KERRY STEPS UP
Re: Jay D. Homnick's Kerry Throws a Party:
Senator Kerry sure stepped in the macaca this time!
-- Gretchen L. Chellson
Anything Jay D. (David, I hope) Homnick writes, I listen. Yes, LISTEN! I can hear the man speaking as I read his literary judo and cultural teachings. It is, course, a result of my having lived around (and run with some) Jews in my growing-up years. I imagined that TAS would run a commentary on "Snottier-And Stupider-Than Algore." J.D.'s piece was DELUXE. He dispatched one of the lowest of the SS (Satan's Sellouts) with the aplomb of John the Baptist, and the cutting audacious humor of -- Jay D. Homnick
Thanks for speaking my mind on this part of John "F" (pick of word, any word will fit) Kerry's self-selected low life.
-- Carl Gordon Pyper
Much is being written about John Kerry's recent slander of our troops, but much more needs to be said. Mr. Homnick says that the aphorism directed at him by a friend applies to Kerry as well. Wrong Mr. Homnick! Kerry could never be a wise guy nor a wise man; he can't pull either of them off simply because he is a preening prep schooled, legacy admitted Yale D (for dullard), well-married Boston Brahmin fool of a man. To paraphrase Dean Wormer in the movie Animal House, "Mr. Kerry, rich, arrogant and stupid is no way to go through life". But as Mr. Homnick correctly implies, Kerry is indeed the poster-boy of the upper-echeloned intelligentsia that rules today's Democrat Party and the MSM. These are the rapidly fading, 1960s bi-costal elites that are attempting one last stab, at what Mark Levin calls, their "Mercedes Marxism..."
-- A. DiPentima
Since we all are human it is not unusual to "step into it." However, it one "steps into it" one should avoid putting one's foot into one's mouth.
-- William M. Selenke
Kerry's claims of being "misquoted" are about the dumbest thing I have ever heard since Charles Barkley claimed he was misquoted in his autobiography.
-- Warren Mowry
I'm proud to be everything Democrats love to hate -- a white Southern male heterosexual Christian military officer. To make things worse I'm the son of a retired Air Force NCO, have a Master's degree and soon will have the equivalent of another one, I'm a lifetime member of the NRA, an active member of the SCV, drive an AWD vehicle, I'm pro-life, have two dogs, own my on home, have money in the bank, own stocks, vote straight Republican and love my wife. Too bad I'm so dumb I'm hoping to be deployed to Iraq in the near future to support the GWOT.
Thanks Senator Kerry for warning young people not follow in my stupid footsteps.
-- LT Michael Tomlinson
John Kerry is the gift that keeps on giving. In my living room, as testament to his stupidity in 2004, I have a Kerry-sized poster cutout that a German student gave my husband for his birthday. My husband's birthday was just days after the debacle of Kerry's last run. My husband, a Vietnam vet, cannot abide the man. I thought he might mount the poster on a tree in the back pasture for target practice but he didn't. Attached to the poster is a bumper sticker I had printed that reads, "John Kerry is an idiot!" During Kerry's acceptance speech in 2004, I begged my husband, a retired LTC, not to listen, as it would raise his blood pressure. With steel nerves he sat in the living room for all of five minutes and then paced the floor back and forth to the bedroom, where I'd settled for a good movie. He alternately yelled and cussed for the entire speech at Kerry. I still marvel at the creativity of some of my husband's pet phrases for Kerry.
My husband still remembers Kerry the man who committed treason during wartime by meeting with the enemy in Paris. He still remembers the taunts Kerry gave and the lies at the hearing before Congress. He still remembers being reviled and spat upon by other Americans, in part due to behaviors born on American college campuses. He still remembers. And so do others. Wait on Election Day and see what propels us, the silent majority, to vote.
And when John Kerry opens his mouth I thank God in Heaven for allowing that man here on earth. Kerry is the gift that keeps on giving. I believe we will say that on Election Day with all my heart.
-- Beverly Gunn
East Texas Rancher
John Kerry is a fool and idiot. And should he have the testicularity to visit West Virginia again, I invite him to stop by where I work. There, he can speak with an engineer who, as a member of a National Guard artillery unit, spent time in Iraq. Kerry could also speak with the manager, whose son is an Army major and currently in Iraq. If they don't give the Bay Stater a quick education, I know at least one other person who will.
Oh, I forgot: Both soldiers are college grads. And from what I can tell, they serve their country because they actually love it, not for political purpose. They also have no record of sympathizing with Communists during wartime nor aiding and abetting terrorists by their demoralizing, execrable statements.
-- C. Kenna Amos
Princeton, West Virginia
No forthcoming apologies? Maybe in a few days, John Kerry will reconsider and offer a Dixie Chick apology for his recent remarks. But it hardly seems worth waiting forâ€¦
-- Robert Nowall
Cape Coral, Florida
I don't have an opportunity to watch daytime news, as I ride herd on an active 4-year-old grandson. So I tape Fox and zip through it in the evening. As I saw replay after replay of John Kerry attempting to "connect" with another generation (when he is unable to even with his own) with his meandering "botched" joke, I thought Yeah, about as botched as the Cheney daughter reference in the debate.
But the longer his long face appeared, as he put his Dudgeon Denial Dart in high gear, I began to hum an old Glenn Miller song -- Moonlight Cocktail. Only it went like this:
Couple of jiggers of nuance
And one tin ear
Throw in a bungled election
A "Swift Boat" smear
Mix in a couple of dreamers
And there you are,
J. F. Kerry's falling star!
Cool it from '06 to 8
Drag it out again for the elec-tor-ate
Teresa will find once again
There ain't enough Heinz Ketchup
to make this guy win --
Well, I could not go on (and aren't you glad?) for laughing at the possibilities of this gaunt -- gaunt what? You can't have a gaunt buffoon, doesn't work. Gaunt oaf? No, oafs are gaunt, either. Well, this gaunt ghoul thinking he has any political future anywhere but Massachusetts, where weird is wonderful.
-- Diane Smith
South San Francisco, California
P.S. My apologies to Mimi
Jay Homnick's plays on words are a pleasure to read and his comments again are right on target. And again, the double standard raises its ugly head. John Kerry can deflect his critics and defend his remarks as "a botched joke" taken out of context all with the blessing of his willing accomplices in the mainstream media. When Trent Lott tells a joke, he is crucified regardless of how many times he sincerely apologizes, stripped of his Senate leadership post, and then marginalized for the duration of his term.
Without a sense of humor, even the best jokes fall flat. And Mr. Kerry does not have a sense of humor or he wouldn't take himself so seriously. My advice to Mr. Kerry is to leave comedy to the professionals. By the way, he should leave governing to the professionals as well.
Until recently, I felt no need for term limits since I could vote my pompous windbags out of office. Unfortunately, the voters of Massachusetts refuse to do so ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
-- Bob Staggs
What Kerry should have said was if you don't work hard and do your homework you might wind up in politics.
-- Dick Melville
Ozone Park, New York
DO FENCE ME IN
Re: Quin Hillyer's Campaign Border Control:
Quin Hillyer seeks to encourage the electorate to vote for candidates (mostly Republican) who are hanging tough on building a fence to curtail illegal immigration into this country. That issue, which so dominated the print and electronic media several months ago, seems to have, mysteriously, disappeared from public view. As to why, one could posit that the Democratic Party and their surrogates in the MSM are using Iraq as a bludgeon against the president and congressional Republicans, but this does not really answer the question. More likely is that the Democrats don't want this issue raised, but, gentle reader, many a Republican doesn't want it discussed either. For five years after 9/11, with the GOP in control of both the Legislative and Executive Branches of government, the signing of the bill to build an 800-mile fence along a 2000-mile border to make us safer is a perfect illustration of this administration's willful neglect in resolving the illegal immigration situation.
I was able to see a preview of Bessie's documentary, and I shall demur in stating how very direct the film is regarding the dangers posed by illegal aliens, but Bossier left no doubt of the peril we face when he spoke after the viewing. As to "...sometimes their (American ranchers) safety (is) threatened...." I suggest that Hillyer remind his readers that in the areas in Arizona where illegal cross the border en masse, U.S. citizens not only do not leave their homes without weapons, but many sleep with a pistol under their pillows! Sometimes, indeed!
Hillier is inconsistent, at best, in making the point of that danger, as in his statement, "â€¦how incredibly dangerous, is the issue of illegal immigration," then proceeding to this: "All that said, reasonable people can certainly disagree about what to do with the illegal in the countryâ€¦" I would think that government officials, if they were to fulfill their mandate to preserve and protect the nation, would, unanimously, agree that there could be no compromise with illegal immigration, for it represents an "incredible" threat to its citizenry. It is on that issue that former Reagan official, Richard Parle, recently described the administration's handling of border security as "dysfunctional," in that terrorists can cross the border with impunity and wreaks havoc. Does Mr. Hillier or those other "reasonable" folks doubt that such intrusion has already been made? Further, Mr. Hillier believes that if Democrats gain control of the House, the Fence Bill, which the President put off signing for weeks, will not be put into practice. The reality is, if the past is prologue, even with a Republican majority that may never happen.
The Republicans and a few Democrats in the House, all members of the House Immigration Caucus, are all that stand between passing a bill similar to the Senate's Hegel-Martinez amnesty, and securing our borders first. My suggestion is that before you vote, you check out that the members of the House are part of that stalwart group, and hope -- and pray -- that they are re-elected. For as night follows day, the Democratic Party will, if they are in the majority in the House, pass Hegel-Martinez in Conference, and the President will sign it with alacrity.
In the end, Quinn Hillier's attempt to energize the conservative base to vote for Republicans falls short because many (most?) Republican conservatives have given up hoping for effective federal action on this issue. Had candidate Jim Webb broken with his Democratic paymasters on how to deal with illegal immigration, he would, in my judgment, win in a landslide victory in Virginia. The fact that Hillier supports the Pence/Hutchinson/Credible lunacy (see my 8/15 comments in these pages) assures me that he, too, believes that the president can decide which laws he chooses to enforce. Why does he think that this administration has had an epiphany about the danger to our national security posed by open borders? Certainly, no evidence exists that it is so; if anything the opposite is true. I have heard and read that the Texas Republican House members wished to see the president about the issue of illegal immigration. The president refused to meet with them.
If there is hope on this issue, it is to keep the House Republican, and to re-elect those on the House Immigration Caucus; that will keep Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner chairman of the Judiciary Committee. While most, if not all, Democratic Senators are part of the open-borders cabal, too many Republicans, including presidential candidate in 2008, Senator McCain, are, too. That is why the issue of immigration will be, bar none, the most contentious issue of the 2008 presidential primaries and elections. You have my word on that.
-- Vincent Chiarello
As Quin Hillyer announced, the President has signed a law authorizing some fencing along (a meager part of) our border with Mexico. So much for the good news.
Mr. Hillyer goes on to note, "that even though the fence is authorized, it still must be funded through annual Appropriations" (is an 'annual Appropriation' somehow distinct from an 'appropriation', annual or otherwise?) On the general point, let me refer the reader to the work of Dimitri Vassilaros, of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
Mr. Hillyer is quick to suppose that "liberals," if given a Congressional majority, will be unlikely to fund the alleged barrier to illegal immigration. He concludes that, "Obviously, part of those promises still remains to be kept -- and the more liberal party will never keep it." Boiling it down, his position is "obviously" that the "less liberal" party will perhaps, maybe, some day, in some dimension of reality, keep the promise and fund the whole fraud, having missed this first, best chance.
I'm no expert on Congressional funding procedures, but am I to believe that all of the porkulent boondoggles of the last six years have been unfunded at inception and relied on "annual Appropriations" to swell the budget as they have? Well, I don't. I must suspect that Mr. Hillyer has been disingenuous.
As an aside, is there some new protocol substituting the expression "more liberal party" for "Democrats"? I didn't get the memo, but then, neither did I get the memo substituting "liberal" for "socialist" and "communist." I didn't get the memo about "annual Appropriations!" What the heck is going on?!
Returning to my point, Mr. Vassilaros, after substantial if not exhaustive efforts to pin down the missing and mysterious funding, found that, "No money is appropriated for the fence. DHS does not know the total cost. There is no start date for construction. No one can say when -- or if -- it will be completed." It should be noted that Mr. Vassilaros queried of those most likely to be able to answer his five fundamental questions about the fence. Even more disheartening than the conclusions quoted is the abysmal ignorance, across the board, of any plan to implement the legislation.
I don't like to be a cynic, but fate and the tides of life have thrust the role upon me, mainly because I like to be an idiot even less than I like to be a cynic. Mr. Hillyer says that we should reward with our votes "conservatives" (read, "opportunists") who passed this eleventh hour desperation nod to the will of the vast majority of voters. He has, apparently, been taken in by the President's bold, if belated, pronouncement that, "We have a responsibility to enforce our laws," We have a responsibility to secure our borders. We take this responsibility seriously." This after years of obstinate and arrogant refusal to do exactly so.
Read it again and think about it. I said, "years of obstinate and arrogant refusal' to enforce our immigration laws. There's a lot of proof in that pudding.
Well, bless my cynical heart, show me the money. Don't sit there and sign a check on a non-existent account. I once took such a check for a set of bedroom furniture. The judge said it was fraud, but I got to suck wind because I should have verified the check before I accepted it. It won't happen again if I can help it.
I believe that a massive outpouring of "non-votes" will not be mistaken by our masters. A vote for a member of the more liberal party will be taken as such, but a non-vote for a member of the less liberal party will also be counted in the 2008 electoral calculus. They know who we are.
Leaders of both parties will take account of each vote and non-vote. I will not reward any candidate for this travesty of a sham of a mockery of a fence. I will not be taken in by such an obviously empty promise, even if I (hypothetically) grant that the partial fence idea is sound.
I know and believe that my vote, however cast or not cast, will be number crunched in ways that will contribute to the formulation of the national agenda for the next two years. If I vote for more of the same, I should expect that I'll get it in some way, shape or form, to some degree. It will not be turned against me. The votes of the sheep will be turned against me.
Can so many be so easily and transparently manipulated by this fencing fiasco? I don't know, but my suspicion is that even as I write this, someone in Washington is "bringing down" the numbers on just what sleights of hand can still be played to influence next week's vote. For me, I find precious little to commend the Republicans after all these years at the helm. It will take some mighty, probably divine, November Surprise to wow me.
I'm not about to be stampeded into renewing the Republicans' tenure by threats of a Speaker Pelosi as if I had hooves. Let the Republicans spit in her Speaker's soup for a few years, as the Democrats have done these last 12 years. The Democrats' reward has been an utterly extraordinary, obscene, actually, increase in federal spending that they might not have dared even attempt. What might ours be?
Let the President find and use his veto pen. No one is seriously suggesting that the Democrats will win a veto-proof majority, by any means, and surely not against a Republican Party unified and principled (but what about Arlen?!). Let the President get to the front of the parade, energize the Republican base and get ready for a resurgent 2008.
Enough with late, empty and unfunded promises.
-- Mark Fallert
CIRCLE THE WAGONS
Re: Eric Peters's The Vista Cruiser Reborn!:
Being a "car guy" I always enjoy Mr. Peters commentary.
I recently completed a nine-day journey from Maryland to my new home in Utah in a Ford Focus ZTW Wagon purchased new in December of '03. Although not a crossover vehicle I find this FWD small wagon a delight to drive. Parked next to a Taurus wagon it is taller, a tad shorter and narrower and perfectly suited for me and the German Shepherd.
The twin cam, 16 Valve 2.0 four is quiet, capable and returned 35 to 36 MPG on regular gas at speeds between 65 and 80 MPH. The aerodynamics give the car a wind noise free interior and it has a firm, comfortable, larger car feel on the interstates. Handling on the twisty bits is quite good and the optional ABS great in the rain.
Ford should be a little more aggressive in their marketing of this car as I was asked a few times what it was and when did they start making it.
-- Jim Woodward
Herriman , Utah
It is curious that Eric Peters failed to mention the Federal CAFE standards when he wrote on the origin of the SUV, and the rebirth of the station wagon.
Our friends in Washington saw fit to limit the mileage on passenger cars and on light trucks. To meet the requirements, the car companies chose to sell more small cares, and fewer "large cars." This was done by increasing the price of large cars, and only offering these vehicles with more options. This helps explain why you can't get a big standard car, like the old Impalas.
So, the consumer voted with their wallets. If they couldn't get a large, non-luxury, family car, they went for a small family truck. That was the birth of the SUV.
So, in essence, the CAFE standards may have led to the development of the SUV craze.
-- Raymond Rogers
In your contempt for the big SUV, you've ignored the one thing that big SUV's have that your crossovers don't -- towing capacity.
I just bought my second Yukon (used) to replace my old 1995 Yukon with 190,000 miles on it. My towing requirements had not changed, and the Yukon is one of the best vehicles on the market, at a used car price, for meeting those requirements. The crossover vehicles are great for hauling groceries at an economical cost, but if one has any real recreational inclinations, one might need something that has a little more capability than wheelbarrow hauling capacity.
Frankly, if I had your disdain for SUV's and didn't need one, I wouldn't buy a crossover either. I'd much rather spend the money on a luxury car and drive in comfort. The crossover vehicles I've been in don't even match the comfort level of my Yukon.
EX- MARKS THE SPOT
Re: Larry Thornberry's Orange Blossom Madness:
I wanted to comment on Mr. Thornberry's article about not letting (ex?-) felons vote in Florida.
I'm as Republican as they come. I strongly support the right to carry arms, the war against terrorism, free trade, the border fence and cracking down on illegal immigration, restrictions on abortion, low taxes, less regulation, death penalty, three strikes and you're out, etc.
However, I support allowing ex-felons getting their right to vote back. If the ex-felon is NOT on parole and has fully served their sentence (reduced or not by a prosecution deal), they should have the opportunity to join decent law abiding society.
I realize that most ex-felons will re-offend, but the small minority who do re-enter society deserve the right to vote.
Maybe I'm being incredibly naive here, but to me it is about fairness. If you've fully served your prison time and parole, a person should get a chance to be decent citizen.
-- Will Johnson
As a long time resident of The Sunshine State I must comment on this essay. It is, as our British cousins say, "spot on." It is of considerable wonder to me that in a state of some 14 millions of people we can find only two men of such modest intellect and considerably less achievement to run for Governor. Mr. Crist is a likable man if you're fond of sun browned skin and bleached white hair and barely discernible intellect. His opponent is even less distinguished. He, it seems, has been a Congressman for some time and this somehow ensures us that he "will stand up to the insurance companies and special interest groups." His name should be Casper the (over) friendly ghost for apparently like most democrats, he has done quite literally nothing -- and in the doing of nothing has attended very few sessions of Congress to vote -- save raise money for his re-elections.
To H. L. Mencken's wonderful quote on the near impossibility of losing money by underestimating America's intelligence, it is entirely appropriate in this context to paraphrase one other quote attributed to Samuel Clements: These are two truly modest men, with a great deal to be modest about.
-- Jay W. Molyneaux
WHAT THE REAPER SOWS
Re: James Poulos's Don't Fear the Reaper:
I thought James Poulos's column pointed out an obvious fact that is currently being ignored. Since early October I tried to imagine how a Pelosi/Reid Congress would operate. The pipe dream of a veto proof Congress is just that -- a pipe dream. The Democrats would enjoy a bare majority of 10-15 House seats; in the Senate their majority can be counted on 1 finger. Like James said, the President would surely discover his veto pen. The GOP Minority could put the Democratic Majority on the defensive almost immediately by reminding Americans that the 2003 tax cuts are due to expire. The President could also rediscover the bully pulpit on a whole host of issues (judicial nominations, War on Terror, the looming Social Security crisis, and weapons proliferation). More than likely, events will probably dictate how thing will pan out. Iranian bellicosity, a fiscal crisis, or a natural catastrophe or terror strike could very well force the Democratic Majority to stand for something other than their own lust for power.
James Poulos also pointed out another point: Americans for 25 years have become culturally more conservative; the National Democratic Party, on the contrary has moved ever farther Left. If you look at key races in Indiana, North Carolina, and elsewhere, the local democratic candidates are running either as conservative as their GOP opponent, or in some cases even more to the Right. Both the House and Senate Democratic leadership will have to contend with these conservatives in their own party. Again, if Bush forces key legislation to go to either a floor vote or cloture, the Democrats will either have to go along or risk being labeled obstructionists. Many House Democrats risk being 1 term wonders if they vote against making the tax cuts permanent, or vote to withdraw from Iraq before it is stabilized. The days of the Bait and Switch are over. And if Pelosi decides to bring up articles of impeachment against Bush (the NetRoots are all but demanding it), her reign as Speaker will one of the shortest.
Many across the country have wondered whether our political system is able to withstand the challenges that the future brings (out of control federal spending, nuclear proliferation, illegal immigration, world wide terror, to name a few). Since 2001, the GOP is vulnerable to criticisms from the Right. The national GOP party has exasperated matters. The House continues to be a revolving ATM and all of the ethic problems that entails, while the Senate Republicans race to see how far to the Left they can go (i.e. Lindsey Graham, Chuck Hagel, John McCain, Arlen Specter). The GOP Senate has given America McCain/Feingold; they have obstructed key federal judicial nominations, and they continue to back illegal amnesty. The Democrats are smart to pick up on this; unfortunately, they offer little change other than party affiliation. The Democrats refuse to offer a sound agenda of their own, whether it's fiscal matters, foreign policy, or national security. It will be perhaps the first time in modern American politics that one party can assume the majority with absolutely nothing substantial to say. Maybe the electorate is willing to give the Democrats one last chance to atone for past failings. If that's the case, Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi may have gotten more than they bargained for. I seriously doubt that they will be up to the challenge.
If Democrats win on 7 NOV the message to the GOP is not move to the right, but to the left. The victims this election cycle will be primarily conservatives beaten by Democrat "conservatives and moderates" or wolves in sheep's clothing. Anyone who believes Republicans and conservatives have "the luxury of blowing an election" is a political neophyte or rube. The last time conservatives and Republicans lost the House it was for 40 years. If the Democrats retake the House it will have taken 12 years with unbelievable media support and near treasonous politicization of a war to do it. How long will it take a demoralized GOP to regain the majority? Hint, too many conservatives stupidly underestimate the Democrats and overestimate their own political acuity.
Like it or not the message being sent to Republicans wanting to win elections in the Northeast, Midwest and on the Left Cost is to run as moderates. Like it or not the Minutemen and Buchananites are driving future Hispanic voters into the Democrat's clutches. Like it or not the message to Islamic imperialists or fascists is that Beirut and Mogadishu were not manifestations of Presidential weakness, but symptomatic of an America morphing into a spineless Europe. Like it or not many in the conservative movement are sending the message that cutting taxes and never raising them, defending traditional values and life, national defense (the primary reason the deficit has grown under Bush), appointing solid conservative to the Federal bench and a booming economy aren't enough to secure their votes. Like it or not disgruntled conservatives are empowering the left.
If losing is winning or elections don't matter then the best thing we can hope for in 2008 is sweeping Democrat gains -- a President Hillary in the White House and another 40 years in the Congressional wilderness. The reality is that politics is about governing and if conservatives want to influence the course of the nation it is easier do to it as political winners than losers. Sometimes conservative "thinkers" are too smart by half.
If 2008 is a "watershed" election (unlikely) it will only be so because 2006 is a political tsunami against Republicans. Then the beneficiaries will be a resurgent and reenergized radical Democrat party. The most realistic scenario is that Republicans desperate to win will run a moderate using appropriately "sanitized" conservative rhetoric (McCain) and Democrats will nominate a triangulating leftist (Hillary with baggage or an Obama type without baggage). Please, don't kid yourself this years disgruntled conservatives will be some of McCain's biggest supporters to stop Hillary.
That's right conservatives don't vote or throw your vote away on a third party candidate and empower the left. It doesn't matter who wins elections. Hell let Jimmy Carter settle the problem with North Korea and Iran. Give Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer veto power over who's appointed to the Supreme Court. Let Charlie Rangel raise your taxes and Alcee Hastings oversee national security. Brilliant!
-- Michael Tomlinson
James G. Poulos is right. Even if the Majority swings or is reduced, it won't affect the lives of most Americans.
I quibble with the term "Nightmare on K Street." K Street will be just fine, thank you, regardless of what happens in November. If the Democrats pick up the Congressional Majority, for example, it will mean new opportunities for Democrats to become lobbyists.
-- Mark G. Michaelsen
Re: Sen. Russ Feingold's letter (under "Willing to Act") in Reader Mail's Hot Properties:
I'll give my Senator credit for checking out what his political enemies are saying and responding to them. But as a conservative and someone represented by Russ Feingold (it is a heavy cross to bear!) I would suggest that whenever you find yourself agreeing with his position that you STOP, immediately back up several steps, and restart your thought process with the primary objective of determining how it is you seem to be agreeing with him. The Senator is not as duplicitous as most liberal politicians, but he is generally still just as wrong in my opinion. NEVER forget it was this guy who brought you McCain/Feingold. Make no mistake about it. Now he is working with Senator Lindsey Graham (he's "Mini-me" to Senator McCain) on health care? Get ready for a health care program that will prove to be just as effective as McCain/Feingold but perhaps without the constitutionality question. Be afraid, be very afraid of the mild manner, reasonably sounding Senator from Wisconsin (unless you really like McCain/Feingold).
Here's an idea Senator, if you really believe we all deserve access (and I think you are way beyond just access) to health care "at least as good" as our congressional representatives have, lets talk about supplying you folks with a much less comprehensive package of benefits and lower the threshold to enter. It would be a start and maybe we could get away from some of the entitlement beliefs you foster in the people of Wisconsin.
-- Roger Ross