Incredibly smart man who spelled out the take-over of the Republican Party quite well.
11 Years later and still true.
Now that Obama is the puppet, affirmative action Manchurian President of George Soros and his 300+ taxpayer subsidized front organizations, which together own the Democratic/(National) Socialist Party, can you still believe this propaganda? Or do you understand that liberals are the fascists committing the very crimes that Keillor blames on the Republicans, and anyone else who dares to question the approved talking points?
This is one-whacked out Communard who, while liking Prairie Home Companion, I don't see much of substance in Keillor's analysis. The Republican Party has always been corporate-dominated and the Democrats, the Party of Slave Masters, morphed into a second party for the Corporate Masters. Neither speak for me or my family or any working class person I know. Those I know who vote, due so with no enthusiasm. I always vote for Nader or a Left-wing Green and agitate for a workers party of some sort. Keillor is so old school and wrong in his essay above that all he shows is that his mythology is worthy of some of the same satire he employs on his show. Or, a Drone by any other name, kills as well.
Wow, somehow I missed this and continued listening to the Prairie Home Companion. It's no sin to be a liberal or disagree with Republicans - i have never supported a prominent one myself - but being a complete bomb-throwing asshole is another story entirely.
Here's some wisdom from an ex-listener for you Garry:
"In the rush 2 vilify our political opponents we're more likely 2 become a reflection of what we dislike in politics not a force 2 change it."
-Democratic Newark Mayor Cory Booker
MT4 wrote: "Ah, Judicial Watch, another fake impartial right-wing site. Kerry never claimed to have won a ‘Silver Star with V’, only a Silver Star. It looked like a clerk’s typo on the citation. Again, making something out of nothing."
1) Trying to change the subject from John Kerry to your take on Judicial Watch is a transparent attempt at obfuscation?
2) Would a negative claim against John Kerry have to come from a left-wing group for you to take it seriously? If that were the case, then conveniently enough for you, NO claim made against him is to be taken seriously.
3) A typo? Adding a V is a typo? No. Spelling "Silver Star" as "Sliver Satr" would be a typo. Not adding a V. It's very specific. You're spinning again. Making excuses.
4) You also didn't address the other discrepancies cited in the complaint.
Define "reputable" polling, Phoebe. (While you're at it, define "moist dreams of empire" too, if it's not just more of your wincingly cute and disposable prose. Wait! Are you Keillor?)
Leftist preemption being what it is I just want to be sure of the "precise" nature of the language. Wasn't that about how you once put it?
Remember, keep it substantive. Us mouth-breathers already get the nuanced rhetoric.
"Nope, 4/68 Kerry was on the USS Gridley during the WESTPAC tour off Vietnam. That still qualifies as ‘in country’ by military standards, else you’re saying our navy personnel never served in Vietnam. Also, Kerry had been in the Navy since 8/66, did you know that? He’s an officer, he doesn’t ‘enlist’. You guys are just grasping at anything."----------
Yep! Read the quote by Kerry. You're spinning again.
You get into the semantics of the word "enlist", and then you turn around and say "You guys are just grasping at anything". You should probably avoid doing in the previous sentence something that you accuse the other side of doing in your following sentence. If you wanna play "gotcha" with the word enlist, that's fine, but you still have to deal with the following:
John Kerry (in a prepared speech at an MLK celebartion in 2003): "I remember well April 1968, I was serving in Vietnam, when the news reports brought home to me and my crewmates the violence back home and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of Dr. King."
The date of King's assassination was April 4, 1968. However, Kerry was not yet serving in Vietnam, but aboard the Navy frigate USS Gridley. According to Kerry's campaign website it was not until Nov. 17, 1968, that he reported for duty in Vietnam.
Today's lesson: This is yet another Kerry "discrepancy". One, that if instead were true of the Swift Boat Vets would lead to the inevitable "See, they're all a bunch of big fat liars".
I wrote: "“Are you unaware that the Kerry camp has had to admit that the first Purple Heart was possibly unintentionally self-inflicted?”
And M4T replied: "So? It still qualifies by Navy standards. Many purple hearts are awarded that way. Are you aware that Kerry earned 4 other medals?"
Acutally, sir, a self-inflicted wound DOES NOT qualify by Navy standards. It has to result from enemy fire.
Actually, sir, Kerry fostered the idea that it had occurred under enemy fire.
Actually, sir, some of his other medals are suspicious and there is already a full investigation underway. I already pointed this out. Don't ignore that I did.
Why is it that when a Kerry "discrepancy" is uncovered, it warrants only a casual "so what" when in fact he's the one running for President on his Vietnam record, but when you find a discrepancy within 254 Swift Boat Vets, it yields a "See there, they're all a bunch of liars"?
Are you unaware that your spinning?
[MN]"We don’t need to get in a twist negotiating with France and Germany for permission to protect ourselves against terrorism, and against those who would supply terrorists with nukes. It’s futile. It will sap our energy and our will. If they want to follow our lead, that’s wonderful."
[G]I'm not talking about asking their permission for us to protect ourselves. I'm talking about giving them the proper wake-up call to protect their own cities, so Al Qaeda can be guaranteed deprivation of oxygen over _there_. This has to do with the dangers Europeans themselves may be exposed to if they don't approach the dangers threatening them more seriously.
I forget where, but somewhere I read of some television comedian, either in France or Germany, who openly scoffed at the dangers posed by Al Qaeda -- and who was vociferously applauded. That misbegotten mindset is what has to be addressed more seriously by the commanders of the alliance -- and in this case, those commanders just happen to be the United States. The buck stops here.
I'm not talking about censoring such comedians at all. I'm talking about a more public and serious way of addressing a strain of skepticism in those two countries right now that I find truly alarming.
In fact, if certain Continental European state capitals approach the dangers threatening them in too half-hearted a way, that also impacts dangerously on us as well. Qaeda operatives there and separate Qaeda cells can operate with more impunity there (vide Hamburg) in planning further attacks over _here_, as well as attacks over in Europe. Thus, our own national security requires that governments like France's and Germany's be less truculent than they are today. Not only they are threatened by their attitude problem. We are too. So we have to work to change the attitude. It's that or more Breslans(sp.?), both here and abroad.
[MN]"Our opponents, the Islamist jihadi, have a clear and non-negotiable view of what they want to accomplish and we need to be similarly steadfast.
The French and Germans have 5 - 10% muslim populations, causing them significant security concerns. It will be some time before the Alliance forms again, but form it will, once the attacks spread to France and Germany. The governments in both countries are already in trouble, as is Russia’s. Don’t tell me terrorism doesn’t work. "
[G]Of course, terrorism works. That's one reason why it galls me that people in France and/or Germany may have to die before the kind of proactive measures we have seen in Britain, for instance, are adopted. Must we sit back and let France/Germany have their own Breslan(sp.?) before their governments take this seriously? Do their people deserve that?
I have been to both France and Germany, and I have met some wonderful people there. Why do they have to undergo some horrendous tragedy before their truculent governments are persuaded of the gravity of this threat? Can't we try harder to forestall the horror that may be coming their way? Try harder to make their governments see reason?
[MN]"Whoever wins in November, we must pull together as a country. But I’m voting for Bush and his team as being the best to lead us through this, and I hope you will, too"
[G]Well, I will take another look at Bush if he can pull off a real strengthening and multiplying of the alliance before Election Day. We will see.
I would also like to add that I am a fiscal conservative, and I am not too happy with the rather alarming deficit that's developing. Yes, I know that Kerry is not a poster boy of fiscal responsibility. But at least he's addressing this problem (a tiny, tiny bit), whereas Bush, IMO, hasn't really addressed it seriously at all. He tends to repeat certain generalities and then moves on -- that's my impression, anyway.
Still and all, a much-strengthened alliance remains my chiefest concern of all, since I don't believe the people of Continental Europe deserve another Breslan(sp.?) and I believe it essential that Al Qaeda have its oxygen 101% cut off.
Look, I want to thank you for engaging me in this patient way, since I am sometimes quite an ornery and pesimistic kind of guy. It just irks me that a clear and present danger like this one cannot be addressed in a more concerted and close-knit way by all concerned.
[MN]"It remains to be seen whether the Islamists in Chechnya will drive Russia closer to the USA. Certainly Putin has his hands full. The jihadi there have delared their intention to establish a Caliphate in the Caucasus: http://windsofchange.net/archi... (scroll down to the “interview") "
[G]I read it. An eye-opener. It may also be useful for galvanizing that part of the world against Al Qaeda specifically, not just Chechen separatists, who are more of a mixed bag, IMO.
[MN]"Meanwhile, the French have responded to Russia in their usual high-handed way:
“Indeed, we want to express both our solidarity over this act of terrorism against Russia but also we want to have all the necessary information and we remind Russia every time we meet of the need to respect human rights,” Raffarin said.
“It is natural that solidarity in the face of terrorism is balanced by this requirement towards our partners,” he added. --French Prime Minister Raffarin http://www.alertnet.org/thenew... "
[G]The kind of thing to say _in_ _private_, IMO, not in public when we are confronted with this horrifying slaughter of innocents. SHEESH. Talk about a tin ear.
Granted, what certain functionaries did over here wasn't exactly timely either. On the one hand, I have to partly agree with the "Old Europe" remark and such, but saying things like that publicly when cobbling together the most important alliance for freedom of thought in over 60 years, IMO, remains tin-eared too -- and it had unfortunate consequences. Still, it is not comparable to a statement like Raffarin's when addressing a massacre of these dimensions!!!!
It's like saying to someone whose spouse has just died from a destroyed liver, "Oh, but you know there was just too much booze around in the house." How insensitive and boorish can one get?!
I feel that, in general, one problem through much of the world today is an almost wilfully tin ear in many things. It's almost as if a wilful disregard of others' feelings is a badge of honor, a certificate of being macho, rather than sheer incompetence. Yuk. Clearly, the French are as guilty of this as we are, possibly more so.
[MN]Go to news.google.com and search on <french putin="">. It isn’t pretty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... 04Sep7.html "
[G]Look, I've never exactly regarded Putin as a poster boy for democracy. He was a big wheel in the communist KGB after all! No question, his treatment of the press, etc., has been regressive after the reforms of Gorbachev, Yeltsin, etc.
But if one's countrymen have just sustained the most deadly Al Qaeda massacre since 9/11, I suppose one is entitled to a bit of mouthing off. Yes, it may be inevitable for some to ask whether or not certain Russian excesses like the razing of Grozny, etc., may have radicalized the situation. One can't really blame a reporter for raising the question. But likewise, in the first flush of grief and bitterness, I'm not disposed to blame Putin for losing it when the subject inevitably comes up.
Both people here were being all too human: a reporter just doing his job, and a leader, however flawed, convulsed by disgust and grief. In any case, I don't measure reporters by the same behavioral yardstick as I do public officials. Their jobs are different.
[MN]"Paraphrasing a comment I saw on the web: “As enemies, the French are no problem, but as allies, they are treacherous.” "
[G]Candidly, this kind of broad-brush statement regarding any people always makes me uneasy. The fact that functionaries in a French government are behaving in a two-faced manner does not necessarily warrant extending that description to a whole people. I still feel, at the end of the day, that each people are made up of essentially the same mix as all others. Stereotypes -- like Polish are stupid, Americans are boorish, Jews are greedy, Italians are horny, Africans are lazy, Russians are drunkards -- rub me the wrong way and have caused too much unpleasantness throughout history not to be challenged, IMO.
I recognize that you did not cite this remark in such a spirit, but that remark itself has always made me a bit queasy, frankly.
[MN]"If they did join the coalition, they would contribute less than 5,000 troops, that’s all they can afford.
You seem to think that a coalition without France and Germany isn’t a coalition. We differ there. Who needs them? "
[G]Al Qaeda, that's who. Not their governments but their open societies. Let's not forget much of the 9/11 planning appears to have happened in Hamburg, not Afghanistan.
While it may be the case that both France and Germany are still engaged in the Afghanistan effort, I have no doubt that their being estranged from the leader of the alliance, President Bush, impacts in dozens of different ways, small and large, on their pursuit of the overall goal: eradicating Al Qaeda. How cohesive can any alliance be if at least two of its most influential members are on the outs with the overall commander?
Yes, I recognize, as others here have pointed out, that Continental Europe already has vast experience in coping with terrorist groups like Bader-Meinhoff(sp.?), and so on. But the vicissitudes of _attitude_, pure and simple, can still deplete such efforts, IMO, despite however many mechanisms there may be in use.
This war with Al Qaeda demands the most close-knit cooperation on in-depth intelligence and on a hundred associated things as well. Safeguarding European cities from becoming another Hamburg can only be achieved, IMO, by abandoning an essentially truculent attitude currently in vogue in both Paris and Berlin. Unless both these governments abandon that stance, vigilance will be compromised -- again, IMO.
The classic image of a chain being no stronger than its weakest link comes to mind. Hamburg has shown that many Al Qaeda operatives thrive in industrial capitals where their activities can blend into those of the general population. Only _one_ apathetic democracy is all that's needed for such operatives to establish a foothold in an industrial center. In this case, we have at least _two_! And they are two of the most cosmopolitan and resource-filled democracies anywhere -- outside of the U.S., of course.
How can one choke off the oxygen for Al Qaeda operatives effectively without every industrialized democracy, without exception, being 101% vigilant? Right now, I remain skeptical of France's and Germany's true attitude because of their truculence. I can't help that. That gives Al Qaeda operatives the oxygen they need, IMO.
[to be continued]</french>
Scott - I've been watching the Swift Boat thing carefully because I live in a swing state and, unlike most of the country, I've actually seen their ads. Can you acknowedge that Kerry has had his service in the Navy questioned and scrutinized repeatedly over the past 35 years? Are you willing to concede, as have many of the SBVfT's that (a) they didn't actually serve with Kerry in the sense that they ever laid eyes on him and (b) they are still very angry at him for his anti-war activities? Are you willing to consider that this anger, which is as legitimate as any emotional response, could play a role in their willingness to make statements about his service in the US armed forces? Let me know.
Thank you. Unfortunately, you are likely preaching to the choir. There seems to be an endless supply of citizens who either don't care to learn, or simply don't care, about the lies and treacherous deceits. They only care about simplistic rhetoric promising a rosy future, and do not appear willing to hold the Republicans responsible for the problems they have created. Last week, on the day Cheney embraced gay relations and the Republican platform called for the aboltition of any recognition of gay relationships, the head of one of the "family values" organizations appeared on television and stated the situation quite clearly. He denounced Cheney's statement, stating that prohibition of gay marriage and abortion were more important to his people than health care, the economy or anything else. One cannot make inroads into the minds of the single-social- issue voter. That is the crux of the Reagan revolution: convincing southern, western and midwestern blue collar workers that they have more in common with a white multi-millionaire who hypocritically espouses "traditional" values than they do with a black or hispanic blue collar worker.All we can do is speak out and vote. Again, thank you. David Kirsh
> No one holds the answers to fanatics who want to kill.
This is circular reasoning. One must look for a solution before a solution can be found.
6Pack - Now I'm crafty, eh? Well, I guess that's something, but coming from you I'm sure it's not a compliment :-). That would be truly alarming.
So much steam is usually the indication of some very hot water.
Now, genius, link us to a single reputable poll that shows Bush up by 10 points anywhere but in his and your moist dreams of empire.
"Ah, the fallacy that if a lot of people say something it must be true. If they ‘served with Kerry’ how did 254 people fit on a 5-man SWIFT boat, even in shifts? The fact that their stories contradict each other do not help their cause. As you know, 9 out of the 10 who served under Kerry backed his story, pretty good ratio for me."
Ah, the fallacy of the Strawman argument. Where in fact did I say that "if a lot of people say something it must be true"? No sir. What I DID do was to point out that you have a lot more veterans saying that Kerry is lying sack of shit than are standing up for him. Like it or not, that IS significant, and DOES warrant an investigation - an OBJECTIVE one.
And then you turn around and tell me that "9 out of the 10 who served under Kerry backed his story, pretty good ratio for me."
Ah, the fallacy that if a lot of people say something it must be true.