January 22, 2004
Why I Live in a Red State Now
Sean LaFreniere ably demonstrates just how out of touch George W. Bush is with Americans. He gets foreign policy right but on the rest of it, wow. His agenda is not popular. Yet he still slams every Democrat in the polls.
I think Dick Morris is right. Bush is Churchill. He’s ahead because of the war. (But unlike Churchill, Bush is not going to win the Nobel Prize for Literature.)
The Democrats should be able to defeat Bush. But they have to get their act together. They have to be credible. They need to be Tony Blair. They can’t be the British Labor Party in the 30s and 40s.
UPDATE: Roger L. Simon comments.
[N]one of the leading candidates had the slightest interest in dealing with the issue that confronts civilization on an adult level. They didn't even exhibit the capability.Posted by Michael J. Totten at January 22, 2004 11:00 PM
Even if you don't agree with Bush's domestic agenda, you have to give him credit for not basing his policies on opinion polls. It shows leadership and conviction.
Posted by: David Marks at January 22, 2004 11:04 PMBush is NOT Churchill.
Offended Brit moment over. Phew.
Watched again the documentary series 'Churchill' - Winston was a great great man - tonnes of faults, but between 1935 and 45 he was without peer.
For Bush to be really like Churchill you would have to be facing the Soviets at the height of their power with only the Texas Air National Guard to call upon. You're not. You're the worlds greatest power facing terrorists. Your national survival is not at stake. 2 Million Jack booted Islamist soldiers are not going to be putting people in camps anytime soon in New York and California.
I don't want to denigrate Americas casualties or the struggle your're involved in now, its just comparisons to May 1940 (direct or indirect or fairly obliquely as now) irk me. I also haven't had a rant in ages. Feel much better now.
BTW this blog is getting famous on this side of the pond.
Posted by: Neil W at January 23, 2004 01:42 AMA few points…
There will never be another Churchill!
There will never be another Dubya either.
The Democrats should be able to defeat Bush. But they have to get their act together. They have to be credible. They need to be Tony Blair
Democrats would skin Blair alive, he looks so great from faraway, we love Blair with the same blindness that Old Europe hates Bush (I admire Blair), but I keep hearing all these Cinderella story pipedream wishlist candidates. Put them up to scrutiny in today’s climate and see how they come out.
Speaking ability?
In the Torah Moses was said to have been slow of speech (complaining himself of this), Aaron was his Tony Blair but we know who the true leader with resolve was/is don’t we? Most American’s understand this. We stubborn War Liberals are blinded by our pro-War feelings to an exaggerated extent, partially blinding us to other things about him. I think Dick Morris is another pro-war liberal also with a tendency to fall prey to this.
He gets foreign policy right but on the rest of it, wow.
This is really shocking almost borderline silly in retrospect to me, Bush's leadership is underestimated even today, and still I'm shocked, I really am. I did this with Reagan even after I came to acknowledge his prowess as a leader, because I did not fully understand it. Trust me it is more that the War, the War just exposed his skills.
As for his agenda not being popular? Remember this, every single thing Bush has done from the beginning was without popular support.
elected without than the popular vote!
The public was against the tax cuts!
They were against going to War with Iraq!
You may forget that because you were pro-war anyway I could go on and on, almost everything started out with public sentiment against him every time!!! Bush is a leader, like Reagan he will change public opinion (Clinton couldn’t even do this because people sensed his lack of principle, Clinton went with public opinion, did not change it) This is why so many Democrats hate Bush, because he is politically kicking our asses and we know it. Bush is truly defeating any one who he feel is unfairly apposing him whether it’s Tom Dascle or Osama bin Laden. Like I said on another Website, I voted for JFK, (66 yrs old) and have been around a long time and I have never seen anyone who appeared so average so goddamn capable as to confound. Most things he has public sentiment against him on he will change the peoples collective minds. He must be so good as to make people after the fact think they were for it all along, it is really amazing.
He is the first Republican I will vote for ever, at any level. Underestimating him I guess isn’t necessarily based in short sightedness, but saying he is for unpopular things, but is popular for a War. A War that started out as unpopular as everything else he has started to push until he has changed our collective minds, this of course is the missed point in this post. It does show still a lack of understanding. Still, just my opinion, maybe I am slipping in my old age, but their is a lot of retrospect.
The notion of a "U.S. Blair" is really rather silly. Wishing will not make it so. There is really only very tenuous equivalency if any between politics of US and UK. Socialism was instituted in postWWII England (Churchill booted for Atlett) but has never taken root on this side of the Atlantic.
Posted by: Zhombre at January 23, 2004 04:23 AMHey somebody help out this neophyte....
From the website, the popular vote only totals 99%
Is that right?
Posted by: Joe at January 23, 2004 05:19 AMIt accounts for 1% Third-Party votes.
Posted by: Court at January 23, 2004 05:42 AMRalph -- you can't say Clinton didn't take unpopular stands or didn't lead on some occasions. His economic plan as a centerpiece involved a tax hike, passed by Al Gore's vote in the Senate. His support of NAFTA and GATT, not too popular amongst his base. His support for the Kosovo war. I agree that Bush took some unpopular positions, but he introduced lies as talking points in order to make them more popular -- particularly on the reasons for going to war, which the public is very willing to do if they feel threatened, and also on who would benefit from the tax cuts.
Posted by: Markus rose at January 23, 2004 05:45 AMWhat lies? Get off that meme already.
Posted by: eric at January 23, 2004 06:07 AMhttp://www.bushlies.com/
david corn's website.
i'm with bush on the war, and I wish other war supporters were more angry about the phony WMD claims. By crying wolf in Iraq, Bush has made it unlikely future US claims will be taken seriously, even if those claim in fact have real substance.
Posted by: markus rose at January 23, 2004 06:47 AMI think some of Sean's points are a little misleading. For example, Bush wants to make the tax cuts permanent and most people think taxes are just right. How is this contradictory? Making the tax cuts permanent is not the same as lowering them further. I would like to see a further question about the further decrease in rates scheduled in the coming years before I would assume Bush is on the wrong side of this issue.
Also, limiting medical malpractice suits is not the same thing as not allowing patients to sue. Most people are feeling the impact on their insurance rates and ability to find a physician accepting new patients because of what I call "sympathy" awards from juries. I personally would rather see lower awards (the punitive portion) and tougher measures against the guilty physicians. Right now, physicians can move from state to state wreaking havoc.
Posted by: Karen at January 23, 2004 06:51 AMCutting taxes is always popular, particularly if you can manufacture a "surplus" based on specious projections and claim that people can continue to get the same government services they want for less money. But now that the budget projections that the 2001 cuts were premised on have been shown to have no basis in reality, it amazes me how both parties don't give a damn about all putting it on the national credit card.
Posted by: Markus rose at January 23, 2004 06:56 AMThe problem with Sean's post is that you can always find the right poll to support your point of view,as long as you frame the questions right.I learned this from Yes,Prime Minister,by the way.I've seen polls that support Social Security privatisation (although I'm sure they didn't use the p-word.)
I think Bush's real problem is that Conservatives are increasingly unhappy with his agenda.the The federal deficit,in particular,is ruffling their feathers.
If the Democrats nominated someone with strong national security credentials,he might convince enough people from the Right either to stay at home or to switch sides.Not unlike what happened in '92.
Posted by: Jussi Hämäläinen at January 23, 2004 07:18 AMMarkus,
Ralph -- you can't say Clinton didn't take unpopular stands or didn't lead on some occasions
That is a joke, I'll give you the tax increases (of course which caused him to be a campaign liar) that tax increase and health care, gays in the military issue gave us a Republican Congress. Then he turned chicken and declared "The era of big government is over!" Talk about a flip!! Dick Morris said pass Welfare reform or die politically. NAFTA, welfare reform etc... were all popular with the people, Clinton said f--k the base and made his own party weaker in the process, is Bush making the Republican party weaker? Clinton didn't change anyone’s mind on anything. He didn’t lead, in general he caved in. There are a couple of exceptions. Clinton a man of conviction… I think not!!!
I agree that Bush took some unpopular positions, but he introduced lies as talking points in order to make them more popular
You're for the War and then referencing David Corn? Bush lied? Yeah right, I don’t expect someone who perhaps looks to Clinton for heroism to discern truth and lies, in a David Corn world only Bush is a liar when he is speaking conventional wisdom on something like WMD’s. News Markus, when someone believes something that turns out to be not as he thought, that does not make that person a liar. It does make those that accuse one of those things look pretty sour though.
Cutting taxes is always popular, particularly if you can manufacture a "surplus" based on specious projections and claim that people can continue to get the same government services they want for less money.
Democrats crying foul about deficits are a sham!!! After a generation of New Deal and Great Society, welcome aboard the fiscal responsibility wagon, Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to that one by Republicans, now you act like Clinton invented it. Bushes tax cuts were not popular, but repealing them is equally unpopular. And as far as your derogatory statement about getting government services for less money, even a former Great Society Democrat like me knows we can get a hell a lot more service for the same money than we are.
Markus I don’t know how old you are but like I said I’m 66 years old and voted for Kennedy. He was the last great leader the Democrats had, pretty sad. There isn’t one in this current bunch, that is for sure. When the Republican's in congress cry about deficits they seem more credible, they were crying then in the 60’s like I was the 80’s. I’ve lived history long enough to see the silliness, Democrats look like they are posturing. Markus don't mask your arguments behind disingenuous posturing, I sure hope the democrats have not become the “fiscal hawks” that the Republican’s were in the 1960’s.
Posted by: Ralph (The Neo-Con) at January 23, 2004 08:07 AMBut unlike Churchill, Bush is not going to win the Nobel Prize for Literature.
But Bush deserves the Nobel peace prize for what he did to liberate the Iraqi people from the clutches of that madman. He did more than a million Liberal letter writing campaigns could ever do to improve the lives of those people.
Posted by: David at January 23, 2004 08:09 AMIn the Torah Moses was said to have been slow of speech...
True. Moses probably stuttered, and relied on Aaron as his mouthpiece. Although verbosity and eloquence are a great tool, they don't make someone a great leader. Leadership qualities go deeper than whether a man uses the left or right side of his brain, etc. Bush, the dunce, has those leadership qualities.
Posted by: David at January 23, 2004 08:14 AMI really think whatever Democratic candidate emerges will have to take a continue-what-we've-started attitude towards Afghanistan/Iraq/War on Terror, in addition to his own domestic and economic agenda to have any hope of winning. I just don't think enough Americans are anti-war to use that as a sole reason to give a Dem the White House.
In other words, I think enough Americans are at least satisfied with the way the anti-terrorism efforts are going, they won't vote for anyone who proposed changing those efforts. The risks are too great, the danger is too real and the unknowns are too great to chance something slipping by in a significant foreign policy and power changeover between Presidents and Parties.
Maybe I'm wrong - maybe economics and domestic agendas will play a larger role, but judging from the people I'm around and speak with, plus what I see on blogs and other sources, I doubt it.
Posted by: Barry at January 23, 2004 08:25 AMRalph --
I'm trying to understand your point. Republicans in Congress have credibility with you on fiscal policy and therefore your permission to be fiscal hawks. But you don't want Democrats to be fiscal hawks for some reason. What then what do you want them to be?
Clinton and Gore were genunine deficit hawks. Clinton pissed off a lot of liberals with his "triangulation" strategies and his commitment to balanced budgets. He pissed off a lot of his political advisors when he abandoned his middle class tax cut in 1993. Gore could have used the "surplus" to promise voters a whole bunch of popular goodies in 2000 but instead committeed himself to debt reduction. I agree with you that government discretionary spending could be better spent, but I'd remind you that the spending that people tend to really get pissed about makes up a small part of the overall budget. The vast majority of the whole budget goes to SS checks, doctor, hospital and drug company payments, debt interest payments and the Pentagon. Somehow, I don't think these things are what bothers you or most people about concerned about big and inefficient government.
Posted by: Markus rose at January 23, 2004 08:45 AMOf course Bush is not Churchill, but that doesn't invalidate any comparison of the situations in which both gentlemen found themselves in, now does it? You know, the other day someone gave me too much money, and just like Abraham Lincoln, I chased them down to correct the error. Am I in any way like Abraham Lincoln? No, other than that one little thing.
Get over yourselves. Michael's not likening Bush to near-mythical figures of history.
Posted by: Slartibartfast at January 23, 2004 08:55 AMNeil: Bush is NOT Churchill.
Offended Brit moment over. Phew.
Don't be offended. When Dick Morris said Bush is Churchill, he only meant that he's popular because of the war, whereas he otherwise would probably not be. That's the extent of the overlap.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 23, 2004 09:37 AMRalph: Democrats crying foul about deficits are a sham!!!
Hang on, Ralph. You are much older than me, granted. But for the two decades I've been paying attention to this (I'm 33 years old) Republicans have cranked up the deficit and Democrats have cut it.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 23, 2004 09:44 AMNo Markus I am a life long Democrat and not a small government maven. I support Bush (my first support of a Republican ever) and I’m even an older dog than Roger L. Simon. Bush is a tough minded leader, and the War is 90% of everything for an Ed Koch supporting Dem like me. I am just being intellectually honest, I am with Zell Miller that the demonization of peoples motives in an unprovable way is wrong, and I’m with Ed Koch on his being sick of Democrats questioning all Republican Presidents Intellect. This just pushes peoples resolve to support them, and is quite frankly politically stupid.
George Bush who I agree with on about 20% of his policies at best, is one of the most forthright honest politicians I have ever seen. Democrats need to win the arguments without hitting below the belt. Unlike a Clinton or Nixon, he is not a liar. I voted for Clinton and hated Nixon, but they are both blatant liars, Bush is not. Bush is just wrong on some things, when I say I've seen it all before I mean it.
Markus, I do not want the Democrats to become deficit hawks, we will paint yourselves into a losing corner, trust me on this, we’ll be out of power for the next 30+ years. Gore and Clinton were not deficit hawks. The Republican’s forced that hand on that and Clinton to his credit basically said fine, I’ll do it, hey, it’s my idea anyway!!! A true deficit hawk is also small government because they know the inefficiencies of Government Services. There are few true deficit hawks these days, but the Democrats arguing about higher taxes and bigger government doesn’t make one a deficit hawk. Don’t tell me you’re for smaller government now! When George Bush out of principle said the government was taking more money in taxes as a percentage of GDP than at any time in any time since World War II and he wanted to reduce it. The Democrats out of being stupidly contrarian, are painting themselves into a corner, I saw the Republicans do this with Kennedy’s tax cuts. By the end of the 60’s we (the Democrats) had over 70 Party members in the Senate, Republican’s only 20+ Democrats don’t do this to yourselves, please. The Democrats disingenuously argue as if Bush has done things to exacerbate the recession, give me a break. Bush’s tax cuts were a fortunate and accidental of course in regards to remedying a recession, but these tax cuts were what a recession needed. 9/11 made things worse both he inherited. Hoover raised taxes during a recession to balance the budget STUPID!!! To do that during War and economic downturn is a joke.
I see the Democrats behaving like the Republican’s of the 50’s and 60’s. They gave away moral high ground for political expediency and opened the door for the Democrats to take civil rights from the party of Lincoln for God Sake. They are doing their damn best to give it back (school choice etc.). Sad really. My poor Democratic Party has lost such a sense of history that they don’t even see what they are doing. They are too busy trying to desperately gain back lost ground through any means possible. Quoting David Corn will convince no other, it may please a fellow hack. Markus again I ask. How old are you? Are you capable of learning without living the horror? Please listen to Zell.
Posted by: Ralph (The Neo-Con) at January 23, 2004 10:08 AMMichael,
Hang on, Ralph. You are much older than me, granted. But for the two decades I've been paying attention to this (I'm 33 years old) Republicans have cranked up the deficit and Democrats have cut it.
Read my Markus comments, I am looking at things in a big picture sense. I'm an old Democrat around (twice your age) I am not as sharp at 66 as I was at 33, but I am wiser and less partisan for quite different reasons than you. But you neo-liberal Clintonian types are and will be rejected, by Democrats for the foreseeable future. Do you believe that if the democrats held power in the House and Senate, spending would be down? No Clinton was dragged into Republican balance the budget land for sure. The Democrats talk about balanced budgets and reducing the deficit, not cutting spending. And politically, Clinton was an anomaly. I guess Bush like Reagan will try to achieve fiscal sanity by “starving the beast”, I do not agree with this approach, but I am being intellectually honest, I’m for the War in a much bigger way enough o way eclipse even entertaining one of these naïve dwarfs as Zell calls them And unlike you I do not think Bush said a damn lie when he said the budget could be cut in half in 5 years, I just think he is wrong, but hey I thought Reagan and Clinton were wrong so history is against us on that isn’t it Michael. I have heard the deficit arguments for 50 years!!! We survived the Great Society for heavens sake. Unless a Goldwater type figure and then a true Reagan like figure comes out to carry the neo-liberal banner, it won't carry. Either way the Democrats are in trouble. Like Zell I feel too old to change, like Ed Koch I'll just start voting for the true leaders regardless of Party. Most end up getting frustrated. Again Michael you are a smart guy who reads history. I'm telling you I see history repeating itself. Eisenhower was a good president, but before him the Republican hadn’t seen greatness since Teddy Roosevelt. I see the Democrats as the same. Who have they had since Kennedy? Please don't tell me Clinton, I'll lose total faith in you younger guys if he's your hero, and that would make my point. I have some memories of FDR, remember Truman and Kennedy, I saw LBJ like Clinton lose the opportunity to be great. The last to great leaders in a historical sense are two people I never voted for, Reagan and this current President, mark my words. In final cranking up the deficit is a bi-partisan effort, period.
Posted by: Ralph (The Neo-Con) at January 23, 2004 10:43 AMBut unlike Churchill, Bush is not going to win the Nobel Prize for Literature.
Obviously, my friend, you've never read "A Charge to Keep."
Posted by: Allah at January 23, 2004 11:00 AMRalph: I'll lose total faith in you younger guys if [Clinton]'s your hero
No, Clinton is not my hero.
My political heroes are Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Martin Luther King, Jr.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 23, 2004 11:07 AMMichael
I like your writing, but unless something happens can you see yourself handing off the WOT to Kerry/Edwards. Kerry is already on record as saying he thought Clinton had it right, treating it as a police matter. Edwards. He is qualified as I am to be President, 5 years in the Senate. Where is the democratic bench talent to man War cabinet. Madeline Albright, people who worked under her, please. There is a missing component to the public face of the Democratic party, people who write and talk about foriegn policy as something other than a necessary evil. There are no ideas, no thoughts just platitudes. If I grant the idea that Clinton was this brilliant mind, brilliant ploitician, he was no leader. A leader stakes out goals and works towards them. Clinton staked out goals then retreated when the going got rough. Bush has stayed the course and compromised where needed. Do I wish Bush was less profligate with the money, less willing to expand the role of gov't. You bet. But when it comes to november there is only one choice. Bush, we can argue the domestic policy later, when the republic is safe from islamic fascists.
Posted by: Kevin at January 23, 2004 11:08 AMThe next American the Nobel Committee honors for literature will probably be Tony Kushner.
Posted by: Zhombre at January 23, 2004 11:09 AMRalph, I'm 37. I am interested in ideas from all sides of the political spectrum and regularly read everything from the Nation to the National Review and in between. My ideal candidate would combine Dean and Edwards agendas on domestic policy, with Lieberman's agenda on foreign policy, with the exception of policy toward Israel, for which I am more with Jimmy Carter. You claim to disagree with Bush on at least 80% of the issues, but you do not elaborate. That's similar to my problem with Zell -- unlike Lieberman (or Michael Totten) he has no sense of moderation, and no appreciation of the value of divided government and genuine partisan political debate. He is so angry at the liberals that he can't bring himself to criticize Bush on anything.
Tell me -- on what issues do you think that Democrats can and should legitimately differentiate themselves from Bush and the Republican agenda?
Posted by: Markus rose at January 23, 2004 11:10 AM"i'm with bush on the war, and I wish other war supporters were more angry about the phony WMD claims. By crying wolf in Iraq, Bush has made it unlikely future US claims will be taken seriously, even if those claim in fact have real substance."
Posted by markus rose at January 23, 2004 06:47 AM
Marcus, are you an imbecile? Look at what you just posted. You are for the war but against the concept the war was based upon: that anyone who appears to be a threat might get hammered. Doing this,BTW, is credibility. Do you actually live somewhere? Or do you exist only as a fiction of your own imagination? Go look in the goddamn mirror.
Michael,
I'm sorry, I usually have great respect for your judgment but this article you link to is just a litany of predictable push polls. One thing you can bank on - the issues will not be framed this way, nor should they be, for the election.
We can discuss, but these sorts of articles give Dems a false sense of security while weakening their integrity...
Posted by: Ged of Earthsea at January 23, 2004 11:27 AMPosted by Joe Peden at January 23, 2004 11:17 AM:
"...Posted by markus rose at January 23, 2004 06:47 AM
Marcus, are you an imbecile? Look at what you just posted. You are for the war but against the concept the war was based upon: that anyone who appears to be a threat might get hammered..."
Jowe, are you an imbecile? Look at what you just posted. The war was not based on "appearances", it was based on the claim that Iraq IN FACT was a threat, that Saadam was a homicidal maniac like Miloscevic who needed to be overthrown, that overthrowing him would have a positive effect on the US geopolitical position in the Middle East, and would kickstart the necessary moves toward democracy, economic development and global integration in that area. I agree with the last three reasons.
Posted by: markus rose at January 23, 2004 11:30 AMCome on, guys. Leave imbecile at the door.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 23, 2004 11:36 AMPosted by MJT earlier:
"My political heroes are Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Martin Luther King, Jr."
Decent choices to be sure, I might add an honorable mention for Jimmy Carter - perhaps the best ex-president we've ever had.
Joe
Posted by: Joe at January 23, 2004 11:57 AMJoe, Jimmy Carter was a good ex-president up until 2001. Lots of work for good organizations. But nowadays he is an idiotarian. Just listen to him now, he is out of his league. In fact, he always was. Carter was never presidential material, the Dems should have picked someone else. He is a good guy, with good intentions, but very naive. Which makes him more of a liability than a help right now.
Markus, have your read the recent article in The Atlantic by Ken Pollack? If not, then I suggest you do so. It shows that Bush didn't lie, but rather trusted in his intell sources too much when it came to Iraq.
Posted by: FH at January 23, 2004 12:39 PMMichael, I agree: I apologize to the imbeciles. ["Imbecile" is defined by IQ, about which we can do nothing, though it may mean nothing. On the other hand, Marcus can look at his own thoughts. If he holds that the Saddam-Iraq was not a threat, then he apparently requires a direct attack, or something similar -- like a video of Saddam and Osama making bloodbrothership on MTV or NBC -- in order to prove a threat. In any case he seems to want to wait for some "proof", but only on his own definition, which requires that we not prevent anything unless Marcus allows it. Marcus wishes to claim that "We will not eat dinner" is true until we eat. His statement is true, but useless. Thus he is an imbecile. OK, I'm sorry.]
Posted by: Joe Peden at January 23, 2004 01:02 PMFH -- Thanks for the tip. I intend to read Pollack's article this weekend.
Jojo, you sound like a delightful person. To answer your question, I actually do live somewhere. Maybe we could get together for coffee or a beer sometime. Let me guess, you think Atlas Shrugged is a great work of literature?
I'm open to rational and intelligent arguments that Saadam posed a credible threat, or that the Administration sincerely thought he did. Perhaps Pollack provides this in the abovementioned article. Care to explain why, for all your insults, that you don't?
Posted by: markus rose at January 23, 2004 01:31 PMIsn't the point that Bush lies a lot about his domestic policy, so as to make it look like what Americans want?
Cases in point:
The Medicare bill. This is an enormous giveaway to various private insurance companies disguised as a prescription drug benefit.
Tax cuts. A set of programs designed to "starve the beast" -- make the Federal government fiscally unable to provide social services to this country's citizens, sold as middle-class tax relief.
Faith-based initiatives. A subsidization of Bush's favored religions (mainstream and fundamentalist Protestant) at the expense of Bush's less-favored religions (Buddhism, Wicca, Catholicism, et cetera), sold as an attempt to make social programs more effective.
The Healthy Forests initiatives. Orwellian, really. A set of giveaways to logging companies disguised as environmental legislation.
Posted by: Kimmitt at January 23, 2004 01:43 PMThe simple and very sad fact of the matter is this: Had Tony Blair been included in the debate last night, he would have been booed off the stage for his foreign policy...irrespective of the degree of eloquence displayed.
You may want an American Tony Blair to lead the Democratic Party out of this wilderness, but there is every indication that much of the Democratic Party has absolutely no interest in coming to grips with reality as we know it. In this country at this moment, a Tony Blair would run for office as a moderate Republican.
Were a Blair to appear tomorrow, the activist core of the Democratic Party, which are the voters framing the candidates' agendas, would reject him emphatically. The problem is not the lack of a Blair, it is that the wrong people are controlling the agenda within the Democratic Party.
You may want a Blair, but what you need is a nomination for Dean, Clark or Kerry and a 45+ state win for Bush. Once the dust has cleared from that, you should be able to wrestle the Democratic Party away from the tinfoil hat crowd.
Posted by: DennisThePeasant at January 23, 2004 01:45 PMDenis -- You are wrong about the Blair hypothetical. Lieberman very eloquently restated the case for going to war last night. He received some applause and no boos.
Posted by: markus rose at January 23, 2004 01:52 PM"Isn't the point that Bush lies a lot about his domestic policy, so as to make it look like what Americans want?"
What exactly are you trying to accomplish with this stuff? Are you completely unfamiliar with any rhetorical tactics whatsoever?
Here's a couple:
- Concede a minor point to establish credibility.
- Argue from your opponent's perspective to show you understand its logic, then show how your own logic is better.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that."
- John Stuart Mill
Posted by: Ged of Earthsea at January 23, 2004 01:58 PMMarkus-
Were poor Joe L. in the running as a candidate, he would have booed off the stage for his foreign policy comments.
Just my opinion.
Posted by: DennisThePeasant at January 23, 2004 02:14 PMAnd I stand by the contention that a Tony Blair would have no place in today's Democratic Party.
Posted by: DennisThePeasant at January 23, 2004 02:15 PMRight, but I was trying to demonstrate that there are alternative explanations to Bush's popularity to "it's all about Iraq."
Posted by: Kimmitt at January 23, 2004 02:16 PMKimmitt,
Some people just like Bush's personality.
He's really not my type at all. I hang around literary and theater people in coffeeshops and microbreweries. But, you know, some people do like the cowboy thing. This is America, after all. Not France.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 23, 2004 02:26 PM"The Democrats should be able to defeat Bush. But they have to get their act together. They have to be credible. "
I just don't get this thinking. Since when, exactly, was it permissible for someone to change their position 180 degrees and at any point after that be considered "credible"?
All of the Dem candidates, except Lieberman, have gone out on the anti-war, "terrorism is a law enforcement problem" limb.
They can't crawl back and still be considered credible. Sorry.
Posted by: Roark at January 23, 2004 02:29 PMRoark: All of the Dem candidates, except Lieberman, have gone out on the anti-war, "terrorism is a law enforcement problem" limb.
Not true.
Read this WaPo op-ed piece by John Edwards dated from 2002.
He will have no crawling back to do.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 23, 2004 02:41 PMMichael,
No, Clinton is not my hero.
My political heroes are Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Martin Luther King, Jr.
I am highly relieved, thank you.
Markus Rose,
Ralph, I'm 37. I am interested in ideas from all sides of the political spectrum and regularly read everything from the Nation to the National Review and in between… problem with Zell -- unlike Lieberman (or Michael Totten) he has no sense of moderation, and no appreciation of the value of divided government and genuine partisan political debate.
Zell Miller, no sense of moderation? He has less than a 50% conservative voting record, meaning he is more liberal than conservative on policy. I guess like most Democrats a moderate is an agreeable soft spoken left-liberal like Dascle? (Zell is in between to liberal Republican’s Arlen Spector, and Lincoln Chafee). Yes liberal Republican, Arlen Spector is more Consrevative than Miller, only Lincoln Chafee has a more liberal voting record, no wonder the southern moderates flee!!
Posted by: Ralph (The Neo-Con) at January 23, 2004 02:44 PMMichael,
I forget where, but I believe it was here or at Roger L. Simon's sight I heard someone say that Bush has the same appeal of a High Noon Gary Cooper type, I think that is about right. And I guess you won't see Bush hanging out in breweries of any type, and I guess you won't bump into him at Church either! :)
Posted by: Ralph (The Neo-Con) at January 23, 2004 02:55 PMOnce again -- what issues do you think it would it be legitimate for the Democratic Party to attack Bush and the Republicans on? Why do you and Zell Miller have such a hard time answering this question?
Posted by: Markus Rose at January 23, 2004 03:08 PMKimmitt -- Can't we get off the "Bush lied" meme? Don't you Dem partisan have anything else to say? This irritates me: (1) The accusation is sloppy -- it is not based upon an accurate definition of a "lie"; (2) it is a hit and run type allegation offered with no proof and is therefore not subject to refutation; (3) it fails to engage serious issues on the merits (BTW, I think it won't get you anywhere politically because most people will simply dismiss this as the partisan ranting that it is; OTOH, it's bad for democracy because it harms the debate). In short, GROW UP.
Posted by: Ben at January 23, 2004 03:22 PMMarkus: Once again -- what issues do you think it would it be legitimate for the Democratic Party to attack Bush and the Republicans on?
I think you're asking Ralph, not me, but I'll answer anyway.
Health care, and the fact that tens of millions don't have it. What's wrong with health care vouchers? It would open up access, and it would preserve the market system and prevent a Canada-style state-run monopoly. Also taxes, the deficit, gay marriage, abortion, a 21st rather than 19th century energy policy. For starters.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 23, 2004 03:32 PM"He will have no crawling back to do. "
So he won't. It seems that Mr. Edwards is getting closer and closer to being the "Unnamed Democrat" of legend.
He is a good candidate. He is also probably the only one I would even hesitate to say that Bush could trounce in the general election. And from what I have seen - and continue to see - he is the one Democrat candidate I wouldn't mind living under as President.
Lets hope he stays solid.
Posted by: Roark at January 23, 2004 03:47 PMCan't we get off the "Bush lied" meme?
I wish we could, I really do. I'd prefer it if everyone in the US simply accepted as given that the President and his advisors were not the most honest people in the world and should be reflexively fact-checked.
Don't you Dem partisan have anything else to say?
Of course we do, and we do so with great regularity. But we also appear to discuss something that irritates you, and, human psychology being what it is, that's what one notices to the exclusion of other stimuli.
Posted by: Kimmitt at January 23, 2004 03:49 PM"Also taxes, the deficit, gay marriage, abortion, a 21st rather than 19th century energy policy. For starters"
Far be it from me to give ammunition to the "enemy", but the Saudi Arabia connections to terror would probably be the best, most tender, weak spot in the modern Republican party.
Of course, for it to work, the Democrats need to be offering to do something about it - not just crying and playing the blame game. The first time Saudi got mentioned, it was in the midst of Democrat anti-war hysterics and they couldn't level enough accusations against Bush and the Republican party. It got lost.
If the Democrats were to get their chit together, present a solid hawk candidate, start focusing attention away from the daily body count in Iraq (and thereby, away from the entire party rubbing their hands together in glee everytime a soldier falls) and toward the gaping hole that is the United States policy toward cracking down on terror in Saudi Arabia - I think they might still be in this race.
Of course, why listen to me? I'm just a nasty, filthy "Republican".
Posted by: Roark at January 23, 2004 04:05 PMRoark: [Edwards] is the one Democrat candidate I wouldn't mind living under as President.
He would help rehabilitate the Democrats. The serious liberals would suddenly find that they don't have to be defensive about foriegn policy anymore and can look at it without wearing partisan blinders. That would be a Very Good Thing.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 23, 2004 04:11 PMI'm trying to understand -- what should the appropriate war on terror response to Saudi Arabia be? Regime change? It seems that taking our troops out of MeccaLand was one of the best things to come out of the Hussein overthrow, do we now need to bring them back in? And regarding the Saudi role in terror, aren't Al-Queda and the royal family both trying to destroy each other?
Posted by: Markus rose at January 23, 2004 04:21 PM"I'm trying to understand -- what should the appropriate war on terror response to Saudi Arabia be?"
::Shrug:: I have no idea. All I know is that a lot of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi, there has been little mention or investigation of them and a majority of the report on 9/11 that was deleted was about Saudi Arabia.
I'm just pointing you in a direction. You asked. As a Republican, if a Democrat candidate that managed to operate beyond the mentality of "Haliburton = Evil" started talking about a coherent plan of action on taking steps to ensure that Saudi Arabia wasn't involved in future acts of terrorism against the United States, he would get my attention.
Of course, at this point Michael Moore is putting his finishing touches on his masterpiece "Fahrenheit 911" and will quickly be turning this issue into another in the long line of legitimate complaints that are relegated to the dust bin of centrist interest because they reek of leftist loneness.
Posted by: Roark at January 23, 2004 04:26 PMMarkus: I'm trying to understand -- what should the appropriate war on terror response to Saudi Arabia be?
That's the million dollar question, isn't it? I don't know either.
If we in this country didn't need to spend so much energy arguing about whether the Terror War is really a war or a police action, whether or not totalitarian dicators should be allowed to stand or fall, whether or not Al Qaeda are fascists or misguided anti-imperialists, whether or not America is a big mean cowboy bully who hurts people's feelings, maybe the left and right could have put their heads together and come up with a decent answer.
It really is a hard question. And neither the conventional liberal nor the conventional conservative views seem to supply the answer. To deal with a problem of that magnitude, we're going to have to be a lot more creative than we have been so far.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 23, 2004 04:46 PMMarkus Rose,
First the 20% I agree with Bush On.
1) Neo-Wilsonian foreign policy “We will make no distinction between terrorists and those states that harbor them” I remember the Party of Truman and Kennedy, Robert Kennedy worked with Joe McCarthy as an anti-communist for Gods Sake, I was a teenager at the time. I don’t regret it. Communism sucks and many people were dabbling and compromising security, one of the histories most politically corrected cleansed episodes ever! No Democrat could do that today!
2) His honesty and integrity. Anyone who calls this President a liar or deciever, especially concerning WMD’s is a blind partisan fool, and this comes from people who would accept lies gladly from their own. In my mind those accepting that Bush lied about WMD’s are the ones accepting lies, but are to partisan to see it. Markus, tell me how you read from the Nation and Nation Review, and then seriously quote David Corn. Convince yourself you are open minded, the fools errand of a leftist-liberal. We need to be more intellectually honest than that. Open minded? I am not open-minded, I don’t pretend to be. In fact I am rather stubborn, probably why at 66 I am crossing party lines for the first time. But I am not wishy washy either. I would rather have a person who acts with integrity than a weasel I agree with on Policy, that person would cheat on me too. I have learned that character matters, but more importantly the public’s ability to judge character is what matters most. We almost blew it in 2000 (with my help) I feel I have always been able to judge character well. I just didn’t feel it was so important before to take in account before. I knew LBJ was a scoundrel so what? Post 9/11 no way! Good policy implemented by a scoundrel can hurt good policies reputation.
80% I disagree with Bush?
Other than that I am:
1) pro-gay / for gay-marraige
2) pro-choice,
3) for a fairly big government
4) for affirmative action
5) not religious
6) for higher taxes,
7) against capital punishment
Other than that I am Republicans!!!
But I don’t hold a suicide pact either, I not looking for foreign policy pasturing I want a true believer. You notice pacifist didn’t make my list!
Tell me -- on what issues do you think that Democrats can and should legitimately differentiate themselves from Bush and the Republican agenda?
First I will tell you it is not what you argue but how, and conservatives do better at this. I think I know what a lie is. Bush believing something different than me does not make it a lie. Please argue policy and principle. Bush cut taxes on principle, don’t read any thing else into it. If you don’t like it., don’t give me populist class warfare arguments, don’t tie it to the recession and the current economy or to political cynicism, that’s all. Don’t say he is not for the poor (by saying he is for the rich) especially after he eliminated more taxes as a percentage of income for those earning less than 100K than those above. The system is still progressive, it is not as progressive as I would like to be sure, but he believes differently. It doesn’t make him an ill willed “he’s for the rich” deviant. Democrats, argue to the “better angels” that reside in people, take a clue watch Bush do this, he is a master, he is not a verbal genius, but a tactical and a true believer, yes I think so.
Remember the Red Sates have a lower income on average then the blue states and also give the highest percentage in charitable donations. The top 20 states in charitable contributions were all Red States. Republicans are just as charitable and even more so personally than Democrats so the argument is about policy, keep it there. Questioning the integrity of the President’s policy is to question the integrity of those who believe in them. When a person with a giving heart is disparaged to what end? But this is in effect democratic class warfare arguments have. Many people honestly believe charitable efforts are more workable then government doling out. When the government leaves more they say they will give more. Don’t imply they certainly wouldn’t. Convince them you will do the same and be credible. They don’t want the money to go in a hole some where. People would rather give than be taken from. Find ways to achieve that sense of giving, I will tell you we felt that in the 1960’s with the Great Society programs, but that feeling was lost due to Vietnam and disingenuous politicians on both sides. Unfortunately for the Democrats this is what I believe Bush means by Compassionate Conservatism, don’t you dare demean it, counter it with something as appealing. Convince them otherwise or watch faith based initiatives become policy. Watch school choice become more prevalent. Democrats have three choices, accept these policies gladly, come up with an attractive alternative, demagogue the issue and argue for status quo. The later is the tactic of choice of most democrats it is a loser.
Quit demonizing white people especially white males. I am a white male one of 70% at least who will vote for Bush, this used to be in the 50 % range. We are not all racists. Quit fighting yesterday’s arguments. I was at Martin Luther King’s I have a dream speech. I went to the south in protest, let me tell you it was scary! Society has greatly advanced. Quit acting like it hasn’t. At some point people (All white males and now a majority of married females) in fact married women voted for Republican’s at a higher percentage then married men, it’s the single men that tilt that scale. I’m for affirmative action, but this leads to the democrats biggest weakness in my opinion. A willingness to rely on the courts to legislate, using the courts to legislate admits political inability to win argument on the level of public opinion. This is so anti-LBJ. Legislate or lose!!! Bush even understands this. I think he would outlaw gay marriage in a heart beat if he could. But he is smart enough to know legislation is the true test of a process, not the courts. On this I agree with Senator Byrd. Give me a conservative court and a Liberal congress, the reverse I find scary. Not for philosophical reasons but for societal reasons. Untested public policy being rammed down our throats by the courts is destructive.
Quit saying Bush has questioned the patriotism of others. I have searched and yet to find it, not once! Google you name it! Every Democrat who has set up that straw man, however has accused the President of this (Kerry, Clark, Edwards). The truth of the matter that on Homeland Security the Democrats got caught between the Homeland Security Bill and the Federal Unions. Bush made them pay the price for it. He never questioned their Patriotism, just their seriousness (I did to quite frankly). I believe this is what sent Zell Miller over the edge, me as well, placating unions was wrong in such a measure, Bush only argued for status quo rights for the Unions, no more and no less. The Democrats were beat fair and square. The Republican’s were beat fare and square by Clinton on the government shutdown as well (and I loved that also!) As Lawton Chiles (Senator/Governer of Florida) used to say. “If you can’t run with the big dogs, then stay on the porch!” I love that line.
Two people from the left who best says what I feel the main problem on the left is, Bernard Goldberg (who is no conservative, he voted for Dukakis!!!), he just appreciates fairness and realizes that the liberal mainstream press hurts democracy especially democrats, I believe it has caused the Democrats to become soft in their arguments because conservative have been forced to overcome this and it has sharpened their skills. It also causes them to believe that all is well because the NYT and like organizations are so busy skewing the polls as to give a false sense of security. Tammy Bruce. She, like me is very liberal on most positions, but like me has come to really hate the leftist-liberals trying to argue in ways that demean the process. I am slowly slipping into that I can’t stand conservatives (oh so true, always has been!) and wonder. Do I hate left-liberals? Well not yet, but Republicans are way more for free speech than the Democrats these days. I am not a small government fiscal hawk that is for sure. I am big on free speech and political discourse.
The youth are for the first time more Republican than ever, you can thank the obnoxious college professors for this. In this spirit the Democrats need to start to put behavior above political rhetoric and quit playing political gotcha, and ditch political correctness which is really just coercion by derision, man is that nasty and is no way to convert anyone, that is all. And Markus 100% sincere from an old Yellow dog. Good Luck!
Posted by: Ralph (The Neo-Con) at January 23, 2004 05:08 PM>Also taxes, the deficit, gay marriage, abortion
Um, Michael, are you trying to destroy the Democratic Party?
Every one of those are losing propositions for the Dems. The tax issue, especially, is a killer.
Mind you, I don't care if the Dems self-destruct. I just figured that you would.
Posted by: Daniel at January 23, 2004 05:25 PMDaniel -- it must such a challenge for you to belong to the party that is both morally correct and politically popular on every single issue.
Believe it or not, sometimes doing the right thing is not popular!
Ralph -- you make a lot of interesting points, many of which I agree with. I don't think Bush challenges liberals patriotism, but I do think that many of his supporters do, and more importantly, some members of his administration do (Ashcroft in particular). Ultimately, Bush is responsible for their words and actions.
A few other points:
1. There are some constitutional issues that must be settled by the courts and cannot be settled by legislatures. The most obvious one in the last century was ending legal public school segregation. There was NO way to do that legislatively. The courts are the final line of defense against the whims of the majority.
2. You say not to condemm faith-based, but to come up with a better alternative. But the heart of what faith-based initiative involves is legalizing the RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE based on creed or religion. Right now, if a Catholic charity wants to spend taxpayer money on social services, they cannot discriminate in hiring for positions related to those services. If Bush has his way, they would be allowed to discriminate and hire only Catholics, not just for liturgical services, which of course makes sense, but for ANYTHING.
3. No, Bush really is trying to screw the poor. Supposed greater reductions in tax rate percentages for the poor are IRRELEVENT, since payroll taxes and state taxes that are a much bigger burden on low-income and are not affected whatsoever. So we end up comparing rate percentage reductions totaling a few hundred bucks against reductions of hundreds of thousands or millions for the superrich.
Sounds to me, Ralph, like you basically like Bush and think he is a decent guy. That's OK, I think he's Ok myself in many ways, and I accept that he means well and sometimes does the right thing. But you shouldn't expect the Democrats to bow down before him or tie one hand behind their backs to demonstrate similar fealty. This is politics for god sake!
Posted by: Markus rose at January 23, 2004 07:05 PMDaniel -- it must such a challenge for you to belong to the party that is both morally correct and politically popular on every single issue.
Believe it or not, sometimes doing the right thing is not popular!
Ralph -- you make a lot of interesting points, many of which I agree with. I don't think Bush challenges liberals patriotism, but I do think that many of his supporters do, and more importantly, some members of his administration do (Ashcroft in particular). Ultimately, Bush is responsible for their words and actions.
A few other points:
1. There are some constitutional issues that must be settled by the courts and cannot be settled by legislatures. The most obvious one in the last century was ending legal public school segregation. There was NO way to do that legislatively. The courts are the final line of defense against the whims of the majority.
2. You say not to condemm faith-based, but to come up with a better alternative. But the heart of what faith-based initiative involves is legalizing the RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE based on creed or religion. Right now, if a Catholic charity wants to spend taxpayer money on social services, they cannot discriminate in hiring for positions related to those services. If Bush has his way, they would be allowed to discriminate and hire only Catholics, not just for liturgical services, which of course makes sense, but for ANYTHING.
3. No, Bush really is trying to screw the poor. Supposed greater reductions in tax rate percentages for the poor are IRRELEVENT, since payroll taxes and state taxes that are a much bigger burden on low-income and are not affected whatsoever. So we end up comparing rate percentage reductions totaling a few hundred bucks against reductions of hundreds of thousands or millions for the superrich.
Sounds to me, Ralph, like you basically like Bush and think he is a decent guy. That's OK, I think he's Ok myself in many ways, and I accept that he means well and sometimes does the right thing. But you shouldn't expect the Democrats to bow down before him or tie one hand behind their backs to demonstrate similar fealty. This is politics for god sake!
Posted by: Markus rose at January 23, 2004 07:05 PMApologies for double posting!! Its not that important what I have to say!
Posted by: markus at January 23, 2004 07:07 PMDaniel,
You're right about taxes, the deficit, gay marriage, and abortion to the extent that D orthodoxy on those issues is far out of the mainstream.
However, so is R orthodoxy. What a broad majority wants is something in the middle that leaves both the D and R truebelievers unhappy; neither a ban on abortions nor publicly funded partial-birth abortions at any time up to birth (and so on, for other wedge issues). I would go as far as to say that people generally are happy with things the way they are, and rarely support major changes, especially not ones originating with either party's base.
Clinton learned this the hard way in 1994 -- after letting the truebelievers set the agenda from 1992 to 1994, voters slapped that down by electing a republican majority in congress. After that, Clinton ran a fairly centrist administration. He made his base unhappy, but a majority of the people were happy with his performance.
Later on, when the R truebelievers got to set the agenda, Clinton could successfully portray them as extremists -- e.g. with the government shutdown and impeachment.
Bush has learned from Clinton. If you look at things objectively, he too has run a fairly centrist domestic policy, with quite a lot of stuff that makes his base unhappy, but which the public seems to want, e.g. huge increases in spending and new entitlements.
This is smart politics for Bush, just as it was for Clinton, and I think the democrats are actually in almost as bad shape domestically as they are on foreign policy; it's hard to run on an agenda of more taxes and more spending, gay marriage and supporting partial-birth abortions -- that's truebeliever stuff that a broad majority rejects. Similarly it's hard for them to gain traction for their criticism of Bush since the criticism tends to be rather inaccurate and overblown. A 60% spending increase in education is a cut? The deficit is bad, but all D's are proposing making it worse? Any restrictions on abortions, including partial-birth abortions, is "extreme"? John Kerry, who votes with Kennedy 97% of the time, is a "centrist" in the current field? Oh please.
How ironic it is. These days, Bill Clinton is the adult; one of the precious few left among the
democrats; a rare voice of sanity and maturity.
We live in strange times.
Posted by: Fredrik Nyman at January 23, 2004 07:48 PMMichael, you made a comment that 10s of millions of people don't have health care. Do you read Marginal Revolution?
Interesting link it was, seems approx. 15m of those w/o insurance were 20-somethings ++ making $50K or more. Another few million were college students. So, why in the world would you want to toss over the best medical system in the world for 20m. people? Can't we just revamp it? And another question I have in general, don't most states offer some kind of child med insurance? I know IL and TN do. If true, the kids are covered, it might be more of an awareness program. Also, how do they expect to cover transient children? If Native Americans are separate nations, as some claim to be for certain purposes, would they be included? Would we have to renegotiate treaties? And if we were to implement national health care, would unions make sure their members weren't included and fight for a better program than the rest of us sops? And I highly doubt Congress would voluntarily go into this program, they'll platinum plate it like the rest of their bennies. And some are only not covered for part of the year.
Just some talking points possibly for a future comment on your blog.
Posted by: Sandy P. at January 23, 2004 09:54 PMThese are the SAME 44 Million that were uninsured in 2000. WHILE Clinton was the President.
WEBMD - March 2000 Article on Uninsured
Tally of Uninsured Americans Likely to Stay High
March 3, 2000 (Washington) -- About 44 million Americans -- more than 18% of the nonelderly population -- have no health coverage.
As Sandy said 15M of these are 20-somethings. If these same people don't have cars are we going to give them a car too? A 3000 sq foot house??? When does it stop?? When you are 20 you think you are going to live forever, so you logic out you do not need health insurance.
Posted by: ordi at January 24, 2004 12:36 AMI just think it's worth noting that the map shows the Democrats carrying New York , as I'm sure their candidate will. I suppose someone already pointed this out, but I'm not sure, as I lost patience and didn't read every post.
Bush is less broadly popular than Reagan, mostly because he lacks Reagan's personal charm. He is just as popular as Reagan with his party, however,so he can concentrate on getting enough moderate votes to win comfortably. Absent the terrorist attack of 2001, he'd likely be headed for a close loss instead.
Posted by: Michael Veeser at January 24, 2004 01:32 AMMarcus, in the U.S. there are no poor. But there are a lot of dolts.
Posted by: Joe Peden at January 24, 2004 02:55 AMMichael, every one here -- in the U.S -- has health care. I gave it to your sorry asses 24 hours a day. Then you claim you didn't have it. But I say I will continue to give it to you, even though you strenuously object. My father told me many things, by not speaking. Then he spoke. He said, somebody has to make decisions, and it is not that difficult.
Posted by: Joe Peden at January 24, 2004 03:14 AM"To deal with a problem of that magnitude, we're going to have to be a lot more creative than we have been so far."
This is where I differ. The Bush administration is, to me, a lifelong Democrat, astonishingly creative. Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld (the "unknown unknowns") Cheney--the lot of them. Assuming the report that 70% of Al Qaeda's leadership has been dealt with is correct, I'd say we're doing extremely well in the war with radical Islam; certainly far better than I expected. To paraphrase Howard Dean: if you had told me two years ago that we would have gotten to this point without another major terrorist attack, I wouldn't have believed you.
As to "Bush lied," Ben is on target. Over the years of this administration I've come to perceive the Bush White House as the least lying-est of any administration I've paid attention to. I remember Andrew Sullivan saying, at some point, that the easiest way to figure out what the White House was going to do was simply to listen to what they said they were going to do. That has been true for me.
I also had the perception, quite early on, before I became a fan of the President's, that he and most of his group had an active aversion to lying. Certainly they do lie on occasion; all governments do. But they don't like to do it, and they avoid it if they can. I can't give evidence for this; it's a gut reaction.
I think Bush&C's preference for "straight shooting" and blunt talk accounts for some of the pervasive secrecy in this administration, which is a real problem for them and for us. If they feel they can't tell the truth, they prefer to say nothing at all, which is too frequently the course they take.
As to Tony Blair, well, I'm an unabashed fan. I printed out his speech to Parliament and read it out loud with my 9-year old son, then sent it to my sister, who read it with her daughters. I love the guy. And I feel a permanent debt of gratitude to England. You want to talk allies . . . there's an ally.
I suspect that, at a visceral level, the Democratic Party's "internationalize the conflict" talking point is another mistake. I suspect that most Americans read this phrase as a statement that if we don't have France, we don't have allies. To your "ordinary" American, and I count myself an ordinary American, this feels ungrateful and blatantly disrespectful to the countries who did stand with us, at real risk and real cost to themselves and to their citizens, and who did so even though most of them would have preferred we not take the action we did. I am grateful to all of them.
Posted by: Catherine at January 24, 2004 06:40 AMOn the subject of Tony Blair and England, I wanted to add something I don't think I've seen anywhere else.
I want to say that the staunch support of England has meant much to our children, too. More than we know.
On March 19, 2003, my son was given a writing "prompt" at school, and asked to finish the story. He was in third grade, and the prompt was, "I got a knock on the door."
This is what he wrote:
"I got a knock on the door I rushed to answer it was a box with the colors of the british flag then I opend it tare was a note inside it said dear Chris, you have been picked in to the UK kids army you will have these items a spit ball gun clots and a waky talky the plane will be here any minite."
(OK, he can't spell, and from the looks of it he may never have the writing skills of practically anyone who's ever gone to school in England. We're working on it.)
He didn't have time to finish his story in class, but he told me what happened next was that in the children's war he was injured, and "the British had some magic that made me well."
That made me cry. It makes me cry now, writing this. It was the British who, in his little boy's mind, could save him, and who would save him. It was the British who made him well.
9/11 knocked him flat; it knocked all of us flat. And the British have had magic that has helped us as we try to become well again. It's something I think we're not generally conscious of, but it's real, and it's going to stay with us. A generation of American children are growing up with the visceral perception that the children's army flies British colors.
Posted by: Catherine at January 24, 2004 07:04 AMKimmitt,
"Some people just like Bush's personality.
He's really not my type at all. I hang around literary and theater people in coffeeshops and microbreweries. But, you know, some people do like the cowboy thing. This is America, after all. Not France."
Michael, why don't you start hanging around people who know something? "Cowboys" have nothing to do with it, though I've been in contact with many of them. The true ones will save your life. The false ones are Liberals.
Posted by: Joe Peden at January 24, 2004 08:55 AMI remember Andrew Sullivan saying, at some point, that the easiest way to figure out what the White House was going to do was simply to listen to what they said they were going to do.
This is a good point -- the White House does exactly what they say they're going to do. It's why they do those things where the mendacity begins. We knew that the What House was going to reinstitute the deficit, invade Iraq, and trash the hell out of the environment. It's just that the reasons why they were going to do that were not particularly well-elucidated.
On the other hand, we also have Cheney deliberately citing the Feith memo as the "best source of information" regarding Iraq-Al Qaeda connections. Can this be anything other than a deliberate falsehood?
Posted by: Kimmitt at January 24, 2004 08:56 AMCatherine, thank you for your posts. In addition, I love you.
Posted by: Joe Peden at January 24, 2004 09:03 AMKimmitt, you are a frog. Can you croak out something here which explains why you think deficits are bad? Or do you just croak? Again, my apologies to the frogs.
Posted by: Joe Peden at January 24, 2004 09:07 AMBut, you know, some people do like the cowboy thing. This is America, after all. Not France."
I'd rather have a cowboy on my side than a coffeehouse intellectual.
Posted by: David at January 24, 2004 11:02 AM"trash the hell out of the environment."
Justify.
Would this be along the same lines as the "Bush is putting more asbestos in our drinking water" argument?
You know the one. Is this the bit where Clinton declared an acceptable level, Bush stopped the level from going into law, Bush ordered a scientific study that concluded that Clinton's level was right and then Bush instituted the level? And then Bush was poisoning us all?
I know your partisianship makes it hard to see anything Kemmitt, but perhaps you could rise above the bargain basement level of your usual discourse and start justifying your accusations instead of sounding like your brainwashed students.
Posted by: Roark at January 24, 2004 11:21 AMCan you croak out something here which explains why you think deficits are bad?
Er, because we have to pay them back at some point? They are inherently bad, just as surpluses are inherently good.
Justify.
http://www.sierraclub.org/wwatch/
You probably won't agree with all of the things they say -- hell, I don't. But there is a lot of information there, and the balance of it points to a very straightforward conclusion; Bush doesn't give a rat's ass about the environment and will gleefully trash even the most pristine areas for the tiniest of reasons.
Posted by: Kimmitt at January 24, 2004 12:30 PMI followed the first of the links given in this post. I think Sean LaF [Michael too?] must have misread the article. To me, it actually said the opposite of what he implied. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-01-20-tax-usat_x.htm
'...In the poll, the number of Americans earning $20,000 to $30,000 who said their taxes were about right jumped from 37% in 1991 to 66% now. The tax rate on lower-income earners was cut from 15% to 10% in 2001, causing more to pay no federal income tax...'
IN OTHER WORDS, A HIGH PERCENTAGE [OF THOSE WHO PAY NO INCOME TAXES], THINK THAT'S ABOUT RIGHT. BUT EVEN THOSE WHO PAY LITTLE INCOME TAXES DON'T WANT TO PAY MORE.
'.."I get most of the money I pay back when I file my taxes," says Lisa Tanner, 28, a Tampa single mother of three who works in medical billing. "I think that's about right. I would be hurting if I had to pay any more."
I HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THE OTHER LINKS, BUT I HOPE THEY ARE BETTER THAN THIS ONE IN MAKING THE CASE THAT BUSH IS OUT OF TOUCH WITH AMERICANS.
Posted by: Kurt Brouwer at January 24, 2004 12:43 PMKimmitt -- there is the "l" word (lie) again. Are you capable of discussing policy? The thing that most aggravates me about the "Bush lied" meme is the absolute irresponsibility of the Dem Left. LET'S HAVE A SUBSTANTIVE DEBATE. If you think Pres. Bush is wrong about something, TELL US WHY. Suggest a better alternative. Present a realistic set of options for another policy you believe is better so that we can engage in a debate about ideas. Instead, all we here is "Bush lied." This has the same effect as saying "you're a racist." Once you say that, everything else is ignored, and there is no longer a debate.
I am with the President in his response to the problems we face with Islamo-fascists. I might change my mind if other alternatives are presented. I will not change my mind if all you can say is "Bush lied," "the war is all about enriching the oil industry," "the decision to invade Iraq was made before 9/11," "Bush did this to get reelected," blah, blah, blah. Try to inject some substance into the discussion of this very important issue.
Posted by: Ben at January 24, 2004 12:53 PMAll of you people who claim that Bush doesn't lie are like children who still want to believe in Santa Claus, even though they saw their dad bring in the toys from the garage on Christmas Eve. Bush and Cheney have repeatedly lied about matters large and small, and anyone who isn't smitten with Dubya's "cowboy charm" knows that.
Keep your heads in the sand if you want, and if you must. The rest of us have real work to do, undoing the damage done to this country by the last few years of Republican misrule.
Posted by: Dr. Daneeka at January 24, 2004 01:09 PMAny proof that Bush lied?
Posted by: Jim at January 24, 2004 01:24 PMDr. Daneeka -- Is there a substantive argument about policy contained there? I must have missed it. . . .
Posted by: Ben at January 24, 2004 02:11 PMKimmit writes: "We knew that the What House was going to reinstitute the deficit, invade Iraq, and trash the hell out of the environment."
I love it, the Left has gone as Wacky with Bush as the Right did with Clinton. Maybe even wackier! Reinstitute the decicit? What nonsense the so called deficit was always there, but, if you change it's title, then you can ignore it. Bush gave Iraq several chances to avoid invasion/war, Saddam chose not to. Trash the environment? Pray tell, and be so kind as to be very very specific, how did he do so? (Oh, and don't waste our time with the global warming caused by western society meme, we already know that one and it's false to boot. Sheesh, no wonder the Dems had so much fun with the Right in the Clinton Days. You guys are just way to easy.
Posted by: gmroper at January 24, 2004 02:25 PMBen writes: "Instead, all we here [sic] is "Bush lied." This has the same effect as saying "you're a racist." Once you say that, everything else is ignored, and there is no longer a debate."
But Ben, that is exactly, succinctly, and deliberately the purpose, i.e., to shut down debate, to cause Bush supporters to become defensive, and to shy away from a discussion of ideas. Ideas are NOT what they have in mind, pure and simple amigo, pure and simple.
Posted by: gmroper at January 24, 2004 02:31 PMwhoops, two posts above that should be "deficit"
Sorry, it's Saturdays Fat Fingers.
All of you people who claim that Bush doesn't lie are like children who still want to believe in Santa Claus,
Name me a politician whom you don't believe will lie to you. Or do you actually think the book of Job is really Dean's favority New Testament book???
Regarding Bush's "lies", Clinton and Chirac and plenty of others also warned of Saddam's WMDs. So if Bush lied, they lied too.
Posted by: David at January 24, 2004 02:48 PMWesley Clark Sept 26, 2002
"Saddam Hussein: he is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. Were he to acquire such capabilities, we and our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks. Saddam might use such weapons as a deterrent while launching attacks against Israel or his neighbors, he might threaten American forces in the region, he might strike directly against Israel, or Israel, weighing the possibilities of nuclear blackmail or aggression, might feel compelled to strike Iraq first.
Guess Clark lied too, or did he tell the truth?
Posted by: mnm at January 24, 2004 03:03 PMA few others had something to say about Iraq over the past few years:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline (Not At) Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members...It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
That should do it.
Posted by: mnm at January 24, 2004 03:30 PMmnm, thanks for your monitering, but facts mean nothing to Democrats, who have no brain. I cannot help them, but we still wish to try.
Posted by: Joe Peden at January 24, 2004 04:39 PMAre you capable of discussing policy?
Of course we are; there are substantive policy discussions littered around this blog. A few of them even include me personally. I think you're starting to protest a little much, though.
Posted by: Kimmitt at January 24, 2004 08:02 PMKeep your heads in the sand if you want, and if you must. The rest of us have real work to do, undoing the damage done to this country by the last few years of Republican misrule.
Your sloganeering has been answered and disposed of by facts (see posts directly above). Care to respond with something other than additional slogans? Of course not. You're a Leftist ideologue, it's what you do.
Posted by: David at January 24, 2004 08:26 PMWell, I'm glad you've struck your blow for policy discussion instead of sloganeering.
Posted by: Kimmitt at January 24, 2004 10:05 PMKimmitt,
my question was rhetorical, and given your own record (and current response), it might as well have been directed at you.
Posted by: David at January 25, 2004 07:39 AMKimmit, you are an imbecile.
Posted by: Joe Peden at January 25, 2004 11:33 AMMr. Peden,
"Kimmit, you are an imbecile."
Unlikely; though you, Mr. Peden, have shown yourself to have have an unsurpassed degree of experience with that particular condition, so perhaps I should defer to your judgment.
Posted by: Ged of Earthsea at January 25, 2004 12:03 PMYes, though I could not understand most of what you tried to say, you should defer to my judgement. Well, no you shouldn't. You should defer to your own judgement.
Posted by: Joe Peden at January 25, 2004 01:16 PMTAG! You're it.
Posted by: Soap at January 25, 2004 08:16 PMJoe Peden,
I need you to stop calling my other guests "imbeciles."
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 26, 2004 01:43 AM...I don't think Bush challenges liberals patriotism, but I do think that many of his supporters do, and more importantly, some members of his administration do (Ashcroft in particular). Ultimately, Bush is responsible for their words and actions...
Garbage. This sort of attitude propagates the notion that no one individual is responsible for their own thoughts/actions. Neither Bush, the GOP, nor anyone else even loosely associated with them has to answer directly for anything ugly that comes from me, nor do I expect them to. Spreading one's political beliefs is not tantamount to brainwashing.
With that, I have one piece of advice for any one Democrat who thinks he can attack Bush on abortion and gay marriage: You can't make a coherent policy statement on either if you treat the opposition as if their beliefs hold no social graces. That gets the opposition fired up every time.
Posted by: Brad S at January 26, 2004 08:54 AMBush implicitly endorses Ashcroft's actions and words by retaining him in one of the highest offices in the country.
Posted by: Kimmitt at January 26, 2004 06:43 PMYou have a pretty nice blog. English is not my native language but it was please to read your site. From Russia with love :)Sincerely yours..
Posted by: Mildred at February 20, 2004 10:44 PM
free hilton paris sex video HERE!!! the best SEX VIDEO MOVIES! Girls get fucked!
the best tranny site on the net. young transexuals here!
free incest stories, incest sex, mom and son, father and daughter
young lolitas, teens, teens sex, teens sex video
anime porn, cartoon sex, pokemon sex
asian beauties, sweet asian girls get fucked. chinease sex. enjoy them
the best galleries with the best young girls on the net.. sex, sex, sex, sex!
INDIAN SEX WORLD! SWEET INDIAN GIRLS HERE!
young lesbians. lesbian sex. lesbian video, lesbian sex
Often the test of courage is not to die, but to live.
Posted by: Blandy Charley at March 17, 2004 05:22 PMFor every action there is an equal and opposite government program.
Posted by: Brooks Dana at May 2, 2004 12:51 PMI like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me.
Posted by: Denk Jeremy at May 3, 2004 12:24 AMBuy www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system.
Posted by: direct TV at May 28, 2004 01:29 AMIts rather interesting for me..
http://stop-barking.healz.com/
http://weight-loss-programs.bcure.com/
http://anabolic-steroid.healz.com/
Find your www.ALL-FIORICET.COM here, 100% discrete!
Posted by: fioricet at June 14, 2004 05:41 PMgo to WWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM for great deals!
Posted by: credit card debt at June 15, 2004 12:30 PMIR Orgy - Cum Splatter - Tit Vision - Big Dicked Shemales - Bi Bi Love - Pussy Stretchers - Blowjob Hotties - Club Hardcore Live - Dirty Sweet Teens - Twink Cocks - Electro Smut - Little Pink Cherry - Ghetto Nasty - Hot Sticky Loads - Instrusive Eye - Mondo Porno - Old N Horny
Posted by: MikeApartment at June 21, 2004 03:47 AMSmut Land - Jerk Off Movies - Karas Xxx - Ebony Fantasy - Teen Steam - Lesbian Pink - Major Melons - Classic Mature - Teen X - Asian Pleasures - Club Cock - Totally Teens - Nasty Boys - Asian Heat - Adult Chat Network - Karas Amateurs - Fetish Hotel - Absolutely Male - Tight Anal Sluts - Trannies Online - Group Thrills - Hidden Eyes - Latina Kiss - Big N Plump - Blowing Loads - Dirty Cheerleaders - Fantasy Toons - Fort Booty - Oral Addiction - Perfect Toes - Petite Latinas - Pregnant Babes - Red Hot Pornstars - Mixed Flavor - Foxy Brunettes - Hot Little Package - Just Asian Teens - My Kinky Wife - Free Soldier Of Cock - Adult Dreams - Awesome Orgy - First Lesbian Kiss - Girls N Toys - Great Looking Ass - Hot Asian Cherry
Posted by: MikeApartment at June 21, 2004 03:47 AMNow you can Play Poker online any time!
Posted by: online poker at June 25, 2004 01:58 PMThe public is wonderfully tolerant. It forgives everything except genius.
Posted by: Motley Laura at June 30, 2004 05:52 AMBang Boat
teen cash
adult free webcams
anal sex free
bondage
free gay picture
gay video
free remover spyware
free removal spyware
Deleter Spy
Stacy Valentine
Tera Patrick
Ginger Lynn
Chloe Jones
Crissy Moran
Ron Jeremy
Briana Banks
Aria Giovanni
Britney Spear
Jessica Simpson
Jenifer Lopez
you can play blackjack here! http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com
Posted by: black jack at July 22, 2004 01:51 AMhi. i'm 20 .. from Brazil... how r u?
http://www.latina-sex.namelatina porn Posted by: latina porn at July 24, 2004 02:26 AM
WOW! I like this guestbook... that's cool
http://www.online-dating-service.com
online dating service
free anal sex movies
free anal sex movies
free anal sex movies
free anal sex movies
gay sex video
gay sex video
free gay sex video
gay sex video
free gay sex video
gay sex video
gay sex
gay sex movies
gay sex
gay sex movies
asian sex
asian sex movies
asian sex
asian sex movies
animal sex
animal sex movies
animal sex
animal sex movies
free anime cartoon porn
free hentai cartoon porn
free hentai cartoon porn
free anime cartoon porn
free lesbian porn sex movies
free lesbian porn sex movies
free lesbian porn sex movies
free lesbian porn sex movies
public nudity
public nudity
public nudity
free public nudity
indian sex movies stories
indian porn movies stories
indian sex movies stories
indian sex movies stories
free rape stories videos
free rape stories videos
free rape stories videos
free rape stories videos
sexy naked girls porn
sexy naked girls porn
sexy naked girls porn
---
dog sex
http://dog--sex.com
animal sex
http://animal--sex.info
shaved pussy, bushless pussy
http://shaved-pussy.biz
foot sex, feet sex, legs sex
http://foot-sex.biz
animal sex, horse sex, god sex, rabbit sex, fish sex
http://horse-sex.ws
hand job, woman mastrubation, woman looks at man mastrubation
http://www.hand-job.us
Incest stories, incest sex, free incest stories mom son incest, father daughter incest
http://www.incest-stories.biz
HUN YELOW PAGE, THE HUN, THEHUN.COM, THEHUN.NET, THE HUN TGP, THE HUN YELLOW HUN YELOW PAGE, THE HUN, THEHUN.COM, THEHUN.NET, THE HUN TGP, THE HUN YELLOW
http://www.the-hun-yellow-page-tgp.com
free hilton paris sex video MATURE, MATURE SEX, MATURE MOMS, MATURE LADIES, GRANNY MATURE
http://www.mature-sex-moms-porn.com
free hilton paris sex video HERE!!! the best SEX VIDEO MOVIES! Girls get fucked!
http://www.free-hilton-paris-sex-video.com
beastiality and animal sex stories here. sweet dogs sex,horses sex,pigs fucking,snakes sex, dogs oral job, horses blowjob.
http://www.beastiality-animal-sex-stories.com
the best tranny site on the net. young transexuals here!
http://www.trannysexmovie.com
free incest stories, incest sex, mom and son, father and daughter
http://www.free-incest-stories-site.com
young lolitas, teens, teens sex, teens sex video
http://www.teen-sex-porn-models.com
anime porn, cartoon sex, pokemon sex
http://www.anime-porn-sex-xxx.com
asian beauties, sweet asian girls get fucked. chinease sex. enjoy them
http://www.asian-girls-porn-sex.com
the best young gays sex. great cocks of the huge gays. gay sex video, gax pics, gay porno adult movies
http://www.free-gay-video-clip.com
the best galleries with the best young girls on the net.. sex, sex, sex, sex!
http://www.gals4all.com
INDIAN SEX WORLD! SWEET INDIAN GIRLS HERE!
http://www.indian-sex-porno-movies-stories.com
young lesbians. lesbian sex. lesbian video, lesbian sex
http://www.lesbian-sex-porn-pics-stories.com
sweet hot young girls
http://www.sweethotgirls.com
WOW! I like this guestbook... that's cool
http://www.online-dating-service.com
online dating service
free anal sex movies
free anal sex movies
free anal sex movies
free anal sex movies
http://gay-men-sex-porn.com
gay sex video
gay sex video
http://gay-men-sex-porn.com
free gay sex video
gay sex video
http://www.gay-men-sex-porn.com
free gay sex video
gay sex video
http://www.gay-men-sex-porn.com
gay sex
gay sex movies
http://www.gay-sex.name
gay sex
gay sex movies
http://gay-sex.name
asian sex
asian sex movies
http://www.asian-sex.name
asian sex
asian sex movies
http://asian-sex.name
animal sex
animal sex movies
http://www.animal-sex.name
animal sex
animal sex movies
http://animal-sex.name
free anime cartoon porn
free hentai cartoon porn
http://www.free-hentai-cartoon-porn.com
free hentai cartoon porn
free anime cartoon porn
http://free-hentai-cartoon-porn.com
http://www.free-lesbian-porn-sex-movies.com
free lesbian porn sex movies
free lesbian porn sex movies
http://free-lesbian-porn-sex-movies.com
free lesbian porn sex movies
free lesbian porn sex movies
http://free-lesbian-porn-sex-movies.com
public nudity
public nudity
http://www.public-nudity.name
public nudity
free public nudity
http://public-nudity.name
indian sex movies stories
indian porn movies stories
http://www.indian-sex-porn-movies-stories.com
indian sex movies stories
http://indian-sex-porn-movies-stories.com
indian sex movies stories
http://www.free-rape-stories-videos.com
free rape stories videos
free rape stories videos
free rape stories videos
http://free-rape-stories-videos.com
free rape stories videos
http://www.sexy-naked-girls-porn.com
sexy naked girls porn
sexy naked girls porn
sexy naked girls porn
sexy naked girls porn
http://sexy-naked-girls-porn.com
---
dog sex
http://dog--sex.com
animal sex
http://animal--sex.info
shaved pussy, bushless pussy
http://shaved-pussy.biz
foot sex, feet sex, legs sex
http://foot-sex.biz
animal sex, horse sex, god sex, rabbit sex, fish sex
http://horse-sex.ws
hand job, woman mastrubation, woman looks at man mastrubation
http://www.hand-job.us
Incest stories, incest sex, free incest stories mom son incest, father daughter incest
http://www.incest-stories.biz
HUN YELOW PAGE, THE HUN, THEHUN.COM, THEHUN.NET, THE HUN TGP, THE HUN YELLOW HUN YELOW PAGE, THE HUN, THEHUN.COM, THEHUN.NET, THE HUN TGP, THE HUN YELLOW
http://www.the-hun-yellow-page-tgp.com
free hilton paris sex video MATURE, MATURE SEX, MATURE MOMS, MATURE LADIES, GRANNY MATURE
http://www.mature-sex-moms-porn.com
free hilton paris sex video HERE!!! the best SEX VIDEO MOVIES! Girls get fucked!
http://www.free-hilton-paris-sex-video.com
beastiality and animal sex stories here. sweet dogs sex,horses sex,pigs fucking,snakes sex, dogs oral job, horses blowjob.
http://www.beastiality-animal-sex-stories.com
the best tranny site on the net. young transexuals here!
http://www.trannysexmovie.com
free incest stories, incest sex, mom and son, father and daughter
http://www.free-incest-stories-site.com
young lolitas, teens, teens sex, teens sex video
http://www.teen-sex-porn-models.com
anime porn, cartoon sex, pokemon sex
http://www.anime-porn-sex-xxx.com
asian beauties, sweet asian girls get fucked. chinease sex. enjoy them
http://www.asian-girls-porn-sex.com
the best young gays sex. great cocks of the huge gays. gay sex video, gax pics, gay porno adult movies
http://www.free-gay-video-clip.com
the best galleries with the best young girls on the net.. sex, sex, sex, sex!
http://www.gals4all.com
INDIAN SEX WORLD! SWEET INDIAN GIRLS HERE!
http://www.indian-sex-porno-movies-stories.com
young lesbians. lesbian sex. lesbian video, lesbian sex
http://www.lesbian-sex-porn-pics-stories.com
sweet hot young girls
http://www.sweethotgirls.com
You know sleeping pills
can be addictive right? Did you know Ambien
gets you high?
realy nice web site
Posted by: casino at August 2, 2004 03:39 AMits great informationsite
that's I want tell
thanks
I just wanted so say thank you guys ! i really like your site and i hope you'll continue to improving it,
Posted by: viagra at August 3, 2004 05:24 AM3262 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com
Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 06:52 PM2457 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com
Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 06:58 PMlike your site and i hope you'll continue to improving it