And you don't think that this is, generally speaking, concerted stategery?

more nominee thoughts.....
 

How about Ann Coulter:


1. She's a lawyer and is one of the preeminent Consitutional scholars of her generation.

2. She's young.

3. She's a woman.

4. She's hot.

5. She is no-nonsense. Clear and to the point, for example, in her own words:


"In what weird parallel universe would Americans vote for abortion on demand, affirmative action, forced busing, licensing of gun owners and a ban on the death penalty? Whatever dangers lurk in a self-governing democracy, the American people have never, ever passed a law that led to the murder of 30 million unborn children.

Judges are not our dictators. The only reason the nation defers to rulings of the Supreme Court is because of the very Constitution the justices choose to ignore. At what point has the court made itself so ridiculous that we ignore it? What if the Supreme Court finds a constitutional right to cannibalism? How about fascism? Does the nation respond by passing a constitutional amendment clearly articulating that there is no right to cannibalism or fascism in the Constitution?

Is there nothing five justices on the Supreme Court could proclaim that would finally lead a president to say: I refuse to pretend this is a legitimate ruling.** Either the answer is no, and we are already living under a judicial dictatorship, or the answer is yes, and – as Churchill said – we're just bickering over the price.

It would be nice to return to our federalist system of government with three equal branches of government and 50 states, but one branch refuses to live within that system. How about taking our chances with a president and the Congress? Two branches are better than one.

Hunting liberals:

http://www.anncoulter.org/photos/gun.jpg

**As President Andrew Jackson once said of a Supreme Court ruling he opposed: "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." The court's ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the republic survived.

never ceasing wonders
 

The rare occassion when the NYTimes op-ed page has something making sense on it occured today in Nicholas Kristof's piece on the G-8 summit.

"Those who care about Africa tend to think that the appropriate attitude toward President Bush is a medley of fury and contempt.

But the fact is that Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did, increasing the money actually spent for aid there by two-thirds so far, and setting in motion an eventual tripling of aid for Africa. Mr. Bush's crowning achievement was ending one war in Sudan, between north and south.

So as the G-8 summit meeting convenes this week, focusing on Africa, it's worth acknowledging that Mr. Bush, and conservatives generally, have in many ways been great for the developing world. At their best, they bring a healthy dose of hands-on practicality to their efforts.

The liberal approach to helping the poor is sometimes to sponsor a U.N. conference and give ringing speeches calling for changed laws and more international assistance."



Those last two lines are worth repeating:

[Conservatives] bring a healthy dose of hands-on practicality to their efforts.

The liberal approach to helping the poor is sometimes to sponsor a U.N. conference and give ringing speeches calling for changed laws and more international assistance

That really applies across a universe of issues now, doesn't it?

New board motto:
 

[Conservatives] bring a healthy dose of hands-on practicality to their efforts.

The liberal approach to helping [solve an issue] is sometimes to sponsor a U.N. conference and/or give ringing speeches calling for changed laws and more international assistance.

2!

I'm being serious here. Let me know when Boxer's seat is up, and whether a (well-balanced economic conservative who won't spit in the face of the socially liberal electorate) decent opponent is available in your party (and to your liking). I'll raise funds for your guy in the east.

In terms of toeing the line, even numerous prominent Ds can say "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but am unwilling to take this away as an option to distressed women". Personally, I'd rather hear "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but its clear to me that the majority of the [city/state--according to RT, this country] electorate don't want abortion being outlawed, and the job I'm seeking is not to counter the will of the electorate". But I think the lines that the national Ds take on the national level should work for the local Rs at the local level... just not for the national Rs at the national level.


Hello

New board motto:
 

I sent this to the European Lawtalkers page to see if it agrees with this as a motto. Unfortunately, they say no:( :confused:

New board motto:
 

Try this:

[Conservatives] bring a healthy dose of hands-on practicality to their efforts.

The liberal approach to helping [solve an issue] is sometimes to sponsor a Congressional panel and/or give ringing speeches calling for changed laws and more tax increases to fund big government style handouts.

Now you know why the CA GOP is so fucked up.

If Bush Did This . . .
 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

[Chirac caught by reporters denigrading England at G8]

The Murray Conundrum
 

The moment you start comparing the Clintons -- or anyone in American history, for that matter -- to the murderer of millions is the moment....

well, it's actually the moment that you confirm that you are Penske. A psycho, but lovable in that I-fondly-remember-the-uncle-who-stuffed-a-turkey-leg-in-his-pocket-every-holiday way.



She's not, it hasn't, and we don't. But something surely has made you stupid.

I love Hillary for one reason -- because she makes right-wing Republicans like you so out-of-control crazy. Or she makes you show your true colors -- i.e., "She's a lesbian! Ew! She's evil!.... me? no, I don't think there's anything wrong with being a lesbian.... BUt she's evil! She went to Wellesley! They are all lesbians!!!!"

back to partisanship
 

Yeah, the white southerners left the Dems because they were just so offended by Byrd's racism. They wanted to be surrounded by both Black Republicans.

Must be nice to feel like you can call other racist, Penske, while avoiding political association with all those dark people. You and Dave Duke have lunch lately?

etft -- t.s.

back to partisanship
 

Yes, but he never bothered to correct the hypocrisy of his minions when they refused to give Kerry communion.

Let him who is without sin.... oh, wait -- he's a Dem? Unleash the stones.

2.

The problem with the former point is that the Dems take the environmentalists for granted (with good reason, but still) while they got it in their head sometime ago that the unions were mostly socially conservative blue-collar roughnecks who would vote Repub if the selfish economic issues were a wash.

Nomination
 

Are you kidding? Penske has links to cites that place Bill and Hillary in the cockpits of the planes that hit the Towers on 9/11.

"Uncredible" has never been a negative in his view.

If this board is any indication*, you are far, far too sane to be a Republican.


*Not that I think it is, but I find the "Clintons are murderers!!!!" crowd to be even more intolerable and despicable, probably because they are better funded, then the "Osama is really a great guy who we just need to understand!" crowd.