(Page 3 of 8)
br> Re: David Hogberg's Scoundrel Slime : /p> p>This concerns the article "Scoundrel Slime." In the article, Hogberg claims that Krugman's definition of patriotism, "whether you are willing to take risks and make sacrifices, including political sacrifices, for the sake of your country," supports the fact that Bush is a patriot, saying that Bush is benefiting our country with the war and his sacrifice is his loss in American approval. I disagree. I believe that by the definition, Bush is not a patriot; he is sacrificing our country for the sake of his own little whims and grudges about Iraq. This war on Iraq has not been for the good of our country, but has only succeeded in killing over 300 American soldiers, far more than would have been killed by the "WMD threat" if we hadn't touched Iraq soil. Hogberg also claims the war is succeeding at its goal, of liberating Iraq. If I recall, the initial purpose of the war was to root out WMD. You conservatives need to get your facts straight and evidences straight. No "shooting first and verifying later." Conservatives are not patriots. br> -- Stephen Powelson /p>Mr. Hogberg's on the political climate bears watching. Not by the pundits, analysts and reporters. The class of people who need to take note are the politicos. No state as heavily Democratic as California would turn out a Democratic sitting governor unless there were fundamental issues underlying the change:
1) Rank and file Americans have had it with the pandering. Politicians and newspaper editors should take note.
2) Voters are onto the class warfare gambit. The voters are understanding there are problems that need to be solved as Americans not as some class.
3) Voters are also getting wise to the triangulation of NGO's and their affect on average Americans opportunities. The defeat of California infrastructure initiative is a case in point.
p>I wish Californians well and hope their new governor can pull off greatest budget turnaround in history. br> -- John McGinnis
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
The speech our President should make.
A noted economist fires back.
How political can you get?
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.