Thinking Right

By TW

February 28, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this

Jim - the Obama camp thanks you for your support this morning. PLEASE continue to talk about Iraq…

On a side note, shame for the once respected Buckley to go to his grave with his beloved conservativism crammed up his can Bush style…

By Realist

February 28, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this

Ive said it all along. That I beleive the dems are misreading the hearts of Americans. They saw the overwhelming success for the democrats in the last election as solid proof that the country wanted us out of Iraq and didnt support this war. I believed then as I beleive now that what the voters wanted was something new, a different direction, a better outcome. But not a surrender. I believe the surge has worked to a degree and the voters recognize that its not hopeless and that we can see this thing through. Thta is my opinion, and I beleive it will be a fatal flaw of the dems if they continue their hard line anti-war stance.

Obama seemed terribly out of touch with the Iraq war and the war on terror with is ill advised comments about if Al Qaeda “were to build a base in Iraq”. McCain seized the opportunity, and I truly beleive it is the first of many softballs McCain will be served up by Obama and his inexperience.

The dems think they have it locked up becuase of Bush’s horrific approval ratings and on their belief that the voters want us out of Iraq. I think they are out of touch with the reality of the situation.

By jbmlaw

February 28, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. I think Bill Buckley is one of those rare creatures who was admired AND liked as much by his political opponents as by his friends; surely there is no greater achievement possible. (Of course there are many who are despised as much by friends as by political opponents, but my essay on John McCain intends a different tact this morning, so we’ll let pass the contrast.) I read a review of Buckley’s latest book (a compilation, really) back in December – the title is perhaps not fit for a family newspaper, so I leave it unnamed – and it sounds like vintage Buckley humor, so I’ll correct my omission and purchase it before day’s end. (Please forgive the 47 word sentence – a flood of inseparable thoughts.)

The McCain campaign strategy is brilliant. He is trying to lock Obama’s feet into concrete, to get him to concede he would rip defeat from the jaws of victory. Only hard core leftists believe it is a good idea to give killer-wannabes a breather when we are on the verge of total victory, so this is a guaranteed loser for democrats. If Obama distances himself from that perspective, however, he will be discredited among the true believers. Advantage McCain. The only way the Obama strategy can win the American public is if al Qaeda surrenders before the election.

By Dusty

February 28, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this

Aw, Jim, of course it is Obama the cult charmer. Now to get busy. McCain 2008!

PS..I responded to Shar’s post of yesterday over at “media preference”. Then you jumped over here!! Oh well, see ya later…have read…now must travel!!!

By Realist

February 28, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this

And allow me to express my condolences to the man who first sparked my interest in the conservative movement in the early 80s when I was only about 12. Reading my grandpa’s old copies of the National Review and watching Firing Line with him was such a fond memory. Mr. Buckley carried himself with such grace and elegance, and his self confidence and downright cockiness was contagious.

I pray that as we speak, young republicans are not looking forward, but backward, to our true roots, our true principles, becuase I beleive only by looking back can we decide how best to move ahead.

RIP Bill Buckley.

By OneForTheRoad

February 28, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this

Good Morning Jim.

This “argument” over fighting Al Qaida — in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran… — may very well end up a moot point (a discussion for history class some day, perhaps) given the methodology currently being utilized by those in charge. No matter what your stance, how long can we afford to fight such a war? We really do have limited resources (monetary and human) regardless of what anyone is willing to admit. Ask yourself how “things” will be 10 or 20 years from now for your choice of scenario — increased level of fighting, continued fighting “as is”, reduced level of fighting, withdrawal….?

By Abomi Nation

February 28, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this

Wow! John Lewis switches his endorsement to Obama. No surprise there.

It will really be exciting to read Jim’s blog when Barbra Streisand dumps Hillary and throws her support behind Obama.

I can’t wait. I bet Jim already has a rough draft started.

By Garst

February 28, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this

Atta boy, Lewis!

By JT

February 28, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this

The real issue is about SIDEWALKS!!!

We need more sidewalks in our new suburban communities buing built such as South Dekalb.

Why are people paying $250K for a home in a subdivision without sidewalks?

By Abomi Nation

February 28, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this

Realist, young republicans are doing exactly as you are. They are doing NOTHING about the war. They talk a mean game, but when it comes RIGHT down to it they avoid military service at all costs.

You yourself do nothing but sit on the sidelines telling everyone how the “Islamo-fascists” are out to destroy America. Yet you are not willing to do a damn thing about it.

A man that loves the Iraq war, is threatened by the terrorists, is patriotic, retired early, and of military age should be on the front lines defending his country.

Right?

By JT

February 28, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this

The real issue is about SIDEWALKS!!!

We need more sidewalks in our new suburban communities buing built such as South Dekalb.

Why are people paying $250K for a home in a subdivision without sidewalks?

By Homey da Clown

February 28, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this

So let me get this straight. First Obama wasnt black enough to get the “black community leaders” support, but now he is? I cant keep it straight.

Who wants to take bets they are calling him Uncle Tom by Christmas?

By Copyleft

February 28, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

Gee, I wonder how much older Buckley was than McCain?

Me, I’d prefer a president who can last out an entire term….

By Real Realist

February 28, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this

Get real “Realist”! This election will be about domestic issues. Middle class issues moron. It’s the economy stupid!

By GT

February 28, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this

Sidewalks with those scooped-out ramp thingies for us gimps.

Call them sidestrolls. What are we, chopped liver on wheels?

Is Atlanta such a free-fire zone for developers that ADA is suspended?

And what about the Magoos? Does anybody think of them when the sidestrolls don’t get built because they don’t get thought of because Atlanta is the Developer’s Playground?

By Sam

February 28, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

You ignorant azz “conservatives” need to stuff a dirty pair of socks down the throats of those hate radio talking jackasses like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al before they single handedly hand the Dems the election. You imbeciles haven’t got the message yet that these are the kind of people that are killing the Republican party. Mainstream America is repulsed by these loudmouth hatemongers. Get a clue cons or you will never be more than a bunch of percieved lunatics on the outside looking in. Face facts cretins. Guys like McCain, Michael Bloomberg, moderates in general are are about to become the face of American politics for generations to come. Get with that or get lost. Your done. All that is left is to stick a fork in you and your ilk. And by the way, take all the talibaptists with you.

By Captain Freedom

February 28, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

Jim is of course quite correct when he states that the Dumbocrats have misread the public’s mood on Iraq. This is a direct result of the conservative kung fu fomented by the late WF Buckley and perfected by the likes of Atwater and the Godly Rove.

For truly, the Demoncrat party has been fooled by the public opinion polls that show i) overwhelming support for a speedy withdrawal from Iraq; ii) a high percentage who question the wisdom of invading, er, liberating Iraq in the first place; and iii) a pointed outrage at the high cost in lives and taxpayer dollars. This is because our highly trained and dedicated cadres of conservatives have banded together to deliberately mislead the pollsters, and thus the Dems, into falsely overestimating opposition to the war.

This is the reason so many vigorous and young True Believers have been forced to sacrifice their opportunity to go and fight the Islamofascists in Iraq and Absurdistan…they are needed here to fight the Fifth Column Culture Wars. Their sacrifice is immense, in many ways greater than that of actual combat soldiers, who have millions of magnetic ribbons around the Nation heralding their work. THE Captain waits in vain for Our Brave Domestic Warriors, with whom is a humbly as one, to receive a comparable accolade.

Now, the Dem fairies are tied to an anti-war lunacy dictated by the Great Orange Satan Kos and his Soros Overlord, and the GOP is poised to sweep to victory behind John McCain, who promises a Hundred Years War, which is of course what the American people truly want.

Plus, We of True Belief have tricked the Islamof@gots into nomiating a person of negracious blood, which is a no-brainer losing proposition. This is America, after all.

All in all, it is further demonstration of Common Sense Conservatism’s transcending brilliance! THE Captain stands in awe, and pace Glenn, knows his place (and not himself) and is sticking to it.

By jbmlaw

February 28, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

A few other notes on WFB2: WSJ compiled several of his better quotes today. Chairman Ann has a marvelous tribute (our leftist friends who know the history between WFB and Ann may be perplexed, but conservatives understand.) When I was an undergrad, and my own politics were in transition from wishy-washy to the since unmodified “rational,” WFB came to school to speak. In addition to the sharp and well-grounded speech, he took a greatly amusing Q&A; of course his best answers were to his sharpest critics. One of the funniest evenings I enjoyed in school. The Ensign, years ago, related a similar story of Chairman Ann coming to UNC-CH; I suspect she contributed as much to his political maturation as WFB did to mine.

By Shar

February 28, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this

I have the great good fortune to count WF Buckley’s sister, Priscilla, among the longtime friends of my family. She is the ultimate New England dame, with her brother’s bite, elegance and wit but cut from a softer flannel. Her reminiscences about her family are a window into a priviledged life of service and rectitude with a serious dose of private silliness. She gave an interview to the local newspaper a couple of years ago on growing up in the same town she lives in now complete with family pictures, but I don’t think the paper archives all its articles online. Those who are interested can try at tcextra.com

Her brother’s writings reflect the same worldview and caustic, cultivated articulateness. I had to laugh at myself for being unable to keep from admiring his words while usually disagreeing strongly with their sense. I’m lucky to still be able to sit down to tea with his sister, but “Bill” will be enormously missed.

By Realist

February 28, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this

Wow, you dems on this blog sure love to name call and act like total classless animals, dont you? I shouldnt expect much more out of Atlantans.

Abomi nation, one need not serve in the military to love his country. Just as one need not support the war effort to love his country. It works both ways.

By Allah says Dump A BUCKET OF PIG BLOOD ON DUSTY AKA JMBLAW

February 28, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this

I am an upper class white male and a former Republican who voted for Bush in 2000, Yet I am ASHAMED OF AMERICA for invading and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent Arabs and Muslims on the pretext of bringing Democracy to the Country. I believe this war by the Neocons against Arabs and Muslims is an act of genocide and a crime against humanity for which the entire Bush administration must be tried in the World Court, especially his warhawk advisors like wolfie, feithie, pearlie, and libbie. Those four in particular deserve the noose just like their Nazi predecesors.

By The Pollsters

February 28, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

Hey Captain Freedom, Those same polls show McCain with the lead over both Obama and Hillary in a general election. Some of the same poills that showed Hillary crushing Obama in primaries that he went on to win by a large margin.

So your reliance on polls to gauge the pulse of America is clearly flawed. But hey, if you want to continue to use them, knock yourself out.

By TW

February 28, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

Abomi Nation - it’s called ‘vicarious soldiering.’ Keep in mind that the young republicans are the little chickens with the nice clothes everyone tolerated in high school. Finally, they’ve found themselves an opportunity to play tough guy – without the possibility of getting hurt! Beautiful, isn’t it? Beat your chest, run your mouth, but let some other sucker and his family deal with the devastation of actual war. Kind of like playing army with the little green plastic soldiers when your were a kid – only much more lucrative. Hooray! The young republicans win! Hooray!

By TAFKAH

February 28, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

Realist,

If you are so gung ho about the importance of the war, try to do something a little more brave than cheer on the people who go and actually do the fighting. You are an armchair warrior, content to let others do the fighting and dying while you reap your riches and get your wood up with war porn. That’s called cowardice, pal, and you’ve got it in spades.

By Allah says Dump A BUCKET OF PIG BLOOD ON DUSTY AKA JMBLAW

February 28, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

Obama is an expert on foreign policy because he will follow the advice of our First and Greatest President, George Washington. President Washington left the following advice for all of his successors: AVOID FOREIGN MILITARY ENTANGLEMENTS. Kennedy-Johnson failed to follow this advice in the 1960’s, and the wasting of 50,000 american lives in Viet Nam followed: Bush failed to follow this advice in 2003, and the current body count is almost 4,000 dead americans. We cannot afford to allow John McCain also to ignore this advice and attack Iran, the price could very well be a nuclear exchange with Russia or China

By Realist

February 28, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this

And what exactly is that you leftists do to help America’s cause? Smoke weed and sit around crying and weeping for the poor soldiers? you know what, most of the soldiers are republicans and conservatives and Bush supporters. Thats right.

So you know what, they would have a beer with me and spit in your liberal face becuase I am more like them than you limp wristed, bong smoking, bleeding heart hippies will ever be !!!

So go sell your flower power and anti-war bs somewhere else. Nobody is buying here.

By Real Realist

February 28, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

The pulse of America was taken rather nicely during the 04 elections. The tsunami is yet to come for you neocons. Bend over wingnuts cause here it comes.

By Glenn

February 28, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

Hats off to:

Jim Wooten, for his elegiac wistfulness in conjuring Statehouse replacements for the fallen Buckley, when in fact they’ll all replace McCain, just as their caucus leaders have done;

TW, for his beguiling image of administering a rectal suppository to a corpse and for his subtle suggestion that American conservatism goes into the grave along with WFB;

Realist, for a gallant effort to offer Democrats a reality check, and for a gracious encomium of WFB;

jbmlaw, for his quaint hope that a dismembered, drawn and quartered al-Qaida ever would do more than concede, “All right, then, we’ll call it a draw”;

Abomi Nation, the eponymically correct;

Copyleft (the SOB), for fitting Buckley and McCain into the same sentence—-an innovation that already has spawned imitators.

[Hoover 08]

By Realist

February 28, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

You talk mighty tough Tafkah. I just love these internet tough guy personalities. You know what, I bet you wouldnt say that stuff my big redneck face. Id stomp a mudhole in you big enough to drive my 4x4 through.

But go ahead, since your just an internet bad a*, tell me how tough you are and say things that in real life would land your little punk azz down at Grady.

By Lone Gunman

February 28, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this

I think the “real” Realist, the one from Alabama who has been her for over two years, already covered the 2004 elections and stated clearly that the dems misread their sweeping victories as a mandate to end the Iraq war. What have the dems done since taking those seats in 2004? Exactly NOTHING, ZILCH, NADA, ZERO !!!

They have shown that they can be even more inept, inactive, slow and useless than the GOP ever was.

Now they are going to pay for it. The voters gave you power, and you did nothing with it. Now you pay the price. The surge is working. The Iraq conflict has an end in sight. McCain is gaining steam. You democrats cant stop the train…its going to fast to slow it down. Youve lost momentum, Hillary has killed it for you, and your last hope Obama? Well his star is fading fast.

Get ready to weep in November moonbats. Its coming.

By West Point Grad

February 28, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

Realist you might be surprised at how many professional military men think that the invasion of Iraq was the biggest blunder and misuse of American might and the most unnecessary spillage of American blood ever. Furthermore, you are speaking out of school when you assume that a majority of service members are “conservatives” that support GWB. An ever larger number of professional military officers are sick and tired of the neocons that use our military and the lives of our soldiers to further their empirical agendas. So Realist, please don’t assume that you speak for any former, serving, or retired veteran. You haven’t earned the right to speak on their behalf.

By jbmlaw

February 28, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this

Dear WPG @ 10:23, we honor your commitment, but the Ensign tells me that your perspective is rare within the military. He says all of his friends mock those few who hold your view. (The Ensign does not mock people – he was reared differently.)

By Tommy

February 28, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

Leave it to some moron that calls himself Lone Gunman to shill for the failed and all but dead lunatic right. Doesn’t that about say it all folks? Just how many of these idiots can the wacked out wing of the republican party hold?

By GayGreyGeek

February 28, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

West Point Grad @ 10:23 - Why, yes, Realist most certainly has decided he may speak on the military’s behalf. After all, he spent a buck and a half on a magnetic yellow sticker to attach to his SUV, and thus is granted Paleocon Privileges.

(After all, there’s nothing “Neo” about ‘em any more…)

By Glenn

February 28, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this

TW, do me a favor and unpack the vicarious soldiering thing. Absolutely yes, it does exist and evidently always has existed. But do you really want to say that one either can agree with Code Pink or else one is a cowardly vicarious killer?

If you listen to Simone Weil, Homer’s point in the Illiad was to mock vicarious, false heroism in his audiences and warn them away from it. If you go to a Post or Legion Hall, you’ll get an earful of Munchausen stories from vets who drove Olive Drab trucks in the Lower 48 while in uniform. And of course it’s often found in columns and letters-to-the-editor and blogs.

But if Sen. Obama is also brilliant lawyer—-and I believe that he is—-and if he thinks, as he says, that Afghanistan is where it’s at, then why has he not been serving, for example, as a JAG officer? Sen. Lindsay Graham has done so, in response to 9/11.

This is not a knock on Sen. Obama, because I don’t believe that if one supports the use of U.S. military force one can or should do so only while in uniform. I’m just trying to extrapolate from your position, to show one of its (seemingly?) logical extentions.

What I’d ask you to do is to extrapolate for yourself. Where is this logic headed?

By AmVet

February 28, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this

WPG, well said.

That a singular ensign surrounds himself with like-minded individuals, in opposition, to that opinion, is not at all remarkable.

That someone would even attempt to discount your point is much more so.

By Realist

February 28, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this

Wow, what perfect timing. A supposed WP grad happens to be wandering by. Sure, I beleive you pal.

And in any case, Im not speaking for all of them, just the many, MANY, that I know, have in my family, have as freinds, college friends, ex-fraternity brothers, all of whom wound up in the service and all of whom, to a person, support thier CIC George Bush and believe in what they are doing.

So you moonbats keep thinking and pretending that you are somehow doing what they would want, just like you loser hippies have done since Nam. The soldiers didnt want you moonbat help then, and none of them that I know want it now.

So p** off and find another cause. You moonbat limp wristers bring nothing but anger and shame to our military families. They vote over 90% GOP. Get it? Thats not me speaking for them. That is fact !!!

By West Point Grad

February 28, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this

Military men commit to the mission that we are given jbmlaw. That doesn’t mean that we approve or agree with it. I can guarantee you that a huge majority of military officers vehemently protested and disagreed with the Bush administrations initial handling of the Iraq invasion. We went with too little to get the job done and that is undeniable fact. Furthermore the lessons of history have taught us, especially those of us that fight these wars, that when this country goes to war it better go with everything that you have, get it done, and get back home. Otherwise you have one huge mess on your hands. This administration didn’t heed the historical lessons that were practically sitting on their face. That is the problem. Had this administration prosecuted this war as it should have we wouldn’t even be debating this issue today and about 3,000 fewer of our soldiers would be home with their families instead of rotting in their graves.

By Adam

February 28, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

What a heartstopping development! Lewis switches support to Obama. How does this guy garner such coverage?

If you remember the movie “Being There”, it’s as if Chance The Gardner got elected to Congress.

By TAFKAH

February 28, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

Realist proves his bravery by throwing threats on the Internet. Now nobody can question what a bad@ss he is. No need to enlist in the military or anything like that. He probably has “better things” to do. Warblogging, perhaps.

Brave brave Sir Realist.

By Sam

February 28, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this

FOAD Realist. Finally someone shows up with some logical thought and you can’t deal with it. I am sure that WPG doesn’t really give the least little damn whether or not you believe something. Typical Rush Limbaugh tactic Realist. When someone has just stuck it a mile up your kazoo and broke it off in you, attack the messenger. You are full of sh&t Realist and you just got hammered idiot boy. Deal with it!

By Realist

February 28, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this

WPG, You keep saying that you can assure us of this, and of that, yet you offer nothing but opinion and platitudes. One could assume your position with but in actuality have no military experience whatsoever. You call yourself West Point Grad and offer all sorts of ideas that you expect us to just take as truth? Why should we? I havent heard a thing that makes me beleeive that you are anything more than a fraud.

Im quite familiar with the military, the lingo, all of it. My family has a long history of service. So please, tell me something that might lend some credibility to your posts. Im waiting.

By TAFKAH

February 28, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

Brave Sir Realist ran away. Bravely ran away, away! When danger reared its ugly head, He bravely turned his tail and fled. Yes, brave Sir Realist turned about And gallantly he chickened out. Bravely taking to his feet He beat a very brave retreat, Bravest of the brave, Sir Realist!

By Art

February 28, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

I bet you can’t document that 90% “fact” that you just idiotically threw out there Realist. If so please share with us the documented proof. Otherwise ESAD!

By TAFKAH

February 28, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

Behold, Brave Sir Realist, never one to back down from a fight on the Internet. Real fights in far away lands…not so much.

Behold as Brave Sir Realist lists all the people he knows who have taken their turn in the military. Sir Realist supports them by, well, by um supporting them. Loudly. But he still has better things to do than actually enlist and participate in the cause he finds so worthy of other people’s sacrifice.

Brave, brave Sir Realist.

Chickensh1t.

By Glenn

February 28, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this

West Point Grad,

No sane individual with a West Point education could make your statement that “the invasion of Iraq was the biggest blunder and misuse of American might and the most unnecessary spillage of American blood ever.” The statement is simply impossible for anyone schooled in military science.

By happenstance I’ve come to know a mercenary, a military adventurer for hire. Stateside he works for a large auto manufacturer. To pick up easy money, he kills whichever Africans his African paymasters tell him to kill. And while he is a former U.S. Army NCO, he has no formal training in military history or planning.

He’s the sort of “professional military man” who might agree with your statement. I doubt that you can name a single graduate of any of our military academies who has said, in uniform or not, such a ridiculous thing.

By McCain Unable

February 28, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

Ah, William F Buckley…Junior. He had the most easily-impersonated delivery of any talking head in the national conscience, and he was the first celebrity I ever did on stage. I loved that man. He was like the Jack Benny of fiscal and monetary policy. And always a crowd pleaser.

By Sam

February 28, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

What is your history of service Realist. Chairborne legend in your own mind. You are the fraud Realist. Probably a punkass sissy too.

By Dennis

February 28, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten writes, “Democrats, talking to each other, have managed to convince themselves that the country is ready to throw in the towel on Iraq.”

Ah, Mr. Wooten. How right you are. Some of us good Americans are not interested in sending our sons and daughters to fight for control of another countries natural resources.

And many thinking Americans have always realized the the “war on terror” in Iraq was/IS just a cover to get control of the Iraqi oil.

And let’s keep in mind, too, warhawks didn’t want to get out of Vietnam, either, and yet today, Vietnam has a thriving economy.

In time, that would happen in Iraq, too, if the American government (including Democrats) would leave those people alone.

What this country needs, Mr. Wooten, is some honest journalism and some honest journalist.

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

By TAFKAH

February 28, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

Im quite familiar with the military, the lingo, all of it. My family has a long history of service.

Oh, f^ck, please stop. I’ll die from laughing at your twink little a@@.

By Realist

February 28, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

You know its funny, wikipedia has created so many experts. Bring up military, and all of a sudden you have two navy seals, an airborn ranger, and a West Point Grad right there lickety split! Imagine that.

Well guess what? Im actaully a Five Star General. Yep. Just ask me some questions, and ASSURE YOU i can answer them (thanks to wikipedia)

Go and do the research yourself. Look at absentee and military voting records in the previous elections since the Iraq conflict began. Our military overwhelmingly votes GOP. Always has, always will.

The democrats stand on the floor of the house and say we have lost, that we are defeated, all while our soldiers are still out there in the field fighting for thier lives. What do you think of that WPG? If you had an ounce of military background that alone would make you sick! The dems want to cut funding, want to pull out forces to leave other forces weakened and unprotected, yet they do it all for the good of the troops supposedly. And if you disagree with them, thier only retort is “why arent you over there fighting”? That is a transparent, pathetic, weak argument. But thats all you guys are is weak and pathetic. Always have been, always will be. Moonbats.

By Realist

February 28, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this

Hey Sambo, the whites are trying to talk. Hush up boy, and go get me an iced tea.

By Gore

February 28, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this

The truth is that your lamented crypto-Nazi had dandruff.

By TAFKAH

February 28, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this

• I doubt that you can name a single graduate of any of our military academies who has said, in uniform or not, such a ridiculous thing.*

Senator Jim Webb.

And while not an academy grad, David Hackworth had some things to say about Iraq and President F^cktard.

But never mind them, they must be moonbats. Not like Brave Sir Realist.

By RCH

February 28, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this

By Allah says Dump A BUCKET OF PIG BLOOD ON DUSTY AKA JMBLAW

According to Senator Obama, the only reason Al-Qaida is in Iraq is because the United States invaded that country. I hate to inform the Senator that Al-Qaida had been training there for years before that event. And this is a Senator who is supposed to be an expert in foreign affairs?

By Garst

February 28, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this

Hey 11:04, only I get to talk to Lewis like that.

By Realist

February 28, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this

Glenn, Dont waste your time. That guy is no more WP than I am an astronaut. You are dead right, no WP grad would say such a thing. No way, no how.

I wish all your posters would just stick to the same ID. Its clear several of you are the same moonbat.

By Dennis

February 28, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

By Realist February 28, 2008 11:02 AM “The dems want to cut funding, want to pull out forces to leave other forces weakened and unprotected, yet they do it all for the good of the troops supposedly. And if you disagree with them, thier only retort is “why arent you over there fighting”? That is a transparent, pathetic, weak argument.”

Speaking as a man who is neither Republican nor Democrat, and who did his four years of US military service, and who is opposed to the Iraq war and who sometimes protests on the streets by himself, “why aren’t you over there fighting” and putting your beliefs where your mouth is?

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

By Realist

February 28, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

Dennis, I think they call that PTSD. Im guessing you left after years on a medical discharge? They have medicine for it. You need not suffer alone in the streets confused and helpless. Get some help.

By Glenn

February 28, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this

Jim Webb has said no such thing, TAKFAH. He would never say such a thing.

By Dennis

February 28, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this

By Realist February 28, 2008 11:23 AM “Im guessing.”

Yes, you are.

So,“why aren’t you over there fighting” and putting your beliefs where your mouth is?

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

By Realist

February 28, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this

You know its so funny. I come here and Im immediately attacked by all the lefty loonies. People like Tafkah call me out and get all tough with me. But its odd. I go to the places where you moonbats are known to hangout, book stores, starbucks, job centers and unemployment offices, and I try to get one cross word out of you, and I cant. You guys talk such a tough game in here, but at on those streets, you dont stand behind your beleifs. You wont say a damned word to me about my supposed “support our troops” ribbon then will you? Not only do you moonbats not serve your country, you dont even have the balls to stand up on the streets of Atlanta and stand behind your beliefs the same way you do in here.

If you do, then today, go up to some redneck with a ribbon on his 4x4, he very well likely didnt serve in the military either, and get in his face like you have in mine here today. Do that and then maybe I will respect you little punks. But we both know you wont do it. You dont have the balls to do anything except sit in this blog day after day talking big. Now that my freinds, is more pathetic than any chickenhawk war monger Ive met. At least in day to day life those rednecks will stand in your face and stand up for what they believe.

You punk moonbats make me sick. Spineless, weak maggotts.

By Glenn

February 28, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

“What this country needs, Mr. Wooten, is some honest journalism and some honest journalist.”

Hats off to Dennis!

By TW

February 28, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this

Glenn - Good Morning! Great words from you, as usual. Condolences on Buckley, you are one of the few here to espouse his positions, and one of the fewer who even knew who he was. When conservatism went from being a book worthy cause to a sound bite on the AM dial, we all took a hit. While I don’t for a minute pretend to subscribe fully to Buckley, I will concede that this country is at its strongest when the credible conservative argument is part of the debate.

As far as the soldier thing – the soldiers of democracy are the salt of the earth. We, the civilians, in return for their sacrifice should do all that we can to see that their service is not exploited. Excluding the civilian population from any kind of sacrifice themselves, however, allows for this very thing to happen. I am saying that the price the loudest trumpets for this war have paid is the $2.99 they spent on the bumper magnet. While I won’t go so far to say that tax cuts during a time of war are treason, they are nonetheless…gross.

By Glenn

February 28, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

TW,

I agree, across the board.

By Glenn

February 28, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

Ya know, Realist, since I got acclimated to blogging—-as it happened, here—-I’ve branched out to friends and colleagues who post and host. When they ask me where I blog and I tell them about this place, none of them wants to bother.

I tell them that it’s fun and that wisdom comes, especially from Jim Wooten, as a fresh surprise each time. But when I warn them that they have to be ready for a goon squad of cyberpunks who want to drive off anything in a uniform or haircut or high heels, they think—-from Left, Right and roadkill Center—-why bother with that nonsense?

I don’t even get the chance to tell them the strange story of the P** Gargoyle.

Not one of them has shown up here.

By McCain Unable

February 28, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

In your head, heart and gut, you know McCain is right. Maybe, but I get the same feeling eating a breakfast burrito.

Conservatism defined: Not liberal.

So…. anything is conservative that doesn’t satisfy the criteria defining the lunatic fringe of the democratic party.

By jm

February 28, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this

well, I guess this means we will be invading Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, since Al Queda are in those countries.

By Glenn

February 28, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

Nah, McCain Unable. Conservatism’s not “anything that isn’t liberal”; it’s the antithesis of the essence of Liberalism, which is simply, in colloquial terms, social engineering.

By Realist

February 28, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this

Well Glenn, I wish I had the patience or tolerance to ignore them and not be part of the drama and mean spirited exchange, but I am who I am, and I call it as I see it.

At least they seem to have scattered for the moment.

By Dennis

February 28, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this

By Realist February 28, 2008 11:33 AM “You know its so funny. I come here and Im immediately attacked by all the lefty loonies.”

You’ve brought it on yourself. In the meantime, the military is looking for people like you to send to Iraq.

But you’re not going, are you?

You’re just going to sit at your computer and play general.

As to the “rednecks” who have served with distinction under fire, few of them will go back into those conditions, either. Else, they’d have stayed.

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

By Redneck Convert

February 28, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this

Well, this Buckley guy was OK. I tried to watch his show a couple times a few years ago but I couldn’t understand half the words he used. I might as well have been watching Spanish TV. Anyway, they say he was a conservative so that’s good enough for me. I wouldn’t be feeling bad at all if he was a librul and died.

Somebody needs to get that burr out of this Realist’s saddle. This a.m. all he wants to do is fight somebody. Its bad enough he wasn’t able to serve in the army on account of a pile-on cyst on his butt, like old Rush had. Now the libruls are putting the spurs to him and making him mad enough to hang out at places looking for libruls to fight. This blog is getting downright dangerous. And we ain’t even heard from TFTT yet. No wonder Glenn’s freinds don’t want nothing to do with it. A guy could get kilt here.

Anyhow, I’m mighty proud to say I done my military service. It was tough working in that supply tent on Guam and keeping track of the helmets and web belts and such, but I done it. I was fighting the terrists back then without even laying eyes on one. And I just dare one of you libruls to start making fun of the seven Support the Troops ribbons on my pickup. If Realist don’t get you I will.

Have a good day everybody.

By Copyleft

February 28, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

So, Realist is looking for a real-world fight? You’re in luck, buddy! There’s one going on right now, in Iraq!

Rush to your local recruitment office today! And I promise (in order to stay true to your caricature of my views) not to support YOU at all. Fair enough?

By McCain Unable

February 28, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

Conservativism is what conservatives say it is? Is it an evolution or a revolution?

By McCain Unable

February 28, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this

TO me, americanism defined: As an American, I’m liberal on some issues. I’m conservate on some issues. I’m right in the center on some issues.

Name the issue, and I’ll tell you my position. Only a fool would weigh in, like Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken on the extreme right or left of every issue. That would ignore the 299,999,998 americans that aint Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken.

We all want to think we’re mainstream, but get to know america, you’ll see what a fringe minority some of your own views really are.

By Glenn

February 28, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this

Realist, as you can see I don’t have that kind of patience or tolerance, or whatever, either. Which, to my friends, is pretty funny, since they wouldn’t even bother. Give ‘em hell anyway.

McCain Unable,

No, Conservatism’s not what conservatives say it is; it’s what I say it is! Liberalism’s what I say it is too!

OK. What do you say Conservatism is?

By jbmlaw

February 28, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this

Dear MU @ 12:25, “Conservativism is what conservatives say it is? Is it an evolution or a revolution?” You are correct with the former statement; certainly no rational soul would suggest that conservatism is what “leftists” say it is. I suggest you never let your enemies define you. @ 12:35 you suggest you are “liberal” (I assume you mean “leftist”) on some issues. Just to satisfy my own curiosity (and please feel flattered, I am so arrogant that I rarely care what anyone else thinks about anything) on which issues do you oppose freedom?

By McCain Unable

February 28, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this

I oppose undefined freedom, and undefined open-ended conservatism that historically is defined as personally profiting from public office tenure at the tax-payer’s expense.

Freedom? To enslave me with your freedom? No thank you, sir.

Here are two questions never answered by the right: What is conservatism? What is the mission of US troops in Iraq?

By GayGreyGeek

February 28, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this

jmblaw @ 12:48 - you forgot to ask why MU hates america and is a traitor, to boot.

If you’re going to use the Paleocon Script, use the whole durn thing.

By GayGreyGeek

February 28, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

McCain Unable @ 1:01

What is the mission of US troops in Iraq?

That’s an easy one for the Paleocons to answer - our mission is to WIN! Just listen to the wingbats who insist that we must remain in Iraq until “victory”, yet will never define what “victory” would entail.

The correct quesiton to ask is thus “What defines ‘winning’ in Iraq?”. That is the question none of the Paleos will answer, because they can’t without also admitting that “winning” is intertwined with “land grabbing for oil”.

By McCain Unable

February 28, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

Jbmlaw’s id has been jacked so many time you dont know who’s what. Abandon IDs. Just comment. it doesn’t matter who’s who if what you say is readable and interesting and advances the discussion.

Conservatism Defined: The socio-political intercourse that stems from two main tenets of faith:

1) tax supress growth

2) entitlements supress productivity

Of course it more complicated, and one must know the distinction between fiscal and monetary policy, and the knife edge the fed chairman has to walk to avoid stagflation, (the best of both worlds).

And there is a moral adjunct to conservatism that eschews drugs sex and rock and roll, but that also is complicated because in the end, it was the beachboys that brought down reaganism. (remember that disaster?)

and blah blah blowme

By McCain Unable

February 28, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

geek, quit presuming to speak for the right. I’m supposed to trust your imagined translation of their non-answer?

I wish oil were the only reason Iraq’s mission is very difficult to enunciate. I’m asking anyone to state what the mission of US troops in Iraq is.

Be careful. (when you start to write out your opinion you see the minefield)

By Obamastanian

February 28, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

“Here are two questions never answered by the right: What is conservatism?”

That’s not hard - the exact opposite of liberalism:

Allowing people to keep more of their hard earned money, ESPECIALLY the productive and successful in this nation.

Understanding that it’s ok if companies make a profit for their investors.

Realizing that government is NOT the answer to everthing in our lives from birth to death.

Knowing that the UN and Kyoto are both entities against success, capitalism, and America, which all go together.

Believing that those who do not believe as we do are still entitled to voice their opinion and not be intimidated or out shouted in an attempt to shut them up.

“What is the mission of US troops in Iraq?”

Parakeet beak, don’t you think you’ve asked that question long enough on this blog? You don’t really give a damn. That’s why you keep asking when people give you an answer, especially one you don’t agree with.

By Realist

February 28, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

The fundamental mission of the US troops in Iraq is to provide the secuirty needed to allow the growth of a fledgling government that can stand on its on, financially and militarily, once we have withdrawn. This is happening as we speak as neighborhoods are forming councils led by elders, in neighborhoods that havent known peace for over 20 years. The surge has allowed this to happen all over Iraq, even in the worst areas.

Of course there are many hundreds of smaller missions within the main mission. And yes, the mission is to win. And by win we mean to see a free, democratic Iraq, controlled by its own freely elected governement.

In many ways, we have already won. I remember a time when dems said there would never be a democratic election in Iraq. And we saw it happen. Dems said the surge wouldnt work. And it clearly has and is. And yet even today. as invested in defeat as you all are, all you have left is to continue to say that Iraq will never be stable or free of violence and what you call “civil war” . Well, no offense, but since you have been wrong on every other count, dont mind us if we dont listen to your opinions now either.

By Craig's list

February 28, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

‘If you elect me, I’ll repeal those subsidies and put them into a strategic energy fund that will create American jobs for America’s future with clean energy.’ Bill Clintonista

Can you believe this Chavez wannabe clown? The former rapist in chief truly believes he’s running for office again. The only thing more idiotic is the group of people who still support these bozos.

By Glenn

February 28, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

McCain Unable @ 1:01,

I’m a Conservative and I’ve answered both your questions, head on, and you know it. So why now are you saying that your two questions “are never answered” by what you choose to call “the right”?

Are you simply too shy to respond to the answers already given, so that you’re left with only a child’s game of “Let’s Pretend” that conservatives “never answered” your questions?

By jbmlaw

February 28, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this

Dear MU @ 1:01, your answer is better than I anticipated. Forgive me for parsing it.

“I oppose undefined freedom…” Please feel free to define. Conservatives use “right to be left alone.” More below.

“…and [I oppose] undefined open-ended conservatism that historically is defined as personally profiting from public office tenure at the tax-payer’s expense.” I think your history is corrupted by leftists. “Personally profiting from public office tenure” is not a definition of conservatism by any but moonbats.

“Freedom? To enslave me with your freedom? No thank you, sir.” If by “enslaving” you mean “compel you to take responsibility for your own life” I do not apologize. I think each should be primarily responsible for himself. To the extent you wish to engage voluntary support systems, e.g., insurance policies, churches, etc., I would tolerate those activities. I oppose compulsion, which the leftists’ tax system is – no different than theft at the point of a gun.

“Here are two questions never answered by the right:” You err. We conservatives answer both regularly, and you allow your prejudice to blind you.

“What is conservatism?” The right to be left alone; de minimis government. Government’s obligation to its own populace is to ensure “freedom from homicide or personal or financial injury” in whatever form that may require. Thus you have no right to take property that does not belong to you. You have no right to intentionally inflict personal injury on another. You have no right to murder. Nothing more.

“What is the mission of US troops in Iraq?” To eliminate all who oppose freedom in America. To a great extent that means killing all who hold animus for the United States. However, we are a compassionate people, and if the terrorist holding the RPG launcher can make a persuasive argument that he supports the US as much as any democrat, certainly I would allow him to live. So long as there is a single person in the world who would wantonly kill Americans qua Americans, the US Marines have a purpose.

By GayGreyGeek

February 28, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this

MU, it’s more of an honest answer than you’ll get from the Paleocon dissemblers in these precincts…

By Glenn

February 28, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this

Shar @ 9:48,

That was lovely, and thanks for the link. Condolences to your family friend Priscilla, who must miss Bill, and James, a great deal.

I’m glad to hear that she too is a softer “hand” of caustic; a nice paradox and, to my mind, quintessentially Catholic.

By jbmlaw

February 28, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this

Dear MU @ 1:20, your definition is a proper definition of “fiscal conservative.” For most of us the movement is more, as you simplistically disparage in your “drugs sex” rant. I think Kantianism properly defines that moral adjunct of conservatism, just as Rawlsian utilitarianism defines the moral adjunct of leftism.

By jbmlaw

February 28, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this

Dear MU @ 1:20, one minor additional item, HIDT borrows my identity from time to time, but the quality of his work has gotten quite good. Rather than jacking to embarrass me, he has taken to imitating my thoughts, and he is quite good. I find little need to distance myself from his work.

By Dennis

February 28, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

By jbmlaw February 28, 2008 1:49 PM “I oppose compulsion, which the leftists’ tax system is – no different than theft at the point of a gun.”

Please check your history, Counselor. Although this country has always had tax, the income tax was first propositioned by Republicans.

:)

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

By jm

February 28, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this

Realist@1:40 - Funny, I don’t seem to remember any of those reasons being cited for the initial invasion of Iraq. So using your definition, which is the next country the US will invade?

By TAFKAH

February 28, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this

Just wondering when McCain will disavow the endorsement of crazy skygod cultist John Hagee? What with all his crazy talk and rooting for armageddon and all that, is this really the kind of person McCain wants as a supporter?

C’mon St John…it’s time for your Sister Souljah moment!!!!!

By Chickenhawk spells COWARD

February 28, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

Realist, I believe your retired, hang-around-and-belittle-others-all-day cracker behind can find this address:

Duluth Recruiting Station

E-Mail: 3A3P@usarec.army.mil Telephone: (770) 476-0017 Address: 3500 Gwinnett Place Rd, Ste 15, Gwinnett Place Shoppes, Duluth, GA 30136

Keep your head down and don’t forget to write to us. We’ll miss ya, buddy!!

By geek squad

February 28, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this

“…the income tax was first propositioned by Republicans.”

Dennis, you need to read up on your history. Either that or give the whole story instead of just half of it. While Republicans did first propose and implement The Act of 1862 which Lincoln signed, it was only supposed to be temporary to help fund the Civil War. Prior to that, taxes came from internal commodities like sugar, tobacco production, alcohol, and investments like bonds. After the Civil War, those income taxes went away and taxes again were levied on commodities and other production. Then in 1913, Congress saw a good thing and the 16th Amendment established a permanent federal income tax. In 1986, Reagan singed the Tax Reform Act, which reduced the top tax bracket from 50% (where it had been since 1916) to 28%. So, while Republicans had a hand in the income tax, it has been mostly only Democrats who have supported their raises and viciously opposed their decreases.

:)

By Glenn

February 28, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this

jm @ 2:10,

“Funny, I don’t seem to remember” anyone asking the reasons “for the initial invasion of Iraq.”

The question was (as it has been week after week after week): What is the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq?

By Realist

February 28, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

Dear Chickenhawk, Why in the world would I go into that crummy immigrant infested area, even if I were to enlist? Do they not have enlistment offices up my way? Must I be subjected to all “those people”?

And to dearest jm, I wasnt asked to detail our reasons for invading Iraq, I was asked what I beleived our troops current mission was. That was my understanding anyway. Surely even a brain as pea sized as yours can get that?

By BS Aplenty

February 28, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this

Dear Mike King

Mike King’s opinion piece today offers an instructive lesson on the fallacy of the socialist argument. As stated by Mr. King, the socialist healthcare argument says that you can entitle people to a good or service, at any price, attain the status of oligarch in the system, then argue that free market principles simply won’t work in your “rigged” economic system. Mike, you sound like a member of the old Soviet Politburo. Government seems best when it holds your hand tightest. Some people like it that way, but you pay a price eventually.

When you “entitle” people to a product or service you’ve altered the equillibrium prices that would arise in that economic system. Now you’re into a managed healthcare “economy” like the ones that existed (and to a large extent still do) in the Soviet Union. You can’t, for example, try the free market in the public school system or the public healthcare system. The hundreds of natural pricing decisions that go into providing that service are managed by government study & fiat.

You can, however, create a market system for healthcare by not allowing the government to operate directly in the healthcare market. Rather, let the government pay for the premiums of those individuals it wishes to “entitle” but don’t create an entire alternative system of public hospitals or healthcare delivery. There would be no public hospitals only private institutions. Further disconnect corporate employers from acting as middle men in the healthcare premium payment stream and you begin to develop a more vigorous market-oriented system.

Is further privatization of healthcare feasible? Would the change come without pain? Not likely - ask the Soviets. But the current system will continue to involve more decisions that government is simply not competent to make. Eventually and continuously, like public housing, like public education and like public healthcare there will be a major “come to Jesus” moment. The Clayton County school system is there, Grady Hospital is there and public housing, well, it’s been there for a while.

How is the myth of those public services working out, Mike?

By jm

February 28, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

Glenn@2:37 - more like year after year

By jbmlaw

February 28, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this

Alert for conservatives, Taranto’s column today opens with three really funny Obama stories.

By Glenn

February 28, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this

OK, jm, year after year. And you still don’t get it.

By jm

February 28, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this

Realist@2:41 - The questions was: “What is the mission of US troops in Iraq”. You chose the current time frame, while I chose the entire war (including the alleged casus belli). Surely your pea brain can comprehend that.

By @@

February 28, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this

O-:MG Jim! I’ve come to the conclusion that there are a lot of things Obama doesn’t know, but now I have to doubt whether he knows anything at all.

“if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq” and….

“that’s why I have said we should continue to strike al-Qaida targets.

Talk about a GLOBAL WAR!

Wait a minute! I’m getting a vision of what a country lead by Barack Obama might look like.

Precede everything with an “if” leaving the door open. And in conclusion, none will be reached.

Oh chit!

By jm

February 28, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this

Glenn - apparently, neither do you.

By Devastator

February 28, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this

@@,

Obama was speaking within the context of al-qaida having there 1# headquarters there. Right now, Iraq is primarily a regional office for them.

Wonder what made them decide to open an office there. Hmmmm.

By Apocalypse

February 28, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this

Will McInsane be disqualified?

WASHINGTON — The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.

Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.

Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.

“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”

Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.

But given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it,” said Mr. Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of Mr. McCain’s closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.

“He was posted there on orders from the United States government,” Mr. Graham said of Mr. McCain’s father. “If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can’t be president if they take an overseas assignment.”

The phrase “natural born” was in early drafts of the Constitution. Scholars say notes of the Constitutional Convention give away little of the intent of the framers. Its origin may be traced to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, with Jay suggesting that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution needed to “declare expressly” that only a natural-born citizen could be president.

Ms. Duggin and others who have explored the arcane subject in depth say legal argument and basic fairness may indeed be on the side of Mr. McCain, a longtime member of Congress from Arizona. But multiple experts and scholarly reviews say the issue has never been definitively resolved by either Congress or the Supreme Court.

Ms. Duggin favors a constitutional amendment to settle the matter. Others have called on Congress to guarantee that Americans born outside the national boundaries can legitimately see themselves as potential contenders for the Oval Office.

“They ought to have the same rights,” said Don Nickles, a former Republican senator from Oklahoma who in 2004 introduced legislation that would have established that children born abroad to American citizens could harbor presidential ambitions without a legal cloud over their hopes. “There is some ambiguity because there has never been a court case on what ‘natural-born citizen’ means.”

Mr. McCain’s situation is different from those of the current governors of California and Michigan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer M. Granholm, who were born in other countries and were first citizens of those nations, rendering them naturalized Americans ineligible under current interpretations. The conflict that could conceivably ensnare Mr. McCain goes more to the interpretation of “natural born” when weighed against intent and decades of immigration law.

Mr. McCain is not the first person to find himself in these circumstances. The last Arizona Republican to be a presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, faced the issue. He was born in the Arizona territory in 1909, three years before it became a state. But Goldwater did not win, and the view at the time was that since he was born in a continental territory that later became a state, he probably met the standard.

It also surfaced in the 1968 candidacy of George Romney, who was born in Mexico, but again was not tested. The former Connecticut politician Lowell P. Weicker Jr., born in Paris, sought a legal analysis when considering the presidency, an aide said, and was assured he was eligible. Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. was once viewed as a potential successor to his father, but was seen by some as ineligible since he had been born on Campobello Island in Canada. The 21st president, Chester A. Arthur, whose birthplace is Vermont, was rumored to have actually been born in Canada, prompting some to question his eligibility.

Quickly recognizing confusion over the evolving nature of citizenship, the First Congress in 1790 passed a measure that did define children of citizens “born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States to be natural born.” But that law is still seen as potentially unconstitutional and was overtaken by subsequent legislation that omitted the “natural-born” phrase.

Mr. McCain’s citizenship was established by statutes covering the offspring of Americans abroad and laws specific to the Canal Zone as Congress realized that Americans would be living and working in the area for extended periods. But whether he qualifies as natural-born has been a topic of Internet buzz for months, with some declaring him ineligible while others assert that he meets all the basic constitutional qualifications — a natural-born citizen at least 35 years of age with 14 years of residence.

“I don’t think he has any problem whatsoever,” said Mr. Nickles, a McCain supporter. “But I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if somebody is going to try to make an issue out of it. If it goes to court, I think he will win.”

Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds, what form a challenge could take and whether it would have to wait until after the election or could be made at any time.

In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable and unsatisfactory.”

“If I were on the Supreme Court, I would decide for John McCain,” Ms. Pryor said in a recent interview. “But it is certainly not a frivolous issue.”

By Glenn

February 28, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

jm, you’re trolling. You’re not going to get a rise out of me by insisting that questions are left unanswered that several of us here—-and for that matter in Washington—-have taken pains to answer again and again.

You’re also not going to get away with shifting the question from “What’s the Iraq frequency, Kenneth?” to “Why’d we go to Iraq, Kenneth?” to your latest, “What’s your justification for all of it, Simple Kenneth?”

This crap is a ridiculous waste of time. You think that Iraq is a ridiculous waste, fine. We don’t. You’ve asked why we think it’s not, and we’ve answered you repeatedly. If you want to take issues with our answers, then step up and do so; that’s what blogs like this one are for.

But if you’re just here to play Hide the Ball, then take your ball, shove it up your @ss, and leave.

By Supreme Court

February 28, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this

We decide. You don’t. If Barack Obama wins the popular vote, or if there is any question about voting rights in any state, rest assured that we will step in and select John McCain as your next President. That’s what we do. Now forget about democracy; there is really no such thing in America. Go watch American Idol and vote there where it counts. You’re welcome.

By Tiberius

February 28, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this

I was a C-section baby. Can I be President some day, even though I’m not a “natural-born” citizen?

By jm

February 28, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

Glenn looks like I got a rise out of you after all. To quote George W. Bush - May 3, 2003: “Mission Accomplished”.

By Apocalypse

February 28, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this

AUSTIN, Texas - Democratic candidate Barack Obama said Thursday the economy is “on the brink of a recession” and blamed economic policies espoused by President Bush and Republican presidential contender John McCain.

Obama mocked a more optimistic economic picture painted by Bush at a White House news conference just moments earlier: “People are struggling in the midst of an economy that George Bush says is not a recession but is experienced differently by folks on the ground.”

For the second day in a row, Obama focused on the likely GOP nominee McCain and all but ignored Hillary Rodham Clinton’s continuing campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, although key Democratic primaries come up next Tuesday in Texas and Ohio.

“We are not standing on the brink of recession because of forces beyond our control,” Obama told a town hall forum in Austin. “This was not an inevitable part of the business cycle. It was a failure of leadership in Washington — a Washington where George Bush hands out billions of tax cuts to the wealthiest few for eight long years, and John McCain promises to make those same tax cuts permanent, embracing the central principle of the Bush economic program.”

In remarks Obama aides suggested were a rebuke to McCain as well as Bush, Obama said more is needed than just “to change faces in the White House,” but that the country “needs a change of leadership”

The Illinois senator spoke shortly after Bush told a news conference in Washington that the country is not headed into a recession. While expressing concern about slowing economic growth, Bush rejected for now any additional stimulus efforts.

“We’ve acted robustly,” Bush said. His forecast was rosier than that of many mainstream economists.

Obama offered a sharply different view: “Despite the slogans,we’ve got millions of Americans that are being left behind.”

He said he was “the only candidate in this race to propose a genuine middle-class tax cut.” And he added, the nation needs as president a leader who “doesn’t defend lobbyists as part of the system, but sees them as part of the problem.”

In focusing on McCain, Obama is pursuing a strategy of acting as if the Democratic nomination were already his. On Wednesday, Obama and McCain sparred by long distance over Iraq.

Unlike Obama, who rarely mentions Clinton by name, Clinton refers to her Democratic opponent often on the campaign trail, both in her formal stump speech and in her casual conversations with voters.

She opened her campaign day Thursday in Pomeroy, Ohio, talking with about 10 people in a mobile home in a heavily rural county where the poverty rate approaches 20 percent.

Health care was at the top of the agenda as she previewed a speech later in the day on child poverty. “There’s a lot of people here who don’t have health care,” said Bryan Holman, one of the residents.

She noted that “my opponent” tells people her health care plan would force people to buy insurance even if they can’t afford it and would fine them if they don’t. About half the time Clinton refers to Obama by name, the rest as “my opponent.”

“That’s misleading, that’s not at all what’s happening,” said Clinton.

“I have a plan that would cover everybody, my opponent does not. He would leave 15 million people out. It’s like Social Security. Everybody’s in Social Security. That’s what we have to do with health care.”

The centerpiece of government efforts to brace the wobbly economy is a package Congress passed and Bush signed last month. It will rush rebates ranging from $300 to $1,200 to millions of people and give tax incentives to businesses. Bush claims no further incentives are needed — and those should be given a chance to work first.

“We can’t afford to wait,” Obama said in Austin. “News on our economy has not been getting better, it’s been getting worse.”

Obama has proposed rolling back Bush tax cuts plus a tax credit covering 10 percent of annual mortgage interest payments for “struggling homeowners,” a fund for mortgage-fraud victims, aid to state and local governments stung by housing crisis, in $20 billion plan geared to “responsible homeowners.”

He would raise income taxes on wealthiest and their capital gains and dividends taxes, raise corporate taxes and give $80 billion in tax breaks mainly for poor workers and elderly.

By Dennis

February 28, 2008 4:35 PM | Link to this

By Chickenhawk spells COWARD February 28, 2008 2:29 PM “Then in 1913, Congress saw a good thing and the 16th Amendment established a permanent federal income tax.”

That does not change the fact that the income tax was a Republican idea.

Actually, the Republicans wanted to put something over on the Democrats and try to show that they were not concerned about supporting Lincoln and keeping us as one nation.

However, when the Democrats, seeing a political opportunity to make the Republicans look bad by calling “for” an “income tax”, the Republicans tried to back out of it, and failed.

The birth of an income tax was, still is, a Republican idea.

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

By Anonymous

February 28, 2008 4:35 PM | Link to this

Is that the same Senator Obama who just got through telling voters that “George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq”?

Did Senator McCain have more to do with the decision to invade than did Senator Clinton and Senator Kerry? How?

By Apocalypse

February 28, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

Anonymous,

Sen. McCain has and continues to support and promote the Iraq war.

Also, Obama continues to call Clinton on the carpet about her vote as well, in case you missed the last 20+ debates.

By Simone

February 28, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this

But @@ — you crossed over and voted for Obama (you’ve admitted that proudly here, at least twice.) You reap what backfires, dear.

By J. Goldberg

February 28, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this

Liberalism, unlike conservatism, is and always has been operationally uninterested in its own intellectual history.

By Craig also

February 28, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this

good one, Supreme Court.

By Anonymous

February 28, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this

Wow, you guys keep moving that ball closer and closer to your backsides. Is that where this crap’s coming from?

But gee, I could swear that Sen. Obama’s said that “McCain decided to invade Iraq”, and here you are saying that what he meant to say was that McCain “has and continues to support and promote the Iraq war.” I guess you mean that he also meant that Senator Clinton and Senator Kerry, who also agreed to U.S. military action against Iraq, are different from McCain. But Sen. Obama didn’t say that, and you almost did, so I like your explanation of what he said better than what he said. I’m guessing that you like it better too.

Except that it’s hard to figure out how one can promote a war that ended long ago in a messy occupation, I’d say that you ought to write speeches for Sen. Obama, because you say what he thinks much better than he or the Governor of Massachusetts do.

By Devastator

February 28, 2008 5:15 PM | Link to this

Anonymous,

Just happen to notice your nanny nickpicking with Apoc.

His point is that McCain voted for and supported the war/occupation in the past and present.

Its not that difficult to understand.

I’ll ask my dog to explain it to you if you’re still having trouble.

By Anonymous

February 28, 2008 5:38 PM | Link to this

But that wasn’t Obama’s point, and Obama outranks any fool named Apocalypse. See? That’s how it works.

If you point out that it’s BS for Mike Huckabee to claim that he pioneered welfare reform in the State of Arkansas, and I respond by, uh, explaining that what he meant to say was that he supported welfare reform by signing legislation required of every state by the federal government, how would you like it if someone from Luckovich’s dropped in late on the dialogue to say that you’re “nitpicking” if you don’t like that Huckabee’s infant child just tried to spin you like a top?

If you talk to your dog, then talk to your dog and give the keyboard a rest, fool.

By Brian

February 28, 2008 5:42 PM | Link to this

Dennis:

The birth of an income tax was, still is, a Republican idea.

Moonbat, that doesn’t change the FACT that the original income tax was ONLY to be a temporary government program - and was - until 1913.

By Obamastanian

February 28, 2008 5:44 PM | Link to this

By jm February 28, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this Glenn - apparently, neither do you.

There have been no less than four replies to the person asking about what our mission in Iraq is. As I said @1:38, obviously the questioner really doesn’t care about the answer. He or she was given answers, some rather direct and good ones I might add, and in return the answerers only received a blank stare and a topic change from the questioner. Talk about wasting people’s time.

Well said Glenn @4:04! What a smackdown on a lib. Are you getting tired of wasting your time with these ridiculous nut jobs like bm yet? Nah, me neither. Owning them is good for the soul – and good for the bowels – where they and their ideology belong.

By Obamastanian

February 28, 2008 5:53 PM | Link to this

Someone please tell the media and the kook left that a recession is two or more consecutive quarters of negative growth. Not “slowed” growth, not “crawling growth” but negative growth.

By Obamastanian

February 28, 2008 5:57 PM | Link to this

Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency. Well well well. Looks like wind power has its problems too. You’ll freeze to death because you can’t build fires in a power failure because it causes global warming, but what the hell. You are saving the planet.

By jm

February 28, 2008 6:09 PM | Link to this

Obamastanian - time for you, Glenn and Realist to put up or shut up. If Iraq is as important you believe it to be then put your money where you mouth is. Ask for the funds needed to rebuild the infrastucture, give the jobs and the contracts to the people of Iraq (not well connected political contributors) as was done with the Marshall Plan (remember the saying “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop”). Oh yeah, and put those budget requests on the table with the regular requests (so they have to go up against domestic needs) rather than in dribs and drabs like they do now. After five years, funding them with contingencies funds is a joke.

Have Condi, or W the incompetent or Cheney get the powers that be in Iraq (including the Saudis, Syrians and Iranians) into a room and don’t let them out until the white smoke comes out of the chimney. Get the Kurds to crack down on the PKK. Get the Saudis to stop funding the Sunnis. Get the Iranians to stop funding the shia. Of course that would require them talking to people they don’t like.

However, I am safe in the knowledge that none of this will happen because it is “too hard”. Blogging, sound bites and slogans will continue because those are easy and require no sacrifice.

By Obamastanian

February 28, 2008 6:19 PM | Link to this

“Obamastanian - time for you, Glenn and Realist to put up or shut up.”

Yeah we know, bm, tell us to sign up, give all our money to them, etc. etc. Yawn.

“However, I am safe in the knowledge that none of this will happen because it is “too hard”. Blogging, sound bites and slogans will continue because those are easy and require no sacrifice.”

And what, pray tell bm, are YOU doing for the “poor” and “lower class” in this nation? What, bm, are YOU doing for the homeless and others in this nation that you so-called caring libs care about and blog and bi-tch about so much? Yeah, that’s what I thought. Helluvalot easier to support those causes with OTHER people’s money and just blog about it TOO, isn’t it? Stupid liberal hypocrite.

By jm

February 28, 2008 6:28 PM | Link to this

What, bm, are YOU doing for the homeless and others in this nation that you so-called caring libs care about and blog and bi-tch about so much? Yeah, that’s what I thought. Helluvalot easier to support those causes with OTHER people’s money and just blog about it TOO, isn’t it? Stupid liberal hypocrite. - donating my time and money - which is more than you, with your “Support the troops” magnet (made in China) on the back of your car. Talk is cheap and you my friend are Scrooge.