posted
Phil said: They also have to make all the rainbow coalition groups feel like they'll continue to be cared for . . . all the while affirming that special interests will play no role in the determination of their policies.
Good one. George Will’s recent editorial addressed this nicely. He wondered whether the “special” in “special interests”, as used by the Dems, was a code for “conservative interests.” I think he’s onto something.
I do think Edwards is the more credible voice, considering all of the above.
I don’t know much more about him other than his belief in the “two Americas”. I’m assuming he means North and South America. I could be wrong. Maybe he’s talking about the difference between the hard-working people who actually produce something tangible for a living and the trial lawyers like himself. Again, I could be wrong about this.
JB said: 1) No child left behind
Well, I’m in disagreement with the President about this. The Fed ought to stay out of education and leave it to the states thus leaving the various governors to be the final responsible parties. Putting too much distance between parents and those responsible for policies is a bad idea.
Clever, eh?
And somewhat devious.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Fed ought to stay out of education and leave it to the states
My sentiments about the Feds being involved in education have waxed and waned over the years ...
If a local school system is unreasonably denying any child an opportunity for a good education, then it becomes a civil rights issue for me. Hopefully, such a denial is the exception and not the rule. I haven't really studied the Left Behind Act but, based on very widespread dissatisfaction, I suspect it is structured and administered in such a manner that makes it seem like there is an implicit presumption that denial of equal educational opportunities is moreso a rule and not rather an exception. IOW, the good are suffering for the bad in this case, which can be okay, in principle, but not so when such suffering is inordinate and all out of proportion to the common good that is being sought?
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
JB said: sI haven't really studied the Left Behind Act but, based on very widespread dissatisfaction, I suspect it is structured and administered in such a manner that makes it seem like there is an implicit presumption that denial of equal educational opportunities is moreso a rule and not rather an exception.
I haven’t studied it in detail either. I wonder if “denying a child the opportunity for a good education” will finally honestly point the finger at teacher’s unions – and governors (like Gary Locke) whose answer to any problem is to throw money at it. Seriously. This guy is a poster child for a tax-and-spend liberal. School choice via vouchers is competition for public schools – and our schools are desperately in need of a better fix than either more money or more Federal guidelines. The problem rarely is one of money. Some of the best funded schools (in D.C.) are among the poorest in terms of educational output. The unions don’t like the idea of school choice and repeatedly try and squelch vouchers, and they’ve been pretty good at it so far. Oh, they’ve always given a reason for their opposition but none of the reasons ever take into account the fact that there are people all over this country trapped in poor school districts and at the mercy of people whose first interest could hardly be called ensuring a good education. Apparently African American parents, particularly in the inner-city neighborhoods, are highly supportive of the idea of school choice. It’s one way to escape some of the crummy schools they’re bound to.
Yes, JB, education can indeed be a civil rights issue. Now let’s look at who is getting in the way of improving education and why. It often looks very ugly from a civil rights perspective. But of course, the Democrats and unions just couldn’t be guilty of such a thing.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard the AFL-CIO endorsed Kerry today. Of course, he won't accept any money from them, so this is only of symbolic signicance.
As for the dynamic duo and their solidarity with "ordinary Americans," check this out. I could show them what the real deal actually looks like, with a few leaky faucets to round things out.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for the dynamic duo and their solidarity with "ordinary Americans,"
How refreshing it would be to hear (at least from a Democratic candidate) something like: "Sure, I'm wealthy. America is the land of opportunity. That's something to be proud of, not to run from."
No, instead we have all these super achievers (or those smart or lucky enough to marry into a super-achiever family) running away from the very things that make America great. We're not the Soviet Union or China where the philosophy is that everyone has to be equal, no matter what, even if that means making everyone equally miserable. That's equality of outcome, not opportunity, and is not conducive to freedom and prosperity. We're also a country where everyone benefits from the creation of wealth. Instead of apologizing for America, Senators Kerry and Edwards, why don't you try espousing the American ideal and show how you're a proud product of it? Oh, yes. I forgot. You're Democrats. You're for the "little people". How condescending.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's an article by Rich Lowry at NRO concerning Edwards and "The Two Americas."
quote:Indeed, Democrats on the stump implicitly argue that if only more former Enron executives would be thrown in jail, the downtrodden would magically be lifted into affluence. This is preening nonsense. We know what causes poverty. It has nothing to do with corporations, and little to do even with other, more-relevant economic factors, such as wage rates.
Poverty in America is primarily a cultural phenomenon, driven by a shattered work ethic and sexual irresponsibility. Child poverty would be nearly obliterated if every household had one adult working full time and married parents. Unfortunately, only President Bush has a program that works to make these social conditions a reality, and it is resisted by the party of Edwards.
According to the Heritage Foundation's welfare expert, Robert Rector, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work annually, or about 16 hours a week. This number holds in good economic times and bad, because it is a factor of attitudes toward work rather than the availability of jobs. If the amount of work in these households were equivalent to one adult working 40 hours a week, roughly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of poverty.
The problem is not, as liberals argue, low wages. If you are only working 16 hours a week, you will pretty much be poor unless you're a TV anchor. Raising the minimum wage isn't going to help someone working so few hours. It is the amount of work that matters. If a single mother works full time at the minimum wage — factoring in such income supplements as the Earned Income Tax Credit and food stamps — she will not be poor.
The other cause of child poverty is single parenthood. If single mothers married the fathers of their children, according to Rector, three-quarters of poor children would be lifted out of poverty. Again, economic factors are secondary. The average father of a child born out of wedlock is making $17,000 a year. He would be a good candidate for marriage, if the culture of marriage weren't so damaged. The key variable in whether an at-risk mother will marry the father of her child is not his wages, but the couple's attitude toward marriage and their relationship skills.
So, a common-sense anti-poverty program has two prongs — restore the work ethic and encourage marriage. Work has been so devalued because people have been taught to rely on government support instead. The 1996 welfare reform tapped the brakes on this dynamic, but more remains to be done. Roughly half of adult welfare recipients are still not working, and work requirements don't exist for important government supports such as public housing. Bush wants to strengthen work requirements, but Democrats are balking.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder who John Kerry thinks he's talking to? His latest is saying that Bush is not patriotic because he's cut veteran's benefits. Now even if that were so ( it's not), that would be a very tough line for anyone who's studied Bush's speeches and policies to conclude.
So who is John Kerry talking to?
A. He's talking to all these people who hate Bush and who have already concluded that anyone else would be a better President.
Yes, I'm now convinced that what unites Democrats more than anything is not their opposition to the Iraq war (far from unanimous, there), or any other social issue. They might not all believe that Bush stole the Florida election (which is stupid!) or that he's dumb (he's not), but they all find fault with something sufficiently to justify their belief that Bush must go, no matter what.
I hope they (we) really think about this, however. Bush, for example, is often criticized for lying to the American people about Iraq so that he could justify going to war there. We've got good discussions about this going on in another thread, so there's no need to go into that here.
Kerry's integrity deserves a closer look as well, I believe. Consider that he: • Votes against the Persian Gulf War, which he now says he favored.
• Votes for the Iraq war, which he now says he opposed.
• Votes against the $87 billion for troop support and Iraqi reconstruction, while saying that he favors troop support and Iraqi reconstruction.
• Votes for the No Child Left Behind Act, which he now attacks incessantly.
• Votes for NAFTA; he now rails against the unfairness of free trade.
• Votes for the Patriot Act; he now decries the assault on civil liberties.
Which is why Kerry prefers to preempt any examination of his record by warning in advance of a coming Republican "smear campaign." - from Charles Krauthammer -- good article!
Listen, Democrat friends! Replacing Bush is not enough reason to support someone. Careful now. The cure might be worse than the "disease."
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll be sure to check out that Krauthammer article. He's another favorite of mine.
Now that Nader is officially in the race (I can hear those Democratic groans out there) I wonder how that will change the dynamics. It's obviously a good thing for Bush. It might siphon off a few votes here and there.
Replacing Bush is not enough reason to support someone. Careful now. The cure might be worse than the "disease."
Right. The grass is always greener. Heck, any Democratic nominee is likely to be greener? Your list of Kerry inconsistencies would be very troubling to me if he were my candidate – particularly if he were a conservative Republican candidate, I dare say. I could certainly make a list of Bush inconsistencies, but I think they would mostly be inconsistencies of his actions as compared to (my) conservative and republican philosophies, rather than a "he said this, but did that" sort of thing. And it's my perception that a conservative Republican can not as easily switch his or her positions willy nilly (let alone lie) without garnering the wrath of his or her constituents. It's also my perception that Democratic candidates are held to a different standard in this regard.
Would I dare say that Democratic candidates are not expected to be as principled, truthful and consistent as Republican ones? Why, I wouldn't dare say such a thing. The reason is because it's not true. Democrats have a very specific set of principles – gain power, portray themselves as being for the little guy, and most of all, defeat Republicans. Therefore whatever the issue of the day is, well, you just need to take the side that best matches the three principles already stated.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Ralph Nader is now part of the mix. He notes:"We've got to give people more voices and choices," Nader told ABC. "And let me tell you, with 100 million people not voting, we've got to give them more voices, choices, more exciting involvement and participation so they're not just spectators watching candidates parade in front of them with emotional slogans."
Very interesting!
Then: Democratic officials issued a statement Sunday saying Nader has promised McAuliffe he will not criticize the Democratic nominee, but rather focus his candidacy against the Bush administration.
So, let's give the people more choices, but let's not criticize anyone but Bush? Sounds like a wonderful way to inform the voters!
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
It is not conceivable that Nadar believes he has any reasonable chance at the Presidency, unless he's deluded or grandiose, which perhaps isn't far-fetched. If Nadar seriously considered the democrats to represent an essential shift in policy, favoring some of his own pet issues, then the mature thing to do would be to stay out of it. Clearly the democrats don't impress him either, nor does he care about another four years of Bush, or he simply wouldn't run.
IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, it's hard to say what Nader wants, although it's clear the Democrats want him to criticize Bush, and not them. Maybe Nader hopes, like Sharpton and even Dean, to get some issues on the table.
------
Now there's another presidential candidate we haven't talked about much: George W. Bush. What's amazing so far is that the Democrats seem more interested in his National Guard records from the early 70s than they do in his actions as President during the past four years. Maybe there's not that much there for them to criticize?
Hardly!
For one thing, Bush started with a fed. budget so much in the black that Alan Greenspan warned against paying the national debt down too fast. He closes with record deficits. Yes, there was an encroaching recession, 9/11, etc., but still . . . A fiscal conservative he is not!
Then there's the immigration fiasco. I don't think Democrats will complain as much about that as conservatives, however.
Also, there's our relationship with old allies. Strained, for sure, but considering what we've learned about countries like France receiving kickbacks from Saddam Hussein, hardly surprising. Since the ending of the Cold War, those relationships have been "in transition." I can't see Bush losing too many votes because the French and Germans don't like him.
Bush might actually be a victim of too much success in fighting the w.o.t. America's attention span is short, and with no more attacks on the country, the temptation is to view it all as an "isolated incident," now taken care of "and then some" with Afghanistan and Iraq. The stupidest thing Al Qaeda could do now is launch more attacks, especially in the U.S. If they don't want to see Bush re-elected (and I suspect they don't), then their inactivity can make it seem like he's really over-reacted in Iraq--which is practically what Kerry and Edwards are saying.
I think Bush is also weak on the environment, but very few people seem to care about that. Last time I looked, oil was still a non-renewable resource, but we carry on now in this country like there are new bumper crops of it appearing every year. Bush has done ZERO to curb America's gas-guzzling ways; quite the contrary! Somehow I think less dependence on the Arabs for oil is good news for the U.S., and I'm not just talking here about opening the Arctic Wildlife Refuge for exploration. That's fine, but reducing consumption and encouraging alternative energy resource development is a must.
So when it comes to G. W. Bush, I guess it all depends on what you think are the most important issues of the day. If it's taking the battle to the terrorists and the regimes that support them, this little bulldog from Texas has to be your man. He's the only one who seems really willing to do that; forget Kerry, Edwards and Nader. They're all too willing to put the U.N. in charge of the w.o.t., and we've seen where that gets us.
I wonder what the people of 2050 will have to say about all this? Will they think a Bush re-election was worth the ongoing deficits, the neglect of the environment, and the animosity of Western Europeans? As I intend to be alive at that time, I'll re-visit this thread and provide an update.
[ February 23, 2004, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
America does vote its pocketbook and, if it isn't national defense/homeland security, then it is going to be the economy.
If it is the economy, then here's something to think about. During my two decade banking career, things changed. As the population aged and money changed hands, investors became less risk averse, more risk tolerant. Money moved out of traditional savings and CD's into equities. Now, more than ever, more and more people are measuring their wealth in terms of stock market health. Another thing changed and has even accelerated especially in recent years with historicaly low interst rates: the rate of home ownership. Increasingly, more and more American's are measuring wealth in terms of home equity.
What does this mean?
It means that, with the economy on the rebound, even with a relatively jobless recovery, an increasingly smaller percentage of Americans are measuring their economic well being solely in terms of employment. IOW, America's pocketbook will be voted based on a myriad of factors that include the rate of homeownership, the stock and bond market indices and un/employment (coupled with existing job security). Also, with inflation under control, real purchasing power is experienced. With a more broadly conceived understanding of economic health, unemployment is not going to be the lone salient issue. More importantly, it is not even important that the people (the voters) understand this; rather, it is important how they feel . Chances are, most of America is feeling pretty good economically --- more homeowners with really low rate mortgages and more 401K's on the rebound (and quite the rebound, too).
So, Bush gets the nod on national defense. He'll probably fare better than many think on the economy, too; further, substantial job creation is a very real possibility, anyway, as the recovery picks up steam and, when new jobs are created, hundreds of thousands, even a million, can be created very, very quickly. Also, expect Greenspan and others to sound cautionary notes against protectionism, which can be a problem for Kerry inasmuch as he is going to have to move closer to Edwards on this issue as they move on into the primaries.
Also, Nader will cause problems not just by shaving votes in important battlegrounds like Florida and New Hampshire but also by causing the Democratic candidates to move further to the left, to their everlasting detriment in the general election.
Finally, once the Republican warchest is opened and its aggressive ad campaigns are launched, look for Kerry's support to fade a tad.
If I were a betting man, I'd say things are looking pretty good for Bush ANYWAY, even though he's taking a drubbing. Disaffected Republican voters, who feel betrayed by Bush's fiscal irresponsibility or certain social policy maneuvers are not likely to either defect or stay home; they'll have to hold their nose and pull the lever for Dubya.
There's probably a better than even chance that bin Laden will be captured now that Pakistan has stepped up its search for Al Quaeda operatives (maybe partly out of embarrassment for its nuclear proliferation scandal?). That could put Bush over the top, too.
jb calls it: Bush 50.8% Kerry 48.4% Nader 0.8%
Bush could widen that lead with Rice replacing Cheney as veep.
Hillary is in a pickle. If the Republicans replace Cheney with 2008 presidential timber, she could have a rough time in 2008. (Cheney's health could be a real issue down the road and his corporate history is problematical.) If the Demos take the White House in 2004, the Demo Veep is the apparent nominee for 2008 or 2012? So, Hillary needs on the ticket in 2004 and to have the Demos lose.
This commentary is coming to you free of charge and is worth the price of admission to Shalomplace. pax, jb
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
Well, here's some scathing biography on Kerry, although the source wasn't checked with any originals. I'll go looking . . . .
THE REAL KERRY By HOWIE CARR February 5, 2004-- BOSTON
ONE of the surest ways to get the phones ringing on any Massachusetts talk-radio show is to ask people to call in and tell their John Kerry stories. The phone lines are soon filled, and most of the stories have a common theme: our junior senator pulling rank on one of his constituents, breaking in line, demanding to pay less (or nothing) or ducking out before the bill arrives.
The tales often have one other common thread. Most end with Sen. Kerry inquiring of the lesser mortal: "Do you know who I am?"
And now he's running for president as a populist. His first wife came from a Philadelphia Main Line family worth $300 million. His second wife is a pickle-and-ketchup heiress.
Kerry lives in a mansion on Beacon Hill on which he has borrowed $6 million to finance his campaign. A fire hydrant that prevented him and his wife from parking their SUV in front of their tony digs was removed by the city of Boston at his behest.
The Kerrys ski at a spa the widow Heinz owns in Aspen, and they summer on Nantucket in a sprawling seaside "cottage" on Hurlbert Avenue, which is so well-appointed that at a recent fund-raiser, they imported porta-toilets onto the front lawn so the donors wouldn't use the inside bathrooms. (They later claimed the decision was made on septic, not social, considerations).
It's a wonderful life these days for John Kerry. He sails Nantucket Sound in "the Scaramouche," a 42-foot Hinckley powerboat. Martha Stewart has a similar boat; the no-frills model reportedly starts at $695,000. Sen. Kerry bought it new, for cash.
Every Tuesday night, the local politicians here that Kerry elbowed out of his way on his march to the top watch, fascinated, as he claims victory in more primaries and denounces the special interests, the "millionaires" and "the overprivileged."
"His initials are JFK," longtime state Senate President William M. Bulger used to muse on St. Patrick's Day, "Just for Kerry. He's only Irish every sixth year." And now it turns out that he's not Irish at all.
But in the parochial world of Bay State politics, he was never really seen as Irish, even when he was claiming to be (although now, of course, he says that any references to his alleged Hibernian heritage were mistakenly put into the Congressional Record by an aide who apparently didn't know that on his paternal side he is, in fact, part-Jewish).
Kerry is, in fact, a Brahmin - his mother was a Forbes, from one of Massachusetts' oldest WASP families. The ancestor who wed Ralph Waldo Emerson's daughter was marrying down.
At the risk of engaging in ethnic stereotyping, Yankees have a reputation for, shall we say, frugality. And Kerry tosses around quarters like they were manhole covers. In 1993, for instance, living on a senator's salary of about $100,000, he managed to give a total of $135 to charity.
Yet that same year, he was somehow able to scrape together $8,600 for a brand-new, imported Italian motorcycle, a Ducati Paso 907 IE. He kept it for years, until he decided to run for president, at which time he traded it in for a Harley-Davidson like the one he rode onto "The Tonight Show" set a couple of months ago as Jay Leno applauded his fellow Bay Stater.
Of course, in 1993 he was between his first and second heiresses - a time he now calls "the wandering years," although an equally apt description might be "the freeloading years."
For some of the time, he was, for all practical purposes, homeless. His friends allowed him into a real-estate deal in which he flipped a condo for quick resale, netting a $21,000 profit on a cash investment of exactly nothing. For months he rode around in a new car supplied by a shady local Buick dealer. When the dealer's ties to a congressman who was later indicted for racketeering were exposed, Kerry quickly explained that the non-payment was a mere oversight, and wrote out a check.
In the Senate, his record of his constituent services has been lackluster, and most of his colleagues, despite their public support, are hard-pressed to list an accomplishment. Just last fall, a Boston TV reporter ambushed three congressmen with the question, name something John Kerry has accomplished in Congress. After a few nervous giggles, two could think of nothing, and a third mentioned a baseball field, and then misidentified Kerry as "Sen. Kennedy."
Many of his constituents see him in person only when he is cutting them in line - at an airport, a clam shack or the Registry of Motor Vehicles. One talk-show caller a few weeks back recalled standing behind a police barricade in 2002 as the Rolling Stones played the Orpheum Theater, a short limousine ride from Kerry's Louisburg Square mansion.
The caller, Jay, said he began heckling Kerry and his wife as they attempted to enter the theater. Finally, he said, the senator turned to him and asked him the eternal question.
"Do you know who I am?"
"Yeah," said Jay. "You're a gold-digger."
John Kerry. First he looks at the purse.
Howie Carr, aBostonHerald columnist and syndicated talk-radio host, has been covering John Kerry for 25 years.
IP: Logged |
posted
jb calls it: Bush 50.8% Kerry 48.4% Nader 0.8%
Is that still a victory in the Electoral College? Heck, is that a victory even without five recounts?
Well, here's some scathing biography on Kerry
You know, before the Clinton ordeal I used to think I knew a thing or two about politics, W.C. Now I'm not so sure. The logical choice would be Bush. The moral choice (at least in my opinion) would be Bush. The experienced and proven choice would be Bush. The honest choice would be Bush. But the electorate, like God, works in mysterious ways. Voters, as a collective, aren't idiots, even if individually they give some rather interesting reasons for their votes. Sometimes they just try to "balance" things out.
I think JB's analysis is pretty good, although I think Bush's actual success on the war on terror might actually work to his detriment. His success has given us the luxury to think about other secondary topics such as the economy and jobs.
There's simply no doubt, though, that Bush and Kerry provide a clear set of opposites from which to choose. I heard a line from Kerry saying how he wanted to bring the United States back into the family of nations, to repair alliances, etc. That's goes to the heart of one of the core differences between liberals and conservatives. One likes institutions for institutions' sake. The other thinks such institutions need to serve our interests or, at the very least, not be working against them. Apparently the type of liberal worldview that belongs to France, Germany and the bureaucrats at the U.N. is too compelling to the Kerry types. It might be a healthy dose of self-delusion, but that's how much of the liberal world operates. But what we need more is the pragmatism and realism of a Churchill, not the wishful thinking of a Neville Chamberlain. But the world seems to elect both types of leaders. There's always hope involved on either side. The question is, are things so good that we can afford to take a flight of fancy with Kerry or are things still so serious enough that we may wish to escape the gravity of the situation by playing make-believe that all is okay and thus, again, elect a Kerry?
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That, in essence, is George Will's analysis.
My ego will not become inflated if you restate that as "George Will agrees with Brad."
Well, it might a little. But there's no scarcity of pricks 'round here. What I mean is, those who aren't afraid to puncture inflated gas bags.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then there's the St. Romain view, expressed before George Will's in a post above: Bush might actually be a victim of too much success in fighting the w.o.t. America's attention span is short, and with no more attacks on the country, the temptation is to view it all as an "isolated incident," now taken care of "and then some" with Afghanistan and Iraq.
I know Brad was just plagerizing my idea, but George Will!! The nerve of that guy!!
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush might actually be a victim of too much success in fighting the w.o.t. America's attention span is short, and with no more attacks on the country, the temptation is to view it all as an "isolated incident," now taken care of "and then some" with Afghanistan and Iraq.
Yes, no doubt I subconsciously plagiarized that one. It’s also a matter of other people’s comments crystallizing thoughts of my own. But I will state for the record that my search for valued opinions starts and stops, more or less, at National Review Online, Rush and Medved, and Phil, JB, W.C., and the others here (who ought to speak up now and again) – and not necessarily in that order. When I interact with you guys it’s feels like it would (better, really) if interacting with George Will or Michael Novak. All we really are missing is a very good liberal advocate. JB fills in quite nicely in that roll from time to time.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
I agree that we have substantive discussions. It's almost like a four-man blog with drop-ins. Fine with me; much better than a one-man blog! And the more drop-ins the better, including those of a liberal bent.
Still trying to figure, however, why George Will would use our ideas!
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Still trying to figure, however, why George Will would use our ideas!
It simply shows synergy, co-evolution or maybe that George is a lurker. You never know. But I think it does show that you’re, perhaps, more in line with Will’s conservatism. I’m more in line with Rush’s. By and large. In general. Goodness knows where JB gets his ravings. Maybe Molly Ivins.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
He did, after all, invade Iraq and, ergo, must've been keeping up with our insightful analysis. He would note, however, that my war support was heavily predicated on the premise that we had the most advanced intelligence gathering apparatus in the world. I'm sure he was as disappointed as I was to find out that this was not true, that, in fact, the most accurate intelligence gathering mechanism in the world today is ___________________________ (finish this sentence with a humorous retort of your choice).
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
. Shalom Place
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Your list of Kerry inconsistencies would be very troubling to me if he were my candidate – particularly if he were a conservative Republican candidate, I dare say. I could certainly make a list of Bush inconsistencies, but I think they would mostly be inconsistencies of his actions as compared to (my) conservative and republican philosophies, rather than a "he said this, but did that" sort of thing. And it's my perception that a conservative Republican can not as easily switch his or her positions willy nilly (let alone lie) without garnering the wrath of his or her constituents. It's also my perception that Democratic candidates are held to a different standard in this regard.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
