Thinking Right

By TW

February 6, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this

Jim - there is one GOP, and it’s the group in McCain’s camp. The other two reflect the infection that has brought the party to its knees. The faster the GOP cleanses itself of the Huckabee wackos and the greedy Romneys the sooner it will restore credibility to its once valuable voice.

By Mid-South Philosopher

February 6, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

With respect to the Republican Party, yesterday’s election results demonstrate the rejection, by the rank and file Republicans, of the George Bush corporatist philosophy as proffered by the mechanical Mitt Romney. McCain, who offers the notion of strength and preservation of national security (the only thing that Georgie Bush did half right)coupled with his more moderate view of American life will assure that he captures the nomination.

Sadly, it may be too little to late.

If Obama can overcome Hillary, we will have the first American President of documented African ancestry in the White House. I would not have a problem with that.

HOWEVER, we will have the most liberal individual in the history of the nation. That would be troubling.

Alas, the true conservatives allowed Georgie Bush and his corporatists to hijack the Republican Party and, I suspect, that for that transgression, we will get 8 years of liberal rule.

By jbmlaw

February 6, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. While I broadly agree with the analysis this morning, two of Jim’s arguments attract my attention, and provoke partial disagreement. (1) “Republicans are composed of at least three conservative blocs: movement conservatives who pay close attention to issues…” and (2) “Romney’s Mormonism was more significant than people were willing to acknowledge.”

I think there are many more than three conservative blocs, and would agree with the “values voters” and “military wings” cited by Jim. I think the “movement” conservatives are much larger than those other two, but are highly fractured, among “anti-tax” vs. “anti-deficit,” “immigration controllers vs. libertarians,” “free traders vs. managed growth types.” We need many more labels. Makes the Reagan miracle of 1980 even more wondrous, until you realize that it was forged from disgust.

I cannot imagine a Republican voting against Romney because of his Mormonism. I am a mainline Protestant, but the religious profession is the last thing I am interested in when I analyze candidates. I’ve dealt with many Mormons in my life, and have always found them honorable and trustworthy, salt of the earth. This prejudice is so weird it is beyond my comprehension.

By OneForTheRoad

February 6, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim.

Politics and the breed it spawns. I liken many politicians to cockroaches. They are the true survivors. They adapt quickly to change. If one food source runs out, they’ll quickly locate another. They’ll bite the hand that feeds them and quickly scurry for cover from the light of day. Fortunately, there is still one encouraging aspect — politicians still don’t breed as fast as cockroaches. So, when we have a chance to talk with our scientists, let’s try to remember to remind them of that fact.

By Craig

February 6, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this

With all due respect Counselor, you need to visit the exurbs of Atlanta, where the churches have names like Mighty Holy Ghost Church of Fire Ministry. There is a lot of anti Mormon prejudice out there.

By Dusty

February 6, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this

MidSouth Phil@9:50

Would you explain exactly what you mean when you cite President Bush and his corporatists? Are you going to tell me that we went to war for oil or some such nonsense?

If we get a super liberal president with socialized medicine, welfare government, high taxes and a cut-and-run retreat from Iraq, you can blame people just like you.

Democrats have done nothing but condemn and lie about the President from the time he was elected. You have made Americans feel like dupes for supporting the war or the president’s policies.

We are in debt. The war costs money. The Armed Forces were depleted by Clinton and had to be reenforced. And, of course, wars never go as planned.

Don’t even mention that you would be troubled by a super liberal President. You asked for it and you may get it. If so, then I sincerely hope the new President will not be treated with malignant disregard as was George W. Bush.

By profit

February 6, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this

Was the Private school girl who murdered a mother to three with her daddy’s imported suv ever tried, and if so, was she sent to prison? Remember, she was talking on her cell phone to another private school girl with whom she was trying to extort sex under threat of suicide…she gave a count down to the head on collision….BUT her daddy is a well connected Atlanta lawyer, so I suspect his pals in the fraud that passes as the legal profession in Atlanta made secret arrangements…what, a few months in a private mental health facility, then back to private school, this time in Switzerland?

By Dennis

February 6, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten states that Hillary has a gender problem with men.

There’s no gender problem with REAL men, Mr. Wooten. REAL men will support the right woman. Hillary’s just not the right woman.

As to endorsements of Georgia’s two senators, Georgia could wish it had two good senators. Saxby is nothing more than a rubber stamp for Bush, and Isakson, what has he done on his own that is noteworthy?

Glenn, I tried to check back on here last night, but the AJC system had so many posts concerning the election results that I was unable to check and see if you found the short information I referenced on Obama.

I had to laught last night as some poll reports had Obama winning in Georgia because of the “black vote”. Little do they realize that although we still have some racial holdouts, we also have progressed to the point that white Georgians will vote for the right African-American (as well as for the right woman).

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

By Curious Observer

February 6, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

If so, then I sincerely hope the new President will not be treated with malignant disregard as was George W. Bush.

Thank you, Dusty, for assuring us that you will be as supportive of Hillary or Obama if one of them becomes president as you have been of the current president. Hey, wait a minute! I feel a warm trickle on my leg!

By MADMOMMY

February 6, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this

I am all for a African American in office, but please just not Obama. He is just too liberal and I fear for our great country. I pray that God takes over on this one and puts the best man for the job into office. Be it my man Huckabee or Mcain, I will support either one. This is a turning point election that will be reviewed for years to come.

By Craig

February 6, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this

Dusty, I mean this as a legitimate question, although it may sound a little snarky. During the ‘90’s, did you treat President Clinton with “malignant diswregard”? Did Republicans in general?

By Craig

February 6, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this

er… “disregard” “W’s” always seem to pop up when they’re not wanted…

By OneForTheRoad

February 6, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

For one thing, I have to agree with Craig regarding the religion thing. Hey, if Mormons, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, etc. all got along, the places of worship would just be called “Church” or something analogous. Our little local newspaper sometimes runs a partial listing of the churches in our small — Very Small — county. There’s a whole page — in very fine print — and it’s a partial listing. Armed with this information, you would think that we’d be a benevolent bunch, wouldn’t you? There sure shouldn’t be any idle time for the devil’s handiwork, right? Makes you wonder, don’t it. With that many churches, you might be inclined to ask yourself, are they all needed to hold all those religious folk on prayer day or are there so many because so few believe in the same thing[s] or some other reason[s]. Of course, it’s none of my business to question the needs of the many.

Anyway, that’s what I always say.

By Aquagirl

February 6, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this

Hillary has a problem with a gender gap? More like a lot of men have a problem with sexism. You make the logical connection anti-Mormonism and avoidance of Romney, but when men don’t vote for Hillary, she has the problem.

Best part of yesterday—-Sadie Field’s extra large serving of crow. The “non-viable” candidate won this state, among others. Watching Bush clones Chambliss and Isakson get a serving was pretty funny too.

By getalife

February 6, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this

Clinton/Obama will be in the WH for 16 years.

Clinton 8 then Obama 8.It will take this long to clean up the gop mess.

The CIA admitted torture signed off by w.

Then he will veto FISA unless he gets immunity.

The man is guilty of crimes and still in office. WTF?

By Mid-South Philosopher

February 6, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

Dusty@9:25 A.M.

Corporatists are those people who subscribe to the notion that the welfare of the country is tied TOTALLY to the generation of “profits”, at all costs, for the corporations.

Corporatists have no concern about jobs for American citizens and have no compulsion in using cheap, overseas, near slave labor to achieve their profits.

To further their desire for a cheap labor force, corporatists, under the leadership of George Bush and John McCain, aided by Ted Kennedy (although for another reason), embrace the “opened border” philosophy. Don’t you dare tell me George Bush was NOT in favor of granting amnesty to the 30 million illegals we have in this nation!!!

Corporatists are those people who subscribe to the school of thought that there should be five social classes in America:

5% Super Rich 10% Upper Class 15% Middle Class 60% Working Poor 10% Slackers, Homeless, and On-the-dole.

Corporatists deny the existence of global warming or environmental challenges as “liberal propaganda” and oppose ANY regulations that might impair or limit their ability to make profits.

Corporatists give lip service to small businesses, but will not hesitate to crush one, if it gets in the way of the larger enterprise.

Corporatists give lip service to smaller government…until THEY need government to do something to further their ends.

Corporatists give lip service to the notion of constitutional originalists being appointed to the courts. They rant against activist judges, yet they would accept and activist judge in a second, if said judge was a conservative activist (just consult Ann Coulter)!

Corporatists give great lip service to individual liberty and personal responsibility, yet they would invade your school, doctor’s office, and bedroom, to name but just a few spheres of private life.

I could go on, but the cold brutal truth is that, if Obama or Clinton cross the threshold of 1600 Pennsylvania on January 20, 2009, we will have no one but the corporatists to blame.

By Dusty

February 6, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this

Dear Curious Observer & Craig,

I am not a liberal so I usually treat our Presidents with respect. That is until they totally lose all aspects of acquiring respect.

Nixon lied, was caught, and left. I had no respect for him. Clinton lied, was caught and left in disgrace, not even able to practice Law.

Bush has not lied, has no illegal acts on his record, and will leave with no indictments. He will be noted for protecting America in a time of terrorism and extending that policy to the “home” of terrorism, that part of the world known as Afghanistan and Iraq.

Just because you are a brainwashed liberal does not change those facts.

By Redneck Convert

February 6, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

Well, I’m with this MADMOMMY. I would vote for the right one of Those People to be President, but right now there ain’t any fit to be President in the whole world and in the ages to come. I expect there will never be any. Same thing for voting for a woman for President. Don’t they have cookies to bake or clothes to wash for their men or something?

By OneForTheRoad

February 6, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

I sense a little perk in Red’s step today now that his reverent reverend Huckabee has made a stand. A stand reminiscent of Little Big Horn or Alamo just without the bloodshed. Perhaps more like a lemonade stand. Kool Aid, anyone.

By getalife

February 6, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

As usual, crusty the clown is lying. She never supported President Clinton in his military victory and she is a fraud pure and simple.

w lied to start a occupation, he lied about torture and will veto FISA without immunity.

This man is a criminal crusty and should be locked up.

BTW, Clinton can practice law fruit cake.

By Joe Bland

February 6, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this

So this is what I am?

“The rest of Georgia is Chamber of Commerce Republican — traditional with a preference for smaller government and less regulation, but also practical and non-ideological.”

With all the other, noisier types of Republicans, I thought I’d been made an independent by exclusion.

By GayGreyGeek

February 6, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this

getalife @ 10:31 - Why are you still wasting energy presenting the DustBuster with things like verifiable facts? You’ve got to know by now that facts conflict with the flavor of her Kool-Aid…

By Glenn

February 6, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

Dennis, bingo! Thanks, man. I knew I remembered Barry from somewhere! That is so helpful—-you have no idea. You’ve just painlessly removed one of my several brain worms.

This isn’t the place to go into it, but I knew the Oxy President, for whom I used to work (never taught there), and several of the students from Barry’s cohort, and even dated one of them. (A Scandinavian ambassador’s lovely daughter, no less!) So, it’s easy to look into, though I doubt there’s much there, and consequently I conclude that Mr. Kovaleski is doing a responsible job. (I’d rather check him out than spend more time on Barack’s Oxy phase.)

Good school, by the way. I’m impressed. The thing is, I was part of that divestment mafia, and a very small and tight cosa nostra we had going too. We were radicals then; but in the end, the Blue Meanies (as we called them) caved to us one by one and made us Establishment types—-politicians, professors, etc. I’m happy for his success in this context.

Let’s see what Kovaleski comes up with on the drug front. If it sounds tinny, I’ll run it down.

Thanks again.

By RealRep

February 6, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this

Let the failures of Romney and Giuliani reassure the country about the strength of the real conservative.

Huckabee ‘08

By deegee

February 6, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

“The rest of Georgia is Chamber of Commerce Republican — traditional with a preference for smaller government and less regulation, but also practical and non-ideological.”

Translation please - The rest of Georgia is Chamber of Commerce republicans that condemn earmarks as liberal, big government waste, but they know how to season the pork when there is something in it for them.

By getalife

February 6, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

GGG,

I will expose her as the fraud she is everytime she spews about patriotism.

She supports the gop only, even though her hero is a criminal.

It is beyond pathetic but at least McInsane is positioned well on torture but nothing else.

By Redneck Convert

February 6, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

When I seen the first two words of the title of Wootens blog last night, “Huckabee blowing …” I about had a heart attack and was awful afeared that another godly Republican had done strayed from the Path of Righteousness, along with the guy that chased boys and the senator that wore diapers and other stuff. So I had a big sigh of releif when I read the rest of it.

Anyhow, this OneForTheRoad is right. I got a extra spring in my step this a.m. The Rev. Huckabee done made me proud. I liked the way him and this librul McCain ganged up in W.Va. and knocked this Mormon Romney out like he got pole-axed by Ric Flair. It was almost as good as watching NASCAR and how the drivers give each other a little bump and send them flying off of the track.

And when I read Wooten talking about how the voting changed about 40 miles outside of Atlanta, I said to myself, yep, that’s GA redneck country. A good redneck ain’t going to vote for nobody but a canadate that’s been Saved. I hope everybody gets use to saying President Huckabee.

By OneForTheRoad

February 6, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

Welcome to the rest of Georgia, Joe Bland. You have also been reduced to a Wooten statistic, a labeled after-thought, one with no ideals. No need to despair though for we are still practical. And that smoke-filled-room of a bygone era. Yep. It’s true. They have to smoke outdoors now. The rest of the story though is that our politicians just can’t handle the truth. So, they pay their staff to come up with all these justifications for the way we were, I mean, are. Why, we’re so splintered and fractured and disoriented, you’d think we were collateral damage or some such “I approve this commercial” nonsense. And since they can’t handle the truth, sharing the truth doesn’t even warrant a fleeting thought.

Anyway, that’s what I just said.

By Dusty

February 6, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

Midsouth Phil @10:11

So many points and so many submarginal unproven opinionated views. You furnish a new blame label corporatists.

Americans rise to the level of their expertise. Thus they live in various social, educational and economic levels. It is the AMERICAN WAY long known since the foundation of our government.

GLOBAL WARMING! Even the scientists do not ALL agree on this theory. But America has moved to save the environment in many ways.

All members of our SUPREME COURT were aproved by Congress. They are the final word on “the law” of our country, whether you like the justices or not.

We still have SMALL BUSINESSES in this country. They have difficulties like all business. But the wise ones continue to survive in new ways or improvements.

ILLEGAL ALIENS arrived in American long before Bush was President. He has started a wall to stop the illegal influx. He did decide not to try and dump millions of people back to the poverty they left. But Immigration service is still deporting illegals. I prefer all citizens to be legal. No one in Congress has offered a good return policy for millions of people. Whose fault is that?

Most of us have not “given” the country to your so called *corporatists”. We are a big country and cannot operate without some big corporations. We still believe that freedom exists while we strive to do the best we can in all areas. We do not blame all problems on one sector of the business world.

By Restating the Obvious

February 6, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

Mike Huckabee believes a wife should be subservient to her husband. He does not believe in the theory of evolution.

Ergo, he is not fit to be a husband or a parent — much less the President of the United States.

By Joe Bland

February 6, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this

“This prejudice is so weird it is beyond my comprehension.”

jbm, I agree with that statement, but I also suffer from this prejudice, too. I’ve known Mormons all my life and have counted some as friends. But it was the people who were friends, I still didn’t get the religion.

In fact, a modification to your statement describes my take (unfair as it may be) on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

This religion is so weird it’s beyond my comprehension.

By getalife

February 6, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this

They are all guilty

“The executive branch ordered it. The Legislative branch knew about it and either did nothing or actively approved. The Judicial Branch said it was legal. The CIA/military departments carried it out. The Justice Department excused everything.”

Guilty, guity, guity.

By OneForTheRoad

February 6, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this

Oh! By the way, Jim. We joined the Chamber of Commerce, like the good little “fringe” Republicans we are, when we moved up here to North Georgia. Well, that was really helpful. And if you believe that, I’ve got a Chip Pearson speech about helping the small business owners that I’ll sell you for a fair profit. What was it someone was saying about mouthpieces? Or, was that cheerleaders? What I would give sometimes for an original thought. Well, maybe not just any original thoughts. After all, I do have standards — as minimum as they may be.

By Craig

February 6, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

Thanks Dusty, although you of course didn’t answer my question. And of course you can’t - because Republicans cry like little girls when anyone disagrees with Bush. When Clinton was president of course, no criticism was too slimy and outrageous.

By Glenn

February 6, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this

getalife,

As for your verifiable facts, get, you’re so right to point out that Clinton’s law license was restored last year, after a five-year suspension stipulated as part of his criminal sentencing. Indeed, one would have to be a “fruit cake” to think that Clinton can no longer practice law.

As for your Sheehanism, if not Shi’ism, the commissions reported that President Bush was presented with a great deal of information that led him first to threaten, and then to operationalize, military action against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Much of this information he summarized, repeatedly, for the American People, and much of it he presented, via his Secretary of State, to the UN.

Some of the information, which was indeed propounded as cause for conflict, turned out to be inaccurate—-or, if you insist, lies. And some of the information was irrefutably accurate and true. Some of the accurate information, especially the several kinds of Iraq’s obstinate, devious and frequently violent refusal to comply with the UN peace treaty of 1991, were each tantamount to causus belli in and of themselves.

Your habit of reducing all of this, absurdly, to “Bush Lied, People Died”, makes you a tool of those who actively cultivate that very form of witless historical thumbnailing. Their modus is hatred, their motive cowardice. The truth be damned.

By TW

February 6, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this

Glenn - little harsh, making fun of a woman who lost her son in the war - wouldn’t ya’ say?

By jbmlaw

February 6, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this

Dear Mid South @ 10:11, please forgive my deconstruction of your well-drafted rant, but I disagree on every count.

“Corporatists are those people who subscribe to the notion that the welfare of the country is tied TOTALLY to the generation of “profits”, at all costs, for the corporations.” Your highlighting of the term “totally” presumably has significance, but the thrust of the comment is philosophically wrong. The welfare of the country is tied, almost totally, to the generation of profits other than those obtained through deception. For contrast, I suggest pondering the state of a nation without profitable commerce. Alternatively, there are countries that foolishly hamstring their commerce with regulation serving the long-term interests of none but the bureaucrats.

“Corporatists have no concern about jobs for American citizens and have no compulsion in using cheap, overseas, near slave labor to achieve their profits.” The only soul responsible for any “job” is the worker himself. It is entirely the worker’s obligation to provide a fair day’s labor for his wage. It is entirely the worker’s obligation to quit a job that does not provide a fair wage for his skills. Management’s sole obligation is to maximize the return of its ownership. Any other view of the relationship ensures a lower standard of living for all, as these divisions of responsibility are the foundation for economic efficiency in a free society. I suppose there is an alternative sort of society.

“To further their desire for a cheap labor force, corporatists, under the leadership of George Bush and John McCain, aided by Ted Kennedy (although for another reason), embrace the “opened border” philosophy. Don’t you dare tell me George Bush was NOT in favor of granting amnesty to the 30 million illegals we have in this nation!!!” There is also a term for those who would attempt to restrict the free flows of human souls. I do not understand the mentality that objects to the presence of hard-working American wannabes, nor one that would throw impediments to full citizenship for productive people. That’s the sort I want to see here.

“Corporatists are those people who subscribe to the school of thought that there should be five social classes in America: 5% Super Rich 10% Upper Class 15% Middle Class 60% Working Poor 10% Slackers, Homeless, and On-the-dole.” The only people I ever met who embrace “class” warfare are democrats; the rest of us believe there should be only one class, the rich.

“Corporatists deny the existence of global warming or environmental challenges as “liberal propaganda” and oppose ANY regulations that might impair or limit their ability to make profits.” If by “corporatist” you mean anyone who doubts (1) the anthroprogenesis theory of global warming AND (2) that global warming will have any measurable net adverse effect, I’ll certainly wear that title with honor. I think anyone who would cripple the economy without irrefutable evidence (no, not GIGO computer models) should be challenged. I note that the “global warming activists” do not want their prejudices subject to any intellectual challenge.

“Corporatists give lip service to small businesses, but will not hesitate to crush one, if it gets in the way of the larger enterprise.” I think you parrot the Marxist view of capitalism here rather than accurately reflect anyone’s business practice. Nobody “crushes” anybody else, although we may try to take market share. Whereas I would always empower free consumers to make free decisions, your language suggests that the rabble should not be allowed to exercise its purchasing judgment.

“Corporatists give lip service to smaller government…until THEY need government to do something to further their ends.” I think you confuse “corporatist” with “democrat.” Unless you are suggesting that a desire to eliminate government interference in the free market is “wanting government to do something that suits their ends.”

“Corporatists give lip service to the notion of constitutional originalists being appointed to the courts. They rant against activist judges, yet they would accept and activist judge in a second, if said judge was a conservative activist (just consult Ann Coulter)!” You thus buy into the “living breathing Constitution” mumbo-jumbo. Note your own misuse of the language – one who opposes judicial divining of the “penumbra” is an “activist.” Reversing wrongful prior court rulings is not inherently “activism” if pre-existing precedent is restored.

“Corporatists give great lip service to individual liberty and personal responsibility, yet they would invade your school, doctor’s office, and bedroom, to name but just a few spheres of private life.“ I think you are making this up. I suppose you are arguing that any company that attempts to understand its market, and provide product more responsive to customer’s needs is somehow comparable to a government that abuses privacy for the purposes of killing, stealing freedom, or confiscating wealth at the point of a gun. You do not distinguish an offer to sell from extortion.

By JK

February 6, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this

I’m going to repeat what Mid-South Philosopher posted for the slow people who don’t get that we currently live in the CORPORATE States of America. (Take a drive down Windward Parkway, then try to tell me it ain’t true.)

Corporatists give lip service to small businesses, but will not hesitate to crush one, if it gets in the way of the larger enterprise.

Corporatists give lip service to smaller government…until THEY need government to do something to further their ends.

Corporatists give lip service to the notion of constitutional originalists being appointed to the courts. They rant against activist judges, yet they would accept and activist judge in a second, if said judge was a conservative activist (just consult Ann Coulter)!

Corporatists give great lip service to individual liberty and personal responsibility, yet they would invade your school, doctor’s office, and bedroom, to name but just a few spheres of private life.

By Dusty

February 6, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this

Craig 11:16

I did answer your question. You did not get the answer you wanted.

As to slime, etc, President Clinton manufactured his own. Nobody had to do it for him. You seem to forget his impeachment by the House and his lies (under oath) about his relations with Monica Lewenski. Did YOU maintain “respect” for him during those times?

By Copyleft

February 6, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this

Oh, just give it up, folks… money controls our political process and our politicians, and the people being alternately crushed and ignored by those interests will defend that structure with their dying breath.

Once you’re brainwashed into believe “money is speech,” you’ll believe anything the radio spews at you.

Fortunately, winning Georgia isn’t necessary for winning the White House. There’s still hope for America, just not within our state borders.

By jbmlaw

February 6, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this

Dear Joe @ 11:09, I do not defend religious beliefs I deem odd, I just don’t think they would normally play into my calculus in selecting a president. Maybe I would reject a cannibal, but it would have to be something actively-behaviorally strange, not just an odd belief.

Dear Craig @ 9:22, I suspect you may know what you are talking about. Outside my experience. @11:16, we note and respect your belief that nothing Bill Clinton ever did should ever have been challenged. I think that is bizarre, but I know there are many who share your thoughts.

By Glenn

February 6, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this

• DAY 6.5: No Child Left Unsold

Jim:

Thanks for lots of sleepless information jammed into a small and transparent place. It really helps this Surfer Boy to learn from a master chef how to slice and dice, chop and julienne the various veggies in Georgia’s Republican mirepoix. (And get, that’s “Holy Trinity” for you Orleaneans.) I appreciate also jbm’s advanced course in that subject.

Couple questions, one observation. Which way to the Chamber types cut, Romney or Huckabee?

Next, why must you have to speak “frankly” on the subject of Romney’s Mormonism, when you speak of the subject? To my mind, the most fascinating—-though not by any means the most important—-aspect of this election is the religious element. Now, today, is a chance-in-a-lifetime for Americans to discuss freely, at last, race, gender and religion as they relate to our collective experiment in governance. This is thrilling!

Frankly.

Finally, I disagree about the safety of Saxby’s marriage to McCain. McCain’s going down, and with him, on the same ticket, goes that superannuated Ken Doll, Silver Fox Collector’s Edition.

[Sorry, dear Maureen in Heaven, but damn the 11th Commandment.]

Mid-South Philosopher,

Dang fine analysis top o’ the string, and spiffing good explication of your corporatist theorems. Most convincing. Now I see where you’re coming from.

It does have a pat wrapping, though; almost a conspiricist one. A bit like the image oligarchical clubmen colluding circa the Crash of 1907, the Knickerbocker and Brahmin, the Rail Baron and Grain King alike.

I’m not mocking it this time, but rather am getting at something serious: with your philosophical noggin, you should be able to parse how all this works, not as a club committee with an agenda, but rather as an ideology that works its ways via far subtler things: linguistic manipulations, cooked statistics, media corruption, unspoken social “scripts”—-that sort of thing. Ideology is more than capable of making a person into an instrument of its purposes unawares.

Nobody has to get the memo.

[Petraeus/Honore ‘12]

By Craig

February 6, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this

“nothing Bill Clinton ever did should ever have been challenged”

And of course, as you know, Counselor, that’s not what I said.

By Ron

February 6, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

Jim,It’s easy to see by the results that there are three kinds of Republicans in the world.I don’t agree with your labels though.There are religious Republicans,there are corporatist,war drum beating republicans, and there are moderate Republicans that understand that you just can’t leave Iraq in a vacuum.There are also moderate Democrats that realize this.McCain may do all right in the general election.

By John

February 6, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this

The media and mainly CNN keeps sayiny that only high income and well educated blacks are voting for Obama and that the less educated and poor blacks are voting for Hillary. 80% of blacks are voting for Obama. That means 80% of all blacks are well educated and have high income. There is something wrong with thi picture.

By getalife

February 6, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this

Well, looking at the pitiful low and lack of intellect on this blog, no wonder gomer won.

Shazam.

By Glenn

February 6, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

TW @ 11:29,

Oh hell no, although it’s chickenshot to immunize that fool in such a way that she gets to take her political cheapshots without anyone so much as quoting her mantra in response. That’s one soured Frankfurter there. And if you really think she’s sacrosanct, then why not urge her to stay out of the kitchen?

I mean, otherwise, we could simply pair every one of her Sarah Heartburn statements with quotations from her late, heroic son. Then we wouldn’t even need to acknowledge her. That’d sure fry her, don’t you think?

BTW, she used to stand out a street corner near my home and rant like a homeless pamphleteer I knew in Berkeley years ago. That particular Baby Boomer wanted to assure us all that he’d warned the Gen. Groves and the Brass not to drop The Bomb but that they wouldn’t listen to him wouldn’t listen to him wouldn’t listen to him wouldn’t listen to

By conservative voice of reason

February 6, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this

The backward religious nutters that voted for that Arkansas liberal white trash Huckerbee need shooting. As do the sheep like moderate liberal scum who support McLiar. And why does McLiar endlessly parade his war record. The greatest generation who fought the wars before Vietnam rarely even talked about their battlefield experiences, let alone vaingloriously rammed it down the throats of anyone who might listen, whereas the vile McLiar just wont shut up about his military service.

Romney is the ONLY candidate that can save the USA from the shuffling vacuous far left cliche machine Obama and the most corrupt evil lying b itch in modern American history. Yet Romney is the victim of anti-Mormon bigotry. Mormonism is just as deranged as any of Huckerbees insane dogmatic beliefs but at least Romney hardly ever if at all gets on the religious nutter soap box.

Romney is easily the most capable, experienced and credible of all the candidates but the leftist media and McLiar’s crew keep lying about and distorting his record. And Huckerbee keeps playing Edwards’ like petty politics of envy about Romney - a sure sign of this backward Arkansas redneck knuckle dragger’s shameless thinly veiled liberalism.

No one I know voted for McLiar in GA. My wife and I wont vote for McLiar in November. Nor will we ever vote again for the good ol boy oily GA senators who have endorsed McLiar.

By Glenn

February 6, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this

Copyleft. No it doesn’t control; it greases. Power lust, as ever, controls. Lust for fame often adds to the motive force.

These distinctions might be useful to those who would divide and conquer the wicked in high places. They have proved useful that way heretofore, of course.

By TAFKAH

February 6, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this

Dusty is just so darned cute when she tries to form an original thought. Kind of like watching a teenager with no arms as s/he experiences pornography for the first time. Lots of excitement and effort, but aside from some desperate bumping and grinding against the furnituree, s/he just can’t seem to find the sweet spot without help from a friend.

By jbmlaw

February 6, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

Dear Craig @ 11:51, what you said was that for conservatives, “When Clinton was president of course, no criticism was too slimy and outrageous.” I don’t understand why your hyperbole is valid and mine is not. Perhaps you would wish to explain which, if any, criticism of Bill Clinton was meritorious, and what you thought out-of-bounds. I ask that in all earnestness, as I don’t think I ever seen a leftist draw the line for benefit of those of us of the slower ideology.

By TW

February 6, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

Glenn - good visual of the Berkeley pamphleteer…

But seriously, I just don’t think Casey Sheehan would be alright with the thought that he died so that people back here could make fun of his mom. Alas, we’ll just have to disagree, as I am also one of those simps who think a Silver Star is a bit more than was portrayed as the band-aid at the GOP convention in 2004.

By OneForTheRoad

February 6, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this

Glenn @ 11:50,

Sometimes I feel as though you are simply incorrigible. Then, sometimes I feel like a nut, sometimes I don’t.

Why, the thought of opening up; talking about race, gender AND religion. Heresy! Any minute now, I expect you to claim that death and taxes are no longer certainties. What is this world coming to?

Anyway, that’s what I always say.

By Sad

February 6, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

Very poor taste Glenn. You seem to be getting more and more bitter.

By profit

February 6, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

TO SMACK DUSTY IN THE NOSE IS TO PERFORM A PATRIOTIC ACT, FOR WHICH A GRATEFUL NATION WOULD AWARD YOU THE MEDAL OF FREEDOM. SMACK, DIRT BALL, SMACK

By OneForTheRoad

February 6, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

Come on folks. Cindy Sheehan is lost in a sea of despair. At times, others have used that to their advantage. Other times, she has been crying out in the only way she knows how. I pray that she finds peace.

By Glenn

February 6, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

Oh Sad indeed, that you think it trifling that so many should valorize a raving lunatic. What a weird and miswoven thing you make, TW, with your read of our interpretation of a fallen soldier’s motives repudiated by his crazed mother. When was the last time that happened? Leary? Huey? Hanoi Jane?

Ah yes. Gore.

OneFer,

And as another (?) sez, it’s very true.

By Bubba X

February 6, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

profit

try using a much stronger stool softener!!

By jbmlaw

February 6, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this

Dear Sad @ 12:25, I think Glenn was too kind in his choice of language. I have no tolerance for those who use personal “victim” whining to attempt to influence national policy. Indeed, I believe Cindy Shiite abuses the memory of her son by working so hard to ensure that his sacrifice was meaningless.

By TW

February 6, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this

Glenn - someone told me hanoi jane spent more time in Vietnam than our current commander in chief. Don’t worry - I told ‘em that was a bunch of crap. Then they actually said they were kind of grateful for the protest of the Vietnam war, as they believed their father was still alive today because of those efforts. Ain’t that just about the most unpatriotic thing you’ve ever heard? Anyhow, what puzzles me is how ‘w’ slips through your BS strainer when it seems so finally tuned.

By profit

February 6, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this

I am still waiting to hear from our Quack lawyer about this injustice: Was the Private school girl who murdered a mother of three with her daddy’s imported suv ever tried, and if so, was she sent to prison? Remember, she was talking on her cell phone to another private school girl with whom she was trying to extort sex under threat of suicide…she gave a count down to the head on collision….BUT her daddy is a well connected Atlanta lawyer, so I suspect his pals in the fraud that passes as the legal profession in Atlanta made secret arrangements…what, a few months in a private mental health facility, then back to private school, this time in Switzerland?

By profit

February 6, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this

UGAY recruits and coaches are so stupid that in times of crisis, it is all they can do to keep them selves from reverting to licking their own asses, animal like. Hey stupid UGAY spy, decrypt this “FF UU”.

By @@

February 6, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this

and here I thought it was women who like to categorize and label things Jim. I’m looking at your male slots and asking…

“Where do I fit?”

A movement conservative? Sure, why not. I often vote on issues, and locally that has me voting for some democratic candidates (not that we’re offered anything else down my way.)

I’m also a national security voter. I can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t be unless, of course, they find no value in the freedoms offered by this great nation, and believe that they should be protected at all costs.

Maybe I’ve was mistaken in calling myself a moderate. A realist would have been a better choice of words. I don’t share the dreamworld that is Obama’s. Nope! I’d have been more inclined to go with the realities of a Harold Ford Jr.

Your article would have been more thought provoking if you had asked us to weigh in on “What, exactly is a liberal?”

I’d have said they’re those that support the “Anything goes!!!”

Funny word, anything….it doesn’t beg the question “What?” from those who put their faith in politicians.

It’s so much easier that way—the possibilities are endless.

You betcha! Question is….

For whom?

By Dusty

February 6, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this

TAFKAH, profit.

Gee, thanks for your opinions on what I write. But…nobody asked for it and your insignificance is obvious.

I write about what I see here and say it concisely as possible. It is a requirement for my line of work and I do it habitually. Many here should try it.

By Souldrift

February 6, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this

Dusty, start here for a Libertarian view of how Romney is NOT a conservative, but is instead a corporatist. Example: His support of corporate bailouts.

“But Mitt Romney has called for spending an additional $20 billion in corporate welfare to bail out the auto industry. He wants to increase farm price supports. He supports George Bush’s Medicare prescription drug benefit and calls for more federal education spending. Indeed, he wants the federal government to buy a laptop computer for every school child in America. Like George W. Bush running in 2000, Romney has not called for cutting or eliminating a single government program—and we know what that meant for a Bush presidency.”

By Sad but true

February 6, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this

jmblaw, I would expect it from you. I actually like much of what Glenn posts and thought he was above that.

By Dusty

February 6, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this

souldrift@1:21

You can put any label you like on Romney, even a fictitious one. I voted for McCain.

By OneForTheRoad

February 6, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

All right, Dusty.

I’ll try it. I’ll try to write habitually about what I see here and I’ll try to be concise. I just refuse to make it a part of my work.

There. How did I do?

By profit

February 6, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this

Try this for concise Dusty -STFU

By Dusty

February 6, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

One for the Road @1:38

Excellent!! Are you blogging at work?

By getalife

February 6, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this

“In only two states, Utah and Arizona, did the Republican winner yesterday get more votes than the leading Democrat.”

Clinton will win.

By Dusty

February 6, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this

profit@1:39

I usually ignore abbreviations from the aberrant.

By getalife

February 6, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this

“The more that Senator Obama has shifted to becoming an establishment campaign based on endorsements, people said, `You know, it’s really Senator Clinton who has the ideas for change,’” Penn told reporters.

This guy is brilliant.

By Dennis

February 6, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this

By Glenn February 6, 2008 10:48 AM Dennis, bingo! Thanks, man. I knew I remembered Barry from somewhere! That is so helpful—-you have no idea.”

You’re right! :) I really don’t have much idea what the hell you are talking about. My thing was you had some doubts about Obama and I ran across this tidbit.

Anyway, I wish I was more of a radical. I see this facism creeping up all over the country (as do many other good people) but most are unaware(?)

In fact, you might enjoy two paragraphs I recently read from an old book, “Evil Influences” by Steven Starker regarding the common herd;

“It is more than difficult, it is next to impossible, for the ordinary uncritical man to resist when, whichever way he looks in the street, from poster and hording, and advertisement in bus and tramcar, whichever paper or novel he picks up, whatever play or film he attends for amusement, the pressure of the herd is brought to bear upon him…it is pleasanter to be one of the herd, i.e., less wear and tear involved in conforming than in standing out against mass sentiment.”

“The average man does not want to know how he looks when he eats; he defecates in darkness reading the Readers Digest…his work is futile, his thought is shallow, his joys ephemeral, his howls helpless and agony incompetent; his hopes are purchased, his play is mechanical…futilely he feeds, he voids, he screws, he smokes, he motorboats, he squats before the tube, he spends at least a week each year in touring…and dies like merchandise gone out of season.”

Ain’t that sump’thin’?

Now, I can excuse the “average man” to a point; he has to work and has little time during the day to keep up with what’s going on. He depends on the evening news to keep him accurately informed (if it would do its job honestly) but the mainstream media is screwing him, too, just like the conservative preachers.

But, once in awhile, unless he’s brain dead already, he needs to question just who’s life is he living - his own, or the life that has been/is being dished out for him by other means - the government, the church.

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

By OneForTheRoad

February 6, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this

Dusty! I’m abhorred by the mere thought of blogging on someone else’s dime. Why, I find blogging to be more recreational — a combination of cheap entertainment for the mind and Homer Simpson style exercise for the fingers. No, Dusty. These fingers do the walking at my expense and mine only. Tis a freedom I’ve earned after enduring many years of corporate hardship. But, the thought does bring back memories of some who did hope to deceive the boss. More than once, I did witness the prompt escort out the door, with pink slip in hand, of those that would be so emboldened as to abuse their internet privileges.

By the way, how thoughtful of you to show concern. Was it real or was it Memorex?

Anyway, that’s what I always say.

By TW

February 6, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this

Bob Barr has a blog on ajc and he is censoring the comments…how perfect is that?

By The Flea

February 6, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this

Has anyone seen my keys?

By AmVet

February 6, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this

liberal Republicans!!

Now, that’s a good one!

Really, are there more than two or three in the entire country?

By chuck

February 6, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this

JBMLAW @11:31 I was totally with you until you got to this little gem:

I do not understand the mentality that objects to the presence of hard-working American wannabes, nor one that would throw impediments to full citizenship for productive people. That’s the sort I want to see here.

You are kidding me right? I “do not understand the mentality” that thinks someone whose first act in America was to BREAK OUR LAWS, would be GOOD for America. I direct you to these statistics:

FAIR research suggests that “between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled Americans is due to the immigration of low-skilled workers. Some native workers lose not just wages but their jobs through immigrant competition. An estimated 1,880,000 American workers are displaced from their jobs every year by immigration; the cost for providing welfare and assistance to these Americans is over $15 billion a year.” The National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, found in 1997 that the average immigrant without a high school education imposes a net fiscal burden on public coffers of $89,000 during the course of his or her lifetime. The average immigrant with only a high school education creates a lifetime fiscal burden of $31,000.8

80% of cocaine and 50% of heroin in the U.S. is smuggled across the border by Mexican nationals. Drug cartels spend a half-billion dollars per year bribing Mexico’s corrupt generals and police officials, and armed confrontations between the Mexican army and U.S. Border Patrol agents are a real threat. There have been 118 documented incursions by the Mexican military over the last five years.

Illegal aliens have cost billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico Arizona, and California, have been forced to close or face bankruptcy because of federally-mandated programs requiring free emergency room services to illegal aliens. Taxpayers pay half-a-billion dollars per year incarcerating illegal alien criminals.

Immigration is a net drain on the economy; corporate interests reap the benefits of cheap labor, while taxpayers pay the infrastructural cost. FAIR research shows “the net annual cost of immigration has been estimated at between $67 and $87 billion a year. The National Academy of Sciences found that the net fiscal drain on American taxpayers is between $166 and $226 a year per native household. Even studies claiming some modest overall gain for the economy from immigration ($1 to $10 billion a year) have found that it is outweighed by the fiscal cost ($15 to $20 billion a year) to native taxpayers.”

These are just some of the reasons why we have to round these LAWBREAKERS up and send them home. You can read the entire article here if you are so inclined:

http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html

By Copyleft

February 6, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

JBM: Cindy Sheehan’s work couldn’t make her son’s death meaningless… it already is. That’s her point.

And one that you stubbornly deny, to this day, even as the bodies pile higher and higher….

November can’t come soon enough. Time to kick this traitorous, cowardly, failed administration and its policies to the curb.

By jbmlaw

February 6, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this

Dear Chuck @ 2:44, I appreciate that many of my conservative friends disagree with some of my libertarian views. Immigration is a foolish area for legislation.

In a rational world we would not have legislated restrictions on free flows of humans. Humans are not commodities, to be rationed and imported as chattel. The fact that we have laws attempting to control numbers of people, and worse ration them by place of origin, means we begin with immoral acts by the legislators. That our undocumented guests are therefore “lawbreakers” has the same meaning as that appellation for those who drive 56 mph on I-285.

Getting beyond the epithets, let’s explore your specific allegations, which all have the questionable virtue of “collectivization” – a trait I normally revile only in our leftist friends. “40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled Americans is due to the immigration of low-skilled workers.” Even beyond the vague definitions, the causation is suspect. “Wage-loss” could mean something as innocuous as “reduced overtime.” If there is a total wage loss of $5, you would be blaming literally millions of productive workers for an aggregate loss of $2. As “wage-loss” is one of those dogs that do not bark, any generation of a dollar value of “injury” is suspect. I also note that our leftist friends blame “outsourcing” as causation for the same observation. It’s always safe to manufacture a phony injury if you are going to blame people who are “different,” because then it is almost impossible to disprove the negative. You specifically allege that 1,880,000 American workers are “displaced” annually, but you would surely acknowledge that unemployment rolls have not increased by anything like that number – remember we have 53 consecutive months of job growth, and unemployment remains at the historically low 5.0% range. But for the estimated 40 million undocumented guests, we would suffer a major labor shortage.

Your argument on “financial burden” is dubious also. By any measure, if welfare programs are a problem, the better solution is to reform the welfare program, not to deport good workers. The “financial burden” is almost exclusively some imputed calculation of change in government spending, which waste bloats annually without regard to the presence or absence of productive guest workers. More to the point, do you argue, with a straight face, that suddenly deporting every guest worker would reduce government spending even $1? I would not.

80% of cocaine and 50% of heroin in the U.S. is purchased by American nationals. As you surely infer, I think the drug laws are fundamentally stupid, a misallocation of precious taxpayer resources, but if this is a real problem for you I can cure it: execute users. The market would dry up instantly.

When Federal mandates cause hospital bankruptcies, why do you blame the users? I blame the idiots who pass and enforce Federal mandates. The problem is not that you need more government activity, you need less.

I simply reject the conclusory “Immigration is a net drain.” The Mexicans are the hardest workers I have ever seen – not that I would generalize by race, you understand – and the suggestion that they do not pull their weight is facially foolish to me. Let ‘em all in.

By upchuck

February 6, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this

ROOOLLLFFF

By getalife

February 6, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this

WH position is we torture, know it is illegal, will do it again and they will not be held accountable because they are above any law.

Amazing, isn’t it?

This makes McInsane’s position wrong on torture.

Wow.

By No liberty for YOU!

February 6, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw: “Libertarian?” Uh-huh. Except for women. Call me when you let the free market drive down the cost and improve the availability and quality of family planning and abortion services, mmm-kay? Freedom, liberty, and less government! Unless you’re a woman in America. Now there’s one ALL the Republican candidates can get together and bump chests on, right boys?

By Craig

February 6, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this

Chuck I really hate it when you make me agree with jbmlaw on something… kinda gives me a funny feeling in my stomach, ya know???

Much of your post was word for word from an email my dad - bless his cranky ol’ heart - forwarded to me. (Perhaps you wrote it?)

We obviously need to get control of our borders. But the cost of so many things you and I buy every day would skyrocket if we didn’t have someone here to lay our pine straw and sod, and pick our Vidalia onions, and lay the brick that builds our homes.

By Curious Observer

February 6, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this

Yes, we all know jbmlaw’s libertarian positions. Nationhood means nothing to him, but the right to maximize profits means everything. So along with his idol Friedman, he advocates open borders, using the law of comparative advantage to determine where goods are manufactured and by whom. No doubt he shares Friedman’s other positions—e.g., that prostitution should be legalized and that corporations have no business making charitable contributions when doing so might cost shareholders a few pennies.

I much prefer to be an American, to have secure borders and to use the powers of government to help the unfortunate. And while I don’t share the idea of deporting every illegal alien, at least I can see a case for making residency in this country less attractive for those who would break our laws to achieve it. We can start by enforcing the laws against employers who hire illegal aliens. The Republicans have played a nice little game for years: decry illegal immigration while giving employers a wink and a nod when these illegals get hired, perhaps conducting an ICE raid at a plant every six months to show that we mean business.

And then we can start developing a database that will allow the country to know who is a citizen, who is a legal alien, and who is not. For pete’s sake, we are currently unable even to know where people entering on visas are.

The notion of building a border fence to achieve this purpose is idiotic. As one politician has already said, show me a 30-foot fence and I’ll show you a 31-foot ladder. Only a simple-minded person and a cynical, demogogic politician would advocate such a solution.

I still believe in the notion of nationhood and the right to control our borders, and I refuse to accept the notion that corporate and individual profits are more important than our national and economic security. That notion is why we have the current immigration mess.

My 66 years in this country haven’t yet convinced me that I should accept allowing unauthorized people to scatter willy-nilly throughout the country without regard to that security.

By TAFKAH

February 6, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this

The Repub game on immigration, as described neatly by Curious Observer, has a close companion in the GOP’s half-hearted campaign to criminalize abortion.

Next time an anti-abortion zealot goes off on how it is murder, please try to pin them down on how severe they want the punishment to be on the women who choose to have the abortion. Watch them squirm as you ask them whether, it being “murder” and all, they prefer death penalty or life without parole. Because if it is murder, surely the woman deserves the full force of the law to come her way just as surely as the wife who pays to have her husband murdered deserves punishment. Ask them whether the 15 year old who has an abortion should be tried as an adult for her murder, or placed in juvenile detention.

So who do they want to punish? They want to scare the doctors out of business so women can find back alley solutions, or home “remedies”. Better that these slatternly tramps die of infection than receive competent legal care.

The GOP as a whole no more wants to criminalize abortion than they want to enforce penalties against employers who hire illegals. But they are happy to throw the bone to the zealots to keep the yahoo vote solidly in line. The noise about evolution v. creationism is much the same. That’s why a nut like Huckabee scares them so much. That fool thinks they mean it.

By jbmlaw

February 6, 2008 5:07 PM | Link to this

Dear Curious @ 4:33, you are correct, I do agree with those other Friedman positions.

Dear JK @ 4:22, while you are correct that I do believe our most helpless deserve protection from the government, the farthest I can advocate legislatively is leaving the issue of abortion to each state. I am also a federalist.

By jbmlaw

February 6, 2008 5:11 PM | Link to this

Dear TAFKAH, I’ll field it. Murder is murder. If the murder is planned, with malice aforethought, certainly the death penalty would be appropriate. My thought is that any woman who would abort her baby is probably insane, and simply ought to be locked away so long as she is a threat to herself and to progeny.

And my related argument, of course, is that no leftist should ever be prosecuted for an abortion murder, since pre-birth elimination of leftists will always be a society benefit.

By No liberty for YOU!

February 6, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this

while you are correct that I do believe our most helpless deserve protection from the government

You mean until they’re BORN, right? Go ahead and say it. Then they have NO right to government protection from starvation, sickness, dirty food, air & water, corporate greed, faulty seat belts, or even gasp ignorance. Nosirree, no department of education for the babies you protect. You’ve said it all before, laywer man, so say it again: PROTECTION UNTIL THEY’RE BORN, not after.

Then you can answer TAFKAH’s great question.

By Political Foreskin

February 6, 2008 5:22 PM | Link to this

This year’s superbowl 42 is considered one of the greatest ever. They’ve ranked it 2nd only to the Hannah Montana video.

Yesterday, New Yorkers gave the Giants a ticker tape parade. One float, however, was banned. It depicted a huge pile of mannequins dressed as New England Patriots with a figure portraying Eli Manning prancing on top of it.

I’ll be here all week.

By rollo6

February 6, 2008 5:25 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw

This nation has a wonderful system of laws to regulate immigration. We welcome more legal immigrants yearly, and from more nations, than any other nation - including Mexico. That immigration system serves to maintain the quality of life that the existing citizens have created (and of right ought be able to maintain) while giving opportunity to the emigres.

I fail to see how that immigration system ought now to be set aside because a minor dictator & lawyer believes it should be so. Pray tell, what other laws do you wish to set aside by your divine fiat.

Nobody elected you to anything counselor and for a very good reason.

By Glenn

February 6, 2008 5:39 PM | Link to this

Dennis,

The Steven Starker quote is indeed really something. Power-punchy. Reminds me of Vachel Lindsay’s poem “The Leaden Eyed”. If memory serves, the last stanza goes like this:

Not that they starve, but starve so dreamlessly.

Not that they sew, but that they seldom reap.

Not that they serve, but have no gods to serve.

Not that they die, but that they die like sheep.

(He was poetizing about the fate of schoolchildren.)

My thing about Obama was that your coordinates solved the nagging 4 year-old mystery of why I was sure that I recognized the guy from somewhere. The Oxy chapter of his bio looks to be less than big news, though I’m delighted that we worked together on divestment, and that he didn’t sideline himself during one of the defining moments for our age cohort.

It seems that Mr. Kovaleski is handling the biographical research in accordance with the appropriate standards of practice, but if in the end his piece looks hinky, then I’ll make some inquiries with the old mafia and the Oxy crowd.

Thanks for remembering our agreement to look into this important figure. I hope to reciprocate soon, as fairly as I know how.

TW,

The FBI files on Jane Fonda’s forays into NORTH Vietnam during the conflict there do not a pretty picture paint, and she herself has apologized for those trips and publicity stunts. So I can’t imagine what could be the referent for your suggestion that she served some sort of lifesaving function.

John McCain must be very misguided about Jane too.

That’s funny about Barr being a bar on Free Speech. If he gets too selective, it won’t be censorship but it will soon take the paper into the DO NOT GO THERE zone of libelous disregard, which is to say actual malice and hence defamation of the libelous kind. Big, big trouble, wholly unprotected by the Public Figure Doctrine. Wouldn’t surprise me if he’s done it already.

By Interesting Observations

February 6, 2008 5:39 PM | Link to this

Interesting Primary observations

When watching the media last night on the elections, especially CNN and MSNBC, these are the words used most frequently to not only talk about the Right, but describe the Right as well:

Conservative Conservative talk radio show hosts Rush Limbaugh (is he running for office or something?) Fundamentalist Christians

These are the words used to describe the Left in similarly applicable fashion:

That is correct. Zip. Zilch. Nada. You’ll get nothing and like it. There were no divisive words other than the political “Democrat” and “Democratic” to describe Hillary and Obama. No “liberal” word, no comments about what flaming liberal pinko skirt commentator Keith Olberwoman thinks, no reference to “entitlement socialist,” and so on. Do we get the point?

This really should come as no shock however, as Fox News was the only channel to have political observers and analysts describe Obama as the “most liberal” of the candidates. Did CNN or NBC or MSNBC analyze the differences of Hillary and Obama and bring up things like Hillary sort of supporting Iraq depending on how well things are going? Nah. Fox News was also the only channel to list why McCain is not seen as a Conservative by many on the Right, including listing his record on things like tax cuts and the border. No wonder liberals hate Fox News. They say and expose things the left wants to shut out and plug their ears saying “nah-nah-nah-nah I can’t hear you” like the big screaming babies they are (or if you are real lucky, you’ll get one of those wretched hate mongers to call you a nazi and/or racist!). Whatever a liberal hates or moans and groans about, check into it. Whatever a liberal likes, don’t touch it with a ten foot pole. That’s free advice.

Now CNN’s commentary on McCain was interesting. According to that alleged non-biased news source, McCain (the “Moderate” as they called him) is the only hope for the Right because he actually wants to reach out to Democrats. Did you get that? When a Republican wants to reach out to Democrats, he’s a good guy. When a Republican wants to sell out his values, or I should say, give up the values of the party he is supposedly a member of, it’s cool man. No problemo holmes. He’s being a Moderate. He’s joining the club. He’s getting with the “in” crowd now man. What a Progressive Republican!

That’s quite a difference considering the media, and especially MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, went nuts over Joe Lieberman reaching across the isle to Republicans. Remember Joe? My don’t we have short memories. Wasn’t he the Veep candidate in 2000? So here we have a hero of the left who does just what McCain does and reach across the isle, yet he’s cast out and thrown under the bus. He’s ostracized. He’s pummeled and obliterated. Both the leftist media and his own party turned on him like the coiled toxic snakes they are. He had to turn to Independent as his party affiliation. That’s not cool. What a sellout Democrat! Do we see a pattern here? Republicans are cool if they just support Democrats (uhm, like, what’s the point of being a REPUBLICAN then?). Democrats that support Republicans are snakes. It’s rather ironic that the only way to “bring Washington together” is for Republicans to turn to Democratic ideologies, don’t you think?

Well it’s almost time to wrap it up here. But we can’t part ways until we address the matter of Chelsea Clinton showing up at a polling place, a clear and present violation of New York state election law. Not so much as a blip on the media radar screen, except, you guessed it, on Fox News. Can you imagine if it was the year 2004 and one of the Bush twins did that in Texas? Oh the horror! But wait! That’s not all. As a closing bonus, you’ll get this link which shows the media ejaculation stains over Bill Clinton (I just couldn’t resist that). He is getting more media coverage than any Republican candidate and he’s not even freaking running.

The primaries have been quite telling of how the media treats Democrats and how they treat Republicans. None of this will be surprising to those of you on the Right, and I’m sure to those of you on the Left, you don’t really give a damn about this. Of course you don’t. You haven’t b!tched about any of it, which, as mentioned earlier, was the causal factor for me to start looking into the matter of media matters, so to speak. It’s so nice being Right.

By MomCat

February 6, 2008 5:42 PM | Link to this

By TAFKAH February 6, 2008 4:59 PM The GOP as a whole no more wants to criminalize abortion than they want to enforce penalties against employers who hire illegals. But they are happy to throw the bone to the zealots to

You are right on with this one TAFKAH. The R’s claim that they, the so called ‘moral’ party would end abortion is poppycock. In other words, “that dog want hunt.” Until the election last year, when the dems claimed a slight advantage, the R’s had maintained control of the House since 1994, the Senate since 2002. We also had a R president, and the R’s enjoyed control of the majority of the state houses and state senates, as well as the majority of governors. Good grief! They could have ‘outlawed’ abortion or anything else they chose to do during that time. Of course they chose not to address the abortion issue. It was not POLITICALLY ADVANTAGEOUS to do so. Most dems I know don’t agree with abortion, except in rare situations (rape, incest etc.). As a matter of information, my R friends don’t disapprove in these circumstances (of course these are the sane ones). Don’t even try comparing R’s and D’s when it comes to moral standards. As I said, “That dog want hunt.”

By Interesting Observations

February 6, 2008 5:48 PM | Link to this

Dang links didn’t work in my post!

Chelsea’s flap:

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=7827524

Bill Clinton’s shiner:

http://www.journalism.org/node/9512

By jbmlaw

February 6, 2008 5:53 PM | Link to this

Dear Rollo6 @ 5:25, practically all of them.

By Rabbi Yehudi

February 6, 2008 5:55 PM | Link to this

Float schmoat, PoFo. Like we need this shoahboating with the Float of No Return. Enough, awreddy. For shame!

Manning’s the Mensch, awright? Are you satisfied now, or did he have a hat?

By TW

February 6, 2008 5:57 PM | Link to this

Interesting Observations - nearly every dem I talk with agrees that no one should be required to have an abortion of they don’t want one. As far as your news analysis - thanks for the hypocrisy. After all, if you take the hypocricy out of the new age Republican he is not nearly as funny.

By jbm fake lawyer man

February 6, 2008 5:59 PM | Link to this

Women cannot be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies. Beyond the necessity of mandating government control of the human womb and enacting the death penalty for defiance of such, WE DON’T NEED NO STINKIN’ LAWS! Who’s with me?

By Political Foreskin

February 6, 2008 5:59 PM | Link to this

Here’s the last word on Election 08: Anyone who would vote 4 McCain would NEVER vote 4 any other GOP candidate. If McCain doesn’t get the nomination, then they jump over to the democrats. Thus, Obillary wins in a landslide. Obillary wins in a landslide anyway, but especially if the nominee aint McCain.

For the GOP, it’s McCain or oblivion.

By Interesting Observations

February 6, 2008 6:04 PM | Link to this

TW -

Two things here. First, I didn’t say anything about abortion. Take that fight somewhere else, pal. Second, with giving such a deep and thoughtful response of mentioning merely “hypocrisy” without so much as giving an example of hypocrisy (as I did many times in my post), I’ll take that as you don’t have much to say in response.

By Interesting Observations

February 6, 2008 6:10 PM | Link to this

TW -

Also, learn how to spell “hypocrisy” while you are scratching your wooden head figuring out a way to counter my post.