Thinking Right

By TW

May 3, 2007 9:03 AM | Link to this

Instead of standing up for his conservative beliefs, Newt Reagan crawled up inside bush’s colon and is now a joke that nobody trusts.

By Captain Freedom

May 3, 2007 9:04 AM | Link to this

The captain reads Mr wooten’s lament and is reminded of St Ronnie’s greatest anecdote.

As regards the Republican Party, I’m sure there’s a pony in there somewhere.

By Mid-South Philosopher

May 3, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

America, politically, is roughly divided between conservatives (to a greater or lesser degree) and liberals (to a greater or lesser degree). The last two Presidential Elections verify this as does the 2006 Congressional Election. While the Democrats took back control of the Congress, they didn’t take it by much.

The determiner is the 10-12% block of truly moderates from both parties and the independents.

For a number of reasons (many having little or nothing to do with the ineptness of Georgie Bush’s administration), I believe the trend toward the conservative view is waning. For six years (in actuality for longer than that in the Congress), the conservatives have not acted conservatively. Enormous spending, inept response to illegal immigration, “perceived” (and perception is much stronger than truth) tax benefits for the rich, the erosion of personal liberties, not to mention their arrogant attitudes, have not endeared the conservatives to the general population.

Some other societal events are having an effect as well, not the least of which are the reports of misconduct by police agencies and individual peace officers from around the nation. Additionally, the corruption of various lawmakers and some corporate leaders has taken its toll.

Consequently, I suspect the Democrats will take the White House in 2008.

Quite honestly, interesting as it would be, a Newt Reagan cannot be elected. It is going to take a Barack Reagan! In other words, it is going to take someone who hasn’t been tainted by the past two decades. Mitt Romney is interesting, but he suffers from the John Kerry Flip-flop Syndrome. Rudi, has some advantage, in that he is not a slave to reactionary social conservative views (the American people, by and large, still want to be left alone in their personal lives regardless of what Hannity and Coulter believe); however, I suspect he may be too liberal for the Republican base.

Lo..I prophesy…we may not yet have the future Republican candidate announced!

By Aquagirl

May 3, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this

You believe people want Iraq to collapse just to hang the failure around Bush’s neck? Who’s really thinking the world is a political theater here?

That thought is A) sick, and B) the product of paranoid delusional thinking. No wonder the “Kool-aid” reference has surfaced in the last couple years. Bush-backers sound like the Jim Jones wackos huddled in the jungle. Everyone hates us! We know the true way! Shoot outsiders at the airstrip! Drink the purple stuff and give some to your kids!

Psst, earth to shrinking-pool of Bush Cultists: it’s not about bashing him, it’s about him causing needless deaths while plunging a country into sectarian and religious division. Losing the war on terrorism is another failure. The Taliban is back in control of large sections of Afghanistan. Oh, and the huge vote-buying tactics that our children will pay dearly for, like the Supreme Court nominations (kiss your rights good-by) and the boondoggle prescription drug program.

I think Democrats are pouring salt on George W. in the hopes he will behave like the typical slug: dry up and go away.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

May 3, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this

Hi Jim,

Here are some of Newt’s Big Ideas from earlier campaigns.

Unfortunately, as we all know, there’s a difference between having “Big Ideas” and accomplishing them. Maybe on his next go-round he can accomplish the goal of “eliminating the cycle of scandal and disgrace”.

REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA

As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives. That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.

This year’s election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act “with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.” To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;

SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;

THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;

FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;

FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;

SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;

SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;

EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.

Further, we will instruct the House Budget Committee to report to the floor and we will work to enact additional budget savings, beyond the budget cuts specifically included in the legislation described above, to ensure that the Federal budget deficit will be less than it would have been without the enactment of these bills.

Respecting the judgment of our fellow citizens as we seek their mandate for reform, we hereby pledge our names to this Contract with America.

By Corn Shucker

May 3, 2007 9:32 AM | Link to this

Wooten passionately believes that the Democrats would rather see the Iraq war “fail” than to see Bush “compared to wartime presidents FDR and Lincoln”.

“He’ll rank with the greats who stayed the course to victory”.

Of course, “VICTORY” is undefined. Just what does Wooten mean by “VICTORY” in Iraq? What criteria does Wooten point to to determine “VICTORY”? Has he even thought it out? Has he formed the language that could describe what victory would entail?

First, lets hear Wooten enunciate a mission in Iraq. What is the mission of US troops in Iraq, Mr Wooten?

Then, a list of events should be delineated that would allow Bush to proclaim “VICTORY” in Iraq. What are those events?

Perhaps if all of AL Queda would come out from their ratholes and shout in unison as they emerge, “Dont shoot, Infidels, we surrender! We give up. You’re too much. It was that confounded surge. You’re all fiends. We had no idea how well you’d fight. It’s not fair. We surrender unconditionally. We want jobs and pizza.” (Of course, the terrorists would have their arms and hands locked behind their heads, in the international sign of surrender).

Or maybe victory in Iraq would be having the 10K year old tribal/ethnic war come to an end suddenly because after yet another foreign invasion they all saw the light and the hate in their DNA mutated to love, reason and compassion. (Persians are not arabs are not kurds)

Certainly, if the SHIA/SUNNI rift finally ended and they learned to share their neighborhoods peacefully, (like they done under Saddam, darn, didn’t we hang him? rats the one guy who could get us out of this, what are the odds?), then VICTORY could be proclaimed.

How does any military action by US troops beget a peace like that? (without alot of hangin?)

I’m sick and tired of “journalists” and “radio hosts” saying whatever pops into their minds because it sounds good and galvanizes plug chewing pickup truckers in front-facing caps and am radios. (yep, I agree with Sean, the dimocruds want us to lose shore ‘nuff. I support the troops, ah-yulp.)

Victory in Iraq is a meaningless term. Civil War is a meaningless term. The Iraq war is much more complicated than the term, “Civil War” implies, and any victory would be a multi-tiered miracle of modern diplomacy and political compromises so extreme as to challenge disney for the fairy tale monopoly.

In fact there are four or five or even six simultaneous unsolvable fronts of war in Iraq. There’s the sunni/shia, Local Al Queda/US, Iran/Iraq, GlobalTerror/US, Sunni Insurgency/ Kurd/restofIraq conflict. (oh, it goes on and on, there’s lots more where that hate came from). All of this was contained under Saddam, that’s why we once allied with him. That’s why we left him alone after Desert Storm 1.

Now, the republicans dare blame the democrats for the ensuing snarls as this war enters it’s fifth year? Trillions, folks, Trillions blown away in a hole in the desert sand. For nothing. The “civil war” was there on Sept 10, 2001. The global war on terror was in place then too. Everything was as it is now, except we weren’t blowing trillions in a hole in the desert sand in Iraq.

BUSH: Wasting our defense. Wasting our offense. Wasting our strategic advantages…. For no reason other than wolfawitz and rove and cheney sold out to defense-industry lobbyists.

Treason. Fair trial. Convict them. Then hang em all. (They hanged the Lincoln Conspirators. The Bush Administration’s links to Lincoln should end there).

By Redneck Convert

May 3, 2007 9:32 AM | Link to this

Well, I’m 4-square with Wooten here. President Bush is one of the great presidents in these here United States. He cut the money for Those People. He got us into a war to keep the troops busy and remind us of our great Southren Heritage of fighting and dying for lost causes. He used the great Trickle Down theory to get tax cuts for well off people. I’m still waiting for mine to trickle down. But I know it will sooner or later. And he poked the teachers with a sharp stick to get them to do their job with No Child Left Behind.

I will be downright sorry to see him leave the White House. He will probly get replaced by a pointy-head that will try to think instead of acting right away. We don’t need no stinking thinking in the White House. I mean, Reagan didn’t think too hard and he done all right. The same with My President. We need to start stuff and just see what happens.

Anyway, I just know that Pelousy woman wants to get her hands on my money. That’s why I made the cement vault at my trailer to put my money in. If she can’t find it she can’t tax it.

Don’t know who this Newt Reagan is but he sounds alright to me. Put him on the ballot and I’ll vote for him here and up in Rome where I’m still on the books. But I ain’t voting more than twiced.

By Dennis

May 3, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten writes; “Then there is, of course, the prescription drug program, a reminder that Republicans had elected Bush, not Reagan.”

Let me tell you about the prescription drug program, Mr. Wooten. I, and thousands of others, were better off w/o it.

The program works on the principle that when a participant AND the provider “together” reach a certain amount of payout for the participant’s drugs, the provider drops out of paying anything and the participant pickup the rest of the tab.

At the cost of drugs, that doesn’t take very long.

The trick is (and it is a trick) that it does not matter whether the participant or the provider pay the MOST for the drugs, only that when a certain amount is paid for the drugs “together”.

This has not happened that I know of, but, under this arrangement, a provider could only have to pay a penny of the total amount for the drugs, but, when a certain amount is paid “together”, the participant hits a “doughnut hole” where the participant must then pickup the total tab for the drugs for the rest of the year. (And the participant is still required to pay his/her premimums).

This program was crafted by the drug companies, for the drug companies, AND, REPUBLICANS SIGNED ONTO IT!!!

I was not getting off free under my original plan, but I was A WHOLE LOT BETTER OFF.

Will I remember that when voting time comes, you bet!

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Corn Shucker

May 3, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this

Iraq enters the bottom of the first inning. The US is up at bat now. The other team got over a half a trillion runs in their half.

First up is Bush. Bush is batting .370 so far this war, and his slugging average is a shock-awe, bill-vetoing .480. Bush reads the sign from the first base coach, who appears to be signaling “take”. Swing and a miss at ball one. Bush reads the sign from the third base coach who appears to be signaling “change stance, redeploy feet”. Swing and a miss at ball two. The coach calls time out, and confers with Bush. The umpire is getting restless and yells “play ball”. Bush points at the ump and then at the count listed on the scoreboard. Bush is blaming the umpire for the 0-2 count! Bush is thrown out of the game!!!! The other team is emptying out of their dugouts. They;re attacking the crowd with bats, cups and jock straps. Oh the humanity!!!

This was a moral lesson from the New Republican Party trying to show why we need to stay the course in Iraq. It has the advantage of making more horse-sense than anything Bush has said about the Iraq War and illustrates a point for morons.

By jbmlaw

May 3, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. As I am fully in agreement with all of Mr. Wooten’s arguments, I have little to add. I still think we’ll see Hillary vs Rudy, but I’ll contribute to Fred’s internet campaign when he gears that up in August. Fred is a pretty good imitation of Reagan.

By harold

May 3, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

harold says 2 years of political theater is FAR better than 2 more years of the last 6 years would have been

why doesnt bush and cheney resign? halliburton has jobs waiting for them safely away from scrutiny in dubai.go ahead, fellas. we won’t miss u. might as well do it today.

By jbmlaw

May 3, 2007 9:55 AM | Link to this

Looks like the moonbats are out in full force this morning. Perhaps there is money to be made selling tin hats.

By Jeff

May 3, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this

Tancredo. 98% Conservative rating. In Congress for quite a number of years. Strong pro-life, pro-marraige, anti-illegal immigration.

Obama nor Clinton stand a chance at the Dem nomination if the Dems want to win, and they know it. (Though Obama has been courting the white vote recently with his speeches that echo Cosby and Freeman, but that kills his chance with the black vote.)

Tancredo v Edwards would be an interesting race, and one that I truly beleive would come down to the wire even more so than the Bush elections.

By jm

May 3, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten, if you want to talk about W the incompetent’s legacy, let’s talk about turning a budget surplus into a budget deficit. Talk about taking six years to reach the revenue levels of what they were when he entered office, without any reduction in spending. Talk about the massive debt he is leaving behind for future generations.

By Corn Shucker

May 3, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

Reagan communicated nothing except that he wouldn’t take any PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for the GUNS FOR HOSTAGES scandal.

He invented “i dont recall” as a perfect answer under oath. He communicated perjury better than any other prez since Grover Cleveland.

The same arms for hostage Yahoos in the Reagan Administration are the same traitors in the Bush Administration. All of these guys go WAY BACK.

Bush Sr. knew how dangerous these guys were and got rid of them.

Bush Jr. invaded Iraq to do what his father couldn’t in a Shakepearean family feud from hell that we’ll all pay for for generations.

Basically Iraq boils down to this: Can we save Islam from itself? Can we convince the Islamists that it doesn’t matter if your are sunni or shia? Is there an untried argument that would work?

Is there a new appeal to reason and justice that would convince Islamists that they’re wrong?

What would war do to convince them, when they’ve been at war for over a thousand years?

We are trapped in Iraq for generations. We are trapped by Unsolvable Human Attitudes and beliefs. $Trillions and $trillions. Hole in the sand.

Thank you, President Bush. You weren’t supposed to aggravate a war that was already there, you were supposed to patch up a continuance of the fragile peace with UN help and furious diplomacy. What was the rush? You committed this country to a 100 years war based on the word of ONE man, an exiled Iraqi liar (Chalabi) who would have said anything to get Saddam ousted.

ONE MAN’s WORD??? ONE MAN?????

SOme of the testimony: Saddam had a bio weaons lab under his residence. (would you allow a bioweapons lab under your house?)

All of the intel was so fantastic that anyone with common sense could have seen through it. We were stupified by 911, and vulnerable, and Bush took advantage of us. That’s criminal. That’s country abuse.

Once you let the dogs of war out….that’s why it should be a last resort. Tomfoolery of the worst sort. And now we’ve the devil to pay.

Bush’s actions since 911: criminal negligence of his presidential oath to defend this country.

By harold

May 3, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

dennis why do the drug companies care? they get paid no matter who is paying them. dont you mean it was the insurance lobbyists? insurance companies are the winter here

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

May 3, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

Hi again Jim,

What do you think Ronnie would say about this little nuggettfrom our liberal friends over at the AP.

Are they liberal for looking into this, or are they liberal for reporting it?

And if they didn’t do it, who would? Would some conservative outlet focused on spinning the administration in the best possible light bring this to the fore? Rush, perhaps? Would Rush and the “EIB” network break this story?

Liberal media. Harrumph.

By Aquagirl

May 3, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

Tancredo? He stands for a lot of things that moderates dislike.

He sucks up to antiabortionists.

He thinks the Forest Service gets in the way of All-American Loggers who want to chop down more trees. ANWAR drilling and smackdown of environmentalists will somehow cure our energy problems.

Token efforts at punishing employers of illegals, while passing all sorts of meaningless mexican-bashing crap to make himself look tough.

And the old social conservative favorite of “Pro-marriage” which involves passing more amendments against any type of gay partnerships, while watching Brittney Spears take those lifelong vows.

Please, let the Republicans nominate Tancredo. The Democrats could beat him by running a wino off of the street.

By getalife

May 3, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

There were two Dems from GA who voted no to overide the veto:

John Barrow, Georgia Jim Marshall, Georgia

Voters may want to ask them why?

The Israeli people will show us how to deal with failed leadership who lost a war today.

By Sandman

May 3, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

“If the U.S. succeeds in Iraq, he’ll rank with the greats as a wartime leader who stayed the course to victory despite the critics, who will fade away to surface again in the next war.”

Well then, he’d better get at it. If this was truly a “war,” Bush should have led the entire nation into it, with calls for citizens to sign up to serve. He should have sold war bonds. He should have sealed the borders before striking out for Baghdad. He should have had those new recruits going behind the strike force collecting every gun, bullet and explosive along the way. If that had happened we would not have lost thousands of American lives, brave Americans, needlessy.

He could now admit mistakes and ask the American people to wage this war the right way and win it. But he won’t. And, I don’t think people trust him anymore.

“I do tell you, though, that I believe most of the Bush-haters would rather fail in Iraq than see Bush compared to wartime presidents FDR and Lincoln.”

That may be the most outrageous thing you’ve ever written, Jim. Are you really that out of touch with reality?

By Matthew

May 3, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

Tin hats? Someone watched BONES last night on FoxTV.

By DebbieDoRight

May 3, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

I’m ready for a cross between Reagan and Newt Gingrich, for a stout conservative with big ideas based on the world as it exists today.

Jim Wooten, I didn’t know you did comedy!! That was the funniest thing I’ve seen in a long time!!! So the ConservaTrons want someone who’s a cross between Reagan and Newt? HA!! They want someone who will be in the first stages of Alzheimers (Ronnie, “I don’t recall”, Reagan), at the beginning of his administration, let’s his wife and her astrologist make command decisions for him AND has full blown Alzheimer’s by the time he leaves office!!! LOL!!

And let’s not forget about our good friend Newt “Never met a secretary he didn’t marry so that he can divorce his previous wife, (preferably on her death bed, more dramatic that way)” Gingrich!! What DID he do for America? Oh I get it, he’s the NUMBER ONE HYPOCRITE OF ALL TIME!!! He sat on the ethics panel for the Clinton/Lewinsky debacle, decrying Clinton’s conduct as “amoral” and “lax”; while he, an also married man, was porking his secretary!!!

This is toooo funny!! Whoa Jim!! If you’re home, please open all the windows!! I think you have a gas leak! Either that, or you are getting senile!!!

By deegee

May 3, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

What is lacking in the GOP message is the optimism that embodied Reagan. Today’s GOP message is based in fear and death. It is designed to foster feelings of group identification with the GOP. “Family values are under attack, immigrants are overrunning our nation, national sovreignty is under attack, second amendment rights are under attack, democrats want us to surrender to terrorists.” Truly independant people are running in droves away from this message.

By DebbieDoRight

May 3, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

Today’s GOP message is based in fear and death

I’m waiting for another Code “Orange” alert on the Terrorist’s Scale any day now. I figure once the gas prices hit $3.55 to keep the nation from getting angry and storming the Whitehouse; they’ll offer up another “confession” from Guantonomo from a prisoner whose been in isolation for the past 4 years. That’ll keep us in line.

By Sandman

May 3, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

deegee you make a great point. Unfortunately, I don’t see the Democrats displaying much optimism, either. New leadership has to emerge and we have got to break this us-against-them, self-destructive attitude in government.

By Corn Shucker

May 3, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

What is the mission of US troops in Iraq?

By Captain Freedom

May 3, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

The Captain approves of Tom Tancredo’s courageous Right Thinking. This is a man who is unafraid to speak the core Truth of True belief, regardless of whether it makes him appear bugfu&c& crazy.

And this is surely the key to success in the Republican primaries. Let’s look at the contenders.

Rudy is another who is unafraid of appearing unhinged as he espouses his True Belief. {Just take a look at the transcript of St Rudy’s tirade against the anti-American evils of alternate pet lifestyles.}

And certainly St John McGoo is unafraid to look like an angry baboon in his spittle-flecked defense of True Belief.

And of course, there is flip-flop Romney, whose adherence to a fringe cult of bigamy and Satanic sacrifice provides the sort of bugfu#c& loony street cred that mere mortals such as Brownback, Huckabee, and Tommy Thompson can only dream of attaining.

But no, it is the Godly Tancredo who represents the Captain’s wing of the Grand Old Party. He reminds me of our stalwart resident Markus. He has my wholehearted support.

By Captain Freedom

May 3, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

deegee writes: What is lacking in the GOP message is the optimism that embodied Reagan.

My friend, Fear is the hammer and 9/11 is the nail that supports the contruction of our New America. Why would we undo this superstructure with something as touchy-feely as optimism? Leave that to the Pelosi-ite Dems from San Fraqueersco.

By getalife

May 3, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

The man to listen to in the GOP debate is Ron Paul.

Pay no attention to Jim’s drivel.

He is the AJC’s troll.

By Van

May 3, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

Where is the next Newt Reagan? The smart money is he/she is busy making sure that nothing in their past would send the far lefties into a rage.

We don’t hear about the connections between Nancy Peolsi and the American Samoan fisheries, but we hear all about the supposed connections between the Vice President and a former company he worked for.

We watched in fascination as Hillary made a killing Tyson Foods($1,000 into $100,000) - Don Tyson was represented by the Rose Law Firm, but recoil in horror that Bush’s family was into big oil.

By Dennis

May 3, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

By harold May 3, 2007 10:18 AM “dennis why do the drug companies care? they get paid no matter who is paying them. dont you mean it was the insurance lobbyists? insurance companies are the winter here.”

For certain, Harold, it wasn’t the American citizens who gained. Thank Republicans like Jim Wooten for that.

You don’t have to be a blind conservatve not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Aquagirl

May 3, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

Where can I get a poster of McCain as portrayed in the Captain’s @ 11:08? I’d love to show up at a McCain rally with one to show my support.

Heck, I’d settle for a bumpersticker “bugf&c& in ‘08”

By Captain Freedom

May 3, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

A Captain Freedom salute to one who has earned it!!!

Van writes : “but we hear all about the supposed connections between the Vice President and a former company he worked for.”

That’s great spin, Van. I love the diminishing words like supposed and *former. Especially good is the elision of the fact that DeadEye Dick was in fact the CEO if the company; you make it sound like he was just an incidental employee.

This is the sort of brilliance the White House is looking for to fill Tony Snow’s shoes. Dana Perino just can’t cut it like that.

Get your resume ready Van.

By Not Wooten

May 3, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

Big ideas? Don’t you mean tired ideas that for years now have inspired no great cry from the majority of Americans for their implementation? Of course, that’s not what you mean. But that’s what they are.

In your world, the GOP just needs the right person to explain to the masses these “big ideas,” in just the right way so they will be adopted.

Wrong.

Bill Clinton, a Democrat, did more to reduce welfare than any Republcian ever has.

I am a Georgia business owner with a wife and children, who got a good education in public schools because we encouraged them to learn what was taught and to learn more on their own.

I reject your GOP-Father-knows-best philosphy.

By jbmlaw

May 3, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

Good sign - the moonbats are waning in DC. Our Democrat friends are seemingly thinking about their legislation now, instead of merely venting. Washington Post headline reads, “Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050201517_pf.html Similarly, our French brethren act as if they wish to rejoin the civilized world, and to oppose the Islamists – looks like they will be electing their own Reagan. Sanity is returning everywhere, excluding our blog. (Philosopher, Deegee, and Van excluded, of course) Most of our leftists begin to spew hatred at the mention of the name “Reagan;” today is no exception. Deegee (not a conservative, but a true independent thinker, like Philosopher) is right on target – where is the sense of goodness in our world? Why is there no decency left. Pure vitriol from Aquagirl and Dennis – why not do it with humor, guys? Whining contradiction from the other leftists, without a shred of thought. So sad. Jim’s essay was positive, but our leftists prefer to wallow in their own misery. Life is good, grow up, you nuts.

By Van

May 3, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

Captain Freedom,

Oh, I am sorry, I guess he was/is still working for them. Strange, I just supposed that when he ran as George’s running mate, he was unemployed at the time.

I did not know the the loyalty to the corporate model ran so deep.

I am just amazed at how the lefties can take a former CEO and spin it into some dark conspiracy, but let the Speaker off the hook when it come to her campaign contributors.

By Sandman

May 3, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

“Why is there no decency left. Pure vitriol from Aquagirl and Dennis – why not do it with humor, guys? Whining contradiction from the other leftists, without a shred of thought. So sad. Jim’s essay was positive, but our leftists prefer to wallow in their own misery. Life is good, grow up, you nuts.”

Now that’s a positive ray of sunshine, there jbmlaw. Thanks for insulting my lack of thought.

By jbmlaw

May 3, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

“The future belongs to the fecund and the confident. And the Islamists are both, while the West — wedded to a multiculturalism that undercuts its own confidence, a welfare state that nudges it toward sloth and self-indulgence, and a childlessness that consigns it to oblivion — is looking ever more like the ruins of a civilization.”

By jbmlaw

May 3, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

Dear Sandman @ 12:14, That may be the most outrageous thing you’ve ever written, [Sandman.] Are you really that out of touch with reality?

By ckt

May 3, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

Psst.. Earth to Jim.

68% of Americans want a timetable for withdrawal. 57% of Americans believe congress should lead the way in Iraq, compared with 35% who think dubya should.

Do you care to use fact in ANY of your commentary, or do you just prefer shallow, empty statements which only connect with YOUR reality, not the one we live in?

I’d appreciate an answer.

By Middle America

May 3, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

I’m convinced there are no good candidates….ever!! It doesn’t matter which leg of your pants you put on first in the morning, left or right, or both at the same time like ‘ol Middle America here, the choices are crap. It’s like trying to pick the best apple out of a bushel that all have spots and worms. Just get one with the fewest spots if possible.

For conservatives: Rudy has that Reagan popularity thing going for him, but he has a questionable home life history and supports gay rights, which makes him vulnerable. McCain has been running right for a couple years now, but is sure to do his own maverick thing once in office, which should scare the right wing, plus he is getting on in age which is a risk that even Reaganites must admit is a liability. Romney seems to be all the right could ask for, except for that darned Mormon thing, which makes evangelicals nervous, no matter what they might say in public, privately they won’t vote for a Mormon, end of story.

For Democrats: Hilary comes with considerable baggage, even though she carries the flag of the most successful Dem president since Kennedy, not to mention the fears of a woman president. Obama has to overcome not only his race and inexperienced label, but he’ll have to answer stupid questions about his upbringing that includes exposure to Islam. John Edwards has the same level of experience as Obama, but also has a huge burden of his wife’s cancer to bear. I like Edwards, but I wish he’d focus on his wife’s health instead of an election.

By DawgBite

May 3, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

GW was at the effective end of his presidency when he listened to the 1st neo-con. As a wartime president he will be lucky to be mentioned in the same breath as LBJ.

By Sandman

May 3, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

I live in the United States. I’m not thinking there are masses of people who want to see more soldiers die and our nation humiliated in defeat. That’s the reality I see and hear at the barbershop, the grocery store, at church, etc. Even from people, like myself, who are deeply disappointed by our President.

By Van

May 3, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

ckt,

Where in the Constitution does it give the power to congress to control the military?

All Congress can do is either fund the war or not fund the war. Beyond that they are in muddy water constitutionally.

Just like when Teddy Roosevelt sent the Navy around the world to show the flag, Congress tried to stop the grandstand play. Guess who won that battle.

By DawgBite

May 3, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

By Van

May 3, 2007 12:31 PMJust like when Teddy Roosevelt sent the Navy around the world to show the flag, Congress tried to stop the grandstand play. Guess who won that battle.

Van, you moron. Hugo Chavez won that battle. Gun Boat Diplomacy is exactly the reason that 100 years of pent up hard feelings has cost us all of Latin America. I.E. Guys like Chavez, Evo Morales, et al won.

By Curious Observer

May 3, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

Jim and Van,

The University System of Georgia is looking for subjects to test the efficacy of instruction aimed at people with low IQs. It looks as though you’re in line for a few extra bucks if you hurry.

By Maudam

May 3, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

Pulling U.S. forces from Iraq could trigger catastrophe, CNN analysts and other observers warn, affecting not just Iraq but its neighbors in the Middle East, with far-reaching global implications.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/02/iraq.scenarios/index.html

W to Dems on Iraq Bill 1: THWACK!! The sound of the Dodgeball hitting Speaker Pelosi’s thigh. “Oooo that welt has got to hurt”!

Thank you W for not being an idiot and listening to the ignorant massed people like the cranky left runners wanted. Bush 1, Dems 0.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

May 3, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

Van, re your 11.20.

It’s a question of degrees. I’m not about to defend Nancy or Hillary for anything, and I pretty much expect that you can tie anyone in a position of responsiblity in government to somekind of corporate teat sucking(where does corruption come from anyway).

But the fact of the matter is that the only people who have benefited from this war are the people who support the business of war and the people who sell oil & oil infrastructure.

So isn’t it funny that the company that Cheney was CEO of does both? And isn’t it a little strange that the reasons that we began the war in the first place are at best flimsy?

Far as I can tell, Pelosi or Hillary haven’t actually started a war so that their masters could benefit.

For a group of people who spent 8 years running around like terriers looking for the least little hint of waste, fraud and abuse when Bill was running the show, it’s incredible that such glaring instances the same are now routinely overlooked.

I guess that’s why they call it politics, huh?

By TD

May 3, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

Jim…Reagan is taking a dirt nap. Newt is probably over at his girlfriends house.

By JK

May 3, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this

A few financial snippets for Van, followed by a question:

According to Yahoo Finance, Halliburton stock prices are up more than 200% ($78 Million) since March of 2003.

Since 9/11, the 34 defense CEOs have pocketed a combined total of $984 million, enough to cover the wages for more than a million Iraqis for a year. In 2005, the average total compensation for the CEOs of large US corporations was only 6% above 2001 figures, while defense CEOs pay was 108% higher.

In 2002, the Carlyle Group received $677 million in government contracts, and by 2003, its contracts were worth $2.1 billion. On September 28, 2001, two weeks after 9/11, the Wall Street Journal reported that, “George H.W. Bush, the father of President Bush, works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm.”

The President’s uncle, William (Bucky) Bush, sat on the board of a major military contractor called Engineered Support Systems. Six months before the war in Iraq began, on September 16, 2002, CNN/Money Magazine called ESS one of “seven defense stocks that fund managers like,” and one fund manager said ESS was one of two companies that “would gain the most from a war from Iraq.” In January 2003, he owned 33,750 shares of stock, but in January 2004, he owned 56,251. In January 2005, SEC filings show that he made about $450,000 by selling ESS stock. ESS earnings reached record levels and set the stage for the sale of the firm to another defense contractor, DRS Technologies, in January 2006, and among the beneficiaries of the deal was Uncle William, who cleared $2.7 million in cash and stock off the sale.

Hey Van, more than 3300 American soldiers have died in Iraq for these obscene profits in the last four years. How many Americans have died for Pelosi’s cans of tuna?

Oh, right. I forgot. Capitalism is only good when WHITE REPUBLICAN MEN do it, right? Forgive me.

By Van

May 3, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

Jim’s a Cherry Picker,

My original point was that the next conservative or liberal leader will have to have a a past devoid of anything that might cause a controversy.

So far we have been feed all the details of any and all candidates, right down to the cubic capacity of their large intestines(a joke).

I just wonder if this is what the founding fathers had in mind 231 years ago.

By Jack

May 3, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this

Hi JK. Remember: We the money, for the money, by the money.

By getalife

May 3, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this

The oil law halted in Iraq

Not to worry, they will get to it after their summer vacation.

Geez.

Have you seen the Israeli protest?

They are setting us a fine example for protesting failed leadership.

By Mark S.

May 3, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this

You have one. His name is…..Newt Gingrich. Now write a column lecturing him to go ahead and get off the sideline, already.

By Southern Democrat

May 3, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

It’s funny how history repeats itself.

Jim’s tone and content today are eerily reminiscent to me of pieces published by left-leaning columnists in 1998… extolling the virtues of a questionable leader with very little substance to back them and finger-pointing at the other party for all that is wrong with the world. It was incredibly intellectually lazy then and still is today.

I believe, as I think that most do, that George W. Bush the man is a smart, honest person who genuinely tries to act in the best interests of America.

HOWEVER, at this point, ANYONE who would deem the Bush Administration a successful one is out of his or her mind (Earth to Mars?).

The only minimal success America has had in the past 7 years is economically, which my conservative friends told me in 1992, 1994, 1996, and 2000 was (and I think rightly so) completely out of the president’s control.

Ask a teacher what he or she thinks about No Child Left Behind (I have).

Ask a soldier if he or she believes the military is stronger today than 7 years ago (I have… the answer left a pit in my stomach).

Ask a CIA analyst if he or she thinks in vague terms that we are more or less safer than in 2000 and if there are more or fewer terrorist-leaning states and groups than in 2000 (I have… a close relative works there).

The nation will move to the middle in 2008. The conservatives who believed in a permanent majority and a “winner-take-all” attitude towards elections will be shouted down, like Madison predicted in No. 54, and both parties will regain a modicum of sanity.

I respectfully disagree with my good friend Jbmlaw… I think we will see Romney v. Obama in the general election… and I hope we will have a spirited, issue-based debate together!

By H. Dog

May 3, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this

AJC: Prosecutor wants Paris Hilton in jail

To heck with that I want her at home with me. Yummy.

By Oh God, please ...

May 3, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

… let Southern Democrat be right.

By Van

May 3, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this

JK

Good question, I wonder what Occidental Oil would say about it, the company that Al Gore is a shareholder in.

As we have seem in the past, everything is connected through at least 6 levels of connection.

If I had the forethought I too would have invested heavily in defense contractors.

And which branch of the bin laden family did the senior Bush have direct contacts with?

Regarding the war for oil babble, I am sure you will bring that up next, those contracts for Iraqi oil are not headed to America. CNN reported that the Asian firms are going to be getting those contracts we supposedly went to war for.

By Jack

May 3, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this

Paris is OK. My passion is for redheads.:)

By Dusty

May 3, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this

woooo what do we have here today? You liberals surely do need retreads ‘cause you are tracking in the same ol’worn out trash here every day.

Captain FauxFreedom is putting out his usual long-winded kinda-cute hoopla. RedNeck should jump under his bogus beer truck while AquaGirl never met a conservative she wouldn’t spit on.

I tell you. Jim Wooten’s sensible opinions seem like kerosene on the liberal ashes. Liberals just hate a sensible honest opinion. That and President Bush who vetoes their anti-war liberal ransom notes demanding pork and paltry schedules.

As to 2008 candidates, Guiliani suits me right now. I think he would dump Nancy Pelosi right in her substandard tuna factory and let her get canned. He wouldn’t care if Obama won the national high jump at political chances. Obie has the charisma of a nice high school kid trying to get a date with a cheerleader. Lincoln he “aint”.

So there you have it!! (All happy & cheerful, huh, jbmlaw?) Glad to see you and Van posting today. At the very least, you two know that 9/11 was not caused by local fireworks. Now those liberals…oh nevermind.

By getalife

May 3, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this

Never ever vote for gop again:

“Each of Bush’s signature failures — the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, Enron and the corporate scandals, failed tax and trade policies, the attempt to privatize Social Security, the posturing around Terri Schiavo and stem cells — can be traced back not simply to the conservative ideology and ideologues that sired them — but to the basic concepts that Reagan championed. The Gipper can’t lead Republican candidates out of the wilderness because, to paraphrase, his conservatism is the problem, not the solution.

Over the last six years, with Bush in the White House, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay ramrodding the Republican Congress and Karl Rove focused on mobilizing the Republican base, conservatives have largely had their way. Bush pursued the core ideas of each strand of “movement conservatism” largely to catastrophic effect.”

Learn from this mistake Ga.

By Elizabeth

May 3, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this

Republicans LOVE Reagan. Reagan launched his presidential bid in Philadelphia, Miss. Why there, you ask? Because Philadelphia, Mississippi is famous for one thing—the murders of three civil rights workers. Reagan gave a speech on how he believed in “states rights,” empathizing with whites who felt disenchanted with the civil rights movement. “States rights” was the very same argument that segregationists used to justify separate-but-equal. I’m glad Wooten wants another Reagan in the White House. Maybe he wants separate-but-equal,too.

By Jack

May 3, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this

How was Katrina Bush’s fault? Please splain. Didn’t their fine mayor & guvnah drop the ball? Didn’t they get more than 20 million for flood control and the money moved to committees where it lined pockets with no real work done? Give it a break already. I don’t hear the people of MS complaining but that may be as most of them were not on gov’t assistance.

By getalife

May 3, 2007 3:18 PM | Link to this

Never ever vote for gop again:

“Each of Bush’s signature failures — the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, Enron and the corporate scandals, failed tax and trade policies, the attempt to privatize Social Security, the posturing around Terri Schiavo and stem cells — can be traced back not simply to the conservative ideology and ideologues that sired them — but to the basic concepts that Reagan championed. The Gipper can’t lead Republican candidates out of the wilderness because, to paraphrase, his conservatism is the problem, not the solution.

Over the last six years, with Bush in the White House, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay ramrodding the Republican Congress and Karl Rove focused on mobilizing the Republican base, conservatives have largely had their way. Bush pursued the core ideas of each strand of “movement conservatism” largely to catastrophic effect.”

Learn from this mistake Ga.

By jm

May 3, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this

jack@3:08 - You are not hearing the complaints from MS because the governor, Haley Barbour is a good republican. If you want folks to blame about the disaster of Katrina recovery throughout the gulf coast, look to the insurance companies. Unless your name is Trent Lott (and you happen to be a U.S. Senator) good luck getting a decent claim settlement. In the meantime, if your claim is in litigation, no reconstruction can start on your property (removes the evidence).

By Jack

May 3, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this

I really don’t want to blame anyone. I’m just sick of hearing how it is Bush’s fault.

By Jack

May 3, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

Insurance adjusters rank up there with personal injury lawyers on the scum list.

By getalife

May 3, 2007 3:41 PM | Link to this

Jack,

Where does the buck stop?

Do you know they are still trying to get the money to fix the levees?

It all goes to the Iraq disaster.

He vetoed the bill to repair the levees you freaking idiot.

Wake up.

By getalife

May 3, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this

He also vetoed the bill for min. wage and health care for the troops.

Look at the bill he just vetoed idiot.

Yes, it is all w’s fault.

By Jack

May 3, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this

When you say idiot, look in the mirror.

By Political Pigskin

May 3, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

A Press Conference by President Newt Gingrich.

Q: Mr. President, can you tell us why you always look down when you talk?

“Well, you’d look down to if you had to step over bed pans trying to get your infirmed wife to sign divorce papers so that you could take strange women home to your horse ranch, (where you also have to look down).”

Q: Mr. President, is it true that you knew nothing about the Iran-Burka Emirs for Insurgents Scandal?

“Well, I knew that Saddam Hussein tried to kill my wife and failed, so he had to go.”

Q: Boxers or Briefs?

“Well, I once mooned a mullah, and I found that I’m grosser in briefs. so…”

Q: IS it true you put a contract on America?

“Well, I think America has it coming, after all, they voted democrat in ‘06.”

By Dusty

May 3, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this

Southern Democrat @ 2:26,

Yes, history does repeat itself. Since the 2000 election we have seen Democrats work over and over against the President no matter the cost to the country. You seem to forget those obvious efforts in your velvet covered comments.

You dismiss a thriving economy as inconsequential.

We have won the war in Afghanistan and work toward winning another, yet you say that the military is weak. (“I talked with a soldier….”)

You suggest that ALL teachers are dissatisfied. (“Just ask one….”) Will Democrats make them happy? How?

You overlook the fact that our mainland has not had any more terrorist attacks since 9/11. I guess that just happened without government security.

Then you suggest that conservatives have a “winner take all” in elections. Do you want to overlook votes and just DECIDE who won an election when Democrats do not win?

Perhaps you should take off your Democratic dark glasses and realize that Democrats are causing some big problems in America. The current war funding bill is a typical example of absolute ineptness by Democrats. It is a slam in the face to our military during wartime, a war voted for by Democrats. Madison cetainly would not like that.

By getalife

May 3, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this

De-Authorizing the illegal occupation by Clinton is the next Dem move.

By DULLdull

May 3, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this

What is the mission of US troops in Iraq?

How can you tell if the surge is working or not?

What did the term “Mission Accomplished” mean in terms of the reality on the ground in Iraq when Bush gave that speech on the carrier?

What did Bush think “Mission Accomplished” meant?

What would a similar speech imply if given today? (What does victory smell like in Iraq)?

Do you neo-newts even know what your own president is doing or how he arrives at his conclusions?

You’re all a disgrace to freedom and you’re certainly wasting your lives and our troops who defend you so that you can make total fools out of yourselves on this blog. You political geniuses owe it to our troops to at least understand the nature of the conflict in Iraq.

We know none of you have anything to blog because we’ve read it….ZERO.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

By Jack

May 3, 2007 4:12 PM | Link to this

DULLduh. Man you are so perfect. You and Getalife and Harold aught to get together. You can all sing, “Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble when you’re perfect in every way.”

By harold

May 3, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this

jack why dont you go ogle some more fat chicks

By getalife

May 3, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this

Dull,

The latest mission (yes, it has changed again) spewed by w is to lower the violence like here in America.

Our troops are their police and we do not car, truck, suicide bomb, IED’s or snipers our police in America.

Plus, their government has decided to take two months off while our troops will be blown up.

This is w’s legacy.

By Bushwacker

May 3, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this

Finally someone who can see what a GREAT LEADER, President Bush.

He might make mistakes, but lets remember he’s had to go down a road we’ve never been before and a road that some one should have went down a long time ago.

But they would not because there is no “book” on how to fight a war like this.

Just remember, every morning when President Bush wakes up, his goal is to prevent another 911 and save all our lives, even the ungrateful haters out there who are trying to demonize him.

My father told me once, even if every one around you tells you, you are wrong, if you believe in your heart you are right, you just have to KEEP ON ,KEEPING ON!!

God gave us President Bush and I thank him for it every day!!!

By getalife

May 3, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this

Jack is a moron.

Geez Jack.

Get a clue.

By DULLdull

May 3, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this

DUsty, there were no terror attacks on US soil for 8 years after 1993 World Trade Center. That means nothing in terms of how well homeland security was functioning in those 8 quiet years.

You also can conclude nothing about the five quiet years since 911 here.

you see, Dusty, you have a mind that cant fathom logic, so you blog fantastic, yet immature assessments that are as useless as your twought is.

Twought without Thought, now where have I heard of that before? Dumb blondes. DYE BRAINLESS!! of course.

Why dont you sew a nicotine patch on your woo-woo and let it double as a chastity belt, you smoke-free knucklehead, you.

Bwa

Ha

Bwa ha

Ha Bwa

BwaHaBwaHaBwaHaBwaHaBwaHaBwaHa

moron

By lucky

May 3, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this

Obama does not stand a chance - he said if we are attacked again he will make sure the response teams pick up the bodies. That is an open invitation for Muslim extremists to start planning the next attack. Hillary will only get elected in New York and Hollywood, enough said.

Tom Tancredo will be our next president and he is not beholding to special interest groups or big business. His campaign contributors are average voters who are fed up with the illegals trashing our neighborhoods, schools, hospitals and sovereignty.

By Jack

May 3, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this

I love it. Give me more.

By getalife

May 3, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this

Here ya go Jack.

Speaker Pelosi:

“Today, the President faces consequences of his own making. This is the seventh supplemental for the war in Iraq. Certainly, somebody was planning something at the White House and could have put, over the years, the funding necessary for this war into the budget. Instead the President did not do that. I don’t know why, maybe they don’t want the American people to see the real cost of this war in dollars. Certainly, we know the price that we have paid more seriously, in lives, in health, in reputation, in the readiness of our military and in probably two trillion dollars now for this war.”

Smack down!

Bwa.

By getalife

May 3, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this

This is what I am talking about

By Aquagirl

May 3, 2007 4:41 PM | Link to this

Yeah, Dusty, it’sgoing great!

By DULLdull

May 3, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this

Bush thinks that the surge can be considered a success if “sectarian violence” declines. Globally, there was a 25% increase in suicide bombers last year. The real war is the Islamic Jihadist’s recruitment of suicide robots. That’s the real threat, not Iraq. Leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

Nothing has been done to stem the tide of suicide bombers being brainwashed to die for allah. They think they become the hand of Allah when they destroy the impurities of the infidel people. This is not a trend that will just die off like the hula hoop. This is a new emerging multi-national political threat, and Bush has done everything possible to fertilize and encourage the growth of this cancer on the globe. Unwittingly, of course.

I mean, come on, W is a moron, and everyone knows it. That’s what’s so crazy here. Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Cheney, The Pope, Al Gore and even Henry Kissinger wince whenever they’re forced to use Bush’s name in a speech because he’s such an embarrassment. It’s hard even for the Islamists to hate him. It’s like no one can rally any real passion because bush is such a monkey boy. During Osama’s last video release, it showed him addressing a throng of suicide bombers: “We must fight the infidel, (points to picture of bush), “and we must destroy the impurities…..” (camera to audience whose giggling and eye rolling)….”Confound it, why cant I drive a point home anymore at these jihad meetings? Damn that monkey boy bush.”

W: An Inconvenient Moron.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

May 3, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this

Greetings, southron cretins and the few decent folk that blog here from We The Pope. We just got back from a visit to Montreal, PQ, where the Bush dollar ain’t what the dollar used to be. The good news about his sillyass War on Tare is we’ll be paying back the debt with Bush dollars, which are already about 30% cheaper than when he became pResident. Another couple of years of Dumbya’s assininity, and you’ll be jealous of all those wetback chickenplucker’s pesos…

By Dusty

May 3, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this

DULLdull@4:17

I don’t waste but a few seconds on vulgar dimwits like you. Go stand on a corner and sell pencils to finance your drug habit.

By Aquagirl

May 3, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

As long as it’s not a corner in Afghanistan where we won that war, Dull should be fine.

But thanks to all that Taliban produced dope, at least he won’t have to sell too many!

By Dusty

May 3, 2007 5:00 PM | Link to this

PopeRednecks @4:47 Do us a favor. Please stay in Montreal.

Aquagirl @4:41

Oh whoopee, you looked and looked and finally found a piece against our military in Afghanistan. Way to go, girl. Your optimism and support…well…so Democratic.

By DULLdull

May 3, 2007 5:04 PM | Link to this

WELL I NEVER!

By Musty

May 3, 2007 5:06 PM | Link to this

This is a free country, so show your appreciation by never questioning anything our president does (as long as he’s Republican). Free speech, free smeech, the right way to think is to support your Commander in Chief no matter what.

Da da da-da da de da de da de dum dum (hail to the chief)

By Aquagirl

May 3, 2007 5:08 PM | Link to this

Dusty, how is it against our military to point out reality? The Taliban is back in control of a lot of territory and people.

Only a KneePad Bushlover would call that not supporting our troops. Do you every say anything else when you can’t make a logical point? Oh, and that’s a rhetorical question. We’ve read your posts.

By Jack

May 3, 2007 5:10 PM | Link to this

Democrat knee pads are thicker because they’re used way more often. (even then, they wear out quicker)

By Musty

May 3, 2007 5:14 PM | Link to this

A rim job for one’s President is the highest in public service.

By getalife

May 3, 2007 5:14 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Are these people unpatriotic?

By Musty

May 3, 2007 5:20 PM | Link to this

Yes. They should support their leader. Just like we all should support our wonderful President in everything he does.

By DULLdull

May 3, 2007 5:22 PM | Link to this

You’ll have to forgive Dusty. She thinks she’s a conservative, but if you ask her what that means, she’ll spout political platitudes that were obsolete during the Reagan Era.

Tight body….loose mind.

Bwa

By Aquagirl

May 3, 2007 5:25 PM | Link to this

Like those poor confused souls in Pat Tillman’s family. Turncoats.

According to Dusty, only their grief is making them acknowledge reality. As soon as they’re over that they’ll be back behind their Pinhead-In-Chief.

By SB

May 3, 2007 5:26 PM | Link to this

In his speech yesterday to the Associated General Contractors of America, the president seemed almost desperate to generate support for the war in Iraq. But with no coherent talking points left to defend the U.S. presence in Iraq, Bush played the only card he had left.

Over the course of the hour-long event, the president referred to al Qaeda, by name, 27 times. If you include more oblique references (the “network that attacked America on 9/11″), the number climbs to 31. Given al Qaeda’s actual role in Iraq, that’s probably about 29 too many.

There’s no great mystery here. If Americans look at the violence in Iraq as a symptom of a Sunni-Shia civil war, they want to withdraw. If Americans look at Iraq as a theater for fighting al Qaeda, they might be inclined to stay.

So, Bush has to play the demagogic cards he’s dealt. He can’t explain why he diverted attention away from al Qaeda in 2002 and 2003, in order to attack a country where al Qaeda had no meaningful presence at all. And he can’t explain that al Qaeda is responsible for about 5% of the violence in Iraq, so he tells sycophants what all war supporters want to hear — by staying in Iraq, we’re taking on the bastards responsible for 9/11. Just don’t look too closely at the fine print.

By Musty

May 3, 2007 5:27 PM | Link to this

I do not repeat platitudes, only facts. The Taliban is not coming back in Afghanistan. You’re just buying the lies of a liberal press.

We will win the war in Iraq if the Democrats just mind their own business and give the President and our troops all the support they need.

And, I DO NOT have a tight body.

By Dusty

May 3, 2007 6:08 PM | Link to this

Musty, Dullby and Aqua,

Isn’t it time for your dinner at the homeless shelter?

By Chuck

May 4, 2007 8:15 AM | Link to this

C’mon everyone. let’s not go back to the past. It’s two thousand and something. We need a leader not continued rhetoric and the “good ol’ boy” network. Get a life…

By Diane

May 4, 2007 8:40 AM | Link to this

Fred Thompson is the one and only answer to the conundrum! He embodies the Regan philosphy and that of true Republicans.

My vote is going to Fred Thompson in the Republican Primary and as our next President.

Newt was doing the same thing as slime ball Clinton, the same TIME as slime ball, Clinton, only at a different location. Plus he’s on his third wife, so far. If Newt were my ONLY choice, I’d stay home for the first time since turning ‘of voting age’.

By Jeff

May 4, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this

Where is Newt Reagan? Hopefully frying in the pits of Hades! My gosh what a scary headline! Is that REALLY what the Republicans want. Geez, why don’t you just move to Siberia, it’s cold there, but Gingrich/Reagan politics would be considered geius philosophy.

By David S.

May 4, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this

“stout conservative with big ideas based on the world as it exists today”

First of all, Jim seems to make up his own definition of conservative every time he turns around. Essentially it means whatever twisted vision of reality is blowing through his unprincipled mind at the time.

For the rest of us that understand what having real principles means, Ron Paul of Texas is really the only candidate that should even be running as a Republican (or a Democrat for that matter). Talk about Big ideas for today’s reality, how about ending income taxation, ending the federal reserve, restoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, restoring a responsible non-interventioninst foreign policy, and overall reducing government to the limits defined in the Constitution?

These are the kinds of principles conservatives used to spout out as the fundamentals of government. Then they got a taste of power and their principles all went to hell.

As for being able to speak his message, the mainstream media and the republican party in general will do everything to make sure that he never gets a real chance. His ideas are exactly what this nation needs, are exactly what this nation was founded upon, and the only things that can restore this once-great nation. But it would mean that all of the current power bosses would need to go, and we can’t have that.

www.ronpaul2008.com - for a real candidate

By amoore

May 4, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

ckt,

jim did use a FACT……….”house fell 62 votes shy-62 votes-in an attemp to override”. if 68 percent of Americans wanted a timetable for withdrawl and it was the “will of the American people”-as pelosi said- then there should be enough votes for an overide. not to mention dems having to fill the bill with pork spending to get it passed the first go around.

oh, and by the way, congress has an approval rating in the 30’s. why is that?

amoore

By Eric

May 4, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

The radical Islamist terrorists must enjoy it when we trade third-grade barbs with each other over “Bush lied, Rove this, Cheney that, what about Halliburton?”.

Meanwhile, these Islamist Fascists plot to kill us with no regard for that which we hold dear—especially freedom and human life.

Some of you—especially Cornshucker—don’t understand why we are fighting the terrorists. You don’t understand that evil exists and that it won’t go away on its own accord. My words won’t help you understand.

I write this as I am about to step on the treadmill to get my daily exercise. But should I even get on the treadmill? After all, experts say I’ll have to continue to exercise all my life. If I stop, the benefits also stop. There is no “exit strategy” for my treadmill. And the darn thing cost $3,000—money which could’ve been spent on other things.

Some folks don’t understand the concept of continuing to fight those who want to end your way of life. But others realize that for certain aspects of life, there is no endpoint. For me the Islamization of America is so reprehensible that there should be no endpoint and no price that is too much to pay.

My father understood this concept in WWII along with many others. He was shot in the throat in Luxembourg. Today, those on the left would say we don’t have a “strategic interest” in Luxembourg. But as I enjoy the freedom this country offers me and my family I am reminded that evil does exist and that it must be stopped. And sometimes there is no endpoint.

In a couple of years Bush/Cheney/Rove/Halliburton will be out of the limelight but the Islamist terrorists will not.

What is your plan for defeating this evil?