Cynical Nation

Barry,
I think that you will be disappointed and soon. Sarkozy is a career politician whose positions are not that clear. Everyone who gets elected in France gets elected based on a major campaign theme of "change" (starting with Mitterand in the 80s), but that never happens.

I was hoping that Royal will be elected, but I think Sarkozy will be fine too. He has been a strong opponent of the Iraq war and, generally, a rational voice. He has been also serving under Chirac for a long time, and in my opinion Chirac has been a very responsible voice internationally. By the way, Chirac has been very unpopular in France for reasons very different than the ones that make you dislike him.

I have to agree with Blue Wind on this. On the other hand, I also must, as I often do these days, laugh at the 28 percenters, who are so desperate for any sort of good news that they are actually buoyed up by news from France.

I don't believe Barry is lauding the Sarkozy win because of any perceived "pro-Bush" Sarkozy sentiments.

I don't think many people are.

I'm appallled at those who'd wish France to continue along its already FAILED path - one ofthe highest unemployment rates in Europe, one of the least productive workforces, one of the worst in jobs creation and one among the many European nations where "multiculturalism" has failed miserably.

Royal frightened voters by claiming that France wasn't socialist enough!

Even the most simple-minded dolt can see that most of France's problems (at least its economic ones) are rooted in its market restrictions and failed attempts at income equality.

Primarily Sarkozy represents the view that the West must confront the "Muslim menace within." As Interior Minister, he had the guts to call the bands of Third Wolrd thugs who rioted last summer what they were - "scum."

His tenor and tone represent one who believes in an "assimilate or leave" viewpoint that appalls many naive Leftists.

The truth is that all cultures are not equal and Islamic culture is a Third World culture and thus inferior to Western culture in too many ways to count. If you come to the West "Assimilate or leave."

An AP article today states; "French president-elect Nicolas Sarkozy plans to waste no time pushing through a weighty package of pro-market, anti-crime reforms — but the first battle is winning a majority in parliament in new elections next month.

"The win gave Sarkozy a strong mandate for his vision of France's future: He wants to free up labor markets, calls France's 35-hour work week "absurd" and plans tougher measures on crime and immigration.

"The people of France have chosen change," Sarkozy told cheering supporters in a victory speech that sketched out a stronger global role for France and renewed partnership with the United States.

"Exit polls offered some surprises. Some 49 percent of blue-collar workers — traditionally leftist voters — chose Sarkozy, according to an Ipsos/Dell poll. Some 32 percent of people who usually vote for the Greens and 14 percent who normally support the far-left also went with Sarkozy. The poll surveyed 3,609 voters and had a margin of error of about 2 percent."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070507/ap_on_re_eu/france_election&printer=1;_ylt=Ag14qX253Mi2SY.Y9nEfzP5bbBAF

>I don't believe Barry is lauding the Sarkozy win because of any perceived "pro-Bush" Sarkozy sentiments.

Exactly. Believe it or not, George W. Bush and the war in Iraq do not dictate every aspect of my political opinions. Clearly that's not the case for a number of left-wing bloggers these days, so I guess a little projection is not surprising.

Pre-9/11, I was a LIBERTARIAN-conservative (primarily Libertarian with some conservative viewpoints), what the late Murray Rothbard labeled "Paleo-Libertarians."

9/11 didn't change that, as I was already changing, as I watched Bill Bratton's far more intrusive "community policing" work so well in NYC.

Rudy zeroed out the Municipal Unions and NYC's cops and firemen fell behind nearby localities by more than 20% in wages alone. At one Union rally there was a NYC cop with az sign that read, "I'm with the NYPD and I cut a Suffolk County cop's grass." (At the time an NYPD cop earned about $70K/year, while a Suffolk County cop made about $115K/year)

He did that while raising salaries for Deputy Mayors, Commissioners, etc by more than 20%, in some cases, as much as 50%!

Giuliani's personal life and his dealings with the Unions (even the ones that helped get him elected - the UFA & PBA) were a little rough, BUT NYC's #1 problem was CRIME and his administration tackled that problem very effectively and brought an unexpected prosperity bonus along with that, in the process.

9/11 solidified my new CONSERVATIVE-libertarian status, perhaps I'm a "Paleo-Conservative now, but the thing that's locked that down for me has been the Left's reaction to the WoT - NOT merely Iraq (the post-war occupation has been bungled), but the opposition to the Patriot Act, to "coercive interrogations," to the NSA wiretaps, Terror Alerts, etc.

That reaction from the American and Western European Left has convinced me that these people are not merely "anti-Bush," but anti-American (they feel that American policies had, in some ways, brought terrorism upon us) terror-enablers.

It is this hysterical reaction by the Left in the wake of 9/11 and the '03 invasion of Iraq that has cemented me as a CONSERVATIVE-libertarian.

For me, there was no more reasonable reaction to that kind of unreasonableness and irrationality.

"Believe it or not, George W. Bush and the war in Iraq do not dictate every aspect of my political opinions.

Well...maybe it should. It is the most important issue facing us. It is probably worse than Vietnam was in the 70s, and I am sure you would agree that everyone was pre-occupied with Vietnam those days.

>Well...maybe it should.

No, it shouldn't. Important or not, there *are* other issues besides the war in my universe.

>t is probably worse than Vietnam was in the 70s...

No, it isn't.

Iraq is not "worse than Vietnam" BW.

We lost over 60,000 guys in Vietnam (the bulk of those between '67 - '73)over a "Domino Theory" that even many in the Military and JFK himself opposed. In other words, at its height, the Vietnam War was costing the U.S. more than twice the number of lives lost in Iraq over four years, EACH & EVERY YEAR!

Make no mistake, we could not live peacefully with the former USSR and the spreading "Communist Menace," and Reagan was right to continue challenge it all over the world - a thousand little wounds (Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Iran-Iraq war, Afghanistan, etc).

There's no question that we COULD'VE negotiated a peace with the former USSR, but why settle for an uneasy "peace," when you can just destroy your enemy?

Same here in the WoT.

We almost certainly COULD forge an uneasy "peace" by acquiescing to their demands (withdraw from the Arab Mideast and withdraw our Military support for Israel)....at least we COULD HAVE a few years ago (maybe no longer)....but WHY?

We NEED to destroy this global menace. For one thing, it's in the way of the globalization that we're behind.

A neighbor of mine is a College adjunct (and a former MIlitary man, as well) and whenever I see him he always argues that we can't win a war against my definition of the enemy - "strict Sharia-based Islam."

As he says, "We can't win a war against one billion people spread all over the world."

He notes that previous to the 2003 inavasion of Iraq, about 15% of the Muslim world was "radicalized," by 2005 its estimated that number was up to 40% and today it's approaching 60%...he feels that ultimately upwards of 80% or more of the Muslim world will be "radicalized" thanks to our perceived "war on Islam."

I say, "So what! That was going to happen anyway. If we did nothing, the Islamists would've been emboldened and the increase would've occurred that way too. Besides, the increase in radicalization began in late 2001 after we entered Afghanistan, so this was bound to happen no matter what the USA did."

AND we certainly CAN win a war against one billion adherants of strict Sharia-based Islam. In fact, now, we have to, because they're not going to let this go. They actually think they can win, so THEY see no reason for an "uneasy peace."

Focusing on Bush when he's got just twenty months left in his term is foolish, BW.

As foolish and hopeless as trying to paint new GOP candidates as "Bush-clones."

In '08 all the candidates will be judged on their own merits....and one will be how seriosuly they take the WoT - supporting the Patriot Act, coerced interrogations, widespread wiretapping of those suspected of having ties to terrorism, etc.

Who said that "Barry is lauding the Sarkozy win because of any perceived 'pro-Bush' Sarkozy sentiments"?

Uhhhhhh, maybe this "On the other hand, I also must, as I often do these days, laugh at the 28 percenters, who are so desperate for any sort of good news that they are actually buoyed up by news from France." (DBK)

The Sarkozy win was a win for a France...and for the West as well.

It was (1) a win for the West's war against the adherants of strict Sharia-based Islam and (2) a win for a more open and business-friendly economy in France - and the hope for a better future for that country.

Given the predominance of Supply-Side economics, the few remaining non-Supply-Siders (mostly Keynesians) like Paul Krugman have been forced to make their livings writing droning Op-Ed peices, it's a given that a more market-based economy in France would also be a better, more prosperous one as well...at least for those poised to take advantage of that.

Mostly though, it's a WIN for the West's WoT. Sarkozy had the guts to confront the animalistic mobs in the Parisean suburbs last summer, allowing the police to move in and crack a few heads. Sarkozy called the Third World thugs "scum," now maybe he'll be able to do something to reduce their number in France.

I'm very hopeful that next month's elections will give him the votes in Parliament to effect much of his agenda.

Sayeth JMK: "That reaction from the American and Western European Left has convinced me that these people are not merely "anti-Bush," but anti-American (they feel that American policies had, in some ways, brought terrorism upon us) terror-enablers."

Oh. You mean leftists like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Dinesh D'Souza, all of whom believe that it's American cultural laxity (read: evil, dirty, unchaste women who dare to have sex) that led to the 9/11 attacks? Those leftists? Just want to be sure I understand you correctly.

"It is this hysterical reaction by the Left in the wake of 9/11 and the '03 invasion of Iraq that has cemented me as a CONSERVATIVE-libertarian."

As opposed to what conservatives have been doing, which is shrieking "TERRORISTS ARE HIDING UNDER THE BED!!! YOU'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!" -- and selling their civil liberties down the river for the illusion of safety.

"Oh. You mean leftists like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Dinesh D'Souza, all of whom believe that it's American cultural laxity that led to the 9/11 attacks?" (Jill)


Nope. In fact the religious arguments are largely superstition, while D'Souza's doesn't blame American culture for terrorism, but explains why there's no hope of any peaceful resolution to this current struggle. The modernist culture of the West is anathema to strict Sharia-based Islam. In point of fact, I believe D'Souza is largely right on that score - they revile what they perceive as "a vile and decadent culture."

But I'm talking about the Moore-Sheehan-Kucinich-Soros-Franken-Gore radicals who've blamed American policies for "inculcating terrorism," and those extreme Leftists who've opposed our, to date, very effective domestic WoT, things like the Patriot Act, the NSA wiretaps, coerced interrogations, terror alerts, etc.

THOSE people are largely anti-American in their outlook and, willingly or not, terror-enablers in their actions. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but no one has yet even so much as made an attempt in that regard.

(N.B. Saying something like, "American policies DID in some ways bring about the terrorism we're currently dealing with," is NOT a very effective argument in that vain, as it sought of merely reinforces my initial belief.)

The curent administration has been remarkably subdued over the actual terror threat, considering that over 500 individuals have been arrested on various terror charges over the past four years within the U.S.

One year ago, the NYPD and the FBI combined to stop a plan to use HCN in the subways of NYC.

The "hysteria" has been from the Left which has claimed (without any rationale) that those terror alerts are "unnecessary" and "ineffective."

Again, I'm open to arguments that support those contentions, but to date; No proof = no case.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Sarkozy is "pro-Bush". On the contrary he has been a strong opponent of the Iraq war and he even challenged this administration on the day of his victory (yesterday)to "fight against global climate warming, and, indeed, to take the lead in that fight".

Sarkozy is the equivalent of a moderate democrat here (i.e. Hillary). And trust me, Hillary can not stand Bush.

So you think that I was saying Barry is a 28 percenter? That's stupid even for you.

THIS, in response to Barry's post; "On the other hand, I also must, as I often do these days, laugh at the 28 percenters, (Bush supporters) who are so desperate for any sort of good news that they are actually buoyed up by news from France," indeed indicates that.

Barry is obviously happy about/"buoyed up by" the election of Sarkozy, in France (he said he was), ergo that connection looks undeniable in any logical context.

Since you replied right after BW's initial response to Barry's post, who else would you be referring to?

Sarkozy will almost certainly look to remake France's economy by opening it up to business and eradicating the 35 hour work week, etc - all good things.

Most hopefully for the rest of the West is that Sarkozy is decidedly anti-Third World immigration and sees the Muslims in France as unassimilable and anti-European, which they are.

I'm happy to welcome France & Germany to the West's WoT!

I don't know many "28 percenters," me, I'm looking ahead....probably to Giuliani (now beating HRC by about 6 points nationwide in most polls and Obama by even more...though it's too early to predict anything about 2008)....I'm certainly not going to be looking back at GW Bush who was very good on the economy (his tax cuts have halved the Deficit over the past threee years) and great on the domestic WoT, very poor on the border issue and on reining in excessive federal spending.

"So you think that I was saying Barry is a 28 percenter? That's stupid even for you."

Hey, thank you. What makes you think that's what I was thinking? I know well that Barry is a 72 percenter. Who did you say was being stupid? :)

JMK

"JMK"

Well....are you surprised?

I proved to you that your statement HAD to be directed at Barry, as it was after BW's, the second comment on Barry's post, one in which he said, "You can bet I'll be having quite a few drinks this week to celebrate the departure of Jacques Chirac..."

Barry never mentioned Bush, nor had anyone else, until you did. So it's logical to attribute your statement about Bush supporters seeking solace from "good news from France," as you being petulant over Barry's slap at Chirac (an icon of the misguided American Left).

But Sarkozy, who's been compared to Giuliani and whom, in fact, sought out advice from Giuliani on crime control back in 2002 is no icon of Bush supporters, so far as anyone knows.

Why would he be?

In that light your statement isn't merely petulant, but it makes no sense.

You always do this to yourself.

You get yourself into these positions from which you must awkwardly exit - like reflexively supporting Gore's "carbon offsets," even when I showed you the articles about that entire industry being investigated and Gore's "offsets" (according to the Tennessean) amounting to little more than stock purchases in a company he helped found.

I know these are hard times to be a Liberal, what with all the gains the Dems made this past Fall coming from "New Democrats" (Blue Dog Conservatives) and with Harper winning in Canada, Australia giving a vote of confidence to Howard and both Germany & France turning Conservative with Merkel and Sarkozy, not to mention the likes of Kucinich and Gore running around telling the world (most of which wants to emulate us) how bad America is and embarrassing Liberalism...but still, petulance only makes things worse.

"Who said that "Barry is lauding the Sarkozy win because of any perceived 'pro-Bush' Sarkozy sentiments"?" (DBK)


Well, not to put too fine a point on it, Barry himself, for one; "I don't believe Barry is lauding the Sarkozy win because of any perceived "pro-Bush" Sarkozy sentiments." (JMK)

"Exactly. Believe it or not, George W. Bush and the war in Iraq do not dictate every aspect of my political opinions. Clearly that's not the case for a number of left-wing bloggers these days, so I guess a little projection is not surprising." (BNJ)


Barry's followed the French Election here since the initial open election last month, with a decidedly pro-Sarkozy viewpoint, one I like and agree with and one that apparently you and BW don't.

I'm sure you didn't like the Merkel win, the Harper win and you probably won't much like the changes almost certainly coming in England next month.

I'll sort of miss Tony Blair myself, an English version of Bill Clinton, but with a ton more character and integrity.

He "got it" on the WoT well before most of Europe did.

"He "got it" on the WoT well before most of Europe did."

Yes he got it. Except that he got it completely wrong and he supported the disastrous invasion of Iraq. As for his "integrity", Tony Blair is a well known liar and a complete integrity failure.

God bless ya BW, you're a Kool-Aid drinker....down to the very last drop.

Iraq HAD to be invaded because (1) virtually every Intelligence Agency in the world believed he had WMDs, (2) the UN believed he had WMDs, (3) his OWN Generals believed he had WMDs and (4) Saddam USED and ENCOURAGED that beleif as part of a "detterance by doubt" strategy.

That "detterance by doubt" strategy made it impossible for him to concede he had no WMDs, while simultaneously making it impossible for Britain and the USA to back off, after he refused to cooperate with 1441.

The cruel irony of his predicament was that ultimately it didn't matter whether he actually had WMDs, because the widespread (worldwide) belief that he had them was what had to be dealt with.

Saddam's Iraq was invaded because he refused to comply with 1441.

The fact that he couldn't do that and still maintain that strategy of "detterance by doubt," was really immaterial to the concerns of the USA & England.

Schroeder and Chirac only opposed the inevitable invasion because of their own illicit deals with Saddam's Iraq in violation of the Oil-for-Food program.

In Chirac's case, his calumny was far worse.

He actually told Colin Powell that France would sign on with England & the U.S. and that "united front" would force Saddam to back down, then on eve of the UNSC's vote on the invasion, he made a show of acting shocked that England and the U.S. would seriously consider invading Iraq.

Blair was right and Chirac was craven and wrong.

The best thing that's happened from my perspective in the six plus years since 9/11 is that the current administration has pretty much locked, not only the U.S., but the entire West in a "to the death" struggle with the adherants of strict Sharia-based Islam.

If anything, the other side (the Islamists) have no compunction to negotiate or accept any kind of deal with America or the West, as they now believe they can wear us down and win.

I believe they're in for a surprise.

However, if THEY'RE not, then the Leftists in the West are in for a HUGE one, for to celebrate our new Muslim master's ascendence I'll quickly convert, don the blue turbin and be among the very first to stone our Left-wing radicals (the Moore's, Soros', Kucinich's, etc) as a "prayer offering" to Allah.

See? Either way the Liberals lose!

That's the inane thing about the Liberal stance on the WoT ("it doesn't exist"), because they and their "gay-loving," "anything goes," hedonists would be the primary targets of any Sharia-based regime.

But like most things Liberal, it's NOT about logic.

"I proved to you that your statement HAD to be directed at Barry"

After I laughed at that, I showed it around the office and a bunch of my co-workers laughed at you too. You proved nothing except that you are a windy fool.

But please, write yet another 8,000 words and prove yourself an even windier fool. I now show your comments around to a lot of people and you now have a fan club. People ask me to show them what you've written lately so they can laugh at what a windy nitwit you are.

That's unfair...I mean in that you'd laugh at Barry too. I apparently get under your skin, but what has Barry done?!

Once agarin; "Who said that "Barry is lauding the Sarkozy win because of any perceived 'pro-Bush' Sarkozy sentiments"?" (DBK)


Well, not to put too fine a point on it, Barry himself, for one; "I don't believe Barry is lauding the Sarkozy win because of any perceived "pro-Bush" Sarkozy sentiments." (JMK)

"Exactly. Believe it or not, George W. Bush and the war in Iraq do not dictate every aspect of my political opinions. Clearly that's not the case for a number of left-wing bloggers these days, so I guess a little projection is not surprising." (BNJ)


Enough said on that, I guess.

Still, I don't get your frustration here, DBK. I AM very receptive to factual, convincing arguments, but I honestly don't recall you making a single one within recent memory.

You didn't argue about the facts around carbon offsets, or even the charge that Gore's offsets purportedly are nothing more than stock purchases in a company he helped found and in this thread you haven't made a single argument about why Royal would've been better for France, or why you believe that "Bush supporters would laud a Sarkozy win as "good news," when it clearly means little to the American political scene."

I tend to make full arguments every time I post. I don't know why you don't, except that it probably takes more effort than a single one liner response.

CRB is very good at making catchy one line hits that also make a real point.

Not many others are. Your not and I'm not either. That's why it's best for folks like us to state our cases and avoid the one liners as much as we can.

>After I laughed at that, I showed it around the office and a bunch of my co-workers laughed at you too. You proved nothing except that you are a windy fool.

Lemme guess. You work at Air America and are paid in kind with "Impeach Bush" bumper stickers and eco-friendly refrigerator magnets.

" I know well that Barry is a 72 percenter." (BW)


I missed this one...OK, then what's a "72 percenter, exactly BW?"

Is it strongly anti-Bush, in your view?

Again, from what I've gathered, Barry has been very disappointed in both the Bush administration and the GOP over the last six years - the reckless spending first, and the open borders second...and there well may be others, though those two are up there on most people's lists.

I have been as well! But that doesn't, at least in my case (as I can only speak for myself), make me any more receptive to a Democrtatic message I rejected in the first place to vote Republican.

I'd LOVE to vote Democratic! I AM and remain a registered Democrat...a Zell Miller Democrat, if you will and nothing's going to make me more receptive to looney Left-wing ideas that make no sense.

Does that make me a 72 percenter...or a 28 percenter or somewhere in the middle, in your view, Blue?

Moreover, and I may be wrong, and Barry's views could've changed, but I do believe I remember Barry saying that as disappointed as he was in Bush, that given the same choices, Gore & Kerry, he'd probably still vote for Bush over those two.

THAT is precisely my view.

For me, almost every election comes down to a choice between two flawed choices. If Bush v Gore were held today, I'd have to vote Bush....same with Bush v Kerry.

If it were G W Bush v Bill Clinton (with a Gingrich Congess to work with)....I'd probably vote Clinton, despite the fact that you could never tell how much resolve that guy had - he did great on welfare reform and the Cap Gains tax cut, in fact, on 7 of the 10 planks of the Gingrich contract with America.

But that's about as "Centrist" as I get now-a-days. I'd much prefer a Gingrich, but I'll take a Giuliani....hell I'd take a Romney over a McCain or ANY current Dem running.

Where are the Zell Millers now-a-days?

They're now over 20% of the Democratic presence in Congress. Why aren't any of them the standard-bearers?

I'm a 72 percenter? I think I'd prefer to consider myself as someone whose entire political identity isn't exhaustively defined and circumscribed by the latest presidential approval ratings.

"I'm a 72 percenter? I think I'd prefer to consider myself as someone whose entire political identity isn't exhaustively defined and circumscribed by the latest presidential approval ratings."

Hmm...So you are neither a 28 or 72 percenter? Where does that leave you? a 0 %er? And who said that being a 72 or 28 percenter defines your entire political identity? Cheers.

I have a question, if G W Bush is a 28 percenter based on his ideology and his actions (mainly in Iraq, I'd figure), then why is Rudy (same ideology and support for Iraq)polling better than HRC nationwide and polling even better still against Obama?

Ya think that much of Bush's low approval ratings could be that Americans like a winner and don't see the post-war occupation of Iraq going anywhere?

That would seem to be the case, from my view, otherwise, Dennis Kucinich would be leading the Democratic field and trouncing ANY Republican in nationwide head-to-head polls.

Sadly for the radicals, Kucinich is polling in the low single digits AMONG Democrats!

Even tossing out the Zell Miller Dems (like myself), I have to wonder how come the moonbats haven't been able to elevate poor Kucinich?

>So you are neither a 28 or 72 percenter? Where does that leave you? a 0 %er?

I'm starting to feel like it.

Might want to check the Newsweek poll; no sign of any Rudy beating any Democrat. Ah hell, why do we even give a crap in May 2007? This is shaping up to be the most ridiculous presidential campaign ever.

"Might want to check the Newsweek poll; no sign of any Rudy beating any Democrat." (Fred)


By this time next year most people will, most likely be pretty sick of all six leading candidates.

As for those poll numbers:

Poll Date Sample
Giuliani (R)

Clinton (D)

Und

Spread

RCP Average 04/25 - 05/03 46.8 (Rudy) 44.3 (HRC) 7.7 (Und)

Giuliani +2.5

FROM:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_clinton-227.html

Newsweek's is a consistently poor poll due to a poor statistical sampling.

Quinnipiac and Zogby tend to be better quality polls - they've at least been close to the actual results in recent elections.

I see no evidence that this will be "the most ridiculous presidential campaign ever," in fact it will be a historic race, one of the few races where neither an incumbent President nor sitting VP isn't in the race!

Like MOST races it will, for most people, probably come down to the best of two flawed choices, BUT that's as it should be!

No one is all things to all people.

I'm out on McCain because of his lauding illegal immigrants claiming that "Americans CAN'T do the jobs these people do," and I'm out on the current field of Democrats (certainly Edwards, Obama and HRC)....so I guess that leaves Rudy, or Romney, or.... for me, so I already know where my "lesser of two evils" lies.

Hey JMK,
Zell Miller is not a democrat any longer. He is just a demented old man.

Actually Miller was a legendary Blue Dog Democrat...and a GREAT Senator from the great state of Georgia.

ALL of the gains in the last election were made by Conservative Blue Dogs, like Heathy Schuler, John Tester and Jim Webb.

Over 20% of the Democratic presence in the Congress is now solidly Conservative and the Zell Miller's of that Party led the way.

BOTH Rahn Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer have acknowledged the need for Democrats to reach out to Conservatives and Tradionalists, as "Liberal ideology is out of touch with most working Americans (according to Schumer, from his book Positively American).

I think the "demented old man" you're thinking about is that former KKK leader from West Viginee....what's his name again?.....Oh yeah, Robert Byrd.

An easy mistake to make for a northerner - they're both old and they're both southerners. Right?

JMK,
You are right 20% of the democrats are conservative in planet Mars. And Zell Miller is the president of planet Mars.

Zell Miller was a GREAT Senator? He may have the right views/opinions, but a GREAT Senator? What were his stellar senatorial achievements anyway? Too many people confuse agreement on views with being agreat legislators. Sort of like the whole Fred Thompson thing. People razzed John Edwards for his thin resume, but it was pretty much identical to Thompson's -- zilch.

As for the unattractiveness of this presidential campaign, isn't it a bit bizarre that things have heated up so early (October-November, I could handle, but pretty much 2 years before W. leaves town?). Even our man Newt is bothered by it all. All the candidates will lock themselves TODAY into positions that, due to unforeseen events in the interim, could have to be changed/altered/flip-flopped 12 and 15 and 18 months from now. The 2 party nominees could be pretty much settled by next February, leaving us all with 9 months to develop serious cases of buyers remorse and/or outright boredom with this gang.

One theory for the super-early start: maybe people are just super-anxious for the Bush crowd to leave and are excitedly shopping for his successor.

Yes, Fred I LIKE Zell Miller's views and saw him as an honest, straight-talking guy - to me (Istill do) and that's "great" within the political sphere, where honesty and integrity are rare virtues.

I see him as a great individual, one who put conviction above political partisanship or gain...much like Tony Blair's done in England.

I don'tknow why the early start, but it's believed to be here to stay...and yes, the nominations will all but be wrapped up by next February with all those Primaries being over, early in that month.

It could result in some serious "buyer's remorse" on both sides.

BW, that's NOT an argument.

I posted an article an AP article awhile back about the New Dems (the Blue Dogs) wanting more power, that explained clearly that most of the gains the Dems made in '06 came from these "New Democrats" (mostly Conservative Democrats) who now make up around 20% of the Democratic presence in Congress, and if Emmanuel and Schumer get their way, it will be more....significantly more.

I'm not going to look that one up right now becaus ei'm on the run and on WiFi, but I'd welcome you offering any factual sources to counter that AP source.

I'm always very open to arguments to the contrary, but such arguments require facts, whcih you seem short on right now.

"I proved to you that your statement HAD to be directed at Barry"

Oh, by the way, since I know Barry is not a 28-percenter, it is impossible for you to prove what you claim.

I take back what I said about your remarks being stupid even for you. You are just dumber than I thought. My mistake. I won't give you so much credit in the future.

Now, 8,000 words on why you are right and can prove things that are not true by misunderstanding what is written. And don't come back without that assignment.

"BW, that's NOT an argument."

Yes it is. It is an effective argument for people from planet Mars. Rational arguments do not apply in this case.

"...it is impossible for you to prove what you claim." (DBK)


Not really.

Barry posted his piece.

Blue made a critical first comment.

You commented right after BW, agreeing with BW and adding, "I also must, as I often do these days, laugh at the 28 percenters, who are so desperate for any sort of good news that they are actually buoyed up by news from France."

To which I responded, "I don't believe Barry is lauding the Sarkozy win because of any perceived "pro-Bush" Sarkozy sentiments," a logical response, given the context of your remarks, because your comment was a reply to the initial post of Barry's and NOT any subsequent poster who claimed Sarkozy's win bolstered either Bush or his supporters.

You then asked, "Who said that "Barry is lauding the Sarkozy win because of any perceived 'pro-Bush' Sarkozy sentiments"?

As I noted, Barry seemed to, as evidenced by his response, to my above statement, "Exactly....

I don't know why all this frustrates you so much.

First you reflexively jump to Gore's defense, but without any facts to bolster your position...and now you argue over where your initial comment was intended, when it was clearly directed at Barry's initial post.

Again, I don't know why all this frustrates you so much, but there's a Chinese proverb about not arguing with a person you consider dumb...."Only a fool argues with...," (I forget the rest), but if I'm teaching you a valuable lesson here (inadvertently of course), then that's a net positive, isn't it?

Blue, I gave you facts....verifiable facts, if you disagree with those facts, debunk them with other sources, OR, better still, absent refuting facts (which don't exist), make an argument like, "They may have run more Conservative agendas, but they'll vote the way Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid want them to vote, like good Democrats."

Something like that. It wouldn't be nearly so embarrassing for you.

Must I do your work as well as my own?!