No, Rove stood right next to ground zero and said that liberals had a weak response to 9/11. It's b.s. (as you well know) and it's reprehensible political grandstanding.

On the morning of 9-11, I was just getting off work (night shift) and relaxing at home. My roomie alerted me to the attacks that were being broadcast on the radio.

For the next several hours, I was attached to the TV as I called my loved ones.

So, at some point, I fell asleep, because I had to work that night.

And that night I was glued to the TV.

One thing I recall, was watching MSNBC and listening to the Leftist Jon Alter whine about how this attack might actually result in the US being on a war-footing.

He WHINED, folks. He truly lamented the possibility that the US might use its military against these monstrous terrorists.

Karl Rove was right. Many on the Left were not so much appalled about the attacks and the American deaths as they were at the thougt that we might actually go on the offensive.

Hey Pete Blackwell, here is your "BS" and "reprehensible political grandstanding."

December 2002: Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) On understanding terrorists more.

We've got to ask, why is this man [Osama bin Laden] so popular around the world? Why are people so supportive of him in many countries ... that are riddled with poverty? He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that. How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?

"We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of the United States of America and of countries around the world, appeal to the President of The United States, George W. Bush; to the NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson; to the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi; and to all leaders internationally to use moderation and restraint in responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the United States. We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction."

Yeah, but the big problem is Bush screwed up, too, by not using enough force, either in Afghanistan or Iraq. If he'd have employed the nuclear option right off, there would most definitely been a lot fewer insurgents around to insurge. Y'can't be a base for terrorist training et al when you've been reduced to a sheet of molten glass.

Bush.

Iraq.

ahahaha.

WMDs.

Nada.

Flowers and kisses.

Nada.

Liberators.

Huh? Occupiers, maybe.

Going on three years.

THREE YEARS after "Mission Accomplished"

No end in sight.

Quagmire.

"...insurgency is in its last throes..."

No end in sight.

Five female soldiers died today, June 24.

Americans KILLED SO FAR IN the 24 DAYS OF JUNE: 61

Average: 2.67 dead Americans per day

But the day is young.


Thanks, George!


Historical Note: Clinton was impeached for getting a hummer in the Oval Office. G. W. Bush was reelected.

I'm a liberal, but i'm also the first to admit that the Democrats were useless after 9/11. America wanted a responce to 9/11, and Bush provided a policy to fulfill America's need for a responce. The democrats didn't provide an alternative responce, and so america followed Bush into Iraq. Not because it was the right responce, but because it was the only one on the table.

It disturbs me that America went with the easy solution. That it went after the syndrome (Iraq) of the problem and not the cause (Saudi Arabia), just because the syndrome was something they could blow up.

But I don't blame the republicans. I expect them to push the military option because that's what they're voters believe is the cure-all.

I blame the democrats for not having the balls to stand up and tell the people what it will actually take to reduce islamic terrorism. IE: Reduce oil consumption. Until this is done you don't have the ability to apply political pressure on Saudi Arabia and other countries that both breed the ideology and fund it.

And this is why Iraq is such a mistake. Because the longer the war goes, the more support for anti-western ideology grows. But I don't blame bush. I blame the democrats.

China, North Korea, have at us -- our "conservatives" have spent all our defense budget on Iraq. And just to help military recruiting, they've just dissed the patriotism of ever liberal family in America.

Jake:

As opposed to the Left, with Dick Durbin calling our soldiers Nazis? Al Queda doesn't even need propaganda anymore... the Democrats in the Senate are doing the job for them.

It isn't the right that has been consistently demoralizing and attacking the military.

"As opposed to the Left, with Dick Durbin calling our soldiers Nazis"

Strange, he never said that. Stop making stuff up, ya loony.

If A=B and B=C then A=C...

If the interrogations being described at Gitmo would make you think Nazis were responsible, and the military runs Gitmo and the interrogations, then the military is a bunch of Nazis...

Do the math.

If A=B and B=C then A=C...

wrong.

If the Dixie Chicks = A and country music = B and radio airplay = C, then we have this:

A=B so The Dixie Chicks = country music.

B=C so country music gets radio airplay

But The Dixie Chicks don't necessarily get radio airplay, so A doesn't necessarily = C.

Yeah... great analogy. And the Dixie Chicks ARE getting radio airplay last I checked... despite their seditious behavior.

I think John's equation and rationale are an exquisite insight into much of the partisan hackery that passes for political analysis nowadays.

John, show me where Dick Durbin said "Our soldiers are Nazis" and I will believe and agree with you.

I've done this before, let me repeat...

It's not difficult but I realize some here may be products of public education.

If Gitmo is run like a facility that would be confused with Nazis, Pol Pot, with no regard for human life, and our military is the ones running Gitmo...

Then the military apparently has no regard for human life and can easily pass for Nazis if you don't check the flag on their uniforms.

It's not a stretch. It's exactly what he said.

and our military is the ones

should be 'and our military is the one'. Sorry, thought I should point that out, some here may be the product of homeskooling.

Do a check, John, on the number of times that Republicans have used Nazi or Hitler references in the context of terrorism and 9/11 for political gain. John Stewart has a great running thread in his show about it. Starting with Rush's 'feminazi's, conservatives have pretty well watered down any Hitler references to have no real significance to people anymore anyway.

td: "I'm a liberal, but i'm also the first to admit that the Democrats were useless after 9/11."

Oh man, even the "liberals" are being hypnotized my the Bush Marketing Machine into accepting this blatant bullshit.

Karl Rove, 6/23/05, in a bit of marketing spin meant to counter the anti-war-in-iraq polls among Americans: "...liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers..."

"The elected branches of our government, and both political parties, are united in our resolve to fight and stop and punish those who would do harm to the American people." -- October 26, 2001, President Bush

(Wake up, America, you *somnambulent motards.)

How about this math:

Durbin apologized for what he said.

Rove (who basically called anyone who didn't vote for Bush a terrorist sympathizer/appeaser)...

Still waiting.

No, should be "are the ones". And I wasn't homeskrooled either.

As opposed to Democrats who use Nazis references and really mean it...

Eric Berlin:

Saying "I'm sorry if you misunderstood" is not an apology. It's saying you are too stupid because you got offended at me calling you Nazis... You should take your kick in the ass and move on.

An apology would be, "I'm sorry for what I said. I was wrong in my choice of words and should not have analogized our military to the likes of the Nazis, Pol Pot and others."

There's actually a litany of times that conservatives have busted out the Nazi Card in making comparisons about various things.

I don't think Rove should resign, but I do think he owes an apology, even if it's of the wishy-washy Washington variety.

As a native New Yorker, what he said angered me.

I'm sorry you are angered by the truth but Rove didn't need to resort to Nazi references, he simply resorted to the actions of liberals on 9/11.

It's a 100% true statement. When the towers came down liberals were clamoring with "why do they hate us", we shouldn't "rush to war", and heck, some started the outright sedition campaigns we've all come to know and hate.

John Bambenek wrote: I'm sorry you are angered by the truth but Rove didn't need to resort to Nazi references, he simply resorted to the actions of liberals on 9/11.

Let me read you a quote from Rove: "Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Sen. Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals," Rove said.

That doesn't sound like to me that Rove is saying that liberals are soft on terrorism, it sounds to me that he is saying that their motive is to endanger the troups. He specifically said motives. So he's not just complaining about Democratic ineffectiveness, he's accusing them of treason.

John Bambenek wrote: If the interrogations being described at Gitmo would make you think Nazis were responsible, and the military runs Gitmo and the interrogations, then the military is a bunch of Nazis...

No. How ridiculous. Durbin's point is not "We behave like this, therefore we are Nazis", it is "We are not Nazis, therefore we shouldn't behave like this." Durbin was exhorting us to live up to our own standards.

Daryl:

And I think that sentiment is 100% accurate. You DO put them in danger with the incessant (and incorrect) scandals you keep beating on until something sticks.

Al Queda doesn't need to produce propaganda, they just broadcast the DNC.

Is it treason? Maybe... sedition is more accurate.

Daryl:

A plain reading of his comments do not yield that interpretation...

His point was clear. That's why Al Jazeera broadcasts his comments. It's clear what message was in his words.

"Sedition" is a word being thrown around lately, which we should define:

The act of organising or encouraging efforts to subvert or overthrow the Government. Sedition is a much broader crime than treason but less serious: it does not require participation in acts of insurrection. Threatening the Government, parading under arms, or drilling under another flag could all be considered seditious.

"When the towers came down liberals were clamoring with "why do they hate us", we shouldn't "rush to war", and heck, some started the outright sedition campaigns we've all come to know and hate"

Senate Joint Resolution 22 stated in part: "[Congress] supports the determination of the President, in close consultation with Congress, to bring to justice and punish the perpetrators of these attacks as well as their sponsors..." -- Passed 100-0 on September 12, 2001

House Joint Resolution 61 -- the House Version of SJ Resolution 22 -- Passed 408-0 on September 13

House Joint Resolution 64 -- "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States." Passed the House 420-1 on September 14, 2001

Senate Joint Resolution 23 (the Senate version of HJR 64) -- "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States." It was sponsored in the Senate by noted liberal Sen Tom Daschle. And Passed the Senate 98-0. The two Senators who didn't vote were both Republican

Senate Bill 1426 committed $40 billion to the War on Terror -- Passed 96-0 on September 14. Four Senators failed to vote, three of them Republicans, one a Republican turned Independent

The Patriot Act -- Passed the Senate 98-1. Passed the House 357-66

The above was taken from this post. So, where is this liberal opposition after 9/11 of which you and Satan, oops...I mean, Karl Rove speak?

John Banbenek writes: And I think that sentiment is 100% accurate. You DO put them in danger with the incessant (and incorrect) scandals you keep beating on until something sticks.

I don't believe that's true, but that's not the point. Rove implied that it was the motive of liberals to put the troops in danger. That is a lie.

John Banbenek writes: A plain reading of his comments do not yield that interpretation...

Yes, they certainly do. A fair reading of Durbin's words shows that he was calling on the US to live up to its ideals. He was saying "We are not Nazis; we shouldn't behave like this."

One more comment on this issue. John writes: You DO put them [the troops] in danger with the incessant (and incorrect) scandals you keep beating on until something sticks.

What you are basically saying is that criticism of our government endangers our troops. Maybe so. As one politician (I think it was George W. Bush) put it: "Why do they hate us? They hate our freedoms - our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

Freedom to criticize the government is what America is all about. If freedom endangers the troops, well, freedom is what they are fighting for. That's what they are risking their lives for.

Daryl:

By saying we should live up to our ideals and not be like Nazis implies that the military IS being like Nazis. You have proven my point.

Thanks.

There is a difference between criticism and sedition. Criticism based on reality, fine. But you and your kin have your foots firmly planted on the side of Al Queda. If you think treason is what this country is about, you should have the intellectual honesty to either:

1) emigrate and renounce your citizenship

2) pick up a gun and fight.

John writes: But you and your kin have your foots firmly planted on the side of Al Queda. If you think treason is what this country is about,

What a despicable thing to say. I said that freedom is what this country is all about. I love my country, and I hate Al Qaeda with all my heart. I hate them for their killing of innocents, and I hate them for what they have done to rip this country apart, to divide us.

I think I've been pretty civil in my posts, considering how strongly I disagree with everything you've said. In return, you have called me a traitor. I don't know how to respond civilly to such vicious slander.

So, let me get this straight John...if every "liberal" and anyone else who does not agree with the wars were to keep their mouth shut about the war on "terror" and the war in Iraq, Al Queda would cease to exist, the war would be "won" (whatever that means at this point in time is unclear) in no time and the insurgency would stop. Is that more or less correct?

John - You're guilty of the sins you accuse others of.

By painting all who don't agree with you as traitors who should leave the country and/or "pick up a gun and fight," you're making yourself at least as evil as those you rail against.

No I'm not, I'm insisting that your continued railing against the United States for crimes that do not exist is why Al Jazeera doesn't have to broadcast propaganda anymore.

Either get your head out of the sand and stop making crap up or stand on the side you apparently want to be on.

It's just that simple.

No, it's not that simple, my man.

Chill out.

And who the hell is railing against the United States?

The last person to do so was Karl Rove, when he insulted and angered millions of Americans who he feels would like to coddle the terrorists.

But that's EXACTLY what the people he cited are trying to do.

That's EXACTLY what the Left wants.

He called a duck a duck, I'm sorry that the truth on your position hurts.

What Rove did was lie and distort.

Or LIE and DISTORT, if you like.

And what you're doing is spreading lies and distortion... and casting them about on the magically demonizationable left.

Or LEFT.

Any talk of ducks or other water fowl won't change those facts (FACTS? Sure, why not?).

By the way -- Isn't all of this a wonderful (MAGICAL) distraction away from real problems... such as the continuing war in Iraq?

Watch the circus and see all the pretty colors and flashing lights.....

Let's hope people finally wake up to these now familiar tactics.

Dissent is treason. War is peace. Freedom is slavery.

If you disagree with Administration policy, remove both hands from the keyboard, place them in plain sight, and wait quietly for representatives from the Ministry of Love to arrive at your location.

No need to unlock the door. They already have all the keys.

From here.
CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll:
June 16-19, 2005
Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war with Iraq?

Favor: 39%
Oppose: 59%
Unsure: 2%

So, is 59% of the country "railing" against the war in Iraq?

Let me try to explain again...

There is dissent based on facts, and there is dissent based on fiction. Reasonable people can disagree about what and how we are doing things in Iraq.

However, there are those on the Left who aren't concerned with facts who have spread lies and attack the troops. Durbin called the military a bunch of Nazis, for instance, and that's simply not true and made Al Queda's propagandists have a nice week without work.

There's a difference between dissent and sedition... not all dissent is sedition, but that doesn't mean that no dissent isn't seditious.

John, you're playing fast and loose with your own guidelines.

You've gone from labeling "the left" as seditious to "there are those on the left."

You state that Dubrin "called the military a bunch of Nazis," yet that's a falsehood. He stated that some of what happened at Gitmo is akin to acts perpetrated by fascist regimes.

And he apologized.

By the way, where's the lie there?

Oh yeah, I remember: Karl Rove painting "the left" as a bunch of terrorist-lovers.

"....there are those on the Left who aren't concerned with facts who have spread lies and attack the troops."

SOME BUT NOT ALL, just as THERE ARE THOSE ON THE RIGHT [edited].

Some, but not all.

John.

He didn't apologize for what he said... it was a non-apology...

And Bambi, if they ever pass an amendment against writing tired CLICHES, yer ass is gonna go to prison.

Thanks,
Shark calling a duck a duck

I don't understand why you guys even bother. This muckraker doesn't care about the truth or this country.

Forget it. John, you're hopeless.

What does window-licking mean?

You are right... I'm hopeless if you define hope as getting me to convert to communism.

"I'm hopeless if you define hope as getting me to convert to communism"

Which was, of course, my intent all along. You have cut to the core of me.

Any other outrageous and/or lunatic-like things you'd like to say/declare?

That apparently those on the left like blaming Israel for 9/11 and wish Israel would be made to no longer exist...

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/14/214038.php

See for yourself.

Okay, we get it. There's a fringe left.

There's a fringe right, too. I think that's what Shark was colorfully illustrating above.

More importantly, there's a Republican administration in power alongside a GOP-controlled Congress.

So which fringe should we be concerned about, really?

And who precisely is the fringe right?

The Klan? No, they're leftists...

Do you think this info bolsters Al Queda?

From the Wash Post: The Bush administration acknowledged yesterday that it is short $1 billion for covering current needs at the Department of Veterans Affairs this year.

If you were in the military, what would bother you more: what someone says on the floor of Congress or the fact that you might not get the care you need when you return home?

Spin away!

Well obviously any rational person would rail against the Nazi Bush administration for short-changing the vets.

And who precisely is the fringe right?

That's a joke, right?

People men different things by it... what do YOU mean?

John must be saying we're all fringe.

I'm more of a lace person then a fringe person

Every person in the globe is "fringe."

I'm more of a lace person

and you are trying to create a world where you can get your ass kicked for that preference.

I thought David Flanagan was Fringe Right here at BC, but you make him seem as liberal as Barbara Boxer. You are past fringe, and my reason for saying so is that you are closed to debate/alternative theory. You won't let the Left tell you it's viewpoint, you insist on telling the Left what it wants.

Steve:

That was humor... you apparently missed it.

You also assume that I haven't heard the Left's position. I have, and it boils down to this...

Surrender all your freedom, all your property, and all your rights to the nanny state that can run society better than you can. Sit down, shut up, and let the "elites" run the show.

The Taliban is the penultimate liberal form of government.

Actually, John, I definitely got it.

Also, I said:
you insist on telling the Left what it wants

which was promptly followed by exhibit A:
it (what the Left is about) boils down to this...

Hilarious... well played, Steve.

Steve,

you act like John cares about the truth. Obviously, you haven't read his posts before. He is just an attack dog who has gone mad like Old Yeller.

I care about the truth... the truth is this...

There is nothing redeemable about liberal thought.

It destroys individuals, intellectually, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. It destroys families. It destroys communities. It destroys nations. It destroys cultures.

The 10 biggest genocides of the 20th century were committed by socialist or communist governments. I do not believe this to be a coincidence. Purges are something that happens in communist countries, not free ones. The Left's concern about the truth can be shown in the Alger Hiss - Whittaker Chambers case, where even after Alger was found guilty, even after decrypted cables were declassified, people still insist the communist spy Alger Hiss was the victim. The Left has seen the future, and it was communist Russia. They've never gotten over it's collapse.

The truth is that there is nothing redeemable about liberal thought.

Nothing. It's a classic example of luciferian theology at work.

the Truth is that some folks enjoy being crypto fascists that scream conform or die

the Truth is that "there is more on Heaven and Earth than is dreamt in your Philosophy"

the Truth is that there is nothing redeemable about close minded, larger mouthed, small brained, neo-con, greed based "faith" and that the sooner those it has hypnotized wake up to the fact that their Masters own their shriveled souls the happier this Nation will be

to the Sloop John B, that last bit by you destroys any semblance of sanity i might have thought you possesed

you have won this week's Insidious Troglodyte Award

may Bog and JuJu have mercy on what is left of your mind...

Excelsior!

It's a classic example of luciferian theology at work.

You realize that what you're saying has absolutely no relation to reality, yes?

John, How dare you even use the phrase "intellectual honesty" (comment 32)?

Regardless of whether it's true, the impression which John B. has of the left is one which is shared wholeheartedly by at least a third of the population and believed at least to some extent by another third. It might be a good idea for those on the left to think about how to disabuse people of the notion that they are exactly what he describes them as - perhaps by putting forward an agenda that makes some sense, has some objectives and promotes some desirable values.

If you don't define yourself then your enemy will define you.

Dave

Eric:

I don't think you know what luciferian means... it means doing evil while thinking you are doing good. I believe most of you have good intentions, but the fact is the theology you espouse is harmful.

And I think the Left has defined what they are for (besides being against George Bush). For decades, the word Republican has been a term of derision. The Left, when in charge, locked out and swept aside all those who might land on the conservative side of the spectrum, but swept away much more than that. They took aim at the religious as well.

Now the tables are turned, and they're pissed they aren't being invited to the party. You made the rules, you get to live by them.

And instead of voicing a platform or defining themselves, the sit around and blame the Jews for 9/11, are under the delusion that all our civil liberties have gone away (well you could make the argument about private property, but that was a ruling brought by the left), the the terrorists are "freedom fighters", the we are torturing people at Gitmo, and that we're killing journalists and civilians for sport.

The problem isn't they haven't defined themselves... the problem is that they've been to honest when they have.

Mr Nalle, as you may have gathered, i have no great love for the far Left either

but i have yet to see any examples from the Left that rise to anywhere near the level of shit that folks like Coulter,Limbaugh,Savage and Sloop John B. here spew forth..

John B sez...
*There is nothing redeemable about liberal thought.

It destroys individuals, intellectually, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. It destroys families. It destroys communities. It destroys nations. It destroys cultures.*

right there..unfounded, no facts or cases cited for the Argument...nothing but hate spewing forth, nothign to back up the ditto head screed...

hell, it ain't even funny...just pathetic

the Problem with those that "believe" this kind of shit is that they just follow what their Masters tell them, they swallow this type of blind, unfounded hate-speech whole and wash it down with soem Jim Jones kool-aid

note, his earlier attempt to equate the Left with the Taliban...any sane and rational person can see how that falls apart...the Taliban were an ultra conservative totalitarian Fundamentalist theocracy for Bog's sake, you know that allowed NO dissent

kind of like Washington at this point in our History...ok, that was close to being an unfair jab...but note how mild it is when compared to Comment #68...just Illustrating a Point here

i find it fascinating that the GOP is screaming for the dems to "put out your Agenda" so it can be co-opted and stolen, the serial numbers filed off, and a few back door bits slid in under the radar...and where i personally feel that it might be a good Idea to get some of the Dems out there defining their side fo the Debate a bit more coherently...they are the Minority and in Opposition...

you know..like the GOP under Newt was...like the Senate was when the Dems had control...but Herr Rove and the Noise Machine doesn't want folks to even think about the facts of History...just what the Machine is screaming about on the AM dial at the Moment

real Conservatives, Libertarians, fiscal Conservatives, the Moderates...these folks i have disagreed with..but can Understand and even hold Respect for...George Will comes to mind...

but neo-cons, the "social conservative" and evangeli-politicals as well as the Coulterites, and dittoheads are a real problem...

where folks like you, Mr Nalle, should be concerned is that the sleepy Middle is waking up a bit and seems to think that the GOP is made up of those dittoheads and fundamentalists

and they ain't happy, as recent polling is starting to show

your mileage may vary

Excelsior!

Gonzo:

This is a comment board, not a place to post treatises. If you want 100 or so pages, I can produce a nice little book, but don't fault me for not posting it here.

But you caught me... I got a call from Karl Rove a few hours ago that told me to post this...

feeble attempt at Humor, but keep trying

no "treatise" needed, you rant was more than enough to demonstrate the depths of your ethical bankruptcy

by utilizing unfounded hyperbole coupled with all inclusive overgeneralization you have managed to clearly epitomize a dearth of intellectual cpacity as well as all the compassion of an upholsterer at Dachau

one can only Hope that more of your ilk continue to be so blatant and brazen in your unadulterated hatred, and the Majority of the Middle decide to launder the greasy stain of your political existance from the soiled underwear of our Society

just my one sixth billionths of the world's Opinion...

Excelsior!

Gee, it looks like pick on John day. All the attackers are here. Is this supposed to be a place to post comments or create unabashed and abusive comments? Didn't there used to be a comment policy around here?

[edited]

Jeremy,

For every one of the eight you describe as "attacking" John, there are ten more of us standing in the wings, biting our tongues.

Not out of respect mind you, we're just letting a few other folks whack at the neocon pinata for a while.

Jeremy,

from comment #68 John B sez..
*There is nothing redeemable about liberal thought.

It destroys individuals, intellectually, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. It destroys families. It destroys communities. It destroys nations. It destroys cultures.*

thems fighting words, and he knows it...
when folks are civil..i am civil...when not, well..i can be a bit snarky

no Apologies from me here, and i speak only for myself

and i ain't a Dem nor a real "lefty"...but i will excercise my ability to express myself as i see fit

if Eric O. or the other editors at BC have a problem with my screeds, i am certain they will let me know

thanks for caring

Excelsior!

Jeremy--your defense of John is sweet. I applaud you. Good for you--sticking up for a bud. Kudos.

John B: "here is nothing redeemable about liberal thought. It destroys individuals, intellectually, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. It destroys families. It destroys communities. It destroys nations. It destroys cultures."

I suggest that you've confused liberalism with the Democratic party, which at heart is primarily not a liberal party, but a statist/socialist party, which is about as far from liberal as you can get. Traditional Republicans are more liberal than contemporary Democrats.

Gonzo: "where folks like you, Mr Nalle, should be concerned is that the sleepy Middle is waking up a bit and seems to think that the GOP is made up of those dittoheads and fundamentalists

and they ain't happy, as recent polling is starting to show"

What remains to be seen is who they're least happy with. Right now my guess would be they prefer and administration which at least tries to do something about our problems to an opposition which does nothing constructive and spends all its time grandstanding and propagandizing.

Dave

Don't count me as part of any 8, all I did was say he was far fringe Right and that he was close-minded towards the Left, which he then proved in the very next comment. There was no 'attack' from me in that.

The problem isn't they haven't defined themselves... the problem is that they've been to honest when they have.

Well, John, I am Left and I will continue to vote Left. Your rationale about all that the Left stands for, in comment 73 is 100% wrong and not why I support liberal ideology. Since you are 100% convinced that is all that I'm about (since remember, according to you A=B=C), there is no point for anybody to discuss or debate politics with you. Your mind is made up, there is no possibility for debate. All posts you make should just be frisked and countered with facts. Beyond that, everybody's wasting their time, you've made that much clear.