Eminentoes
All the President’s Mavericks
The independent Republicans who usually give whoever is in the White House whatever they want.
“Forget Sarah Palin,” gushed the Associated Press’ Laurie Kellman. “The female maverick of the Republican Party is Sen. Olympia Snowe.” Soon it reverberated throughout the media echo chamber. “Take note Palin,” advised the headline writers of a Delaware newspaper. “Snowe is a true GOP maverick.” Asked another paper, “Palin who?”
So began the media lovefest for the liberal Republican senator from Maine after she cast a decisive vote in favor of Sen. Max Baucus’s (D-Mont.) version of a national health care bill in the Senate Finance Committee. Snowe is being portrayed as a living embodiment of the Founding Fathers’ vision for American government, an amalgamation of Margaret Thatcher and Joan of Arc.
Not even Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz can stomach it. He acknowledged that “Republican defectors tend to get good press especially, as in this case, if they’re helping salvage a Democratic president’s top domestic priority.”
“Imagine the coverage a Democratic senator would have gotten by breaking with his party to help George Bush pass his Social Security plan,” Kurtz continued. “No one hailed Joe Lieberman (yes, he’s an independent, but he caucuses with the Dems) for turning against Obama on the Baucus bill.”
The “maverick” meme was popularized by John McCain and Palin during the 2008 campaign, but it has since become a favorite liberal term of endearment for any Republican willing to follow the president into deepening the federal government’s insolvency. And mavericks, like misery, love company.
Lindsey Graham has also entered the maverick sweepstakes. Steve Pendlebury of AOL News enthused that “when it comes to going rogue, Snowe’s Senate colleague from South Carolina appears to have the edge.” Graham indicated in a New York Times op-ed (co-bylined with Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry) that he would be open to rescuing the cap-and-trade climate change bill now being abandoned by many Democrats. According to the Politico, not even John McCain finds the Graham-Kerry proposal persuasive.
Graham is also taking a bold stand against Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) and members of the tiny Constitution Party. “We’re not going to be the party of angry white guys,” Graham, a white guy, angrily told a town hall meeting at Furman University. “I’m not going to let it be hijacked by Ron Paul.”
Whatever one thinks of the Paulistas, this is hardly speaking truth to power. Paul rebelled against a president of his own party in voting against the $700 billion Wall Street bailout. He defied his president on the Medicare prescription drug benefit, No Child Left Behind, and amnesty for illegal immigrants. He even voted against the war in Iraq. Paul’s grassroots following, while vocal, remains a rump faction within the GOP. Paul frequently finds himself alone in the congressional wing of his party.
Both Graham and Snowe voted with President Bush on virtually all of the above. They now seem poised to be similarly solicitous of President Obama. It is an odd sort of maverick who demonstrates his independence by regularly voting with those who are in power. When moderate Republican senators saved the Obama administration’s stimulus plan, Ross Douthat, now a New York Times columnist, described their mentality well: “Take what the party in power wants, subtract as much money as you can without infuriating them, vote yes, and declare victory.”
Perhaps the real mavericks are the moderate-to-conservative Democrats, who are holding out for greater concessions from their party on health care and cap-and-trade than those that satisfy Snowe and Graham. Or the liberals of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who would rather deny a president of their own party a key legislative victory than give up on the public option they believe is central to their vision of health care reform. Or the conservative Republicans and constitutionalists who spent eight years opposing Obama’s predecessor from the right.
Mavericks of this kind seldom win as much favorable press because they are usually on the losing side of votes rather than the winning side. There is also a strong bias in favor of mavericks who vote for bigger government. When a politician stands against a bill enlarging the federal role in health care, expect any of their ties to the insurance industry or drug-company to be widely mentioned. When a pro-Obamacare public figure is in the employ of interests that, as Washington Examiner columnist Tim Carney put it, “stand to profit from Obama’s reform,” expect this inconvenient truth to receive less coverage.
And so it is with declarations of independence from the party line. The applause is always loudest for the putatively principled stands that involve taking other people’s money and bestowing it on the political class. That’s the kind of GOP maverick even the Obama White House can believe in.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (160) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Eminentoes
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/16/all-the-presidents-mavericks
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Robert Rosencrans| 10.16.09 @ 6:23AM
To paraphrase Lindsey Graham, the Republican Party is not being hijacked by angry white men, it's being hijacked by angry white wimps.
Josiah McGuffog| 10.16.09 @ 10:18AM
Lindsey Graham is an example of what you get when you vote for the "lesser of two evils". A "female" maverick?
Roy| 10.16.09 @ 6:28AM
"..Mavericks of this kind seldom win as much favorable press because they are usually on the losing side of votes rather than the winning side... There is also a strong bias in favor of mavericks who vote for bigger government..."
This is all true, but it's too complicated, and it's the kind of complication that is about making the writer look more clever than he would if he stated the simple, bald truth.
There is a strong bias in favor of Democrats belonging to the Democrat party promoting Democrat policies by supporting Democrat politicians whether they be Democrat presidents or Democrat congressman, a Democrat bias implemented by Democrat pundits working for Democrat editors and hoping to get on Democrat TV with Democrat hosts to meet Democrat celebrities.
drudge ette obama| 10.16.09 @ 6:46AM
Michael Steele, read my lips: no money from me unless you pledge not one penny to that god-awful Snowe.
Mavericks? I guess it is fair to characterize Snowe as a range animal, separated from her mother and ready to be branded by the one who soon will own her.
In reality, she's long been branded as a RINO (see her backsides), so maverick is no longer the term we should use.
As far as Graham, he is exactly what you get from the Carolinas - it's weird politics there. There is still antipathy against Republicans and the Blue Dog democrats aren't aware enough of what is going on with the Obama Admin. to vote conservatively. Graham is really a Blue Dog Dem..
WRTolkas| 10.16.09 @ 7:35AM
AMEN BROTHER - NOT ONE PENNY!
Al Adab| 10.16.09 @ 12:25PM
Send back your RNC fundraiser with a note to that effect. Why are the Maine Sens. still in the GOP? Reason: GOP still thinks in terms of numbers v. Dems. rather than principles. It was the Conservative meovement which brought the party success in 1980 and 1994. What have the RINOs wrought?
victor| 10.16.09 @ 10:29PM
Amen to that.
I have several "questionaires" that I plan to return on their dime.
Number one, tell them that you won't send them anything if they continue to support the Snowes, Collins', Specters, Grahams and especially the McCains if they don't stop voting with the demos.
Number two, there are plenty of Conservative candidates that need support against the "regular" read RINO, candidates.
They screwed up in reverse and supported Christie Christie in New Jersey instead of Conservative Steve Lonegan.
I had one Christie lackey hang up on me whenn I got him to admit that the RINO's did not support Bret Schundler. They have not called me since.
The RINO's need to be given the ultimatum that if you don't vote against Obama, then you won't be helped.
Better yet, tell them that you are sending money directly to any and all Conservatives running, whether state, federal or local.
And then, write down who they are and tell them:
NO MORE RINOS! EVER!
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 10.17.09 @ 6:27PM
I've already done so several times Al. They must not get the message though, beacause they keep sending them. Maybe we can bankrupt them by running up their postage bill returning their fundraiser letters back to them on their dime.
Pingback| 10.16.09 @ 7:01AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : All the President's Mavericks [spect links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Northern Rebel| 10.16.09 @ 7:09AM
I remember Lindsey Graham from the impeachment saga, Clinton deserved so much.
At the time, I thought he had the potential to be a great statesman.
Instead he decide to persue a path of power, and that being a suck up to the doddering old fool from Arizona was his most efficient method.
Now that the doddering old fool has been thankfully put in his place, Graham cracker has decided to hitch his star to the moderate wagon, which blows in the wind.
I frankly had more respect for Splash Kennedy, as evil as he was, because at least he had lines he wouldn't cross, even though that line included destroying my country.
Ol' Graham cracker can't even pretend he's not a hypocrite, sucking on the national teet.
You disgust me Senator, and we see through you, just as we saw through your brokeback mountain lover, McCain. I hope the voters in your state force you to get a job, you piece of excrement!
JBobs| 10.16.09 @ 9:40AM
The RINOS from Maine can be expected to act like liberals and still be elected... but how in the heck can Lindsey Graham continue to pull the wool over on the voters in South Carolina. Wake up SC... find a true conservative candidate and throw this bum out.
Bo Darville| 10.16.09 @ 11:29AM
Exactly what I was thinking. What's the deal with Graham? How does he fit with the SC GOP? Snow & Collins are the best they can do in Maine but SC?
S.L. Toddard| 10.16.09 @ 11:49AM
I can't understand what "RINO" is supposed to mean. All Republicans are RINOs, since the Republican Party is a party without a philosophy.
Although, if the GOP's performance over the last decade and a half is any indication of a philosophy, that philosophy is something like "Vastly expand the size and scope of the federal government, recklessly increase spending, institute massive and expensive new federal social programs, double the deficit through fiscal irresponsibility". In that case, all true Conservatives are RINOs, and Big Government statists like Lindsay Graham, John McCain and George W. Bush are the true Republicans.
Al Adab| 10.16.09 @ 12:28PM
Toddard:
You are correct (right) on this one although your definition is a bit flawed. . The GOP is RINO. Only the Conservative movement offers the potential for success and we don't even propose to put you in a camp when we win.
Margie| 10.16.09 @ 4:35PM
Snidely Whiplash strikes again.
Toddard's so confused, isn't he?
Yet he is constantly trying to define what constitutes REAL anything. According to him, the only true conservatives are the new age Liberal ones, like himself. LOL.
victor| 10.16.09 @ 10:32PM
RINO, for the politically challenged are those who should be democrats, because they vote with the FLAMIN' LIBERALS!
We should put them on ice floes and push them out to sea!
And then vote for conservative polar bears, eh?
orlandocajun| 10.16.09 @ 1:47PM
Sorry JBobs, but the sheeple of South Carolina just elected Grahamnesty to six more years last November.
victor| 10.16.09 @ 10:33PM
Maybe we can stuff him into a crate and ship him to the Orient on a very slow boat to China?
Big J| 10.16.09 @ 7:32AM
"According to the Politico, not even John McCain finds the Graham-Kerry proposal persuasive."
I wouldn't bet a quarter on it. McCain walks softly but carries a sharp knife.
All the better to stab you in the back with my dear.
Those of you in Arizona need to keep the pressure on this RINO. We've been down this road before, and Cap-n-Tax is way too expensive to rely on a squishy "moderate" maverick like McCain to vote against.
* Citing a visit he had to the Arctic with several U.S. senators last summer, McCain made it clear that he believed human-caused “global warming” was a certainty.
“It was remarkable going up on a small ship next to this glacier and seeing where it had been just 10 short years ago and how quickly it’s receded,” McCain told the New York Times…
…McCain also warned about what he saw as the rapid pace of Arctic warming, evidenced by the arrival of wildlife that had never previously been seen in the region. “The Inuit language for 10,000 years never had a word for robin and now there are robins all over their villages,” he told the Times.
Read the full story here:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008.....ler-heads/
roadmaster| 10.17.09 @ 9:35AM
Here in AZ, we are PRAYING for a solid conservative to bump off MuhCain in the primary. J.D. Hayworth is my choice but he's holding back, keeping off the radar of the lefties who unseated him from congress. A nitwit Tucson city councilman, Rodney "how does this affect my political future" Glassman is preparing to run on the dhimmicrats side. Just what we need - another lefty, narcissistic, self-serving puke in DC.
Melvin| 10.16.09 @ 7:39AM
Hmm what is a synonym for "Maverick." Oh Yes! "Political Jackass."
martin j smith| 10.16.09 @ 8:01AM
My view of John MacCaines,Lindsey Grahams and the Snowe and Collins types--they are Blue Dog Democrats-like--but they are not Republicans and certainly not conservative. Do they go with the wind ? Are they paid off ? -- or are they threatened in some way ?--who knows. Bottom line--they can only be counted in one respect--to reach across the aisle. Thus it is funny to ee a WSJ opinion piece which is complaining about why in NYS and other places the Republican Party's favorites and being challenged by more conservative folks. Thus the Repubs cannnot control the 'tea party" movement.
S.L. Toddard| 10.16.09 @ 8:18AM
Another excellent, insightful piece from Mr. Antle. Bravo, sir.
"I'm not going to let it be hijacked by Ron Paul."
Of course Lindsay Graham hates Ron Paul. Lindsay Graham is the living embodiment of the rancid, corrupt, corporate-owned Beltway establishment. Ron Paul is an outsider, and a grassroots favorite. Lindsay Graham is a champion of Big Government and the megacorporations that own it. Ron Paul is the champion of the American people that these interests seek to fleece. Lindsay Graham seeks to transfer maximum power and wealth from the people to the federal government. Ron Paul seeks to return that power and wealth to the people. They are opposites - Ron Paul is a principled conservative; Lindsay Graham is a reptilian agent of the corporate-owned welfare state.
"Paul rebelled against a president of his own party in voting against the $700 billion Wall Street bailout. He defied his president on the Medicare prescription drug benefit, No Child Left Behind, and amnesty for illegal immigrants. He even voted against the war in Iraq."
Each one of these votes was AGAINST reckless spending and the further empowerment and aggrandizement of the leviathan welfare state. Each one of these votes was Conservative by definition.
rt| 10.16.09 @ 10:28AM
Ron Paul is a nutcase and has NO PLACE IN THE PARTY! He surely does not represent my values. He voted to keep Charlie Rangel as Chairman
0f the Ways and Means. He supports corruption.
S.L. Toddard| 10.16.09 @ 11:44AM
"He surely does not represent my values"
Of course not. He is in favor of small government, fiscal responsibility, the Constitution, the Rule of Law, ending illegal immigration, overturning Roe v Wade, slashing the federal government and repealing unconstitutional federal social programs.
Believe me - I couldn't agree more that he doesn't represent your values. He is, after all, a Conservative.
Ryan| 10.16.09 @ 1:20PM
Though I think that Paul is paleocon-ically wrong on foreign matters, I completely agree with you here. We need more of him - radically small-government types - in the party.
I wonder how well he would have done if he wasn't an old white guy with some baggage.
Red Phillips | 10.16.09 @ 1:25PM
SLT, I pointed this out on another thread, but notice that Ron Paul is a "nut case." Not misguided. Not wrong. But a "nut case." Why do normally civil and intelligent people resort to such childish playground name calling? It is a sign of their desperation and fear. They know Paul style non-intervention is beginning to take hold on the mainstream right. (It already owns the "far-right.") And since interventionism is so intellectually bankrupt and can't be defended on its own merits, they resort to name calling, just like a bunch of left-wing PC Cultist resort immediately to the r word. It is really quite shameful.
S.L. Toddard| 10.16.09 @ 2:23PM
"just like a bunch of left-wing PC Cultist resort immediately to the r word"
That is precisely correct. It is not a part of honest debate - it is a intended to stifle debate: PC multicultis playing the "racism" card, or those with passionate attachments to Israel playing the "antisemite" card. They reflect the similar - really, identical - mindset of these slanderers-in-arms: My Side Is Right And Good, Everyone Who Disagrees Is Evil Or Mentally Ill. Thus those who oppose Obamacare are "racist", those who put America's welfare before Israel's are "antisemites", and those - like Ron Paul - who oppose the liberal welfare state and its projects at home and abroad are "kooks".
It's quite transparent, and revealing in the extreme.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.16.09 @ 3:00PM
Red
HOW DARE YOU PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH,,,LIAR!
I said "Ron Paul is a whack job"
I dare you to change my "childish playground namecalling" to your words. I stand on my own childish playground name calling terms.
Ron Paul is a whack job living in utopian Fortress America with Superman....and you?
S.L. Toddard| 10.16.09 @ 3:53PM
"Ron Paul is a whack job"
Exhibit A. The ideals of the Founders are so alien to contemporary statist Americans - so repugnant and offensive - that to champion them is considered evidence that one is a "whack job". It really does underscore that the contemporary right *loathes* traditional American virtues. They literally believe them to be a sign of mental illness!
Margie| 10.16.09 @ 10:55PM
The "contemporary right" would be you and your ilk, Toddard, and you know it. Ron Paul is by no means a conservative. From RonPaul.com's website: "Instead of securing our borders, we’ve been planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression. Within a few short years, we turned Iraq into the world’s leading breeding ground for terrorists." So he's another Lefty Loony who has the nerve to say something like this. He's a disgrace, and you and Toddard and your ilk may fool some people, but lotsa luck because it isn't going to work!
Margie| 10.17.09 @ 6:22PM
No Toddard,
Mental illness is when you constantly twist the truth to try and suit your own leanings repeatedly believing you will get converts to your cult of the new age conservative-ism!
Red Phillips | 10.16.09 @ 10:17PM
Ken, I was referring to rt's post at 10:28. He called Paul a "nutcase."
victor| 10.18.09 @ 11:16PM
You know, I actually agree, don't call Paul a nutcase, You are really insulting the mentally ill. Real nutcases don't choose to be nutcases.
Margie| 10.16.09 @ 10:36PM
LOL~~ "Paul-style non-intervention beginning to take hold" You wish! No, that's what you Leftists are for. You guys really believe if you say it enough it'll be true. "The Right," true conservatives will never be for your version of what you call "non-intervention-ism" which is coward-ism!
Rick| 10.17.09 @ 2:52AM
You neo cons will never get the congress, the senate or the presidancy with your "might is right", kill 'em all, let {your "loving"} God sort 'em out mentality. We havent had a war worth fighting since WW2. Americas millitary industrial complex is the greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the world. That and the "peace thru terror" United Nations. You are a PNAC, imperialist, Isreal defending POS, Margie. You and your William Kristol loving , Gods chosen people will burn in hell for your hipocracy. Youre type have driven people to strap bombs on them selves to fight you. Youre just as bad as the terrorists religious zealots you are so affraid of. If your type didn't start with them, we wouldn't be in this mess. Move to Isreal you terrorist POS.
Margie| 10.17.09 @ 1:13PM
Here you have Ron Paul's ilk on display, people.
Rick| 10.17.09 @ 6:17PM
Here you have the Neo con ilk, that has caused people to leave the Republican party and make the rest of the world hate us. Go start your own party of God squaders and Isreal defenders.
Margie| 10.17.09 @ 6:23PM
Sarah Palin 2012! God bless America!
Rick| 10.17.09 @ 8:44PM
Ron Paul 2012 ! Restore the constitution!!
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 10.17.09 @ 7:59PM
Rick, your padded cell is awaiting you sir. You give new meaning to the idea Liberalism is a mental disorder. People with your degree of irrational rage are in serious need of mental help. Also America's military industrial complex is not the biggest threat to freedom & democracy around the world. The biggest threat to freedom & democracy around the world are out of their coconut Liberal wackos like yourself.
Rick| 10.17.09 @ 8:41PM
No Ken, I really am a conservative. I believe in small government. Non intervention. No welfare state,no national health care , sound money , etc. etc.
I'm no liberal ,you Jack Ass .
victor| 10.18.09 @ 11:17PM
What you are sir, is certifiable.
Not only a padded cell, but a double breasted dinner jacket with extra long sleeves that button in the back
victor| 10.16.09 @ 10:35PM
At first I thought you said "suitcase", than I would tell you to send him on a long trip and hope he gets lost at the airport.
Al Adab| 10.16.09 @ 2:26PM
Are we beginning to detect a libertarian streak in you old Toddard? Is that what the "L." stands for?
Perhaps there is HOPE.
S.L. Toddard| 10.16.09 @ 2:48PM
I'm a Conservative, plain and simple. Nowadays people like myself are known by various euphemisms, as the term "Conservative" has been hijacked by radical statists, totalitarians, jacobins and other such leftist revolutionaries, so you might better know us as Ron Paul Republicans, paleo-conservatives, Old Right conservatives, the alt-right and the Real Right.
We are in favor of a small constitutional government, and *not* the sort of gargantuan totalitarian welfare state necessary to police the world and build nations out of thin air.
Al Adab| 10.16.09 @ 3:51PM
Good for you. Glad to hear a cogent explanation.
S.L. Toddard| 10.16.09 @ 3:54PM
Have I been less than clear about that? I think it's a position I've owned emphatically and consistently.
victor| 10.16.09 @ 10:37PM
When are you ever clear about anything?
As clear as Rangel's and Geithner's tax return, I suppose?
Margie| 10.16.09 @ 4:47PM
So Toddard,
A Ron Paul "conservative" as you call yourself, just so I have it right... means that under no circumstances would America go to war to defend itself?
Just asking.
S.L. Toddard| 10.16.09 @ 6:26PM
That's stunning, really, that you could be so ignorant as to believe it is a doctrine of the Old Right "that under no circumstances would America go to war to defend itself". Is this just an act? Be honest - is that something you really think? You claim to be an adult, no?
Margie| 10.16.09 @ 10:17PM
Mr. Pompous Ass,
I didn't assume anything. I asked you the question. I don't know how old you are, but you sure are nasty. Is that supposed to make you mature or something? So what is Ron Paul's doctrine on defending America? I guess I could always just go to his website and report back here with it. Oh, and it makes me ignorant and "young" to ask the question? Excuse me for not following your man, but I am not a blind fool.
victor| 10.16.09 @ 10:54PM
He believes that unless tanks are landing on our shores, we should do nothing. He doesn't believe that Iran is a threat and most likely did not believe that Hitler was a threat in the 30's.
He believes that we should wait until they come to us and then we should act.
Personally, I prefer a president that give money and aid to those who wish to fight communism and other dictators.
Rick| 10.17.09 @ 2:02AM
Ron Paul's doctrine on defending America; is for America to mind it's own buisness and not send in our CIA to overthrow democraticly elected leaders of other nations. It makes us less secure when America interfears with foriegn governments by stageing false flag opperations, paid off oppisition, and providing arms and money to opposition groups that are in "Americas best interest".
The people who elect leaders that they want to govern them, reguardless of what is in Americas {corporate} interests, resent America meddeling in thier nations leadership. How would we like it if China sponserd opposition and terrorisim in America to promote what is good for them. Americas foriegn policy never looks at what they do to others thru the eyes of the people that inhabit nations they want to control. Christian nation, my ass. The "golden rule" is out the window, when we need some resource that a nation has. Google "the school of Americas". It's nothing but a school of terorism. When we kill people in other countries, the familys and loved ones of the people who died , facilitated by the USA, are on the side of "death to America". You imperialistic bastards killed my Son,Father,Mother,Brother...whatever.
We need to lead by example and not try and police the world. Radical Islam was created , or at least encouraged by Kissenger and Brezninski to fight the cold war. The USSR went broke fighting in Afganistan and the USA will go broke too . This war on terror is nothing more than a conduit for America to get control of the oil,opium and run a pipe line thru Afganistian.
You neo con Christians are all for it because you think we are Gods choosen people, with "manifest destiny" on our side
S.L. Toddard| 10.17.09 @ 1:21PM
Precisely. Their standard for war is consistent with Christian Just War theory. War is and can be justified only when it is defensive, meaning A) in response to an attack, or B) to preempt an imminent attack of which there is a *clear* and *present* danger. It is the general standard that America held to for centuries prior to the Cold War, and even when it wasn't adhered to, an effort was most always made by the gov't to make it appear that it was.
The Bush Doctrine of Preventive (NOT preemptive) War (meaning war fought to prevent a hypothetical, future scenario) is a revolutionary, radical aberration.
Margie| 10.17.09 @ 1:32PM
And Toddard agrees with the sick Rick's warped view. He just is able to put it in a "nice" "intellectual" kind of way.
victor| 10.16.09 @ 10:38PM
Slo Todd can call himself whatever he wants, just don't call him for dinner.
Margie| 10.17.09 @ 6:12PM
"I'm a Conservative, plain and simple. ...you might better know us as Ron Paul Republicans, paleo-conservatives, Old Right conservatives, the alt-right and the Real Right."
LOL. Leave anything out, there Toddard? Just one thing Toddard. A true conservative is not an interventionist, not anti-Israel, not anti-Christian, and not ant-Corporations. Sarah Palin is a true conservative, not Ron Paul, who is all of these things. Anyone can look it up. It's all there. Thank God for the internet, eh, Toddard?
P.S. The Republican Party has been hijacked by the Olympia Snowes, the John McCains, yes. And it needs to be taken by back real conservatives, not by your phony ilk.
Margie| 10.17.09 @ 6:13PM
*should be NON-interventionist, above.
victor| 10.18.09 @ 11:18PM
No, the 'L" stands for Lunatic.
Or the Lusitania. Just waiting for the Germans to go by.
Margie| 10.17.09 @ 1:32AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
Ron Paul video where he (wrongly) quotes Sinclair Lewis. The quote belongs to Huey Long. Ron Paul mangles it but you can see that he agrees with it. R. Paul believes that "when Fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Another Left Wing Extremist who equates Christianity with Fascism. Great guy, really in his right mind, huh?
Rick| 10.17.09 @ 2:23AM
Margie, you, and people like you, are what is wrong with the Republican party and conservitavisim in America. I bet you think we should nuke Iran and are in full support of Isreal.
You imperialistic neo cons are driving people awy from the Republican party.
Ron Paul is bringing people into the party.
You neo cons have ruined the republican party and given consevatisim a bad name. You are just as bad as the statest left.
The Libertarian right , constitutionalists will gain control of the party and redeem conservitisim. Take your bible and read it, and start practicing what you preach.
Be not your brothers keeper, love your enemys, do unto others,judge least not you be judged and mind your own buisness.
Margie| 10.17.09 @ 1:29PM
God bless the U.S.A.! Ron Paul is a paranoid, sick man. He equates Christianity to Fascism, is anti Israel, and does not believe in going to war where needed. He doesn't fool most people, thankfully. He is not a conservative. Perhaps in your warped world he is. But not in reality. Sarah Palin is a real conservative, and the mere mention of her name causes your ilk to cringe like the vampire in an old movie where a cross is being held in your face and you yell "Back! Back!" Am I right?
Margie| 10.17.09 @ 2:14PM
Oh, and by the way.. as for judging, it's up to each one of us to do precisely that in choosing a candidate for President. Character matters. Not whether you are one, but whether you have one. And talk about judging, better take a look at your own crazy words! The Bible doesn't say not to judge, it says to judge with right judgment.
Margie| 10.17.09 @ 5:44PM
Wrong again, Toddard. Sarah Palin is the grassroots favorite! Better get used to it.
..speaking of reptilion, did you see the video?
Rick| 10.17.09 @ 6:21PM
You better get used to us Ron Paul Republicans, Margie war monger.
Margie| 10.17.09 @ 6:26PM
Yes Ron, our Armed Forces will fight at home and abroad for you, while you sit on your rear end cursing them.
Rick| 10.17.09 @ 8:48PM
Ron Paul had the most contributions from U.S military personnel than all the other candidates combined.
victor| 10.18.09 @ 11:20PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
victor| 10.18.09 @ 11:21PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
Derek Leaberry| 10.16.09 @ 9:09AM
Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are about as good as we can gete in Maine. Outside a ouple of enclaves like Bar Harbor and Kennybunkport, Maine is a rather poor state and many of the people have their hands out for government alms whether it be health or heating fuel.
As for Miss Lindsey Graham, what is it with South Carolina conservatives? Why is he not denounced by the South Carolina Republican Party? Why does not Rep. Joe Wilson and the other congressmen take Graham to task? Why is Graham's life made so uncomfortable that he hates life as a whole? A punch in the nose at one of these town meetings might be a good start. Miss Graham must be destroyed.
Old Soldier | 10.16.09 @ 9:45AM
Maine will remain a poor state thanks to their voting habits. It has one of the most hostile business environments in the country. The states competing for the "worst" title, NY, NJ, MA, CA - all have large populations, lots of skilled professionals, big port cities, and headquarters of large corporations. Maine has none of these, just stupid voters and politicians.
Tim| 10.16.09 @ 9:59AM
Don't forget it also has New Hampshire next door, all the sane business people locate there. For another example look at Vermont, which has an economic dead zone anywhere within 20 miles of New Hampshire.
crookedwren| 10.16.09 @ 10:20AM
Poor Maine. Just wait til they pass Cap & Tax. Talk about fuel bills!
Between Corruption (on EVERY side of the aisle) and the Leftist's "redistribution of wealth," the U.S. of A. is in an appalling state. Praying we don't become the USSA .
Red Phillips | 10.16.09 @ 1:34PM
Derek, the problem with Maine is not that it is poor. As a rural and overwhelmingly White state it should go conservative Republican. The problem is location. It is a New England State. And except for New Hampshire (and that is even changing), all the New England States have been voting lib for years. As far as Damn Yankees are concerned, voting conservative is what Southerners do. I say cut them off and give them to Canada where they belong and would feel more at home.
S.L. Toddard| 10.16.09 @ 3:02PM
I am a lifelong New Englander, and it's true. What's interesting is that rural New England is loaded with small-c conservatives, and yet they still vote Democrat. I think this is due to a number of factors: many of the older New Englanders (like my Memere) are loyal to the Democrats from back when it was the party of two-fisted Union democrats who they've believed, since the days of FDR, represented the working class against the moneyed interests of the GOP. They've raised their children in that same narrative, and though they (the now-middle aged sons and daughters of these FDR democrats) are often conservatively inclined, they see no conservative option whatsoever. For them it's a choice between the party of their parents and grand-parents, or the party of phony bible-thumpers, war mongers and shills for Big Business. I wonder if Ron Paul polled better in NH, VT and ME than he did in Mass.
There are some signs of hope in New England, however. Vermont has had a socialist in Congress, which I find encouraging because it shows a willingness in people to refuse to accept simplistic and demonic caricaturizations - I find it refreshingly honest for someone who supports socialism to get up and say so, rather than hiding behind the "progressive" label. And even more so, there are militia movements in Northern New England, gun-lovers aplenty and most of all the Vermont Republic movement. I could easily see myself living happily in a small Republic of Liberty-loving militiamen, conservative farm-bound Yankees and their principled socialist antagonists nestled, hashing out their differences at town-hall mettings nestled between the gentle mountains and white steepled churches of Vermont.
S.L. Toddard| 10.16.09 @ 3:16PM
Here is a piece by the truly gifted Bill Kauffman on the Second Vermont Republic movement. I highly recommend it to all lovers of Liberty and self government:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/dec/19/00016/
S.L. Toddard| 10.16.09 @ 3:25PM
Put simply (and whimsically - I don't think secession particularly realistic, though I think secession movements reflect a positive and healthy inclination in the hearts and minds of the people), I believe a Second Vermont Republic would get along far better with a New Confederacy than New England currently gets along with the South.
Of course, secession shouldn't be necessary. The United States are *plural* - we are supposed to be free and independent of each other, and sovereign in all matters that per the Constitution are not federal concerns. It is no business to person of one state what health care, welfare or public schooling people in another state choose for themselves. A return to 10th Amendment principles would preclude any need for a secession movement. As would the (perhaps literally) fantastic idea of putting wars to a popular vote, and having Yes votes serve as military registration cards.
Red Phillips | 10.16.09 @ 4:47PM
"or the party of phony bible-thumpers"
SLT, while many of those Bible thumpers may be phony, the problem Maine and the rest of the New England States have with them is that they think they are real Bible thumpers. The New England/South difference is partially a religious one. Many in the South still hold to that Ol' Time Religion and all of New England has gone the way of the lapsed Puritans before them.
S.L. Toddard| 10.16.09 @ 6:39PM
"the problem Maine and the rest of the New England States have with them is that they think they are real Bible thumpers"
That's really not true. The 'puritanism' that comes out of New England now is entirely secular. If that's the point you are trying to make then I agree 100%, but there are no massively popular quasi-religious figures in the northeast, such as those hucksters that draw thousands to mega-churches, and television evangelists and so forth. Neither represent any sort of "old time" religion, I think - they are perversions of that religion, Big Box stores selling self esteem in the guise of Christianity to people who have been brainwashed into equating celebrity with value. It's a radical religious transformation - a revolution, really. I cannot imagine anything less "Old Time" than crowding into a massive coliseum and watching a slick game show host portraying a preacher on 40ft projection screens, with a "Christian" rock soundtrack.
And please, Red - do not get your dander up thinking I am slandering the South for their religion (apart from the television evangelists and Big Box mega-church consumers, who are not confined to the South, really). That the South is still largely Christian is one of the many, many things I admire about it. I mourn the migration from traditional churches to these rather obscene perversions of them. My reference to "phony bible-thumpers" was not directed at church-going Southerners, but at cynical politicians, especially those who pose as moral, Christian crusaders while committing America to needless, destructive wars.
S.L. Toddard| 10.16.09 @ 6:43PM
Just to make sure we're clear, Red - when I said "the party of phony bible-thumpers, war mongers and shills for Big Business", I wasn't describing GOP voters, but GOP politicians.
S.L. Toddard| 10.16.09 @ 6:44PM
And I wasn't referencing the South at all, really.
Red Phillips | 10.16.09 @ 10:12PM
The "mega-church" stuff you refer to is very much a problem, but evangelical Christianity remains primarily orthodox (small o) with regard to the fundamentals of the faith. The mainline denominations do not. Some who attend them are, but the leadership, seminaries, etc. are corrupted. My point was that the secular and irreligious New Englanders look down on Southern Christians because they fear they actually do believe their religion, not because they think they are phonies. They would probably rest more easily if they felt their dedication to Christianity was phony. I hope that is clear.
Margie| 10.16.09 @ 10:26PM
Check it out folks, we have the Judges on high of Christians everywhere. Haughty Red & Pompous Toddard. I wonder how often you guys get down on your knees and beg for His mercy? Or are you too busy judging the rest of us lesser folk?
victor| 10.16.09 @ 10:56PM
They're too proud. They would never admit that they are lowly sinners and that there is a Higher Power. Namely the One who made them.
Red Phillips | 10.17.09 @ 9:53AM
Victor, did you even read what I wrote? I am defending the orthodox Christian Faith held by many Southerners against Northern apostasy and secularism. Try to follow the conversation.
Red Phillips | 10.17.09 @ 9:50AM
Margie, I am defending the Gospel "once delivered to all the Saints" against those who preach a "different gospel" which is what the Good Book instructs us to do. What exactly is your problem with that?
Margie| 10.17.09 @ 1:43PM
You defend Ron Paul who equates Christianity with Fascism, that's the problem. And you try to lead people astray. He is anti-Israel as well, he is weird! You and Toddard act like he's a god or something great but he is very flawed in his beliefs, not a man who would be right to lead America. I'm here to expose him, while you're here to sell him.
Margie| 10.17.09 @ 1:53PM
P.S. Even the "worst"of Christians would be more preferable to any man who equates Christianity to Fascism. (Ron Paul).
Red Phillips | 10.17.09 @ 4:19PM
"Ron Paul who equates Christianity with Fascism"
I am not sure what you are talking about. I may know a particular incident you are referring to, but I don't want to reply to a partciular incident you may not even be familiar with. Tell me what you are referring to, and then I will reply.
Ron Paul is a Christian. He attends a Baptist Church in his Texas district. He released a statement of faith during the campaign attesting to his faith. Leftist libertarians have been critical of Paul because he is a believer and is not a moral libertine.
He is not anti-Israel. He is pro-American neutrality. Are you really not able to make that distinction?
Margie| 10.17.09 @ 5:16PM
The more I listen to this guy (Ron Paul), the more I think he actually belongs in the Democrat party. He argues against war, calls America the "Aggressor," (typical Liberal Dem.) Is against funding our Military,(typical Liberal Dem), is against helping Israel (typical Liberal Dem.) The guy's an 70 yr. old Peacenik! A sad old one, at that.
Red Phillips | 10.17.09 @ 7:42PM
Seriously Margie, are you really that much of a dichotomous thinker? Ron Paul supports limited government in both our domestic and foreign affairs. You do not support limited government when it comes to foreign meddling. Do you really not see that?
Margie| 10.17.09 @ 5:33PM
"Statement on H Res 34, Recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, Reaffirming the United States strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process"
~He voted against this Bill. He IS anti-Israel! I just read this statement of his. Therefore he is a nut job, and no friend of any true conservative that is for freedom for Israel to defend herself. He calls himself a Christian? Ha!
Margie| 10.17.09 @ 5:35PM
Here it is in full:
Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
Statement on H Res 34, Recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, Reaffirming the United States strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process
January 9, 2008
Madame Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the floor with almost no prior notice and without consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one side in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or US interests. I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers. What will adopting this resolution do to the perception of the United States in the Muslim and Arab world? What kind of blowback might we see from this? What moral responsibility do we have for the violence in Israel and Gaza after having provided so much military support to one side?
As an opponent of all violence, I am appalled by the practice of lobbing homemade rockets into Israel from Gaza. I am only grateful that, because of the primitive nature of these weapons, there have been so few casualties among innocent Israelis. But I am also appalled by the longstanding Israeli blockade of Gaza -- a cruel act of war -- and the tremendous loss of life that has resulted from the latest Israeli attack that started last month.
There are now an estimated 700 dead Palestinians, most of whom are civilians. Many innocent children are among the dead. While the shooting of rockets into Israel is inexcusable, the violent actions of some people in Gaza does not justify killing Palestinians on this scale. Such collective punishment is immoral. At the very least, the US Congress should not be loudly proclaiming its support for the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza.
Madame Speaker, this resolution will do nothing to reduce the fighting and bloodshed in the Middle East. The resolution in fact will lead the US to become further involved in this conflict, promising “vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.” Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country? I believe it would be better to focus on the security and survival of the United States, the Constitution of which my colleagues and I swore to defend just this week at the beginning of the 111th Congress. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution."
Red Phillips | 10.17.09 @ 7:45PM
Margie, this statement stands on its own. It begins with his concerns about us taking a side in a foreign matter that is none of our concern as a good conservative should. Read Washington's Farewell Adddress and then get back to me.
Margie| 10.17.09 @ 8:05PM
Get back to you? No thanks, I don't smoke.
S.L. Toddard| 10.18.09 @ 9:03PM
Thank you for posting that, Margie. What a excellent speech from Dr. Paul. It says something sad about America, that common sense is so very uncommon that something like this - which should be utterly unremarkable in any America that still practiced the American way of life - seems truly profound and courageous. All Dr. Paul spoke was the truth - it is literally atrocious that terrorists are lobbing missiles into Israel, that Israel is blockading Palestine and that Israel collectively punishing a the Palestinians is immoral. Being a good, moral man, he questions what resposibility "we have for the violence in Israel and Gaza after having provided so much military support to one side". He then, like any true-hearted, patriotic American, reveals that he puts America's interest *before* the interest of any foreign state, and urges a foreign policy that does so as well, asking whether it is "in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country", and then recommends that "it would be better to focus on the security and survival of the United States, the Constitution of which my colleagues and I swore to defend just this week at the beginning of the 111th Congress." I guess whether not one agrees depends on whether one values the welfare of a foreign state over America's.
Margie| 10.18.09 @ 11:22PM
Toddard~ It was simply a resolution "Recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, Reaffirming the United States strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process."
How you can possibly defend someone being against doing that is absurd! He may be a "nice old man" in your eyes, but he cannot be defended in mine.
"I guess whether not one agrees depends on whether one values the welfare of a foreign state over America's."
~This statement is another attempt on your part to try and make it look like I, or anyone, who would agree with the resolution R.Paul voted against isn't putting America first. You are very insincere in saying that, and I believe you know it. You may have a way with words, but not a very honest way.
victor| 10.18.09 @ 11:22PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
S.L. Toddard| 10.17.09 @ 11:30AM
"My point was that the secular and irreligious New Englanders look down on Southern Christians because they fear they actually do believe their religion"
That's true to an extent, but that's not what repels them from the GOP, which is what I was talking about.
Margie| 10.17.09 @ 2:04PM
Toddard try to get out of it all you want, but you do what you always preach at everybody else for. Lumping people together. Does it take such a lowly person as me to have to point it out? I know you hate it.
Red Phillips | 10.17.09 @ 4:28PM
SLT, the problem may not be a specific one, but more that they are reacting to a gestalt. They see Southerners and to a lesser degree Middle Americans as Yahoos. One thing that contributes to our Yahoo image is our firmly held religious faith. They think being a Yahoo is a bad thing. I, on the other hand, a very partisan Southerner, would be horrified if anyone thought me anything other than a Yahoo. Therein lies the difference.
S.L. Toddard| 10.18.09 @ 12:52PM
Yes, again, I agree. Much as many in the South consider all New Englanders to be Godless fringe leftist libertines with no morals. Both generalizations are caricatures based in part on the politicians each group of peoples (New Englanders and Southerners) elect - people in New England make the mistake of making no distinction between the elites and the people who elect them, much as Southerners do about New Englanders. So yes you are correct, but that is not generally what turns people away from the GOP up here - it is the GOP itself. People have an inherited attachment to the Democratic Party, and even those conservatively inclined see no truly Conservative alternative - because there isn't one. Also, the religious faith of Southerners does not make up the largest part of the negative image many New Englanders have of Southerners. There is the race issue, which is always fictitiously portrayed as valiant liberty-loving Northerners bringing light and civilization to the backward, race-obsessed, violent South. There is also what many see as a disconnect between Southerners Pro-Life and Pro-War-Any-War stance. Between their fealty to the Prince of Peace and their love of bloody war. Between their fear of the federal government and their fetishization of Authority. These are negative reflections of the same contradictions inherent in the beliefs of the Left up here - but they are as blind to those (their own) contradictions as Southern GOPers are.
There is and has been since the beginning a regional dislike for one another to some degree. And since the Civil War at least, the media has constantly and consistently portrayed the South as backward, evil, racist and alien. These stereotypes, after such long and persistent perpetuation, come to be accepted.
Again, let me stress that I do NOT hold to the opinions I have noted above, as I hope you know, and it is not my desire to get into a regional argument. I am partial to the South, and believe that it has more often than not been on the right side of history, from the Civil War to States Rights and so on. That is, right up until the South elected to remain loyal to the GOP even after the GOP abandoned conservatism in favor of revolutionary, bellicose liberal Wilsonian internationalism.
Margie| 10.17.09 @ 5:58PM
"For them it's a choice between the party of their parents and grand-parents, or the party of phony bible-thumpers, war mongers and shills for Big Business."
Quite bigoted, aren't we, Toddard?
How about the truth? How about it's (Republican) the party of Bible-believing, America defending, and the voice for free corporate businesses enterprise and free entrepreneurialism?
Down with Toddard and his bigotry!
Gmartine| 10.16.09 @ 9:10AM
""We're not going to be the party of angry white guys," Graham, a white guy, angrily told a town hall meeting at Furman University."
hahaha! Classic!
Eric Cartman | 10.16.09 @ 9:30AM
When you see Ms. Graham get her dress bunched up, you know you're doing the right hing. If Ron Paul from my hometown gets Ms. Graham in such vapors, maybe I should take a second look at the guy.
NickInVirginia| 10.16.09 @ 9:41AM
Let's see if I can do the math.
The vote out of the subcommittee was 14-9 in favor of the bill.
All 9 "No" votes were from Republicans.
13 of the 14 "Yes" votes were from Democrats, 1 from a Republican.
If we take the 1 Republican vote away from the "Yes" votes, we get 13 "yes" votes.
If we add that 1 to the "No" votes, we get 10 "No" votes.
In which case the final tally would have been 13-10.
Which still passes the bill with a reasonable majority.
So the 1 "Yes" vote cast by Snowe made absolutely no difference in the outcome.
Snowe also stated that her positive vote in the committee does not mean that she will vote for the bill when it finally comes to the floor.
Maybe her strategy is to set the Democrats up for a big letdown a couple of months down the road.
Not likely, but it gives the Democrats something to think about.
W. James Antle III | 10.16.09 @ 12:05PM
Her vote didn't mean much in the final analysis of the Senate Finance Committee, but it does provide supporters of the Baucus bill with an argument that they have cobbled together something that can actually pass. That argument may be refuted if moderate Democrats still vote against the bill or liberal House Democrats sink anything without a public option. But it still represents one of the White House's best hopes.
victor| 10.17.09 @ 12:28AM
And that is the problem with RINO's, Mr Antle.
They are delusional when it comes to democrats as they believe that "bi-partisanship" is the Holy Grail. Democrats will stab you in the back every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
As long as you have these RINO's in the party, they will keep aiding and abetting the enemy and we will keep getting the shaft.
Don Werenko| 10.16.09 @ 9:43AM
Derek is correct. 55% of the residents in Maine are on some sort of public assistance. They have 'enjoyed' liberal governors (and legislators) for many years, including Snowe's husband, Jock McKernan. I spent this past summer in ME and it looked like half the state was for sale. Why leave a place when you are getting all those handouts?
They also want the 'state' to provide them with heating oil assistance since they voted to close their only nuclear power plant....go figure.
Poor state? Economically AND mentally.
John| 10.16.09 @ 2:36PM
Sounds like Maine is similar to my home country, Britain. Even the Conservative Party here is left-wing.
Perhaps Maine is the way it is because of British immigrants who are used to the big government, apathetic lifestyle?
S.L. Toddard| 10.16.09 @ 3:13PM
Maine is not populated by British immigrants, unless you mean the descendants of British immigrants from centuries ago. And if that would cause a love of big-government, the South (which is populated by a far higher percentage of Old Americans than anywhere else in the country) would be a bastion of Big Government statists.
JP| 10.16.09 @ 9:43AM
Moderate GOP Senators do serve a usefull purpose -namely to trim any conservative GOP agenda items, as well as to cross the aisle and give support to the more liberal Democratic agenda items. We've seen this now for almost 3 decades. Choose any Moderate GOP Senator of yore (Jefferies, Packwood, Specter, Chaffe, Hegel, or Lugar) and see what I mean.
But for various reasons, the voters keep these guys in power term after term. Can anyone blame Lindsay Gramm. The true path to power in the long run lies outside the GOP conservative base. Who wants to be another Jessie Helms? Life is much easier, and the rewards are much greater if one toes the line. Snowe, McCain, and Gramm are just continuing the grand GOP tradition. Principles mean nothing.
rt| 10.16.09 @ 10:30AM
All the more reason for a Constitutional Amendment for TERM LIMITS!
Grzmlyk| 10.16.09 @ 9:46AM
Lindsey Graham is one twisted individual.
Why couldn't McCain have gotten a chihuahua instead? That kind of lapdog poops on the lawn, not in the Senate.
Old Soldier| 10.16.09 @ 9:49AM
Snowe, Collins, and Graham tarnish the Republican brand. The party should vigorously support primary challengers against all three - even if it costs them seats in the Senate. In the long-run the party is better off without them.
Oldefarte| 10.16.09 @ 10:52AM
To apply an old joke, WE KNOW 'WHAT' SHE IS----WE JUST AREN'T SURE WHAT 'PRICE' SHE CHARGES! What do you expect from a MAINE Republican [I think they term that an OXIMORON]!!!!!!!!
Derek Leaberry| 10.16.09 @ 10:59AM
The sad thing about Maine is that it is such a beautiful state. If you love the great outdoors, love to fish or hunt or, on a clear night, stare into the sky at one billion stars, Maine is the state for you if you can stand six month winters. But you will be hard pressed to make big money. And if you make too much, you will be hit hard by the liberal state government.
Bob Miller| 10.16.09 @ 11:38AM
Voters nationwide can shift the balance in Congress to reduce the influence of these "Republicans", but they need enough solid conservative candidates to vote for. The Republican Party should not support its wayward good old boys and girls for re-election if they keep kicking their party in the teeth. That the party does support them is cause to root out and replace stupefied party leaders.
Son Of Sam | 10.16.09 @ 11:42AM
As long as the GOP continues to prop up the Arlen Specter wing of the party, they can continue to expect a never ending stream of envelopes from yours truly, stuffed with all the Monopoly money they could ever want. Heck, if they ask me to help get Graham and Snowe re-elected, I'll throw in the title deeds to Illinois Avenue and the Reading Railroad
stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com/
Dan Hansen | 10.16.09 @ 11:56AM
Unfortunately, I believe Lindsey Graham was just reelected in 2008. So he'll be in office for some years to come given that he has a six year term as a senator.
Lindsey is a good example of the kind of politician that has prospered under the welfare/warfare state. His coalition currently has firm control of the party.
watashi| 10.16.09 @ 1:33PM
There is a lot of difference between a Lindsey Graham and an Olympia Snowe. Graham has a 2008 82% ACU rating whereby Snowe's is 12% which makes her pretty much a reliable Democrat. Given the odds however, we are better off with a Graham who only wobbles slightly from time to time and even an unreliable Snowe than we would be with a reliable Democrat in their places. We were even better off with an unreliable 42% Spector than a Spector voting the Democrat party line. Yeah, yeah I'd rather have 100% ACU types in a majority in both house and senate but we will probably never see that so we need to be realistic and work with what we have and keep the pressure on them.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.16.09 @ 2:48PM
Check out this link, folks. It is a recent essay by one of my favorite authors; Orson Scott Card.
Powerful, and fresh.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/w.....-20-1.html
S.L. Toddard| 10.16.09 @ 3:49PM
My, my. A second thing we agree on! Enders Game is a SF classic.
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 10.16.09 @ 4:27PM
Ken: Good article!! I’m tired of getting kicked by the same mule again and again too. Did you get a chance to read, “Why Union Leaders Are Trying to Destroy Themselves” (Same website) 27 Sept 2009? It’s a good read too, thanks for the head up to The Ornery American (never heard of it).
A little off topic but, hey Toddard? How are your Red Sox doing? Let's Go Yankees!!
S.L. Toddard| 10.16.09 @ 6:41PM
Haha. You got me there. You win, you bastard!
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 10.17.09 @ 1:12AM
I’ve wasted thousands of words arguing with you this year, and I finally won-one, although it was a win completely off topic. Go figure? Maybe I should retire while I’m ahead. By the way, the Yankees won game one, only seven games to go to win it all.
Let’s Go Yankees!!
S.L. Toddard| 10.17.09 @ 11:32AM
STOP SAYING THAT!
GO PATS!!!
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 10.17.09 @ 3:36PM
Now listen, Toddard!! It’s not “really” Football season yet, and you know that, not until the entire Baseball season is finished. Then and only then, is it “really” Football season, but Baseball’s not over just yet. Unless of course, the particular baseball team you root for, is sitting back at home on their couches watching Football too (because their Baseball season came to an inglorious and suddenly shocking end), then I guess, it really is Football season in New England. But until it’s "really" over, I’ve got just one more thing to say to you, Let’s Go Yankees!! There is no way in hell that you are going to write back after reading this one. I win again Toddard, and it feels really very good for a change.
Now about that Health Care legislation,….
S.L. Toddard| 10.19.09 @ 9:22AM
59-0. Great scott, Tom Brady is back!!!
Also, I probably don't disagree with you on healthcare. I'm in favor of Tom Fleming's brief suggestion: dismantle the gov't mandated insurance monopolies, free up competition by deregulating, set up Health Savings accounts and urge the states to set up low-cost health care for the poor.
victor| 10.18.09 @ 11:23PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
Derek Leaberry| 10.16.09 @ 3:57PM
The issue where Lindsey Graham is most wrong is immigration amnesty and the demographic revolution that would entail if he gets his wish. Being correct 80 % of the time means nothing if he supports an immigration policy that would destroy the country.
Superheater| 10.16.09 @ 11:33PM
Graham needs a good primary challenge, the same way you tug on a dog's leash to keep him on track.
Of course this is more like a puppy needing a swat with a newspaper because he's defecating on the kitchen floor.
arlene | 10.17.09 @ 12:13AM
I remember Lindsey Graham from the impeachment saga, Clinton deserved so much. super slim pomegranate
meizitang
Yosemeti Sam| 10.17.09 @ 1:38AM
"All the Presidents' Mavericks" ?
No doubt these appeasers view themselves as a political Maginot Line - protecting GOP
interests. LOL.
roadmaster| 10.17.09 @ 9:48AM
I have a theory about New England, and the East coast in general. A process of Natural Selection explains why they are liberal and their distant relatives who migrated during the great Westward Expansion are not. All the freedom loving and adventurous spirits headed for the greener pastures and boundless possibilities of the frontier. The meeker, stay at home types, were secure in the status quo, and their descendants still are.
Pingback| 10.17.09 @ 11:23AM
Friday - Saturday Quick Reads | WTF?! Obama links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.17.09 @ 12:04PM
Obama, Shaka Zulu and The Planet of the Apes; Socialism 101 « VotingFemale Friends Sp links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.17.09 @ 12:19PM
Friday – Saturday Quick Reads « links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Sam| 10.17.09 @ 5:56PM
Oooh yes! I love watching the itty bitty conservative cannibals attacking each other and playing the ' who's more conservative' game. You people are a joke. As long as you play with your pricks, you will never challenge the liberal vicegrip that grasps our country. I am a moderate and I can't stand the right or the left, but we cannot bring sanity back to politics without some right-wing people who can sit down and compromise. Are you going to help us or will you continue to bitch about things you don't understand and can't control? Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are laughing all the way to the bank and you don't care about stopping them.
Pingback| 10.18.09 @ 10:28AM
YOGA FOR BEGINNERS Pt 1 | KurtNimmo.com : KurtNimmo.com | Yoga Beauty Wisdom links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.18.09 @ 11:17PM
Sunday, October 17th, 2009 « links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
kerry| 10.19.09 @ 9:23PM
we need to remove the RINOs....removerinos.com !
www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.2.10 @ 10:58PM
www.us-bapeoutlet.com