May 15-16, 2008
May 15 03:27 Rebuilding From the State Up May 15 10:17 Cowards Turn Tail May 15 13:11 I Told You So May 15 20:14 Is This Why Democrats Boycotted FNC Debates? May 16 02:03 ***GREAT NEWS ALERT***GREAT NEWS ALERT*** May 16 03:40 Hugo's Got Some Explaining to Do May 16 08:24 Back Door Amnesty May 16 18:34 White House Targeted Jimmy Carter
Rebuilding From the State Up
I've been pondering this after reading about the NRCC lost 3 straight special elections. The answer is now clear. It's time to stop pussyfooting around. It's time to start rebuilding. I'm not worrying about Minnesota House seats. John Kline and Michele Bachmann will be fine. Erik Paulsen should keep MN-3 in GOP hands. What I'm worrying about is having leaders who don't give a damn about Reagan's principles. It's been fashionable this year to dismiss Reagan. Ed Rollins started it. Mich Daniels told us to get over Reagan.
The day the Republican Party forgets about what Ronald Reagan stood for is the day that the Republican Party becomes Liberal Lite. Some think it's already there. I'm not sure I'd disagree, though I'm not that fatalistic.
The good news for Minnesotans is that we're building a strong farm team here. There are other glimmers of hope elsewhere, too. Jeb Hensarling, Mike Pence, Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn are helping rebuild the party. What we need is someone with a Reganite vision of conservatism. That person must have a confidence that liberty and prosperity are the cornerstones of Reagan's conservatism. That person must be an optimist. That person must be a leader with well-thought through convictions.
It's always been my contention that people didn't understand Reagan's greatness. Tip O'Neill and others thought of him as an "amiable dunce." Far from it.
We don't need another Reagan. We just need a true conservative leader. We need someone who doesn't pick RINOs when he can have a conservative.
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:29 AM
Comment 1 by Freealonzo at 15-May-08 08:17 AM
I think conservatives like to focus on the "idea" of Ronald Reagan rather than the actual President.
Would Reagan be relegated to a RINO when in 1982-83 he raised taxes across the board? How about when he was an eyelash away from giving away our entire nuclear capability to the Soviets. Or his absolute lack of action on abortion?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 15-May-08 10:22 AM
It's apparent that Alonzo is a revisionist historian. Ronald Reagan cut taxes by 25 percent in 1981-83. Now Alonzo is saying that Reagan raised them. Shame on him for trying his hand at revisionist history.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 15-May-08 10:26 AM
We don't need Reagan. We don't even need a strong conservative "leader" of the Party. All we need is for enough people to get together and describe conservative solutions to the problems of the day, in clear-cut, actionable terms, and then "sell" that agenda to the public and the candidates alike. I don't think our problem is that our candidates, by and large, are not conservative. I think it's that we keep asking each of them to re-invent the wheel, every election, and then sell it single-handedly to a majority who already believe it, if they knew what it was.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 15-May-08 11:01 AM
I don't think our problem is that our candidates, by and large, are not conservative.
That's where we disagree. There's too many RINOs in Washington. I think we're fine in St. Paul in terms of the legislators in St. Paul being solid conservatives.
Another bone I have to pick with national Republicans is that they don't fight for the things they believe. One Washington Port or NYTimes article & they turn tail. Pathetic.
Comment 5 by Freealonzo at 15-May-08 12:24 PM
You can call it revisionist history, I'll call it facts:
In 1982 alone, Reagan signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.
According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.
In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.
In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 15-May-08 12:37 PM
In 1982 alone, Reagan signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.,/i>
TEFRA didn't happen until 1986. Please get your facts straight.
Comment 7 by J. Ewing at 15-May-08 12:46 PM
I think we've stretched the definition of "RINO" too far. Reagan said that somebody that agreed with you 80% of the time was an ally-- a Republican in this context. Considering how far left the Democrats have become, I think any Republican that agrees more than 50% of the time deserves our support UNLESS and UNTIL we can elect somebody better. Winning elections matters, and who controls the majority matters.
Besides, I think that many of these RINOs (the Override Six excepted) are just underinformed and confused by a lack of "direction" that ought to be established by the State and National Party. Yes, they aren't that "strong" on principle and let themselves get buffaloed by the MSM, but that's because they are "islands of principle" without a strong central grassroots-driven agenda.
We've got a chicken-and-egg situation here. If we could elect strong conservatives into a majority, we would likely get a conservative agenda enacted, but the ohly way to get a conservative majority is to convince people that a conservative agenda [is established and] would be enacted.
Comment 8 by Freealonzo at 15-May-08 01:23 PM
Sorry Gary, try again. Here's the language from the IRS for the 1982 TEFRA:
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-drop/9901036.pdf
If link is too long, just google 1982 TEFRA
Cowards Turn Tail
The need for rebuilding the party has never been more apparent. According to this AFP article , shaken Republicans are now turning to John McCain as their savior. The AFP article calls it ironic. I'd prefer the adjective pathetic to describe this news:
Soul searching Republicans are turning to an unlikely savior, one-time party heretic and now presumptive White House nominee John McCain, as they try to stave off an electoral disaster. Stung by the Democratic seizure of three staunch conservative seats in Congress, Republican lawmakers fear a shellacking in November's general election, after losing control of both chambers of Congress in 2006.This is what happens when Washingtonian idiots misread elections. It's also what happens when spineless people are put in charge. As I said here , it's time to rebuilding from the state up. It's one thing to unite around the Republican presidential nominee; it's another to view him as the GOP's savior.
The rise of McCain as their champion is not without irony, since the 71-year-old Arizona senator has quarreled with his own party for years on issues as diverse as immigration, campaign finance reform and global warming. But it is precisely that independent streak that is drawing Republicans to his coattails, hoping he can cleanse them of the stain of gridlocked Washington.
Altogether too often, Sen. McCain has stood opposed to Reagan's principles. Everyone knows that President Reagan would've vetoed BCRA because he would've seen it as violating the First Amendment. We know that President Reagan would've scoffed at the notion of man-made global warming because it's a liberal hoax. Instead of signing onto it, he would've demanded proof that humans were causing the earth's temperatures to rise or fall.
That's what Sen. McCain should've done instead of forging ahead with his MMGW initiave. He isn't doing that because he's easily taken to doing what's popular rather than doing what's right.
It's one thing to say that all leaders have flaws. That's obvious. It's another to say that people who do what's popular are leaders. They aren't because they're actually followers more often than leaders. Let's hope that Eric Cantor is thinking shortterm:
Eric Cantor, Republican chief deputy whip in the House of Representatives, told reporters that the McCain brand was healthier than that of his party. "John McCain is a demonstrated vote getter among independents, and his message and what he will be able to do in this election is extremely important."Rep. Cantor is right in saying that McCain is more popular than the GOP right now. That's because the GOP stopped being the party of fiscal and social conservatives. They've stopped being the ideas people. They've stopped being interested in finding common sense solutions. Instead, they're more interested in running personality contests. Rush says that we stopped teaching conservatism. I think that's as good an explanation as you'll find.
I'd also add that we've become the top-down party. That goes against Reagan's principle of trusting the American people. Reagan was a man who believed in rugged individualism. Rugged indidualists don't let people furthest from the situation make the most important decisions. They'd tell Washington insiders to butt out and let local experts make their own decisions.
Those aren't the principles that John McCain believes in. That's why he's our presidential candidate, not the leader of the conservative movement.
Republicans would be wise to learn the distinction.
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:19 AM
No comments.
I Told You So
Yesterday, I predicted that Democrats would throw a hissy fit over President Bush's statement. Here's what I said yesterday:
President Bush warned in an interview Tuesday that the Democratic presidential candidates' plans to withdraw abruptly from Iraq could "eventually lead to another attack on the United States" and would "embolden" terrorists.Now Nancy Pelosi is saying that his comments are "beneath the dignity of the office."
In a White House interview with Politico and Yahoo News, a president's first for an online audience, Bush said his doomsday scenario for a premature withdrawal "of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States."
"The United States pulling out of Iraq or pulling out of the Middle East or not maintaining a forward presence would send all kinds of signals throughout the Middle East," he said in the Roosevelt Room. "And it would shake everybody's nerves, and it would embolden the very same people that we're trying to defeat.
Referring to Sen. John McCain, Pelosi said: "I would hope that any serious person that aspires to lead the country, would disassociate themselves from those comments."In other words, President Bush nailed the Democrats right where it hurts. What's worse is that Rep. Emanuel is being a hypocrite. If politics stops at the water's edge, then why are Democrats playing politics with funding the Iraq war to appease the lunatics in their party?
As Pelosi was speaking, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued a statement in which he said: "The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water's edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water's edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?"
If US politics end at the water's edge, then what were Democratic Whip David Boniors and Rep. Jim McDermott doing in Baghdad right before the war? Rahm Emanuel would be wise to remember that Rep. McDermott said that he'd trust Saddam more than he trusts President Bush.
If US politics end at the water's edge, then what was Nancy Pelosi doing during her trip to Syria? Let me rephrase: What was Nancy Pelosi doing during her trip to Syria other than lying about Israel's desire to restart talks with Syria? Did she think that the Speaker of the House was part of the Executive Branch? She must've thought that because she obviously thought she was the SecState.
To be blunt, Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi's comments are contemptible and dishonest.
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:12 PM
No comments.
Is This Why Democrats Boycotted FNC Debates?
I've always assumed that Democrats boycotted the debates that Fox News sponsored because they wanted to stay of the right side of their Nutroots friends. I'm now willing to entertain the notion that there might be another reason. When the Obama campaign sent Dr. Susan Rice out to defend Sen. Obama, they really stepped in it. I offer as proof this video of her appearance on America's Election HQ:
Just prior to this interview, Bill Hemmer pointed out that Obama's campaign website said this about Iran:
Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.As everyone can clearly hear, Dr. Rice said that Sen. Obama would "meet with the appropriate leader at the appropriate time."
Which is it, Dr. Rice? Would a President Obama "meet with the appropriate leader at the appropriate time"? Or would an Obama administration support "tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions"? Or would you like to triangulate a position somewhere between Sen. Obama's original statement and the whopper you told this afternoon?
Whatever you think about the type of campaign Sen. Obama has run, it's undeniable that he shouldn't have taken President Bush's statement so personally. Now he's opened a new line of attacks Sen. McCain.
Originally posted Thursday, May 15, 2008, revised 17-May 2:28 AM
No comments.
***GREAT NEWS ALERT***GREAT NEWS ALERT***
The indispensable Instapundit has posted a link on Fred Thompson's latest role . The news couldn't be better for movement conservatives. Fred Thompson lost the battle for the GOP presidential nomination but he'll win the war for movement conservatives in his new job:
Our nation has some serious issues to work through for today,and for the next generation. Now isn't the time for conservatives to be looking for a tailored message or a politically expedient route to victory if the end result is going to be the inevitable slide toward the liberalization and secularization of America, and the growth of government and loss of freedom that inevitably ensues. For us conservatives it must be about principles and policies that are grounded in freedom, free markets and the rule of law. That's what I've been talking and writing about for the past few years, and that's what I want to talk write about here on Townhall and in the new Townhall Magazine .Rest assured that Fredheads across the nation will tune into Fred's exclusive columns because they'll want to hear Fred's articulation of genuine conservative principles.
I joined Townhall and am writing exclusive commentaries for Townhall Magazine because I see them elevating the discourse on issues based on these principles -- smaller government, individual liberty, standing for common values that have become all too uncommon, a strong national defense and, most of all, an optimism and belief in America.
This is the best way to build the conservative movement from the bottom up. Really, it's the only way that that type of rebuilding is possible. Both parties face uphill battles in rebuilding their product, though it's obvious that Republicans have alot more garbage to take out before they're rebuilt than do Democrats. That said, Republicans have an appealing set of principles to rebuild on, something that Democrats don't have. Let's remember that more people voted against Republicans in 2006 than voted for Democrats.
I admit that I was more than a bit pessimistic this morning. We've lost 3 straight special elections in districts that should've been safe districts. The fact that John McCain, and to a lesser extent the RNC, didn't seem to care much about the GOP base didn't sit well with me. Fred's reminder that he'd seen conservatives up close and personal during his campaign was the perfect tonic for what ailed me.
The thing that have been badly missing from the conservative movement are leadership and vision. Fred offers an abundance of both qualities. He's someone that can inspire people to get involved in the conservative movement.
Contrary to what others have thought, I don't think we need Ronald Reagan's clone. We just can't stray from the pillars of Reagan's conservatism, namely freedom, prosperity and a strong national defense. Underlying those pillars are the ideals of limited government and federalism, which isn't possible without a healthy respect for the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Fred Thompson's enunciation of conservative principles will inspire a new set of leaders. He can play the role of his mentor, Sen. Barry Goldwater. I suspect that he'd like being remembered as this generation's Goldwater (without Goldwater's landslide defeat, of course).
Isn't it time that we rolled up our sleeves and got to work rebuilding the GOP on the right principles? Actually, it's long past time.
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 2:04 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 16-May-08 09:30 AM
Actually, if the Party can't coalesce around a set of clear, commonsense agenda items now, when it would win the election for them and actually MATTER, what incentive do they have to do so while dwelling in the outer darkness of the Obama Presidency?
Fred is great, and right, but most of us already know what the main conservative principles are and even what policies are needed to advance those principles. The problem is that if we don't win elections, none of it matters.
Do we really want to sit around telling each other how brilliant we are, because we agree, while the country is destroyed?
Comment 2 by Dennis at 16-May-08 11:21 PM
I kinda think that is the point that has been made for well over a year. The Party can't unite under Juan McCain.
Is it the job of the Party to unite behind whom ever we get because we just have to, or is it the job of a true leader to inspire people to get behind him because he has the vision to lead?
At some point, our party "leaders" have to realize that sucking less than the other guy running is not terribly inspiring.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 17-May-08 01:02 AM
At some point, our party "leaders" have to realize that sucking less than the other guy running is not terribly inspiring.
BINGO!!!
I'd also add that it's OUR party, not their's. It's our responsibility to rebuild it right.
There's an old saying that goes like this:
When the American people want something long enough & express that want loudly enough, eventually the 'leaders' will follow.
In other words, it's our responsibility to tell the so-called leaders what's most important to us.
Hugo's Got Some Explaining to Do
Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez has some explaining to do after it was revealed that he's maintained strong ties with Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia , aka FARC. I'm not an international law student but I'd have to think that supporting a terrorist organization whose sole intent is to overthrow the democratically elected government of another country is an act of war. Here's what the AP is reporting:
Interpol on Thursday endorsed the authenticity of computer files seized in a rebel camp, announcing that Colombia did not tamper with documents indicating Chavez sought to finance and arm the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.Not surprisingly, Chavez responded disdainfully:
Venezuelan officials set up contacts with Australian arms dealers and arranged for missile training in the Middle East, according to the documents, which were on computer hard drives seized by Colombia and obtained by the Washington Post.
"Do you think we should waste time here on something so ridiculous?" he told reporters in Caracas.The answer to Chavez' first question is simple: You damn right I think he'd supply these terrorists.
Chavez has denied providing the FARC material support, but did not address the issue directly on Thursday. Instead, he called Interpol's secretary general, Ronald Noble, "a tremendous actor," "Mr. Ignoble" and an "immoral police officer who applauds killers."
Colombia has been leaking details from the documents since the day after the raid. The most damning evidence against Chavez was revealed to The Associated Press last week.While this information is important, it pales in comparison to this information ( H/T: Gateway Pundit ):
More than a dozen rebel messages detail close cooperation with Venezuela, including rebel training facilities on Venezuelan soil and a meeting inside Venezuela's equivalent of the Pentagon. They suggest Venezuela wanted to loan the rebels $250 million and help them get Russian weapons and possibly even surface-to-air missiles.
Interpol confirmed documents today showing that US Congressman James McGovern, (D-Mass. ), a leading opponent of the Colombia free-trade deal has been working with a go-between, who has been offering the FARC terrorists help in undermining Colombia's elected and popular government.What on earth are Democrats thinking? At this point, these aren't allegations. This information was confirmed by Interpol. As bad as that information is for Democrats, this information might top it:
Colombia is America's closest ally in South America.
The information also confirms that US Democrats were secretly reaching out to the FARC terrorists.If this information is accurate, then Bill Clinton can kiss his legacy goodbye. More importantly, if that information is verified, that information would expose Democrats as conspriing to undercut a democratically elected government.
One document explained:
The 16 documents were published Sunday by the news magazine Semana. They also detail previously unknown relationships held or sought by Latin America's oldest and most potent rebel force, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.
Another discusses an apparent effort by U.S. Democrats to have celebrated novelist Gabriel Garcia Marquez mediate talks with the insurgents, possibly with former President Clinton's involvement .
There is no evidence the FARC ever obtained surface-to-air missiles, however. Attempts to reach Clinton and Garcia Marquez were unsuccessful.
Let's not forget Rep. William Delahunt's negotiations with Hugo Chavez :
A subsidiary of the Venezuelan national oil company will ship 12 million gallons of discounted home-heating oil to local charities and 45,000 low-income families in Massachusetts next month under a deal arranged by US Representative William D. Delahunt, a local nonprofit energy corporation, and Venezuela's president, White House critic Hugo Chavez.In light of these latest revelations, one has to wonder if there's more to this story. After all, this article ran in the Boston Globe on November 20, 2005. This paragraph is pure spin:
Chavez showed "an inclination to do a humanitarian distribution" of oil, and poor families in Massachusetts had a "desperate need" for relief from high home-heating prices, Schwadron said. He characterized the deal as one between "a US company and two nonprofits to help them do more of what they already do, with terms that mean the price is good."Hugo Chavez doesn't do anything for altruistic reasons. I've got to wonder if Delahunt's deal with Chavez wasn't the precursor for the Democrats' attempt to undercut Colombia's democratically elected government.
Based on Adam Housely's post , I'd say that the contrast between Republicans and Democrats couldn't be more stark:
WASHINGTON ; Congressman Connie Mack (FL-14) renewed his calls for the Administration to impose tough new sanctions on Venezuela today after Interpol, the international police agency, confirmed the validity of the contents of laptops and other documents containing information strongly tying Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his allies to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), an internationally-recognized terrorist organization.A Massachusetts liberal tries to undercut a democratically elected government in Colombia. A Florida conservative pushes the Bush administration to list Venezuela as a state sponsor of terror.
Interpol released its report early this afternoon on laptops, files and other documents that Colombian forces recovered after a raid on a FARC camp inEcuador in which a top leader in the FARC, Raul Reyes, was killed. The laptops and documents contain solid evidence that Chavez and his closest advisors have cooperated and coordinated with the FARC and given them hundreds of millions of dollars, weapons, public support and safe passage and haven in Venezuela.
"Today's report sheds another bright light on the active efforts of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez and his cronies to promote terror and instability throughout Latin America. He has used his vast oil wealth to fund terrorism in the region and make mischief in order to undermine democratic institutions and principles in Colombia and other countries.
The difference is like night and day.
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 3:42 AM
No comments.
Back Door Amnesty
According to this Redstate Action Alert , Democrats have slipped the AG Jobs bill into the Senate emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Why we care is because the bill has an amnesty provision in it. Here's an overview of that provision:
Blue card status:Do we really want to reward people for breaking the law? If you're opposed to rewarding illegal behavior, call your senator at (202) 224-3121.
Authorizes the granting of temporary "blue card" status to an alien who pays a $100 fee, and who DHS has determined to:
- have performed agricultural employment in the United States for at least 863 hours or 150 work days (one work day is defined as 5.75 hours, so this is the equivalent of 21.5 40-hour work weeks, or less than half of a standard 50-week work year), whichever is less, during the two-year period ending December 31, 2006;
- have applied for blue card status during the 18-month application period beginning on the first day of the seventh month after enactment;
- have not been convicted of any felony or a misdemeanor involving bodily injury, threat of serious bodily injury, or harm to property exceeding $500; and
- be otherwise admissible (with specified waivers available);
- Caps the number of aliens to be granted blue card status in the five years following enactment at 1.5 million;
- Requires each employer of a blue card alien to annually provide a written record of employment to that alien and to provide a copy of that record to DHS (lest the employer be fined up to $1,000 per violation), but sunsets that obligation six years after enactment; and
- Requires DHS to provide each blue card alien with a secure, biometric identification document (e.g., encrypted identification strip, biometric identifiers).
It's time that we reminded the politicians that We The People oppose this ban in huge numbers.
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 8:27 AM
No comments.
White House Targeted Jimmy Carter
Yesterday, Barack Obama had a snit fit over being called an appeaser of terrorists. According to Marc Ambinder's post , the real target of President Bush's speech was Jimmy Carter. Here's what Ed Gillespie told reporters:
"We did not anticipate that it would be taken that way, because its kind of hard to take it that way when you look at the actual words....There was some anticipation that someone might say you know its an expression of rebuke to former President Carter for having met with Hamas. That was something that was anticipated but no one wrote about it or raised it."Here's what Dan Froomkin is reporting in today's Washington Post :
Q. "Ed, can you talk to us a little bit about yesterday's speech and how much the White House may or may not have anticipated the reaction that ultimately occurred, where people interpreted this as a reference to Barack Obama?"By continuing this argument, Democrats and the media are essentially admitting that Barack Obama's foreign policy isn't substantially different than that of Jimmy Carter's disastrous foreign policy history. The outrage has been loud and sustained because President Bush's words could've fit most Democrats in Congress, with Joe Lieberman being the sole exception to President Bush's description.
Gillespie: "We did not anticipate that it would be taken that way, because it's kind of hard to take it that way if you look at the actual words of the President's remarks, which are consistent with what he has said in the past...There was some anticipation that someone might say, oh, it's an expression of, a rebuke to former President Carter for having met with Hamas. That was something that was anticipated. No one wrote about that or raised that as a question."
For all the Democrats' whining, they're teling the world that they're a bunch of pacifists. Once you get past Jimmy Carter's meeting with Hamas, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Jimmy Carter and Sen. Obama. Even then, the difference is nuanced, not night and day.
In his multitude of clarifications, Sen. Obama says that he wouldn't meet with "Hezbollah and al-Qa'ida". I don't doubt that. While he won't meet with these terrorist organizations, he's said on a number of occasions that he'd meet with the nations that sponsor them. I don't think that that's a position he'll be keeping for very long.
Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 6:35 PM
No comments.
