He must have got my letter. yeah.... i'm sure that's it.

It's too late now. At this point the only nominee I will settle for is Ann Coulter. In stilettos. With a whip.

I don't know about that, Doctor. I prefer a woman who is NOT thinner than the heels on her shoes.

It's a shame that he's also got 70 Million liberals who are ready to rip your illogical, biblically (old testament) challenged rhetoric sound like the hollow crapolla that it is.

The primary challenge you all face is that your view of the Consitution isn't really supported by anything like a meaningful representatation of legal scholars or opinions. Scalia disagrees with Thomas because Bush tries to exceed executive authority. Abortion opposition is based on a supposition that life begins at conception. While you (or I) may agree, that view is based strictly in biblical text (and at that, rather poorly), meaning, enacting such law "establishes" that religion.

Things like Miranda, privacy, civil rights, are such established concepts that reversing them would both undercut many advancements we've achieved, but also create massive upheaval and extreme discontentment among the mainstream, whatever you may feel. Do you really believe overturning privacy, and contraception with it, would be accepted by the people of the United States? Do you think that having poll taxes is something the majority of people in this country would put up with?

Bush probably will nominate someone like Priscilla Owen, and he's going to get a filabuster if he does, and he does not have the political capital, no matter what you think, to go "nuclear" on this. Coleman can't back such an action - he'll be defeated if he tries regardless.

You may have been preparing for this fight for a long time, so has the other side. You all have all the power (outside of filabuster), using that power responsibly to meet not just the whims of one group (conservatives) but the entire nation, is what SHOULD be done, but I've learned long ago that Bush will not do what is right, he will do what is politically expedient.

If that expedience means screwing all of you, then bend over, if it means screwing the country, well then, we'll get some extremist.

PB

"It's a shame that he's also got 70 Million liberals who are ready to rip your illogical, biblically (old testament) challenged rhetoric sound like the hollow crapolla that it is."

And yet Bush won re-election?

That's un-possible.

I've learned long ago that Bush will not do what is right, he will do what is politically expedient.

If that expedience means screwing all of you, then bend over, if it means screwing the country, well then, we'll get some extremist.

PB

Posted by pb at October 27, 2005 10:10 AM

If this were true, Miers would be sitting on the SCOTUS by now. It's amusing to see such a perverse interpretation of the exersize of democracy in action. Government of, by and for the people. George Bush REPRESENTS the people, he does not rule them. For three more years. Heh Heh.

PB,

Please stop commenting. You're making all of us look like knee-jerk regurgitators of conspiracy theories and cant.

We, collectively, beg you. We'll pay you.

50 Million vs 70 Million (the latter mostly unarmed and unschooled in weaponry)...sounds fun...lets have war!!...in the Senate and let it spill into the streets...I thinks conservatives will whip them everytime.

Enough dicking around with Miers.....lets have at it.

/sarasm off....

Mike, Babs, Howie: Ummmm...

PB: Now you're just making stuff up. MANY more Americans identify themselves as conservatives than as liberals (and there's an emerging Republican vs. Democrat majority).

The last election - where millions of unpaid conservative volunteers squared off against tens of thousands of paid pressure group staffers - showed what the right can do when motivated.

In the numbers and commitment battle, you got no game.

Not sure where I heard/read this, but the person who said it makes a good point.

The conservative/Republican majority will just keep growing and growing because liberals/Democrats abort their babies in far greater numbers.

It will take a few generations, but it will happen.

And no I'm not apoligizing if this offends someone's sensibilities. Grow a thicker skin. I've got rhino-hyde levels of resistance to getting offended. You should too.

FJ, while that may be true, the divide is already growing. More Americans - like, I think 30% more - identify themselves as Conservatives than as liberals. And the red counties are on average growing at 2-3 times the rate of the blue counties.

After the last election someone made the observation that looking at the election map the blue states were parenthesis and the red states were America.

Kermit: BWAHAAHAAHAHAH!!! That's funny!

Mitch: Not like you'd know, or are likely to remember (or care, for that matter), but call me Bill. FJ is my motorcycle (again, not that you'd know that). I just know there's a couple other Bill's who comment here. Oh well.

Or don't, or whatever. It's just weird seeing something addressed to me as FJ. You're the first to do that. :)

PB says:
"Abortion opposition is based on a supposition that life begins at conception. While you (or I) may agree, that view is based strictly in biblical text (and at that, rather poorly), meaning, enacting such law "establishes" that religion."

I must disagree. Abortion opposition (and the idea of when life begins) DOES NOT have to be based on any biblical text or religous belief and the enactment of any such law no more establishes a religion than do laws prohibiting theft or murder - both of which would seem to be based on biblical text (commonly referred to as the Ten Commandments).

Well, we just better watch out. Because if PB's not persuasive this time, he will really get mad, he will call people names, he will jump up and down, he will stomp both his feet, he will hold his breath til he turns blue, and throw down his oatmeal bowl to the floor. So everybody just better watch out! He means it this time, Haldol or no Haldol, and.. and.. and.. there's gonna be massive upheaval and extreme discontent if PB, Al Franken, Ward Churchill, and Cindy Sheehan don't get what they want, so just watch out!!

Can't say we haven't been warned --but keep up the pace, PB. Oblivion's just over the next cliff. Send us a postcard.

War might not be the best metaphor for your guy. Unless you mean he'll find the next Supreme Court justice on a barstool in Alabama.

"War might not be the best metaphor for your guy."

Right. He might wangle himself a four-month deployment as the military equivalent of a blogger...

...oh, wait.

The Prez needs to pick this guy.... but he won't.

Judge Michael McConnell

http://www.law.utah.edu/faculty/bios/mcconnellm.html

“After the last election someone made the observation that looking at the election map the blue states were parenthesis and the red states were America.”

Yep, that was Tom Wolfe.

...But the GAO report now confirms that electronic voting machines as deployed in 2004 were in fact perfectly engineered to allow a very small number of partisans with minimal computer skills and equipment to shift enough votes to put George W. Bush back in the White House.

Given the growing body of evidence, it appears increasingly clear that's exactly what happened...

George bush was re-elected? Apparently not.

Teena, I recommend the Reynolds brand of aluminum foil. The generic type doesn't have a thick enough gauge to properly deflect the mind-control beams.

I used to read the comments every so often...but with Teena posting lately I cannot help but make sure I scroll through them all just to read something so terribly stupid it makes me laugh.

Teena, you really, really, without any doubt in the world, are amongst the most delusional human beings walking the planet right now. Frankly, it's more than just a little creepy, and I weep for those around you who must experience your psychosis firsthand.

I suppose we could ask Teena to provide a link, but that would be asking too much.

Our SCOTUS prediction: Edith Jones

Mitch...

Actually, the most recent polls show that neither Dems nor Reps have a majority, as well, it showed more identified themselves as Dems.

But you're right Mitch, I made up 70 Million, no differently than you made up 50, i.e. based on an extrapolation, and more than that, the fact that FAR more people IDENTIFY with liberal positions than do with conservative, when party is taken out of it. Since the court is about ideology rather than party, that IS the issue.

GARRHH! can't find the poll...

What I recall..
23% liberal
29% Conservative
48% not identified by ideology

32% Democrat
34% Republican

56% Support Roe v. Wade as is
73% Support Social Security
80% Support Abortion to save life of mother, or in case of rape or incest

Regarding the rest of the comments.., I'm glad I could get you all to respond so vociferously, it does warm my heart. For the person who was somehow offended by bend over..I both don't believe it, and given your side's attitude about being "tough", whatever.

As for the toughness of conservatives vs. libs.. again, whatever, we fought that war, (Called the Civil War), you guys lost.. States Rights, economic aristocracy vs. common interest, preserving the union... pretty much the same issues.

I personally think Michael Moore would laugh his butt off at some of the things I say, because he'd get it, that it's said mostly just to tweek you all, and to challenge the BS you all throw out in your echo chambers.. but if he wants to pay me to stop bugging you.. well, it would have to be at least a nickel, because there is such engaging debate here it would be hard to give up.

It is interesting that the scuttlebutt on why Bush pulled Miers is because of Conservative pressure... Hmmm this President, Mr. Stay the Course, Mr. I don't do polls, Mr. I stand for my principals, pulled his friend (unqualified though she may have been), because of partisan pressure. I guess we know who really wears the pants in that relationship.

I'm glad of it, as we get yet another example to push before the US public, that would be the increasingly disillusioned public, the public that finds this President, and the extremists behind him to be out of touch, and out of step.

Trackbacks aren't working...

http://www.californiaconservative.org/?p=1291

"I personally think Michael Moore would laugh his butt off. . ."

The sheer amount of laughter to achieve such a feat is staggering to imagine. Three years of continuous laughter would probably be good enough to only slightly tone up the left cheek alone.

*shudder*

Hey, PB.

If there are 70 million liberals, then WHY ARE YOU COMPLETELY OUT OF POWER?

Please, get real. Conservatism rules this country, and that is why Democrats have to lie about who they are to win elections.

Please, don't come here and insult our intelligence. Your first sentence destroyed anything of value that you might have said.

Deal with reality, then talk politics.

As for the toughness of conservatives vs. libs.. again, whatever, we fought that war, (Called the Civil War), you guys lost..
Posted by pb at October 27, 2005 02:16 PM

Um, pb - Lincoln was a Republican. Need to brush up on the basic American history there, buddy. You know like how the Democrats tried to block the Civil Rights Act, the Dixiecrats, George Wallace, etc. etc.

Meek and subdued but still incoherent, PB, though the Civil War riff and the recalled poll data was a nice touch.

What the Left will never understand is America is basically conservative no matter what the media, the polls, and the Supreme Court says.

Maybe Dubya ain't so dumb. Maybe Miers was a stalking horse, a lightning rod to get a sense (and some numbers) about how his real conservative nominee might fare, and to mobilize and prime the forces necessary for confirmation.

A good commander surveys his terrain before he commits to battle, to extend the metaphor. And assuming this were true, who would have been more game (and cost-effective) than Miers? And what better way to begin again than with an energized, united front?

Filibuster meets Bushmaster. Place your bets.

The sad fact is that Teena has the right vote, own a gun, and freely reproduce.

There goes the neighborhood.

Teena's conclusions are wrong but her concern is legitimate. Given the fraud currently being prosecuted in Wisconsin and elsewhere (against Democrats) electronic voting might only compound the problem. Voter fraud, like the poor, will be with us always, but going digital with it isn't necessarily the solution.

Actually, I'll go along with Eracus; while Teena's "info" is as usual deeply suspicious, I also have deep misgivings about electronic voting in general.

"What the Left will never understand is America is basically conservative no matter what the media, the polls, and the Supreme Court says."

So its conservative because you say so? What data are your relying on to support your conclusion?

"If there are 70 million liberals, then WHY ARE YOU COMPLETELY OUT OF POWER?

Please, get real. Conservatism rules this country, and that is why Democrats have to lie about who they are to win elections."

From http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/10/09-week/

First Five Years, Percentage Changes in Real Discretionary Spending
LBJ: 25.2%
Nixon: -16.5%
Reagan: 11.9%
Clinton: -8.2%
Bush: 35.2%

Read 'em and weep

What is conservative about that? Who's lying about who they are?

"PS. If the whole Miers thing was actually chum to get all of us stirred up - Doh. Grrrr"

Now there's a Bush administration idea if I ever heard one:

GW: Man, I am takin' it in the shorts these days. Any ideas?
KR: Enrage your already unhinged base sir.
GW: You doin' a heckuva job, Turdy!

To my mind, the argument over whether Bush should be able to get a qualified conservative like McConnell confirmed need go no further than noting that Ruth Bader-Ginsberg was approved with over 90 votes and (I believe) only three votes against her during Clinton's term. The Republicans followed two centuries of gentlemanly tradition that a President gets to choose whom he wants for a SC appointment as long as the person is qualified. Ideology should not matter. Clinton got a far-left justice like Bader-Ginsberg on the court with no problem, and Bush should be given the exact same consideration by Democrats. End of discussion.

But no, the Democrats are so full of self-righteousness! 200 years of tradition doesn't apply to them. They expect to get their Bader-Ginsbergs when they are in power, and they expect to block an equivalently right-conservative when they aren't in power. There's no sense of decency or fair play there. Just an arrogant feeling that they are right, so whatever tactics they use - centuries of tradition be damned - are justified.

It's time we had this fillibuster fight and that we absolutely bring it to a head for all to see. If they fillibuster, then use the nuclear/Constitutional option. If the Republicans can't muster the votes to do that, then let's see who votes for what, so we can decide in the next election who we want.

So what's the breakdown between defense/homeland security and non-defense/homeland security discretionary spending?

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20051005-093644-3256r.htm

"Defense spending has greatly increased, by 37.2 percent over four years. But the president also increased nondefense discretionary spending by a humongous 37 percent. Even when you subtract homeland security spending, Mr. Bush and Congress boosted nondefense discretionary spending by 23 percent during his first term."

"Defense spending has greatly increased, by 37.2 percent over four years. But the president also increased nondefense discretionary spending by a humongous 37 percent. Even when you subtract homeland security spending, Mr. Bush and Congress boosted nondefense discretionary spending by 23 percent during his first term."

Which comes out to about 5.5 percent per year compounded over four years.

"Which comes out to about 5.5 percent per year compounded over four years."

Yep but the problem is that the numbers were already adjusted for inflation so that is 5.5% in real growth above inflation.

If Republican in fact were actually fiscally conservative, why is the increase so high compared to other administrations?

Why should Bush and Co get a pass on this?

And what does this have to do with judicial nominees exactly?

"Please, get real. Conservatism rules this country, and that is why Democrats have to lie about who they are to win elections."

This was the quote I was responding to. Unfounded statements like that are not responsible. I think it is worth refuting factually.

To tie it back to judicial nominees, I don't see how you can expect a uber-conservative nominee from a president who demonstratively is not particularly conservative in action (as opposed to rhetoric.) After all he started a war to spread freedom (at least that is the argument you hear these days), he increased Medicare spending to new highs, an agrument could be made that he practices a certain stlye of affirmative action in his appointments etc.

Mitch said,

"MANY more Americans identify themselves as conservatives than as liberals"

and a slim majority of American believe that Bush is actually one of them but that's all changing isn't it Mitch.

Calling Bush a Conservative is like calling Castro a Progressive.

The fact is Mitch if you ask people who identify as conservative to explain their beliefs, values and idological positions, many (most?) would be completely in line with the answers of "liberals".

Hopefully this will put an end to anyone on the right complaining about judicial nominees being "Borked". They did a far worse job on themselves this time than the Dems ever did on Bork. Sheesh, she didn't even make it to committee. Serves Bush right, he forgot what any good Texan knows: you start sleeping with the hound dogs sooner or later you get fleas.

Miers didn't get "borked." To be borked you have to have your views purposefully distorted, smeared and attacked. Remember that the liberal crew even went so far as to take issue with Bork's renting the video "A Day at the Races," which is why we now have a law protecting the privacy of video rentals. To be borked she would have to have some track record to defend, and she doesn't. As nearly as I can tell, everybody except Bush is trying to figure out what she stands for and nobody, not the Dems or the Reps, can find much to recommend supporting her. She had a chance to make a good impression and win folks over (Roberts did a great job of that), but she performed poorly when allowed to speak for herself. If she had been able to show qualifications other than being Bush's lawyer (which alone added a burden of proof to reject cronyism) she could have survived and been confirmed if she had made a good impression. She didn't do well at those private interviews by all accounts and those who should have supported her had reason to doubt her core beliefs and qualifications.

As to how many Americans consider themselves conservative vs. liberal: you're all wrong, and PB most particularly. It's closer to 2:1 conservative to liberal. The highly regarded Battleground Poll (a cooperative poll between both Republican and Democratic pollsters) has 60% conservative, 35% liberal as of August 2004. See http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0105/0105bgpoll.htm for some history on the poll and the numbers, although a simple google will find many other instances of similar polls. Even more telling, 20% of the population consider themselves "very conservative", while only 7% call themselves "very liberal." This is an important fact since those who are more strongly commited to a philosophy are the ones who form the engines of their political parties.

The "Roe Effect," liberals aborting their next generation, is being promoted probably most notably by James Taranto of the WSJ. Here's one of his early efforts in making that argument: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004780. The correlations he promotes are too small to be statistically meanful in my opinion, but they're interesting none the less and can form the basis for a debate on the future makeup of the electorate.

It doesn't matter if there are 70 million liberals or 170 million. There are 55 Republican senators. Bush has to keep all but five from going squishy. That's what matters.

Sorry nerdbert, its been an incredibly busy week down here. I missed the entire Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Ms. Meirs. Knowing the value the Republican party places on an up or down vote for each and every nominee I know there wouldn't have been any pressure from right wing nut jobs to circumvent the process. Certainly there wouldn't have been a privately funded media campaign targetting Meirs. Help me out nerdbert. What part of the public hearings that we all got to see was Ms. Meirs' undoing? Don't be ashamed nerdbert. Right wing radio is patting themselves on the back why shouldn't you? You Borked her, be proud !

"and a slim majority of American believe that Bush is actually one of them but that's all changing isn't it Mitch."

Er - is it? A lot of us knew better all along - like, those of us who supported Forbes in 2000.

Look - the leftymedia is predicting, yet again, another implosion in the conservative movement. They do it every six months or so.

"The fact is Mitch if you ask people who identify as conservative to explain their beliefs, values and idological positions, many (most?) would be completely in line with the answers of "liberals"."

And you base this on...? What? More personal anecdotes?

And at any rate, I suspect the opposite is true as well - and so what? The tale that matters is the one that happens every fourth November. Which shows we keep getting more conservative, and that "progressives" are losing ground pretty steadily.

Mitch said,

"Er - is it? A lot of us knew better all along - like, those of us who supported Forbes in 2000."

Ummmm. Mitch? If I remember correctly, Forbes was a distant third in the primaries in 2000. "A lot of you knew better" wasn't enough to get Forbes elected and I have a news flash... It wasn't the "leftymedia" that contributed to that result. It was people like Rush and Sean. The fact that Republicans had Forbes, McCain and Bush to choose from and they went with Bush says a lot about how influential the "Rightymedia" is or about how stupid Republicans are.

You saw the same Bush I did in 2000 and you can not say with a straight face that he was the best that the Republicans could muster.

Now when you look at his record, what he has accomplished while in office and what he has attempted to do, to call him a conservative is just being disingenuous. True conservatives should be the first screaming about Bush's extreemism but you don't. We on the left can only conclude that you: A. Are too full of pride or ego to admit you were duped. B. Are too full of contempt for people like me, liberals, to acknowledge that we might have been right about him all along or C. Believe so strongly that the ends justify the means that you are willing to do anything to achieve YOUR ideological vision regardless of who you put in office as a figurehead leader or who gets crushed along the way.

As for the media predicting an implosion of conservatism, That's yet another misrepresentation of what's happening. True conservatives in the traditional sense are distancing themselves from this administration and from Rebublican leaders. Out of control spending, rampant cronyism and a rash of questionable actions from Republicans leaders, (unethical? - yes. Illegal? To Be Determined...) Are NOT conservative values.

Blaming the "Leftymedia", whatever that means, is like blaming the Weather Channel for creating Katrina.

Wasn't this White House supposed to be all about accountability and personal responsibility?

"And you base this on...? What? More personal anecdotes?"

No. Personal experience and simple observation.

"The tale that matters is the one that happens every fourth November. Which shows we keep getting more conservative"

Funny, what I see are distortions and misrepresentations of issues used to drive wedges between people with similar values. For example, I believe it is a society's responsibility to care for the less fortunate among us. You would probably distort that simple value to mean I think we should increase taxes to pay for women who squirt out more babies.

The tale that really matters is what happens the other 364 days of the year. What happens every fourth November is only theater and you know it.

One little point, Doug.

As you mention, The Weather Channel cannot change the weather with bad information or forecasts.

Left-leaning media *can* change opinion with bad information. It is, of course, overwhelming in certain markets or even just in some types of media.

We conservatives are not nearly as bent out of shape over it as you might think... however, we DO want outfits like CBS to be a little more open over the fact that they often have a very slanted take. At least they should address the fact that their recent track record seems bad and try to fix the mere apperance of journalistic jackassary.

(I just LOVE that word... jackassary!) ;)

Doug said: "True conservatives should be the first screaming about Bush's extreemism but you don't."
Which is just plain silly. Conservatives do ask for and expect results. To say all conservatives agree on everything is like saying all democrats are raving moonbats.
When Bush was elected he made two promises. 1) to be a uniter, not a divider, and 2) To set a "new tone" in D.C. The first was impossible, because he didn't forsee the visceral hatred of the minority party. Silly man, he thought people were basically good deep down. He did manage pretty well on the second, by desperately trying to work with the opposition to accomplish his agenda. Doug said: "Funny, what I see are distortions and misrepresentations of issues used to drive wedges between people with similar values." I believe him. We see what we choose to see.

The conservatives will win in the end. We procreate while the libs contracept, abort, sodomize, and fellate. There are more of us now and we are increasing.

Doug: "We procreate while the libs contracept, abort, sodomize, and fellate."

oh yeah.

as a Christian (Re: CS Lewis -- not Jerry Falwell) i see a lot of "Christian conservatives" with a lot of kids, allright. And it kinda gives me this little sick feeling in the pit of my heart.

what's wrong with combining contraception with ADOPTION? Maybe save some kids while passing on the Judeo/Christian ethic?

"fellate"? poor dougie's sex life must be pretty boring.

sorry Doug, i meant to address mr.uptight = Dean.

You know what I don't get..

The conservatives, who are slightly under 1/3rd of the country - have Scalia, Thomas and Roberts, yet they must have MORE...they want disproportionate representation. In reality, if they could get it, they'd want total dominance of the court.

Kennedy and O'Conner (and mostly) Souter were moderates... Stephens, Ginsberg, Breyer.. liberals, yet, the liberals are not suggesting that they need to control the court...

It is ONLY the conservatives need that, they want total control.. they don't believe the court should be a representative cross-section. They believe THEY are right, and therefore, their opinion should be the view everyone should adopt and should be the view the court should hold. The point is that your opinion is JUST THAT, opinion. You have no more proof of being right than do liberals, yet you persist in wanting to deny liberals (or even moderates in this case), representation. You want dominance of the House, the Presidency, the Senate, and SCOTUS.

There is a saying..

Taxation without Representation is Tyrrany. That the Right wants the Tyranny of the Right is not news, but it would be nice if they at least were honest about it.

You can argue that the "correct" intepretation of the constitution is yours, but it's entirely conjecture on your part. There is HUGE argument on the other side, for example, the 14th ammendment pretty seriously underscores the right to individual self determination and protection from the intrusion of government without just cause, but go ahead and ignore it, and talk about original intent. Apparently additional ammendments don't mean anythhing. Apparently the words of the writer's of the constitution outlined in the Federalist papers don't mean anything, nope, just the strict words listed, in your interpretation of them and using ONLY that interpretation you deserve total control of the SCOTUS...

It appears you desire something other than a democracy.. you desire a President who only reacts to one view, you desire a court that only represents one opinion, one particular voice...that is not democracy.. it's perverted republicanism, it's short sighted, and it's going to lead, has lead for that matter, to a reaction against your view that will eventually disenfranchise your position. You have the power of Money, which will always guarantee you a place at the table, but the country has moved away from Robber Barrons once, it will happen again.. most likely this time further... In short, your tyrannical approach will only hurt you in the long run.

PB

"The conservatives, who are slightly under 1/3rd of the country..."

PB, do you have some proof of that fact? I'd love to see some documentation that only 1/3 of the country considers itself conservative. The link I had above showed that 60% considered itself conservative (summing all the responses from very to slightly) while only 33% viewed themselves as liberals (summing from very to slightly). If my figures are right, then conservatives are underrepresented in both the SCOTUS and the bodies of legislatures.

As to liberals not wanting to control the court, excuse my while I wipe the coffee off the monitor after reading that. Having had control of it for decades and now actively opposing fully qualified jurists whose *views* they oppose they are actively trying to maintain control of the court. Again, because of the life tenure nature of the courts they are meant to be the most slowly changing of our institutions and in this case they are.

I'd love a democracy, and it seems like that's what's going on now. You may not like it since your views are in the minority, but that's what you get when you can't convince a majority that your way is correct. Again, show us the research that says that liberals outnumber conservatives.

Your requested link:

http://searching.gao.gov/query.html?col=+&qt=+electronic+voting&charset=iso-8859-1&ql=&x=5&y=2

Conservatives want complete control of everything! A monolithic theocracy with NO DISSENT ALLOWED! All liberals please report to the Canadian border at once. Karl Rove has survived another of your puny attempts at destroying him. Corporate slavery will be the law of the land!
Bwahahahahahahaha!!

Kermit Kermit Kermit...

"To say all conservatives agree on everything is like saying all democrats are raving moonbats."

First of all, I didn't say "all conservatives".

I said True Conservatives. There is a difference and if you had read my post you would have seen that that was the point of my post. Bush is NOT a true conservative.

The Majority of Americans now realize the truth about the man they voted for.

Define True conservative. That's like saying True believer.

You said "Wasn't this White House supposed to be all about accountability and personal responsibility?" Does "Scooter" Libbey work at the White House anymore?

Kermit said,

"You said "Wasn't this White House supposed to be all about accountability and personal responsibility?" Does "Scooter" Libbey work at the White House anymore?"

Read my post Kermit. My comment about acountability and personal responsibility was preceeded by - "Out of control spending, rampant cronyism and a rash of questionable actions from Republicans leaders."

I was refering to Delay and Frist.

The reason Libbey is no longer at the White House is because he was indicted on perjury and obstruction charges. That was Fitsgeralds choice, not because libbey was taking personal responsibility for his actions.

To your earlire point, "When Bush was elected he made two promises. 1) to be a uniter, not a divider, and 2) To set a "new tone" in D.C."

Bush set the tone by allowing the lies about McCain to be spread and by allowing the bullshit about the Clinton administration trashing the White House and Air Force One. It was also the Bush team that was embroiled in the Ann Richards is a lesbian crap.

We also knew all about Rove's tactics from Bush's dads administration.

The fact that you feel for that "uniter" crap explains the difference between you guys and us. No liberal that I know believed Clinton when he said he didn't have sex with that woman.

Good post, PB. Less incoherent, however misinformed, it nonetheless illustrates the delusions and distortions of Liberal cant.

According to the last US consensus (and Michael Barone, the Dean of our political demographics) those Americans who identify themselves as Conservative account for roughly 1/3 the electorate (35%) while those who identify themselves as Liberal are considerably less in number, about 1/4 (21%). The rest of the country we politely refer to as "Moderates," though it would probably be more accurate to describe them as disinterested, which is a pity because most don't usually vote. By your own standards, even though they are errant in principle, it is the Conservatives who are underrepresented in the Judiciary, not the Liberals and Moderates, which explains today's enmity between the two parties.

You are correct that Conservatives want control of the Judiciary, and even more correct that we don't believe it should be a "representative cross-section" of the political spectrum. Under the U.S. Constitution, political representation is the province of the House and the Senate, not the Judiciary, which is why Supreme Court justices are appointed by the Executive and not elected by the Legislature, whose only role, as defined by the US Constitution, is to advise and consent. It is the derogation of this constitutional process by the Democratic Party misusing the filibuster to obstruct and deny the Executive's power of appointment that is the true tyranny of our times. We live under minority rule.

We abide today, all of us, under laws that were never legislated by our elected representatives, but decreed by the Supreme Court. No duly elected Congress in America has ever produced a single law regulating abortion, for example, but the Supreme Court, accountable to no one and representing the minority view, established law permitting unrestricted, Federally funded abortion in defiance of the people's elected representatives in their own respective Federal and State legislatures. Roe is not law, it's a judicial decree.

With McCain-Feingold, in defiance of the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution......"Congress shall make no law.......abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble....." the Supreme Court, accountable to no one and representing the minority view, upheld exactly that law abridging freedom of speech and the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

In Kelo, in direct violation of the 14th Amendment, dissenting conservative judges notwithstanding, the US Supreme Court held that private property may be seized by the State or transferred to competing private interests under little else than the subjective interpretation of the "public good" as determined by the State itself.

What is this but tyranny?? These rulings, PB, were obtained by majority vote in the Supreme Court of the United States; they are the result of the "democracy" you advocate in contradiction of your own interests, because you labor under the false assumption that the US of A is a democracy. It is not. It is a representative republic based on the democratic process, but a republic nonetheless. We elect our representatives in proportion to our number by majority vote to pass laws by majority vote which we expect to be enforced by the Executive we elected by majority vote -- NOT nine unelected and unaccountable Supreme Court justices committing sociology in the adoption of foreign law, secular humanism, ideological preference, and Utopian ideals as is the case today.

Government by judicial fiat is tyranny by any standard and sadly, regrettably, it is precisely the form of government Liberals like yourself and within the Democratic Party advocate for these United States, which has been consistently rejected at the polls by the majority of Americans, is the reason Conservatives today control the House, Senate and the Executive Branch, and indeed intend to overcome the Judiciary as well.

Contrary to your conclusion but consistent with your argument, it has been the Democrats, not the Republicans, whose tyrannical approach to government these past 40 years has led to your party's disenfranchisement and fragmentation into a coterie of private financiers and special interest groups incapable of government. And deservedly so. The majority of Americans are conservative in their customs and traditions and deserve a government consistent with their views and acting in their national interest. The alternative is tyranny, best illustrated today in the attempt by the Democratic Party to criminalize conservatives and their democratically elected representatives, and further, to obstruct and deny conservative appointments to the US Supreme Court nominated by the president they elected.

We shall overcome.

Eracus said,

"...best illustrated today in the attempt by the Democratic Party to criminalize conservatives and their democratically elected representatives"

Your democratically elected representatives were indicted for committing crimes. They'll have their day in court and a jury will decide if crimes were committed and what the punishment should be.

As much as you stomp your feet, whine and cry foul, being a Republican doesn't put you above the law.

The poll numbers for Congress and the President show that most Americans, Democrat and Republican, liberal, moderate or conservative believe in the rule of law and in due process. Get used to it.

Oh, I agree, Doug, except when it involves Democratic administrations, of course, when all the polls conveniently report that "it's just about sex," "it's a private matter," "everybody does it," and "it's time to move on," --while the press, administration officials, and the president himself are busy demonizing the prosecutor and disparaging the investigation, intimidating witnesses, suborning perjury, submitting false depositions, and lying to the judge, the cabinet, the public, and his own attorney. None of which has happened under the current administration, I might add, Fitzgerald's indictment notwithstanding.

To date, there is no evidence DeLay, Frist, or Libby ever committed any crime. There are just allegations. In DeLay's case, he's accused of breaking a law that didn't exist at the time he allegedly committed the crime. In Frist's case, he's accused of violating ethical standards in an action that was approved by the Senate Ethics Committee itself long ago. In Libby's case, the offense is sworn testimony that does not comport with a two-year-old chronology of events as constructed by witnesses already on record as having lied to the 9/11 Commission, to the investigators, and to their own employers. At issue now is a Chicago prosecutor who claims NOT that Libby committed any crime, indeed, was not even the subject of the investigation, but that it was Libby who knowingly and deliberately mislead the investigation into who exactly exposed demonstrably false allegations brought by some leftover anti-war activist still stuck on stupid. In other words, he said they said he said this or that specific thing intentionally and deliberately well over two years ago, and that the reporters who lied about it then are not lying now, so it is, therefore --abracadabra-- the Chief-of-Staff to the Vice President of the United States he has decided to indict. As with Fritz and DeLay, it's just another dog and pony show.

But......well, okay, PROVE IT. By all means, let's have a trial. And if Libby is convicted on what amounts to nothing more than hearsay and circumstance (assuming Fitzgerald didn't pull any punches) all based on the testimony of sympathetic witnesses, we can all rest easier knowing that in the future, any government official who discredits a news source publicly hurling false allegations to undermine official policy will have committed a punishable offense.

Then by that brave new standard, we can dispense with elections entirely since we'd only be electing criminals. The future of the United States would then best be served presumably by the editorial board of The New York Times, TIME magazine, and CBS News. Since it would be a crime for any government official to discredit any of their sources, we'd only be following the law if we believed everything they told us. You know, like they do in China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Burma, Sudan, and every other totalitarian dictatorship where the news sources and government officials are one and the same, the public be damned.

Because whether we convict I. Lewis Libby or James Carville, that is, in effect, exactly what we shall have, which is precisely the point of all these indictments --based not on any compounding of material evidence, but on the severity of the charges alone. It's not about justice, the rule of law, due process or any other convenient palaver any more now for the Left than it was under Clinton. It's about ideology, with those on the Left determined to criminalize the values, policies, and fundamental principles of the democratically elected leadership they despise. What they can't own, they destroy, and we are all the lesser for it.

Eracus said,

"To date, there is no evidence DeLay, Frist, or Libby ever committed any crime."

No evidence? Riiiigggghhhhtttt... I guess that's why two grand jury's indicted based on evidence... You're on to us Eracus. It's all a big conspiracy led by George Soros and Al Franken...

Keep holding on to that as long as you need to...

By the way Eracus, thank you for that wonderfully dodgefull post.

Mind if I copy it and send it to Democratic Underground for it's pure entertainment value?

Sure, go ahead, so long as you include a statement disclosing your ignorance of procedure and the standards of evidence before a Grand Jury.

You may have perhaps heard that a prosecutor may indict a ham sandwich. This is because to obtain an indictment, all a prosecutor has to do --without challenge, debate, or distraction-- is present testimony and circumstances suggesting a ham sandwhich may have committed a crime. If the Grand Jury agrees, the prosecutor may proceed with his case, first to arraignment, then to discovery, and then to whatever evidence he can actually prove in a court of law, which will decide if, in fact, the ham sandwich has committed any crime. That is the law.

Though I caution you, this brief recounting of centuries of black-letter law and ham sandwiches may be beyond comprehension for your friends in the Democratic Underground, as it is, apparently, for you.

Cheers!

Eracus said,

"all a prosecutor has to do --without challenge, debate, or distraction-- is present testimony and circumstances suggesting a ham sandwhich may have committed a crime."

and another word for presenting testimony and circumstances would be... ummm... evidence.

reminds me of something Bill Clinton once said with regard to the word "is".

"reminds me of something Bill Clinton once said with regard to the word "is"."
-----------------
For which he was prosecuted, successfully, for perjury.

The role of a Grand Jury is to entertain conjecture and speculation and if, finding merit in it, to return an indictment. Nothing else.

Hence, the ham sandwich analogy, universally, for centuries. It is not evidence until it arrives in court, where it may be fairly disputed in defense of the accused.

What you are suggesting is "evidence" before a Grand Jury was once the only proof needed to burn witches. We don't do that anymore, haven't you heard?

Do try to get out more.

amateur hand jobs nude amateur photos