Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Even if one chooses to believe that the GOP version of Jimmy Carter is less than the Democratic version of Jimmy Carter (i.e. Jimmah his-self) it's still pretty bad.

Anyway, here is another perspective from that noted moonbat Newt Gingrich:

Transcript:
GINGRICH: Well, President Bush is not the future. He’s not a solution. He doesn’t solve Social Security. He doesn’t solve Medicare. He doesn’t solve the economy. He doesn’t solve the environment. He doesn’t solve education. He’s a current fact.

It would be like saying that if the Democrats decided to run on the grounds that they can be as effective as Senator Reid is in the Senate. Well, then you’d never elect somebody. The Senate is an impossible place to be effective, and it’s designed not to be effective.

The Democrats have got — have an easier job, because all they have to do is say, not this. That’s exactly what the 2006 campaign was: Not this.

The Republicans have a harder job. The Republicans have to say, this is not what we want to debate. It’s not in Baghdad, it’s not in Katrina, it’s not at Walter Reed, it’s not with the U.S. attorneys, but I have a better plan for a better solution that fits your values more than a Senator Clinton or a Senator Edwards or a Senator Obama.

SCHIEFFER: Or what you seem to be saying, or President Bush.

GINGRICH: Well, I think that’s clear.

Watch the whole thing. If Newt Gingrich runs hard against the record of George W. Bush as in:

"I am both conservative and competent"

He might well have a shot at getting elected in November 2008 if he is the GOP nominee.

Posted by Bill White at May 7, 2007 09:42 AM

I left out a word (my bad):

Even if one chooses to believe that the GOP version of Jimmy Carter is less [bad] than the Democratic version of Jimmy Carter . . .

Posted by Bill White at May 7, 2007 09:50 AM

Since I've never been a great admirer of George Bush, (as usual) I've no idea what your point is, Bill, in the context of this post. I certainly can't wait for the end of his presidency, as long as he's not replaced by any current Democrat.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 7, 2007 09:56 AM

I'll have to go read Ann...but JEC's poll ratings were low because he was perceieved as dealing with the crisis of his administration (Gas, oil, HOstages etc) as competently as this administration ahs dealt with its crisis.

The GOP right is desperatly looking for some explanation of why "the worst and the dumbest" have failed the holy ideology...why for instance Aschroft now looks like a genius compared to Gonzales...

The reality is that the magnitude of the challenges doesnt really matter to Americans when the challenges are percieved to have been meet so incompetently.

Most of the GOP wantabees ran away from "how" this administration has conducted its overseas adventures. Not a one of them would stand up and say "they have done a really good job".

The irony of it is is that this is not the election of 1980 where one has a very unpopular incumbent running against a reasonable chalenger...it is 52. Replace Trumman with Bush, Stephenson with whomever the GOP nominates and Ike with well who ever the Dems nominate...

That is how the American people fill. The GOP could (hopefully) will win the election but only if they turd their nutty base.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 7, 2007 11:05 AM

Posted by Bill White at May 7, 2007 09:42 AM

Newt was pretty good.

The GOP has a near impossible task. Their base is still fruity...but the American people have for better or worse rejected (based largely on incompetent execution) "conservatism".

To run as a conservative in 08 one is going to have to do what Ted Kennedy would have had to do in 80...ie run as a liberal but somehow divorce himself from a failed presidency whose ideology had also been seen to fail.

Whoever is going to be teh GOP nominee in 08 is going to have to distance themselves as quickly as possible from both the nutty right and this administration...

The odd thing is that the American people made up their mind about Carter with the failure at Desert 1...they made up their mind about Bush with Katrina...

The question is can that "mind" be kept from any future GOP nominee.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 7, 2007 11:09 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18491981/site/newsweek/

this is a truly amazing poll...it certianly points out how "difficult" things will be in 08 for the GOP...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 7, 2007 12:13 PM

"The GOP could (hopefully) will win the election but only if they turd their nutty base."

Worked really well for them last November, didn't it?

Posted by Gunga at May 7, 2007 02:01 PM

Worked really well for them last November, didn't it?

Posted by Gunga at May 7, 2007 02:01 PM

it didnt work last november because the GOP hung onto its nutty base.

The bases of the Dem and GOP are about the dumbest people in the world. The logic on both the far left and right goes something like this...to turn out the base you have to have a candidate who panders to the base, then that will cause the base to turn out in record numbers and win.

Problem is that works only in one example...when both sides run to their bases. When one party (the Dems in 06) wise up and run people who are "their side" of center...but within striking distance of the center...then they beat the base candidates everytime...particularly when the base is seen as completly out of touch.

Mr. Allen in VA and Mr. Santorum in PA are excellent examples. They were both "idols" of the GOP base and yet they lost to people who were "left of center".

The excuse is of course "we were not motivated" which I have always found illustrative of the stupid bases. Supposdly the "bulwark" of the party and yet they have to be "motivated"...what a hoot.

The problem with the GOP base right now is that it has backed "uberallis" a horse (the Bush administration) that has come up lame...and not only are they in shell shock that someone like Bush could make such a turd of things... But they are desperatly trying to explain how they switch horses to another "Bush clone".

The "Great white hope" of the GOP right now is Fred Thompson. The good thing is that he is an amazing communicator. But the bad side is that one would have to have teh skills of a carny barker to try and convince the American people that only Bush has failed. Not his self professed ideology.

The GOP far right is on the verge of imploding the REpublican party. I so laugh when I look back at all the right twits who in 2000 were telling us what a great guy Bush was. And if it were not for the fact that in his collapse he has threatened to take down The Republic I would find it funny, put on Wagner and embrace the fire.

It would be fun to watch people like the zenophobs here find their ideology so repudiated by the American people. Unfortunatly the Dems this year are just completly scary.

Ronaldus the Great is weeping.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 7, 2007 02:21 PM

The problem with the poll that shows Bush's poll ratings at Carter levels is that it greatly oversamples Democrats. It's this sort of thing that makes me suspect that the Dems are headed for as rude an awakening as their fellow socialists just got in La Belle France.

Posted by MarkWhittington at May 7, 2007 03:54 PM

LOL

"Dems are headed for as rude an awakening "

Ah and how are things at the Karl "I have the real numbers and we going to win the 06 elections" ROve school of hope?

Those numbers are right by the WMD...

The end of Reason...the story of the right wing of the GOP

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 7, 2007 03:59 PM

And the fact that Ann Coulter thinks it's worse for a President to have low approval rating because he had a silly run-in with a rabbit, than it is for him to have low approval rating because he mismanaged a war says a LOT about her.

Admittedly, nothing we didn't already know....

(and yes, I know I'm over simplifying whatever she said, it's based solely off Rands' quote, since I'm not giving A.C. any link love I could give to someone with a clue)

Posted by W. Ian Blanton at May 7, 2007 04:15 PM

...the fact that Ann Coulter thinks it's worse for a President to have low approval rating because he had a silly run-in with a rabbit, than it is for him to have low approval rating because he mismanaged a war says a LOT about her.

Ian, it was an amusing metaphor for the respective presidencies. Nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 7, 2007 04:49 PM

Carter was facing a iran crisis, a energy crisis, he had
John walker selling the NSA Codes to the Russians, he had
inflation and he had to rebuild the military while dealing with
japan.

Bush mismanaged a war of his own creation, he has now tripped
off massive energy price inflation, he's got to deal with china,
and who knows how many spies he's got going.
And 18 months more.

It's going to be a great ride for the conservatives.

Posted by anonymous at May 7, 2007 06:41 PM

> The GOP far right is on the verge of imploding the REpublican party.

LOL. Robert, leaving aside the WoT, Bush is about as "far right" as John Kerry or your boy Dean.

Bush has grown the liberal welfare state faster than any President since JFK. Apart from surrender in Iraq, what goodies could Dean possibly give you that Bush hasn't?

If you want to call Bush a "right-winger" simply because he's not a peacemonger, remember that Kennedy fought a war in Vietnam. Clinton sent American troops to fight glorious wars all over the world, with little criticism from the left. Even Carter had his disastrous Iranian rescue mission -- a warlike raid conducted without the permission of the UN.

In many ways, from growing the welfare state to military blunders, GWB is the reincarnation of JFK. Even their space policies are remarkably similar, although GWB's Apollo is "on steroids."

Posted by Edward Wright at May 7, 2007 06:43 PM

Bush may or may not fit "your" or "mine" definition of a conservative. I would argue that he is ideologically incompetent. That his ideology has no real label or definition. And that is almost from the very start.

Bush V Gore, what got him into power was the essence of "liberal" moving of power from the states to the Federal Court system... Of course Bush personally probably has no clue what the case did or the precedent...other then make him President... so there we are.

The problem Ed is that the election is not determined by people to whom ideological nuance is important. It will be determined by the percentage of people to whom labels are easily attached "to other people" or "causes"...

And I can assure you that any Dem nominee will hang 1) the Conservative mantle around Bush the current, 2) will link Bush the Current with the GOP nominee as much as they are able and 3)label the last eight years (by the 08 election) as "the conservative era"...

That will be about the easiest sell since ice cream.. Thanks to the likes of "preemptive war", "Terry shiavo", anti abortion nuts like the Rev. Dobson... and all of the right wing uber nuts who flocked to this administration in its heh day and are having a hard time reentering.

Whoever gets the GOP nod in 08 is going to have to try and make a Chinese wall between their ticket and "We know the WMD is Bush/Cheney". I hope that McCain, or Rudy or whomever is able to..

But from a purely "technical" standpoint, having watched the GOP uber right machine tar everyone that remotly had a brain and oppossed the Iraq war as "unpatriotic" it is going to be fun to watch the easy time that the nuts on the left are going to have.

As I have said before, if the stakes were not so high for The REpbulic and the Dems so nutty today... I really wouldnt mind the GOP getting a just massive pounding in 08. I would like to see the idiot right wing just take one up the rear for the pain that they have caused the nation by supporting this lightweight in 00.

But as I said...the stakes are to high and the left wing, (hard to imagine) even more nuttier then the right. They smell blood.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 7, 2007 07:37 PM

"Ian, it was an amusing metaphor for the respective presidencies. Nothing more, nothing less."

Unfortunately Rand, it had the "Coulter twist"; it wasn't funny. She's clearly just trying to spin, and it just comes back at her. It's about as funny as "Uncle Bob stopped drinking after plowing into a school-bus, but Uncle Doug stopped drinking after plowing into a punch bowl".

I dunno, how about: "Bush got his polls down by beating on some bongos, Carter got his down by beating on a rabbit"?

I mean, I just can't hook what she said into a joke, other than as "gallows humor", and unfortunately, it's our necks in the bloody noose.

Posted by W. Ian Blanton at May 7, 2007 08:07 PM

Robert, you managed to cover a lot of my issues pretty well. The '08 election is looking more and more like "Lesser of [insert number] evils-apalooza".

The right/GOP seem to have no real answer for the "O.K. the GOP run administration managed to completely botch this, what now?"

The left/Dems seem to have no ability to say "O.K. this is screwed up, but we need to salvage the situation, so what now?"

It's all diametrically opposing talking points and no actual plans/ideas. I had some decently high hopes for McCain, but he's been really screwing up lately, and I Just. Don't. Know.

Posted by W. Ian Blanton at May 7, 2007 08:19 PM

Desperate times indeed.

The far left of the Dem party has been emboldened by just a complete utter failure of this administration to do ANYTHING correct. By, well George Will's words "The cacophony of failure" Except for the lives lost in Desert 1 it makes the failures of Carter seem almost trivial. (they were not but the 'drums' seem louder today).

The result of this is that "moderates" or merely left of center people in the Dem party are having to essentially bow to the uber left who are feeling "our time has come" and doing amazingly to the Dems what the uber right did to the GOP under Clinton. As the current Congress illustrates there are some problems in execution of all of this. And I think that the surge will work.

But the reality is that there are likely more disasters between now and then and that is only going to embolden the "nuts" in the Dem party.

Meanwhile the GOP is stuck with what you mention and I label "Looking for a real conservative who can also articulate why Bush isnt OH PLEASE". The Draft Fred Thompson movement is the biggest "hope for the second comming" movement that I have seen since the folks committed suicide for the comet. Thompson is (if you buy some of the uber right on the draft Fred groups) somehow going to 1) articulate a conservative vision 2) explain how the last 8 years have been a Bobby Ewing shower scene from DALLAS and 3) rally the American people to follow him.

Fred is good on Law & Order but his speech in Orange county was flat, it wouldnt rally flies to turds much less the three miracles above. And I am not even sure Reagan could pull of those three things.

Meanwhile the far right of the GOP as it looks for its "Messiah" sinks farther and farther into fantasy land (witness Mark Whittingtons brush with the recent polls) and are moving the normal people in the GOP field to a probably untenable right.

In the meantime the pot just keeps boiling. The Dems are retreating into as much a fantasy world as Bush was in right after 9/11. YOu nailed it-the positions are talking points with no real effort at rallying the American people to real soltuions.

I got hosed at McNasty for pandering to the uberright crowd. But I am slowly drifting back. Hunter impresses me.

YOu nailed it "I just dont know". So much has been squandered so little accmoplished. And yet the people who have floundered seem intent on continuing to offer input.

As I told one uber right on one of the draft Fred blogs who was talking about James Dobson "Havent we heard enough from him and his 'Bush is a good man' gig"?

the only people who are fooled by efforts like this (ANn Coulters) are the people who want to be fooled.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 7, 2007 09:28 PM

You could argue that the GOP loss in 06
was the loss of the Libertarians that usually
hold their noses and vote GOP.

From a smaller government perspective gridlock is a good thing.

If the far right GOP social conservative GOP nut jobs implode then maybe the GOP gets resurrected
with a more libertarian view...

At least we can hope.
From a spending and government shrinking standpoint it can't get much worse than the current administration.

Paul

Posted by Paul Breed at May 8, 2007 09:13 AM

I tend to think the voting public has an amazingly short term memory. The GOP lost in '06 partly because things looked bad "right then." Congressmen soliciting pages, bloated budgets, war going badly in Iraq. What's going on right now will have very little bearing on the '08 elections, except where it leads to the "right now" moment in '08. Iraq will almost certainly still be an issue then. If it happens to be going well right then, bully for the GOP, if not, throw the bums out. Past experience in Iraq says it probably won't be going well (or at the very least the MSM will do its best to portray it as not going well no matter how it's going), so '08 is looking good for the democrats.

Posted by Jeff Mauldin at May 8, 2007 09:24 AM

Robert spews: The far left of the Dem party has been emboldened by just a complete utter failure of this administration to do ANYTHING correct...

Tax cuts were correct. Child tax credit was correct. Stop barfing up crap and be specific. Yeah, I know, you probably don't think the aformentioned ideas were correct, but that's YOUR perception.

Posted by Mac at May 8, 2007 10:23 AM

Tax cuts were correct. Child tax credit was correct.
Posted by Mac at May 8, 2007 10:23 AM

I am not an economist nor do I play one on TV. I do have some residual fame (grin) of having some classes from a rather well known economist and Got AN A all three times...but...

TAx cuts by themselves I am ecumnical on. I find a society that rewards bad behavior in corporations and people by using tax dollars to keep them functioning "weak". So just as I would let Delta airlines go under with little or no help from the federal government, I dont have much use for people who went to the Superdome with nothing but the clothes on their backs.

What I do find offensive about this administrations policies is that while there have been tax cuts there has been little or no fiscal discipline to go with it, hence the unholly budget deficits that happened completly on the GOP's watch.

WE seemed to have needed tax cuts when the budgets were in surplus, now they they are in deficit we seem to need them as well...Tax cuts seem the answer to everything but Lady Justice having a pretty good rack and John Ashcroft handled that by covering her over with sheets.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 8, 2007 12:39 PM

worse than the current administration.

Paul

Posted by Paul Breed at May 8, 2007 0

There we go. I would argue that the GOP lost in 06 because they finally ran out of people and things to blame everything on, and the people said "you are it".

06 was really the 02 election had 9/11 not happened. Before 9/11 this adminstrations amazing lack of ability was starting to come out. 9/11 gave them the Patriots pass.

At 06 it just became impossible to fool most of the people anymore.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 8, 2007 12:41 PM

I was merely pointing out that you stated NOTHING was done right. Those two issues were. I would love an econmics class from Walter E Williams.

Posted by Mac at May 8, 2007 02:26 PM

> TAx cuts by themselves I am ecumnical on. I find a society that rewards
> bad behavior in corporations and people by using tax dollars to keep
> them functioning "weak".

Robert, you don't get it. Wealth Tax cuts are not "rewards" that government "gives" people to keep them "functioning." This is a point Ronald Reagan (who you claim to venerate but apparently never listened to) made time and time again. Government does not produce wealth, it consumes wealth. Taxes are money the government *takes* from those who have earned it and gives to those who didn't earn it. A tax cut is not a reward from the government, it's simply the government taking a bit less of what people have already earned.

> What I do find offensive about this administrations policies is
> that while there have been tax cuts there has been little or no fiscal
> discipline to go with it, hence the unholly budget deficits that happened
> completly on the GOP's watch.

In other words, you're offended because Bush spent money on all the things liberal Democrats want???

You say Bush did almost nothing right. I can't disagree with that, but if you look at the things he did do -- free prescription drug benefits, a host of other benies, massive pouring of money into a failed public school system, even Apollo on Steroids -- they were all taken from your party's playbook. Your moral outrage resembles the French policeman from Casablanca who was "shocked" to finded gambling going on but made sure to collect his winnings.

Posted by Edward Wright at May 8, 2007 07:00 PM

First off Ed...you can do all the label making you like, but I am neither a Democrat or a Republican.

I would be (and was) very happy in the party that Barry Goldwater and Ronaldus the Great built. But I am not so happy in the party that did a stupid impeachment of Clinton, that panders to the likes of Mark Whittington, FAllwell, Dobson and all the neo right uber jobs out there. Even more then I am happy in a party that embraces George Soros.

The last two election cycles have seen exceedingly bad choices. Bush beat McCain (in part because of McCain misteps) but in large measure because the uber nuts have taken over the party. Kerry was as weak as a kitten against a President who is a complete lightweight.

I am not happy at all with the Dems social policies (although I do like the concept of universal health care, primarily for business reasons) but it is the GOP that has spent like a wild man and that is not only Bush but the GOP Congress.

As for Apollo on steroids your argument is with Mark Whittington etal not me. I find the entire program silly.

As I do the war in Iraq, the nuttier one in Afland, OBL roaming free and people making policy who are dumber then dirt.

The Dems are not much better. As the GOP gravited to its nutty base in 00 the Dems have followed EXACTLY the Bush playbook and run toward the nuts.

I am hoping for better this year from the GOP.

AS for taxes.

Taxes are what you say, but they are also the price we pay for a coherent society.

One can cut taxes all you want, but it is a morally bankrupt effort if one simultaneously does not have the courage to reduce spending...or keep it under control

Cutting taxes and not cutting spending is like trying to get in shape by not eating to lose weight, and not working out. all you end up with is disaster.

I dont have a problem with every tax cut anyone in the GOP wants to do...if they have the balls to keep spending in line. They dont so they are morroons...and morally bankrupt.

The count on people who say what you do to support them everytime, even when they dont cut spending. People like you endlessly make excuses for them instead of holding them accountable.

Sorry, I like realism in politics.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 8, 2007 08:42 PM

Robert, you must live in some parallel universe. In our world, Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell were members of the same party.

In your universe, Reagan may have been a leftie who hated Christians and the "neo right uber jobs," but your universe and ours seem to have little in common. So, it might help the conversation if you'd confine your comments to our universe and not Oler-land. :-)

You say you're not a Democrat, but you boast about working for Democratic candidates and voting for them in the primaries. In our universe, that would make you a Democrat. Unless you were voting illegally.

In your world, lefties may be willing to cut, or at least control, the explosive growth of government spending. In this universe, the only people who propose that are "neo right uber jobs" like Reagan and Gingrich.

Posted by Edward Wright at May 8, 2007 09:33 PM

Ed.

I've worked for Republican candidates and helped them in the primary. I spent a lot of time in NH and SC with McNasty in 00...and the MOST money I have given to a Candidate has been a Republican.

I am on the verge of maxing out with McNasty THIS TIME and did last time. IN addition I More or less comped the campaign for my expenses in NH which they were willing to pick up, but a ton of that went on my credit card.

I dont know what is going on in your universe Ed, but the GOP of today is no more the Party of Ronaldus the Great then the Democratic party is the party of Jack Kennedy.

The nutty righties have driven it into a small lightweight man who has driven the nation into the greatest hole it has been in perhaps in 100 years.

I knew Ronald Reagan Ed, you dont know Ronald Reagan. NOr does the party of today.

Jerry the moralistic nut might have been in the same party as The Gipper, but in that era it was not Jerry the Nut's party, it was Ronaldus the Great.

Now the GOP has little leaders to match the little man who they put in as President.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 8, 2007 09:43 PM

> I've worked for Republican candidates and helped them in the primary

Robert,

1) There's a difference between working in a primary and voting in a primary. If you don't understand why, ask a lawyer.

2) Okay, you claim to have worked for Republicans. In the past, you have claimed to be an Apollo astronaut, a Navy SEAL, a carrier battle air wing commander, an Annapolis professor, and many other things. You claimed you could fly a Boeing 757 at 53,000 feet. You claim lots of things I don't believe. :-)

3) McCain has long been the Democrats' favorite Republican, so even if you have donated to him, that says nothing about your party allegiance.

> I dont know what is going on in your universe Ed, but the GOP of today is no more the Party of Ronaldus
> the Great then the Democratic party is the party of Jack Kennedy.

True, but not for the reason you think. In Oler-land, George Bush may be the true conservative and Ronald Reagan the closet liberal. In the real world, it's quite the opposite.

As for today's Democrats, I don't see them as a big improvement over Jack Kennedy. The current Iraq policy is taking the "Bay of Pigs" page right out of his playbook.

Posted by Edward Wright at May 9, 2007 02:28 AM

LOL Ed.

couldnt vote in the NH primary because I am not a "citizen" of NH. It would have been a "bad thing" to have tried to do that, since the times I was there I wasnt there long enough to establish state residency...and it might have been a violation of the voting rights act to have done so.

BTW...the campaign contributions are a matter of public record (as was my House when Mr. Wingo thought I lived somewhere else...that was a hoot)...

Voting in a primary is easily. Taking time and working "for free" to win a primary is the hard part. If you really believe in a candidate sometime then you ought to try it. Maybe you dont have the social skills for it! who knows.

You will have a shock when you go there. There is not a dime on th epublic reocrd contributed to Dems, there is a LOT a fracken lot of money contributed to McNasty. i'd guess more then most here have contributed to any candidate.

I am not "knee jerK" party person. I dont vote for someone because they are a Republican nor vote against someone because they are a Democrat. Nor do I vote for someone single issue...and I never ever vote for someone on ideology.

The amazing this is that people like you and Whittington and all the other people who have supported Bush and then are stuck trying to make up excuses for the worst performance of a President at least in my lifetime and perhaps in the history of The Republic (OK BUchanan might still be worst, the Union came apart under him)...is that really those people are not very bright.

They bought a line in the primaries of 00. Bush really was the empty suit. He said things that his advisors had thought appealed, and he hooked people like you. Same for the WMd. Go read oh Cecil...he got hooked line and sinker and now is stuck trying desperatly to explain how everyone else was making stupid statements as well (of course not every one else was).

A hint for the future Ed, cause you seem like a nice chap. Stop personal attacks, particularly ones that re wrong! and spend time on politics.

That way you wont vote for the worst President ever. LOL

that must be really hard to stomach.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 9, 2007 07:53 AM

that must be really hard to stomach.

This coming from he who says to stop personal attacks.

Posted by Mac at May 9, 2007 12:17 PM

> There is not a dime on th epublic reocrd contributed to Dems, there is a
> LOT a fracken lot of money contributed to McNasty

That's not surprising. Last time around, McCain was running as a Republican In Name Only, pandering to liberal Democrats. This time, he's changed course and is running as a conservative again. An "uber right wing mega fracken nut job," in Olerspeak. Although, amusingly, you seem to have missed that.

As you said, you "never ever vote for someone on ideology." It seems to be all about the personality. If you like a candidate, you call him a "moderate." If you don't like him, you call him an "uber right wing extremist." Even if they take exactly the same position on issues.

That's just dishonest, Robert. If you love big government and hate conservatives, fine, but you should argue against conservativism honestly. Even call names, if that's the only way you know how to argue, but at least attach the names to the right people. Don't try to trick voters by applying conservatives label to people who even you know are not conservatives. If you can't beat win elections without such distortions -- well, so much for having the American people on your side.

> OK BUchanan might still be worst

I have no idea who "OK BUchanan" might be. It would help if you would at least try to spell words correctly.

There was a President James Buchanon. I also recall that you were a Pat Buchanan supporter at one time, but Pat Buchanan no longer calls himself a Republican and believes in big government as much as John Kerry, Robert Oler, or -- well, George W. Bush. :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at May 9, 2007 12:59 PM

Post a comment