact that she's closely tied to Bush could turn out to be a problem.
Bill Frist: Frist is a reliable conservative, he has some supporters, and he should be able to raise money. The big problem he has is that few conservatives seem to think much of the job he's done as Majority Leader. If he can't handle that job, then why should he get a promotion? I wouldn't say Frist has no chance to win, but he would have a very difficult time turning conservative perceptions of him around at this point.
Jeb Bush: Normally, a fairly well spoken, conservative governor from Florida, who would be able to raise a lot of money, would be a top tier candidate. But, Jeb has two big problems right now: his last name and his brother. Republicans don't want another Bush in 2008 and as W.'s approval rating has dropped, it has made Jeb a much less appealing candidate than he was in, let's say, in 2004. But, the veep slot? It might not be out of the question. If he's popular enough to make sure Florida stays red, he might be worth considering.
Rudy Giuliani: He's coasting along on name recognition, the job he did after 9/11, and his fantastic personality, but he's on the wrong side of too many hot button issues that really matter to most conservatives. Plus, he's an adulterer. He won't be the nominee, but the veep slot isn't out the question.
Mitt Romney: Romney has benefited from some early hype, but it seems highly unlikely that he could win. He's a squishy, pro-abortion Mormon from Massachusetts. Most conservatives are just going to give him a cursory look and say, "no thanks." Could he be the veep? Only if he could deliver Massachussetts and that doesn't seem likely.
Newt Gingrich: A lot of conservatives love Newt because of the Congressional takeover in 1994, the Contract with America, and because he's a reliable conservative. But, he's just got way too much baggage to win. Add his baggage to the fact that he's from Georgia and his chances of getting the veep slot seem remote.
John McCain: Here's another guy with high name recognition who gets good press -- mainly because he loves slamming other Republicans. But, much of the conservative press absolutely hates his guts -- mainly because he loves slamming other Republicans. Once we get closer to nomination time, the new media will hit him like a school of piranha and just eviscerate his candidacy. He won't be the nominee and he's such a flakey egomaniac (Ooops! Did I say that?) that he's unlikely to be considered as a veep either.
Tom Tancredo: Tancredo is a one issue candidate (illegal immigration) who hasn't made much of an effort to branch out and because of his increasing negatives caused by the pro-illegal crowd pushing back against him, it's hard to see him being able to gain enough support to make it to the top at this point.
Haley Barbour, Bob Ehrlich, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, Mark Sanford, Bill Owens: These are the other governors who may get into the race. Although it's too early yet to know who'll get in and who'll be able to raise money, I expect at least one of them, maybe more, to make a big impact. Unfortunately, it's too early to know which governor has the potential to catch fire.
Q&A Friday #35: Has The Threat Of Terrorism Been "Exaggerated"?
Question: "Many on the right are fond of saying that the fact we haven't had a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 is proof of the success of America's foreign policy.
John, what do you say to the claim that this is evidence that the Bush Administration has exaggerated the threat of terrorism?" -- SecHumanist
Wait a second: if the threat of terrorism is "exaggerated," then why exactly were there so many Democrats out there saying that the port deal was dangerous? After all, if the threat of terrorism is "exaggerated," what difference does it make if Dubai Ports World takes over from a British company?
So, let's be honest here: As per usual, this argument, which liberals have been making in one form or another for the last few years, is an example of their wanting to have it both ways on this issue.
On the one hand, liberals say that the threat of terrorism is "exaggerated." On the other hand, they blame Bush for not doing enough to fight terrorism before 9/11.
On the one hand, liberals say that the threat of terrorism is "exaggerated." On the other hand, they claim the American people should trust them to handle a threat they obviously don't take seriously.
On the one hand, liberals say that the threat of terrorism is "exaggerated." On the other hand, if there's a terrorist attack, they'll claim Bush is responsible because he didn't do more to stop it.
If liberals want to say that there's no real danger from terrorism then they should call for cuts in spending on airport and port security. They should have all voted against the Patriot Act instead of accepting some inconsequential changes and then caving almost en masse in the Senate.
Either terrorism is a major threat and there's a real chance that we could have another 9/11 or it's an "exaggerated" threat and not something we should spend a lot of time worrying about. Liberals should pick a side and be intellectually honest about it, like Bush has, instead of being such opportunistic crapweasels who put politics ahead of national security.
Q&A Friday #35: The Different Schools Of Conservatism
Question: "We discuss many positions of liberals and conservatives on this blog in terms of Dem vs. Rep. However, within the political spectrum there are many different kins of conservative, as well as liberals and those who are a combination of both.
What are the descriptions of those many kinds?
It would seem to me that would give us all a better understanding when we make certain generalizations." -- D-Vega
Answer: That can be a very complex question depending on how deeply you want to dig into it and I look at this issue differently from most conservatives, but let me give it a shot.
To begin with, some of the ideological divisions in conservatism that people talk about are just non-existent. For example, in my opinion, there may be people who call themselves, "Crunchy Conservatives," or, "Neoconservatives," but there are really no significant differences ideologically between them and just run-of-the-mill conservatives.
Furthermore, a lot of people play up the differences between, "social conservatives," and,"fiscal conservatives." But, let me tell you a little secret: while it's certainly true that there are some conservatives who are primarily animated by economics, deficit reduction, reducing the size of government, etc., and there are other conservatives who get all fired up about stopping pornography and sticking up for religious freedom, their views are basically the same on most issues. In other words, Larry Kudlow, Walter Williams, and Thomas Sowell would probably agree with James Dobson, William Bennett, and Ralph Reed on 9 issues out of 10, although they might not get as hot and bothered about exactly the same things.
That's not to say that there are no truly separate groups of conservatives. There are Paleocons, who can basically be defined as conservative isolationists. Then there are the people from the "realist" school of foreign policy, who believe in promoting stability and containment as opposed to our current policy of pushing Democracy and pre-emption. They're also distinctive enough to be thought of as a totally different group, at least on foreign policy, even though the -- ehr, "post realists?" -- were almost all believers in the realist school of foreign policy during the Reagan years.
Also, let me add I don't want to imply that there are no disagreements between conservatives. There are different schools of thought on various social issues, illegal immigration, and foreign policy, among other issues. But, in my view, unless you're talking about a really large split (like on Isolationism vs. engaging the world and free trade), it doesn't really merit being described as a whole new strain of conservatism.
Q&A Friday #35: A Real, Rational, Logical Solution To Illegal Immigration
Question: "What is a true solution to the illegal immigration problem in the United States?
By true solution, I mean something the majority of Americans could support. At one point, it seemed it was a con vs. lib issue. Now, even liberals admit it is indeed a problem and cons (or Reps) do little or nothing about it, considering the many industries that rely on illegal immigration labor. The Guest Worker program proposal is a sham, considering the requirements at present (pay back taxes, speak English, fingerprinting, full time steady job & clean record.) Everyone admits its a problem, but no one has a real solution.
What is a real, rational, logical solution?" -- D-Vega
Answer: a lot of people talk about illegal immigration as if it's an almost unsolvable problem, but it's really not all that tough of a nut to crack -- if, and here's, the hitch -- our representatives in Congress wanted to make it happen.
Here's the very short version...
#1) You secure the border with walls, sensors, unmanned drones, radar stations, and more personnel. Yes, we have a big border and we probably couldn't stop every single illegal, but could we stop let's say 90% of the traffic currently crossing our border? Maybe more? Absolutely.
#2) You crack down on the people who are employing illegal aliens in the US. Once the jobs disappear, not only will it take away the incentive for most "undocumented workers" to come here in the first place, it'll cause most of the illegals who are already here to self-deport.
#3) Once the illegals are gone, the companies that employ them will either need to raise salaries and increase benefits to attract workers or they'll need to purchase technology that will allow them to get by with fewer workers. Beyond that there is always the possibility of a guest worker program if the need turns out to be great enough.
There's a real, rational, logical solution to the problem.
Q&A Friday #35: What Will It Take To Make Peace Between The Israelis And Palestinians?
Question: In 1877, Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce Indian tribe spoke some of the most noble and heartbreaking words a human being has ever put together in and about defeat:
"I am tired of fighting. Our chiefs are killed. Looking Glass is dead. Toohoolhoolzote is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say, "Yes" or "No." He who led the young men is dead. It is cold, and we have no blankets. The little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are -- perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children, and see how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands I will fight no more forever."
My question is regarding the Israeli/Palestine situation: Do you think there is any other path to victory for Israel outside driving the Palestinians into a complete and utter state of submission? Will it take a Chief Joseph in the Palestinian ranks to finally put an end to the violence there?
by President_Friedman on 2006-03-09 09:51:22 [delete]
Will it take a Chief Joseph in the Palestinian ranks to finally put an end to the violence there?" -- President_Friedman
Answer: The problem with the Palestinians isn't just their leaders, it's the people and their sick, death cult culture. The reason there is no peace between the Israelis and Palestinians is because the Palestinians don't want peace yet. They're still holding out hope that somehow, some way, they're going to "win" and be able to murder the Israelis and take their land.
Since that's the case, here are 6 options that could lead to peace.
#1) Throughout history, the sort of conflict the Israelis and Palestinians have had has been settled rather simply: the stronger side slaughters the weaker. This is a very effective strategy, but it's almost universally considered to be morally repugnant and beyond the pale in these days and times by Westerners (myself included). So although the Palestinians would certainly commit genocide against the Israelis, the reverse isn't true. That means this option is out.
#2) The Israelis could simply give up and leave or allow the, "Right of Return," which would lead to demographic suicide and eventually the Holocaust, part deux. However, since nations with top notch militaries and nuclear weapons don't just roll over and die, this isn't going to happen.
#3) Another possible way the conflict could be solved would involve the Israelis forcing the Palestinians into other countries and taking their land. To be honest, this would probably be the best solution despite all the problems it would cause for Israel. However, this is considered to be a rather extreme step and it probably won't be seriously discussed until when and/or if the Palestinians commit some 9/11 style atrocity that causes the Israelis to radicalize.
#4) The Palestinians can have a leader step up who'll start a Palestinian civil war, crush the terrorist groups, and establish a government monopoly on force. Then, once that occurs, that leader could negotiate a peace with Israel and start building a better life for his people. Unfortunately, the Palestinian leader who probably could have pulled that off, Arafat, just wasn't that sort of guy. Now, there's no one on the scene who seems willing or able to make this happen.
#5) Jordan or Egypt could simply absorb the Palestinian territories and use their security forces to get it under control while receiving massive amounts of US aid as compensation. However, since this would be unpopular, would lead to Palestinian terrorist attacks against Jordan or Egypt, and since wisely, neither nation would want to take in that many Palestinians, it won't happen.
#6) Israel can completely wall off the Palestinians and do everything humanly possible to ramp up the misery level via collective punishment. In short, the goal would be to have Palestinians with no money, no work, no food, afraid, sitting in rubble, and throwing their feces in the streets. Then you hold out the carrot, show how good things could be if there was peace, and you wait until they, like Chief Joseph, throw in the towel. Is that cruel? Yes. But, so is blowing up buses full of Israeli kids.
One more thing: here's what won't work -- rewarding the Palestinians for being unreasonable with promises of a state, more goodies, or more Israeli concessions. The world already went down that path with the Oslo accords and they accomplished absolutely nothing because the Palestinians acted like a nation full of psychopaths and were never held to account for it. More of the same failed tactics won't accomplish anything.
Q&A Friday 35: What About A Gonzales Pick For Another Vacancy On The Supreme Court?
Question: "If another seat were to open up on the Supreme Court, how would you feel about an Alberto Gonzales nomination? I know you've made it clear in the past that you wouldn't be thrilled with the prospect, but would you be so outraged at the choice that you would want the nomination withdrawn, or would it simply be another disappointment in your view?" -- maledicta
"Wouldn't Gonzales be another "crony" pick like Miers? If you recall, that was a primary objection to Miers. I suspect John would, quite consistently, object for the same reasons.
That said, after Miers, it's entirely possible someone will suddenly ask about some "pet" judges of theirs around the time the opening becomes known. Maybe here, maybe at other big conservative blogs, maybe if they're really daring, Volokh. Probable? No, it's too close to a leak for Bush, even if the source is presumed to be Joe Citizen..." -- Compiled
Answer: Selecting Gonzales would be the biggest POLITICAL mistake since Truman fired MacArthur, especially after the Miers debacle and Alito's confirmation.
Why pick a nominee who's going to be widely and bitterly opposed by a large portion of your base when there are probably a dozen better candidates out there, if not more, who would thrill conservatives and would probably be confirmed just as easily as Alito was in the end?
As far as calling for Gonzales to be withdrawn goes, I think chances are that it wouldn't work. Yes, Gonzales is also a Bush crony, but since he has served on the Supreme Court of Texas, you can't credibly make the case that he isn't qualified to be on the SCOTUS. But again, even if Bush got Gonzales confirmed, it would create so much antagonism between W. and the base, that it would be a pyrrhic victory that would haunt him until the end of his presidency.
So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective; heck, it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV. Then, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.
The Politics Behind The The Harriet Miers Heisman Move
"So ports.....it'll be dead by the hand of UAE. it's the only way the Admin can save face. Call it the Harriet Miers Heisman Move. HMHM." -- From a person who wishes to remain anonymous, to me on instant messenger yesterday.
My position on the port deal has been that it's fine on its merits, but that Republicans should kill it for purely political reasons. Let me explain why I've taken that position in more detail.
To begin with, no one should blame President Bush for being blindsided initially here. This was a routine deal, that was talked about in the business press, and there was really no reason to think beforehand that this would lead to a big brouhaha.
However, regrettably, once this issue hit the papers and the press told the public that Dubai Ports World was "taking over the ports," which implied they'd be handling security, things got ugly in hurry. As much as anything, that was because few people actually knew enough about port security to immediately correct the mistaken impression that the press had left.
So, from the very beginning, the American public was very negative about the deal, Democrats saw it as a political opportunity, and most Republicans either opposed the deal outright or at least came across as skeptical.
Then, just as opposition to the deal was reaching critical mass what does Bush do? He goes way out on a limb, by declaring that he'd veto a Congressional attempt to kill the bill, and then he dares the Republicans in Congress to start sawing. Their response to that, after having gotten an earful from their constituents and looking at the polls, was to pick up a chainsaw and get to work -- and -- here's the part that's going to be tough for some people to accept -- they were right to do so.
"But Hawkins, Dubai Ports World is handling stevedoring duties, not security!" Agreed.
"But Hawkins, having Dubai Ports World in charge instead of a British company doesn't increase the risk!" Agreed.
"But Hawkins, the personnel wouldn't even be changing over. Americans would be doing the work and security!" Agreed.
"But Hawkins, this is opening up a huge can of worms. Will this hurt our relations with the UAE? What about the other ports run by foreign companies?" Agreed.
If you're saying that the Dubai Ports World deal wouldn't hurt our security, then you're preaching to the choir.
Now, here's the response to that. The number of Americans opposed to this deal outnumber those who support it roughly 3 to 1 and they're much more passionate about their position. Furthermore, this single issue, has hurt Bush significantly at the polls and has damaged the GOP's reputation on national security. Moreover, if the public hasn't turned around by now, they're not going to be turned around.
So, let's cut to the chase: are the supporters of this deal willing to give up seats in the House and Senate in order "to be right"? Here's another question along similar lines: are the supporters of this deal willing to lose control of the House and Senate in order "to be right"? Because, if this deal would have somehow been forced through, despite the sort of enormous opposition to it we've seen from the American people, at a minimum it would have cost us seats and it could have possibly cost us control of Congress.
Maybe some people think that's a price worth paying "to be right". But, ask yourself: is making sure that a company from the UAE is allowed to handle stevedoring duties a "core conservative value"? Are they an important constituency group? Can people from the UAE vote?
Since the answer to all those questions is "no," Bush made a huge political mistake by waving around a veto threat and the Republicans in Congress were right to kill the deal, although the over-the-top way some of them have behaved was not appreciated (I'm thinking about Sue Myrick and Peter King in particular).
What it all comes down to is that this is a big issue with the voting public, those of us who don't think this deal is a risk to our security are in the minority by far, and sometimes you just have to accede to political reality. That may be a bitter pill to swallow, but it's where we're at, and it's why whoever had a talk with Dubai Ports World and convinced them to fall on their sword, did the right thing.
"The Democratic Party can never be an adult party; they buy votes to get elected and it's the only way they get elected. If Republicans won't be an adult party, America won't have one." -- Republican Congressman Tom Feeney
Hat tip to the The QandO Blog for pointing out the quote.
Have you ever wondered whether anyone in Congress actually reads blogs? Well, wonder no more, because that question has now been definitively answered. Below you'll find a list of nine members of Congress and the blogs that they regularly read and/or have their staffs monitor for them.
(A special thanks goes out to Jack Kingston's office, Brian Walsh in Bob Ney's office, and the other people on the Hill who helped make this post possible)
Don't "Pull A Kudlow" Just Because Your Ideological Allies Don't Agree With You On One Issue
Larry Kudlow has gone completely off the rails in an effort to defend the port deal, which is strongly opposed by the American people, Congress, and a majority of members of both political parties. Rather than being content to just defend the port deal on its merits, in his latest column, Kudlow has chosen to offensively spew bile at conservatives who dare to disagree with him.
" When you scratch this debate among conservatives deep enough, what you are left with is a clear demarcation between free-traders and protectionists. Those conservatives who oppose the deal are lining up with xenophobic protectionists like my old friend Patrick Buchanan. On the other hand, conservatives in favor of the deal align themselves with the pro-growth, free-trade tradition embodied by Jack Kemp. The Kemp adherents believe in breaking down global barriers in order to enhance prospects for prosperity and freedom everywhere. That's in large part what the United Arab Emirates/DP World episode is all about.
Whether it's anti-Arab Islamophobia or anti-Mexican Hispanophobia, the fear-mongers in the conservative ranks do not truly believe in economic opportunity. Nor do they believe in Ronald Reagan's "City on a Hill" vision of America, where it is our charge to lead the world toward free-market prosperity, political democratization and true freedom for all peoples.
Yes, there is a rift in the conservative ranks. Opposing President Bush are those with a vision of pessimism, defeatism and fear. Supporting the president are those with a Reaganite vision that brims with opportunity, victory and success in the spread of freedom and democratization."
First of all, the idea that this is an issue that's primarily about "free-traders" vs. "protectionists" is blatantly incorrect. As a matter of fact, although such people may exist, I have yet to see any conservative try to make an argument against the deal on those terms. That's why I suspect this is just a dishonest way for Kudlow to try to link people who are against the port deal with Patrick Buchanan, who's widely disliked by many people on the right in large part because he is a "xenophobic protectionist."
From there, Kudlow goes on, in two paragraphs mind you, to essentially accuse people who oppose the port deal of engaging in "anti-Arab Islamophobia,""anti-Mexican Hispanophobia," being "fear-mongers," of "pessimism, defeatism and fear," and being opposed to "economic opportunity,""freedom for all peoples," and "Ronald Reagan's 'City on a Hill' vision."
Hey, Larry, why didn't you just save time and say every conservative who disagrees with you on the port deal can go straight to hell?
You know, you expect this sort of garbage from libs like George Clooney, faux-conservatives like Andrew Sullivan, and big mouths like Pat Robertson, but not from the likes of Larry Kudlow. If you ask me, Kudlow owes all the conservatives opposed to the port deal an apology.
Don't Support Amnesty International + Plus Making A Case For Extraordinary Rendition
Despite the fact Amnesty International does some good around the world, they're also a far left-wing group that is implacably hostile to America
That's why I don't think conservatives should support AI in any way. That's where I stand. But, interestingly enough, the reverse doesn't seem to be true because Amnesty International has bought an ad on RWN.
The ad is a lame little connect-the-dots video they really didn't put much effort into. Some of the "dots" have nothing to do with the point of the ads and they just got lazy at the end and didn't even have words to go with the images.
Their complaint is that terrorism suspect, Maher Arar, was captured in the United States and sent back to his home country of Syria where he claims to have been tortured.
The practice of capturing people like Maher Arar and sending them back to their home countries to be interrogated, after we receive promises that they will not be mistreated or tortured, is called extraordinary rendition.
Since the American court system is poorly equipped to deal with foreigners who are suspected of terrorist activities based on classified intelligence data and since sending them off to Gitmo can sometimes be a big political problem (In Arar's case, he is a Syrian AND Canadian citizen), extraordinary rendition seems like a very reasonable way to deal with the issue without having to compromise our security.
If Arar is innocent (He admits that he confessed to the Syrians that he went through an Al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan) and if he was tortured in Syria (which is entirely possible), then take it up with them, not us. They're the ones who may have kept an innocent man in jail for a year and may have tortured him.
Whatever the case may be with Arar, extraordinary rendition is a useful tool in the war on terror and it should continue.
Quote Of The Day: The Price We Pay For Illegal Immigration
"If the 24 counties along the nation's Southwest border were a 51st state, it would rank first in federal crimes, second in tuberculosis and near the bottom in education, per capita income and access to health care.
...The study found the region ranks last in access to health care compared with the rest of the states and 50th in number of residents with insurance. Yet the prevalence of people with tuberculosis is twice that of United States as a whole. Residents also have high rates of AIDS, hepatitis and adult diabetes.
Local hospitals are straining to cover the cost of treating uninsured patients, said San Diego County Supervisor Greg Cox, the border group's president.
"You have seen a lot of our hospitals reach the breaking point," Cox said. "Some of them are on the verge of bankruptcy, and that's a very, very, very scary scenario." -- KRISTV
Some Of The Kossacks Even Think The Democratic Primaries Are Rigged
Judging by what you're about to read from the commenters at the Daily Kos, a lot of liberals seem to have come to the conclusion that the VRWC has gotten so good at rigging Presidential elections that they've actually decided to branch out and start stuffing the ballot boxes in Democratic primaries.
In this case, moderate Democrat Henry Cuellar, who was actually endorsed by the Club for Growth, defeated liberal Democrat Ciro Rodriguez and a lot of Kossacks seem convinced it must have been fixed because uh, well, everyone loves liberals? Who knows, there's not much rhyme or reason to it.
Here are a few noteworthy comments from the thread that should give you the gist of it:
Spermdonor: Dream on . . . .If 2000 in Florida didn't teach this country anything, and if 2004 in Ohio AND Florida didn't teach this country anything (in spite of warnings of possible shenanigans in advance), what makes you think anyone is going to pay attention NOW, even if any irregularities are blatant?
Especially since most Americans, in spite of what they say to the contrary, buy into the corporate media, and the corporate media won't say shit.
I'm at the point that I've all but given up any hope in real representative government ever actually occurring in this country.
It's a myth. Perhaps it always has been.
puppethead: Apathy and vote rigging. I guess it's time to give up on democracy. We've clearly got unchecked vote rigging (the "errors" always favor GOP candidates, that's statistically very unlikely). But what's worse is the f*cking apathy from everyone. Either the Democratic ground game is completely worthless or voters just don't give a shit about what happens to this country.
Solarbaby: Is this a fixed election? How can Webb first report the early votes this late and 8,145 for Cuellar? Something smells fishy. And yes, it is over. Because when the rest of Webb reports it will be so far skewed to Cuellar.
I think Webb county was rigged. Very easy to do with early ballots contrary to what people think.
Dumbya: this has the fingerprints of the Diebold IT guys
dole4pineapple: Webb county results "DeLayed". We know what that means. It's going to take time for them make scan the voter rolls for dead guys whose votes they need. Webb county is so obviously engaging in fraud that it's not funny. "Not working"...that seems to be a frequent problem with electronic voting machines. Of course, fraud is much easier now than it was in the days of LBJ. Then, you had to write the names on the voting tally sheet. Now, you just change a couple of digits on a computer and you've stolen an election.
Hat tip to RedState for pointing out this thread at the Daily Kos
Apparently the Palestinians' bloodlust is really starting to catch up with them:
"Israel's security closure of Gaza's main cargo crossing has hit the coastal strip hard: milk and cheese have virtually disappeared, fruit is hard to find, and flour is running out.
The shortages could get worse for the 1.3 million residents of Gaza once Hamas formally takes power, with Israel threatening to seal its borders with Gaza altogether once the Islamic militants form a government.
"The world should look at this and find us a solution," said Mustafa Shurab of the Palestinian Mill Co. "Collective punishment is a small word to describe this war."
Sami Abu Daoud said he went to nine supermarkets Tuesday in a futile search for low-fat milk. The price of regular milk for his children has doubled, he said."You can't find an apple in the
Gaza Strip," Daoud said. "I don't know why they are doing this. For political reasons? Security reasons? For what?"
Israeli officials say the closure is strictly because of security concerns.
"This is nothing punitive," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev. He said Israel has identified a "definite and specific threat at the crossing" and is eager to reopen Karni. Palestinian militants have targeted the crossing in the past, killing six Israelis in a January 2005 attack."
"According to the figures presented to the Congressional committee, the PA deficit for 2005 totaled $800 million, of which $340 million was covered by non-U.S. donors. The PA also took out short-term loans, mainly from European banks.
The Americans believe that the PA will have trouble borrowing more this year and that if it fails to find immediate financing sources, it will not be able to pay the salaries of its 150,000 employees.
Half of the PA budget comes from donations. Of the other half, 63 percent comes from the tax receipts Israel collects on its behalf, which it decided to freeze two weeks ago. Russia, the Americans believe, will not give much money, despite its overtures to the new PA regime.
In talks within the U.S. and with European representatives, it was agreed that monetary aid to the Palestinian population must continue after Hamas takes over officially, but the way to continue this support remains unclear. For example, there is the question of how to continue supporting the health services when the facilities used by most Palestinians are PA-controlled and might be headed by Hamas officials."
Here's a "radical" suggestion: why doesn't the United States completely cut them off? No money, no water, no food, no funds for NGOs that work in the disputed territories, not a penny.
Look at it this way, the money we're giving them isn't accomplishing much of anything. The Palestinians actively support terrorism, they despise America more than any nation other than Israel, our aid isn't buying us any good will, and they have no interest whatsoever in peace. Moreover, you have all these governments in the Middle-East that constantly talk about how much they love the Palestinians and want a permanent settlement, while they funnel money to the terrorists under the table in an effort to keep the conflict alive and actually spend considerably less than we do to help the Palestinian people.
So, since they love the Palestinians so much, let them feed them, let them clothe them, let them pay for traffic cops and garbage pick-up and all the other things that make a state work.
This would have four benefits:
#1) Maybe they'll start using more money from these Middle-Eastern countries to buy food instead of Semtex and rockets.
#2) If these Middle-Eastern nations actually feel compelled to start spending a lot more money to support the Palestinians, then maybe they'll become more interested in really pushing peace, if only to get America and Israel to open up their coffers again.
#3) If, as expected, the other nations in the Middle-East won't fill the enormous gap left by the US and Israel cutting off funds, then the long-term cash crunch and the greatly increased misery might help convince the Palestinians that it's time to get serious about making peace.
#4) The Palestinian people might actually conclude that Americans aren't as dumb as they thought once we stop enabling jihad against Israel by supporting a terrorist regime, whether Hamas or Fatah are the ones in power.
That's why we should let someone else take care of the Palestinians.
I just wanted to take this opportunity to say that I disagree with Merrill Keiser Jr., a Democrat running for the Senate in Ohio, who favors the death penalty for gays.
"A Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Ohio wants to make homosexual behavior a capital crime punishable by the death penalty.
Merrill Keiser Jr. is a trucker with no political experience, but he hopes to beat fellow Democrat Rep. Sherrod Brown in the May primary. The winner will try to unseat Republican incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine, assuming he wins the GOP primary."
All decent people should condemn Democrats like Merrill Keiser and Fred Phelps of "God Hates F*gs" fame, who want to murder gays. No matter how many Democrats support these Democratic candidates who believe in murdering gays, it's wrong. Moreover, other Democrats, like John Kerry, Harry Reid, & Hillary Clinton should have the courage to speak out against people like Merrill Keiser and Fred Phelps, unless they secretly support their gay murdering agenda.
As for the Republican party, unlike Democrats and Merrill Keiser and Fred Phelps, we don't support murdering gays. That's because unlike Democrats and Merrill Keiser and Fred Phelps, we believe murdering gays is wrong. Furthermore, unlike Democrats like John Kerry, Harry Reid, & Hillary Clinton, we're willing to step up boldly and say so!
...So what do you think? Did I mention "murdering gays" and Democrats enough times in those three paragraphs? I was basically just aping the whole Democratic "strategy" of just mentioning Republicans and "Enron" or Republicans and "Culture of corruption" or "Bush has no plan" over and over and over again. Granted, that technique doesn't seem to be very effective, nor is it accurate, but the Democrats do this sort of thing all the time, so they must think there's something to it.
Next week: Look for RWN to try another Democratic "strategery": framing! Make sure to tune in so you can see how we're going to describe bombing the Iranians as "Helping them reach heaven, where those lucky people will be happy all the time!"
The 20 Best Twilight Zone Episodes Of All-Time In Order
One of my all-time favorite TV shows -- and perhaps surprisingly, one of the most influential television shows of all-time -- is the Twilight Zone. Although not every show was fantastic and more than a few of them were just standard horror schlock, many of the best shows are better than most Hollywood fare today. In fact, the ideas were more original, the acting was better, and the show's understanding of how the average person views the world was better than 95% of what Hollywood is pumping out today.
That's why the original Twilight Zone is far better than any of its recent imitators (The Outer Limits, The New: Twilight Zone, & Tales from the Crypt, for example) despite the fact that all the episodes are more than 40 years old at this point and have often been copied on other shows.
With that in mind, here are my all-time favorite Twilight Episodes, in order, with short descriptions cribbed from the fine folks over at TV.Com.
20) One for the Angels (1959): A street salesman cleverly eludes Death. But if he lives, a little girl must die in his place.
19) The Little People (1962): An astronaut declares himself a god when his ship lands on a planet populated by people smaller than ants.
18) The Grave (1961): Before he died, notorious gunslinger Pinto Sykes put a curse on hired-gun Conny Miller. Miller returns to town and is challenged to visit the grave of Sykes, despite the curse.
17) Printer's Devil (1963): Douglas Winter's paper, The Courier, is in financial trouble. Mr. Smith appears and offers to pay off the debts, and run the linotype machine. Douglas agrees, but soon regrets when he realizes Mr. Smith is the devil...
16) A Most Unusual Camera (1960): Chester Diedrich and his wife Paula, after burglarizing a curio shop, end up with a camera that takes pictures of events five minutes into the future.
15) The Last Rites of Jeff Myrtlebank (1962): Jeff Myrtlebank comes back to life at his own funeral and soon begins to act very strangely..,
14) Of Late I Think of Cliffordville: A bored, wealthy businessman gets a chance to go back in time and start over, armed with all the knowledge he's acquired...an arsenal that's not as powerful as he thinks.
13) Long Distance Call (1961): A young boy finds he can communicate with his dead grandmother through a toy phone.
12) Night Call (1964): Mysterious phone calls haunt a disabled woman.
11) The Invaders (1961): An old woman in an isolated farmhouse encounters tiny, hostile aliens.
10) Nightmare at 20,000 Feet (1963): Mr. Wilson believes he sees a gremlin on the wing of his commercial aircraft.
9) The Silence (1961): A talkative man takes an offer to keep silent for a year for $500,000.
8) The Howling Man (1960): A man, on a walking trip of Europe, gets caught in a storm. He finds a remote monastery that contains a prisoner.
7) On Thursday We Leave For Home (1963): A man named Benteen leads a colony of Americans stranded on a desert planet for 30 years.
6) The Eye of the Beholder (1960): A young woman undergoes "experimental treatments" in an attempt to make her appear "normal".
5) To Serve Man (1962): The Kanamits, 9 foot tall aliens, arrive on Earth with one lofty goal: To Serve Man.
4) Time Enough at Last (1959): A bank teller, longs for time alone to read. He gets his wish...
3) Dust (1961): After selling the rope for a hanging, a conscienceless peddler, tries to sell the condemned man's father a bag of "magic dust".
2) It's A Good Life (1961): Little Anthony Fremont controls an entire town with his ability to read minds and make people do as he wishes. Which is a real good thing.
1) The Hunt (1962): On a hunting trip, Hyder Simpson and his dog Rip dive into a lake after a raccoon. When he gets home he finds that no one can see or hear him.
Excerpt Of The Day: Rumsfeld Rips The Media's Misleading And Hysterical Coverage Of Iraq
"From what I've seen thus far, much of the reporting in the U.S. and abroad has exaggerated the situation, according to General Casey. The number of attacks on mosques, as he pointed out, had been exaggerated. The number of Iraqi deaths had been exaggerated. The behavior of the Iraqi security forces had been mischaracterized in some instances. And I guess that is to say nothing of the apparently inaccurate and harmful reports of U.S. military conduct in connection with a bus filled with passengers in Iraq.
Interestingly, all of the exaggerations seem to be on one side. It isn't as though there simply have been a series of random errors on both sides of issues. On the contrary, the steady stream of errors all seem to be of a nature to inflame the situation and to give heart to the terrorists and to discourage those who hope for success in Iraq.
And then I notice today that there's been a public opinion poll reporting that the readers of these exaggerations believe Iraq is in a civil war -- a majority do, which I suppose is little wonder that the reports we've seen have had that effect on the American people.
...Nearly 56 years ago, in 1950, the Truman administration issued what would become a framework for America's Cold War strategy for four decades. In a formerly classified document called NSC 68, the Truman administration said, quote, "Our fundamental purpose is more likely to be defeated from lack of will to maintain it than from any mistakes we may make or assault we may undergo because of asserting that will," unquote. Today our nation is again in a long struggle. And again, the toughest challenge will be to maintain our national will to persevere and to prevail." -- Donald Rumsfeld
Excerpt Of The Day: Ben Stein On "Bravery" In Hollywood
"The idea that it is brave to stand up for gays in Hollywood, to stand up against Joe McCarthy in Hollywood (fifty years after his death), to say that rich white people are bad, that oil companies are evil -- this is nonsense. All of these are mainstream ideas in Hollywood, always have been, always will be. For the people who made movies denouncing Big Oil, worshiping gays, mocking the rich to think of themselves as brave -- this is pathetic, childish narcissism.
The brave guy in Hollywood will be the one who says that this is a fabulously great country where we treat gays, blacks, and everyone else as equal. The courageous writer in Hollywood will be the one who says the oil companies do their best in a very hostile world to bring us energy cheaply and efficiently and with a minimum of corruption. The producer who really has guts will be the one who says that Wall Street, despite its flaws, has done the best job of democratizing wealth ever in the history of mankind...They would be heroes if they said that Moslem extremists are the worst threat to human decency since Hitler and Stalin. But someone might yell at them or even attack them with a knife if they said that, so they never will." -- Ben Stein
My local ISP is having problems and my DSL is down. Because of that, updates may be slower and less frequent than normal today. Hopefully, it'll be back up and running soon.
*** Update #1: *** It has been 19 hours since my DSL originally went down and I'm still stuck in dial-up hell. I just called my ISP and they confirmed that the problem is on their end, but of course, they have no idea when it will be fixed. All they can tell me is that they're, "working on it."
I've worked for an ISP wholesale provider and let me tell you something: if you're down for 19 hours, either your engineers are incompetent or a part on a router went bad and you didn't have a spare, like you should have, and are having the part overnighted.
Either way, this dial-up is making the net really s-l-o-w and cramping my style so hopefully these clowns will get this problem fixed by tomorrow morning.
A New Jersey Republican Vs. Free Speech On The Net
One of the big problems with government is that the "cures" often proposed to fix whatever the issue du jour happens to be are often considerably worse than the "disease" they're trying to prevent.
For example, one "problem" on the net is that innuendo, rumors, and outright lies are sometimes spread by anonymous posters who can be very difficult to identify and punish. Is this a big problem? You'll find a horror story here and there about some huckster or malicious creep causing real difficulties for a person or company, but it's certainly not a major issue on the net.
Despite the fact that this isn't a serious concern for 99.9% of the people using the net, Republican Assemblyman Peter J. Biondi, a genius in the state legislature of New Jersey, has a brilliant idea to "fix" this problem. Here's the summary of his bill:
"This bill would require an operator of any interactive computer service or an Internet service provider to establish, maintain and enforce a policy requiring an information content provider who posts messages on a public forum website either to be identified by legal name and address or to register a legal name and address with the operator or provider prior to posting messages on a public forum website.
The bill requires an operator of an interactive computer service or an Internet service provider to establish and maintain reasonable procedures to enable any person to request and obtain disclosure of the legal name and address of an information content provider who posts false or defamatory information about the person on a public forum website.
In addition, the bill makes any operator or Internet service provider liable for compensatory and punitive damages as well as costs of a law suit filed by a person damaged by the posting of such messages if the operator or Internet service provider fails to establish, maintain and enforce the policy required by section 2 of the bill.
Cutting through the legaleese here, he's basically saying that anyone who runs a comment section or a forum would be required by law to have the names and addresses of the people commenting. It would also seem to require that hosting companies have names and addresses of anyone using their service to blog.
That's a ludicrous idea on so many levels.
First of all, how would it work given that these are free services and that people can literally dial in from anywhere in the world? Maybe via credit card? How much sense would that make and how much unneccessary red tape would it create? Furthermore, how could this be applied to forums outside of the United States? It couldn't. Moreover, it's one thing to go after people who commit libel, but this bill, in a roundabout way, essentially bans anonymous speech on the internet. That would seem to run afoul of the First Amendment. Then, we have to consider other forms of communication that can potentially be used for "anonymous speech." Are payphones or copy machines going to have to meet these same requirements? Will anonymous pamplets be banned? No, of course not. So, why should the net be treated differently?
The scary thing about this bill is that if it were to go into effect in New Jersey, it would likely mean that forums and comment sections all across the United States would shut down rather than start filling out reams of new paperwork or risk having someone from New Jersey file a suit and drag them into court.
That's why this bill is bad for the net, would have a massive negative impact on free speech, and should never become law.
Mike Pence and his pals over at the Republican Study Committee don't just talk the talk on deficit like almost all the Democrats, and most of the other Republicans on the Hill, they walk the walk:
"With Congress heading into a politically perilous budget season, influential House conservatives plan this week to propose an austere alternative spending plan that would pare more than $650 billion over five years, balance the budget and drastically shrink three cabinet agencies.
The legislation, part of a push by some Republicans to re-establish themselves as champions of fiscal restraint, was taking shape as President Bush struck a similar theme on Monday by asking Congress to grant him line-item veto power to eliminate federal spending that he might judge wasteful.
"We can't be all things to all people when it comes to spending the taxpayers' money," Mr. Bush said at a ceremony installing a new chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.
But House conservative leaders would go far beyond the president's own budget proposal, illustrating the difficulty the White House and the Republican leadership have had in persuading the caucus to speak with one voice on the matter.
Senior aides say the conservatives' plan would wring about $350 billion from Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs and save $300 billion partly through a major reorganization of the Education, Commerce and Energy Departments.
...Under the proposal, expected to be introduced by Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, and Representative Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, military spending would continue to rise, administration tax cuts would be protected and Social Security would be spared. But many other programs and foreign aid would be greatly scaled back.
The authors of the proposal describe it as a sequel to the Contract With America, which helped catapult Republicans to power in 1994. An outline of the plan says the proposals require "tough choices, but members have expressed a serious desire to do the hard things to save America."
This is not only great policy, it's great politics. Even if you can't get a package like this through Congress because the Democrats and a few RINOS vote against it, it still works in the GOP's favor if the vast majority of Republicans get behind it. That's because everyone in both parties claims to be serious about deficit reduction, but legislation like this is what allows the American people to separate the men from the boys.
Cutting spending is popular with the American people, it's popular with the base, and it's the right thing to do. That's why every Republican, starting with George Bush, should get behind this legislation.
Why Is Rudi Wasting His Time Running For The Presidency?
Howard Fineman over at MSNBC has a piece on Rudy Giuliani's upcoming run for the presidency in 2008. Here's a little taste:
"(T)hose who say (Giuliani will) fold may not know the man, his history—or what he is really up to. Decades of jousting with the New York press have left him with a hide of titanium. Without much national notice, he's worked the rubber-chicken circuit, making 140 appearances in the last two years. He's been smoking cigars with Ahnold in California, and is slated to do fund-raisers for him, as well as the big GOP Senate dinner in Washington this spring. A few weeks ago in Florida, he did the drop-by of all drop-bys as the "surprise guest" at the annual convention of the Global Pastors Network. He wowed them with his energy and his revival-style witness to his faith in Jesus. Ralph Reed, a godfather of religious conservatives, thinks Giuliani's charisma may help him overcome his social-issues liberalism in the Bible belt. "He can take control of a room better than any politician I've seen," said Reed. The key moment with the pastors was in the private holding room, where he spent quality time among their leaders. Giuliani told them that the keyto his final decision on whether to run would be whether he thought he could raise enough cash. But he didn't sound as if he had much doubt—and nothing going on in Memphis this week is likely to change his mind."
Giuliani could go toe to toe with Hillary or run for governor of New York -- but no, he's going to waste his time by running for President even though, like McCain, he'll be shredded in the primaries.
All this, "his charisma will win over social conservatives," stuff is a complete fantasy. Yes, Rudi has loads of charisma, name recognition, and a lot of conservatives do genuinely like him. Heck, I genuinely like him.
But, you gotta understand two things:
#1) Plainly speaking, a lot of conservatives simply don't feel that George Bush is far enough to the right. They feel, with a lot of justification, that after having a man as conservative as Reagan in office and after all the victories Republicans have had at the ballot box, that they deserve a VERY conservative candidate for President -- and George Bush just isn't it. For this reason, a lot of conservatives will be looking for a candidate whom they perceive to be to Georges Bush's right during the 2008 primaries.
#2) The people voting in these primaries tend to be much more conservative than the general population.
That's why, despite all his charisma, Giuliani has no chance whatsoever. He's just on the wrong side of too many hot button issues that the sort of people who vote in the primaries really care about. For example he's pro-gun control, he's pro-abortion, and he's for gay marriage. As if that weren't enough, a lot of these voters, who detested Bill Clinton for his lack of morals, are just not going to turn right around and line up to support a guy for the Presidency who cheated on his wife.
At this point, it doesn't matter how much money he raises, who endorses him, or how he changes his positions around, Rudi's starting in a hole so deep that he'll never get out of it. It may be impossible to say who the GOP's candidate will be in 2008, but it definitely won't be Giuliani.
The Steep Price Of Slow Growth And Conservation Policies By Betsy Newmark
The L.A. Times discovers economics. Apparently, the town of Santa Barbara is discovering some of the consequences of their slow growth policies that put limits on development.
But now this bastion of "slow growth" is learning that it comes with some steep economic, social and even environmental costs:
• Soaring housing prices. With the supply so limited, prices last year rose faster than in any other region in the state. The median price of a single-family house is now $1.1 million, out of reach for all but the well-to-do.
• Traffic congestion, energy consumption and air pollution. An estimated 30,000 commuters, forced by housing prices to live far from where they work, clog U.S. Highway 101 and choke side streets during peak drive times.
• An exodus of big employers. Half a dozen Fortune 500 companies have left for less costly locales. Almost every business and government agency that remains struggles with recruiting and retaining workers who cannot afford to live nearby.
• Altered communities. Poor families have been forced to double- and triple-up in rental housing. Unable to buy homes, many middle-class families with children have moved away. UC Santa Barbara economist Bill Watkins warns that parts of the south coast are at risk of becoming a "geriatric ghetto."
• Spillover growth. Seventy-five miles away, in northern Santa Barbara County, houses are engulfing farmland. Sprawling Santa Maria is soon expected to pass Santa Barbara as the county's most populous city. But prices are on the rise there, too, largely because of demand from Santa Barbara-area workers.
Many of these ripple effects could not have been foreseen 30 years ago. [emphasis added]
Well, maybe the geniuses in the Santa Barbara and at the L.A. Times couldn't have predicted it, but anyone with the slightest acquaintance with economics could have told them what would happen.
This content was used with the permission of Betsy's Page.
The Democratic Underground Thread Of The Day: Depressing Democrats
Not long ago, a Pew Research study came out that showed conservatives tend to be happier people than liberals. Here's George Will on the "happiness gap:"
"A survey by the Pew Research Center shows that conservatives are happier than liberals. While 34 percent call themselves "very happy," only 28 percent of liberal Democrats (and 31 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats) do, compared with 47 percent of conservative Republicans. This finding is niftily self-reinforcing: It depresses liberals.
Election results do not explain this happiness gap. Republicans have been happier every year since 1972. Married people and religious people are especially disposed to happiness, and both cohorts vote more conservatively than does the whole nation.
People in the Sun Belt -- almost entirely red states -- have sunnier dispositions than Northerners, which could have as much to do with sunshine as with conservatism. Unless sunshine makes people happy, which makes them conservative."
Want to see depressed liberals in action? Well then, today is your lucky day because there's a thread at the Democratic Underground that's called In all of my 56 (and counting) years on this planet, I have never felt (that's it) -- and it's one of the most maudlin, discouraging, and just plain old joyless threads that you've ever seen.
Of course, conservatives might be more downbeat, too, if we believed the President was a Hitler clone who might start tossing us in camps at any time, but geeze, it's like cheer up, you moonbats; life's not so bad -- especially here in America. We're in the world's only super power, a rich and free country, where opportunities wait around every corner and these lefties come across like they're ready to start pitching themselves out of windows. The misery these people create for themselves, in their own lives, just because of their own unrealistic, pessimistic and warped view of the world is almost astonishing.
Just read some of these comments:
Bullwinkle925: In all of my 56 (and counting) years on this planet, I have never felt this kind of despair over what my country has become. Even in the midst of the 'Cuban Missile Crisis', I remember having faith in my President and Government. Even after the assassination of President Kennedy and all of the sadness that this country endured, I felt a glimmer of hope that we would survive as a nation. Even during the 1960's struggle with Civil Rights, I knew that we would begin that march toward freedom! Even after the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King (with the ensuing riots) I still felt like we would turn the corner and begin to heal again as a nation.
Even during the protest marches of the late 60's against the Viet Nam war, I knew that we were watching democracy in action and the 'will of the people' was being heard. Even during the darkest days of 'Watergate' - somehow I knew that justice would prevail.
I no longer know this.
I thought that I had seen the faces of evil during the Civil Rights struggles in the South.
I thought that I was looking at sinister, twisted faces during Watergate.
I was wrong - little did I know what lay in waiting for this country!
I can only hope that justice will somehow be lifted up and shine again on this land.
tom_paine: Well it IS 1933 again and the Curtain of Totalitarian Darkness is falling on the world.
As my sigline indicates, I too, am going to keep struggling to restore freedom to America.
But you are as correct in your feelings as any Jew in Germany in 1933.
niyad: I am the same age as you--and feel exactly the same way. I remember one of my political science profs, after nixon's stint--that if we could survive him, we could survive anything--I wonder what he would be thinking now.
however, I fought then, and I continue to fight now. I will NOT surrender my country to the hate-and-fear mongers who worship death and destruction. this is MY home--NOT theirs, and they cannot have it.
KC21304: I have been having the same thoughts lately. Something has to be done to wake up the people before it is too late, if it isn't already. HELP ! Somebody ! I am 63 and it is beginning to look like my husband and I will not be having any grandchildren and lately I have been thinking it is for the best. Now that is real despair.
Godlesscommieprevert: here and feel the same about no grandkids. It would have been nice, but what a world to bring babies into.
serryjw: I'm also 56. have never felt this way. I cry daily. I will tell you if I had children I would leave the country. I wish there was a glimmer of hope I could see. I honestly do not think 2006/08 is going to change anything. I said to a grilfriend yesterday that I'll be the 2nd in line during the revolution but you need to find me our leader first..Any ideas?
davekriss: ...O they'll maintain the illusion of "democracy" as long as they can, but they'll drop the charade as soon as it becomes too cumbersome, a slight obstruction to their agenda already well underway, and agenda that steels the financial fortresses of the few that make up a global investing class, all the while knowing we're about to enter an age of limits, an age when oil supplies decline, arable land grows scarce, safe drinkable water a rare and, in the future, packaged commodity bought and sold at profit. When global collapse comes, it is we who will stand locked out of their bubble communities, secured by their private armies, we who will bear the brunt of deprivation and misery and even death. It will happen in a flash, but by then it will be too late for us. Katrina in so many ways was the example in microcosm.
Things will get much worse before they ever get better -- IF they ever get better. As Hunter S. Thompson said somewhere, Big Dark Coming, Soon.
keopeli: I'm 39 and remember Nixon. That was nothing compared to this. From election day in 2000 to today, so many crimes have been committed in America's name that her glimmer has totally gone.
I have a dread for the future which causes my despair. I've seriously considered moving to Fiji.
But, I must admit that I do have a morsel of hope. I think my generation is beginning to feel responsible for this mess. Eventually, there may be reproductions. Unfortunately, I feel we've lost what we had forever. But, I don't feel fascism has won the day yet. I don't know what the future holds, but I can influence it in my small way, as we all can. I hope we will.
mnhtnbb: We considered a LOT of countries before choosing Panama Canada, New Zealand (both too old), Ireland, Bahamas, Bonaire, Belize, Turks & Caicos.
We know people who've made the move to Bahamas, Bonaire, Belize, and are getting to know some of the other buyers in the development where we've bought in Panama. LOTS and LOTS of people are making plans to get out, or give themselves a place to go.
We figure we hope for the best and plan for the worst.
roguevalley: I'm 53 and I hear ya. Between global warming and the *sshats in charge, I am d*mned glad I have no grandchildren.
OmmmSweetOmmm: am 54 and echo most of what you have said, but will go further..this country has not been ours since before I was born. After WWII people with plans set in motion actions to corrupt our country, control world politics, and have delivered with great patience, their agenda. Ike was very clear when he warned of the great military industrial complex, and those warnings were never heeded.... I am now in the position of having 2 teenage sons and I shiver to think what their future will be here.
QuestionAll: i just turned 45...Generation Jones...we're looking to get out- there doesn't appear to be any saving this cesspool.
Why The Democrats Haven't Produced A "Contract With America"
Over at the New York Times, Adam Nagourney writes on the Democrats' inability to put together a coherent party platform. Here's a key passage from Nagourney's piece:
"Democrats pointed out that Republicans did not offer their Contract With America until the final weeks of the 1994 campaign and said that they were planning to offer their own version by summer.
Still, party officials said, it has been difficult to build a consensus. Some Democrats want to call for raising automobile mileage standards to conserve energy, but Democrats in Michigan have resisted that idea. While Democrats including Ms. Madrid of New Mexico want to set a timetable for pulling out of Iraq, others say that would be politically and militarily disastrous.
Mr. Emanuel, though, said he was not worried. "What divide?" he said.
"We agree on Social Security," he continued. "We also agree on the war, which is, not more of the same."
"Skelton has a position. Murtha has a position. Levin has a position," he said of Congressional Democrats who have raised questions about the war. "But all of them have one thing in common: Staying the course is a fool's errand. O.K.? I'm happy that our party has a lot of different ideas about how to solve a problem."
There's a reason why the left still hasn't come up with a Democratic "Contract with America," 10 years after it was an important factor in helping the GOP take back the House.
For a "Contract with America" to be worth anything politically, it has to feature at least a few very popular ideas that most people on the other side of the aisle won't get behind. That's because obviously, if your ideas aren't popular they won't help get you elected and if the other side has the same position, it gives the voters no motive to get behind you.
This is a problem for the Democrats because they support lots of popular ideas that Republicans also champion and they have lots of unpopular ideas that Republicans won't support, but what they don't have an abundance of are very popular ideas that Republicans won't support and without those, a Democratic "Contract with America" won't help much.
"...(S)oldiers (from all Coaliton nations) in southern Afghanistan have been ordered, under a directive from a U.S. general, to lower (their nation's flag) from flagpoles at their... bases, from over their tents and even from the aerials atop their vehicles.
Major General Benjamin Freakley states that the only flag to fly over coalition bases (in Afghanistan), facilities or vehicles will be the red, green and black Afghan flag.
"I specifically asked my commanders to think about our flags," Maj.-Gen. Freakley said this week.
