The Seattle Times has endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President. Their GOP endorsement is forthcoming next Sunday.
I would like to place a wager that we'll see the Times backing John McCain, with many a kind word said about his disagreements with fellow Republicans. But alas, I don't think any Sound Politics readers will be willing to bet against that proposition.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 27, 2008 08:57 AM | Email ThisThe Times will play the same game "crunchy-con" Michael Medved plays. After banging the Huckabee drum for 3-months Medved's radio show is now all McCain, all the time. I've quit listening to him. It's too much for me to take. I used to admire the man, but no more. I swear he is reverting to his liberal roots.
Direct quote from McCain's campaign website: "he has been a leader on the issue of global warming with the courage to call the nation to action on an issue we can no longer afford to ignore."
Here he is, plainly caving in to leftist "climate change" hysteria. It makes me want to throw up. I won't vote for any Republican that bends over for this manufactured leftist crap. What other liberal nonsense will he knuckle under to if he becomes President? I'll leave it to your imaginations.
You won't read about "global warming" nonsense on Mitt Romney's campaign website or on Rudy's. McCain however has bought the whole thing, hook, line, and sinker. What kind of conservative would follow the left's playbook? Not one I'd ever vote for.
Ann Coulter has the greatest column I've read which illustrates with facts what a liberal leaning panderer McCain has always been. http://www.anncoulter.com/
Here is what is at stake. Billary would be a disaster for this country and they will take the democratic party down with them if that is what it takes. I expect that Edward's gambit is to be the last man standing as Billary goes nuclear. His policies would not be any better than Billary.
What people get with Billary and this is a quote from a poster on Politico after Bubba compared Obama to Jesse Jackson, "guess he would rather have his legacy be that of a racist instead of a rapist." For those lame women and Duffman supporting Billary, one would have to believe that all the women lied and that Anthony Pellicano was investigating their credit and not digging up dirt to silence them. One would have to believe that Hillary did not with knowledge and acquiesence participate in silencing bimbo eruptions. That the two of them did not take Chinese money, did not have the FBI files on enemies, and that Hillary is actually capable of running this country on her own because that is what will happen. This will not be Bill's third term despite what you and he think.
I hope you republicans get your lame a$$s together because if you don't this country is headed for a fall prompted in large part by the activities of ant-American Soros, key funder of MOVEON.ORG:
Soros Bets on U.S. Economic CollapseThe article said that "Soros is famous for another big score, ... capitalists who seem to have a vested interest in the further decline of the U.S. economy. ...
www.aim.org/aim-column/soros-bets-on-us-economic-collapse/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages
Cliff Kincaid -- Soros Bets on U.S. Economic CollapseSOROS BETS ON US ECONOMIC COLLAPSE. By Cliff Kincaid. January 17, 2008 ... who seem to have a vested interest in the further decline of the U.S. economy. ...
www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff199.htm - 19k - Cached - Similar pages
CFP: Soros Bets on U.S. Economic CollapseBillionaire hedge fund operator George Soros, decline of the U.S. economy ... financial resources to bringing the Democrats to power in the White House. ...
www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1415 - 41k - Cached - Similar pages
Shocker: Soros Talks Down US Economy | Sweetness & LightChairman of the Soros Fund Management, USA, George Soros, pauses . ... with a relative decline of the US and the rise of China and other countries in the ...
sweetness-light.com/archive/shocker-soros-talks-down-us-economy - 33k - Cached - Similar pages
Business Report - Soros: US crisis spells the end of dollar's reignSoros: US crisis spells the end of dollar's reign January 24, 2008 The fallout from the US subprime crisis will bring about the end of the dollar's status ...
www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=570&fArticleId=4219993 - 57k - Cached - Similar pages
World Prout Assembly: Soros: 'A Shocking Abdication of Responsibility'Soros lays the blame directly at the feet of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan and ... with a relative decline of the U.S. and the rise of China and other ...
www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2008/01/soros_a_shockin.html - 65k - Cached - Similar pages
Moveon.org-Soros Bets On U.S. Economic Collapse | ClipmarksForemost among them is billionaire hedge fund operator George Soros, ... who seem to have a vested interest in the further decline of the U.S. economy. ...
clipmarks.com/clipmark/125A7FC8-C7F3-4D94-B1E7-332D46E7B3FB/ - 32k - Cached - Similar pages
You, lame a$$ed folks need to settle on some one who can win.
Posted by: WVH on January 27, 2008 10:15 AMTO QUOTE:
Bill Clinton: McCain And Hillary Are 'Very Close'... How sweet. I think I need to go empty my bowels.
Truman and "Uncle Joe" Stalin were pals too.
WHV, to vote for the devil or his relative is still the same. Win to what end? What gain? Same for same with a different wrapper? You "Republicans"???? what does that make you, Mr. gifted arrogant clairvoyant? Boy, now I sure know what I need to do. Endorse nobody.
Posted by: Conservative on January 27, 2008 10:31 AMSpecifically point to a post where I have said anything like:
Our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races. This goal must include freeing of the American media and government from subservient Jewish interests.
David Duke
or
KKK's David Duke Tells Iran Holocaust Conference That Gas Chambers Not Used to Kill Jews
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Dec. 12: David Duke, former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and former state representative in Louisiana, attends a conference on the Holocaust in Tehran.
TEHRAN, Iran -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's conference questioning the Holocaust came to an end Tuesday, but not before hearing former KKK Imperial Wizard David Duke say that gas chambers were not used to kill Jews.
"The Zionists have used the Holocaust as a weapon to deny the rights of the Palestinians and cover up the crimes of Israel," Duke told a gathering of nearly 70 "researchers" in Tehran at Ahmadinejad's invitation.
"This conference has an incredible impact on Holocaust studies all over the world," said Duke, a former state representative in Louisiana who twice ran for president.
"The Holocaust is the device used as the pillar of Zionist imperialism, Zionist aggression, Zionist terror and Zionist murder," Duke told The Associated Press.
Also at the end of the conference, Mohammad Ali Ramini, an Ahmadinejad adviser who has called the Holocaust a "myth," announced that he will chair a committee to find "the truth on the genocide of Jews."
Other members of the committee will be Robert Fuerisson, a French professor who denies the existence of gas chambers, along with Holocaust deniers from Syria, Switzerland, Austria, Canada, the United States and Bahrain.
....that there is no reason to believe that the Holocaust ever occurred and that it is only a tale," he stated...."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to foxnewsonline@foxnews.com; For FOX News Channel comments write to yourcomments@foxnews.com
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. © 2008 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes.
or this from the ADL:
Another tactic in Duke's strategy of "mainstreaming" racism has been his effort to run for political office. Although he was elected to the Louisiana State Legislature in 1989, as a political candidate Duke has been largely unsuccessful, losing bids for Governor and the U.S. Senate in Louisiana, and for President of the United States in 1988 and 1992. Most recently, in May, 1999, he lost the race for US Congress. Although he has been repudiated by the national leadership of the Republican Party, currently he is serving as party chairman for the St. Tamany Parish in Louisiana.
In November 1998, he self-published My Awakening, a 700-page autobiographical magnum opus of Duke's racism, anti-Semitism, and bigotry.
In January 2000, Duke announced the formation of a new organization, NOFEAR (The National Organization For European American Rights), whose purpose is to "defend the civil rights of European Americans."
Since the formation of his new organization, Duke has made no secret of his allegiances to other racist and anti-Semitic organizations. He has reportedly appeared at a variety of extremist events, including a meeting of The American Friends of the British National Party in March, and an American Renaissance conference in April, 2000. In addition, in keeping with the stated goals and political ideology of NOFEAR, he has appeared at various pro-Confederate flag, anti-immigrant, and anti-affirmative action rallies. He also claims to have completed another book, which will be entitled "The Ultimate Supremacism," which he says will be released in the fall of 2000, and is currently working on another book "about the spiritual aspect of the struggle to preserve and protect our heritage."
The following three decades of quotations demonstrate that, no matter how David Duke attempts to recreate himself, his own words reveal that he has always been and remains David Duke, the hatemonger.
On Blacks
"What I learned about them, I liked. But it also seemed that the liberal line was not entirely correct, for it was obvious that racial differences went far beyond skin color. It would be difficult to categorize all the distinctions I noticed. In fact, I made no effort to catalogue them at the time, but their differences ranged all the way from physical characteristics to more subtle differences such as extreme aversion for work in cold weather. On cold days, when I felt invigorated, my black co-workers seemed lethargic."
My Awakening, p. 29 (1998)
"I won my constituency. I won 55 percent of the white vote."
Duke, after losing the Louisiana gubernatorial race,
quoted in The News (Dallas, TX), December 19, 1991
"What we really want to do is to be left alone. We don't want Negroes around. We don't need Negroes around. We're not asking you know, we don't want to have them, you know, for our culture. We simply want our own country and our own society. That's in no way exploitive at all. We want our own society, our own nation...."
- Duke interview with doctoral student Evelyn Rich, who
traveled around the country with Duke while conducting
research for her dissertation on the KKK. March 1985
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/duke_own_words/print.asp
So, when you can point to specific remarks made by me that rival Duke's racist comments, you have the right to call me David Duke. I can point to comments made by your mentor Paul that rival Duke's, so I guess I have the right to call him David Duke, right?
The leader of the 37th District was right to deny you the PCO spot as you are an idiot and would be an embarassment.
Posted by: WVH on January 27, 2008 10:45 AMAs for the rest of you. Is McCain the greatest conservative politician that ever lived? No, of course not. Far from it. But let's get real for a minute. the American Conservative Union has McCain at a lifetime rating of 83 and the candidate many considered the great conservative hope, Fred Thompson, has a rating of 86. So all of you who rant against McCain either think the ACU is full of crap or you think a 3 point difference is HUGE. And I'd also like to point out that the flag bearer of our party, Ronaldus Magnus, who'd likely be booed out of the party with epithets of "RINO" by the likes of you. Think about it.
1. Only divorced president we've ever had.
2. Passed the biggest liberalization of abortion laws in the country when he was governor of CA.
3. Faught for the rights of homosexuals (CA Prop 1) shortly before being elected governor.
4. Passed budget increases during his term of governor that would make Barbara Boxer blush.
5. I could go on but you get the point.
Does all this mean I think Reagan was a liberal or was not good for our country? No, of course not. I love Reagan as much as the next Republican.
Does all this mean that I have some sort of undying love for McCain? No. It does mean that, like Reagan, I consider McCain 83 percent my friend, not 17 percent my enemy.
You all can't seriously look in the mirror and tell me that McCain would be the same for the country as Obama or Clinton. He's pro-life. He's appoint originalist judges (and has voted for every judicial nominee a Republican president has ever put forth). I'd dare say he's the most pro-War on Terror, win in Iraq candidate there is. He's fiscally conservative. Again, I could go on but I hope you get the point. All this infighting is exactly what the Ds want and if we keep it up and if you all threaten to boycott the election if McCain is our nominee then Bill Cruchon is right, Hillary or Obama will win. FOR GOD'S SAKE! When McCain lost to Bush in the 2000 primary did he take his marbles and go home? No! In that year and in 2004 he was one of the most vigourous campaigners for Bush.
Again, all of this doesn't mean I'm a McCainiac. If pressed I'd say I'm probably more of a Mitten but whoever our nominee may be: McCain, Romney, Giuliani or Huckabee I'll will gladly support him because they are all greatly superior to the alternative. I'd even venture as far as to say that if, by some inconprehensible miracle Ron Paul was to become our nominee, I'd hold my nose and pull the lever for him.
Let's rally together folks and keep the eye on the prize. The very existance of our nation could depend on it.
Agreed.
As for Medved, also agreed. If he wants to campaign for McC, fine, but not 3 hours a day 5 days a week. Mike, take the time off, run your history shows, let Jeremy or Diane talk... whatever. Just STOP shoving McCrazy down at us.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 27, 2008 10:50 AMI am she and an independent. We don't have an independent party, so we either vote for what the two parties serve or write in a candidate. I did not tell you who your party should endorse, but this is a very crucial election and I hope that you send someone out for consideration who is electable. Right now, that looks to be either Romney or Mc Cain from the outsider's perspective. I can guarantee you that if you think Mc Cain is the devil, a Billary administration will give you a clearer vision of hell. From the outsider's perspective, you republicans seem to be your own worst enemies.
Posted by: WVH on January 27, 2008 10:51 AMMakes sense. Independent=no position, dish wash fence sitting judgment passer. No position means you are always in a spot to defend your non position. Try moderate. Milk on white toast. Your contribution is noise.
Posted by: Conservative on January 27, 2008 11:01 AMFirthermore the same was said regarding Justice Kennedy... and look how he ended up.
No, thanks.
I do not trust McCain.
As I said before, I could choke down McCain or Huckabee and will if they are the nominee, but that won't make me a WarmFuzzyPuppy for either.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 27, 2008 11:02 AMIndependent does not equal no position, it equals no to party politics and that is a huge difference. Party politics means that one must support the party right or wrong. This country would have been better off had dem political leaders urged Bubba to resign for lying.
I know that I will now draw the ire of many in your party, but party politics means that you all have to pretend that Paul is not a consorter with racists and that should he get the nomination, many of you would support him.
Independents often have clear ideologies and values. Given the current party make-ups, we just don't have a party and that is the difference.
Posted by: WVH on January 27, 2008 11:09 AMI am saying however that I wouldn't be happy about it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 27, 2008 11:17 AMIndependants don't want to decide... they want it all.
Neither is a very courageous position.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 27, 2008 11:17 AMI don't trust polls in general but I particularly don't trust polls of "moderates" and "independents". They are really liberals. And they are phonies who won't admit it.
Can you imagine conservatives trying to portray themselves as "independents"?
Another thing that differentiates conservatives from liberals. We aren't serial liars.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 27, 2008 11:29 AMRagnar, I'll gladly be compared to Medved anyday but you as well need to reread my post. I may like WarmFuzzyPuppies but I'm not Warm, nor Fuzzy, nor a Puppy for McCain or Huckabee. (As I said, pressed, I'm a Mitten, that means I like Mitt Romney out of the lot.) Similar to you (although I wouldn't use the same words) I will vote for either one of them if they are the nominee.
You know, it's funny. If any of our candidates had been the clear nominee back in October I'd wager to say that this conversation wouldn't even be going on. We'd all be rallying around whomever it was saying how great he was for the country and what a disaster it would be if Hillary was elected.
Posted by: WarmFuzzyPuppies on January 27, 2008 11:34 AMI don't think so.
Yup, Hillary or Obama would be a disaster. Candidates like Huckabee and McCain who have bought into liberal orthodoxy are only slightly more preferrable. Thank god Arnold can't run. The governator is the ultimate RINO.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 27, 2008 11:44 AMThat is an entirely different subject in my opinion.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 27, 2008 11:49 AMI've done this experiment. You can too.
Yes indeed, these people are "independents" and "moderates". And I'm Nikita Khrushchev.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 27, 2008 11:59 AMThen please explain to me why McCain sucks up to the "climate change" leftists and supports amnesty for illegal immigrants?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 27, 2008 12:29 PMNo, "she WVH, or woman of vast hypocrisy" is not taking a position outside of easy to change like dirty socks and easy to blame tools like a bad craftsman. The fact the woman of vast hypocrisy is "independent" is so incredibly convenient. Please spare me the diatribe. Like Medved, Dave Ross or Vance. This is a go with the tide mentality, accept the lesser of evils, take the crap and call it good.... and yes, I read her vacuum of tripe. Independent. Paint base with endless tint options for whatever color works today. How nice to never take anything to a level where you have to actually defend it. Ummmmmm. AN INDEPENDENT MODERATE TOUCHY FEELING WASTE. So interesting your warm fuzzy whatever felt obligated to come to the wishy washy defense.
Are you just in denial land? You actually think Johnny come lately would be any better than Billary? Kiss your Suburban goodbye man. Your guns, your income. Johnny is marching home to give you a reaming and tell you it is good for you.
Posted by: Conservative on January 27, 2008 12:52 PMI guess I need to be clear again.
McCain, as you can see by perusing his website has caved in to the "climate change" loons on the left. What other popular leftist crapola would he cave in to as President? Their idiotic "alternative energy" schemes perhaps? Telling us all what foods they think we should eat? Mandating those stupid mercury filled lightbulbs? I shudder to think.
Bottom line, I think McCain is a poll driven panderer not unlike the Clintons.
I linked to Ann Coulter's column above in post #2. Unless you think she's a liar I think she elegantly lays out just who McCain is.
Yeah I'd vote for McCain over the Dems candidate. That doesn't mean I trust him for a minute. That is my opinion.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 27, 2008 01:02 PMDead on. Again, I submit for your reference:
TO QUOTE:
Bill Clinton: "McCain And Hillary Are 'Very Close'..."
Translated. Red or Brick. Yellow or Daffodil. White or Ivory. Big choice here.
Your opinion is fact. He cannot be trusted and is a snake just the same. The guy is unstable and a sellout.
Posted by: pbs7mm on January 27, 2008 01:16 PMWhich President is spending 1.2 billion of your tax dollars to fund thier hydrogen "alternative energy" scheme? Would it be Dubya?
Which party goes off promising billions of dollars in ethonol subsidies? Both of them.
"Telling us all what foods they think we should eat?"
They can tell you all they want, it's still your choice of what to eat. If you want to give yourself a increased risk of cancer/heart disease through your diet go for it.
"Mandating those stupid mercury filled lightbulbs?"
Those mecury filled light bulbs last for three years and give the same amount of light as a conventianal bulb using less power. Less power means more energy to use on other things and supposedly decrease your power bill. If you want to live in La La Land where there exists and infite source of energy, go for it.
Currentley you sound like a grumy old man who can't seem to adapt to the modern world. Your likely still pissed that AT&T was broken up by Reagan because you really liked renting your classic landline phone from the phone company. It's time for you to wake up and live in the new millenium where things are not like they were 40 years ago when gas was $.30/gal and Johny Carson was king of Late Night.
So give us anything redeeming or positive about this chameleon that has not been repackaged and spun? Anything. Anybody? Anything that can be defended as even remotely conservative? Even his website is like two inch frosting on a stale cake.
Posted by: pbs7mm on January 27, 2008 01:46 PMReagan was considered the most conservative President. Reagan actually implemented amnesty, the two would be of similar quality on immigration. I have pointed out before, immigration really isn't a conservative/liberal issue, anti and pro-amnesty positions are nearly equal from Dems. to Reps.
So that leaves environment stuff as your other beef. That is valid, however I did say McCain would be the 2nd most conservative Republican president. After Reagan did his great tax cuts, he then went on to raise taxes, closing loopholes, etc. to take back half of what he cut. Reagan also 'saved' social security in a most liberal fashion.
My guess is that McCain would be more conservative than Reagan on fiscal issues.
Again, I will say, McCain if President would be the 2nd most conservative Republican President ever. That doesn't mean he is without flaws, it just means what it means. I still don't see Romney or Rudy's governing history being anywhere near as conservative as McCain's or Huckabees.
Posted by: Doug on January 27, 2008 01:56 PMHow can that be when you've had over 40 years to indoctrinate us through your public schools and mainstream media. One would think you'd be happy as clams.
A spelling refresher course wouldn't hurt you, either.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 27, 2008 02:05 PMSo enough with quoting the 83 ACU rating as proof of his conservative bonafides. He has a somewhat conservative record overall--you could certainly consider him a conservative Democrat. But he has also been wrong on a whole host of issues, where he didn't just vote the wrong way--he led the charge for the Democrats.
Unlike some of you I will NOT vote for McCain if he gets the nomination. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Hillary, but I wouldn't vote for McCain. I think we would be better off with Obama in office for 4 years than McCain. That may sound counter-intuitive, but think about it from a negotiation standpoint. If you are negotiating with someone, you take your position and they take theirs and you come together somewhere in the middle. With McCain as president, the R's position is ALREADY moved halfway toward the D's, so when the negotiation with the D's is finished it will be more like 75% of the D position.
I'd vote for McCain if he was running as a Democrat, but I won't with him running as a Republican--I'll vote for a third party.
Posted by: Bill H on January 27, 2008 02:06 PMIt's also a matter of trust. I don't trust McCain or Huckabee. McCain has fallen for the leftist "climate change" scam. Huckabee wants to be the nations' nanny-in-chief.
I do trust either Rudy or Romney.
I'm particularly suspicious when leftists in the media beat the drums for McCain and Huckabee as they have been without letup. They don't have an agenda, do they?
WVH, You blather on and on and on. You are a serial whiner about the Republican party and it is getting very very very old. If you don't like it, go vote for a Democrat or form your own damn party! You are not constructive in the least bit. You crave the ability to whine about things and when asked to contribute to a solution say "I am an independent - not my problem."
You are an addicted blogaholic. Turn off the power and step outside!
Posted by: pbj on January 27, 2008 02:28 PMWhat?
I'm no fan of McCain,(as is obvious from my posts here), but for crying out loud.
I will support the Republican nominee. I just hope we have the common sense to nominate either Rudy, or Romney.
Just giving the election away to the socialists makes no sense to me at all. But loonies on the right have done it before. That's how we got Bill Clinton in the first place. Dumb unhappy conservatives voted for Ross Perot. Or have you forgotten, Bill H?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 27, 2008 02:29 PM1. Bill C. your test is a bit off. I watch FOX news and I don't recoil. I happen to like Brit Hume, he still meets the standard of being a journalist. So, your next test is?
2. The fact of the matter is that none of you addressed the party issue. Both parties demand a litmus test and when you don't meet that test, you are in Bill C's mind a liberal or in the mind of the Cindy Sheehan's of this world, a republican. In fact, one of the slams thrown against both Tim Burgess and Bruce Harrell in the last Seattle Council race was that they were both closet republicans.
3. Both parties have ethics issues as well. Dems should have pressured Bubba to resign for lying and republicans really don't know what to with the Ron Pauls and David Dukes of this world other than to hope they lose.
Independent means just that, we are free to choose a cnadidate of either party that we consider to be a quality candidate. Our ranks are growing.
Posted by: WVH on January 27, 2008 02:49 PM"You are an addicted blogaholic. Turn off the power and step outside!
Posted by pbj at January 27, 2008 02:28 PM
And you aren't an addicted blogaholic, then how did you know what I said?
So, if you are a republican, so many here are libertarians and Paultards, it is hard to tell, then how do you like the fact that we have one-party rule in this state? Consult a recent Robert Mak program on the issue. How does it feel that your party is restricted to a few rural burbs. Of course, you could join the animal rights movement and give votes to cows so that you have a fighting chance. Otherwise, you can be smug in the proposition that you are not riding the crest of a wave.
Posted by: WVH on January 27, 2008 02:55 PMI can't recall reading a single post you've made that would make me think you are anything other than a liberal.
When was the last time you voted for a Republican for anything?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 27, 2008 03:00 PMSatterburg for prosecutor, so your next lame comment is? Oh, I will vote for the best candidate, no matter their party affliation. Besides, I think that anyone that ever had a rational thought is a liberal since that would be so unlike you. Do you believe the earth is flat?
Posted by: WVH on January 27, 2008 03:07 PMDo I need to present any more evidence?
WVH, I think you are a liberal. You certainly act like one.
That being said, I would never actually VOTE for Obama, and certainly not for Hillary, but at this moment I couldn't bring myself to vote for McCain either. Now, depending on the situation in ten months with the War, I might change my mind, but as of right now--no.
And yes, I do remember Ross Perot--I hope that we, as a country, are not in that situation again, but I think we might be if McCain is the nominee. Hope for Rudy to pull off a miracle, or for Romney to stomp him into the ground in Florida. I'd have no problem voting for either Rudy or Mitt.
Posted by: Bill H on January 27, 2008 03:20 PM1. First, apparently sarcasim escapes you.
2. Define liberal.
3. Idiot is defined as:
noun
1. Obsolete a retarded person mentally equal or inferior to a child two years old
2. a very foolish or stupid person
idiot Synonyms idiot
n.
simpleton, nincompoop, booby; see fool
One of the meanings of idiot is:
nincompoop nincompoop Definition nin·com·poop·
noun
a stupid, silly person; fool
It is interesting to watch what was once a competitive state in terms of the parties has become a one-party state. Your leadership has to deal with you and others like you who label everyone who disagrees with you and who would rather have this a solidly one-party state than to do anything to change that fact. So, you think I am a liberal, I think you are an idiot.
I don't have to be online 24 hours a day to see that in every thread it seems, you are whining about the Republican party. As for being restricted to the "burbs", liberals always reminds us that the Republicans have controlled the legislature a few times in recent history when they try to skip out of respnsibility for the lousy state of our educational and transportation systems in this state.
This state is more liberal than conservative. Does that mean that Republicans should become more liberal in order to win an election? If the state were overwhelmingly atheist, would you lose your religion in order to fit in?
Journalists tend to be liberals. But the business side of the paper knows that the paper needs to make money, or everyone is out of a job.
McCain is the most liberal Republican who has a good chance of winning the nomination.
Obama is the most liberal Democrat who has a good chance of winning the nomination.
Simple formula. Promote liberalism without offending too many of your readers. Push the leftist agenda just a little bit, without making the business/marketing side of the paper mad at you for reducing circulation. Creaping socialism.
I'll bet the editorial side preferred Edwards, and a lot of them were sad to see Kucinich go. They endorsed Obama because he is still perceived to have a chance.
Endorsing candidates who have principles, or have no chance of winning, reduces circulation. Newspapers, like politicians can never lead on issues. They always follow public opinion and the least common denominator.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 27, 2008 04:04 PMAin't it great?
One of the most educational things, (particularly for those who are unsure about the difference between conservatives and liberals), about commenting on a conservative site is watching leftists,(who will routinely deny that they are leftists) ultimately blow their tops.
It doesn't take much work to make them reveal who they are, as WVH does in spades at #45. What is it that causes them to revert to acting like name-calling spoiled teenagers that haven't gotten their way? Maybe WVH can tell us. Maybe WVH can also tell us why anger is such a hallmark of the left. Gee, I always thought the left was the bastion of tolerance and acceptance.
Here's hoping Hillary blows her top at one of the debates. Clink!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 27, 2008 04:47 PM"This state is more liberal than conservative. Does that mean that Republicans should become more liberal in order to win an election? If the state were overwhelmingly atheist, would you lose your religion in order to fit in?"
Is this actually a true statement? People vote for or against candidates nominated by each party. Put forth a decent candidate and people will consider them. Satterburg won in King County and that is liberal, right? McKenna won statewide and this is a liberal state, right?
I put forth the following theory, that you have to go issue by issue and gain coalitions:
a. Is fiscal accountability a liberal or conservative issue
b. Is delivering a good basic education to children in the public schools a liberal or conservative issue
c. Is a business climate that is favorable to starting and nuturing small business a liberal or conservative issue
d. Is a transporation system that moves both people and goods at a reasonable cost a liberal or conservative issue?
"Is this actually a true statement? People vote for or against candidates nominated by each party. Put forth a decent candidate and people will consider them. Satterburg won in King County and that is liberal, right? McKenna won statewide and this is a liberal state, right?"
Liberals don't vote exclusively for the liberal candidate? Oh, then how in the world do you explain congressman for life, Jim McDermott?
'One of the most educational things, (particularly for those who are unsure about the difference between conservatives and liberals), about commenting on a conservative site is watching leftists,(who will routinely deny that they are leftists) ultimately blow their tops."
1. On another thread I offered to debate you and three issues you choose. You never took me up on that.
2. Define liberal
3. You have become the republican or should I say conservative since you never know if you are talking to a libertarian or Paultard, anyhow, you have become the conservative version of Cindy Sheehan. You become the thing you hate. You hate anyone that you think is different or has a different idea than you. She offered to run against Pelosi because Pelosi was not liberal enough. Maybe you should take out the liberal republican of your choice. This is what Cindy Sheehan said about Bush:
"The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush,"
Now, let's make that into a Bill C. quote:
The biggest liberal in the world is _________
How do you define liberal or will the question just make you blow your little top, just like, well, a ______....
a. Is fiscal accountability a liberal or conservative issue
b. Is delivering a good basic education to children in the public schools a liberal or conservative issue
c. Is a business climate that is favorable to starting and nuturing small business a liberal or conservative issue
d. Is a transporation system that moves both people and goods at a reasonable cost a liberal or conservative issue? "
I can't possibly make sense of this kind of incoherent garbage. Maybe it makes sense in Olympia.
The moment someone uses the word "coalition" I know they are liberal. Conservatives don't form "coalitions". Liberals form coalitions constantly. It's what they do when they aren't naming retired liberals to "blue ribbons panels" to tell us things we already know.
Bleah!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 27, 2008 05:46 PMI explain Mc Dermott like this:
1. The advantages of an incumbent
2. No really good candidate has run against him who has funding for the race. I know that Steve Beren has run in the past and is running again. I like many of his writings, but he has no money.
3. Let's get real or unreal as the case may be- someone is going to have to raise several million dollars to get a job that pays a couple of hundred thousand a year. Darcy Burner is well funded and will get money from Emily's List and others because they see she has a 40% chance. Until a candidate comes along that has at least a 40% chance the wallets of funders are closed.
4. McDermott can be defeated by the right candidate who has money.
Posted by: WVH on January 27, 2008 05:51 PMMaybe the reason this is a one-party state is that conservatives don't form coalitions. I guess that means you won't be writing to any conservative officeholders, since there won't be any.
1. Define liberal
2. Define conservative
The truth is that your personal ideology probably represents, what 5% of the population? You can't govern anything because you can't get elected to anything. As more retirees move from all over the country to retire here, even your rural strongholds will become less secure. What do you do then, Bill, book passage on one of Sir Richard Branson's space flights to get away from all the liberals?
Posted by: WVH on January 27, 2008 05:58 PMBut again, WVH denies that she is a liberal.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 27, 2008 06:16 PMWhat are you liberals going to do when you take over "rural strongholds". Maybe you'll form communes again. That sure worked well the first time you tried it, didn't it?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 27, 2008 06:28 PM1. I went to WAZZU, where did you go?
2. You have never defined either liberal or conservative, could it be you don't know what you are talking about? That would make you an idiot, wouldn't it?
Posted by: WVH on January 27, 2008 06:40 PMSigh.
We've certainly come a long way from the original topic, haven't we?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 27, 2008 06:59 PMa. liberal
b. conservative
Now, if you don't like the moniker of Cindy Sheehan or idiot, how about lame ass?
Posted by: WVH on January 27, 2008 07:11 PMI suspect it was because he anticipated discussions like this one.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 27, 2008 07:18 PMConservative believe personal responsibility can solve (and/or NOT create) most problems and that government should get the hell out of the way.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 27, 2008 08:26 PMOf or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.
n.
One favoring traditional views and values.
A supporter of political conservatism.
Conservative A member or supporter of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
Archaic. A preservative agent or principle.
conservatively con·ser'va·tive·ly adv.
As far as I can determine from Ragnar's defintion, he seems to be referring to the Chicago school of tying economic theory to a political dynamic. Keep in mind that conservatism can embrace economics, values, and politics. As best as I can determine as to why many of you hate Huckabee and some dislike Romney is that they don't totally embrace the Chicago school:
The Political Theory of Conservative Economists. by Conrad P. Waligorski
Author(s) of Review: Alfonso J. Damico
The Journal of Politics, Vol. 53, No. 2 (May, 1991), pp. 581-583
doi:10.2307/2131788
This article consists of 3 page(s).
Contact JSTOR
©2000-2008 JSTOR
According to this article Friedman, Hyak, Buchanan and others worked hard to legitimize the displacement of politics by markets, hence the comment:
"Conservative believe personal responsibility can solve (and/or NOT create) most problems and that government should get the hell out of the way."
That is the Chicago school and that is why so many here claim certain individuals in the republican party are not conservative in the definition of the Chicago school.
2. CLASSICAL LIBERALISM
The 19th-century liberal held the same principles as the 20th-century individualist libertarian -- freedom from coercion on both personal and economic matters.
As the term 'liberal' changed in the 20th century, from designating an individualist philosophy to something more collectivist (and influenced significantly by moderate forms of state socialism), the term Classical Liberalism was used to indicate the pre-collectivist liberalism of the previous century.
Unfortunately, contemporary use of the term Classical Liberalism seems to emphasize economic freedom over civil liberties.
Even more unfortunate is the common association of Classical Liberalism with conservative politics.
http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/dictionary/?term=classicalLiberalism
3. Secular-progressives wish to "mold [America] in the image of Western Europe." In Chapter 1, [1], O'Reilly describes secular-progressive goals as:
A sharing of the wealth by targeting the affluent for most of the government's revenue.
Lax school discipline on American children to promote their so-called liberties.
Naked hostility to religious values and their expression in public.
A "one-world" approach to foreign relations that would prevent the U.S. government from imposing a policy that would benefit America first.
A touchy-feely vision of our society that places individual self-expression and rights over self-sacrifice and adult responsibility.
According to O'Reilly, "S-P" politicians are not willing to state these goals openly, as he believes that the citizens of the United States are not willing to openly accept the tenets of what he defines as the secular-progressive agenda. However, O'Reilly also says that he believes secular-progressivism is increasing in militancy, and that the American public have been largely unaware that this increase is taking place.
Traditionalists
O'Reilly defines a Traditionalist as someone who believes that the United States is, more often than not, a noble country that has made some mistakes. For O'Reilly, Traditionalists believe in the family unit and place emphasis on spirituality, selflessness, and charitable causes. He says that Traditionalists are not restricted to any one political ideology. While O'Reilly cites examples of Democrats that are also Traditionalists, including President John F. Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Joseph Lieberman, he writes that the Democratic Party is increasingly being taken over by the "S-P" Movement. Likewise, O'Reilly has also said that some far-right groups are not Traditionalists, such as some militia groups and the Ku Klux Klan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_Warrior
4.prag·ma·tism (prgm-tzm)
n.
1. Philosophy A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.
2. A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching
Apparently, for some who define themselves as conservative, the Chicago school test described in the journal article is the only test. How those using this definition intend to translate their philosophy into a viable electoral strategy is one of life's great mysteries.
Now, if I had to describe myself it would be a pragmatic traditionalist. Since I don't subscribe to the Chicago School that economics totally displaces politics, I guess that puts me in league with Huckabee and Romney because of his healthcare plan for Mass.
Posted by: WVH on January 27, 2008 09:24 PM
They have become the puppet party.
Posted by: KS on January 27, 2008 09:39 PMwww.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/ WTARC/2008/eu_soros_01_24.asp