“Last week

Patrick,
Neither did President Bush explain after he made a similar reference to drugs & professional sports in his State of the Union Address before Congress. You still re-elected him President. Your gonna hafta try harder than that.
The difference is that Bush used his

McCain is likeable and speaks his mind. He’s also somewhat off the bubble and has a pro-nanny-state streak, as campaign finance “reform” and the steroid thing illustrate. He’s also pro-immigration, which may end up as a problem for him as this issue evolves.
He might not be able to stand the scrutiny of a campaign for President. Or he might prove very effective.
We shall see.

Immigration is going to be a major issue next election. Already, Hillary is positioning her self as a defender of border integrity. McCain won’t be a viable candidate if that becomes an issue. Hey, in my book, anyone willing to take immigration seriously has a legitimate shot a my vote.
Mainly, McCain, like many politicians, is a glory hound. If he can get in front of the camera, he will. Also, with the abysmal record of senators running for the presidency, I figure the Republicans will look to a governor again. Hillary has been very careful with what she says and how she votes. That might make her an exception to conventional wisdom.
Nice post Joe.

McCain has a tendency to throw his support behind measures that, while well-intentioned, overstep the legitimate authority of the federal government.
I dunno aboug framing the issue in those terms. After all, hasn’t overstepping the legitimate authority of the federal government been the MO of every national politician since the New Deal?

The problem I’ve had with Senator McCain is that he seems to enjoy his reputation as a maverick too much. This attack on Rumsfeld is a good example. McCain gets to be seen bucking the administration attacking someone that the media really doesn’t like. This is not to say that Rumsfeld is completely innocent for some of the problems in Iraq, but responsibility for problems like insufficient troop strength and equipment procurement rest as much if not more with Congress. Congress sets troop strength and has a large roll in determing what programs get funded.

What the Senator never explained was why the issue deserved the attention of the Federal government.
Well, for better or worse, the federal government already is involved through the anti-trust exemption it granted baseball. And unlike a lot of other legislative action, baseball actually does involve interstate commerce; so many bills passed by Congress just have a flimsy line tacked on at the end like ‘This law will apply so long as any of the involved parties are wearing clothes or have eaten food in the past 30 days that came from interstate commerce.’
So, it looks like the argument from federalism doesn’t cut much ice; the argument from silliness, though, certainly does, and also fits with the tenor of the rest of the post (“While our country is facing grave concerns like global terrorism and the dehumanizing effects of biotechnology, McCain has his attention focused on professional sports.”).

Yeah I don’t know that commenting negatively on drug use and the lack of testing for same that the League Owners and Players have been dragging their feet on for years would disqualify someone for being President when the President himself commenting on it as well. If speaking out on issues besides the war in Iraq is criteria for disqualification, then I can’t think of a single politician, and probably not a single citizen in the country, who is qualified to run for President.
So,in I’d like to say something positive about Bush’s latest trainwreck. I fervently agree with any of you in the faith based community who wish Bush would reconsider his acceptance of Bernard Kerik’s resignation for DHS Czar nominee. Writing “secret love nest”, “scandalous extramarital trysts”, and “White House” all in the same sentence over the past few days has produced in me an unexpectedly pleasurable and surprisingly profound nostalgia for the historically unparalleled peace and prosperity we all enjoyed under President Bill Clinton a mere five years ago, made even more poignant by the subsequent Bush years of futile and pointless warfare, massive civilian and military causalities, greed, incompetence, fiscal mismanagement, and economic misfortune, which has laid waste to families from sea to shining sea. Come back Bernie, come back.

The difference between the Prez and McCain, DS, is that Johnny is threatening legislative action, which many people feel is a step too far.

has produced in me an unexpectedly pleasurable and surprisingly profound nostalgia for the historically unparalleled peace and prosperity we all enjoyed under President Bill Clinton a mere five years ago
What a completely disingenuous statement. First it rests on the assumption that we would still be enjoying “historically unparalleled peace and prosperity” if only Gore had won the election of 2000 or Clinton had been allowed to serve a third term. You are a financial guy, DS, how much of the “unparalled prosperity” was funded by the internet bubble. You know the one that started bursting in 2000, when Clinton was still president. What did 9/11, you know the terrorist attack that started under Clinton, do to the “unparalled prosperity” we were enjoying? Do you think that they were only planning on executing the attack if Bush was elected? Second what does it really mean? I am sure that in 1863, many were longing for the “historically unparalled peace and prosperity” we enjoyed under President Buchanan. In 1929 many were probably longing for the “historically unparalled peace and prosperity” we enjoyed under Coolidge and Harding. So what, obviously peace and prosperity are not eternal. Are you one of those utopians (you know like Mao, Che, or Pol Pot) who think that only if we have the right plan we can bring about eternal peace and prosperity for all?

Sure Rob. BTW I thought Clinton was the biggest liar we’d ever see in the WH and I literally had to hold my nose to vote for him, the only democrat I’ve ever voted for in an election until last month, but BushCo has knocked that silly notion out of my noggin forever. Forget about pace and prosperity vs bloodshed and povetry which does, afterall, make recruiting easier.
A fib about a tawdry little freebie in the Oval Office is child’s play after the costly blood-n-gore soaked whoppers we’ve all come to know and love from your boys Rob; “Iraq has WMD’s (cough 911 mushroom cloud cough) and is an immediate threat” and “Iraqi Oil will pay for the invasion” and my fave “Iraqi detainees are being treated decently and we shouldn’t let a few bad apples tarnish our reputation”. Hell I’d take Clinton in the Oval Office sitting in a giant tub of vasoline with a couple of sets of bisexual Swedish triplets whacked on rohybanol over the quarter of a trillion dollars blown and the 900 kids and a’countin who have lost a parent because of Bush’s wise counsel.

JPE: Well, for better or worse, the federal government already is involved through the anti-trust exemption it granted baseball. And unlike a lot of other legislative action, baseball actually does involve interstate commerce; so many bills passed by Congress just have a flimsy line tacked on at the end like ‘This law will apply so long as any of the involved parties are wearing clothes or have eaten food in the past 30 days that came from interstate commerce.’
While I think it is rather silly that baseball gets an anti-trust exemption, McCain

Unless steroids are a category of restricted drugs under federal law (which they probably should be) I don

I’m not for McCain, but I don’t see much significance to your arguments. You’re basically saying that you dislike some of his policies and think others are the wrong priority. Those are reasonable arguments, but you have only three examples, two of which aren’t that important.
I’m sure McCain himself would agree that sports is not the top national priority – he just thinks it’s a worthwhile issue, and he’s obviously taking advantage of the momentum of public opinion after the recent scandals to push his policy through. Attaching a rider to multiple bills and threatening Senate “holds” on other bills are just standard tactics under Senatorial procedure.
As for why major-league baseball is a federal issue, one obvious answer is that the league was granted blanket exemption from anti-trust law (later modified to allow free-agency by players), giving it powers and economic clout that no other major industry possesses. The issue is significant enough that there have been dozens of bills submitted in Congress over the last 15 years seeking to revoke all or part of the exemption. The “Curt Flood Act” of 1998 removed the antitrust exemption for contract negotiations; a major bill was pushed (but failed) in 2001 to remove the exemption for team relocation rights. Since the Supreme Court and Congress together have created the unique situation in which baseball is played, they have some responsibility for overseeing the industry. As for drugs, if the government is making high school students give up their right to privacy just to participate in school activities, it hardly seems too much to suggest that a protected industry with a much more obvious problem ought to be subject to the same principle.

Perhaps if you had some actual evidence of these

And do we really need another rant about Bush? Seriously, haven

Joe I have no idea what his top priority is or how it’s measured or how often it changes. I’m not a baseball fan anyway so I don’t pay much attention to that stuff. So maybe I’m biased, but like yourself … I don’t exactly see this as a pressing issue either. My guess was McCain was going for a little free press.
To tell you the truth I don’t care if ball players use steriods or not. It’s their physiology as far as I’m concerned. If people want to use juice, coke, drink, have orgies, jump out of airplanes, climb rocks, drive race cars, scuba dive, or shoot heroin, etc, for kicks, it’s their call as far as I’m concerned.
I went to college on a moderate sports scholarship and I’ve been a certified personal trainer as a hobby gig for twenty years. I’v seen people stack cycles for a lot dumber reasons that the chance to make millions of dollars. Hell, I’ve seen guys shooting Deca/anadrol/winnie stacks in the locker room so that they can look cool at the beach that month. This stuff is everywhere if you know what to look for.

The real problem for McCain is the same that Kerry had. And Bill Frist has, along with Hillary Clinton: he’s a legislator, and legislators don’t win the Presidency unless serving in some executive capacity first.
Which is why everyone knows that the nominee in 2008 will be Bill Owens, Jeb Bush, George Pataki, Rudy Giuliani, or another Republican executive-branch candidate. The Democrats, who never cease to amaze me in their inability to learn from their mistakes, will in all likelihood hand HRC the nomination, and another certain electoral embarrassment.

Incidently, the average Republican score in the 2003 session was 81, McCain scored left of that with 75. The average Republican lifetime score is 83, which is just one point below McCain’s 84. I’m still not sure how accurate this thing is. Ultra-right wing Brownback scored an 80 in 2003.

Kevin W is right. Legislators, and especially Senators, simply cannot with the Presidency today.
McCain is probably too liberal for most Republican primary voters. Also, his obsession with campaign finance reform would seriously hamer his ability to RUN a general campaign. You need funds for that, and I have no idea where McCain would get that money. He seems to detest the very idea of money in politics. But to run in 50 states in a general campaign requires cash, while Arizona might be a cakewalk in comparison.
McCain also has a troubling tendency to flirt with the MainStream Media, so he’s not trusted by the core of the party. And his maverick positions on things and his quick temper tend to put people off. He might be able to sell himself again on his war record, but it didn’t work for Kerry. Ironically enough, I think McCain might have a lot in common with Kerry – both military guys, but both distant and cold towards people.
I think that in 2008, the Republicans should choose one of the current Republican governors, probably from the South or Midwest again. Rudy might make a good VP choice. Unfortunately, I think we all know that the Dem choice will be Hillary, so the nomination should go to an experienced executive who can defeat her. I don’t see McCain as being able to do that. He’d have cozied up to Hillary too much while in the Senate, and she would use her working relationship with him as a means of thwarting any of his attacks.

Kevin T.: I’m not for McCain, but I don’t see much significance to your arguments. You’re basically saying that you dislike some of his policies and think others are the wrong priority. Those are reasonable arguments, but you have only three examples, two of which aren’t that important.
The sky is green the grass is blue.
Rebuttal? ; )
I’m sure McCain himself would agree that sports is not the top national priority – he just thinks it’s a worthwhile issue, and he’s obviously taking advantage of the momentum of public opinion after the recent scandals to push his policy through. Attaching a rider to multiple bills and threatening Senate “holds” on other bills are just standard tactics under Senatorial procedure.
Politicians should be judged by their actions. If there are higher items on his agenda then we should be hearing about them. Can you name anything

is impeached or is voted out of office in 2008.
MM–Sorry, you missed your chance to vote Bush out of office, you won’t get another one in 2008. As far as impeachment goes, if you want to waste your time, please feel free, but if you want a Democrat president you’d be better off working on getting some decent candidates to run in 2008 (Hillary probably does not qualify).
Besides let just say Bush gets impeached and convicted for some to be determined high crime, what then? You would have to go pretty far down the line of succession to get a Democrat (if there is one). Most likely you’d end up with President Dick Cheney (gasp), President Denny Hastert (swoon), President Ted Stevens (???), or even worse President Condi Rice (arghhh!!!). How does that help you?

Check out “Karl Rove in a Corner” from the November 2004 issue of the Atlantic Monthly.

Check out “Karl Rove in a Corner” from the November 2004 issue of the Atlantic Monthly.

Rob I’d take Cheney over Bush in a heart beat-no pun intended ;^)

MM–Sorry, you missed your chance to vote Bush out of office, you won’t get another one in 2008.
No the religious right and neocons will have another puppet to play with in 2008. We’ll just have to make sure their choice puppet of 2008 isn’t put into office.

McCain on embryonic stem cell research (for Joe):
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=18427

Okay. So he kisses up to a special interest group. That makes him a politician, not a moderate. What legislation has he pushed to further the LCR

You keep telling yourself that and see what happens if he gets elected.
We really don’t have to worry about that. The right wing will do another hatched job on him faster than you can say “Hillary Clinton is antichrist.”

“I suppose you have proof of that, right? I mean you wouldn

Patrick,
Plenty of evidence, you say. Sorry, but a Google search wouldn’t get very fr in court without something to back it up.
What did ROVE do to Cleland? Answer– nothing. He did not run the Chsamblis campaign. (I am assuming that you are referring to the ad that criticized Cleland’s 11– that’s right, eleven– votes against the Homeland Security Bill showing a picture of Osama Bin Laden; of course, some people, like me, were ALREADY convinced that Cleland was more concerned for the employee unions than whether or not Bin LAden hit us again)
Whatever your feelings for the soon to sink into deserved obscurity Max Cleland, who self-admittedly fragged himself with a grenade while trying toget into a helicopter on a beer run, the fact remains that there is no EVIDENCE that Rove had anything to do with the ad.
Nor has it ever been proven tht Rove started rumors that an election opponent was a pedophile. That was alleged by an article in Atlantic Monthly with no named source. Again, no EVIDENCE.
And Joe, don’t worry about McCain. he has virtually no support among the base due to his disloyalty to Bush

Our Godly Leader, Our Most Evangelical President, Our Moral Paragon could always launch a dishonest whisper campaign that McCain’s adopted daughter from Bangladesh is really his illegitimate black child. That stopped McCain last time.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/

Over at my blog I am wondering:
“It is [...] important to have a vigorous dialogue over the medium-term cultural purposes of such a movement: How do we want to change the world? What difference do we want to make to the common life, in the public square, in service of our neighbours? How does the long-long-term messianic cause of the Reign of God – Pro Rege – translate into particular historical responsibilities in our own generation, and the next few generations?”
I would be delighted to hear what you think are the cultural priorities for neocalvinists in our time.

What remarkable about the number of comments defending Karl Rove is that none them seem to have the least problem with the actual tactics used, regardless of whether Rove initiated them or not.
If he didn’t, then it means that these immoral tactics are widely accepted methods for winning elections among most Republican political candidates. So why then is the GOP being given the crown of moral superiority by Christian apologists? I’ts always refreshing to see moral relativism at work.
All politcians are rats. At most they may be YOUR rat, but they are still rats.

“It’s always refreshing to see moral relativism at work.”
It’s not moral relativism, it’s True Truth. As God desired W to win, anything that furthered W’s candidacy would help to bring this nation in line with The True Truth Of God. Therefore, anything done to further W would have as it’s goal furthering True Truth, and therefore would be by definition honest and moral. It’s OK, because we’ll all thank them later when we realize (or are told by Jesus) that they were completely right all along.
It’s like Saddam’s WMDs. Jesus desired us to invade Iraq to fight spiritual warfare against Muslims and keep Israel safe long enough for Jesus to come back. W couldn’t say that True Truth, so he inflated WMD claims. That may have violated mere factual consistency, but mere facts would have mislead the American public into thinking we didn’t need to invade. As the mere facts about how shaky the WMD evidence was would therefore mislead people against the invasion, W was absolutely honest to leave them out. W knew the True Truth.

“Plenty of evidence, you say. Sorry, but a Google search wouldn’t get very far in court without something to back it up.”
Then the creationist peddlers are in big trouble.
But back to the topic, this has got to be the ultimate in pro-Bush delusion. Nobody doubts Karl Rove’s “talents” and his crap is right out there for everyone to see. Conservative Republicans all know what happened to McCain in 2000 and why. They don’t dispute it. So why do rubes here dispute it?
Some times I’m just baffled.

I’ts always refreshing to see moral relativism at work.
Patrick, do the politicians you support always vote the way you want? I look at my vote as always for the lesser of multiple evils. Do I think Bush is a moral person? From what I can see, yes. Is he perfect and does he do things the way I would? Not at all and I also realize he is a politician.
Look, every party has the “true believers” who can see no wrong with their candidate and the other side as the ultimate evil. You can fall for their ranting and raving or you can step back and make an informed choice. I’ll vote for the candidate that supports the values I stand for, regardless of party affiliation.

Some times I’m just baffled.
Must…resist…urge…to…type…sarcastic…comment….:-)

Patick: What remarkable about the number of comments defending Karl Rove is that none them seem to have the least problem with the actual tactics used, regardless of whether Rove initiated them or not.
Let me see if I can explain this for you:
If someone were to make the assertion,

“That

The fact that the mainstream media likes the Republican McCain, is a clue to his problems. As you note, he has no sense of perspective. A hot-button issue like campaign spending or drugs in sports immediately becomes a ‘government should do something’ issue. The press reacts much the same. Neither asks, “Will this really help?” or “Is this worth the effort?”
And both Dean and Perot demonstrate that even someone who’s a bit nutty can still get a good run at the White House and distort the political process. (Much as Carter demonstrates that they can also get elected.) I worked for a biotech firm in 1992 and was amazed at the number of people with PhD’s in hard sciences who were taking Perot seriously.
Intelligence simply isn’t wisdom. As the book Intellectual Morons points out, smart people can fall for stupid ideas.
–Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle

McCain is an opportunist and a media hound. He also has too much of a hot temper. I think his star is gonna fade before the primaries. The media will love him (because he loves them), but the voters will know better.
I think it’s hilarious the way you folks continue to delude yourselves that Bush is a “puppet of the Christian Right.” Bush is a MEMBER and LEADER of the Christian Right, folks. He’s ONE OF US. We share the same beliefs, which coincidentally includes a strong belief in individual determinism. Local congregations make the decisions.
Evangelical churches tend strongly to be non-heirarchical. You can’t have a puppet if there’s no puppet master pulling the strings.
As to Rove’s tactics, I have yet to see any evidence that he engaged in anything like the sleaze campaign mounted by the media this campaign. Not just Rathergate, but the shabby treatment of the Swift Boat Vets (talk about attacking war heroes!) and the steadfast refusal to print or broadcast anything but bad news coming out of Iraq.
But you guys go ahead. Keep on misrepresenting and “misunderestimating” this administration, this party, this movement. That will ensure you remain safely on the sidelines while the grownups do the dangerous work.

McCain is an opportunist and a media hound. He also has too much of a hot temper. I think his star is gonna fade before the primaries. The media will love him (because he loves them), but the voters will know better.
I think it’s hilarious the way you folks continue to delude yourselves that Bush is a “puppet of the Christian Right.” Bush is a MEMBER and LEADER of the Christian Right, folks. He’s ONE OF US. We share the same beliefs, which coincidentally includes a strong belief in individual determinism. Local congregations make the decisions.
Evangelical churches tend strongly to be non-heirarchical. You can’t have a puppet if there’s no puppet master pulling the strings.
As to Rove’s tactics, I have yet to see any evidence that he engaged in anything like the sleaze campaign mounted by the media this campaign. Not just Rathergate, but the shabby treatment of the Swift Boat Vets (talk about attacking war heroes!) and the steadfast refusal to print or broadcast anything but bad news coming out of Iraq.
But you guys go ahead. Keep on misrepresenting and “misunderestimating” this administration, this party, this movement. That will ensure you remain safely on the sidelines while the grownups do the dangerous work.

Scott What the Bush campaign did to McCain certainly qualifies as having to do w/ McCain, and my comments were about the mindset behind what your president did to beat the guy you believe needs to be stopped.
Well then why didn

“Well then why didn

BTW I’d like to get some clear instructions here. On some Blogs I’m told I’m ‘at fault for destroying Christmas and I should be happy to celebrate it” and then sometimes on the same Blog I’m told I’m not deserveing of any Holiday Celebration and I should have to work on dec 25th becuase I’m an atheist. I obvioulsy can’t both celebrate the Holidays and not celebrate the Holidays. I can’t observe Christmas, and still work and not be allowed to observe Christmas. Is there a consensus on this?

” Do I think Bush is a moral person? From what I can see, yes.”
Chris, what have you ‘seen’ other than staged campaign events to base this opinion on?
“Bush is a MEMBER and LEADER of the Christian Right, folks. He’s ONE OF US. We share the same beliefs, which coincidentally includes a strong belief in individual determinism. Local congregations make the decisions.”
Corrie, you just contradicted yourself. Bush can’t be a LEADER if evangelicals are as hard to lead as you seem to believe.

Scott, I don’t know of too many people who know any president beyond events and news reports. I think my statement was pretty clear and didn’t overstate my belief.
I am done with this portion of the thread. The topic is about McCain, not the hysterical ramblings of the hate-Bush crowd. The are at least as bad as the hate-Clinton crowd.
DS, feel free to celebrate or not celebrate as you like.

“Scott, I don’t know of too many people who know any president beyond events and news reports.”
The pro-Bush people can’t demand videotape of him personally ordering dirty tricks before believing anything bad about him, then use “what I see” as sufficient evidence to consider him a decent person.

Scott you’re dealing with a broad spectrum of people in those who support Bush. Some supoprt him slightly, some more so, and some completely, and for different reasons. At the moderate end of the spectrum are folks who are growing more skeptical as events unfold (I use to be one of those myself before he lost my trust), then you have folks who don’t see him as perfect but who support his policies because they feel those ideas are worth giving a shot and they haven’t heard anything better. And yes, there are some who cannot state what he could do even in prinicple to lose their faith and it’s very much like the kind of belief one usually sees in cults where the leader is percieved as infallable, but these are not as common as you might think.
I would suspect any more ef-ups and the WH will suddenly discover that Rummy has a nanny in his closet also ;)
More often than not the hard core supoprters aren’t nut cases but rather they benefit directly from his policies, i.e. they’re wealthy, getting big tax cuts, trust fund kids, getting some GOP pork, or they’re working for folks who are.
I’ll tell you an interesting example of why some might support the Iraq War. I have a buddy who was over there, an engineer. Early on after Baghdad fell he was sent out with a crew to look at some bridges that had been damaged and work up a materials, manpower, cost estimate kind of thing. He worked it out and estimated that it would cost something like 1.2 million to fix all three bridges, this was way more than it would have cost in the states, these weren’t huge spans or anything, but the cost of shipping materials, safety, etc, makes it a lot more more expensive in a region like that. By the time that job got assigned to a subcontractor the price tag was over 15 million dollars. Believe me, if you were that contractor you’d find a way to convince yourself you were doing God’s own work.
The true believers are rare though. One way I test to see if they’re operating with a full deck is to ask them if more attacks from Al Qaeda would be evidence that we’re not safer, and if they say “No … ” followed by an astonishingly convoluted explanation of why more attacks don’t count in determining if we’re safer from terrorist attacks, you’re talking to a Bushist.

‘You Go to War with the Senate You Have’

This is seriously funny:Rumsfeld: ‘You Go to War with the Senate You Have’ by Scott Ott(2004-12-16) — Embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld today responded to criticism from Senators John McCain, Trent Lott, Susan Collins, Chuck Hagel and others…

Lutz writes
“Must…resist…urge…to…type…sarcastic…comment….:-)”
But I left that low-hanging fruit out there just for you, Chris! Next time you’ll bite at it. I’ll make it too good to resist. ;)

Low-hanging fruit and a voice saying to partake. Hhmmm, something sounds familiar about this situation.

Well if Clinton did something asinine and it got a bunch of Americans killed I’d be all over him also. In fact I critiqued him pretty harshly when he was sitting. If we get attacked again I’ll be all over Bush and I firmly trust that those of you who have been claiming Iraq has made us safer will finally come to terms with reality if it does happen. That would be a very hard way to learnt he lesson though. Me being able to say “I told you so” in those circumstances is so undesirable I’d much rather you be able to tell me the same thing four years from now.
I can’t get inside OBL’s head so I have no idea what he’s planning or thinking. I can only guess. If I were him, I don’t think I’d want to do anything to discredit Bush at least for now. As long as Bush is leaving him alone, and hemorraging money and men in Iraq while stirring up Muslim support for Al Qaeda, I wouldn’t have any reason to take any chances and change that unpredicatbly
What I would do instead is go after the Saudi’s. Iraq has made it increasingly difficult for Arabs to openly support or even co-operate with the US. Saudi Arabia is a full blown police state run pretty much like Iran was before the Shah was booted out and almost as bad as Iraq was under Saddam, except it’s a religious Monarchy with a homegenous group rather than a secular dictatorship with distinct ethnic factions. So the House of Saud can get by for the time being, they control the media, they have huge mercenary forces to suppress dissent and protect them. And if you’re an ordinary citizen in Saudi and don’t stir up trouble you get a pretty good deal because of oil revenues. Saudi citizens get free education all the way through grad school, free power, free housing, and a monthly stipend, for their entire lives. (Only males of course, few women Saudi’s can own property or work). So if you play ball you get a pretty good deal and if you don’t you get picked up and tortured or executed. But there is simmering resentment against the US in Saudi Arabia, partly their own fault because they’ve been cultivating it by supporting Wahhabist Islamic schools and centers around the world for years and those folks are starting to come home to roost. But now greatly exacerbated because of Iraq. And the Saudi’s you have to understand are arrogant as hell and believe they’re Allah’s chosen people and few people in this country really understand that the Saudi’s do not like us despite saying whatever they think we want to hear publicly.
OBL knows how to play on that religious prejudice, he makes Rove look like a boy scout. (My second guess would be that he hits Israel with a nuke)
So I see no reason for him to attacks us as things stand now. Btu I’m just guessing.
The one thing that really scares me though is he’s going through all the steps required by his religion to, in their theology, ‘justly’ commit an enormous attack against America. Islam has a formal protocol for such things. If he has nukes, he’ll use them sooner or later.
He has warned us about the requisite number of times and demonstrated that he’s not kidding. And he’s asked for and recieved ‘permission’ from Sunni Clerics to use nukes on us (Finally granted to him after Iraq was invaded and Abu Ghaib hit the Arab newspapers). This last video that came out was in the complex bizarro theology of Islamic militant fundie protocol the last, or the next to last, final warning. We may get one more warning, a smaller attack or a direct statement that he will hit us, but he’s not obligated by his religion at this point to provide it. I’m pretty worried he will hit us soon, maybe even with nukes, perhaps within a year. One possible date would be May 14, the date on which Israel was founded by the UN. I’m not trying to scare anyone, I have no idea,but based on past videos and time tables associated wiht them, the most likely hit would be in the next month or so.
Given Bush’s track record in reading the Islamic world and his contempt for expertise which might make him ‘look bad’, I don’t know if he’s taking any of this seriously or has anyone advising him who will pound the table on it. In the Bush WH, solid expert advice gets you fired, and failure gets you awarded with medals and promotions.

I’ll disagree with you there DS. Invading Iraq was a proper decision because Hussein was providing monetary and geographic support to the terrorists. I also still believe he was pursuing WMDs, or at least thought he was. Now, I don’t particularly like the way Bush has handled the aftermath of the war. My solution would have been:
1. Establish a new Kurdish state in northern Iraq. If Turkey didn’t like it, tough. The Kurds like us for the most part and we could have established military bases.
2. After capturing Saddam, leave the southern territory for the Sunni and Shia factions to duke it out.
3. Leave Saudi Arabia and block all of the Saudi money flowing around.
4. Support the dissident movement in Iran and flatten their nuclear development sites.
5. Finally start severing all ties with the Muslim world. “Moderate” Islam is a fiction. Their holy texts support subversive and violent jihad and the “moderates” don’t have a let to stand on.

Getting back to McCain (this post was originally about him, wasn’t it?), I don’t see him getting anywhere close to the nomination in ’08. He’s just too divisive in the GOP ranks. McCain is a media darling, but only because and when he bashes fellow Republicans. If he actually runs, and heaven forbid, gets the nomination, the media will turn on him in a flash, and I don’t think he has the stomach for that.
The GOP may find itself in a real bind come ’08. There’s nobody left on their bench right now, although four years is a long time and somebody could step up. It won’t be Guiliani — he’s way too liberal for Republicans in the south and nobody goes from mayor to president of the U.S., especially New York mayors. Jeb Bush won’t get it, because the U.S. will be tired of Bushes by ’08. Condi would be a good choice, or maybe Va. Senator George Allen. But not McCain.

The Case Against Sen. McCain

Way back in the day when I was in college, my first college roommate, chosen randomly, was a traditional liberal democrat. I, even then, was a Reagan Republican. This was the fall of ’80, so we were in the middle of that election cycle. We became…

Theo Condi would never carry the south. There are large segments of voters there who are openly racist and are in fact trying as hard as they can to reverse civil rights for blacks. They’re in fact seeking to overturn the articles of Incorporation, meaning reject the Bill of Rights. You have about as much chance of Condi winning those red neck crackers over as Snoop Doggy Dog sweeping Alabama.

Uh – Scott? I’ve read the article your pushing at http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign
It’s an oped piece in a liberal paper written by a guy who says he ran McCains presidential campaign. It never mentions Rove. It does mention by name a guy who claimed to be a professor at Bob Jones University.
Just what do you think the column proves? What is it supposed to tell me about the dreaded Rove attack machine?

“It’s an oped piece in a liberal paper written by a guy who says he ran McCains presidential campaign. It never mentions Rove.”
The guy who ran McCain’s campaign was a witness to the dirty tricks played on that campaign, and those dirty tricks fit the pattern of what happens to anyone who threatens to beat Our Godly Evangelical Leader in an election. Do you think some masked avenger is spending money push polling on W’s behalf in every election he’s a part of?
Face it, your guy’s dirty. If W was a Democrat, this pattern of events would be more than enough to convince people here he’s dirty.

1. Establish a new Kurdish state in northern Iraq. If Turkey didn’t like it, tough. The Kurds like us for the most part and we could have established military bases.
The fact that the Kurds like us for the most part doesn’t imply that they would like to have US military bases on their soil or would continue to like us once US troops are there. It would also annoy Turkey, which is not unlikely to be an EU member in the near future. Furthermore, US bases in Kurdish territory contradicts your #5 below.
2. After capturing Saddam, leave the southern territory for the Sunni and Shia factions to duke it out.
Possibly creating both a humanitarian crisis (contradicting the United States goal of helping the Iraqi people), and a Lebanon-style civil war which would enable terrorists to set up shop. Saddam was a threat to his neighbors and his people. Another Lebanon or Afghanistan would be a threat to us.
3. Leave Saudi Arabia and block all of the Saudi money flowing around
Do you still want the Saudi Oil? If Saudi Arabia loses its stability, do you think oil will continue flowing smoothly from the other gulf states?
4. Support the dissident movement in Iran and flatten their nuclear development sites.
This is likely to be self-defeating. Even Iranian dissidents are proud of their nation and culture. Do you think that a)the dissidents will continue to favor the U.S. if the U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear facilities and b) the people will support the dissidents if those dissidents are perceived as receiving support from a nation that has bombed them? Right now, the U.S. enjoys remarkable popularity among young Iranians, but the hostage crisis should have taught us that the Iranians can hold a grudge for a long time.
5. Finally start severing all ties with the Muslim world.
Do you mean severing ties by building military bases in a Kurdish homeland? It may have escaped your notice that the Kurds are muslims, too. How about Israel? As long as we remain engaged with Israel, we are forced to remain engaged in some way with the nations that surround Israel (ignoring for the moment, the rapidly growing Muslim population within Israel).
“Moderate” Islam is a fiction. Their holy texts support subversive and violent jihad and the “moderates” don’t have a let to stand on.
I tend not to believe Muslims when they pontificate on the meaning of the Trinity or the correct interpretation of the Old Testament, so I don’t think I’ll take your word on the nature of Islam. However, I would be curious to know whether the Kurds “who like us for the most part” are radicals or moderates who don’t have a leg to stand on.

Scott wrote: “Face it, your guy’s dirty.”
That may be. I’m just stating that nothing in this article would prove it to a fair minded person. Do you think every dirty trick pulled in every primary campaign is done with the connivance of the candidates?

“Do you think every dirty trick pulled in every primary campaign is done with the connivance of the candidates?”
A pattern of dirty tricks in campaign after campaign reflects on the candidate. What happened to McCain happened earlier to Ann Richards.
Face it, your Godly Leader does dirty.

Let the right wing attacks on McCain’s patriotism (a la Kerry 2004) begin:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/17/104630.shtml

“Let the right wing attacks on McCain’s patriotism (a la Kerry 2004) begin”
You don’t understand. We must protect pro boxing. It’s Important.

Scott,
Stupid innane issues that grab attention are the norm for politicians anymore. How do you expect them to get free airtime on the news networks? That of course has nothing to do with the fact that the right wing will not allow McCain to be even a contender in the 2008 race. They’ll make sure to snub him out before he gets any kind of momentum. Mark my words. He’s not hardcore neocon and/or religious right enough for them nor can they control him like these behind the scenes sorts want to.

“He’s not hardcore neocon and/or religious right enough for them”
You haven’t caught on that they want to run Jeb in 2008?

You haven’t caught on that they want to run Jeb in 2008?
Yeah he’s pretty far right, but I don’t know if he’s a shoe in. We’ll have to see who comes down the pike. One thing for sure it will not be a moderate or even a right-leaning moderate. It sucks I probably won’t be able to vote Republican yet another election year…

“Yeah he’s pretty far right, but I don’t know if he’s a shoe in.”
Jeb is of the Superior Bush Gene Pool, and loyalty to clan trumps all other factors.

Scott wrote “A pattern of dirty tricks in campaign after campaign reflects on the candidate”
But the article you pointed to, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign
Is an opinion piece by political enemy of the Bush campaign that never mentions Rove or Bush.
You seem to think I’m trying to say that you’re wrong, that Bush isn’t a dirty a politician, and I’m doing nothing of the sort. If you want to prove a point you have to state a thesis and present argument, not assertion, that your thesis is correct. You’ve failed to do that, at least in your comments on this post.

“If you want to prove a point you have to state a thesis and present argument, not assertion, that your thesis is correct. You’ve failed to do that, at least in your comments on this post.”
I’m sorry, but pointing out the pattern of what occurs to anyone who threatens to take an election from Bush _is_ making an argument.

McCain certainly hasn’t been so distracted by his goals of reforming professional sports to be able to focus on foreign policy:
McCain Has

BCB,
I’m not a fan of McCain in the least, but the only reason I post this is because I suspect that the reason behind this post is motivated by his criticism of Rumsfeld.
Why would you assume that? I could really care less what McCain thinks of Rumsfeld. In fact, I suspect that even Rumsfeld doesn

Scott:
You didn’t “point out a pattern” in your post. You linked to a single op/ed piece that, once again, proves nothing. I’ll even quote the author’s words, and he was McCain’s campaign manager:
“We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made.”
“We never did find out who perpetrated these smears,but they worked: We lost South Carolina by a wide margin.”
Tell me again how this article demonstrates that the smears were orchestrated by the Bush Campaign, or even done with his knowledge?
Let me refresh your memory. The post I’m refering to reads:
“Our Godly Leader, Our Most Evangelical President, Our Moral Paragon could always launch a dishonest whisper campaign that McCain’s adopted daughter from Bangladesh is really his illegitimate black child. That stopped McCain last time.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/“
I took it from your post that the link article would show that Bush had personally directed the smear campaign you wrote of. It does no such thing.

Terry,
Scott thinks that if he repeats something often enough it will become true. Therefore, why present evidence to support an argument? He probably also believes what he has been spoon fed by the media about Christians, that we all believe what we are told without question. Finally, you have Scott’s comments about McCain and George W. Bush.
Joe has made an excellent argument concerning McCain. A part of me really wants to like the guy, but stuff that is being written by Joe about him really convince me to take a second look. My guess is that the guy would never get through the primaries unless he was the only viable candidate.
As for myself, i’m an Alan Keyes kind of guy. Maybe I should start an Alan Keyes for President drive.

Terry,
Scott thinks that if he repeats something often enough it will become true. Therefore, why present evidence to support an argument? He probably also believes what he has been spoon fed by the media about Christians, that we all believe what we are told without question. Finally, you have Scott’s comments about McCain and George W. Bush.
Joe has made an excellent argument concerning McCain. A part of me really wants to like the guy, but stuff that is being written by Joe about him really convince me to take a second look. My guess is that the guy would never get through the primaries unless he was the only viable candidate.
As for myself, i’m an Alan Keyes kind of guy. Maybe I should start an Alan Keyes for President drive.

Scott:
I just read my last post and it reads with more hostility than I intended. I’m not saying you are wrong about Bush being a dirty campaigner. Not at all. I’m just trying to find out the truth of it.
I’ve googled like crazy and although there are a lot of sites that talk about the SCarolina primary smear allegations, none of them are more specific as to the source of the smear you mention — push-polling that accused McCain of having a bastard child — then Davis’ claims in the article you linked to. I did have some fun reading the other SC primary smear accusations though.
During the 2004 Presidential campaign the South Carolina Democratic Party blog attempted to draw a correlation between the McCain smears and what the Swift Boat Vet’s were doing to Kerry. In the ‘Palmetto Demblog’( you can read it at http://www.scdp.org/blog.php?blog_id=22)
A writer links to the same Boston Globe opinion piece you do and then brings out the Big Guns:
‘The negative attacks were also aimed at McCain’s wife Cindy. Her addiction to prescription painkillers years earlier had been dug up during the campaign by dirty tricksters and the night before the South Carolina primary a man appeared outside a McCain event with a stack of leaflets calling her a drug addict and a “weirdo.”‘
Check yer six, Gordon Liddy, there’s a new kid on the block in the dirty tricks business, and he’s not above handing out leaflets and calling people ‘weirdo’.
The blogwriter does come up with some direct links from Bush to an anti-McCain republican campaigner, but the ‘dirty trick’ in this case was for Bush to endorse the statements of said anti-McCain republican misrepresenting some votes McCain made on issues of interest to veterans. Bush didn’t hide the fact that he was backing the dude and when McCain’s people succesfully refuted the charges — and exposed the dude as being McCain’s own version of Billy Burkett — Bush looked like a fool.
Last thing the demblogger mentions is Bush caught on tape endorsing the anti-McCain smear campaign! Well, not really. the transcript of Bush’s conversation with SC state Senator Mike Fair reads:
“I have no explanation as to why some of the religious conservatives, particularly, are with that guy,” Fair said, presumably referring to McCain, just a few days before Gary Bauer endorsed the candidate. “You haven’t even hit his soft spots.”
“I know,” Bush said. “I’m going to.”
“Well they need to be, somebody …”
“Exposed,” Bush said, finishing Fair’s sentence.
“Somebody does, anyway,” Fair continued.
“I agree,” Bush said, ominously. “I’m not going to do it on TV.”
Which is why the 2000 republican primary voters in SC were denied the Willie Horton ads I guess.
I love a conspiracy as much as the next guy but this South Carolina primary smear stuff is turning out to be watery grits.
There’s a big laundry list of Bush smear accusations at http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=522
but it’s mostly the same stuff that was at the ‘Palmetto Demblog’. There were two interesting leads there. One was supposedly a quote by Tucker Eskew (Bush’s SC campaign guy):
‘”Bush Campaign Acknowledged Making Phone Calls.
Tucker Eskew, Bush

Eric & Lisa:
I didn’t get a chance to read your post before I made my (hopefully) final reply to Scott. Poor argument structure bothers me. By all accounts the South Carolina primary was nasty, but not THAT nasty. Bush, I suppose, is a typical politician. He’ll fight hard to win. He seems to have gone further than I’m comfortable with in trying to nullify McCain’s advantages with SC vets, but then I’ve never run for office. I vote like Hugh Hewitt; for the most conservative canditate who is likely to win.
I wonder what the McCain/Perot voter overlap is? A lot of people that defend Perot seem to be McCain fans. And I wonder how many Democratic McCain supporters realize that he was Bill “King of the Neo Cons” Crystal’s first choice in 2000?

Oops! Insert “Kristol” for “Crystal”. At least I didn’t call him “Billy (King of the Neo Cons) Crystal”. I bet he hates that.