10.05.04
Is anyone watching the debate? I didn’t think so. They’re live-blogging over at Vodkapundit, though. One of the Power Line guys has a camera crew in his house. Gee. Knock yourselves out…
ShapeofDays is not live-blogging tonight, but rumor has it that Jeremy is typing furiously. The Captain’s on it, too. Our House is blogging quietly, but I think the guys at Blogs for Bush are losing it.
Check out Byron’s transcript. Outside the Beltway is live.
Reminder: No linking in comments. If you do, your comments will be held until morning because of the spam filter. Also, certain words trigger the filter, so some comments may be held up anyway. Sorry about that. If you don’t see your comment after posting, if inclined, please rephrase and re-submit.
64 Comments
Is Ambra watching the debates? *Looks at 8 ball* Outlook not so good. The blogosphere can have it. Let’s vote already.
Comment by Ambra Nykol — 10.05.04 @ 9:22 pm
Thanks for the comment, Ambra!
Comment by La Shawn — 10.05.04 @ 9:24 pm
I am watching this…er …listening I mean.
Comment by Joshua — 10.05.04 @ 9:34 pm
I will be posting my thoughts on this debate shortly after it finishes. So far Cheney is getting rave reviews on my end.
Comment by Jeff Blanco — 10.05.04 @ 9:38 pm
I was just going to suggest someone do that, Jeff. Hey Joshua, will you post about it tomorrow as well? I’ll link to both posts.
Comment by La Shawn — 10.05.04 @ 9:41 pm
We’re watching right now. Of course, the Kerry/Edwards people have to keep running the Halliburton nonsense into the ground. Isn’t that horse dead by now? Quit beating it!
Comment by Kiki B. — 10.05.04 @ 9:44 pm
I’m watching. I always love to watch/listen to Vice President Cheney speak; he is as sharp as a tack and has a mind like a steel trap! John Edwards is a little better than I thought he would be, I must say; I thought he would look like a total idiot next to Cheney but so far he is coming off strong. They seem to be getting a little more annoyed with each other than during the Pres. debate.
Ohhhh, VP. just said to Edwards, “The first time I met you was when you walked on stage tonight.” hahaha
Comment by Kris — 10.05.04 @ 9:46 pm
I am watching!! Cheney is doing VERY good.
Comment by Lori Kasbeer — 10.05.04 @ 9:46 pm
You guys are doing live-commenting. Excellent! ‘Cause I’m not even listening.
Comment by La Shawn — 10.05.04 @ 9:49 pm
I’m watching half heartedly. Hubby is watching and typing furiously. He’s taping it too so he can go back and make a more detailed analysis. My observations do far, 10 minutes in for the first Vietnam reference, 20 minutes in for the first of many Haliburton references.
Comment by Samantha — 10.05.04 @ 9:52 pm
Jeremy’s live-blogging? I’ll link him.
Comment by La Shawn — 10.05.04 @ 9:56 pm
Cheney definitely had the line of the night when he said, Senator, tonight was the first time I met you.
Just blew me away…
I am going to do a poll on my blog to see who won.
jeffblanco.blogdrive.com
Comment by Jeff Blanco — 10.05.04 @ 10:10 pm
LB,
I am watching, while doing homework (am I acting white for going back to school?) and drinking my theraflu.
I really do see this as style vs substance.
Edwards actually just invoked “Kerry went to vietnam with John McCain”
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 10.05.04 @ 10:19 pm
That this is the first time I’ve met you comment of Cheney’s was harsh. I wish I’d looked up to see Edwards’ reaction.
Comment by Samantha — 10.05.04 @ 10:19 pm
Couldn’t you just feel the burn of VP Cheney’s wrath after Edwards blithely discussed the VP’s family’s personal matters!?! And Edwards was totally oblivious that Cheney was putting him in his place. The words were good: (”I want to thank the Senator for saying such kind things about my family. I really appreciate that.” [PERIOD]) But the delivery was even better. He even caught Gwen the Great off guard!
DC-MD GOP
Comment by Deborah Toms — 10.05.04 @ 10:19 pm
La Shawn, Parableman has a really good blog of the debate.
mt.ektopos.com/parablemania/archives/000811.html
Comment by William Meisheid — 10.05.04 @ 10:28 pm
This is pathetic. I will leave the blogging to those who will do a much better job than I. The Liberal bias is giving me a nervous breakdown!!
This moderator is not moderating.
Cheney is doing his best given the circumstances.
VOTE BUSH AND CHENEY IN NOVEMBER!!!
God bless all of the Pajamahadeen!!
http://www.faithmouse.com/
Comment by Joshua — 10.05.04 @ 10:36 pm
Already had him linked, William. Thanks!
Comment by La Shawn — 10.05.04 @ 10:38 pm
I score it a win for Cheney.
Clearly, he had his info, and his eyes never left the prize.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 10.05.04 @ 10:46 pm
Bloggers appearing on NBC, Wonkette and Powerline, votes for Cheney.
MSNBC hardball panel of 5 all vote for Cheney with the exception on Ron Reagan. Damn that was surprising. His father just turned over in his grave.
ABC gives it to Cheney.
I agree. Mission accomplished Mr. Cheney. Congratulations.
Comment by Jim R — 10.05.04 @ 11:28 pm
VP Debate
Watch the spin from the Left: Cheney did so much better than Bush… Implication: Bush, like Allawi, is a puppet, and Cheney is, like Metallica, the Master of Puppets.
Trackback by Right On Red — 10.05.04 @ 11:31 pm
I thought Vice President Cheney put Kerry/Edwards Senate record up for the media to look at. I thought Cheney made a couple of points that put Edwards on watch. Kerry/Edwards will really have to beef up their attendance and voting record. Halliburton is a United States company, why are the Senators dogging them out. There are still some people that are depending on this company for their income. Why talk about you are against outsourcing, when you don’t even give our own companies credit for the good work they do. Halliburton has done some good things. Edwards really skipped over a lot of what was asked of him. Aids/Hiv no one really has the answer to this unclean disease but the Word of God. Education and prevention doesn’t and isn’t going to work, men and women have to do more to abstain from sex outside of marriage, and homosexual relations. If the world wants to be immoral when it comes to sex, then unclean diseases will be on the rise. Government cannot stop it nor can the politician. Sexually transmitted diseases come from people having sex outside of wedlock and sleeping with same sex partners. Aids/Hiv are pretty prevalent in our prisons today, when our men who are engaging in sex with other men inside our prisons are let out and then have sex with their heterosexual partner is why the stats are up in the area of black women. Men have to be more responsible as well as our women. Unclean spirits are waiting to use a body, who is next in line to be used by the enemy? I didn’t really hear neither candidate talk as such. President Bush is gonna have to go Ray Lewis on Kerry Friday, he’s got to show up! My vote is for BUSH/CHENEY in 04.
Comment by sergeantjones — 10.05.04 @ 11:38 pm
VP Debate
Watch the spin from the Left: Cheney did so much better than Bush… Implication: Bush, like Allawi, is a puppet, and Cheney is, like Metallica, the Master of Puppets.
Trackback by Right On Red — 10.05.04 @ 11:40 pm
Funny how we heard lots of irrelevant talk, but no definition of the “global test” standard from John Edwards. I think we know why.
Comment by Jack McC — 10.05.04 @ 11:41 pm
John Edwards class warfare rhetoric was almost unbearable. “Tax breaks for those sitting by their pool living on dividends” — I wanted to vomit.
Tax cuts? Edwards mentioned tax cuts for the middle-class for this and that. Translation: More ‘targeted’ tax cuts, i.e. further complication of the tax code giving particular relief to those on the Federal gov’t’s “good” list and having to do special things that “they” apporove of at that.
As for Cheney, he did okay, but seemed generally bored of the whole thing. That was understandable.
Comment by Mark Slater — 10.05.04 @ 11:56 pm
Good Lord, that boy from down south just got beat like a rented mule. Gotta give him points for trying to spew an ink cloud of factoids about his and Easter Island Statue head’s pie in the sky plans, but Cheney wasn’t having it and laid waste to his nonsense. Edwards in the end was stuck tapdancing (”let me go to mah previous powint….uh, let me go to mah previous powint….”)
Reason I know Cheney smoked Edwards- Mary Beth Cahill (director of one of the most foolish presidential campaigns in history) was reduced to mewling about how focusing on the past doesn’t do anyone any good (hmmmm…… what about the tourette’s like references to Vietnam then?) and that Cheney was….wait for it……”Grumpy and mean”. Yeah, nice rebuttal Mary Beth.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahaha!
Comment by Idler — 10.06.04 @ 12:27 am
“Cheney definitely had the line of the night when he said, Senator, tonight was the first time I met you.”
Unfortunately he was lying or mistaken about that. They met at a national prayer breakfast in February of 01.
Comment by actus — 10.06.04 @ 12:32 am
I watched it and deliberately stayed away from the blogs til after the evening news.
My feeling is that Bush is ridiculed for bumbling or being inarticulate in his answers, yet no one has any doubts as to what he meant. Therefore the time that Cheney spent clarifying or explaining what Bush said versus meant was zilch, nada! This left him plenty of time to restate the administration’s objectives, correct mischaracterzations and attack Kerwards.
OTOH, on every topic, from Afganistan to Iraq to domestic issues, Edwards had no choice but to expend precious minutes and seconds to not only explain how his own positions are in alignment with his boss-in-waiting but, more critically, to restate sKerry’s position. Again, as with sKerry’s own past rhetoric, Edwards talked about how “clear” their plans have always been. The difference however, was where sKerry could only offer 3 or 4 bullets, at least Edwards gave specifics that mostly sounded reasonable.
Reasonable sounding that is until Cheney sufficiently skewered enough of them that we-the-Pajamahedden will be expounding on the substance over the coming days.
My conclusion is that Cheney won for staying on message and pointing out specific flaws in the Kerwards platform. John Boy “won” by not getting plastered but lost it for failing miserably to explain to us how their rhetoric on tough defense, fiscal responsibility and dedication to public service trumps their historical track record — pay no attention to the girly-men behind the pink curtains. IOW, if Kerwards are “born again”, where and how did that defining transfiguration occur?
Comment by Andy — 10.06.04 @ 12:44 am
“Good Lord, that boy from down south just got beat like a rented mule.”
Oh my word, Idler. I about fell off my chair when I read that…Rofl and ROFL. That was so funny. I’m going to have to remember that phrase to use again.
I wonder how many clips of Bill Clinton Edwards watched in order to do his characterization of him ala Bill Hammond of SNL. That man is so phony, contrived and affected. There, I hope I got all of the adjectives/synonyms to describe him.
Comment by Kiki B. — 10.06.04 @ 1:02 am
Actus: go read the transcript.
Casually meeting at a prayer breakfast pales in contrast to meeting on the Senate floor in order to conduct the nation’s business. The “hyperbolic” point is that Senator Gone was AWOL.
If, for instance, I said that in all the time that I’ve been hanging around here at LBC that I just met you here for the first time tonight, and you respond that well actually, we had crossed paths over at the Excel-L VB List back in 2001, does that make me a liar or mistaken?
So Edwards was at a prayer breakfast in Feb 2001, what was the occasion — the inaugrual breakfast? I can see how Cheney wouldn’t remember John’s smiling face amongst the swarm of politicians and private citizens from across the nation, even if that event was seared, seared in Mrs Edwards’ memory? Was that John Boy’s 1st & last prayer breakfast? He sure missed a golden opportunity to remind Cheney during his rebuttal. You mean Goner wasn’t at the breakfast on the eve of going to war? Seems to me that there must have been at least a few occasions that might have merited a token visit.
Comment by Andy — 10.06.04 @ 1:09 am
I just tried to check out factcheck.com, and it’s been hijacked. It sent me to GeorgeSoros.com. Other people on other blogs have been saying it wasn’t working earlier in the evening.
Comment by Kiki B. — 10.06.04 @ 1:18 am
Heh! I’m a tad embarrassed. It’s factcheck.ORG, not .COM. FACTCHECK.ORG is working just fine!
Comment by Kiki B. — 10.06.04 @ 1:27 am
Cheney took Edwards to school, and then out to the woodshed.
The hard right hands on the subject of Edwards not including the Iraqis who are fighting and dying for their country shook him visibly.
The lack of attendance in the Senate is the reason Edwards didn’t run for reelection: he couldn’t win with his dismal record. Again, he was visibly stung. I thought they might call it on a TKO.
I also point out some Edwards lies on my blog . . . poor guy. At least he got through it without crying.
Comment by Adjoran — 10.06.04 @ 2:40 am
“The “hyperbolic” point is that Senator Gone was AWOL.”
I understand he was hyperbolic. But they have met before. If hed said ‘I’ve never seen you in the senate’, or ‘I’ve never talked to you on the floor’, thats fine.
Another word for hyperbolic is exaggeration. Or lie.
Comment by actus — 10.06.04 @ 8:47 am
Actus,
“Another word for hyperbolic is exaggeration. Or lie.”
Like saying that the people that benefited from the tax cuts all all sit by the pool, collecting dividends?
Now one of the two examples is clearly a bigger exageration (I benefited from the tax cuts, and I don’t even own a pool)
I think in the case of Cheney, there is room for interpretation. Being in a room with someone, and having another person say “Dick, this is John Edwards, and to his left, is Jack O’Brian etc” may mean they have met, but it doesn’t mean they ever had face time. And the point that Edwards and Kerry have awful attendance records in the sentate is pretty clear. The sheeple of Mass. may tolerate that when it comes to John F Kerry, but clearly it isn’t flying with NC. If John Edwards doesn’t make it into the White House next month, he can pack his bags and leave Washington (unless he becomes a lobbyist or a full time DNC shill)
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 10.06.04 @ 9:53 am
“I think in the case of Cheney, there is room for interpretation. ”
Foxnews.com has an article listing 3 times they met:
On Feb. 1, 2001, the vice president thanked Edwards by name at a Senate prayer breakfast and sat beside him during the event.
On April 8, 2001, Cheney and Edwards shook hands when they met off-camera during a taping of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” moderator Tim Russert said Wednesday on “Today.”
On Jan. 8, 2003, the two met when the first-term North Carolina senator accompanied Elizabeth Dole to her swearing-in by Cheney as a North Carolina senator, Edwards aides also said.
That last one shows that I was wrong earlier — even if Cheney had said ‘I’ve never met you in the senate’, he would still be wrong.
Comment by actus — 10.06.04 @ 11:11 am
It doesn’t matter Actus. Bentsen wasn’t a friend of JFK either. The damage is devasting and done.
Comment by Jim R — 10.06.04 @ 11:46 am
Devasting is when you’ve been disemboweled.
Comment by Jim R — 10.06.04 @ 11:49 am
I DID WATCH THE WHOLE DEBATE–DID NOT KNOW MUCH ABOUT
V.P. CHENEY, AS HE IS USUALLY IN THE BACKGROUND–BUT, LAST
NITE, I SAW A MAN THAT EARNED MY RESPECT–WHICH IS NOT USUALLY GIVEN TO ANY POLITICIAN!!! HE WAS STRONG, PRECISE, AND DID NOT PLAY “DODGE EM”–HIS RESPONSES WERE CLEAR AND
AND HE LAYED OUT KERRY/EDWARDS OUT WITH STYLE!!!
Comment by DONNA — 10.06.04 @ 1:53 pm
“The damage is devasting and done.”
It depends. Often these things matter more in the spin than in the actual debate. If the news over the next few days is ‘cheney lied’, as it often happened to Gore, then the damage is yet to be done.
Comment by actus — 10.06.04 @ 2:11 pm
If it leads to discussion about Kerry and Edwards’ attendance records while serving in the Senate, then it will be a big negative for KE-04. The people that already thing Cheney is a Bad Man are already voting for Not Bush-04. Anyone who would be swayed by Cheyney’s exageration is also likely to be swayed by Kerry and Edwards skipping security council meetings. And missing key votes. And voting to go to war, then voting against funding it.
All in all, I think the more people talk about the issue the worse it will be for KE-04.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 10.06.04 @ 3:30 pm
“security council meetings”
security council?
Comment by actus — 10.06.04 @ 4:07 pm
You know she (or he) means the Senate Intelligence Committee. Don’t be obtuse.
Comment by LawWife — 10.06.04 @ 4:24 pm
Ahh shucks Actus. Do ya’ always have’ta be so critical? We’re beginning to worry you don’t like us. Say it ain’t so.
Comment by Jim R — 10.06.04 @ 10:07 pm
Sorry Actus,
should have read intelligence comitee. Never blog and debate coworkers at the same time. It is distracting.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 10.06.04 @ 10:56 pm
LawWife,
Thanks for the assist. But I take Actus’ comments as a compliment. Clearly, when I say something wrong, it is a shock to him. Being right so often has its own perils… I’ll have to try harder to live up to his expectations {sigh}
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 10.06.04 @ 10:58 pm
SCSI…
Comment by Andy — 10.06.04 @ 11:30 pm
Uh, Actus?
You sure you want to get into who did what kind of lying in the debates to this point? The man with the permanent Mardi Gras Mask was a veritable font of mistruth in his go around, and his trusty well groomed puppet boy spilled most of the same lies whenever his string got pulled last night.
The heart of Cheney’s rant was that lil’ Johnny won’t go to his senate club meetings- Senator Gone is his moniker in North Carolina…..you know, the home state that he won’t carry. If you care to focus on Cheney having “met” la piquita poufita previously, then you might as well go the whole nine and echo Mary Beth Cahill in saying that Cheney looked “mean and grumpy”- another devastatingly strong donkey talking point.
Comment by Idler — 10.06.04 @ 11:52 pm
I’m sorry, the debate *was* boring.
Grumpy? Give me the curmudgeonly Cheney over the “Now, I’m not some fancy big city lawyer” Edwards any day.
Comment by Mark Slater — 10.07.04 @ 12:35 am
” And voting to go to war”
I’ve always thought this was an interesting one. As it was a vote for authorization, not war. Then again, i’m not a textualist.
Comment by actus — 10.07.04 @ 8:18 am
Wuzzy - leave it to you to see the brighter side.
Comment by LawWife — 10.07.04 @ 10:37 am
Why would you vote to authorize someone to use force if you don’t want them to use force? That’s nuance and babble. If you vote to authorize someone to use force, you are believing that they will. Reminds me of arguing over the meaning of the word ‘is’.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 10.07.04 @ 12:07 pm
“. If you vote to authorize someone to use force, you are believing that they will.”
You’re giving them the choice. Which they still can misuse. As an analogy, I can authorize my kids to take my car, but they can still misuse my car, and they can’t rely on the fact that I gave them the keys when I punish them for their misuse.
Maybe in a post 9/11 world, Kerry thinks presidents should have that power. I do. Which doesn’t mean that presidents can be wrong in excercising that power. I haven’t yet heard him say it but kerry’s position boils down to:
The president should be authorized to go to war. This president misused that. We should change presidents, not authorization.
I’m not a very complicated guy, and thats not very nuanced. You can certainly make it nuanced, by arguing over and over about its details, but the same can be said about bush’s ‘ownership society’, or why his doctrine of preemption is not being used in other places besides Iraq. The details are always nuanced.
Comment by actus — 10.07.04 @ 12:31 pm
Ah, but if you don’t trust your kids not to misuse the car, you won’t authorize them to use it. His vote for authorization was pretty clearly saying he trusted the president to use that authority.
Comment by LawWife — 10.07.04 @ 4:14 pm
Good point LawWife. And you certainly don’t praise them for their actions behind the wheel, then condemn them later.
Actus,
Aside from Iraq and Afghanistan, where else would you consider a candidate for pre-emption?
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 10.07.04 @ 4:34 pm
Some food for thought for those opposing the war while our soldiers are fighting in Iraq.
From the personal memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant:
“Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate ‘war, pestilence, and famine’ than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun. The history of the defeated rebel will be honorable hereafter, compared with that of the Northern man who aided him by conspiring against his government while protected by it. The most favorable posthumous history the stay-at-home traitor can hope for is - oblivion.”
Comment by Jim R — 10.07.04 @ 4:51 pm
Excellent Jim R
Comment by Andy — 10.07.04 @ 5:09 pm
Jim R - Fantastic!
Comment by John C James III — 10.07.04 @ 5:22 pm
“Aside from Iraq and Afghanistan, where else would you consider a candidate for pre-emption”
I don’t think afghanistan was a case of preemption. It was a clear case of a present and current threat.
I don’t have any current candidates for preemptive war, which is not to say that I disagree with the doctrine.
Comment by actus — 10.07.04 @ 5:27 pm
“Ah, but if you don’t trust your kids not to misuse the car, you won’t authorize them to use it. His vote for authorization was pretty clearly saying he trusted the president to use that authority.”
Kids can let you down sometimes. The flaw in my analogy is that you can’t change kids, but you can change presidents. A lot of people trusted the president. Support for the war was in the high 70’s or 80’s. Now its not there anymore.
Comment by actus — 10.07.04 @ 5:29 pm
Well, since WOT started off on the right foot per conventional wisdom, then the people must learn to suck it up until the bitter end, regardless of how good or bad the news.
Frankly put, pick a past war, ANY war: if the MSMs of the day had the amazing powers of observation flouted by our current loonies, we would have cut and run each and every time.
Washington’s dilemna: Arrived in Massachusetts in July of 1775, ready to take command of the Continental Army. He found instead a pack of unruly farmers and tradesmen who ate too much and trained too little. Still worse, the soldiers had enlisted for only a six-month term; by the time Washington could have trained them, they would be going home. Though Washington believed that war was inevitable, some members of the Continental Congress held out hope for a peaceful settlement with Britain. As a result they were reluctant to give Washington’s army very much money. When war came, the British proved to be a formidable enemy. Yet Washington found an even more difficult adversary in the Continental Congress. He struggled constantly to pry funds and supplies out of the tight-fisted Congress. Most importantly, he lobbied the Congress to extend the term of enlistment beyond one year, so that he would not lose his troops as soon as he had trained them. He rarely got what he wanted, and at one point faced such resistance that a group of Congressmen led by Thomas Conway attempted to have him fired. He never lost his patience, however. Washington had complete command of the army and could easily have become a dictator, but he remained committed to the rule of law and civilian authority.
Washington’s greatest defeat: In June of 1776 a large British war fleet led by Gen. Howe sailed into New York harbor, the forerunner of an ambitious invasion plan. A month later an army of 10,000 men landed on Staten Island, unopposed by the Americans. All during July and August British reinforcements continued their build-up until Howe was in command of a combined force of 32,000 men, of whom 9000 were German mercenaries. During the final days of August in the Battle of Long Island Howe inflicted a crushing defeat on Washington’s army. To escape the onslaught, Washington withdrew his colonial forces from Brooklyn Heights to Manhattan. Less than two weeks later he decided to evacuate New York City, rather than be trapped in lower Manhattan. However, before he withdrew from the city Washington prepared fortifications in upper Manhattan and was able to repulse the British army in the Battle of Harlem Heights. In October in the face of the advancing British forces of Gen. Howe, Washington evacuated his main force from Manhattan Island, leaving behind a garrison at Fort Washington, and marched to White Plains. In the Battle of White Plains the British inflicted heavy casualties on Washington’s army, whereupon Washington slipped away westward to North Castle on November 1. Two weeks later the British forces under Gen. Howe captured the American garrison at Fort Washington, taking more than 2800 prisoners. After deciding to abandon the New York area, Washington moved his forces across the Hudson River and into New Jersey. Joined by Gen.Greene’s troops at Hackensack, they retreated together toward the Delaware River with Gen. Cornwallis at their heels..
And we’re hand-wringing & gnashing our teeth over Iraq? Fools, please.
Lincoln? Battle of Cedar Mountain, Battle of 1st/2nd Bull Run, Battle of Fredericksburg, amongst others. Fired Gen McClellan would go on to run against Abraham Lincoln in the 1864 U.S. presidential election. In the summer of 1864 Lincoln feared that he would lose the election because of weariness with the war, as Grant appeared deadlocked with Lee in Virginia. Sherman’s capture of Atlanta, Georgia and Sheridan’s victories in the Shenandoah valley dispelled much of this weariness and Lincoln won the election handily. While McClellan was highly popular among the troops when he was commander, it appears that they voted for Lincoln over McClellan in greater proportion than the general population.
So much for some who think that Bush should be listening to “pros”. Wes Clark was also popular among troops, but looks like too many soldiers don’t think much of his CinC potential.
Wilson/FDR/Truman? Anti-Bushites, please, must I go on? We have never forced a change in govt in the midst of war, other than Nam, why change now?
Comment by Andy — 10.07.04 @ 6:18 pm
PS. The Civil War was “famous” for turning brother against brother. Seems like the Dems are determined to have another civil war with the tacit encouragement of in-your-face confrontations and anarchic attacks on people for simply expressing a different opinion, whether it be race, class or even bumper stickers. Not only sad, it’s pathetic.
Comment by Andy — 10.07.04 @ 7:01 pm
Andy,
Are you with me, in hoping W asks Kerry to appeal to the thugs in his support base, to knock off the break-in, raids etc?
If JFK can demand Bush call off an independent group of veterans, surely he can ask regeistered dems and the ALF-CIO to back off and behave like civilized adults.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 10.07.04 @ 8:42 pm
SCSI, ya betcha. In fact, if sKerry had any honor, he would have disavowed it from the get-go. However, here we go back to past performance. If he couldn’t be bothered with Move On, ACT and other actups, why should we expect any less when the rhetoric turns to shooting.
What was that line about someone doing nada as long as it happpend to others, but by the time it happened to him it was too late?
Frankly, if we are blessd with a slam dunk on 11/3, the moonbats will rue the day that they squandered it all. That’ll be the day of reckoning I’ve been praying for.
Comment by Andy — 10.07.04 @ 9:04 pm