Comments Posted By headhunt23
Displaying 41 To 50 Of 79 Comments
Obama won't get blamed and the comparrison to Nixon is moot.
The press hated Nixon even more than they love Obama, if that is imaginable. They looked for any thread of connectivity to tie bad things to Nixon and they will look for any loophole to allow Obama to escape blame.
You're over 50, right? How could you make such an error in reasoning?
Comment Posted By headhunt23 On 22.07.2008 @ 12:56
RUMBLINGS FROM BELOW THE MOUNTAINTOP
The Carter analogy is very apt.
Chris Matthews (in his book Hardball) wrote that the best way to get someone's loyalty isn't by doing them a favor, it is to get them to do you one. That way they have capital invested in you.
It seems that Obama is missing this basic point so far.
Comment Posted By headhunt23 On 16.07.2008 @ 13:34
THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE'S SILLY SUGGESTION
What is especially rich here is that the left has no problem taking the decisions out of the hands of the people for such things as gay marriage, abortion, or other such things that are the pet causes of the left, but jurisdiction over a specifically ennumerated federal right shouldn't be held at the federal level.
That's really rich.
Comment Posted By headhunt23 On 2.07.2008 @ 08:53
HONESTLY, IS JOHN ARAVOSIS A PIECE OF EXCREMENT OR WHAT?
Nikolay,
"Clark is Vietnam veteran and a general who run the most successful military campaign ever."
What? (And I'm not talking about your verb tenses).
Yes, Operation Overload, The Battle of Midway, The Russian Defense of Stalingrad, Dien Ben Phu, Desert Storm, Hannibal thru the Alps, The Trojan Horse, Sherman's March to the Sea, The Indian Wars, The Nazis in Eastern and Western Europe, and McArthur's Island Hopping Strategy.
All of those pale in comparrison to Kosovo.
Are you really that ignorant or are you just a puppet?
Comment Posted By headhunt23 On 1.07.2008 @ 10:34
OBAMA DROPS PRE-EMPTIVE RACE BOMB
MikeDeux.
There is a world of difference between what is a intellectual exercise - promoting the gold standard - and listening to speeches designed solely to create and amplify racial tensions. A decent person would leave the company of a "mentor" who consistently spewed things the decent person found morally objectionable.
Comment Posted By headhunt23 On 23.06.2008 @ 08:12
Not surprising at all...
I can point to two instances when the NBA head office blatantly helped the Lakers in the last 5 years.
First was in 2003 when the Lakers got off to a rocky start, Shaq was injured and the team was going to only qualify for a low seed. The NBA extened the first round to 7 games - arbitrarily and in the middle of the season.
The next was in 2004. The T-wolves (my team) were the number one seed. The Lakers were already qualified for the Conference championship, while the Kings had taken Minnesota to 7. The League had the conference finals start the day after the T-wolves seventh game. The wolves were tired and flat and lost that first game, and then lost the series.
So, yeah, I believe it.
Comment Posted By Headhunt23 On 12.06.2008 @ 07:38
Rick...in response to your note on my earlier post.
If your question is whether or not "conservativism can be more than a brake", then I submit you are asking the wrong question, because the answer to that one is "no".
It can not, but it also should not. Conservatives, by definition, are to preserve the status quo. If you want to change the status quo - that's fine, and even admirable at times, but it isn't "conservative", and I really wish people would quit dressing up their change initiatives in conservative garb.
NCLB wasn't "conservative" because it introduced more accountability - it was liberal because it changed the status quo AND increased the state control over education, a province of state and local government. The prescription drug legislation wasn't conservative. Illegal immigrant amnesty isn't conservative. Bush's overall spending record hasn't been conservative. In fact, I scratch my head and strain to figure out WHAT initiatives exactly did Bush accomplish or even push for that are conservative.
But, conservatives get straddled with all of those monstrasities because the were perpetrated by a Republican. It's past time we quit allowing allegedly "conservative" policitians to quit bastardizing our brand - especially since the only thing those politicians are interested in conserving is their own office.
Comment Posted By Headhunt23 On 28.05.2008 @ 11:46
Do you know what ails conservatism? The idea that there has to be "grand ideas" and "intellectual fire" around it.
Uh, no there doesn't. In fact, if those things ARE present, then you may rest assured that what follows WON'T be "conservative" in nature. The main problem with conservatism has been the stuff done by Republicans in the name of conservatives. Nixon wasn't a conservative. Bush hasn't been conservative (I think by any classical measure GHWB was a more conservative president). But, because the brand of conservative hasn't been tarnished to the extent that the liberal brand has been, Republicans keep doing stupid, non-conservative crap in its name.
In actuality, True conservatism must have somewhat of a tiltling at windmills fate attached to it, because at the core, true conservatism really means, as William Buckley said, standing atop history and yelling "Stop!" because quite often, change is counterproductive.
As a whole, those of us who are conservative must resign ourselves to the knowledge that we are fighting a losing battle - the battle against progress and change, but we are playing a necessary role in that fight, making sure the proposed changes are challenged before implementation, that the posibility the solutions they purport are infact better than the results will be. It is yeoman's work, but it is work that must be performed, although it is work that must ultimately fail.
Someone must fight to ensure that the society our forefathers built isn't changed without good cause. Someone must defend our societal structures and remind everyone how they came to be. Those someones are conservatives.
We have to think of "change" as a boulder on top of a mountain, our society as a town at the base, and us trying to stop the boulder. Eventually, that boulder is coming to the bottom of the hill. Our job is to slow it down, direct it, and influence it to where it will ultimately do enough good, lest it just rolls down unmolested and destroys the town below.
What you describe has certainly been the role of conservatism as it relates to modern government. My question is can it be something more than "obstructionist" or a "brake" on social democratic initiatives. That remains to be seen.
ed.
Comment Posted By Headhunt23 On 28.05.2008 @ 09:49
She wasn't the first "serious" woman candidate - Elizabeth Dole was
Comment Posted By Headhunt23 On 15.05.2008 @ 08:07
PARTY LIKE IT'S 1980 ALL OVER AGAIN
You are wrong.
McCain is going to win (a prospect i am none too excited about but for the alternative).
If I am right, you have to put a "Minnesota Vikings Rock" (or the like) banner at the top of your site.
If I am wrong, I will write a soulful apology at the Bears message board of your choice.
If you supply the banner code, I will put it up the day after the election. And I will write your apology...
ed.
Comment Posted By Headhunt23 On 6.05.2008 @ 16:00
