Not your typical Democrat…

I’ve been lucky enough to gain front-page posting privileges, here at “PeachPundit”, and while you may expect me to use this opportunity to indoctrinate you with certain liberal politics and philosophies, I won’t because I’m not your typical Democrat.

I won’t tell you that we need universal health care, but I will tell you that something needs to be done about the rising costs of healthcare in America.

I won’t tell you that we need to withdraw from Iraq immediately, but I will tell you that we need to take a look at empowering the Iraqis to run their own country so that our troops can come home as soon as possible.

In the spirit of Georgia Congressman Carl Vinson, a Democrat, I believe in a strong national defense.

I won’t tell you that affirmative action is a good government program because I think it has problems that need to be addressed.

I won’t tell you that I’m for raising taxes because the first vote I ever cast was against a sales tax increase in the 2002 SPLOST referendum for the Fulton County School System.

I won’t tell you that I believe that government is the solution to all of our problems because from my personal experience, nine times out of ten, government causes a lot of the problems in the first place; but I will tell you that government can be a vehicle for change and progress if used effectively and efficiently.

Gay marriage, I’m against it.  Abortion, well, I myself am a product of a woman not having an abortion (I’m adopted), so I’m of the belief that there are other alternatives to abortions and that women should explore those alternatives before they commit to aborting an innocent baby.  Although, if, at the end of the day, after exploring the alternatives to having an abortion, the lady still wants to have one, I’m not going to stand in her way.

That’s her choice and she’s going to have to live with it.

In short, I’m not your typical Democrat, but a Democrat nonetheless, and while members of my own party might accuse me of giving Republicans some “bi-partisan cover”, I’m used to it, and they should know by now from my postings at “Georgia Unfiltered” that I’m not one to tow the party line because Democrats aren’t always right and Republicans aren’t always wrong.

Both parties have their good days and their bad days, so here’s to a good and lively (but civil) debate and discussion between Georgia Democrats and Georgia Republicans here on Peach Pundit.


  1. Demonbeck says:

    Welcome to the front page Andre, I look forward to seeing your posts and converting you to my party.

  2. ColinATL says:

    Andre, glad to have you on board! I agree with a lot of your positions. One thing in particular kind of jumped out at me, though.

    “Gay marriage, I’m against it.”

    Well, good for you, but put a little meat behind this. You gave very nuanced responses to health care and national defense. But your marriage response is just the pat answer that is expected of a moderate Georgia Democrat these days. Why are you against it? Is it biblical? Is it policy-related?

    SOAPBOX-ON . Seriously, no one really gives a good policy-based reason for why we need to codify objections to gay marriage? What happened to individual liberty? Why not come at this from a different angle and look at how marriage among homosexuals might actually HELP society? It might lower the risk of disease transmission. It might add stability to society by creating cohesive units that share income and risk. It might even (dare I say it) give unwanted children a chance at a two-parent home, even if it isn’t the biblical ideal. Please give a little thought to this issue before you dismiss it out of hand. That’s all I ask . SOAPBOX-OFF

    Again, welcome Andre!

  3. ColinATL says:

    Maybe the best question is, WHY is anyone who actually thinks about the issues a Republican anymore?

  4. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Big Mack, atlantaman, et al, I can vouch for Andre being a Democrat, as well as being a good guy. Check out his blog over at if you need more proof that he’s in the “D” column 🙂

    Welcome, Andre!

  5. Decaturguy says:

    Andre is a political opportunist and wanna be Democratic Party insider. His positions on abortion and gay marriage have nothing to do with personal conviction. He is taking those positions because he believes they are politically popular.

    If you want to learn more about Andre’s real positions on the issues take a look at these links:

    Gay Marriage (5/22/2006): “I voted NO on Amendment 1 in November, 2004 because I felt that this argument wasn’t about two men and two women getting married. I felt that it was about gay rights and the government intruding into our lives more and more.”

    Abortion: He wore a “Pro-Kerry, Pro-Choice” button at the 2004 Democratic convention.

    Not only that, he was an early Howard Dean supporter.

    Doesn’t really sound like a he’s “not your typical Democrat to me.”

    Oh, and Andre, I’m a little offended that you consider pro-national defense and anti-tax cuts not to be typical Democratic positions.

  6. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Decaturguy, many people “consider pro-national defense and anti-tax cuts not to be typical Democratic positions.” That’s what happens when you have people like Dennis Kucinich, Jack Murtha, and Ned Lamont in the fold.

    And speaking of Ned Lamont…what is it that the “real Democratic party” did to its leading pro-security Senator?

  7. Demonbeck says:


    Bear in mind that it is the people of your own party who are trying to cast you out and the Republicans are the ones who are welcoming you in genuinely.

    Just thought I would point that out.

  8. Jace Walden says:


    Since you seem to be the real Democratic Party insider, do tell, how does the Democratic Party view tax cuts? How did they vote on the Bush tax cuts? How did they vote on the death tax bill, coupled with a minimum wage increase (a gift if the democrats are truly for tax cuts)? Wasn’t that bill killed in the Senate by Democrats? Inquiring minds want to know.

    And while we’re at it…

    What is the Democratic Strategy for winning in Iraq, winning in Afghanistan, and winning the War on Terror in general? Why is it that NO democrat has been able to nail his/her party’s official plan on dealing with any of this? And before you offer your predictible platitudes like “Bush is Satan”, “Bush has Made the Country Less Safe”, you may want to take into consideration that I do NOT agree with many of the ways in which the President has handled it all. But, since you’re the “insider”, tell me how the Democrats are going to do it better. Tell me how the Democrats are strong on national defense.

    This should be fun…

  9. Demonbeck says:


    Here is the answer.

    General Wesley Clark was almost elected as the Democratic candidate in 2004 and he lost to a guy who got a splinter in his hand – not once, but twice – in the Vietnam War.

    And Cindy Sheehan is pro-military, so they got that going for them too.

    For Heaven’s sake, though, please disregard Bill Clinton and Al Gore completely on this issue.

  10. Decaturguy says:

    I’m no “insider,” so I don’t know what the plan is, but I don’t know what the Bush Administration’s plans are either, and they’ve actually been in power for the past 6 years. Which is worse?

    And Cindy Sheehan certainly does not represent the majority opinion of the Democratic Party and more than Pat Buchanan represents the views of the majority of the Republican Party.

    But since over 60% of the country believes that the war in Iraq was a mistake, Bush’s approval ratings are stuck in the mid 30’s, and since I doubt too many could sincerely say that you could do much worse on foreign policy than the Bush Administration has, I don’t think that Democrats are way out there when it comes to their views on the mess in the Middle East.

    On taxes, I would have voted against Bush’s earlier tax cuts becuase as a fiscal conservative, I believe that we owe it to future generations not to recklessly spend their money, and that is what we’re doing when we cut taxes, but increase spending – as this GOP crew has done. The GOP’s reckless “borrow and spend” mentality is going to get this country in trouble. If you can show me how we’re going to reduce spending, then I’ll take a look at tax cuts – just like families have to do in their budgets.

    With regard to the estate tax elimination/minimum wage increase – I have serious concerns about a few families being able to pass down through the generations billions upon billions of dollars, subject to no taxation. This creates a caste system in which very few families control all of the money in the country.

    Also, if billionaire estates are subject to no taxation, what would this do to charitable trusts in this country? What would be the incentive for Bill Gates or Warren Buffett to give their money to charity?

    I would fully support an estate tax elimination with an very generous exemption for all but a handful of estates. Make it $10 million, $20 million, $50 million. I’d support that.

  11. Decaturguy says:

    Well, Jeff, Jimmy hasn’t been President since 1980. Is that the best you’ve got?

    I mean the Depression started on Hoover’s watch, but Democrats aren’t still using that.

  12. Rusty says:

    For serious, Jace. Republicans have run everything, for what, six years now? And where’s their plan?

    All someone would have to do is write a checklist with goals like “standing army with 100,000 full-time soldiers who have passed the training regimien we should have created three years ago.” But nobody seems interested in something practical like that. Republicans want this war to go on forrrrrrrrrrrrevvvvvvvvvvvver, because somehow in upside-down world, running and losing an interminable war makes them more credible on national security.

    You should demand a plan from them since you seem to think they’re better at running wars, and since they actually have the power to act. And until you do so, please kindly shut the hell up and quit blaming the people who have no power to inact change.

  13. Jace Walden says:


    I told you to take into consideration that I do not agree with the President on everything. One of those things is the “stay the course” plan being promoted. I think the troops deserve more than platitudes. They deserve a plan.


    Quit avoiding the questions.

    On the second point, I’ll take your stance on taxes as the mainstream democratic stance, which brings up this question: Why are you offended when Andre points out that Democrats are weak on Tax Cuts? Is the truth too much for you?

    Try answering the questions instead of avoiding them. Then, I might be interested in answering some of the rather good questions you posed.

    Like I said, this should be fun.

  14. I’ve got to respond to everything that’s been directed to me.

    I’m pro-choice. I thought I made that clear when I said that “if, at the end of the day, after exploring the alternatives to having an abortion, the lady still wants to have one, I’m not going to stand in her way.

    That’s her choice and she’s going to have to live with it.”

    I have not nor will I ever advocate for the complete prohibition of abortion because I believe that if a woman, after reviewing all of the alternatives to abortions, still chooses to have one, then that’s the choice that she’s made.

    DecaturGuy, if you’re going to quote me, then at least quote me in my entirety. Yes, I said that I voted no on Amendment 1, the gay marriage amendment, but I also said and I quote myself, “I personally feel that two men or two women should not be able to get married because I see marriage as a union between one man and one woman performed at a religious ceremony in the sight of God.”

    You can be against gay marriage and vote no on a gay marriage amendment at the same time because a gay marriage amendment is just more big government turning our society into more of a nanny-state.

    Y’all can call me a freak if you want, but there aren’t enough liberals in Georgia to win a statewide election.

    And that’s the cold hard truth.

  15. rugby_fan says:

    “pro-national defense and anti-tax cuts not to be typical Democratic positions”

    Like it or not, tax hikes are typical Democratic positions and pro national defense is a typical Democratic position (FDR, Truman &c.). Although the latter is not a typical *modern* Democratic position.

  16. I’d like to revise and extend my previous remarks:

    You’re going to need moderates and conservatives as well to put you over top.

    And if I were such a political opportunist, then why in the world would I adopt positions that put me at odds with the most vocal and most organized element of the Democratic Party; the liberal/progressive wing.

    If I were really a political opportunist, then I’d be a cheerleader for that faction. Instead, I take them head on and agree with Republicans from time to time.

    Does that sound like a political opportunist to you?

  17. Jace Walden says:


    Pro-national defense is not a typical Democratic Position. During the time of FDR and Truman is was a typical Democratic Position, as well as the typical postion of Americans in general. Since Truman, however, the Democrats have been lackluster, at best, on national defense.

  18. Mad Dog says:


    So how low does the standard for Bush go? Just saying Jimmy Carter isn’t discussion.

    If you can’t make your point of view without kicking the dog, don’t bother kicking the dog.

    Were you even alive to compare Carter to Nixon?

  19. ColinATL says:

    Jace, two words. WHERE’S OSAMA? Democrats could do no worse actually FIGHTING the GWOT as opposed to distracting us from it with quagmires like Iraq.

  20. Jace Walden says:

    Decaturguy & Rusty

    Rusty: I do not support the “stay the course” plan being promoted. I have said time and time again on this blog and on many others, including my own, that we do need a solid plan. But until we get a solid plan from either party, we have to stay in Iraq. We broke the eggs. We have to make the omlet. I would be thrilled to hear a truly solid plan from either party. But as it is, the Democrats have been extremely vocal on the issue, but have yet to come up with anything resembling a plan. Thus, there is still no reason to assume they will do any better than the Bush administration. And, based on the Democratic performance since about 1970, history tells us they would actually do worse. So Rusty, why don’t you kindly shut the hell up until you get your facts straight. Or, better yet, kindly shut the hell up until you can find that eluslive “strategy” the Democrats keep talking about.


    I have decided to debunk your argument point by point.

    Since you like to quote poll numbers, here’s an interesting one for you. 76% of Georgia voters are against Gay marriage. Why aren’t you jumping on board with that poll? The point is, don’t stay stuff like “60% this” and “30% that” unless you’re going to be consistent. If 60% of people wanting to start lynching black people, that wouldn’t make it right.

    The only place that you would EVER be considered a “fiscal conservative” is in your own mind. The guy you pointed to as a shining example of fiscal conservatism, John Spratt, I proved to be one of the most fiscally liberal members of congress–coincidently, he ranked 384 out of all members of congress on the Club for Growth (a TRUE fiscally conservative 527) legislative score card this year. No one on here, or anywhere else is going to believe you when you say that you are a “fiscal conservative”.

    On the estate(death) tax:

    Do you believe it is morally right to tax someone after they die? Do you believe it is morally right to ONLY tax rich people after they die? If so, why? If it is morally right to tax rich people when they die, why not middle-class, why not poor? After all, isn’t everyone equal under the law?

    Like most Democrats, you suffer from a bad case of Wealth Envy. Wealth Envy is a communicable disease spread through class warfare and empty socialist rhetoric. It is most commonly found among members of the national Democratic Party, who try to spread the disease in order to keep people addicted to the government. It is most easily spread to those who feel, for some reason, that they are entitled to something.

    Recent outbreaks of wealth envy include the Democratic Demonization of Wal-Mart, a corporation whose average salary for full-time employees is over $10, also a corporation which has advocated for a raise in the minimum wage.

    Fortunately, there is a cure for wealth envy. It’s called capitalism. You should look into it someday. 😉

    Quit trying to punish people for being successful

  21. Jace Walden says:


    I guess I need to repeat something for the THIRD TIME:

    I do not agree with many of the ways in which this administration has handled the war on terror.

    (1) We should have caught Bin Laden by now.
    (2) We do need a solid plan with defined objectives in Iraq
    (3) We need to relook many of the provisions in the Patriot Act

    But with that being said, What is the Democratic Plan? People need an alternative before they’ll go against the status quo. The democrats have not provided that alternative. Instead, they have provided empty partisan rhetoric which has done nothing but remind me of why I’ll never vote Democratic again.

  22. Decaturguy says:

    You know Jace, your argument is like saying Employee A has screwed up every project that he/she has ever worked on, but Job Candidate B cannot articulate a precise plan on how to clean up all of Employee A’s messes if he/she replaced Employee A. So, therefore, we should just keep Empoyee A, even if he/she just keeps screwing up.

    I don’t think Democrats have to have a unified strategy when it comes to national defense, and, indeed, they do not. Some Democrats support the Bush Administration’s “stay the course” policy. Some Democrats support setting a timeframe to get troops out of Iraq. Some Democrats want to get out of Iraq and concentrate on what they consider more important battles in Afghanistan, finding Osama Bin Laden, etc. Some Democrats support getting out of the Middle East all together.

    And remember, there are Republicans as well who support all of the options listed above.

    What we can agree on, I think, is that the Bush Administration’s policies are not working and we need a change.

    And how were Kennedy and LBJ not pro national defense?

    And for that matter, didn’t Republicans blast Clinton for getting involved in Kosovo in order to stop ethnic cleansing and promote freedom? Didn’t it demoralize the troops when Senator Rick Santorum said “President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy” or when Sean Hannity said about Kosovo that “innocent people are going to die for nothing.”

    Didn’t Republicans blast Clinton for bombing Iraq in 1998? Didn’t Republican Leader Dick Armey say the following: “After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons.”

    Didn’t Republicans blast Clinton for attacking terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998?

    So don’t give me this crap about Democrats being soft on national defense and Republicans being strong.

  23. Rusty says:

    I find it funny that you don’t support government welfare programs for Americans, and yet you support U.S. government welfare for Iraqis. I question your dedication to your ideology.

  24. Demonbeck says:


    Your analogy is wrong.

    Jace was saying that while Employee A is not doing the job sufficiently, Employee B has a history of doing the job worse.

  25. Nativeson says:

    Bill Simon, oh I’m just having a little fun picking on the dominant party that controls every branch of government, lied us into an unnecessary war , is destroying the Constitution and is looting the economy on behalf of its benefactors. But I do have to admit I was shocked — SHOCKED, I tell you! — at the primary election wins of Casey Cagle and Karen Handel. Hats off!

  26. Decaturguy says:


    You don’t know what you are talking about. I don’t have wealth envy. I believe in the capitalist system, and think that people ought to go out be able to make as much money as their talents allow without being regulated and taxed out of existence. And I think that MOST poor people are poor because they simply do not have the education to take advantage of our system. So, you can’t just call me a name – “socialist” – and think you’ve won an argument.

    I just don’t think that people ought to be able to pass on hundreds of billions of dollars to future generations with those future generations never having to pay taxes on that money. My view on the estate tax is that 99.999999999999% of estates would not have to pay estate taxes.

    And I don’t think it is “fically conservative” to cut taxes and increase spending, even if that is what Club for Growth defines as fiscally conservative.

  27. Mad Dog says:


    You’re all three wrong. All the employees are doing the job wrong and the supervisor is taking credit for the job being done right.

  28. Demonbeck says:

    “I just don’t think that people ought to be able to pass on hundreds of billions of dollars to future generations with those future generations never having to pay taxes on that money.”

    They already have paid taxes on that money. Your party wants that money to be taxed twice.

  29. Bill Simon says:


    All I’m interested in, as a Republican, is having one of the “houses” in Congress taken over by Democrats this year. Yes, you heard that right. A lesson needs to be taught to people who promise one thing then do the complete opposite.

    True, the Dems have no plan worth a crap, but, neither do the Republicans. AND, the Republicans currently occupying the leadership of both the House and the Senate have done nothing but try to jam their neoconservative agenda/neo-Christian extremist agenda down the throats of the American people.

    I’m so SICK of the lies and the bullshit coming out of the mouths of incompetent f***ing morons like W. Bush, Bill Frist, Donald “Protective Armor? What Protective Armor?” Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

    SO, if we must have incompetent morons running the government, I’d rather have the opposite political party in charge of at least ONE of the houses in order to stop some of the fecal legislation emitted out of the rear-ends of our “esteemed” (sick to my stomach) “Republican” (again, sick to my stomach) “leadership.”

  30. Jace Walden says:

    Just because we don’t like Employee A, it doesn’t mean that Employee B is the right person to put in the position.

    Being strong on defense entails more than being able to send troops into battle. Clinton also downsized the military significantly. He enabled great soldiers/officers with less time in service than was required by contract, get out and recieve full retirement. To say the least, most took that opportunity. Who wouldn’t? I sure as hell would. But, the sudden loss of personel created a void in leadership. As a result, many, MANY, unqualified people were promoted to positions of responsibility. Additionally, tasks that were typically required of a 120 man unit, were then given to much smaller units, who struggled to keep up with the military’s demand. Clinton also gave gays the greenlight to enter the military. I’m not opposed to gay marriage. But I am opposed to gays being in the military…not because of personal prejudices, but because of that statistic I showed you earlier. Most people do not agree with or condone the gay lifestyle. Having openly gay men in the military could affect unit cohesion. Unit cohesion is what gets men back alive. So, no, I don’t think Clinton was tough on defense.

    Working our way back…Do we even need to talk about Carter?

    Lyndon B. Johnson. What did LBJ actually do for our troops? He ran on a platform of getting out of the Vietnam war–A platform, I might mention, that was VERY well recieved by Democratic voters…and those democratic voters were very, very, pissed at Johnson when he didn’t immediately pull out.

    Kennedy. You know what, I’ll give you Kennedy. He didn’t do a bad job. And he handled the Cuban Missle Crisis well. I’ll give you Kennedy.

    But, let’s say I’m TOTALLY wrong about all of these guys. Let’s say that they were all personally strong on defense. That still doesn’t mean the Democratic Party as whole is strong on defense. See my LBJ example.

    As I said, “Strong on Defense” is more than being able to fight a war. It’s giving our troops proper funding, which Carter and Clinton did not. It’s giving our troops the proper equipment, which Kerry and T. Kennedy have consistently voted against. It’s building a strong national defense–something the Democrats made fun of as “Star Wars” when Reagan introduced his plan for a missile defense system.

    The democratic party as a whole is weak on defense. As you so eloquently stated in a previous thread, the proof is in the pudding.

  31. Jace Walden says:


    I don’t support giving welfare to any other country. However, I also do not support letting a country descend into chaos and anarchy as a result of our interference. My dedication is to principle not ideology.

  32. Mad Dog says:

    Death tax. What a misnomer.

    If they refuse to pay? Do we go to Hell or Heaven to collect?

    Dead people can’t pay or refuse to pay taxes.

    Estate taxes are meant to prevent tax dodging by the survivors. It could be meant to encourage people to make wills. It could be meant to prevent children with power of attorney over their aged parents from feeding them dog food while building a tax free life for themselves.

    The dead will get whatever reward. Taxes are on the living.

    Deacatur guy is right.

  33. Jace Walden says:

    Bill Simon,

    I think you are absolutely right. The GOP does need to be taught a less. More accurately, the Neo-Con Wing of the GOP needs to be taught a lesson. You might be right about Congress. I’m not sure if there is another way to teach that lesson than through electoral defeat.

    Mad Dog,

    Good point. No one is doing it completely right.

  34. Jace Walden says:

    Even using your argument, the Estate Tax is still immoral.

    It says that only rich people are in danger of tax-dodging, therefore we should tax their estates.

    I beg to differ. Poor and Middle-class people dodge taxes too. And when they do, we punish them. We don’t need a preventive measure like the estate tax. If rich people skip out on taxes, then they should be punished like everyone else.

    Seriously guys, Capitalism. Look into it.

  35. Decaturguy says:


    Do you support the dismissal of the nearly 300 gays recently who have important language translation skills important in trying to uncovering terrorist plots? Or is making bigots more comfortable more important? And how do language interpreters affect unit cohesion?

    Isn’t “unit cohesion” that the same argument that was used when the military was segregated by race? Didn’t Truman, who you apparently didn’t consider to be soft on defense, order integration?

    Oh, and I hate to cite a poll, but in the most recent poll 80% of Americans want to lift the ban on gays in the military.

  36. Jace Walden says:

    Or what about Social Security? Wait, I forgot, Democrats refer to it as “Retirement with Dignity”? Do you think retirement should be a personal investment, or should tax payers have to fund other people’s retirements?

  37. griftdrift says:

    “who got a splinter in his hand – not once, but twice – in the Vietnam War”

    I really hate comments like these. What would be an acceptable war record for a Democrat? Medal of Honor? Does it have to be posthoumous? Please tell us what level of sacrifice a Democrat has to make to not be criticized about their record as a combat veteran?

  38. Mad Dog says:


    The foundations of your arguments and questions are the source of my opposition.

    You can and do reason well and use logic correctly.

    But, you come at political problems and solutions from various forms of personal philosphy.

    I owe you a beer. Let me buy for you and explain it one on one?

  39. Jace Walden says:

    I’d love to see that poll, Decaturguy. Even if such a poll exists, you should poll the military, not the population at large. It is the military, after all, that does the fighting.

    Do you support the dismissal of the nearly 300 gays recently who have important language translation skills important in trying to uncovering terrorist plots?

    Yes. I’m sure there are straight people willing to volunteer that have language skills.

    Besides, race and sexual orientation are two different things. And you’re preaching to choir here. I am not threatened by gays, nor do I think they should be discriminated against.

    Think of it like this. Women aren’t allowed in the Infantry. In fact, the only Combat Arms unit they are allowed in is Field Artillery. Does this mean we’re necessarily discriminating against women? No. But it would affect unit cohesion. I’m sure there are gays that are perfectly capable of being in the military. But I think the military is the last place to hold a social experiment.

    And, I would watch calling most of the U.S. military a bunch of “bigots”.

  40. CobbGOPer says:


    Who cares if they pass on hundreds of billions? Those billions have already been taxed! The reason the estate tax is wrong is because it amounts to DOUBLE TAXATION. The person worked hard, ran a business, was successful. While running that business and acquiring however many millions or billions or whatever they earned, that person PAID TAXES on that earned income. However, the estate/death tax then comes along and says “OK, we know you paid taxes on all this income already, but when you die, we’re going to tax it all again before it is passed on to whomever you decide to pass it on to. And we’re doing it just because we can.”

    It’s extortion. It’s criminal behavior on the part of government, regardless of how much money is involved. And they get away with it for the sheer reason that these people, while wealthy, ONLY GET ONE VOTE.

    Why do you think the top 20% or so (I think it’s actually smaller, someone please correct me) of income earners in this country pay more than 70% of the taxes? Because they’re outnumbered!

    Besides, what we need to be worried about is when the government decides that, no, just taxing multi-millionaires when they die isn’t good enough. We’ll just go ahead and tax everyone making more than $200,000 a year. How about $100,000 a year? What’s to stop them? People who make less than $200,000 surely outnumber those who make more, which means they have more votes. What’s to stop the government?



  41. Demonbeck says:

    No one ever questioned Max Cleland’s service in the military. His record as an elected official is what was questionable.

  42. Decaturguy says:


    I guess it depends upon what you replace the income tax with.

    If it is the sales tax, well, then that would cut into your argument about taxing money twice. People who inherit money not subject to the estate tax would have to still pay the sales tax. And if that money had already been taxed by the income tax, well, wouldn’t that be double taxation?

    I believe that Social Security has played an important role in improving the quality of life for senior citizens and the disabled. I don’t know any mainstream policician from either party that has proposed dismantling the program and I think that would be foolish. But if Republicans want to run on that platform, then go for it.

    That being said, retirement should be a personal investment, no one should rely on Social Security for their only means of retirement income, and there are adequate policies in place for doing that.

  43. ColinATL says:

    By the way, the so-called Death Tax really is an Inheritance Tax. It is not a tax upon the person who is deceased. It is a tax upon the INCOME of the people who get that money from their deceased benefactor for doing nothing.

    Subtle difference, but it makes it clear that all we’re really doing is taxing income, just like we always have. We do indeed tax different kinds of income differently, sometimes in a way that benefits the poor (progressive income tax scheme) and sometimes in a way that benefits the wealthy (lower tax rate on dividend income).

    Personally, I’m all for only taxing only large inheritances. Seriously, it’s not like those bratty rich kids did anything to deserve a zillion dollars tax free. 😉

  44. Jace Walden says:


    Fair enough.

    Would you be in favor of adding choice to the current social security system? By that, I mean let people choose how their money is invested? And to make sure that it is actually invested rather than spent. As in, put the money in the stock market. The government still handles the money, but the people choose what type of account (High-Yield High Risk, High-Yield Medium Rick, Low-Yeild Low Risk, etc…) their money goes into. Something similar to the Thrift Savings Program available to government employees.

    I think this is a logical starting point in social security reform.

    But in the end, I think it needs to go. Not immediately. But people should be weened off of it. Grandfather complete control of retirment in starting with a certain age group.

  45. one big D says:

    Let’s hear Mr. Andre’s feeling about President Bush. I really want to know if he stands with the current leadership of this country. He says he’s not a typical Democrat…nor a moderate Republican.

    For the record, Andre, you adopt positions to put you at odds with the progressive wing for attention and some sadomasochist thing. You get joy out of being our whipping boy. You would say that the sky was green if you could get a good spanking from the progressive Dems. Whatever floats your freaky fantasies.

  46. CobbGOPer says:

    “Bratty rich kids”

    Real PC. This is the kind of speech you hear from socialists and communists. Class warfare is no better than race baiting.

    The only reason you are in favor of this form of taxation is because it is only applied to a particular class of people. Well, class warfare is how communism came to ravage half the world in the last century.

    If your only argument in favor of the death/estate tax is because “bratty rich kids deserve it” that doesn’t make any logical sense.

  47. Mojo says:

    Jace Walden,

    You claim that LBJ “ran on a platform of getting out of the Vietnam war.” The only time LBJ campaigned on a platform for President was 1964 (and a brief, brief run in 1968), and I am curious as to where you obtained this information as LBJ dramatically increased troop strength in the Vietnam region during the 1964 campaign following the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The largest escalation of the Vietnam War occurred under LBJ, from ’64 to ’68. Democrat voters during ’68 abandoned LBJ for the anti-war candidacies of RFK and McCarthy because he refused to endorse an exit strategy. And, I believe it important to remember that it wasn’t just Democrat voters wanting an exit strategy, it was a sentiment among the American electorate period. Nixon won in ’68 partly because he supported an exit strategy, “peace with honor.” So, I’m just curious as to what led you to think different?

    Also, you seem to have confused national defense with Iraq. What would the Democrats have done differently concerning the GWOT, and how is Iraq in our national defense? You also seem to have forgotten such Democrats as Scoop Jackson and Sam Nunn in your condemnation for the overall Democrat party as well. It seems to me that you confuse weak on national defense with dislike for Democrats. They aren’t the same. You desire a plan for the Democrats. I do as well, because the Bush adminstration and GOP plan of “stay and die” just isn’t working for me anymore.

    Where did Clinton cut funding for the U.S. military? Clinton consistently increased military spending, as a matter of fact a proposed increase of his in 2000 would have been the largest increase since Reagan. From 1996 to the end of the Clinton administration the military budget steadily increased. In 1986 the military budget was $273 billion and in 1996 the budget was $266 billion. Yeah, a 2% decrease but, then again, the Soviet Union didn’t exist anymore now did it? So, all those tanks and artillery that were so important for a huge, global conflict on a larger than WWII level were no longer needed. After all, the first cuts in defense spending were made by the first Bush after the toppling of the evil empire. The Clinton budget of 1996 was larger than the outgoing military budget of the first Bush president, a budget developed by Dick Cheney. FYI, two military systems fundamental, so far, in the GWOT were the Predator and JDAM, military projects funded and supported by the Clinton administation, and also, projects that were ignored by Reagan and the first Bush.

    The problem isn’t that Democrats are weak on national defense, the problem is that the GOP is stupid on defense. I’d rather have “cut and run” than “stay and die.”

  48. Mad Dog says:


    The horse is out of the barn. Blaming Jimmy Carter isn’t going to bring the horse back.

    Unless you have a point to make that shows Jimmy Carter is to blame for the current situation in our country?

    If shifting the blame is your point, ignore me.

  49. Demonbeck says:

    Jimmy Carter showed weakness to Iranian terrorists – establishing their beliefs that we will capitulate to their whims when the going gets tough.

    If Reagan had been President in 76-80, we may not be having these problems today.

  50. Jeff Emanuel says:

    I’m looking pretty hard, and the point isn’t being ignored here. Don’t ask derisive questions like that when you fit the profile you’re trying to ridicule.

    And, sure, Jimmy Carter is a huge part of the global issues right now. Hezbollah? Offshoot of the Iranian revolution, which came to be because he allowed the Shah to be overthrown (oh, yeah, and those hostages were a great testament to his leadership). Hamas? Rubber-stamped as a “legitimate government” that should be “given a chance,” instead of being treated like the terrorist organization that it has been, is, and will be. Oh, yeah, and endorsing Hugo Chavez as the victor of one heck of a crooked election. Nice.

    Horse out of the barn, eh? Here’s a question: why would you rather wait for terrorists to come here again (and again, and again), rather than preempt that by taking the fight to them?

  51. one big D says:

    Remember Prez #41 — our problems today are because he ran like a chicken when he should have kicked some butt. Prez #43’s entire war agenda is to make up for his slacker ass daddy.

  52. Mad Dog says:


    I’m old enough to remember the Nixon-Kenney debate.

    My parents were scared to death a Catholic would win the White House.

  53. Mojo says:

    I didn’t want to say this because I like Reagan but others have pushed me to the point. Where was Reagan’s strength when he fled with his tail between his legs after a couple hundred Marines were blown away by Hezbollah? Maybe if a truly strong President had been there instead of Reagan, we may not be having these problems today. Hindsight is 20/20.

  54. Eddie T says:

    The double tax argument is disengenuous. We tax money twice all the time. Hell, the very nature of money means we tax it over and over and over again.

    I pay an income tax and then a sales tax. And a property tax. And a tax on gasoline. And….

    If you’re going to use an argument against the estate tax, at least use a relevant one that wouldn’t necessitate getting rid of every tax except for one. Unless you’re going to advocate that, in which case we’re obviously never going to see eye-to-eye.

    And Jace,

    if it requires more to be strong on national security than successfully sending troops into war, what exactly does it take? Does it take winning wars? (like the one in Kosovo?) Does it take more money? Because if I said it requires more money to be strong on education, I feel like you would disagree with me.

    Certainly, one can say Clinton didn’t have the foresight to prepare for the coming war on terrorism. But in the relative peace and tranquility of the 90s, before 9/11, no one foresaw needing such a robust military.

    In fact, Republican leaders like Bob Dole fought for even greater cuts to the Pentagon. But if you’re going to make the argument that Clinton didn’t adequately prepare, then at least lay the argument across party-lines to the Republicans who didn’t adequately prepare either (as I recall, y’all did indeed have both houses of Congress for a good chunk of the 90s). And when Bush entered office in 2000, he at least had warning from the Clinton administration that bin Laden was an emerging threat, and perhaps the greatest threat to national security. Do I blame Bush for his national security priorities before 9/11? (National Missile Defense) Not really…he didn’t have too much of a way of knowing what was coming next.

    But the Elephant in the room is that Republicans were in charge during the biggest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. And they’re the ones that sent our troops into battle without body armor. And they’re the ones that are cutting our heroes health benefits when they get back into the country.

    Different Democrats have offerred a number of plans for dealing with the war in Iraq.

    for instance.

    If you don’t like the plans, make arguments against them. But for the love of God, don’t give into the intellectually lazy and dishonest “they have no plan.”

  55. Mojo says:

    one big D,

    Seems to me that Daddy Bush did the right thing. Everything he feared about a mobilization into Iraq seems to have come true. Maybe his slacker ass son should have listened more.

  56. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Reagan did some great things, and was a strong President; however, I disagree with his decision to flee Beirut when 300 Marines died — it was almost as bad as Clinton tucking tail and running from Somalia when 18 of America’s finest were killed and made into a public spectacle.

    And Mad Dog, for the record — I don’t have a really big beef with Kennedy. However, were he in today’s Democrat party, I think it’s pretty clear that he would be “Lieberman-ed,” and driven out of the fold.

  57. Jace Walden says:


    Clinton campaigned on cutting the defense budget by 60 Billion Dollars. He ended up cutting the budget by 127 Billion because he wanted to reduce the deficit without reducing domestic spending. And, as you said, by 1996 the defense budget was decreased. Not to mention the amount of personell, which I mentioned earlier. Yes, Clinton had plenty of “good intentions”. But good intentions and actual results are two different things.

    Additionally, he all but killed the missile defense system that was being built by Reagan and Bush ’41.

  58. RandyMiller says:

    Yeah Andre,…I’ve read your stuff over on your site as well as others and you’ve got your act together. I’m a moderate Republican so I know where you’re coming from…we agree on alot. Yeah, you did stir the roost so to speak.

  59. Mojo says:

    127 billion? It’s interesting that the budget in ’96 was only 7 billion less than the budget in ’86.

  60. Jace Walden says:

    Eddie T,

    Show me some of these “plans” the Dems have come up with. I’d like to see one. I would love to refute the plan, but first, I’d actually have to be presented with a plan.

    The plan from is not a plan. It has specific points, but no specific means of obtaining those points. For instance. Pull 60,000 troops out by 2007. Ok…how do we do that exactly while accomplishing the other statements of the plan?

    Besides, is a think tank. Not a democratic legislator.

  61. Rusty says:

    I don’t support giving welfare to any other country. However, I also do not support letting a country descend into chaos and anarchy as a result of our interference. My dedication is to principle not ideology.

    By your rationale, every time a Wal*Mart came into town and put a bunch of mom and pop shops out of business, it would be Wal*Mart’s job to prop up mom and pop until they could build their own business again. Again, you’re not ideologically consistent here.

  62. CobbGOPer says:

    Eddie T,

    Um, all those taxes you listed are not taxes on your income. They are taxes on assets or services or products.

    But I agree with you, the only way to correct this is to eliminate this ridiculous tax system that is confusing and unfair. Hence the Fair Tax…

    Look into it (, I’m sure you’ll find it a better alternative to the divisive, extortionate system we have now.

  63. one big D says:

    high five all around for the slacker ass Bushes! By the way, how many of them Bush men actually fought in a war?

    As my brother sits in Iraq, it makes me really annoyed that my parents did not live up to their potential – the potential to have friends in high places that can write military active duty excuse notes, not have a sizeable will so that I could be pissed about this whole estate tax stuff, or not have enough friends to give away large military contracts.

    You know I can’t believe my parents bought into that whole sham of being law-abiding, tax paying, defenders of America, melting pot loving bullcrap. Damn it, I could have been a gay hating, pro-life, kill every foreigner, freak ( no offense Andre about using your “freak” definition).

  64. Jace Walden says:


    Going into a foreign country, decimating it’s infrastructure, deposing its leader, disbanding its military, and quelling an insurgency is a little bit different than Wal-mart coming in and pushing other stores out of business. Again, you’re talking out of your ass.

  65. Eddie T says:



    Hindsight really is 20/20. I seem to think that when Bush v1.0 gave helped bin Laden against the Soviets and then left them out to dry afterwards, that might have had something to do with it.

    Of course, then we’d both be wrong. Blaming the rise of Islamic extremism on Carter, Reagan, Bush, or any individual would be either disengenuous or simply inaccurate.

    But I’ll tell you what doesn’t help, and the very reason I’ve been against the war in Iraq from the beginning.

    Iraq never was “them.” The premise of fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here assumes that the people we were killing upon the invasion of Iraq were a threat to us here. Does anyone really still believe that to be true?

    The “them” have been Islamic men, aged 18-35, who, when they get angry at the United States, fly planes into buildings. And if you think our invasion of Iraq hasn’t created MORE of these men, then you haven’t been paying attention.

    I guess when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

    I liked Wesley Clark’s plan. Dramatically increase the funding/training for special operations, and use those people to pick off terrorists. Sure, you go after the Afghanistans of the world, but there just aren’t that many of those. And while you do that, you wage a PR campaign in the middle east for the undecided.

    Instead, we’ve convinced the undecided to join bin Laden and moved lots of pro-US minds into the undecided camp. All to get rid of a madman dictator who we effectively neutralized through the entirety of the 90s.

  66. “Let’s hear Mr. Andre’s feeling about President Bush. I really want to know if he stands with the current leadership of this country. He says he’s not a typical Democrat…nor a moderate Republican.”

    I voted for John Kerry in 2004 and I attended an Al Gore rally in 2000 before I was even eligible to vote. What does that tell you about my feelings about President Bush?

    And if you look in the voter file (it’s public record, you know), you’ll see that I have never once voted in the Republican primary.

  67. griftdrift says:

    one big D, George H. W. Bush was a decorated combat pilot in WWII.

    Both sides, can we just agree that they all served, they served honorably and leave it at that.

    Most veterans that I have spoken think that should be the only part of the coversation.

  68. CobbGOPer says:

    One big D,

    Very convincing argument. If you’re not that successful in life, your attitude probably has a lot to do with it.

  69. Rusty says:

    Hey Jace,
    1) No, it’s really not that much different. Warfare ultimately breaks down to being either ideological competition or competition for resources.
    2) If you want to get into a name-calling contest, I’ve got a lot worse for you than “you’re talking out of your ass again.”

  70. CobbGOPer says:

    And by the way, Jace, Clinton signed that budget because, if he’d vetoed it, Congress would have given him an embarrassing over-ride.

  71. Jace Walden says:

    How does National Missile Defense help us in the global war on terror?

    I never said it did. But, it does make the country more easily defendable against ICBMs from North Korea (should they ever learn how to successfully launch one), Iran, China, and if I may say so, Russia. All of these countries have the capabilitity, or are close to having the capability of sending a nuke here. Just because we’re not at war with them, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be prepared for it.

    You confuse the War on Terror with National Defense. National Defense is more than just the war on terror.

  72. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Eddie T, North Korea has a missile that can reach at least the western coast of the US. Iran is brewing up the nuclear material for nuke-tipped missiles, and has access to ICBM technology from China. How does missile defense keep us less safe? And why in the world would you oppose protecting ourselves to the utmost? It’s not an offensive weapon, Eddie — strictly defensive. To wit, that means that it cannot be used unless we are attacked. So..what’s the problem with being able to defend ourselves from attack?

  73. CobbGOPer says:

    Eddie T,

    Missle Defense helps us when North Korea decides to sell nuke-tipped missles to (insert Axis of Evil Tier II country or Islamo-facist terrorist group here).

  74. Eddie T says:


    You read all 40 pages in ten minutes? And kept posting here? Well shucks, I’m impressed.

    And really, you’re going to argue that the Center for American Progress plan is not a “Democratic” plan? What if it’s endorsed by Democratic legislators? or does that not count?

    What about this one, from all the way back in February?


    Of course it’s double taxation. You get taxed on your income. And then, the money you have left gets taxed when you buy something.

    They get taxed on their income. And then, the money they have left gets taxed when it becomes someone else’s income.

    The “unfair” tax really isn’t my cup of tea. I’m not interested in a tax system that increases the rich/poor gap.

  75. Jace Walden says:


    I don’t want to get into a name-calling contest, but if you can’t handle a little honest criticism, then maybe you should reconsider posting.

    Warfare does not always breakdown into an idealogical competition. Nor does always breakdown into a competition for resources. Sometimes, warfare can be conducted as a means of self-defense. We might not get resources out of it, nor will we “americanize” them. But we will be defended.

    Like I said, you cannot compare the decimation of infrastructure, the deposition of a leader, the disbanding of a military, and quelling an insurgency to Walmart.

    I told you that you were talking out of your ass because you felt it prudent to tell me to kindly “shut the hell up” earlier. Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.

  76. Mad Dog says:


    I think you’re out there!

    Lots of hypertheticals that can’t be proved. Lots of wiggle room for you.

    But, if you don’t over generalize, I guess you don’t have a point?

  77. RandyMiller says:

    The extreme left is always anti-US military….but always finds a justification and/or sympathy for any group that attacks our shores.

  78. Eddie T says:

    Fair enough, Jace. et. al.

    I just think our money would be more wisely spent dealing with the most pre-eminent threat to today’s national security. North Korea’s taepo dong just doesn’t seem to be it right now. I’m much more concerned with terrorists flying planes into buildings or, god forbid, them getting their hands on one of Russia’s old (lost) nuclear suitcase bombs. We’ve spent hundreds of hundreds of millions on an NMD system that doesn’t even work yet.

    You can see how, in that world, I find Bush to be a massive failure in terms of national security.

    To all: How do you submit we WIN the war on terror? (this might be a better topic for an open thread)

  79. one big D says:

    that would be sarcasm to describe how the Bushes have used their circle of friends to help their children lead our country into its current path.

    My family is quite successful in “loving America” terms. My brother is a 16 year enlisted Army man and has fought in every war over the past 16 years and can really tell you about this country’s National Defense policies since serving under Republicans and Dem presidents (oh yeah he proudly votes for Dems). We pay property taxes in 2 different states – supporting both yankee and southern economies, we still have a 300 acre family farm that we refuse to let be developed for commercial or high end use just because we like the damn trees and forest, we are part of an electric cooperative because they have a more sensible energy policy and practices, and we believe in the 2nd amendment and every season allow hunting on our family farm.

    The difference between Dems and Republicans – how does one define success – Dems define it by what you are doing for America not by what you have made off of America!

  80. Mojo says:


    Untrue. The primary motivation for Clinton signing those defense budgets was that they were only slightly higher than his proposed defense budgets. At most, the Congress would authorize an additional 5% increase in a proposed defense budget by Clinton. So, if the increase was so minute, why not sign it?

  81. Mad Dog says:


    Your argument is the casual series. It comes out of Aristole.

    It’s not a logically valid argument.

    It is the nose of the donkey causes the tail argument.

    If xyz happens, it was caused by abc.

    If abc caused xyz, what caused abc? (Not to mention all the letters between c and x. You’re excluding the middle as well.)

    And, Jeff, yeah, I was baiting you into it.

  82. Jace Walden says:

    Guys, I think one thing we can all agree on is that we will NEVER know any politician’s true motivations behind most things. It’s all speculation.

  83. Mojo says:

    Jeff Emanuel,

    I’m not so sure that missile can really reach the western U.S. After all, this is the same missile that couldn’t even make it out of the Sea of Japan.

    The question shouldn’t be if some primitive missile technology half heartedly offered by some weird North Koreans can reach us or not (which I sincerely doubt being that their military technology is stuck in the 1950s), but whether we are willing to build and deploy SDI and, thereby, initiate a new nuclear arms race.

  84. Rusty says:

    Jace, that’s funny. I gave you your retalliatory shot and then you decided to take a second one. Bad form. Now I owe you one. But I’ll save it for later…

    And there’s no such thing as a war that’s about “self defense” to everyone involved. One party wants advance an ideological agenda or gain resources (or both). The other party wants to maintain its resources or ideology. Therefore, it’s a competition. You of all people would be the last person I’d expect to be so obtuse about that analogy.

  85. Mad Dog says:


    Now you’re trying to bait me? (re: why would you rather wait for terrorists to come here again (and again, and again), rather than preempt that by taking the fight to them?)

    The only answer you would accept is built in to the question.

    My answer is way too lengthy for here. But, here it goes.

    The terrorists are baiting us into chasing them all over hell. Why would you want to play their game?

    Damn, I condensed that well!

  86. Bill Simon says:


    I’ve heard MANY a folk question the validity of Max Cleland’s story about how his grenade incident happened.

    AND, Ann Coulter’s comments last year (2 years ago?) about Cleland were one of the most hateful and despicable insults to ANYONE who served in the military.

    And to think that trashy bitch is the headliner for Sadie Fields’ Christian Coalition fundraiser in a few weeks. What a fitting tribute to the “success” (NOT!) of the Coalition to have that moron speak at your function.

  87. Mojo says:

    Jace Walden,

    I know what their true motivations are…political survival. They’ll do just about anything to get elected, or re-elected.

  88. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Eddie T, on your earlier post (sorry, just saw it): the US involvement in Afghanistan was much bigger than “we helped bin Laden,” much as our involvement in the Iran-Iraq war was much more than “we helped Saddam.” Both had regional strategic implications, as well as being global issues, with the anti-Western revolutionaries in Iran and the imperialist USSR being threats to us and our assets.

    Iraq never was “them.

  89. Jace Walden says:


    I’ll take the shot for you. Jace Walden, you are a sarcasitc asshole, and half of the time you don’t make sense. Good enough?

    I see what you’re saying. I agree with the premise of your argument. But, for one party, self-defense is legitimate. I guess if you really break it down, you can consider self-defense the desire to maintain resources and ideology…

    I see self defense as something different. I think self defense is the right to defend a threat to your life–regardless of what resources/ideologies you may or may not posess. And I think that people can grant the government the opportunity to act as the extention of that right–I.E. the military. But the right of self defense is personal. Nations defend “themselves” only because the people give them the right to. So at its core, self-defense is the bestprinciple through which to engage in a war.

    I still cannot fathom how this has ANYTHING to do with walmart.

  90. Mojo says:


    I believe Justin Raimondo already adequately explained the ideological agenda behind the neocons. Former Trotskyists out to spread American hegemony across the globe.

  91. Jace Walden says:

    I know what their true motivations are…political survival. They’ll do just about anything to get elected, or re-elected.


    You are dead on.

    But I will say that there are some great politicians out there in both parties that do what they do selflessly. They are a minority. But they’re out there.

  92. Rusty says:

    I still cannot fathom how this has ANYTHING to do with walmart.

    If warfare is competition, then it’s not much different from business. The rules are just a little different (i.e. – Wal Mart doesn’t have “blow them up” as an option to eliminate its competition for resources, whereas the U.S. government does).

  93. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Mojo — two statements, two answers:

    I’m not so sure that missile can really reach the western U.S

    It can. Without getting into (classified) details, I’m familiar enough with North Korean weaponry from my previous work experience to be able to state that unequivocally. But I understand the need (and desire) for backup info, so here it is from former DCI George Tenet.

    to build and deploy SDI [would] initiate a new nuclear arms race.

    How, exactly?

  94. CobbGOPer says:


    “Dems define it by what you are doing for America not by what you have made off of America”

    I see your logic now. You’re a socialist. Excuse me for valuing individual liberty over community rights.

    As for the Fair Tax, well, let me ask you this: if small business owners (who employ some 70% of the workforce in this country) were allowed to keep the money they normally get taxed for, you think they’d rather hoard it or invest it in their business, creating more and better-paying jobs for those making less? Sounds like a great program to close that “rich/poor gap” to me…

    This is ridiculous, since when has PP turned into MOVEON.ORG?

  95. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Mojo — “neocons” are “out to spread American hegemony across the globe”? How do you mean that? Do you mean American influence, American-style democracy, American corporations, or by actually making the rest of the world into Puerto Rico/Marianas Islands-style US territory?

  96. Jace Walden says:


    Corporate competition is very different from war. Sure, there are some similarities in semantics. But you can’t draw a comparison between two stores competing for customers by offering lower prices with two countries competing for land/resources by blowing the shit out eachother–which isn’t always a bad thing.

  97. Mojo says:


    What prevents a nuclear war today? The threat of nuclear retaliation. What would Iran gain by launching nuclear weapons against Israel? What would China gain by launching nuclear weapons against Taiwan? You see, nations like money and prosperity and they receive these things through global trade. If these nations launch nuclear attacks they will watch their cities reduced to burning rubble, their regimes thrown down, and they would most likely be dead, along with all their friends and families. The Soviet Union hated us, wanted to see us wiped off the face of the earth, and even had some crackpot leaders, but they never launched because of mutually assured destruction.

    What happens when mutually assured destruction is removed from the equation. Suddenly, to feel safe, nuclear powers are going to feel it necessary to build and deploy their own versions of SDI and/or develop nuclear technology that could penetrate SDI. Suddenly, we are forced in a new arms race to build nuclear weapons that can penetrate their SDI. A new arms race, sir.

  98. Jace Walden says:


    Lets take a time out here. I just want to say that this has been one of the best discussion threads in a LONG time on Peach Pundit. Plenty of controversy. Plenty of insults hurled in both directions. But a lot of good points. With that said, I can’t sit here at the computer any longer. I’ll have to get back with you all later tonight.

  99. Rusty says:

    Well, I can make any comparison that strikes my fancy. There’s just no guarantee that it’s a good one. It’s all competition to me. There’s just different ground rules for one competition type of versus another. Baseball isn’t the same as corporate competition either, but it’s still competition.

  100. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Mojo, thanks for the clarification on that. I’m just of the mindset that MAD (the Mutually Assured Destruction of which you speak) isn’t the best way to protect yourself — because you depend on rationality on the other side at all times. In other words, the opposition must have leaders who subscribe to — and care about — the fact that if “launch nuclear attacks they will watch their cities reduced to burning rubble, their regimes thrown down, and they would most likely be dead, along with all their friends and families.”

    With Kim Jong-Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and others, I just don’t see that.

  101. Eddie T says:


    I agree. The global implications in both Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran were enormous. Far greater than most predicted. That’s why I find it a bit silly to even hint at the argument that Carter’s mistakes in the reason are why we are here today. It’s murderously oversimplified to try to make that sort of argument.

    I’m going to research your posted document a bit. Forgive me if I fail to immediately trust the Free Republic and a blog I’ve never heard of to report on the authenticity of such a document, especially when I haven’t seen it picked up by anyone ever before, not even Fox News or the White House.

    And I’m certain that there were terrorists living and operating in Iraq. Just as I’m certain there are terrorists living and operating in Iran, Turkey, Hungary, England, Saudi Arabia, France, Syria, Russia, and yes…even here in the United States. That doesn’t mean that the best plan is to destroy the entire infrastructure of a county to get to them.

    Especially if it means, as the last few years have continued to prove me correct in believing, that we’re creating terrorists at the same rate that we’re killing them.

    As for fighting them there but not fighting them here, that presumes three premises I’m not ready to concede: 1. Our invasion of Iraq didn’t create terrorists who streamed into the country who would otherwise be irritated with the United States but not ready to end their lives to hurt U.S. citizens. and 2. (more importantly) That terrorists have decided that killing a few Marines here and there is a more worthwhile task than plotting another 9/11…a single event that could kill as many, if not many many times more Americans than have been killed the last three years in Iraq…and an event that would do much more for the ideology of “terrorism.” I just DON’T believe that Iraq is a higher priority for them than striking the U.S. 3. The longterm effect of the invasion of Iraq is more recruitment for Al-Qaeda so, after the conflict in Iraq ends…which one day…I pray, at least…it will….we’ve helped bin Laden et. al. recruit a whole new band of terrorists who will then focus their attention on more attacks in the United States again.

    I would be interested in discussing those flaws.

    I don’t know if I’m a liberal or not. But I do know that I’m practical. There are dozens of insane, awful world leaders out there. But I’m smart enough to know that some are not worth their removal, not for United States security interests. Not right now.

    Some we’ll try other methods with. Ask yourself why an all-out invasion of North Korea would be a terrible idea, and you’ll get why the mere presence of an insane leader is not enough for me to be in favor of an invasion, no matter the circumstances.

    The only reason what you call “lip service” would “ring hollow” would be if there simply weren’t any downsides to removing Saddam. Or if there would be no other way to contain Saddam than to invade Iraq. I don’t accept either of those premises, either.

  102. Eddie T says:


    Your characterization of me as a socialist either indicates ignorance of what a socialist is, or disengenuity. Which one is it?

    Wikipedia actually has a pretty decent entry on socialism, if you’re unsure as to the definition: As an economic system, socialism is usually associated with state or collective ownership of the means of production. This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers’ councils, or it may be indirect, exercised on behalf of the people by the state….For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism implied the abolition of money, markets, capital, and labor as a commodity.

    I don’t believe in any of those things.

    My political philosophy would actually be best described as pragmatism. I’m not bound to any ideology, but only what wins out in the marketplace of ideas as to the best course of action. That, obviously, places me at odds with this particular administration and the modern Republican Party.

    I’m not going to make the logical fallacy of creating a monolithic group of “small business owners” and determining what they would do. But I will tell you this. Not a single person has convinced me that shifting the tax burden from the rich to the poor will do anything for the rich/poor gap. Also, never have I met someone who has told me they have no interest in getting rich because the taxes will take a higher percentage of their paycheck. EVER.

  103. Eddie T says:

    Consider that my objection, Andre 😉

    Actually, just kidding, I should try to get SOMETHING accomplished today.

  104. I honestly didn’t expect this.

    I mean 142 comments.

    Good grief.

    Next time, I think I’ll just stick to innocent fluff.

    No more thought provoking blog entries for me.

  105. Decaturguy says:

    “128 Comments and climbing on this thread, Andre…nice job!”

    Yeh, but none of the comments have anything to do with Andre.

    And nice job Eddie T on calling out Cobb GOPer on his “socialist” namecalling. I haven’t heard anyone on this thread call for state ownership or economic planning.

  106. Demonbeck says:

    Next time you post, Andre, why not do it on something bland like the Senate race in the 49th district?

  107. Demonbeck says:

    “I haven’t heard anyone on this thread call for state ownership or economic planning.”

    Nope, so far they have focused merely on the redistribution of wealth. It’s good to have goals though.

  108. Eddie T says:

    Haha, Demonbeck. Well at least you’re making laugh out loud.

    Thanks griftdrift, Decaturguy.

    What’s the comment record on Peachpundit. Erick? Or are you even reading anymore?

    I still wish someone would take me up on my question. How do we WIN the war on terror? I’ve submitted a shift to special operations to take out individual terrorist cells, beefing up intelligence surveillance abroad, and a PR campaign for the hearts and minds of the undecided. What’s the conservative position?

  109. Demonbeck says:

    I don’t think that winning the War on Terror has one easy answer Eddie T. It can only be answered based upon the situation at hand.

    Establishing a reliable government that secures the rights of all individuals in Iraq and Afghanistan and can protect their freedoms with a valid police and military force is the first step towards that goal. Achieve this and the dominoes will begin to fall.

    The next step would be to heavily encourage democratic revolution in Iran.

    Diversifying trade with the Middle East would also go a long way towards building American influence and values over there.

  110. griftdrift says:

    I appreciate the honest answer demonbeck.

    It would have been nice three years ago if that goal had been stated clearly so we could have had a national debate on its merits. Of course, that would have meant Bush would have completely reversed one of his campaign promises to not be the policemen of the world. So, instead we got obfuscation of WMDs and overstated to plainly false connections to terrorists.

    But water under the bridge eh?

    We should definitely look at the present.

    The last superpower to try a so called domino theory no longer exists.

  111. Demonbeck says:


    hindsight is 20/20. I believe that has been said several times in this thread already. The entire world’s intelligence pointed to WMDs in Iraq (not to mention a lot has been found). American intelligence was backed up by several sources and Saddam’s regime was not cooperating with UN inspectors – who refused to force him to do so. Given the information laid before him, I would hope that anyone elected to that position would make the same call.

    Once we got in there, leaving before my previous goals were achieved would only serve to create another generation of terrorism and a new regime like Saddam’s.

  112. griftdrift says:

    Been listening to Santorum demonbeck?

    Anyway, with anything to find truth, you have to find motive.

    Why Iraq?

    Pretty simple really. Of the “axis of evil”, they were a ripe plum ready for the picking. The fact that Saddam Hussein played an unplayable bluff with his claims of WMDs and taunting the U.N. just made it easier.

    Iraq was easy politically. It was easy militarily. There was never any doubt that American forces would roll over the hollow tiger of Iraq.

    It was the perfect ground for experimentation with Jeffersonian democracy in the Middle East. Sadly, experiments don’t always work.

    But back to the whole WMD thing. Given that those very weapon inspectors said we aren’t finding anything and if you give us a few more weeks we can give you a definitive answer, I would hope any elected leader would have the sense to not gamble everything America achieved in the previous 16 months on imcomplete information.

  113. Mad Dog says:


    Not every major power in the world agreed with the UK/US.

    Very notable was Australia.

    The Australian equivalent to our CIA has (or had) 52 analysts.

    Not a big agency. But, they didn’t buy the UK and the US being so in lockstep. That was their rational for NOT agreeing that Saddam had WMD, connections with Osama, links to 9/11, an imminent danger, rogue state etc.

    Have to note the Aussie leadership went along for the ride.

    You’ll have to search a lot to find public discussion on that. I’d try The Australian, the national newspaper.

    I believe that Saddam was allowing inspectors into the country, but not cooperating. Hard to judge what would be cooperating. To some that means handing over massive stockpiles of WMD.

    The only WMD that has been found is not as you say, a lot.

    My understanding is that old, worthless shells and missiles have been found. Some of these maybe unexploded ordinance from the Iraq-Iran war.

    Nothing usable as a weapon was found. Even the White House came out on that.

    The problem remains the Humpdy Dumpty Syndrome.

    What if all the kings horses and all the kings men can’t put Humpty Dumpty together again?

    That childhood lesson had a very important point.

    Even Kings are not all powerful.

    Hubris, hubris…

    What was the name of that King that won the war but destroyed his kingdom?

  114. JP says:

    Big Mack and Bill Simon,

    I’m right there with this guy as a centrist Democrat. I suspect there are many more outside of the sphere. Republicans aren’t always wrong, of course, but there is far too much absolution of responsibility of those in authority by repeating “personal responsibility!” in that group for me to consider being one. Just as the right claims the far left has taken over the Democrats, I feel the neocons have hijacked the Republican party.

    I believe in incentives, in the free market–but not a completely and totally anarchist-like unregulated market, because that’s how you end up with Enrons gaming the system. Within reasonable limits, the free market is the most efficient and productive system . That said, to get anything out of responsibility one needs opportunity–and as a timely example, the right is far too eager to pounce on the truly destitute in New Orleans who lacked opportunity. Of course it was their responsibility to get out–and those who had the means but chose not to should be suffering for their mistake. But the number who had no means to leave (Except for the unused buses, which is a separate but related story) do not deserve the amount of bile that’s been thrown at them in the media by Neal Boortz type nutjobs.

    Not to get into that specific case study too deeply, I’ll just conclude by stating there are plenty of moderate and reasonable Democrats. Hate to break it to ya.

  115. JP says:

    And on that note, Andre, great post–however, I would argue that you’re not as atypical as you suggest in your post. I think the most vocal are the extremists on both sides, but that doesn’t make them the average.

  116. Decaturguy says:

    “I’m right there with this guy as a centrist Democrat.”

    I love it how you guys are calling Andre, a former Howard “Deaniac,” a centrist.

  117. Bill Simon says:


    You said this: “Establishing a reliable government that secures the rights of all individuals in Iraq and Afghanistan and can protect their freedoms with a valid police and military force is the first step towards that goal.

    Perhaps you are as uninformed as Dubya is about Islamic states: The people do NOT have their “rights secured” and the current Constitution of Iraq is, I believe, writen from the standpoint of an Islamic-based state. AND, this is the version written after Saddam’s reign.

    So, while yes, it would be a good goal to achieve that whatever freedoms they MIGHT have even under an Islamic rule are protected with a viable police and military force, I’m not entirely sure the country they will have at the end will be the Constitutional one that people like you and Dubious Bush thinks it will be.

  118. Bill Simon says:


    Perhaps you don’t know the meaning of “former?” Perhaps Andre has evolved a bit since Howard Dean has shown his real self.

    Or, perhaps Andre writes a lot differently than he acts. Maybe he is a stark-raving Deniac and I won’t know until later.

  119. gatormathis says:

    i been sitting up here reading this drivel all evening. this sure is getting to be one long blog. now i’ve got to clim down from this here pole and make a run to the outhouse…….brb………

  120. TPSoCal says:

    Welcome! I am a former Conservative Democrat turned Republican. I was raised to believe that the dems were for the working man, well not anymore. The dems are against the working man. The dems are WEAK WEAK WEAK WEAK on national defense and that is a fact. I would not trust them to defend Macon much less the entire U.S.A.!

  121. Decaturguy says:


    You are right about one thing. Andre will evolve any way that he thinks will get him more attention.

    As far as he being a “reformed” Deaniac, on his blog he supports Dean’s strategies for the DNC all the time.

  122. Mad Dog says:

    I’m gonna hate myself for this in the morning. Well, maybe someday.

    Oh heck!

    TP? SoCal?

    toilet paper from southern california?

    Those Dems. Problably couldn’t hold out in Macon any longer than Johnny Reb back in 1865.

    Didn’t they cut and run?

  123. mercergirl says:

    So earlier today when I read there were 33 posts, I come back this evening and there are almost 200. Wow.

    Anyways, welcome to the front page Andre- looks like you did good so far lol

  124. Mojo says:


    I confused on how they are weak on defense. Is it b/c they don’t believe Iraq has anything to do with the GWOT? Or, is it b/c they disagree with certain provisions of the Patriot Act, like where librarians are required to turn in certian reading choices to the federal government? You scream WEAK WEAK WEAK, but I don’t hear why they are so WEAK WEAK WEAK.

  125. JP says:


    Why am I not surprised by the “if he’s not a Republican, he’s an extremist leftist liberal Democrat” attitude?


  126. Dignan says:

    Is it too late for me to welcome Andre? 🙂

    Glad you have joined us Andre. I’m pretty sure you have the record now for the most comments on a first post.

  127. rugby_fan says:

    “it does make the country more easily defendable against ICBMs”

    All it does is give us the chance to hit a bullet with a bullet. The odds are against us to stop a missile if it is launched at us.

  128. rugby_fan says:

    It was the perfect ground for experimentation with Jeffersonian democracy in the Middle East. Sadly, experiments don’t always work.

    You know that that is patently false as participation in the Iraqi democratic system has only increased in each election.

  129. Decaturguy says:

    Andre is an unabashed Mark Taylor supporter – he supports the full Democratic ticket just because of their party affilliation. Just on August 25th, he based Perdue for cutting $1 billion for education. On August 24th he bashed Max Burns for inviting President Bush to attend a fundraiser for him. He has called Perdue’s Florida land deal “fishy” while defending Mark Taylor against ethics charges of accepting illegal campaign contributions. He has attacked the Georgia GOP for its “attack on open government.” He called Governor Perdue a “tax and spend liberal.” He attacked Senator Judson Hill for saying he was “pro-familly” and “pro-marriage” when he himself has been divorced and tries to use his position to change the child support laws. He called Governor Perdue a “liar” for saying he inherited a deficit when he came into office.

    He then attacked Hugo Boss for underpaying its workers when they sell $1,200 suits and stated that he supports the labor union in its dispute over wages and benefits at its Midway plant.

    And that is just this month – August 2006. I bring this up to point out that Andre’s ideology is not really what he claims to be. How exactly is Andre “not your typical Democrat.” He is pandering to you, folks. To say he is some centrist is disingenuous. He is a die hard liberal Democrat who only takes some “centrist” positions in order to get attention and spark controversy.

    Me on the otherhand, I have announced publically that I have not decided who I’m going to vote for in the Governor’s race or the Secretary of State race and would consider voting for Governor Perdue or Karen Handel. The Democrats in those races have not yet convinced me that they deserve my support.

    So be careful when you try to pidgeonhole people as “liberal” or “centrist.”

  130. rugby_fan says:

    Is Peach Pundit trying to create (at the very least an intellectual) monopoly on Georgia political blogs?

  131. rugby_fan says:

    he is a die hard liberal Democrat, no he is a die hard Democrat.

    You mention how he attacks Hon. Hill’s personal life, didn’t know that family values were left wing or right wing.

    You mention how he attacks the GAGOP for their obfuscation of Open Goverment, once again, I didn’t know that open governement was a left wing or right wing ideal.

    You mention how he attacks SP for “lying” about inhereting a defecit, he kind of was lying. Didn’t know telling the truth was right wing or left wing.

    I think being a Democrat explains the rest of his writing.

    On the other hand, you have Decaturguy who likes to act as if he is some great independent simply because he has a very self righteous stance of “I don’t know who I am going to vote for” (I have a feeling it will be D no matter what) and likes to say this in order to stir up controversy.

  132. You know, that’s funny.

    A “die-hard liberal” calling a Republican a tax and spend liberal.

    There’s one or two conclusions that you can draw from that.

    Either I’m not a die-hard liberal or Sonny Perdue isn’t a tax and spend liberal.

    Let’s look at Sonny’s record to figure out which is the case here.

    Sonny Perdue raised our taxes and he spent most of the state’s reserves.

    Does that sound like a conservative to you?


  133. Demonbeck says:

    Andre, that’s BS and you know it. The state’s reserves were there for a rainy day. Georgia was facing a budgetary/financial hurricane and Sonny tightened the state’s belt and got us through. Last I heard, the reserves were being refilled rather quickly as well.

  134. rugby_fan says:

    Demonbeck, we’ve already discussed this at great length.

    When it is written in the GA Constitution that there MUST BE A BALANCED BUDGET it is very hard, dare I say it, impossible, to claim a financial crisis in Georgia.

    You also fail to mention that RB had already made budget cuts to make sure that the state budget would be balanced.

    Simply reducing gov’t spending while not reducing taxes to me, does not make for budgetary policy that is in agreeance with Republican mores.

    And while I agree with you a great number of times, this is one instance where I must respectfully say that you are wrong.

  135. rugby_fan says:

    Andre said that he is not a typical democrat so of obviously the logical course of the discussion was neither about
    A) Andre
    B) What is a typical Democrat

    rather a debate about every Democrat president from FDR on and the implications of ever major policy proposal of the past 70 years .

  136. Demonbeck says:

    “When it is written in the GA Constitution that there MUST BE A BALANCED BUDGET it is very hard, dare I say it, impossible, to claim a financial crisis in Georgia.

    You also fail to mention that RB had already made budget cuts to make sure that the state budget would be balanced. ”


    It is true that the Georgia Constitution requires that the budget be balanced, which is why we have the mid-year budget process to account for revenue fluctuations and unforeseen budgetary needs. However, the budget passed by the Roy Barnes/Mark Taylor-led General Assembly and their grossly over-estimated revenue projections. As a result, Sonny and the new General Assembly were forced to make drastic cuts in the mid-year budget. If I am not mistaken, the Barnes/Taylor regime over-estimated revenues by $640 million.

    So while the state was never in danger of passing an unbalanced budget, Sonny’s first mid-year budget required him to either find $640 million dollars or take $640 million out of the budget for that year.

    The statement I made remains true.

  137. Dignan says:

    May I suggest that perhaps we have a bit of miscommunication here. I have met both Andre and Decaturguy and have found them both to be great guys, very intelligent, and willing to dialogue. I suspect that what Decaturguy views as Andre pandering to a majority conservative crowd here at PeachPundit is not that at all but is Andre attempting to be polite and find common ground. Afterall, as Decaturguy pointed out, it is quite easy to check out Andre’s blog and see that he is a somewhat liberal Democrat. So I can’t see that Andre is trying to convice anyone that he is a centrist. I think he wanted to be a polite invited guest. I am also guessing that once Andre spends more time here, he will put forth more liberal positions, which will hopefully result in some good discussions.

  138. White Rabbit says:

    So he has fouled up every other sandbox he has played in and now he’s over here. I give it two weeks before you people are screaming for the hook.

  139. Mad Dog says:


    I hate agreeing with anybody. Didn’t Andre say he was looking forward to a good and lively but civil debate here? Yup.

    A man looking for debate is pandering? I’m not even sure what that would mean.

    With tongue in cheek, can anyone get past labeling?

  140. one big D says:

    Andre says that he is not a typical Democrat, but what the hell is a typical Democrat? And wouldn’t that word “typical” differ across the United States? I can guarantee that a typical Georgia Democrat doesn’t 100% support Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton’s stance on any issue nor do they support Bill Richardson or Mark Warner 100% of the time.

    Andre used the tagline “typical Democrat” to pretend that he had some substance of the inner workings of Georgia Democrats – he does not! Yes, he is a pandering little blogger who trolls Democratic events in an attempt to be a part of the “in” Democratic crowd. He’ll never say anything truthful about Booby K., Roy B., or any other Dem that he wants to kiss up to.

    All of his comments are gut based, not factual. His comments create discussion because 1) you can’t believe he would say something so irresponsible or completely whacked and 2) you know that when you talk to him face to face he always has a very opposite opinion on whatever topic he blogs about.

    Many Georgia Democrats have a saying that “Andre’s statements are only good as his last conversation with whomever just pimped him”. He’s very pimp-able. Got a theory or an insider secret, then just feed it to Andre and watch him vomit all over the blogosphere. DG is not way off or player hating on his assessment of Andre. As I stated earlier, ya’ll can have him, cause the guy sure ain’t typical nor truthworthy. DG, remember when Andre was saying that he was all about voting for the person and not the Party until the progressives had to remind him that he was a card carrying Democratic State Committee member.

  141. rugby_fan says:

    As I stated earlier, ya’ll can have him,

    Can the Democrats esp in GA afford to lose any voters or cast any one out of the party?

  142. Decaturguy says:

    remember when Andre was saying that he was all about voting for the person and not the Party until the progressives had to remind him that he was a card carrying Democratic State Committee member.

    Yes, that was a classic one big D. But look on his blog, he’s still got it on there.

  143. one big D says:

    Can the Democrats esp in GA afford to lose any voters or cast any one out of the party? – now you know that GA Dems let every freak come under the big tent.

    JSM – I agree that both parties have been taken over by the “typical” party person and many of the “typical” party liners rarely do blog. and I’ll choose a Dem over a Republican any day. Or I will just opt of voting if the Dem hasn’t been clear as to why I should vote for them.

    Andre’s statement that he isn’t “typical” isn’t Dem shattering because he, like most National Dems, do not speak for every Georgia Dem. Nor does his definition of why he’s not “typical” describe progressive Georgia Dems.

  144. Mad Dog says:


    Still supporting labeling theory?

    I agree it was nicely said, but … and I don’t know Andre all that well … but … even I get cornered into agreeing with non-typical behavior in non-typical situations.

    If it were true, as JSM asserts, that “but at the end of the day each person claims his “team

  145. Jace Walden says:

    I think the point that JSM was making is that there are stereotypes. For instance, the “stereotypical” Republican is a bible-thumping warhawk who is against abortion, and against gay rights. The “stereotypical” Democrat is a free-spending, high-tax, socialist/pacificst liberal.

    While they are only stereotypes, ALL stereotypes have some grain of truth, and that grain of truth is usually embodied in the leadership of each party. Nancy Pelosi fits the “sterotypical” Democrat ideal perfectly; as does George W. Bush fit the “sterotypical” Republican.

    The problem with these sterotypes is that although there may be some truth, they usually do very little to describe the true values of the person or party.

    Oh, and I do want to say something about this comment:

    Remember, being a “Deaniac

  146. Mad Dog says:

    Hey Jace!

    Where does Nancy Schaefer of the 50th fit in to the whole stereotype thing?

    George W. Bush as a sterotypical Republican?

    I wouldn’t insult a Republican like that. Shame on you.

  147. Jace Walden says:

    I wouldn’t insult a Republican like that. Shame on you.

    Unfortunately, that’s what has become of the GOP in the last 4 years. The GOP has hitched its entire future to two things (1) The Iraq War and (2) George W. Bush. In the process, the National Republican Party has strayed…no…completely abandoned its core principles of fiscal discipline and small government. When G.W. wanted to create the largest expansion of the Federal Bureaucracy in U.S. History, the GOP said “And what else, sir? Would you like us to raise the debt ceiling to 10 trillion dollars as well?”

    Now, George W. Bush is the face of the Republican Party. Ask a Democrat about the GOP and I can almost gaurantee the first thing that comes to mind is George W. Bush. He has changed the stereotype, and in the process, betrayed the conservative legacy.

    I’ll be honest. I agree with what Neal Boortz said on “Hannity & Liberal Whipping Boy” last night. He said that the best thing that could happen for the GOP is to loose the House of Representatives. Let them sit at the back of the class for a couple of years under Speaker Pelosi, then maybe they’ll wake up and do what we elected them to do.

  148. Senator Eric Johnson says:

    I can attest that Bull is a Republican. He offers his heartfelt ideas and holds us (electd officials) accountable. We are a republic that demands educated and active citizens like Bull Moose.

    I think this board will be very pleased with an announcement that will be coming soon from the Senate GOP. Stay tuned….

  149. Mad Dog says:


    Is the GOP firing the great Nancy Schaefer because she’s nuts?

    That would please this board.

    But, then, didn’t you give the closest Scientologist some money to help her run?

    Accountable… but not that accountable.

  150. Mad Dog says:

    Just to clarify contributions.

    Nancy Schaefer recieved $19,000 in contributions from that GOP Senate Senator Johnson posted nothing about.

    Eric Johnson gave her $2,000 on 12-12-05 and another $2,000 on 6-25-06.

    Tommie Wilson has donated $4,000 in the same time period.

    Jeff Mullis was good for $2k.

    Johnny Grant, $2,000.

    Brian Kemp, the maximum $2k.

    Dan Moody — $2,ooo.00

    Cecil Stanton $2,000

    Jim Whitehead was good for a grand.

    Mitch Seabaugh, did I mention his $2,000 donation to Schaefer the closet Scientologist?

    All those GOP Senators getting a warm and fuzzy feeling from Bull Moose.

    Feeling the accountability issue yet?

  151. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Jace, the President is the de facto leader of his party, and the face of it; that’s how it has always been. That doesn’t mean that everything he does follows traditional Republican — much less conservative — principles; obviously, President Bush not only isn’t the “extreme, far right conservative” that the Left wants to paint him to be, but he isn’t even close to being conservative on several issues, spending included; however, he is still the leader and the face of the party, just as Reagan and Bush 41 were before him — and just as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were of the Democrat party during their terms.

  152. Jace Walden says:


    That was exactly the point I was trying to make. W Bush is the defacto leader of the party. He is the republican that gets all the attention, and he is the republican that democrats will be trying to tie other congressional republicans to during this years election.

    Thus, by writing him a “Blank Check” on pretty much every issue he has pushed (even the non-conservative issues), Congressional Republicans are, at a minimum, complicit in the failures of the administration, if not down right guilty. Don’t worry, I’ll still be voting Republican, but I think the best thing for the party, as Boortz said, would be to lose the house, spend two years in the back of the classroom under speaker Pelosi, and once they get back in power, maybe they’ll do what we elected them to do.

Comments are closed.