A friend of a friend has a penchant for partisan sparring, which I am more than happy to oblige, even if I don't quite have the time to devote to it that I should. What follows is part of our exchange from this afternoon, sparked by my forwarding of an endorsement of Kerry by American Conservative magazine co-founder Scott McConnell.

It's quite an interesting study to see the twisted reasoning behind support for Bush. His comments are in italics.

This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that there is a difference of opinion within a party. For example, Ronald Regan was a president who fired more people in his administration than many other presidents combined. Why? Because to get the job done, bureaucracy sometimes needs to break ranks. The America Conservative is not one of the more favored Conservative outlets, compared to the National Review (founder of Conservative periodicals) or the Talk Radio circuit with more than 50 million avid followers. But back to Regan, so many Republicans broke ranks with him, and even tried to undermine his position. Bush has not fired anyone, and very few Republicans have broken ranks with Bush. ...

Every time a conservative breaks ranks with the extreme, reactionary right-wing factions, he seems to attack their credentials. I could just as easily say, "Zell who?"

Howard Stern, the No. 1 radio personality among listeners 18 to 34 and second among the 25-to-54 set, has exposed much of the hypocrisy of the Bush administration.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer writes: "Though he supported Bush after the 9/11 attacks, Stern now blasts the president for his positions on the war in Iraq, stem-cell research, the environment, gay marriage and religion."

He makes his millions from ant-Conservative views, like indecency. He is not a Conservative.

Never said he was, but I'd bet a bunch of his listeners never voted before. Perhaps now they will.

The reason why Bush will win is because Republicans are more united as a whole under Moderates, Conservatives and Liberal Republicans. The Democratic party has no uniform base of ideas under which the entire party believes in as a whole. No core of its own, no central message. Disparate, almost.

Oh, by the way, there are overwhelmingly more registered Dems than Repubs in this country always have been. In this election, Dems will re-elect Bush http://democrats.bushblog.us/ for many reasons:

1. Jews are Dems and like Bush's Israeli policy:

Jewish voters see the dangers posed by Bush's reckless, devil-may-care attitude in the Middle East.

The Washington Post writes: "Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) is gaining support among Jewish voters as growing numbers disapprove of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, according to a poll commissioned by the American Jewish Committee.

If the election were held today, 69 percent of Jewish voters would support Kerry, 24 percent would back Bush and 3 percent would give their votes to Ralph Nader, the survey found. That's an increase of 10 percentage points for Kerry since December, when the previous AJC poll showed him with 59 percent of the Jewish vote."

False again!!! Show me poll that is not dominated by liberal biased. Freidman and crew continue to blame Jews for the problems of the Islamic ideology and you think Jews want more of that? One word for Al Gore on the way to Hawaii, FLORIDA!!!

I'm not the one who started quoting polls. Israel has a myriad of issues to deal with, none of which can be simplified like "My Pet Goat." Bush campaign workers I know in Florida are worried, and with good reason.

When Bush's deregulation exposes the serious flaws in our health care system and its utter lack of attention to detail over something so mundane as flu shots (thus our true vulnerability to biological attack), who did we turn to? Canada and its "socialist" health system. Europe, curiously, hasn't faced any shortages whatsoever. The elderly recognize this.

So pay 50% more in taxes for socialized health care like Canada and UK. US still ranks #1 in health services in the world. Quote Canada's MRI wait or UK’s mad cow disease epidemic, but they are so good and the US is so bad.

Hey, I can make out-of-thin-air statistics, too. A little less jingoism and a little more reasoned study of the issue would go a long way.

Earlier, in response to "facts" about military cuts Clinton and Kerry supported (Bubba-obsessed, perhaps?), I wrote:

As for the "facts" below, it might mean something if we still had a superpower we were facing and not 19 guys with boxcutters, a death wish and utter hatred for all the great things that are America — 15 of whom were from Saudi Arabia, state sponsor of terror.

So why do Liberals say we are not safe if we are? Reagan defeated Russia and Bush will defeat radical Islam. So far Republicans are more than 4 for 4 but who is counting other than the good people Republicans have helped. Civil War, Cold War and Both Iraq Wars (lets count as 1) and winning war on Terror has freed slaves, Spanish Colonies, Central Americans, Kuwaitis, Iraqis and Afghanis well over 75 million people. Who bombed innocent Japanese? Truman. Who lost China? Roosevelt. Allowed for Communism to take over 90 countries and kill 100 million people? More Dems. Who lost Korea? Kennedy. Vietnam? Johnson. N. Korea nuclear freeze? Clinton. Dems lose wars, kill people and abandoned democracy.

1. We're talking about now, not WWII. That's the problem with folks like Rumsfeld — stuck in Cold War mentality. (Kennedy lost the Korean War? Even though it ended in 1953 — a full eight years before he took office?)

Bush still ignored an Aug. 6 presidential briefing titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike America," which was not "historical" in nature as Condoleezza Rice attempted to argue (a perfunctory look at the TITLE establishes that).

It was historical in that the info pertained to data of Osama from 1998, it was 2001, hello?. What was Bush supposed to do, arrest Osama as Kerry wrote in his book from the mid 90’s? Or engage in falatio as Bill Clinton was on Airforce 1 with Monica Lewinski while Osama was destroyable under surveillance in the Sudan. Or what about Clinton and Dick Clarke who turned their back while 800,000 people were killed Rumalia. Clinton passed on both accords. 5 terror attacks in the 90’s under Clinton.

2. Fellatio was the Republicans' concern throughout Clinton's presidency, an obsession the Sept. 11 commission noted as creating an atmosphere unwilling to support the president's military actions abroad. Nonetheless, how about the fact that Bush ignored the very report that might have prompted authorities to step up its vigilance? Shouting "Clinton did this! Clinton did that!" does nothing to support the re-election of failed Bush policies at every turn.

It was Bush who allowed Ashcroft to slash domestic antiterrorism funding from the FBI, even as Ashcroft was more concerned about covering up the breast of a STATUE in D.C.

It was Bush who first opposed, then supported the creation of a Department of Homeland Security (the made it toothless).

It was Bush who first opposed, then supported the creation of a Sept. 11 investigation, then opposed and later relented over speaking to investigators.

It was Bush who has not pursued or even mentioned Osama bin Laden for months prior to the debate, much less made capturing him a priority.

It was Bush who has not pressured to shut down or has even mentioned the funding his family's Saudi allies provide to religious, fanatical masadras — i.e., sponsors of terrorism.

[Thanks to L.C. for unwittingly facilitating this exchange. It felt like being on "Crossfire."]


Post a Comment

<< Home