Why hasn't anyone called Carter a Traitor yet?
 

I don't know, but I wish he'd stop running and face reality.

Why hasn't anyone called Carter a Traitor yet?
 

The Majesty of Rock was located outside Baghdad, sadly by Sadr's forces. I'm told the Fantasy of Roll was found outside Ur, but the Pentagon is keeping it a secret.

Why hasn't anyone called Carter a Traitor yet?
 

When they poll special ed facilities and Alzheimer's units.

Why hasn't anyone called Carter a Traitor yet?
 

If you look at the polls since the Dems took back Congress, you see that the numbers have dropped because more and more Democrats are disappointed by Congress, which makes sense, because Republicans in Congress have blocked it from doing what most Americans want to do about Iraq, which is by far and away the issue of the day.

That Welsh blackguard.
 

That is even more meaningless. Reagan actually *trained* thousands of them and provided them with weapons.

And, heck, thanks to the failure of Winston Churchill's brilliant idea to land at Gallipoli, the British had to send T.E. Lawrence into the desert to keep the Turks from sending a few divisions into France or invading Russia. As a result, the Brits owed the Mohammadeans, and, thanks to Lawrence and the Arabists in the British Foreign Office, the whole kit and kaboodle of them gained independence from the somewhat then and even more so now secular Turks in 1919.

Personally, I blame Lloyd George.

Why hasn't anyone called Carter a Traitor yet?
 

Yes, denizens of the party in power are always disappointed that the other party is preventing them from having their way. That's democracy, right? But now its the republicans' fault (again) because they're not in power, but not sufficiently out of power? Maybe the D's should have worked a little harder to get a bigger majority. Is that the R's fault too?

I'm worried, Ty, because I think Slave's criticisms of your biases are appearing to be accurate.

Why hasn't anyone called Carter a Traitor yet?
 

Yeah, but Ty's criticism's of Slave's biases are also accurate, so doesn't it balance out?

Why hasn't anyone called Carter a Traitor yet?
 

I should ignore them both!

Why hasn't anyone called Carter a Traitor yet?
 

LMAO

Why hasn't anyone called Carter a Traitor yet?
 

You only just figured this out? This is nearly as disappointing as Ty not being able to figure out that free shipping is likely to be less reliably fast than shipping you pay for.

Wonderful news!
 

It turns out that John Culberson isn't actually on the transportation committee anymore! Hasn't been on it since January 11, despite comments like March 29th's, "I have a responsibility to the Houston region to help improve our entire transportation network as the only Texan on the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee."

Ciro Rodriguez, it turns out, is the only Texan on the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee.

He's been a thorn in everyone's side about light rail expansion (big car dealership money, I suspect), and he's been throwing his weight around at town hall meetings and the like about his importance on the matter. The "No Rail on Richmond" folk have stupid signs that say stuff like "Thank God for Representative Culberson."

Ha! He's just one of 64 members of the Appropriations committee. A small, insignificant fish in a very large pond.


Carry on.

The National Review, on the W-A-T-E-R
 

Following in the tradition of PJ O'Rourke and his Harper's essay 25 years ago about a bunch of Nation readers on a cruise up the Volga river, TNR does its bit on today's National Review cruise, nominally named by the author, "The Muslims are Coming Cruise."

Sure, O'Rourke was funnier, and there's a good bit of effete sneering going on in this article, but the surprising thing to me was the degree to which readers treat the magazine's own founder so poorly.

• A fracture-line in the lumbering certainty of American conservatism is opening right before my eyes. Following the break, Norman Podhoretz and William Buckley--two of the grand old men of the Grand Old Party--begin to feud. Podhoretz will not stop speaking--"I have lots of ex-friends on the left; it looks like I'm going to have some ex-friends on the right, too," he rants--and Buckley says to the chair, "Just take the mike, there's no other way." He says it with a smile, but with heavy eyes.
  
  Podhoretz and Buckley now inhabit opposite poles of post-September 11 American conservatism, and they stare at wholly different Iraqs. Podhoretz is the Brooklyn-born, street-fighting kid who traveled through a long phase of left- liberalism to a pugilistic belief in America's power to redeem the world, one bomb at a time. Today, he is a bristling gray ball of aggression, here to declare that the Iraq war has been "an amazing success." He waves his fist and declaims, "There were WMD, and they were shipped to Syria. ... This picture of a country in total chaos with no security is false. It has been a triumph. It couldn't have gone better." He wants more wars, and fast. He is "certain" Bush will bomb Iran, and "thank God" for that.
  
  Buckley is an urbane old reactionary, drunk on doubts. He founded National Review in 1955--when conservatism was viewed in polite society as a mental affliction--and he has always been skeptical of appeals to "the people," preferring the eternal top-down certainties of Catholicism. He united with Podhoretz in mutual hatred of Godless Communism, but, slouching into his eighties, he possesses a worldview that is ill-suited for the fight to bring democracy to the Muslim world. He was a ghostly presence on the cruise at first, appearing only briefly to shake a few hands. But now he has emerged, and he is fighting.
  
  "Aren't you embarrassed by the absence of these weapons?" Buckley snaps at Podhoretz. He has just explained that he supported the war reluctantly, because Dick Cheney convinced him Saddam Hussein had WMD primed to be fired. "No," Podhoretz replies. "As I say, they were shipped to Syria. During Gulf war one, the entire Iraqi air force was hidden in the deserts in Iran." He says he is "heartbroken" by this "rise of defeatism on the right." He adds, apropos of nothing, "There was nobody better than Don Rumsfeld. This defeatist talk only contributes to the impression we are losing, when I think we're winning."
  
  The audience cheers Podhoretz. The nuanced doubts of Bill Buckley leave them confused. Doesn't he sound like the liberal media?

Cruisegoers hold a similarly dim view of Rich Lowry, and the man is the current editor of the magazine.

• Then, with a judder, the panel runs momentarily aground. Rich Lowry, the preppy, handsome 38-year-old editor of National Review, announces, "The American public isn't concluding we're losing in Iraq for any irrational reason. They're looking at the cold, hard facts." The Vista Lounge is, as one, perplexed. Lowry continues, "I wish it was true that, because we're a superpower, we can't lose. But it's not."
  
  No one argues with him. They just look away, in the same manner that people avoid glancing at a crazy person yelling at a bus stop.

It's these sorts of exchanges that make me want to warn Buckley not to take any vacations at his country dacha anytime soon, or he'll find himself exiled in the Hamptons while Stormin' Norman moves on to wield the NR like a fiery neoconservative sword against the growing waves of unwashed masses.

Gattigap

Why hasn't anyone called Carter a Traitor yet?
 

My point was only that to the extent that Congress's approval has dropped lately -- which is what Slave brought up -- it's because peopel increasingly don't think Congress has been far left enough. I was describing, not blaming.

Why hasn't anyone called Carter a Traitor yet?
 

You brought the polling data up, and then you laugh when I tell you what it says? Pollster.com:

• The polling here is thin, with approval of the parties only asked occasionally, so it is hard to track short term change. But the evidence we have is that Democrats are suffering declines in support relative to their January numbers. There is some evidence that this loss of support comes significantly from their base among liberals, who are unlikely to shift to support of Republicans. But an unpopular Congress has been the undoing of majority parties before and it seems Democrats should pay attention to the decline in approval of Congress, not whistle past the graveyard by pointing out that Republicans are worse off still.

Why hasn't anyone called Carter a Traitor yet?
 

I think you're right. You guys should move hard left for the next election. It'll be a shoe-in for you.

Why hasn't anyone called Carter a Traitor yet?
 

Exactly where in this quote does it say anything remotely like your suggestion that the abysmal approval rating of Congress has anything to do with the actions of the minority party?

Why hasn't anyone called Carter a Traitor yet?
 

I don't think voters are upset with Republicans in particular. I think voters are upset with Congress because they thought they were electing a Congress that would do something to bring the war to an end, and that hasn't happened. If you (you the voter) want to be upset at anyone about that, be upset at the Democrats, because the Republicans are doing exactly what you could have predicted, which is stand by their man.

Since Bush was bound to veto anything he didn't like, and the Dems don't have a veto-proof majority, this was not unexpected, but apparently voters are disappointed.

TKO.
 

If you can bear to watch, Coulter gets the worst of this exchange with Elizabeth Edwards and Chris Matthews.

If You Can't Beat Em, Pass a Law
 

• House Republican lawmakers are preparing to fight anticipated Democratic efforts to regulate talk radio by reviving rules requiring stations to balance conservative hosts such as Rush Limbaugh with liberals such as Al Franken.
  
  Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so drastically that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
  
  
  
  They say radio stations would take a financial hit if forced to air balanced programming because liberal talk radio has not proved itself to be as profitable as conservative radio. Air America, the liberal counterpunch to conservative talk radio, filed for bankruptcy in October.
  
  But Democratic leaders say that government has a compelling interest to ensure that listeners are properly informed.
  
  “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
  
  The Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC discarded in 1985, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial political issues. Prior to 1985, government regulations called for broadcasters to “make reasonable judgments in good faith” on how to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-06-27.html

TKO.
 

When DOESN'T she get the worst of an exchange?

If You Can't Beat Em, Pass a Law
 

Interesting tactic for House Republicans to try to get conservative talk radio all riled up by making it sound as if the Fairness Doctrine issue is all about them.

Weren't there talk radio shows back in the day of the Fairness Doctrine? Didn't they tend conservative?

If You Can't Beat Em, Pass a Law
 

Don't look at me. I'm fine letting Rush direct the viewpoints of people whose cars don't have FM.

If You Can't Beat Em, Pass a Law
 

Classic Democrat thinking. Run to Mommy to fix the fact that life, or the marketplace, isn't giving you what you think you deserve.

What does it mean? Time to buy Sirius stock.

If You Can't Beat Em, Pass a Law
 

Actually, I think Trent Lott has been the biggest critic of talk radio lately.

If You Can't Beat Em, Pass a Law
 

The problem is, liberals on the radio just aren't very funny or very interesting. I'd love it if they gave John Waters a talk show, but instead of finding a funny liberal they always put on these serious shitbags like Garafalo and Franken, who are as annoying as Limbaugh and O'Reilly, but not nearly as funny as O'Reilly or Limbaugh. You can laugh at and with conservative talk radio hosts. The liberals... they're too worried about offending people to be very amusing.

We need more Libertarian hosts who are unpredictable. people who believe deeply in movements of any sort tend to be very dull.

If You Can't Beat Em, Pass a Law
 

Of course, if you read the article, you learn no proposal is yet on the table. This is just the Rs trying to rouse the troops, and since Americans generally agree with the Ds on all the bills on the floor, they're making one up.

'Cause everyone's sick of them attacking George McGovern yet again, and every time someone says "Iraq" they lose more votes.

If You Can't Beat Em, Pass a Law
 

I'm pretty sure no one here was listening to talk radio before 1985. it sounds like you tapped into some source though.

can you link to the blog that will inform your opinion on this debate?

If You Can't Beat Em, Pass a Law
 

My guess is Trent is mad about Opie and Anthony, not Rush.

If You Can't Beat Em, Pass a Law
 

Check out his comments on the immigration bill.

If You Can't Beat Em, Pass a Law
 

So that quote from Durbin was made up by Republicans?

If You Can't Beat Em, Pass a Law
 

I trust you... What did he say?

If You Can't Beat Em, Pass a Law
 

• RUSH: What are we going to do about Mississippi Senator Trent Lott? What are we going to do about Senator Lott? You remember when he got into trouble with the Strom Thurmond comment? We're out there defending the guy. The White House threw him overboard. All kinds of Republicans were throwing him overboard. Talk radio came to his defense. Trent Lott is now one of the engineers of the Senate immigration bill, the amnesty bill, and they're trying to bring this thing back. The amendments are being kept under wraps. By the way, I understand Lindsey Grahamnesty, senator from South Carolina, is going to propose an amendment to build the border fence. (Laughing.) $4.4 billion! The government spends that much on rubber bands every year. Well, maybe not that much, but you get the point. Senator Lott is out there saying, "The problem with this is talk radio, and it's a problem that's going to have be dealt with." Now, what does that mean? When I hear a United States senator say that what I do for a living is a "problem" that the government has to "deal with," you can interpret it any number of ways. He's either saying, "Well, we're going to have to come up with our own ways to overcome them," or, "We're going to just have to wipe them out." What does it mean? The real question is: How are we going to deal with Trent Lott? What are we going to do about him?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...106.guest.html

If You Can't Beat Em, Pass a Law
 

It sounds like Rush is struggling to find out what Trent means/is threatening, which for the first time in my life puts me on the same page with Rush.

If You Can't Beat Em, Pass a Law
 

He said he wanted to reinstitute the fairness doctrine, he didn't put forward a bill. There's a world of difference. But then, the Rs believe in preemptive strikes based on inadequate intelligence, right?

If You Can't Beat Em, Pass a Law
 

I sort of admired Lott on this. The Republicans would be better off if they took the party back from Rush Limbaugh.

If You Can't Beat Em, Pass a Law
 

A very small world.

They should hang people who support anything like the fairness doctrine.

For the record, I felt the same way about Bush stuffing the FCC with religious nuts and giving right wingers control over public broadcasting. But it goes without saying he ought to be hanged.

If You Can't Beat Em, Pass a Law
 

I tend to agree with Sebby on this, but not with Rush. Fuck Rush.

If You Can't Beat Em, Pass a Law
 

Rush may think he owns the Republikin Party, but Ruppert Murdoch really does.

And, soon, Ruppert will own the last remaining voice of the decaying old fiscal conservative wing of the party.

If You Can't Beat Em, Pass a Law
 

Fiscal conservative are not decaying. That party is decaying. Fiscal conservativism is the future, whether people like it or not.

Vote Dem, vote GOP, vote LaRouche. WE're going to be a fiscally consrvative country and people are NOT going to get a New New Deal and we're going to be filled with Mexicans those of whom want to work hard and steal jobs from lazy Americans and build better lives for themselves I wholeheartedly welcome.

There is never going to be enough money for the GOP or Dems to spend like Hillary wants to or this moron we presently have in office has. Which to me is a rosy future.

Now if we could just get a whole lot of Americans to start jumping fences for other locales we'd be on to something...

If You Can't Beat Em, Pass a Law
 

There is a healthy fiscally conservative wing of the Democratic Party, but the fiscally conservative wing of the Republican Party is, indeed, decaying. The Republicans are now just the party that looks for never-ending Red State subsidies and conservative Christian social-engineering. Oh, and they all hate Hilary, too.