« Did Hillary Clinton Get Work Done? | Main | News from the Fallujah Front »

Handing Weapons to Our Enemies

One of the strangest phenomenae I have seen in my life, is the way political sorts will swoon for a person at one point, then turn completely against them later. Mood swings worthy of a mental institution have become commonplace in recent years, and never more so than the present "Love You/Always Hated You" hypocrisy of the Right Wing.

Writing for Salon magazine, Glenn Greenwald is unfortunately all too aware of the hypocrisy, and worse for the Right, he has documented it in his latest article. While he pursues the obligatory "Bush is evil, inept, and a total failure" meme which is required of all Liberal writers these days, Greenwald is devastatingly ruthless in showing the way many Conservative pundits have ruined their integrity by changing their opinion of the President solely because of poll numbers. Greenwald simply posts what each pundit said, along with the opinion poll numbers at the time. The results are damning indeed, but not for the President.

Jonah Goldberg for instance, just a few days ago wrote that if you "look at Bush from the right angle, he looks an awful lot like a liberal". But back in 2003, Goldberg wrote this about the President:

"Georrge (sic) W. Bush has proved that he's a Reaganite, not a "Bushie." He may not be a natural heir to Reagan, but that's the point. The party is all Reaganite now. What better sign that this is now truly and totally the Gipper's Party than the obvious conversion of George Bush's own son?"

Was Goldberg lying then, or is he lying now? That is, after all, how the Liberals will cast it, and it's hard to claim Goldberg was honest in both places.

But Greenwald* is not short of examples. He shows the same dishonest embrace-then-run-away from the President by Rush Limbaugh, by Bob Novak, and by Rich Lowry. It's bad enough that such prominent pundits have engaged in such unethical practices, but it hurts the Conservative Movement that the Left can use it to claim moral superiority. Greenwald* quotes Rod Dreher, who explains the behavior succinctly:

"It is tempting to blame Bush for everything. But it's not fair, and it's not honest. Bush is today who he always was. The difference is we conservatives pretty much loved the guy -- when he was a winner."

I understand the frustration among Conservatives. I am still a Conservative myself, though many of the Bush-haters have pretended otherwise. And that's the problem. We know there are many more Conservatives than Liberals, and we know that any serious consideration of the Conservative vs. Liberal arguments would prove the superiority of the Conservative position. We also know that the American people will follow a Conservative leader, indeed are hungry to do so. The only way Conservatives can lose, therefore, is when they allow themselves to become fragmented and factionalized. The only way that regular people can come to believe that Democrats are a better choice for leadership than Republicans, is if Republicans attack other Republicans and prove they cannot seek answers and solutions.

It's too much, perhaps, to expect apologies from the people who have poured gasoline on the fire. But at least the rest of us can try to work with the other Republicans, and the other Conservatives, for the good of the nation and the hope of the future. Because if we do not, History shows us how painful the price of that hubris can be.

* Name spelling corrected


Comments (70)

Well, that's kind of silly.... (Below threshold)
Scott:

Well, that's kind of silly. In 2003, Bush wasn't ticking off the conservative base. Today, Bush has seriously ticked off the conservative base.

Wouldn't it only make sense that conservative bloggers reflect that?

It seems like it has nothing to do with polls and more to do with the President's actions of late.

All right then, Scott, plea... (Below threshold)

All right then, Scott, please detail how Bush's positions and actions have changed since 2003.

"One of the strangest ph... (Below threshold)
Is our children learning?:

"One of the strangest phenomenae I have seen in my life, is the way political sorts will swoon for a person at one point, then turn completely against them later. Mood swings worthy of a mental institution have become commonplace in recent years, and never more so than the present "

Add to that, Peggy Noonan..."President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder" and "The beginning of my own sense of separation from the Bush administration came in January 2005, when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation. This was at once so utopian and so aggressive that it shocked me. For others the beginning of distance might have been Katrina and the incompetence it revealed, or the depth of the mishandling and misjudgments of Iraq."

If Noonan, of all people, sees and smells smoke, then there is good reason to know it's fire.

Back to square 1 for presidential rankings, DJ. You can't make a silk purse out of a mangled and shredded sow's ear.

This is the most assenine t... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

This is the most assenine thing ever posted on the main page. Those quotes are deliberately taken out of context by Greenwald and parroted by you here. W has never been a true conservative, however he was the most palatable to conservatives in the last two elections. What's at work here is that on the really important issues to conservatives, like tax cuts, judicial appointments and national defense, Bush's ideals match up very well with conservatives. On other issues, like government spending and immigration, they are almost diametrically opposed. I would EXPECT honest people to praise the president when he matched their ideals and to chide him when he does not.

It's also moronic to think that these people are poll driven and not issue driven. All of them have had consistent stance on these issues for quite awhile, not just when Bush was unpopular. It would be more logical to note than when Bush has taken positions counter to the conservative base, when conservative commentators are more likely to take fault with his decisions, his popularity has gone down. However I don't expect quality thinking from DJ.

If you want to get around t... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

If you want to get around this little problem (albeit in a very weasal-ly sort of way), you can do what Richard Viguerie does, twice I've heard him on the radio saying (I'm paraphrasing) "George W. Bush IS a Conservative but he GOVERNS like a Democrat."

Bush has always been a know... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Bush has always been a known quantity. Everyone knew how he was on border issues, it just wasn't on the front burner. Everyone knows how he is on terrorism, and that has been the main issue for most of his two terms. As far as limbaugh making a 180, i listen to him every day and he has done no such thing. if you only watch CNN you would think that as he has actually documented the out of context quotes, and the "Bush vs Rush" thing on Chris Matthews show.

Rush just said that what the president recently said was dissappointing. He knows the man and knows that Bush has strong moral convictions and thinks that we cannot just kick out or be harsh on the poor and the down trodden. to say Limbaugh made a 180 is to say that John Kerry said the same thing on the war before and after he voted for/against it.

I don't know about many of the other sources, but most of them are probably fence-sitters in big media that aren't really true to the conservative cause. I can't say that for certain because i don't read or listen to what most of them say on a daily basis like i do limbaugh.

Once again, everyone knows and has known that Bush has always been really bad about the illegal immigrant situation and we shouldn't expect him to change on a dime. We should, however, keep phoning the actual law makers and make sure that bill never sees the presidents desk.

To "Is", the problem is rea... (Below threshold)

To "Is", the problem is really that you cannot trash the President by lying about him, using the tactics of the Left a la Moore, yet still believe that folks won't sooner or later point out your hypocrisy.

brainy, your snide insults at the start demonstrate the level, and the limt, of your position. You live in the gutter, sir, and your words betray you.

Dave, my point is that the ... (Below threshold)

Dave, my point is that the statements ahve been made, by people who should know how they will be used. In some case, like Goldberg, it seems awfully hard to explain the contradiction. In others, like Limbaugh, it is still salient that he forgets that the White House can be a powerful ally, and it is incredibly stupid to close off that avenue out of spite alone.

There are people with legitimate concerns. But the problem is the way that extremists shut down any other opinion in the debate - a bad bill which could be salvaged with work must instead be smeared as "amnesty", people who are actually trying to find specifc solutions to the mess are deemed as traitors to Conservativism, and the President who ahs been right on most of his decisions and choices, is most unjustly attacked by his own party for holding the same position he has always held. And after burning down the house, the extremists blame everyone else. That used to be the Donks' problem, remember? Seriously, using the same tactics of the moonbats should bother you. It really should.

Wow, you deride me for usin... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Wow, you deride me for using snide insults... by using snide insults. My snideness and insults just reflect the lack of respect I hold for you personally, nothing more.

My argument speaks for itself, as does you lack of substantive rebuttal.

Your flawed reasoning betrays you.

So, "brainy" ... the fact t... (Below threshold)

So, "brainy" ... the fact that your first post was incogent and boorish, prompted you to prove the effort was deliberate by repeating the tack.

Well, that was at least definitive.

More "substance" DJ?... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

More "substance" DJ?

I have presented "substance... (Below threshold)

I have presented "substance" in my article, brainy. Nothing you have posted comes close to support for your assertions. I'm sure you're proud of that vomit you posted, but it still does nothing to support your claims. I would go so far as to suggest that your behavior in this thread demonstrates the syndrome in actual practice. Lots of hate, no rationality, and certainly no proposals for solutions.

DJ, sorry to disagr... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

DJ,
sorry to disagree on one thing I know. Rush Limbaugh has been criticizing Bush on the education bill and immigration from day one. He repeatedly said on the air that Bush is not a movement conservative leader like Reagan. That 's the fact. You can go back and check. We have always criticized Bush on education, immigration, and spending.
Dave is correct. The left is simply lying about Rush and you should know better.

I have listened to Limbaugh... (Below threshold)

I have listened to Limbaugh since 1994, LoveAmericaImmigrant. He's never been a total fan of Dubya, but he has changed his opinion from time to time. He's called Bush "near great" at times, but at others he has implied that Bush was disingenuous. Yes the Left will try to twist Limbaugh's words, but Limbaugh knows better how politics works, and yet he has used words which, at best, equivocate. Rush should pay more attention to David Limbaugh on that point.

"Lots of hate, no rationali... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"Lots of hate, no rationality, and certainly no proposals for solutions."

Solutions to what? You made a half-assed argument out of a half-assed and dishonest article by freaking Greenwald. What the hell is substantive about that?

If the right wing anti Bush... (Below threshold)
Nony:

If the right wing anti Bush faction is so popular why did Polipundit sitemeter numbers tumble from about 20,000 on a slow summer weekend to only getting about 6,000 or so hits on a bloody Monday?

They lost almost 75% of their audience.

How did that happen?

Tancredo. Tancredo-the hero with more rings on his fingers than any other candidate-including Hillary only gets 5% of the REPUBLICAN "base" in the polls.

Why is that?

Finally DJ in this section of your writing-But Greenberg

Greenberg. Oy.

DJ, Rush has always... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

DJ,
Rush has always been behind Bush on the GWOT. He has refused to bash Bush so many times already. I guess Rush was upset when Bush came out to criticize people against the current immigration bill. However, Rush was not shy to criticize Bush wrt education, Hariet Miers, and immigration.

DJ since you are a conserva... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

DJ since you are a conservative, you already know this but we don't sit around and wait for a pundit or talk show host to tell us how we should feel about an issue or what we should be concerned about. We already know. We do not take instructions from pundits and talk radio hosts, we listen, read and watch them for clarification or learning precise details of issues. The left is the group that doesn't have an opinion until it is given to them via media, t.v. shows or late night comedians. Sure the left could use our honesty against us, but they are only preaching to the choir who hate us anyway. The conservative base does not like to be called bigots, uncompassionate, unrealistic or any name at all when we disagree with an issue like immigration. It is insulting and the conservative base has showed nothing but respect to GW, we expect it in return. I am usually in your corner in your posts, but not this one. I could care less what the lefts thinks of us. In fact, I already know. We are racist, hatemongers, warmongers, etc. Just white noise from them always. ww

I think you married off Gre... (Below threshold)
Nony:

I think you married off Greenwald and Goldberg and got their bastard love child-

Greenberg. Oy!

Positions changed? I'm not... (Below threshold)
Scott:

Positions changed? I'm not sure about. Bush has always been an open-borders supporter but never pushed it.

Actions since 2003 that have ticked off the conservative base? Let's see:
1) Harriet Meiers
2) Dubai Ports
3) Amnesty Bill
4) Failure to enforce the borders
5) Out of control spending
6) GOP Congress' actions in the last few years hurt Bush's standings as well.
7) Iraq war weariness
8) General failure to adequately defend themselves in light of Plame, Libby, US Attorneys, "domestic" spying, etc.

In some ways, Bush is Reagan like when it comes to tax philosophy. In other way, he is not. But, I don't think we should be afraid of being openly critical of Bush when his actions veer away from conservative philosophy or his performance becomes lackluster just because of what some sock puppet like Greenwald says.

I didn't vote for Bush in 2... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 because he smelled like Moderate that would chase the left for votes.

I voted for him 2004 because he was the lesser of two evils and for a couple of years after 9/11 he was acting like a conservative in running the War on Terror and the War in Iraq.

Add to that what you end up finding out more about Bush and the World and priorities can change. For example, broad awareness of the illegal immigration problem and awareness of Bush's position on the problem is relatively new.

I don't think anyone should let themselves be guilted or embarrassed in to sticking with Bush or the Bush Template. In 2004, he got my "lesser of two evils" vote. And because I defended some of what he did, it was in opposition to something far dumber being offered by the Left.

This coming election Democrats need Republicans to keep their wagons tightly hitched to Bush. Bush is a living political negative (unfounded or not) among many Democrats and Moderates. Something Bush himself is largely responsible for allowing to develop. And Democrats need Bush to stay the symbol of Republicans if they have any hope of winning in 2008.

"the conservative base h... (Below threshold)

"the conservative base has shown nothing but respect to GW"

WildWillie, I respect your opinion and usually find yours a voice of clarity, but that statement is simply not true.

The self-anointed "base" of the GOP has acted as a junta, demanding absolute fealty to their position at all times and on all issues.

A difference of opinion is now deemed heresy, and those accused thereof are smeared relentlessly, those pundits speaking for "the base" even choosing to copy the tactics of the Left in order to punish those who dare to suggest alternatives.

Scott, let's look at those issues:

1. Harriet Meiers - proof of hypocrisy. Conservatives who demanded Bush's nominees at least get a hearing refused to allow Harriet her own. Instead, she was harassed into withdrawing. Mafia tactics, not something I would brag about if I were you. And in any case, looking at Roberts, Alito, and his Federal appointments, it's clearly hypocritical to suggest Bush's judicial selections have been bad.


2) Dubai Ports - Another incredibly stupid move by "the base". A company from one of our best supporters in the Middle East is denied their rights under a contract signed with a British company, to manage paperwork and employees at U.S. pots, even though those ports would continue to be manned by the same employees and operate under the same legal authorities as now. Meanwhile, the "base" does not consider that their move allows a company from Communist China to increase its control of actual port operations, because other countries decide that the U.S. government would not keep its agreements.


3) Amnesty Bill - There is no "amnesty bill". While I agree that the present bill is a poor one, this is not "amnesty"; the smear tactic in such labelling betrays that the "base" does not want to pursue a functional solution, but is instead barking like a mad dog. What should be done is to focus attention on the Congress to repair problems in the existing law, but no one seriously believes that will happen with the Democrats in charge. It would be helpful if the President would veto the thing, but so many of "the base" have done nothing to indicate they would support the President in the attacks on him which would inevitably follow such an action, that it is hardly reasonable to expect him to go it alone. Even though he has done so before.


4) Failure to enforce the borders - Bush has increased spending for the Border Patrol more than any President before him. Blaming him for the problem's scope and size, for the fact that local and state authorities are working against federal agencies, and that the Democrats have actively tried to prevent enforcement, is pretty pathetic and cheap.


5) Out of control spending - This is a cmplex issue. Bush bears some responsibility for it, but not nearly all. The first thing I would recommend you do, is look to see where the money goes, and who set up those programs. Only a very dishonest person or a moron could pretend that the President could magically stop this problem, or that the pork-fed Congress is not the main culprit.

6) GOP Congress' actions in the last few years hurt Bush's standings as well. - Yes, they deserted Bush anytime they saw an advantage in acting like a Democrat. That is simply not Dubya's fault.


7) Iraq war weariness - Granted. Bush has never wavered in the war's priority in his mind and heart. "The Base" frankly cannot say that anymore.


8) General failure to adequately defend themselves in light of Plame, Libby, US Attorneys, "domestic" spying, etc. - The Democrats are slicker at dirty tricks and legal manipulation. Does that mean we should give up?

Scott- I HATE The ... (Below threshold)
Nony:

Scott-

I HATE The stuff you people STILL whine about.

Is Harriet Miers sitting on the Supreme Court.

NO BUT you people used that as an excuse to NOT vote and now we have a DEMOCRAT MAJORITY SENATE. In the news just yesterday it was revealed that the White House is having to prepare a short list to perhaps replace a Supreme Court Justice this summer and supposedly Janice Rogers Brown is on the list and with this NEW Senate she doesn't have a snowballs chance in HELL.

BLAME YOURSELVES for that one. Harriet Miers is not on the bench. You'll wish that you could get someone as close to Conservative as she was on the bench in the future because you and yours have destroyed the Republican party. Republicans wil be out in the wilderness for another fifty years. You think Hillary with a Democratic House and Senate won't get busy rewriting the laws to keep you out?

Did the Dubai ports deal go thruogh? NO.

Did the "Amnesty" bill go through? NO. And QUIT calling it AMNESTY- AMNESTY is what Reagan your hero from the past- that you can't remember that well anymore- did.

Out of control spending-you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Nancy and Crewe were born to shop and that's who youv'e got in there.

Iraq war weariness. How do you think the military community feels about you people using "Mexicans" as an excuse to abandon the President OUR Commander in Chief?

Diminishing that threat by describing the illegal immigrant problem as an "invasion" - Reconquista You've diminished the whole war on terror effort with that crap hyperbole.

Almost everyone knows a Mexican that isn't part of the GRAND RECONQUISTA SCHEME.

Spelling corrected, Nony.</... (Below threshold)

Spelling corrected, Nony.

Thanks.

The Democrats are slicker a... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

The Democrats are slicker at dirty tricks and legal manipulation. Does that mean we should give up?
-------------------------------------------------
No, Rush (and I as well as many others on this forum) have defended Bush against the dishonest attack from the liberal left. However, Bush didn't need to come out and insult his base wrt the current immigration issue. Hugh Hewitt was a Miers supporter but he couldn't defend this immigration bill, esp its backroom negotiation.

BTW, Rush was the o... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

BTW,
Rush was the one who supported Bush all the way wrt Social Security Reform while chiding the Reps in Congress for their cowardly stand on this issue. Rush has done his fair share, but he did criticize Bush many times (painfully I guess).

[Hypocrisy on the right is ... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

[Hypocrisy on the right is illustrated by] "...the way political sorts will swoon for a person at one point, then turn completely against them later."

You have it backwards. Conservative allegiance is not to personality but to principle. Hypocrisy would be calling your political opponents on violating conservative principle while giving your political friends a pass. Calling to account those whom you otherwise like for violations of the same principle is the definition of consistency, not hypocrisy.

There are a number of things I am really disappointed with President Bush over and I have the temerity to say so. On some other large issues, Bush is right on target. I admire his pro-life position and his commitment to the war on terror. These things are so vital that they trump the other issues in my opinion, but that does not mean he gets a pass. Other issues are important also. It has nothing to do with "hating Bush" or "loving Bush." A political party becoming a cult of personality is fraught with serious danger.

Two things about that Immig... (Below threshold)

Two things about that Immigration Bill, LAI.

First, everyone should be able to see that things are not good along our border. President Bush did not make this problem, he inherited it. I have seen a lot of people say/scream/pelt feces about what results they want from a bill, but no one in "the base" has yet proposed legislation that offers an effective alternative. While I do not think this bill was a good one, I find it obscene that Republicans insist on claiming that Bush wants "amnesty", that he 'does not care' about the border, or that he 'has betrayed' the country. These kinds of insults are despicable, because even if the bill offered is not good, the President has at least been trying to find a solution. If Republicans had met with him and offered an alternative and explained why they felt it was better, we could work to get that passed, but instead they either attacked him while offering no substantive alternatives, or they abandoned him like a coward leaving his family to the wolves.

Second, even if we count this immigration bill as a poor work, as a whole this President has done the job honorably and well, and it is completely dishonest to throw out all the good because of disagreement on this issue. Frankly, the man deserves better, especially from people who claim to be Republicans.

DJNO problem-I was... (Below threshold)
Nony:

DJ

NO problem-I was enjoying the joke-heg.

Let's see I'm just the commander's wife and I loathe these Republicans that abandoned my guys.

I have to get outta here. To hear them whine about the things that supposedly happened-hell you'd think that Bush never gave in to them and he probably shouldn't have looking back on it-because they only started whining more. You compare that to the sacrifices the military community is making and it's despicable.

They've abandoned us because our guys are losers. They're jumping off the ship like rats and they are using all kinds of excuses.

Bush has had some really gawd awful trying times I don't know why God has tested him so hard but he has....


I still love the guy and a lot of the people I know in the military still do.

DJ, Why don't we ha... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

DJ,
Why don't we have an open discussion about the immigration bill and let the details come out? What 's the rush on such an important issue wrt the base that has been supporting him? Hugh Hewitt is no Bush-basher but he simply cannot support this bill, esp the rush to pass it. I am a strong Bush supporter, but it is not necessary for him to come out against the critics of the bill. In a big movement, you will always find some extreme apples, but it is not necessary to insult your base (esp the 33%) who has stuck with you despite all the attacks from the left. I will still support Bush on the GWOT, but in this case the criticism is warranted.

"The conservative base <... (Below threshold)
Is our children learning?:

"The conservative base does not like to be called bigots," WildWillie

As Baby Jane said, in response to her sister Blanche's lament, "Jane, you wouldn't be doing this to me if I weren't a cripple," Jane shot back,

"But you are Blanche."

Addendum:They'v... (Below threshold)
Nony:

Addendum:

They've abandoned us because our guys are losers

That's not what I think that's what these nouveau weasels think.

The old weasels were the Democrats at least they were honest and against the war before it got tough-the "base" is against the war now, and sticking their daggers in our backs with the excuse that the Mexicans made them do it.

We live in complicated times and it's a lot easier to scapegoat one man for it all-The President.

It's worked so well for th e Democrats that the lesser Republicans are engaging it-hell they get a bigger audience and more accolades, and revenue when they do it-it's the popular thing to do.

It's kind of how thugs on the street will gang up on a man and kick him when he's down.

It isn't anything more noble than that.

What Digby said:"'... (Below threshold)
jp2:

What Digby said:

"'Conservative' is a magic word that applies to those who are in other conservatives' good graces. Until they aren't. At which point they are liberals."

I still don't understand the 30% or so who haven't flipped to the other side. This is an encouraging sign for Wizbang and I commend DJ for actually writing something introspective.

1) Conservatives engaging t... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

1) Conservatives engaging their representatives to get them to withdraw a nomination they do not feel suits the position is in no way the same as elected officials using proceedural tactics to deny a nominee a vote. This is almost as bad the the rediculous "moral equivalency" BS used by liberals.

2) Probably an overreach by many, but a lot of the people who were vocal about not letting Dubai Ports in were vocal about not giving deals to other countries, either.

3) "It would be helpful if the President would veto the thing, but so many of "the base" have done nothing to indicate they would support the President in the attacks on him which would inevitably follow such an action, that it is hardly reasonable to expect him to go it alone." Of course, this completely ignores the fact that the president is solidly behind this bill and believes in comprehensive reform. No matter what you want to call it, many people are leery of legalizing a new class of poor, unskilled immigrants before ensuring more won't rush the border to be part of the next bill. I'd bring up the failed bill of '86 that has everyone leery of this latest doomed attempt, but DJ would jump on me for abandoning yet another conservative president.

4, 6 and 7) All reflect more on the republican congress more than the president.

5) It's not that complex. While pork and waste are largely the domaign of congress, massive increases in education and prescription drug programs were pushed hard by the president himself. He also failed to reign in spending in response to the massive outlays needed for the GWOT. Now, the GWOT and the economy are major positives in the Presidents favor as far as most conservatives are concerned, and rightly so, but it was a missed opportunity to reign in government a bit.

8) This administration does not defend itself properly. But that doesn't mean we can't criticize when it is warranted.

This post was foolish, as per usual, and the tone of DJ's argument (mostly twisting words, ignoring eveidence contrary his position and smearing anyone who disagrees with him as seen in this quote: "A difference of opinion is now deemed heresy, and those accused thereof are smeared relentlessly, those pundits speaking for 'the base' even choosing to copy the tactics of the Left in order to punish those who dare to suggest alternatives.") is exactly the reason why I do not respect him.

As Baby Jane said, in respo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

As Baby Jane said, in response to her sister Blanche's lament, "Jane, you wouldn't be doing this to me if I weren't a cripple," Jane shot back,

"But you are Blanche."
-------------------------------------------------
The left is the modern home of anti-semitism. As usual, the left projects its own bigotry on others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5423
Liberalism: the Real Cause of Today's Anti-Semitism

An article on the actual bi... (Below threshold)

An article on the actual bill wil probably fail to be treated with any civility, LoveAmericaImmigrant. I'd prefer a series of discussions on what we can do about the series of issues related to our borders.

I'm puzzled though; I have not heard the President attack his critics, although I have heard the self-anointed "base" whine that they are being attacked. Where are these alleged "attacks" by the President? It seems pure projection to me; the "base" knows they are acting spitefully, and so - like Liberals who want to smear the war but don't you dare question their patriotism - they malign the President but pretend they are somehow the victims.


LAIYou've had your... (Below threshold)
Is our children learning?:

LAI

You've had your head in the Limbaugh toilet, swilling his sewage for so long, that you spew excrement. No wonder your eyes are brown.

DJ, Go to Hugh Hewi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

DJ,
Go to Hugh Hewitt site. He claimed to have read the bill in its entirety and have posted his opinion there. Hugh is very respectful of Pres. Bush, yet he cannot support this bill and the way it has been pushed so far.

You've had your head in the... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

You've had your head in the Limbaugh toilet, swilling his sewage for so long, that you spew excrement. No wonder your eyes are brown.
------------------------------------------------
Do you have a problem with reading? Those links are not from Rush Limbaugh. Does the truth hurt so bad that you cannot do anything but spewing the garbage from the liberal sewage.

What, did I write in French... (Below threshold)

What, did I write in French? I have never said that I like this bill, but what we need to do is figure out what to push for, instead of just calling the President names and giving ammo to the enemy. The President is pushing this bill, I believe, because nothing else is out there that is even trying to do something. Tancredo's rants and Brownback's back-stabbing hardly substitute for coming up with answers.

I mean, what adult here thinks the Democrats are to going to work for a serious solution, let alone offer a real alternative? The Republicans have to come up with a real plan, because no one else will do it.

DJ, He can push for... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

DJ,
He can push for border security first as Hugh Hewitt has been advocating for a while. That 's the two step process that people have been pushing. But who can push it but Pres. Bush? They elected him to be the leader. Many people think this bill is worse than the status quo. If it is not so, then have a open and lengthy debate. Why the rush?

"I'm puzzled though; I have... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"I'm puzzled though; I have not heard the President attack his critics, although I have heard the self-anointed "base" whine that they are being attacked. Where are these alleged "attacks" by the President? It seems pure projection to me; the "base" knows they are acting spitefully, and so - like Liberals who want to smear the war but don't you dare question their patriotism - they malign the President but pretend they are somehow the victims."

The administration has been very aggressive against conservative upset with this bill.
"President Bush today accused opponents of his proposed immigration measure of fear-mongering to defeat it in Congress, and took on his own conservative political base as he did so.
'If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill's an amnesty bill,' Mr. Bush said this afternoon at a training center for border enforcement agents located in this town in Georgia's southeastern corner. 'That's empty political rhetoric, trying to frighten our citizens.'"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/us/29cnd-immig.html?ei=5065&en=14d081ab7d03c8a7&ex=1181102400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print


"I understand that some people think it's not tough enough. Maybe they want people thrown in jail for 10 years or they want people executed."

and

"You know, Wolf, first, I understand there's some people who expect anything other than capital punishment is an amnesty."
Michael Chertoff
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/21/chertoff-some-people-think-anything-less-than-capital-punishment-is-amnesty/

That's a pretty blatant attack.

DJ, I have been and always ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

DJ, I have been and always will be a huge supported of GW. I do not drift to and fro with the wind. I stay committed unless something very extraordinary happens that would make me re-assess my committment. GW has had a presidency like no other in the history of our country. That is a fact. He and his administration had no template or precedence to draw from. Policy was designed and executed on the fly. If you take his presidency as a whole, he did great under the serious circumstances. I will still support him. I just think he should drop the immigration issue. The only reason he is doing it is political. He has nothing to lose. I say hold the legislation off until next year, a big election year. Then we can have concrete pledges and promises. I am not one who says GW insults me, but Chertoff saying conservatives wouldn't be satisfied unless execution of the immigrants was involved is uncalled for. GW sincerely believes in his message. I, as a conservative who lives in Texas who sees daily how the immigration issue is financially killing our community with taxes and such, really believes in mine. ww

LoveAmericaImmigrant, you s... (Below threshold)

LoveAmericaImmigrant, you seem to think even more highly of the President than I do. Perhaps he should leap tall buildings in a single bound, and stop a few locomotives?

The problem is more than one which proclamations and Presidential directives can address. As I have noted, Bush has done a lot already, increasing funding and hiring more Border agents. What do you think they are supposed to do? The DHS has been directed to coordinate with state agencies and the Border Patrol to close gaps in surveillance, and the President supported building the fence even last year.

The problem is the difference between what we all want, and what has happened. The right way to go about things is to investigate what is holding up construction of the fence, what is making it difficult to catch the coyotes, and whst, specifically, is getting in the way of enforcing the existing laws. You see, that's not so much political as it is logistical, and it gets into turf wars more than party feuding, and so those people who get into excoriating officials rather than trying to find answers don't like it when they can't use something to malign their chosen target.

I love you DJ how you are n... (Below threshold)
john janus:

I love you DJ how you are not afraid to defend this president. The president ran on this education bill in 2000. How can conservatives be mad when he told them what he was going to do. I am so sick of hearing Rush say the education bill was written by Ted Kennedy. I live in Fl. and this bill is the same bill as we have in the state. By the way our education system has improve with this bill.

Conservatives talk about spending but don't put content into their agrument. The economy could have went into a recession in 2001. George Bush was not going make the same mistake that his father did and allowed the economy to come back without increase spending by the government. Conservative tend to overlook that spending in the 2001 bill that George Bush inherited increased by 15%. That meant all spending bills were working on this base of 15% increase. Conservatives tend to forget how many businesses were in bad shape in Bush first term. Second do you truly believe George Bush plans to fight terrorism would have pass congress without congress also getting their pet project pass also.

How much time do we need to discuss an immigration bill. The bill was first discuss in 2006 and now in 2007. Everyone knows the issues and have voted for the bill once already.

Funny, WW. It sounded like... (Below threshold)

Funny, WW. It sounded like a response to an unprovoked attack to me. An emotional response, but people who are trying to do their jobs don't like their own party working to attack them out of pure spite.

The key to all of this, is that the self-impressed "base" are not elected, they are not accountable, and they do not even pretend that they have a better, specific, plan. They just feel like trashing the folks who are doing the real work, and that's pathetic. To say nothing of helping elect Democrats.

How much time do we need to... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

How much time do we need to discuss an immigration bill. The bill was first discuss in 2006 and now in 2007. Everyone knows the issues and have voted for the bill once already.
------------------------------------------------
And this bill is something many conservatives cannot support. And it is that simple. Many people believed that the proposed bill is worse than the status quo. And they do have valid points. IF the admistration has a good rebuttals, then openly debate it. Again Hugh Hewitt is a loyal Bush supporter, and he is not happy about this bill.

Please explain how having 1... (Below threshold)
john janus:

Please explain how having 12 million people in this country without papers makes us safer. I believe those who are against this bill should come forward with their own bill and how they will handle these 12 million people. My guess is the solution is some form of amnesty.

John, Hugh Hewitt h... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

John,
Hugh Hewitt had a two-step proposal since last year debate. Border security and normalization. You can go there to check for the details. The Reps in Congress and Pres Bush don't seem to like this proposal, but it doesn't mean that there is none.

Hugh plan does not address ... (Below threshold)
john janus:

Hugh plan does not address how the twelve million people in this country without papers is not a security risk and how by not deporting them is not a form of amnesty.

And your plan is what</i... (Below threshold)

And your plan is what, John Janus?

Specifics please, and whining will not count as offering a solution.

John, The proposal ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

John,
The proposal is simple: first secure the border so that 12million won't go up to 20M in 5 years for example. If we cannot control the influx of illegal immigrants, then how can we hope to deal with the terrorists taking advantage of that hole in border securtiy? That 's the first step. ONce we can control in the influx, then we can talk about normalization for people who are here.

I think this plan being deb... (Below threshold)
john janus:

I think this plan being debated is as good as we are going get. We need a comprehesive plan that allow the people here to get documented and get border security at the same time. No other plans addresses both as this does. The thing that is missing in this bill and all other arguments about immigration is the need to open Mexico economy. I believe we should be sending a message to the Mexican government that if they want us to accept their people they must open their economy to small businesses and get away from regulations. In Florida when times are bad in South American they come here in boatloads and when things improve in their country they go back home. Until the mexican economy start producing jobs we are always going to have a problem and until we tell the Mexican government that a process to take your people will remain open only if you continue to open your economy. We cannot allow this issue to divide the republicans like it has. No plan is perfect but to say no plan is better does not make sense either. Conservatives cannot hide behind amnesty to oppose any bills that come forward. If we don't do anything it is just going to get worse and the Democrates are going to win big in 2008 and guess what will happen to the 12 million illegals. They won't have to wait thirteen years to become citizens of US.

We need a comprehesive plan... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

We need a comprehesive plan that allow the people here to get documented and get border security at the same time. No other plans addresses both as this does.
--------------------------------------------------
The fence was cut in half compared the doomed bill last year. That 's a step back, not progress! Hugh had some details here
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/issue3

Talking about politics, if you cannot come up with a good bill, why push a bill that splinters your base? Bush took a while to push his SS proposal. Why not take the time to iron out a better proposal? Nothing is perfect. But if a new proposal is worse than the status quo, then what is the point?

So in other words, we're su... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

So in other words, we're supposed to just love Bush and never say anything bad about him?
That's how lefties act.


DJ, there really is a plan.... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

DJ, there really is a plan. As a matter of fact, almost the entire current plan is fine with a lot of conservatives. The only difference is the borders must be controlled and proof that that problem is fixed before anything else. That almost seems simplistic. But for some reason, the senate wants to throw the whole enchillada at us without scrutiny. Why did they not have hearings, committee witnesses and such? ww

The base is already splinte... (Below threshold)
john janus:

The base is already splinter on immigration and that is the problem. Immigration is the one issue that could divide the Republican Party and we need to find a way to bring these two sides together and at the same time get a bill that will get democratic support. Democrates won't vote for the bill that hugh favors. Democrate don't believe a plan to deal with the twelve million illegals will be pass if a security first bill is pass first.

John, Then deal wit... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

John,
Then deal with the security issue first. Again, knowing that your base is splinterd on this issue, why pushing a bill that many in your base consider worse than the status quo? I believe that Bush sincerely believe that he is trying to help these immigrants to have a chance at the American dream. But you need to take the time to convince your friends who do not agree with you in the 1st place

Veeshir, no one said jack a... (Below threshold)

Veeshir, no one said jack about having to "love" Bush. Love whomever you please. But differences on an issue are no cause to attack and hyper-rage against the President, especially when he is the reason you had that majority (which your rage blew away) in the first place.

DJ, I left polipund... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

DJ,
I left polipundit because of the irrational rage of some people there. Hugh is one of the people who is trying to help build as big a conservative coalition as he can. He was with Bush on Miers as well. I was in the same boat back then. We support Pres. Bush on three major issues: GWOT, the court, and the economy. I think the immigration issue is an unnessary demoralizing issue for the base. It could have been handled better. That 's the point why many loyal supporters have been disappointed. It is quite understandable. Greenwald is a typical hypocritical leftist that is projecting their own hypocrisy on others.

Granted, LAI, but the bicke... (Below threshold)

Granted, LAI, but the bickering boils of bitterness in our midst are handing Greenwald and his side the weapons to dismay and divide Conservatives even more.

Hence the title of the piece.

DJ, Our side debates... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

DJ,
Our side debates. The other side simply spin. In debate, sometimes some people got emotional, but overall it was a good and healthy debate. Nothing is perfect. But this debate is good and healthy. The left cannot tolerate debates and that shows. If you want an example of hypocrisy on the left, here it is another one in plain view

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/4de5e358-dfbb-4675-a3d5-92464b7b784d

Joe Klein Now

"Many leading Democrats even gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq, although most did so, I suspect, for reasons of political expediency. One of the most convincing arguments offered by the bloggers is that the Democratic establishment should have been far more skeptical than it was about a pre-emptive, nearly unilateral assault on an Islamic country. In 2004 Bush and Karl Rove managed to flummox the Democrats by conflating the war in Iraq with the war against al-Qaeda and insisting that any Democratic reservations about Iraq were a sign of weakness. This was infuriating. It was Bush's disastrous decision to go to war -- and worse, to go to war with insufficient resources -- that transformed Iraq into a terrorist Valhalla."
-- "Three Cheers for Triangulation," Time magazine, August 21, 2006

Joe Klein Then

Joe Klein: This is a really tough decision [whether or not to go to war against Iraq]. War may well be the right decision at this point. In fact, I think it -- it's --- it probably is.

Tim Russert: Now that's twice you've said that: "It's the right war." You believe it's the wrong time. Why do you think it's the right war?

Klein: Because sooner or later, this guy has to be taken out. Saddam has -- Saddam Hussein has to be taken out.

Russert: Why?

Klein: He has been defying the world for 12 years. It is very clear -- I mean, I -- I -- I haven't found anybody who doesn't believe that he's hiding stuff there. And if there's going to be a civilized world order, the -- the world has to be able to act on its -- you know, on -- on -- on its agreements. And --and there have been now 17 UN resolutions calling on this guy to disarm, a -- something that he agreed to do, and at certain -- at a certain point, you have to enforce it.

Now you can quibble with the fact, you can argue with the fact that the Bush administration forced this judgment at this time in this way, but I think -- and -- but I -- but I do believe that it was Bill Clinton's moral responsibility and responsibility as leader of the country to do it in 1998, as we -- as we were saying before. And -- and I think that now that we've reached this point, where the inspectors are in and it has become absolutely manifestly clear that he's not going to abide by this -- you know, just look at his behavior in the days since the peace protests. All of a sudden, you know, he's --he's -- you know, he's defiant again.

So I think that, you know, the -- the message has to be sent because if it isn't sent now, if we don't do this now, it empowers every would-be Saddam out there and every would-be terrorist out there.

Name-calling and angry thre... (Below threshold)

Name-calling and angry threats are hardly "debate", LAI.

Yes, the Right debates while the Left does not. But sometimes certain individuals decide they have more right to run the country, than the people who were actually elected. They believe that malignant assaults on the office and person of the President are justified, simply because they did not get what they wanted.

That is not debate, it's much more like the Nomenklatura under the old Soviet regime.

Say it with me: President Bush is not the enemy.

Anyone who can't do that much, is beyond reason.

Sec. Chertoff was name-call... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Sec. Chertoff was name-calling? Among the conservative pundits, some are anti-Bush. So you should expect that. I don't think people like Rush or Hugh consider Pres. Bush the enemy at all. I think we all wish him success and are saddened that he would allow the base to be splintered on an issue that we all know the principled positions. Pres. Bush and his adm were trying to push through a bill quickly with Kennedy and McCain. So it is reasonable for people who don't hold the same position to push back. Nothing unreasonable about it. Some people will take advantage of the situation, but that is simply the reality of a big coalition in any case.
People should have the right to voice their opinion to defeat a bill they disagree with. Hugh spent the time to read the bill in its entirety to make his critique. It is fair.

Remember we all support Bush for the 3 major issues: GWOT, the court, and the economy. The criticism of people like Rush and Hugh is unnecessary.

As a former supporter of Ge... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

As a former supporter of George Bush allow me to toss a couple pennies into this pot.He was much more conservative when he needed conservative support for his re-election.Once that was in the bag, goodbye.I suspect Bush never was a conservative any more than his father was and just pretended because needed the votes.I sometimes read after this or that political fiasco that George Bush & friends are "shocked" by the hostile conservative reaction.Harriet Miers was one example of this and the Immigration bill is another.I don't believe it.Anybody could have told Bush that conservatives would be unhappy with Miers.I'm sure people did.He just didn't care.As I recall it wasn't conservative opposition that finally ended the Miers nomination- it was that she couldn't answer simple constitutional law questions put to her by senators on the judiciary committee.The same with the immigration bill.If George Bush cared what conservatives thought he would not be backing this bill.If he cared about splitting the Republican party, ditto.So I won't support him anymore.

It's too much, per... (Below threshold)
The Other JD:
It's too much, perhaps, to expect apologies from the people who have poured gasoline on the fire. But at least the rest of us can try to work with the other Republicans, and the other Conservatives, for the good of the nation and the hope of the future. Because if we do not, History shows us how painful the price of that hubris can be.

Don't worry, DJ. We'll be more than happy to accept your apology.

Regrettably, even after a direct and personal experience with it, evidently you've not yet learned the price of hubris.

That you're attempting to extrapolate it to your (allegedly) conservative brethren whom you judge to be apostate based on lack of bootlicking support of 43 is one of the finest examples of internet projection I've seen of late.

But differences on an i... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

But differences on an issue are no cause to attack and hyper-rage against the President, especially when he is the reason you had that majority (which your rage blew away) in the first place.

FirstI didn't lose any majority, the Republicans did. And it wasn't "rage", it was that they weren't acting the way they promised.

I'm not a Republican, I'm conservative and libertarian (not Conservative or Libertarian), I vote against the Dems not for the GOP. When the GOP is barely distinguishable from the Dems, why should we vote for them?
And for the record, I voted for the GOP last election (to no avail, I was 0-fer Moran/Webb).

Handing weapons to our enemies? Our enemies are jihadis and dictators not political opponents and the GOP are the ones who handed weapons to their opponents.

I have to touch on this too. Sorry for the long comment

1. Harriet Meiers - proof of hypocrisy. Conservatives who demanded Bush's nominees at least get a hearing refused to allow Harriet her own. Instead, she was harassed into withdrawing. Mafia tactics, not something I would brag about if I were you. And in any case, looking at Roberts, Alito, and his Federal appointments, it's clearly hypocritical to suggest Bush's judicial selections have been bad.
Meiers was not ready for primetime. We shut up on Gonzalez and look where that got us. And who said Bush's judicial appointments were bad? Harriet Meiers was a bad nomination. You really shouldn't extrapolate that out to say that all appointments were bad.


2) Dubai Ports - Another incredibly stupid move by "the base". A company from one of our best supporters in the Middle East is denied their rights under a contract signed with a British company, to manage paperwork and employees at U.S. pots, even though those ports would continue to be manned by the same employees and operate under the same legal authorities as now. Meanwhile, the "base" does not consider that their move allows a company from Communist China to increase its control of actual port operations, because other countries decide that the U.S. government would not keep its agreements.
Ummm, this wasn't the "base", there were elements across the spectrum against this and elements across the spectrum for it. The media were the biggest howlers trying to get the "xenophopic, racist, hillbilly Rethuglicans" all outraged.


3) Amnesty Bill - There is no "amnesty bill". While I agree that the present bill is a poor one, this is not "amnesty"; the smear tactic in such labelling betrays that the "base" does not want to pursue a functional solution, but is instead barking like a mad dog. What should be done is to focus attention on the Congress to repair problems in the existing law, but no one seriously believes that will happen with the Democrats in charge. It would be helpful if the President would veto the thing, but so many of "the base" have done nothing to indicate they would support the President in the attacks on him which would inevitably follow such an action, that it is hardly reasonable to expect him to go it alone. Even though he has done so before.
Do illegal immigrants have to return back to their countries and get in the back of the line? No? Well that's amnesty bud. And did you really just say that the Base hasn't let Bush know they would support him if he vetoed the bill? The ones that hordes of GOP voters are calling him about to tell him it's a bad idea? I've only contacted an elected official once in my life (a letter to Nixon (yes, I was a conservative at age 7) )and yet I wrote an email telling Bush this was an abomination and how angry I am at him calling me names. I'm actually stunned that you just said that the loudly vocal opponents who are saying they hate this bill haven't let Bush know they would support him if he vetoes this bill. You see, I tell Bush when he's doing right, I tell him when he's doing wrong. Again, that's how responsible adults. We're not lock-step lefties.

4) Failure to enforce the borders - Bush has increased spending for the Border Patrol more than any President before him. Blaming him for the problem's scope and size, for the fact that local and state authorities are working against federal agencies, and that the Democrats have actively tried to prevent enforcement, is pretty pathetic and cheap.
That's one area where Bush has always been bad and it's an important issue to his base. Why is he blowing off his base? Are we just supposed to be Bush-bots and accept it? Homey don't play that.

5) Out of control spending - This is a cmplex issue. Bush bears some responsibility for it, but not nearly all. The first thing I would recommend you do, is look to see where the money goes, and who set up those programs. Only a very dishonest person or a moron could pretend that the President could magically stop this problem, or that the pork-fed Congress is not the main culprit.
No, it's isn't all that complex. Bush and Congress have increased the federal gov't hugely. That's not what Republicans are supposed to do. Period. Again, why vote GOP if they're just as bad as the Dems? Only a dishonest person or a moron would not understand that.

6) GOP Congress' actions in the last few years hurt Bush's standings as well. - Yes, they deserted Bush anytime they saw an advantage in acting like a Democrat. That is simply not Dubya's fault. You're mostly right there, but it ties in with the number 8), Bush has not helped himself. Why should feckless, cynical and often spineless politicians stick their necks out for Bush when he isn't even defending himself?

7) Iraq war weariness - Granted. Bush has never wavered in the war's priority in his mind and heart. "The Base" frankly cannot say that anymore. What the hell do you mean "The Base cannot say that anymore?" I've always called it The War on (Some) Terror (I think I stole that from Spoons). Bush is still fighting the war on terror, he hasn't attacked Iran, but he's doing all the same stuff he's been doing all along. He just helped Lebanon with ammo and, I would bet, other assistance. He's always been selective in which terrorists he attacks, but he is still doing what he started to do.

8) General failure to adequately defend themselves in light of Plame, Libby, US Attorneys, "domestic" spying, etc. - The Democrats are slicker at dirty tricks and legal manipulation. Does that mean we should give up?
No, but does that mean we have to just suck it up and tell everybody how great he is? No, when he does well, you praise him, when he screws up you say so. That's how adults act. We're not lefties circling the wagons. We're Americans who want what we think is best for our country.

So I'll reiterate, So in other words, we're supposed to just love Bush and never say anything bad about him?
That's how lefties act.


what we need to do... (Below threshold)
what we need to do is figure out what to push for, instead of just calling the President names and giving ammo to the enemy.

"Giving ammo to the enemy." Why are you concerned about what a dishonest jackhole like Glen Greenwad thinks of us? It doesn't matter what we do or say, Greenwad and other intellectually bankrupt hacks will always be bad-mouthing us, and if he can't find anything, he'll just make stuff up. He's in the same league as those crapweasels James Carville and Paul Begala.

And anyway, Greenwad's Salon hit piece is pretty much complete bullshit, just like most everything he writes, as has been pointed out in these comments It's boob bait for (liberal) bubbas, and you shouldn't fall for it.

Any idiot with a grade-school-level IQ can take quotes out of context and then wail about inconsistencies; which is exactly what Greenwad did, and it bothers me not one whit that we're attacked by someone so utterly lacking in integrity.

it bothers me not one wh... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

it bothers me not one whit that we're attacked by someone so utterly lacking in integrity.

It would bother me if I agreed with him. Seriously, I would have to really re-think my position.

Not that he's always wrong, it's just that the merits don't mean anything to him, it's all what's good for "His side".

Which, funnily enough, appears to be what DJ is pushing with his post.

We know there are many m... (Below threshold)
Brian:

We know there are many more Conservatives than Liberals, and we know that any serious consideration of the Conservative vs. Liberal arguments would prove the superiority of the Conservative position. We also know that the American people will follow a Conservative leader, indeed are hungry to do so.

Glad you "know" all these things, which everyone else knows to be false. But you keep on thinking you "know" things no one else does. It makes your posts more entertaining.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy