Did the worm hit again? I am having a hard time reaching a lot of sites. Of coruse, if it did, I am not sure how you would read this to respond, as Oliver Willis noted.
INHOFE: That isn’t true. That isn’t true. The Al Hussein missile goes further than that. And by the way, that would reach every capital in that whole region out there.
How do you know they don’t have a missile? We know one thing for sure, China has been trading technology and systems with Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, North Korea now for years and years. Indigenously? No they’re not going to have one. But they’re getting dangerously close to having one. We can all have reason to suspect. Why would they not if they’re trading with these countries?
It was your guys back during your president, Bill Clinton’s time in 1998…
BEGALA: He was your president too, we’re all Americans.
INHOFE: Well, you make that determination…
BEGALA: I just — you look like American to me. United States senator.
All together now- Clinton is no longer President. Breathe in, breathe out. Pull yourself together Sen. Inhofe, and you will remember that the reason you hated him was because HE WAS YOUR PRESIDENT. Otherwise he would have been just some other loudmouth from Arkansas.
Grow up, really. Please?
The DOW plunged below 8000 today. F—— Great!
It is weird- I really don’t feel like the economy is that bad- but the market is sure sucking wind. Maybe I have my head in the sand.
I am not sure what Kevin Drum is getting at in this post:
On Saturday Glenn Reynolds took issue with people who claim that it’s “McCarthyism” to criticize anti-war protesters for attending rallies organized by A.N.S.W.E.R.:
It’s not McCarthyism to call people who are communists, communists. Communists, as devoted followers of murderous totalitarianism, deserve to be called to account every bit as much as their Nazi colleagues. And in the 21st century, they can hardly pretend to be ignorant of their ideology’s true nature.
He’s right. But it is McCarthyism to tar people as “communist sympathizers” because they associate
Addressing the delegates more than two years ago at the Republican National Convention, President Bush invoked a line that had become a sort of mantra.
“Big government is not the answer,” he said.
Now, just past the midway point of his first term in office, Bush is presiding over the largest, most expensive — and, some would say, most intrusive — federal government in history.
The GOP, the responsible adults. Some more snippets:
– In the past five years, while median household income has grown by about 16 percent, the federal government’s spending has increased by 45 percent.
– After a four-year period ending in 1997 that saw fairly stable spending management — Congress’ budget authority grew from $509 billion to $511 billion — a spike began in 1998, when federal spending got an $18 billion boost to $529 billion. Spending in 2003 could top $750 billion.
Why? Because the Republicans held the House from 1994 on, and there was no spending proposed by Clinton that they would approve. basically, that was helpful, despite being petty. The real problem lies with the Senate Republicans, although if they this week had not managed to have 25 party line votes and finally showed some discipline, Kennedy, Byrd, and Daschle would have blown the budget entirely to hell and back, while the Democrat contenders for 2004 would be carping qabout the deficit.
This is a problem- and it has nothing to do with the problem of getting Bush re-elected. The problem is that they are pissing away my our money. I should have just ripped up my voter registration after the Lott affair. These people don’t represent me anymore than the Democrats.
*** Update ***
Read Zell Miller in the Opinion Journal.
“Now they’re trying to say, “We tried to constrain the president,” Dean told reporters in the leadoff primary state. “Nonsense. They all voted to give the president a blank check.”
Kerry better hope his bet on Bush Iraq invasion pans out. His contention that “I believe leaving this man (Saddam Hussein) unfettered with nuclear weapons is unacceptable,” states as factual, something not even claimed by the Bush warmongers.
Kerry is stating that his views have remained “exactly consistent” from his vote against Bush the elder’s multilateral War in Kuwait against Iraq, to supporting Bush the younger’s unilateral Invasion of Iraq; and is now giving it further nuance.
Let’s put the laughable contention of consistency aside, does anyone see a guiding principle here for Kerry? Dean doesn’t.
Let the fun begin. Not haviong to deal with messy primaries is such an advantage for incumbents, but in the Democrats case, a messy primary where they figure out what they stand for is the best thing that can happen to them.