I wrote this to Seth,
Hello. Seth, I'm just now able to get back to you. Alot of work, and with the kids and the wife pregnant, just don't have much free time.You asked a valid question. Who with any integrety or consequence has said to embrace our enemies? Let's start slowly. John Kerry did at least on four different occasions during his campaign. It just depended on which side of the bed he woke up on. Let's not forget Howard Dean. I know, what kind of power does this man have. I don't know, he was just voted in as the head of the democrat national leader. Ouch. Some integrity. Oh, I almost forgot, the great Senator Kennedy. He still is shouting that out of at least one side of his mouth. Is that the same side that he still claims to be innocent of raping and killing that women in the early 80's.
Then there is Hillary Clinton. At the start she was screaming that. During the election cycle she staid firm on that. But as soon as she made it clear she would probally run for president in 08, she reversed her stance on everything from the war effort to gay marriage to taxation. Nice women of integrety. Scary thing is she will probally win because you democrats have such short memory. Sorry so late in coming hope to hear from you again.
And now, I have to say that I'm slowly getting dissapointed in our president. No, I'm still support him and still think he was the best one for the job, but here of late he has done some things that I totally don't agree with. This Sea Port thing. Handing the security of six of our biggest sea ports to the UAE is about the biggest moronic thing I've ever heard of. (Yes to those that believe in being grammatically corect, i meant to say that).
I do not believe our president has a grasp on the border. Now he is willing to hand our security over to people that can't even protect their own from terrorist. How are they going to stop anybody. I feel we have been doing a real good job since 9/11 in keeping out terror, but now we are handing them a door. Yes , Seth, If you are reading this, let me tell you, I'm an American. I'm a devout republican. But there are things on both sides of the issues, both sides of the aisle, that are doing things I do not like. But i will agree with the "christian right", alot quicker than I will an abortionist or a gay activist. Sorry.
|
I like your blog, very colorful. I agree with you full about the border issue. Bush, usually vigilant, has waffled on that one. We are very vulnerable there. To me the main problem with the Baltimore port is not so much the UAE (although on the surface it looks terrible and is bad from a political point of view); the problem is that in all our ports only about 5% of the containers that are shipped in actually get checked. Again, this doesn't make me feel safe. I'll say it again; I like your blog. Check mine out at Right Park. We're having a fun little contest this week to select the next American Liberal (kind of like the TV show American Idol). Come by, take a look and vote if you want.
I tried to respond privately, but I don't think it went through, and since there's really nothing sensitive here I'll try going the public route.
First of all, I hear you about being super-busy. I feel like I'm just about ready for holiday season--holiday season 2003, that is. The flip side, I guess, is that if time is going by so quickly, we must be having fun.
(Congrats, by the way, on expecting another child--hope your wife's holding up well.)
If you don't mind, I'm going to respond directly to what you said, because I don't really think you answered my question about when you might have heard your political opponent advocate "embracing our enemies." First, you wrote:
"Hello. Seth, I'm just now able to get back to you. Alot of work, and with the kids and the wife pregnant, just don't have much free time.You asked a valid question. Who with any integrety or consequence has said to embrace our enemies? Let's start slowly. John Kerry did at least on four different occasions during his campaign. It just depended on which side of the bed he woke up on."
You say Kerry said we should embrace our enemies "on at least four different occasions", but you don't cite one. What I am trying to get at is what it is you actually heard Kerry say (and I don't mean what you hear the Swift Boat Cowards spin, I mean what you actually heard him say) that makes you feel he wanted to embrace our enemies.
Now, it is true that Kerry caught a lot of shit from Rove and the like about his insistence that we must work more closely with our traditional allies and the global community in general; funnily enough, the piece of shit currently in the Oval Office--tired, I suppose, of failure after failure, sounded very much the same theme in this year's SOTU.
So please don't tell me how many times Kerry said something you don't like, or repeat some silliness you heard on talk radio or Bill O'Reilly. Tell me WHAT he said and WHY it made you feel he wants to embrace our enemies.
Then you wrote:
"Let's not forget Howard Dean. I know, what kind of power does this man have. I don't know, he was just voted in as the head of the democrat national leader. Ouch. Some integrity."
Basically, same response. But I'm also interested why you question his integrity, and further, as a supporter of an administration that has outted a spy as an act of political revenge; trumpeted its "support" for the troops while sending them into harm's way for no reason and badly under-provisioned; enacted legislation making it much more difficult for people to file for bankruptcy while doing nothing to curtail irresponsible lending practices; advocated making dangerous changes to social security that even there own party couldn't support; are currently (you probably don't know this, but I encourage to research it and tell me if I'm wrong) attempting to exempt oil & gas giants from having to pay a windfall profits tax at the expense of guess who; no longer even attempts to deny conclusions that they not only manipulated but FABRICATED intelligence to justify invading a sovereign nation that posed no threat to anyone but itself; I could go on for another two pages, probably--but the point is, how can you assault Howard Dean's integrity (specifics, please) but support this administration??!!!?? My question is the same for the entire "Christian" right.
Then, you write:
"Oh, I almost forgot, the great Senator Kennedy. He still is shouting that out of at least one side of his mouth. Is that the same side that he still claims to be innocent of raping and killing that women in the early 80's."
Did Ted Kennedy rape a woman? That's a pretty serious charge, and if you have evidence of it, you should make it known. If you don't, you really shouldn't say it.
I promise you, Mr. F, you don't despise Kennedy anywhere near as much as I do. The reason I am so anti-Ted Kennedy is that he puts his politics ahead of the best interests of his country. Never was this more evident than when he led the fight against the seating of Robert Bork on the Supreme Court. Although I disagree(d) with Bork on most issues, he was a brilliant man of the highest principles, and the coutnry was badly mistreated when his nomination was rejected. Kennedy led a posse that was sort of a predecessor of the Swift Boat Cowards--willing to lie, distort and confuse simply to score a political point, at the expense of the advancement of our great nation. Kennedy should never, ever be forgiven for that.
Then you write:
"Then there is Hillary Clinton. At the start she was screaming that. During the election cycle she staid firm on that. But as soon as she made it clear she would probally run for president in 08, she reversed her stance on everything from the war effort to gay marriage to taxation. Nice women of integrety. Scary thing is she will probally win because you democrats have such short memory."
You and I are in agreement on Ms. Clinton, and it is my hope that she is recognized for what she is before the '08 campaign begins in earnest. People forget that Giuliani, had he not withdrawn from the race for health reasons, would have slaughtered her in the race for senate. She beat an obscure guy who was barely a step higher than dog-catcher out on Long Island. I think our party has more to offer the country than Hillary Clinton; hopefully our party will realize that soon.
Then you wrote:
And now, I have to say that I'm slowly getting dissapointed in our president. No, I'm still support him and still think he was the best one for the job, but here of late he has done some things that I totally don't agree with. This Sea Port thing. Handing the security of six of our biggest sea ports to the UAE is about the biggest moronic thing I've ever heard of. (Yes to those that believe in being grammatically corect, i meant to say that)."
I disagree on the ports thing. Although, as I stated in Heather's blog, it makes me want to choke on my own puke, I have to support the administration here--I simply don't see this deal as a problem. The ports' security will be, as is the case now, by the Coast Guard. Further, the fact that right now only about 5% of the containers that enter this country's ports are inspected--the situation can;t possibly get any worse than it already is. I lose a lot more sleep over thinking about the "coalition of the willing" that Bush and the filth who report to him have put together than I do about the possibility of a financial interest being held by the UAE to farm out security ops to the COast Guard and US unions.
Then you wrote:
"I do not believe our president has a grasp on the border. Now he is willing to hand our security over to people that can't even protect their own from terrorist. How are they going to stop anybody. I feel we have been doing a real good job since 9/11 in keeping out terror, but now we are handing them a door. Yes , Seth, If you are reading this, let me tell you, I'm an American. I'm a devout republican. But there are things on both sides of the issues, both sides of the aisle, that are doing things I do not like. But i will agree with the "christian right", alot quicker than I will an abortionist or a gay activist."
Here again we disagree. I think folks on both sides take cheap shots at the border issue because it's an easy pokitical point, and I know the situation does present problems. But I think they're exaggerrated, and I would note that none of the 9/11 terrorists (or, for the matter, the Oklahoma CIty terrorists) were here illegally. That will prove true with the next attack. Terrorists will not be here iollegally, and after the attack there will be a lot of hand-wringing, name-calling and mudslinging about what went wrong. But the bottomw line is you can not mishandle an economy and global relations so badly and keep the country safe. You simply can not. If you want to focus on "closing the borders" all you're doing is looking like you're taking action, when, in fact, you're not doing anything--a typical republican tactic. It's the equivalent of here in NYC, where the cops now can do random bag checks in the subway and other public places, but they can't profile. So they randomly can check every 5th or 10th person--every single day, Osama Bin Ladn look-alikes can walk into a subway or a commuter station with God-knows-what under their parkas unchecked, but my boss's 70-something mother has actually been stopped--your tax dollars at work.
Then you wrote:
"Sorry."
No need to be sorry. You are entitled to your opinion, and my side will defend with our lives your right to say it. We encourage dissent and diversity of opinion--we don't out spies in retaliation for it.
And that's the difference between us, Mr. F--if I or my side have a postion, we'll back it up with facts or at least soundly reasoned opinions, as boring and intellectually challenging as they may be. We will never, ever insult of beloved country by coming up with things like "Kerry said it on four different occasions."
Again--details, please.
Best regards,
Seth
Shockingly,
(Contemporary republicans don't do very well when presented with facts or reason, do they?)
By the way, Mr. Furious--
though from you writings it doesn't seem like you're a big C-Span viewer, but did you catch Pat Buhcanan's debate last night? Now there's a guy I've respected for a long time, and he says (as he's been saying for many years) that GWB is a fraud and a fuck up, echoing a growing list of thinking conservatives who are tired of pandering to the lowest common denominator.
When are you going to join them?
Hey, Mr. Furious and friends--since you don't wanna respond to my thing above, how about sharing with us the cowardly America-hating conservative viewpoint on Bruce Bartlett's comments about Bush & Co.? And before you take your usual stand that Bartlett is a liberal, left-wing, French-loving, Flag-burning, terrorist-supporting, baby-killing liberal, let's remind you who he acutally is: Ronald Reagan's SecNav.
Next?
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnn.............
I didnt write this, a friend did, but I'd love to see if you can muster up a response:
It's the tolerance, and even celebration, of successful lying that has cost the GOP its soul and conscience. I prefer being out of power to the swamp of self-righteous immorality that those people are living in right now. Jesus had it right: "whited sepulchers."
If Jesus ran against a Rove candidate, here's what the attack ads would say (Imagine the usual voice of immoral Republican attack ads, the Minnesota guy who does "the High Life" commercials for Miller):
"Can you trust this man? [close-up of picture of Jesus with long tangled hair and beard]
"He wants you to sell all you own, and give the proceeds to the shiftless poor.
"The most respected religious leaders in our country call him a blasphemer.
"Family values? He's been heard to say that he has come to divide father from son and mother from daughter.
"He's unmarried -- at 33. And he travels with a group of 12 young male 'disciples.'
"He has been caught dining and drinking on tax collectors' tab -- but when asked by a citizen whether he was pro-tax, he told voters, 'Pay up.'
"He intervened in a capital case in order to save the life of a guilty party.
"And it is well known that he consorts with prostitutes and praises foreign military officers.
"Jesus Christ -- we just can't afford him."
Come on, Mr. F----not ONE response other than to try to put me down (which of course, you and your right-wing cohorts NEVER do...)????
year. Read about me and my killer below:
When Sen. Ted Kennedy was merely just another Democrat bloating on
Capitol Hill on behalf of liberal causes, it was perhaps excusable to
ignore his deplorable past.
But now that he's become a leading Republican attack dog, positioning
himself as Washington's leading arbiter of truth and integrity, the days for such indulgence are now over.
It's time for the GOP to stand up and remind America why this chief
spokesman had to abandon his own presidential bid in 1980 - time to say the words "Mary Jo Kopechne" out loud.
As is often the case, Republicans have deluded themselves into thinking that most Americans already know the story of how this "Conscience of the Democratic Party" left Miss Kopechne behind to die in the waters underneath the Edgartown Bridge in July 1969, after a night of drinking and partying with the young blonde campaign worker.
But most Americans under 40 have never heard that story, or details of how Kennedy swam to safety, then tried to get his cousin Joe Garghan to say he was behind the wheel.
Those young voters don't know how Miss Kopechne, trapped inside
Kennedy's Oldsmobile, gasped for air until she finally died, while the
Democrats' leading Iraq war critic rushed back to his compound to
formulate the best alibi he could think of.
Neither does Generation X know how Kennedy was thrown out of Harvard on his ear 15 years earlier -- for paying a fellow student to take his
Spanish final. Or why the US Army denied him a commission because he
cheated on tests.
As they listen to the Democrats' "Liberal Lion" accuse President Bush of "telling lie after lie after lie" to get America to go to war in Iraq, young voters don't know about that notorious 1991 Easter weekend in Palm Beach when Uncle Teddy rounded up his nephews for a night on the town, an evening that ended with one of them credibly accused of rape.
It's time for Republicans to state unabashedly that they will no longer "go along with the gag" when it comes to Uncle Ted's rants about deception and moral turpitude inside the Bush White House.
And if the Republicans don't, let's do it ourselves by passing this
forgotten disgrace around the Internet to wake up memories of what a
fraud and fake Teddy really is.
The Democratic Party should be ashamed to have the national disgrace
from Massachusetts as one of their spokesmen.
It would've been hard to get out of ANY car under all that water.
--Steve Boardwine
http://youngdad.blogstream.com
Always,
A. M. S.
P.S. Congrats on the little one! Boy or a girl?