Comments Posted By B.Poster
Displaying 391 To 397 Of 397 Comments
Look, I'm not happy about this nominee. Given Bush's track record, I'm not sure his judgement can be trusted. After all this is the guy who has referred to Russian president Vladimir Putin as an "ally in the War on Terror" and a "friend" or something to this effect. Putin has neither been an ally nor has he been a friend. This and many other things raise doubts that about Bush's ability to judge the character of those he interacts with. Having said this it seems unlikely that any of the Conservative judges, such as Luttig, Owens, Brown, or any of the other judges with staunchly Conservative track records who are freqently spoken of in Conservative circles could have survived a fillibuster. In other words, any judge who has a "paper trail" indicating that he or she is a Conervative is likely to face a fillibuster and the so called "gang of 14" are unlikely to invervene to override the fillibuster. This may explain the stealth nominee. Bush has worked with this woman and he may think he can trust her. This is what I think it ultimately comes down to. Can we trust the judgement of GW Bush to be truthful or to be a good judge of character? I certainly don't trust him. Acutally anyone wishing to fillibuster this nominee would have a very easy time doing so for the following reasons: 1.) She has no judicial experience. 2.) She is uncomfortably close to the administration. She may not be a "crony" but it certainly appears she is. In any event, I hope and pray this all works out for true Conservatives.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 3.10.2005 @ 21:43
HI! I'M YOUR PERSONAL DISASTER RELIEF ASSOCIATE...
This is not far from what liberals would like to do. Obviously this is meant as satire and it is hilarious!! What liberals actually want to do is impossible.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 30.09.2005 @ 12:47
CAMPAIGN 2008: HILLARY WALKS THE PLANK
docdave
Thanks for the response to my post. I had come to largely the conclusion you had. It is true that the left contributes most of the money to the Democrats. If the Democrats want to win elections, in the short run, they don't need the far left. If they abandon the far left, they will pick up support from independents and money will come in from elsewhere. They will not jettison the far left. I suspect they will not do this because they are anti-American leftists at heart. Until the Democrats distance themselves from the far left, it seems to me the only way they will be able to win elections is if one or more of the following happens: 1.) The economy completely fails. 2.)Iraq completely falls apart. 3.)There is another terrorist attack on American soil. The far left elements understand this and are actively working to try and make these things happen. They are truly revolting.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 26.09.2005 @ 09:12
Very good analysis. I had come to much the same conclusion. If Hillary and other Democrats would simply jettison the far left from their midst, she and the other Democrats would easily walk into power. If the Democrats would have simply denounced the far left elements in their midst and rebuked them, John Kerry would be the President and the Democrats would likely control both the House and the Senate. For some reason they won't jettison the far left from their midst. This is either because: 1.)At heart they are far leftists, such as the groups who support Cindy Sheehan and they recognize that to openly appeal to the far left will will turn off the independent voters and they will lose elections so they must throw a few bones to the center even though they actually agree with the anti-American far left postion. 2.) They are actually centerists at heart but they recognize that in order to win elections they must keep the anti-American left in the fold. I think # 1 is more likely. The Democrats don't need the far left to win an election. If they would simply denounce this group and distance themselves from them, they would get the independent vote and the Republicans would be history. The fact that Hillary and the Democras will not do this indicates to me that they actually support far leftists such as Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore and their agenda. The Democrats need to maintain credibility. Openly supporting the far left will lead to a loss of credibility, as far left positions are easily refuteable to anyone willing to do the research.
As I have said before, either Rudy Giulani or John McCaon will be the Republican nominee for 2008. Before the fiasco that was the Governmental response to Hurricane Katrina I would have said it was a toss up between Giulani and McCain. Given Guilani's successful response to 911, I think the nomination goes to Giulani unless he does not want it. The race is between Giulani and McCain all other Republicans need not apply. While Hillary's political strategy has been brilliant, perhaps the most brilliant strategy of all has been that carried out by the Republicans. The Republicans get the Democrats and the Democrat allies in the main stream news media to attack "Conservatives", "Neo-Conservatives", and the "Religous Right," The afore mentioned groups have very little power in the Republican party. This only strengthens Rudy Giuliani and John McCain who actually represent the Republcian party.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 25.09.2005 @ 19:46
WELCOME TO THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
At one time Bill Clinton believed Iraq had stockpiles of WMD. Now he says there was no evidence. I wonder if the reporter who interviewed him asked him if he was lying then or is he lying now. Somehow I doubt they did. The Clintons are as loved by the main stream media as George W. Bush is hated by the main stream media. The Clintons will always get a free pass from the media.
Before the Iraq war large truck convoys of something were spotted going into Syria. This was described by intellegence officials as an "uptick" in traffic to Syria. The Iraq Survey Group was never able to complete the investigation into what was transferred into Syria. The investigation was halted due to security concerns. They have expressed a desire to complete this investigation. could these convoys have contained the "stockpiles" of WMD that the main stream media says did not exist? I don't know. I would suggest to anyone who believes Saddam did not have WMD stockpiles to not be so hasty. Before we can close the book on this, the investigation inot what was transferred into Syria needs to be completed.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 19.09.2005 @ 14:22
Radical Centerist
I had much the same idea as you did. It seems to me the President makes nominees and the Senate confirms them or does not confirm them. The Senate failed their duties here. They are supposed to be engaging in oversight. How likely do you think it is that the main stream media will report on this? I say it is not very likely that they will.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 15.09.2005 @ 13:17
Excellent post. You have done a great job of spelling out, in a nice summary how all levels of government screwed up. While it clearly does seem the Federal government did make some major errors here, the problem with many in the media trying to pin all the blame on Bush and the Federal Government is it obscures what did happen.
Linda and Giacomo make great points. The bottom line seems to me to be, if we expect the Federal Government to take over for what local and state officials should be doing, we will need a much bigger federal government. As a conservative, I'm not sure I like that idea. I actually think this was part of the problem. The government, as it is, it TOO BIG. This helped to lead to a sluggish response. If we are to respond better in the future, I think making the government smaller would be a good idea. It should be able to move faster, if it is smaller.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 15.09.2005 @ 13:13
