3
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 12:16 am
Is the American press finally growing some cojones?

Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/opinion/12sun1.html?hp
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 12:33 am
There ain't nobody who honestly thinks the Republicans will make gains this November. The only real unknown is how many senate and house seats will fall and whether majority power will shift in either or both houses.

Quote:
During a question and answer session, Mr. Bush, asked about his lackluster standing in the polls, told lawmakers that he was not pleased, but that if he took the numbers to heart, he would end up "in the fetal position on the floor," according to one audience member who was granted anonymity because the session was supposed to be private.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/politics/12memo.html
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 02:18 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I have read some of the book but do not own it.


You can read it online.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 06:26 am
Are we having fun yet, Tony?


Quote:
Details emerged last night of a shocking video which appears to show a group of British soldiers brutally beating and kicking defenceless Iraqi teenagers in an army compound.
The footage is said to show eight soldiers pulling four teenagers off the street following a riot and dragging them into their army base, before beating them with batons, as well as punching and kicking them.

An urgent Military Police investigation was under way last night into the events shown in the video. The Ministry of Defence issued the following statement: 'We are aware of these very serious allegations and can confirm that they are the subject of an urgent Royal Military Police investigation. We condemn all acts of abuse and treat any allegation of wrongdoing extremely seriously.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1708161,00.html
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 06:37 am
OK, everyone...a special treat from me to all of you...something from Salon.

Quote:
Right-wing party animals

At this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, Boone, Cheney, Coulter and other luminaries of the far right gathered to glory in their victories over liberal America.
By Michael Scherer

Feb. 11, 2006 | By the time Pat Boone began singing a karaoke version of his own ballad "Under God," several journalists in the back of the ballroom had already poured themselves glasses of pilfered chardonnay. The U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co. donated hundreds of bottles of the stuff to the Conservative Political Action Conference, a petty bribe from a leading purveyor of mouth cancer to the leading lights of the right wing. At the time, the journalistic ethics of sniping a snuff company's right-wing booze did not seem so important.

The Jumbotron screens on both sides of the stage flashed a montage of American flags, sunsets and crashing waves. Boone, who tans his face the color of a penny, rhymed the word "God" with the word "God" as a prerecorded chorus of children's voices played in the background. About an hour earlier, Vice President Dick Cheney had appeared from behind the blue curtains to wow the thousand or so diners with a bulldog version of the president's last State of the Union, bluntly daring Democrats to continue opposing the war in Iraq. The night's emcee followed with a joke about how French people screw in light bulbs. Now the diners were digging into their chocolate raspberry torte and enjoying a musical interlude. Next came Virginia Sen. George Allen, a Southerner who once hung a decorative noose from a tree in his law office. He was going to tell the diners why he should succeed George W. Bush as president of the United States. It was, by any rational measure, a good time for a drink.

The newspaper reporter sitting to my left leaned over to acknowledge the obvious. "They do need a new act," he muttered. But do they? The crowd of intellectuals, donors, students and operatives represented at this annual conference had overseen a string of three consecutive electoral victories. They controlled much of the House and the Senate. They had easy access to the White House, and a growing portion of the Supreme Court. Along the way, they might have betrayed some of their founding principles, by expanding the size of government at a record rate and exploiting the perks of power. Yet despite it all, they had good reason to celebrate. "Through every path we've trod," Boone crooned, "we can now live in freedom under God."

With its eccentric mix of power brokers and true believers, the annual CPAC is an odd duck, even by the standards of Washington's never-ending political conference cycle. In recent years, it has been seen by the outside world as a time of celebration for the nation's right-wing leaders, a chance for sitting politicians to rally with the base. Indeed, the event draws big names. Over three days, a cavalcade of the powerful would pass through the basement ballroom of the Omni Shoreham Hotel -- not just Cheney and Allen, but Republican Party chairman Ken Mehlman (to bait John Kerry, again), Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (to bait Hillary Clinton, again), Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (to condemn gay marriage, again) and Ambassador John Bolton (to bait the U.N., again). These headliners drew the nation's top political reporters, but they represented only a sliver of the action.

Of the 4,000 or so who show up for the conference, about half are overdressed college kids in pearls, blue blazers or striped ties, young Republicans who come to D.C. for the chance to flirt with each other, watch Ann Coulter act outrageous, and attempt to sneak cases of Bud Light into their hotel rooms -- the kind of students that collect internships like Mardi Gras beads. Many others were older members of the obsessive political right: the Navy chaplain who went on a hunger strike, the militant Hillary haters, the self-published authors, the talk radio groupies, and one or two pot-smoking libertarians. In the exhibition hall, Lockheed Martin provided an F-22 Raptor flight simulator (the red button drops the bomb), the Objectivist Center built a shrine out of Ayn Rand book covers, and someone bid up the silent auction for lunch with Grover Norquist to $300.

The panels on states'-rights federalism, the dangers of social responsibility and voter fraud drew only piddling crowds, because CPAC is about preaching to the converted, not learning something new. But when Coulter took the stage, there was barely any standing room. She is, it must be said, less impressive in person than her reputation would suggest -- offensive, outrageous, long and blond, but also bland and obvious. The fact that her shtick has changed so little since 2002 reminds one less of Eugene McCarthy than of Bobcat Goldthwait.

That said, she did not disappoint her fans, coming to the stage under the thumping dance house beats to deliver a string of punch lines. Democrats: "Someday they will find a way to abort all future Boy Scouts." College professors: "sissified, pussified." Harvard: "the Soviet Union." John Kerry: the other "dominant woman in Democratic politics." Her post-9/11 motto: "Rag head talks tough, rag head faces consequences." For good measure, she threw in a joke about having Muslims burn down the Supreme Court -- with the liberal justices inside.

Then came questions. A young woman asked Coulter to describe the most difficult ethical decision she ever made. "There was one time I had a shot at Bill Clinton," Coulter said. A brave young man rose to explain that the Republican Party was trying to recruit Muslim voters. "Please, please, please don't say rag head," he pleaded. Her comeback was swift: "Yeah, I made a few jokes at Muslims. They killed 3,000 Americans." Applause. The next guy to ask a question at the microphone told Coulter his room number at the Marriott.

A few hours earlier, those in the ballroom had been treated to an even more bizarre spectacle when two pro-marijuana groups -- at least one of which is funded by billionaire Peter Lewis, bane of conservatives everywhere -- staged a debate with a former pro-football player over the merits of smoking dope. "You want the government involved so bad," thundered Ethan Nadelmann of the pro-pot Drug Policy Alliance. "What about the market ... What about having confidence in people's basic sense of freedom and good judgment."

"We got enough lazy people in America," objected Gary Copp, a sports radio host, who formerly played for the Dallas Cowboys, Detroit Lions and Philadelphia Eagles. A few minutes later, the anti-weed Copp admitted he had smoked a few joints in his time. That was about as sophisticated as the debate got. At another session, Steve Milloy, the Fox News commentator and ExxonMobil grantee, announced, "We don't know that humans are adversely affecting the climate." He promised to show up at a General Electric shareholder meeting to protest any actions the company takes to reduce greenhouse gases.

A 1:30 p.m. session on "Marriage in the States," which was supposed to include Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, featured instead a self-described former homosexual named Alan Chambers. He said sodomy was like fast food: "It will kill you." He was an expert because he had lived through the torment of gay lust, enduring "a never ending cycle of cravings and nourishment ... an endless treadmill of faceless encounters, broken hearts and unmet dreams." His research on the gay lifestyle had also taught him that gay people do not really want gay marriage (it was the liberal media) and that "lifelong homosexual relationships are not possible." Then he declared, in the struggling voice of a recovering alcoholic, "Today I stand before you as a heterosexual man ... who now lives an unparalleled life of happiness and satisfaction." He said there were hundreds of thousands like him.

A still-gay member of the audience, who said he belonged to the Log Cabin Republicans, rose in protest. "How can you speak for all homosexuals?" he asked. "As a gay person I would like to know how I am anti-family." Chambers let one of the other panelists take the question.

National political protests and conferences on both sides of the political spectrum have a tendency to bring out wingnuts and clowning crusaders. As a rule, such theatrics are of no interest to the networks, the Associated Press or the New York Times, which came to CPAC just to cover the big heavies like Cheney and Mehlman, hoping to discern in the variations of the stump speech some bit of news. When Cheney said that in the 2006 elections "people need to know just how we view the most critical questions of national security," the Washington Post declared it a watershed. It was, wrote a Post reporter, "the closest a top White House official has come" to making the issue of wiretapping a "political matter." Never mind the straight converts or the pot-smoking football players.

I was most interested in hearing Sen. Allen's stump speech, which he has been refining on his recent trips to New Hampshire. As a stump speaker, he has a friendly, neighborly delivery, and in recent years he has been cleaning his closet of his own skeletons, even introducing a bill to apologize for the Senate's once blocking anti-lynching legislation. In an open field for 2008, Allen is spoken about by many conservatives as the next best thing to a resurrected Ronald Reagan. In case anybody didn't know that, Allen mentioned the former president so many times I lost count. "I think we ought to look back at history, at Ronald Reagan, the person who motivated me to get involved in politics ... Ronald Reagan changed the dynamics of the Cold War ... Ronald Reagan persevered ... As always, Ronald Reagan was right." The rest blurred together. Like almost every presidential candidate, he promised to double the number of engineers and be strong in the war on terror.

Like the Senate's Dr. Frist, Allen has a tendency to use biographical metaphors. For Allen, it's all about football, owing to his own brief time on the gridiron and the fact that his father, of the same name, coached the Washington Redskins and the Los Angeles Rams. He kept calling the conventioneers his "team." At about that point, I looked around for the journalists, the members of my "team," whom I had seen stealing sips of chardonnay a few minutes earlier. But they had already left, gone home to their families. Almost three years out, the campaign season was not yet in full swing.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 09:39 am
blatham wrote:
Are we having fun yet, Tony?


Quote:
Details emerged last night of a shocking video which appears to show a group of British soldiers brutally beating and kicking defenceless Iraqi teenagers in an army compound.
The footage is said to show eight soldiers pulling four teenagers off the street following a riot and dragging them into their army base, before beating them with batons, as well as punching and kicking them.

An urgent Military Police investigation was under way last night into the events shown in the video. The Ministry of Defence issued the following statement: 'We are aware of these very serious allegations and can confirm that they are the subject of an urgent Royal Military Police investigation. We condemn all acts of abuse and treat any allegation of wrongdoing extremely seriously.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1708161,00.html


I'm trying to figure out why you thought this post belonged on this thread. Is it because you think it casts the British military negatively, and thus the entire military effort in Iraq negatively, and thus Bush negatively, and thus it belongs in the Bush Supporters thread?

Why not post it over in the Democrats Gloat thread instead? That seems more appropriate, doesn't it? A news story showing negative things about the war belongs in the Democrats Gloat thread, right?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 10:47 am
Ticomaya wrote:
blatham wrote:
Are we having fun yet, Tony?


Quote:
Details emerged last night of a shocking video which appears to show a group of British soldiers brutally beating and kicking defenceless Iraqi teenagers in an army compound.
The footage is said to show eight soldiers pulling four teenagers off the street following a riot and dragging them into their army base, before beating them with batons, as well as punching and kicking them.

An urgent Military Police investigation was under way last night into the events shown in the video. The Ministry of Defence issued the following statement: 'We are aware of these very serious allegations and can confirm that they are the subject of an urgent Royal Military Police investigation. We condemn all acts of abuse and treat any allegation of wrongdoing extremely seriously.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1708161,00.html


I'm trying to figure out why you thought this post belonged on this thread. Is it because you think it casts the British military negatively, and thus the entire military effort in Iraq negatively, and thus Bush negatively, and thus it belongs in the Bush Supporters thread?

Why not post it over in the Democrats Gloat thread instead? That seems more appropriate, doesn't it? A news story showing negative things about the war belongs in the Democrats Gloat thread, right?


I would think so as well. I think it's posted here becuase more people actually read this thread.
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 10:49 am
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/02/12/national/inquiry583.jpg
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 10:50 am
We should encamp in the gloat thread.

It appears to be vacant....hee.
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 10:53 am
...yep - all at the Olympics! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 10:55 am
Not exactly the "vacant" I meant, but...eh.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 11:52 am
Hey now!

We're just doing our part in helping you supporters celebrate the aftermath of the Bush victory ... in all it's stunning ... !! Twisted Evil

Anon
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 11:55 am
McG wrote:
I would think so as well. I think it's posted here becuase more people actually read this thread.


Laughing
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 12:24 pm
Anon-Voter wrote:
Hey now!

We're just doing our part in helping you supporters celebrate the aftermath of the Bush victory ... in all it's stunning ... !! Twisted Evil

Anon


Anon, appears our republican friends are attempting to buy time...again!
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 12:42 pm
No, I think they simply lost interest in your - not particularly informative, entertaining, or enlightening - invective and shouting. Such poor material often has that effect.
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 12:47 pm
Well thank you George. At the very least, we're consistent. Smile
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 12:49 pm
I like Lash's idea.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 01:24 pm
Plain and simple,the left on here cannot stand to see anyone having a good time or enjoying life.

Dont the Bush supporters know that according to the left,the whole world is doom and gloom and that if we are having a good time that means we are obviously doing it at some other persons expense.

So,since the left wants to spread the misery equally,they felt the need to come to this thread.

Happiness is wrong,according to the left,and must be stopped,no matter what the cost.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 02:49 pm
Well the only ones who are offering ideas, values, concepts, hopes, and/or are doing something, right or wrong, these days are the Right aka Republicans who are sometimes even Conservative.

The Left (aka the Democrat Party these days) doesn't have anything to say or anything to offer except criticism of the people who, do have ideas, values, concepts, hopes, and/or are doing something. And even they are bored with that really fast. I mean there are a finite number of ways to say insulting things before one begins to seriously repeat himself/herself.

So, even if the trolls and spammers didn't stop by here, the Conservatives would still be posting interesting stuff and talking about it with each other and enjoying testing our point of view against the few thinking liberals and others who stop in to offer different but thoughtful and reasoned points of view.

If some Conservatives didn't go over to the Gloat Thread to provide them target practice now and then, then yeah, it would be pretty vacant. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 09:28 am
Noting JW's post of a few days ago re the unprecedented great economy in the USA these days--it has been long enough now that GWB gets at least some of the credit for that--I also noted the following in this week's Newsweek Magazine. Apparently the higher taxes and more socialist policies of the EU are not producing comparable economies.

If the writer is reporting it anywhere near accurately, I sincerely hope the EU can turn that around as a poor European economy is not good for the USA.

Excerpt
Quote:
. . . .It's often noted that the European Union has a combined gross domestic product that is approximately the same as that of the United States. But the EU has 170 million more people. Its per capita GDP is 25 percent lower than that of the U.S. and, most important, that gap has been widening for 15 years. If present trends continue, the chief economist at the OECD argues, in 20 years the average U.S. citizen will be twice as rich as the average Frenchman or German. (Britain is an exception on most of these measures, lying somewhere between Continental Europe and the U.S.)

People have argued that Europeans simply value leisure more and, as a result, are poorer but have a better quality of life. That's fine if you're taking a 10 percent pay cut and choosing to have longer lunches and vacations. But if you're only half as well off as the U.S., that will translate into poorer health care and education, diminished access to all kinds of goods and services, and a lower quality of life. Two Swedish researchers, Frederik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag, note in a monograph published last year that "40 percent of Swedish households would rank as low-income households in the U.S." In many European countries, the percentage would be even greater.

In March 2000, the EU's heads of state agreed to make the EU "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-driven economy by 2010." Today this looks like a joke. The OECD report goes through the status of reforms country by country, and all the major continental economies get a B-minus. . . .

SOURCE
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/10/2025 at 02:52:20