Now we have it. This is the most comprehensive collection of "greatest hits" quotes from Dems about Saddam Hussein and Iraq that I've ever seen - going all the way back to the Clinton Administration.

Compiled by the RNC and brought to you here, courtesy of The American Spectator. Just in time for Thanksgiving, it's a nice heaping helping of the words they said and when they said them. Hope they're hungry.

Posted by: Gary at 04:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

A Cox and Forkum classic (a couple days late, but still relevant):

thanks to Mike's America for the heads-up!

Posted by: Gary at 12:24 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

On Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (Dumbass-WV) said the following:

I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq — that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.

As Bennett observes:

If Syria — or elements in Saudi Arabia — began acting on this information before we even went to war in Iraq (more than a year later), then Senator Rockefeller may have seriously harmed, impeded, and hindered our war efforts, our troops, and the entire operation in the Middle East. This should be investigated immediately; and perhaps Senator Rockefeller should step down from the Intelligence Committee until an investigation is complete.

Posted by: Gary at 10:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

This is an actual exchange between Sen. Jay Rockefeller (WV) and Chris Wallace yesterday on Fox News Sunday:

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Chris, there's always the same conversation. You know it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops.

WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.

WALLACE: You're not?

H/T: Instapundit & Michelle Malkin has more examples of how the "Bush Lied" Lie is failing to resonate.

Posted by: Gary at 11:13 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.

From the mouth of Al (I'm President in my own mind) Gore:

"I don't want to diminish the threat of terrorism at all, it is extremely serious, but on a long-term global basis, global warming is the most serious problem we are facing."

So while he takes terrorism "seriously", he considers it less a priority for the U.S. than some unproven theory? What color is the sky in Al's world, I wonder? This country really dodged a bullet five years ago.

Posted by: Gary at 08:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean, AKA Brave Sir Robin of Camelot, just can't seem to muster the courage to appear along side Ken Mehlman. Drudge breaks the story:

The DRUDGE REPORT has learned from exclusive sources that Democrat Party Chair Howard Dean turned down Republican Party Chair Ken MehlmanÂ’s last minute offer to appear together on NBCÂ’s MEET THE PRESS this morning.

Moments before taping was to begin with host Tim Russert, Mehlman asked Dean outside the NBC studio’s green room: “There’s still time for us to go on together Governor.” Dean declined with a shrug of his shoulders and an uncomfortable cackle and then proceeded to walk away into the green room.

DRUDGE has learned MEET THE PRESS producers have been working to get a head to head Dean/Mehlman appearance on the program since Dean was named chair back in February. Dean and his handlers have repeatedly turned down the request. The former Vermont governor only agreed to do this weekÂ’s program if they appeared in back-to-back interviews.

But then what would Dean do if all his bullshit accusations against the President were confronted with the facts. He'd probably have a similar reaction to that of the real Sir Robin when he was asked at the Bridge of Death, "What...is the capital of Assyria?"

He'd bluster, turn red and pop a vein in his head shouting "I don't know THAT!! AAAARRRRRGGGHHHH!".

As Dean left the studio, one of his handlers was overhead singing after him:

Posted by: Gary at 12:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

Says the Washington Post today. Democrats are raising half the money Republicans are so far this year:

RNC: $85 Million raised, $34 Million in the bank
DNC: $ 42 Million raised, $6.8 Million in the bank

As critics see it, Dean has disappointed on two fronts. The DNC has not replicated the success of Dean's presidential campaign two years ago in tapping vast numbers of new and smaller contributors over the Internet. And skeptics say he has not yet established rapport with and won the confidence of high-dollar donors.

Posted by: Gary at 03:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

This past Saturday morning I rolled out of bed, thew on some ratty clothes, put on a baseball cap and headed out to pick up some bacon, egg & cheese breakfast sandwiches for the family. As I drove down a road lined with trees adorned with mult-colored foliage, I was listening to my favorite talk radio station, WABC out of NYC.

The morning guy on Saturdays is Mark Simone. Simone is one of those old-school radio guys. Though he's a conservative-leaning Republican, he's extremely gracious to hostile callers (probably too much, in my opinion). He does, however, have a firm grasp of the facts and very politely rebutts the standard talking points that many of the callers throw out at him. I was amused to hear two consecutive callers making the same point with regard to the latest incarnation of the "Bush Lied" meme that Democrats are harping on heading into the 2006 mid-terms. more...

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 540 words, total size 3 kb.

John Hinderaker at Powerline, on the Democrats' current "pre-war intelligence" tactics against President Bush:

"I think perhaps the Democrats in the Senate are trying to distract their activist base from the reality of their own impotence."

Posted by: Gary at 10:00 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

An old one, but relevant nonetheless:

This and other such quotes by Democrats before the U.S. went into Iraq, assembled here.

Posted by: Gary at 01:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

While the folks on the far Left are rubbing their hands together with glee over Harry's hissyfit earlier this week, BullDogPundit points out how the Dems are embracing a doomed strategy that will help keep them losing:

The Democrats have offered no alternatives to what they would do differently in Iraq. Rather, they are obsessed on their belief that the President lied about WMD's. While their kook base may believe that , out here in the real world most people don't. Was the intelligence wrong? Yes. But no one with sense thinks anyone deliberately lied about it to get us into war.

Further hampering their efforts are the fact that 28 Democrats voted in favor of the war, including many of those who now want to be President. That is not an enviable position to be in. What are they to say "Look, you should elect me because I was stupid enough to be manipulated?"

While Democrats are banking on a 1994-like coup of Congress in 2006, the situations between these two election years is like comparing apples to oranges:

Could the GOP done as well as it did if they just hammered on Clinton? I think not. Rather, they had a list of new ideas that the voter could look at and say "Yeah, I agree with this".

Further, the 1994 takeover strategy did not start in 1993. It was many years in the making and done through with grassroots and fundraising efforts, as well as having to overcome a mindset of a permanent minority, which meant that nice, but ineffective men like Bob Michel had to go. It just so happened that the events of 1994 were a perfect storm that allowed the strategy to work flawlessly.

More please...with feeling!

Posted by: Gary at 12:20 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

John McIntyre writes in the RealClearPolitics Blog about last night's Senate hijacking:

While it may be a positive short-term maneuver, I question the wisdom of this move over the longer term. The Alito nomination has laid the groundwork for a real nasty couple of months in the U.S. Senate and this stunt by the Democrats is only going to serve to unify the entire GOP caucus, at exactly the time when the Democrats only hope to beat the Alito nomination is their ability to fracture GOP loyalty and pull 6 Senators over to their side (either to vote outright against Alito or a refusal to vote for the nuclear option). Today's invocation of Rule 21 is not going to help Senate Democrats in this cause, and in fact, it makes whatever small chance the Dems had of defeating Alito, even smaller.

As they embrace the mantras of the Lefty grassroots groups, they make themselves look silly by association. McIntyre explains:

One can honorably debate the wisdom of whether or not it made sense to go to war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. One can also debate whether the war has been prosecuted intelligently of competently. Serious people, however, can not debate whether or not the majority of the intelligence agencies of the world believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Posted by: Gary at 07:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

Reid has closed down the Senate, invoking an obscure rule to close the chamber to the public to have a super-secret debate on the lead-up to Iraq.

If Ken Mehlman and the GOP are smart (and there is no guaranty, from what I've seen lately) they will slam the airwaves with all the quotes from Clinton administration officials, John Kerry and other leaders of the Democrat party warning about WMDs and Saddam Hussein - something they should have done four years ago.

In the meantime, let Reid and company continue this stunt. It's obvious that they've fully succumb to the MoonBat.org/Soros/Moore wing of the party. It's almost embarrassing to watch...almost.

Round-ups and opinion from Lorie Byrd, Captain Ed, Ace, Powerline and BullDogPundit.

Posted by: Gary at 04:39 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Just as I'll occationally tune into various car races on tv (when there's nothing else on) just to see the wrecks, I pay attention to politics with a similar hope, to catch a wreck in action. The democrats are in a huge bus hurtling down a drag strip with a cement wall at the end... *kaboom*

Posted by: Peakah at November 01, 2005 10:33 PM (LxGm9)

2 I took a peek over at DU, and they have a DU letter to Harry Reid, full of praise. It's quite amusing.

Posted by: Wordsmith at November 02, 2005 09:11 AM (nrGCx)

3 Well, Mehlman won't do that, because he has consistently shown a lot of class and taken the high road -- compare him to Dean. And the White House won't do it because they're so weak on PR and basic communication. But there are plenty of interest groups out there, and it will fall to them -- especially since Republicans are pushing Bush to get rid of Rove. My opinion, anyway.

Posted by: rightwingprof at November 02, 2005 10:38 AM (/IE5Q)

4 It is hilarious when the Dems get upset. They bring out all those living under rocks like Harry Reid, Schumer etc. hahahaha

Posted by: Wild Thing at November 02, 2005 11:32 AM (qrCVJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

According to a report in The Hill, the Democrat party is kicking around a new rallying cry to use for the 2006 and 2008 elections. They like either "American Can Do Better" or "Together, We Can Do Better".

Boy, that's catchy isn't it? Unfortunately for them they don't fully seem to understand the concept that they're a political party, not a laundry detergent.

Democratic leaders from an array of constituencies, including the House, Senate, Democratic National Committee, governors and mayors, have been working for months on a project designed to convey Democratic ideas and views to the public in a better way.

"There's this sense that people don't know where we stand or what our ideas are," a House Democratic leadership aide said. "Messaging has been the problem. Â… People should know where we stand. We've made our views clear on every issue that has come to the floor."

Among the rejected slogans:

"Help Us Help You."
"America Can Hardly Do Worse."
"The Democratic Party - You Don't Know What Your Missing!"
"The Democratic Party - The Best 'Ass' You'll Ever Have."

and my personal favorite

"America, Let's Make People Like Us Again."

Posted by: Gary at 02:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.

A new study by Democracy Corp has some good news for the Democrat party faithful:

"Every public survey shows a country ready for a political upheaval in 2006."

Unfortunately for them, here's the bad news:

"Right now, Democrats are not yet the answer for the growing majority seeking change," according to the memo, which lists [James] Carville and [Stan] Greenberg as authors.

If not now, guys...when?

Sean Higgins looks at the report in The American Spectator Online. Democrats talk a good game about "changing" but they can't escape the pull of the Liberal (and often single-issue oriented) interest groups that represent the make-up of their base. Even if Carville, Greenberg, et. al. could actually come up with alternative "ideas" to broaden their appeal, any attractive idea would run counter to the entrenched positions of these Liberal groups. So where does that leave them? Higgins explains:

Instead, they call for Democrats to attack Republicans as the corrupt tools of corporate lobbyists and push an agenda of health care, education, tax hikes on the wealthy and bashing energy companies -- the, umm, same policies they've been pushing for the last few years as the minority party.

To be sure, things are pretty gloomy for the Republicans right now and Democrats could indeed come out on top in 2006. But if they do, it won't be due to any innovative thinking on their part.

Posted by: Gary at 03:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

This comes under the "irony can be pretty ironic sometimes" category:

U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy attempted to rescue six men who had become trapped by high tide on a jetty off Hyannisport on Sunday.

Kennedy was walking his two dogs on the shore at 11:15 a.m. when he spotted the men cut off from shore by the rising waters. They had been fishing on a jetty that begins at the tip of the Kennedy compound.

Tides had risen over the patchy rocks, which made it difficult to walk back to shore.

Kennedy and a friend tried to rescue the men using a 13-foot boat but rough waters forced them back.

Posted by: Gary at 10:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

"Insiders" are saying the Al Gore is planning to run again in 2008.

Is Al Gore coming back? If allies we talked to have their way, the former veep will be the next president. "It's Gore Time," says a political strategist and fundraiser who is opening a bid to get Gore into the race. Gore friends see his recent political and business moves as proof he's preparing to run. Allies say that in speeches, Gore has found his voice to address domestic and world issues. And in raising money for his Current TV network, which targets the critical youth market, Big Al has built an issue base and donor network that's competitive with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton 's. Our source--a top aide in the previous Bush administration--is planning meetings with Gore's team to push an early entry while Clinton runs for re-election in New York. It doesn't end there: The Gorebots want him to pick Sen. Barack Obama, the youthful Illinois African-American, as his No. 2.

Posted by: Gary at 08:38 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Holy crow. It would be like running a campaign against the Dr Who robots.

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at October 11, 2005 01:51 PM (6x1mQ)

2 hahahaha Gore is always good for poking fun at, it is almost too easy. heh heh

Posted by: Wild Thing at October 11, 2005 04:10 PM (tj1zH)

3 Just imagine what state we'd be living in if Gore HAD won in 2000. I think he's secretly a GOP plant...guys like him, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Howard Dean....good for Republicans, bad for Democrats. They're sabotaging their own Party.

Posted by: Wordsmith at October 12, 2005 10:01 AM (nrGCx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Gary Andres' column in the Wash Times today looks at the current trend of Democrat strategies and shakes his head. Instead of harnessing Liberal enthusiasm to champion its own legislative agenda, the party has resorted to simply trying to tear down that of the Republicans. Message to Dems: Voters don't like that!

Republicans and conservatives sometimes sentimentally yearn for the good old days, wondering why Democrats don't play by the old rules. No such luck. Some of the loudest and most influential voices in the Democratic Party -- such as Simon Rosenberg of the New Democratic Network, and blogger Markos Moulitsas from the Daily Kos -- care more about creating acrimony than alternatives. These activists dominate party voters, volunteers and contributors, and their message to Democratic congressional leaders is clear -- combat yes, consensus no.

As Howard Fineman wrote in Newsweek recently, Mr. Rosenberg and his new Democratic allies argue success lies "not (in) ideological purity but combativeness." The "left" wants Democratic lawmakers to erect barriers blocking the party's move to the center and to hamper cooperation; congressional leaders have clearly heard the request and already started construction -- a political public-works project that won't stop anytime soon.

Then again, maybe a better title would be "The Democratic Party: Stuck On Stupid".

Posted by: Gary at 07:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

The fellas over at Dog Snot Diaries have been poking their sticks at the Lefty blogs and stirred up a hornets nest on the topic of Michelle Malkin. Really vile stuff.

What is it with these Democrats these days? I swear, if I woke up everyday so full of bile and rage, I think I'd probably kill myself. Go check out these mean old meanies here.

Posted by: Gary at 04:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

Donna Brazile, the Democrat political consultant who ran Al Gore's 2000 Presidential Campaign, has an editorial in today's WaPo.

Brazile, author of "Cooking With Grease: Stirring The Pots In America", writes of her strong support for President Bush's plan for the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast region. She writes:

On Thursday night President Bush spoke to the nation from my city. I am not a Republican. I did not vote for George W. Bush -- in fact, I worked pretty hard against him in 2000 and 2004. But on Thursday night, after watching him speak from the heart, I could not have been prouder of the president and the plan he outlined to empower those who lost everything and to rebuild the Gulf Coast.

Bush called on every American to stand up and support the rebuilding of the region. He told us that New Orleans and the entire Gulf Coast would rise from the ruins stronger than before. He enunciated something that we all need to remember: This is America. We are not immune to tragedy here, but we are strong because of our industriousness, our ingenuity and, most important, because of our compassion for one another. We are a nation of rebuilders and a nation of givers. We do not give up in the face of tragedy, we stand up, and we reach out to help those who cannot stand up on their own.

The president called on every American to reach out to my neighbors in New Orleans and throughout the Gulf Coast. The great people of this country have already opened their hearts in the immediate aftermath of the storm, and their tremendous generosity has done more than just provide extra comfort -- it has saved lives. Now the crisis of survival is over. But the task of rebuilding remains, and the president made it clear that every single one of us has a role to play.

Posted by: Gary at 08:04 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 2 kb.

1 my personal feeling about the prez. withstanding, i can (kicking and screaming) admit that it actually was a very well done speech, powerful even, and delivered quite well. the whole "it's impossible to imagine america w/out new orelans" spiel was quite a powerful sentiment to me, until i fully considered the fact that it's not like bush actually sat down and wrote the thing himself. i guess that's because presidents have speech writers. this prompted the wife and i into a lengthy discussion about the sad state of affairs we're in when the leader (and previous leaders) of the free world don't even author the words that come out of their mouths. what does that say about their commitment to the words being read? are they merely moving their lips to someone's else's penned ideas? is there ANY genuine feeling there? p.s. since i don't have any conservative friends (not a conscious choice, just the way things happened) and since my lifelong republican parents left the party in disgust before the last election, maybe you could answer this question for me: why are conservatives always SO angry and reactionary? you got your gung ho texan in office, twice. you got your war, twice, and surely more to come. you have control of the senate and a soon to be appointed conservative chief justice. fox news is the highest rated cable news channel in history and the FCC is primed to outlaw every offensive word and boob on the airwaves (except rush, of course) - so why all the anger? you folks have won, BIG TIME! i'd think you would be content enough over your baker's dozen of landslide victories in the past five or so years, so why so glum, chum?

Posted by: the most rev. jack habit at September 19, 2005 08:51 AM (yT+NK)

2 I don't understand the question. You have Liberals who claim that the President put troops in harm's way because of oil, halliburton, his texas buddies, whatever. You have Liberals screaming at the top of their lungs that Bush = Hitler, a smirky chimp, a dolt, a doofus, the anti-Christ, whatever. You have Liberals characterizing Republicans as evil, rich white people who've never done anything to earn a living and hate black people, among other outrageous claims. You have Liberals pounding their fists that the GOP wants to starve children who are in poverty, take away Grandma's health care and social security benefits, do everything in their power to destroy the environment, send homosexuals off to a concentration camp, take over the world, force a theocracy on the American culture to make its citizens go to church on Sunday and swear allegiance to God or else join the homosexuals in the concentration camps and go back to the days of Jim Crow laws. That's pretty much the daily talking points coming from the Democrats, who are being driven by the uber-Left Michael Moore, George Soros, MoveOn.Org, Americans Coming Together (ACT), the liberal Blogosphere (Kos, Atrios), etc. And conservatives are "angry"? Have you listened to the speeches of Howard Dean, Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, any Hollywood Liberal? Have you ever read the comments on Democratic Underground.com? These folks are not only angry, their anger has so blinded them that they live for not other reason than to find a way to get George W. Bush removed from office (by high-powered rifle, if necessary). You'll have to provide some concrete examples of how the right is "angry". Generally speaking, I'd say we're pretty even-tempered. Yes, we feel passionately about what we believe in and we aren't shy about saying so. But who exactly would you consider to be an "angry" conservative that you could consider representative of American conservatism? I think your question is driven more by perception than reality. :confused:

Posted by: Gary at September 19, 2005 09:29 AM (PLHs9)

3 have you ever actually listened to coulter, hannity, o'reilly, rush, and savage? not exactly what i'd call a "friendly" bunch. they spit absolute venom over the airwaves and though you claim them as impassioned voices for the cause, a lot of their mccarthy-esque "traior talk" and anti-muslim rhetoric makes me cringe at the thought of some outsider tuning in and thinking that is the overall sentiment in my country. if it is, than no doubt many, many folks are happy with it and my heart grows even heavier with saddness. and your right about the left, they're angry too, but for the wrong reasons. they only want bush out just so they can skip on in and make just as big a mess of things as the repubs. and i think it's a little short sided to say all non-repubs view repubs as evil, rich, and uncaring. i have no problem with the repubs, just politicians. and PLEASE, don't try to sell the "hard-working W." spiel. if you don't think that little rich boy had EVERYTHING handed to him in his charmed little life, then we're definitelty talking about seperate people. i'm not saying he hasn't worked for things, but not in the way i've earned for myself and i'm sure you have too. rich daddy = all the perks (ask big head teddy k., he'll tell 'ya.) now, it should be noted that most free-thinking people (i hate to use the term "liberal" due to the negative connotation it has received in the past years) don't hate bush because he's republican, we hate him because he's a criminal -like clinton was a criminal (BIG TIME!,) and kerry, teddy k., bush sr. and ESPECIALLY ronnie reagan (i hope he has his own special little place in hell alongside all of those "awful" AIDS-catching gays and their awful gay disease he ignored REPEATEDLY during his reign, and he DID.) the differnt parties can call themselves what they will and subscribe to whatever belief system they choose, but at the most basic level, they all chose a career in politics, desire and hunger for power, and will take the needed measures to remain so. it strikes me odd that folks such as yourself with very firm convictions and a strict belief in the party lime can be convinced that one side of the political spectrum is all wrong and the other all right. if that was the case, wouldn't we have A LOT less problems in our country? aren't they all politicians? until someone convinces me otherwise, i'll be happy to NOT vote in 2008 unless neil young throws his hat in the ring.

Posted by: the most rev. jack habit at September 19, 2005 10:54 AM (yT+NK)

4 heh heh... my typo above when i referred to the party "lime" was intentional. it actually refers to the large, green citrus fruit ted kennedy squeezes into his 64 oz. early morning "breakfast scotch."

Posted by: the most rev. jack habit at September 19, 2005 10:59 AM (yT+NK)

5 First of all Michael Savage has his own little mental disorder going on there. I don't consider him very representative of conservatives in general. He's a right-wing version of Kos, with a microphone. Coulter can go over the top at times, but that's her schtick. Most of what she doesn't come from anger but rather the desire to get Liberals to lose their minds over it. Hannity and O'Reilly aren't angry. Hannity can sound a little self-righteous at times, and O'Reilly is merely arrogant. As for Rush, I would challenge you to find anything he's ever said that you can call "angry" and make sure it's in the proper context. Limbaugh's arguments are intelligent and funny. He skewers the Left, yes, but in an amusing way. The last thing I would call him is angry. That's a myth perpetuated by people who don't actually listen to him. Look, anger and hate don't sell. Nobody in significant numbers wants to hear it. It's a downer. That's why Air America's ratings are in the toilet. Anger is all they have. Liberals have no sense of humor and take themselves waaaaaay too seriously. I don't think I can honesty be accused of that. Twisted, perhaps. But angry? Fuggedaboutit.

Posted by: Gary at September 19, 2005 11:47 AM (PLHs9)

6 And based on your last comment, you strike me as pretty darn angry, if not downright bitter. I can understand you aversion to signing on to (or even supporting) a particular party but there is a definite taint of cynicism in the tone of just about every comment you've ever left on this blog. What then, do you believe? And spare me the "I make up my mind issue by issue" routine. You don't have to take the same side of every topic, but general philosophy one holds should at least abide by some guiding principles. If you're content to sit squarely in the middle with your arms held out against right and left, that's fine. But if you want my honest opinion, that sort of "whatever the average person believes is fine with me" mentality strikes me as being kind of wishy-washy. So let's here it. Can you list, say, five basic premises that guide your thinking that you hold as self-evident or pretty solid. Or are you still "evolving" or something?

Posted by: Gary at September 19, 2005 12:18 PM (PLHs9)

7 i see your point. i never listened enough to any of 'em enough to get an overall perspective, but all i've heard i don't care for. coulter's a royal b@#*h and i guess she's popular because horny old men who spend way too much time studying politics find her strong voiced and attractive (she is simplistic, utterly henious, and what i like to refer to as "boner repellent.") hannity spends too much time buffing the "patriot" badge although he seems to confuse "love of country" with blind loyalist nationalism. savage you got right on the money. o'reilly gets no credit in my book as i don't see how any former host of "inside edition" could. and rush, dear god, rush... my personal hero, the late comedian bill hicks who was about as "left of left" as they come, actually paid rush a compliment once saying that although he disagreed with about 150% of what that jelly-filled jackass says, few people speak so deeply from the heart and with such total conviction as rush does. eh...good for him i guess. for me, he's too much of a hypocrite and should keep his mouth shut about imprisoning drug addicts as he shovels a mountain of vicodin down his gullet. maybe i was off base saying these folks were angry. they make ME angry, but more than that, they eventually make me upset in the sense that this is inevitably where our country is headed and there's too many democrats and too few committed to REAL change to make things better.

Posted by: the most rev. jack habit at September 19, 2005 12:24 PM (yT+NK)

8 "too few committed to REAL change to make things better" What REAL change would you like to make? You've already made you opinions clear about Reagan, Clinton and Bush. I'm assuming your opinion of the elder Bush is none too high, either. So of all the Presidential leadership that you have experienced first hand in your short life (yes, I looked it up on your Blogger profile), none seem to have satisfied your definition of a leader committed to REAL change. If I were to guess, I'd say you are never married, with no children and not a homeowner. It would not shock me in the least if you were a full-time student and have not worked full-time at a job that you considered to be in your field of expertise. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. However, if I'm correct than the only thing I can tell you is that you're still a wet-behind-the-ears pup whose experience with the REAL world is so limited that you don't know shit. Don't take offense, I'm just trying to be honest. You're probably jaded with the system as you see it and haven't really settled on a "set" belief system to guide you. And that's fine. But believe me, when you are older and the world of responsibility lands firmly on top of you, you will find yourself being forced to view many of these issues in a new light. You may chose Left or may choose Right. You may chose one way here and another way there. Again, that's fine. But by and large you will be confronted with the choices. They can't be avoided forever. I wish you luck on this journey, and may you find yourself less angry, less bitter and more content ten years from now. Ciao. :wink:

Posted by: Gary at September 19, 2005 01:43 PM (PLHs9)

9 "whatever the average person believes is fine with me" is most definitely NOT fine with me as the average person either A.) doesn't care about anything remotely outside of their silly little strip mall, gas guzzling, suburban condo lifestyles, or B.) buys the bull they're selling hook line and sinker. before i get to the five things, i'd like to point out that as a whole, i AM still evolving. how could i learn anything new if i wasn't? and right on the money you are, beacuse i am a cynic, or at the very least, i'm just majorly mistrusting of authority figures and people in power. i also assume the cynic in me comes out when my gut tells me i'm being lied to. bitter? maybe a tad, although i'd like to work on that as it kind of brings the "evolution" to a standstill. if i'm bitter, it's for nothing more than the fact that people in the world treat each other awfully and are too damn proud to say "fair enough" and call a truce. a lofty idea? yes, it is. but it's as simple as it sounds if everyone would get on board. my beliefs: 1. i believe in total and absolute respect for mother nature: F#@K the economy and eveything that goes with it. money comes and goes but we only got one planet, and it's majorly f-ed up. and, you can't truly love god if you value $$$ over his most perfect creation. 2. i believe in the universal human family: this involves treating people as individuals and not judging the actions of a few as the intent of the whole. 3. i believe war is wrong: for all reasons, no exceptions. it's as old as time itself and dates back to when the first people on earth had their first disagreement and you know what, it's never solved a damn thing before, during, or since. i think it's time we tried another approach as the only thing war solves is the question of whether or not there will be future wars. if we (all people) keep killing and fostering these hard to dissolve, deep-seeded resentments, then the answer is "yes." 4. i belive there is always a better way: i really understood this one last election when i looked at those two f-ing clowns and asked myself, "my god, this is the greatest, most freedom-loving country on earth and THESE are the best choices we can come up with?" gimme a break. when both sides are willing to settle for nothing more than a victory, everyone looses. 5. i beliEve in the promise of america: and all the freedom and opportunity we have here. i also believe that goodness is being eroded by a few greedy parasites trying to grab all they can before the next election, which essentially, is the aim of every politician: say whatever you need to get in, rape all you can, and pray they don't find out about it before the polls close. at the rate we're going, i'm loosing my faith in the u.s.a. quickly. well, there they are. not much, i know, but i get satisfaction out of it as i'm sure do with your own beliefs. you probably think me a loony but that's fine. i am passionate about life and the world around me, and if i can say "no hard feelings" and extend the old olive branch and hug someone who hates me for no reason, i consider that a victory. does that make me a p#ssy? in the eyes of some, i'm sure, but i've been called worse and i'd rather get tagged with a bad name than put my soul in jeopardy. don't know what else there is, so i'll let the immortal words of bill hicks send me off: "It's (life) just a ride and we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings and money, a choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your door, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one." - bill hicks

Posted by: the most rev. jack habit at September 19, 2005 02:24 PM (yT+NK)

10 since i was never much of a jock, i'll spare you what the high school football coach said about "assumptions." let's see: i'm 26 and i'm getting married in less than a month, am currently in the process of buying a home, have been working various different jobs since 15 (my pop put me to work in a warehouse and i had no choice,) have lived on my own since 18, would kill myself if i were a student, and currently hold a respectable management position for a media company (no, we don't cover news.) let's see, what else, i'm covered in tattoos, grew up in a middle/lower class philadelphia neighborhood, love my god and have worked extensively as a community organizer in inner city neighborhoods to help bring about change. case in point: i've been places and seen things you can't f**king imagine, and unless you've ever walked door to door in a jersey city housing project on election day trying to get folks out to vote AND you were alone AND white like myself, you probably can't teach me anything about the REAL world or accuse me of being wet behind the ears. that's working for REAL change, not just talking about it or voting for it. cheers!

Posted by: the most rev. jack habit at September 19, 2005 02:43 PM (yT+NK)

11 Interesting. For all your cynicism, I noticed quite a bit of idealism and sentimentality interlaced in all that. With regard to #2 (the universal human family: this involves treating people as individuals and not judging the actions of a few as the intent of the whole) be careful not to transfer your opinion of politicians too broadly to those who might vote for them. Congrats on your wedding and good luck on your closing (I don't know which is more stressful). :-) Peace (though strength)

Posted by: Gary at September 19, 2005 02:59 PM (PLHs9)

12 thanks much, gary! it's been a crazy and stressful couple months but everything is sorta falling into place. i'd be lying if i said i didn't immensely enjoy our little "back and forth." not quite sure what i've gotten out of it all, but maybe, just maybe, i'm getting a little closer to that "understanding" thing i'm always ranting about. i don't have to agree, nor does anyone else for that matter, but i think that if i can AT LEAST get a sense of where the other person is coming from, and embrace that, then some little gaps can be bridged in preparation of attacking the bigger ones. practice makes perfect, i guess. oh, and i'm happy to tell you that my bachelor party this coming saturday will be held at the south philadelphia republican club! i didn't even know south philadelphia had any republicans! with all the strippers and booze i'm going to have there it will probably look more like a bill clinton democratic fundraiser, but i won't let slick willie ruin my fun. cheers!

Posted by: the most rev. jack habit at September 20, 2005 06:55 AM (yT+NK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment