Gay Patriot Header Image

GAY PATRIOT EXCLUSIVE:America’s Gay Groups Silent About Petraeus’ Betrayal Ad…Major Gay Organizations & Donors’ Money TrailLeads Directly to MoveOn.Org

**UPDATE** – Log Cabin’s President Patrick Sammon has issued a statement….

“We condemn Moveon.org’s baseless attacks on General Petraeus.  These
irresponsible allegations harm our nation’s ability to continue making
progress in Iraq.”

*******************

ORIGINAL POST:

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this one out…. but even I was surprised at the extensive web of money connections between MoveOn.org and America’s top gay organizationsHuman Rights Campaign, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and Log Cabin Republicans.

If the American gay community has any decency and honor and truly “supports the troops” they need to prove it now. 

I would ask everyone who is involved with these organizations to contact them immediately.  Urge the HRC, NGLTF and LCR  to immediately denounce the “Betray Us” ad attacking General Petraeus.  

In addition, our gay mainstream organizations need to sever all financial ties they have with MoveOn.org.  That would include direct financial connections, as well as their relationships with the George Soros-umbrella organization — America Votes — that directly connects MoveOn.org with the American gay mainstream organizations using the money of their dues-paying members.

Finally, the corporate partners that support HRC and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force need to know that these groups have direct financial and working relationships with MoveOn.org.  These corporate partners also need to withdraw support to HRC and NGLTF unless these two organizations denounce the Petraeus/Betray Us ad from MoveOn.org.  

The Human Rights Campaign’s corporate partners includeAmerican Airlines, Citigroup, IBM, Ernst & Young, Chase Bank, Dell, Motorola, Nike, Merrill Lynch and Showtime Cable Network.

The NGLTF’s corporate partners include: American Airlines, WellsFargo Bank, Here! Cable Network, and Bacardi.

Also, WellsFargo Bank has received direct financial expenditures from MoveOn.org, so they should have a special role in denouncing the Petraeus/Betray Us ad.

First, Andrew Tobias who is one of the Human Rights Campaign’s biggest political and money supporters, and who is also the Treasurer of the Democratic National Committee, is listed as one of the top individual contributors to MoveOn.org from the 2004 cycle.  Tobias has given to MoveOn.org since the 2004 elections as well.

Now, we move to Tim Gill of the Gill Foundation.  As you know, I’ve repeatedly reported in the past on Gill’s extensive political involvement and contributions to America’s gay organizations…. especially his connections to Log Cabin Republicans.  Former LCR head, Patrick Guerriero is now an employee of the Gill Foundation and though LCR has refused to provide the details, I have laid out a strong case that Gill helped fund the $1M TV ad campaign that LCR ran in 2004 targeting President Bush in key battleground states.

Finally, both Gill and Tobias have contributed to the Soros-umbrella organization America Votes“.  This organization is the web that connects the money trail between MoveOn.org and the major American gay organizations:  HRC, NGLTF, and the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund.  These groups, plus MoveOn.org are direct financial and political partners under the Soros/”America Votes” umbrella.

Gill’s large individual contributions to “America Votes” and his extensive ties to Log Cabin Republicans should be a major concern to LCR and encourage them to denounce the Petraeus/Betray Us ad and ask Tim Gill to do the same.

So that’s what I got so far, gang.  I know there is a lot more.  Many contributors to “America Votes” are also involved and/or contributors to all of the major American gay organizations. 

If any of you would like to take this research further…. I’ll be happy to update it as I get more information from you.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

100 Comments

  1. Could you lay out your information concerning “the extensive web of money connections between MoveOn.org” and LCR? This would be more than a little bit concerning as I was just considering becoming more involved with my local LCR chapter.

    Comment by MichaelnotMike — September 13, 2007 @ 11:55 am - September 13, 2007

  2. Calling on those who give money to MoveOn to denounce MoveOn’s heinous ad, makes perfect sense to me.

    Calling on those who accept money from MoveOn to denounce MoveOn’s heinous ad, makes sense to me.

    Calling on those who happen to also give money to those who accept money from MoveOn to punish those who accept money from MoveOn money if the latter don’t denounce MoveOn’s heinous ad…. makes less sense to me. I can barely follow the connection (or type the sentence 😉 ).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 13, 2007 @ 12:34 pm - September 13, 2007

  3. While you guys keep flogging that Petraeus ad dead horse, one of Bush’s Anbar stallions, Sattar abu Risha winds up .. err… dead. He even had his picture taken with Bush recently. Well, that should really encourage cooperation. As for Petraeus himself, he got caught adding hoax IED attacks to his PowerPoint chart to make the trend look better for Bushco. Maybe his boss’ characterization of Petraeus as “an ass-kissing little chickenshit” is not so far-fetched.

    Comment by Ian S — September 13, 2007 @ 1:05 pm - September 13, 2007

  4. First, how did Ian’s source “prove” Petraeus was lying?

    But, if you print out the graph and blow it up, then with a ruler and a pen and some time you can eventually abstract some rough raw data

    Or, in other words, if you manipulate the graph to provide the answers YOU want, you can “prove” Petraeus is lying.

    Then again, these are Democrats; they forge documents, then claim the existence of the forgeries makes the claims based on them true.

    While you guys keep flogging that Petraeus ad dead horse, one of Bush’s Anbar stallions, Sattar abu Risha winds up .. err… dead.

    Of course, what Ian neglects to mention is that the reason these sheiks were allying with the US in the first place was because al-Qaeda was running around trying to assassinate them since they represented a threat to al-Qaeda’s goals of imposing Islamist absolutism, sharia, etc.

    This CONFIRMS that fact, which is not going to do much for the image of al-Qaeda among the Sunnis.

    But again, Ian, in a typical act of pure Democrat racism and shortsightedness, shows up to cheer the death of someone who is helping the United States.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 13, 2007 @ 1:24 pm - September 13, 2007

  5. #3: I never said Petraeus was lying but like any PR person, he was massaging the data to make his presentation look good. As for the assassination of Risha, there’s a good chance that it was not the work of al Qaeda at all. Read the links and you’ll find that our good buddy had a somewhat unsavory reputation and there were plenty of other non- al Qaeda rivals who had good reason to get rid of him. Of course that pic of him with Bush probably did little for his popularity.

    It’s a mess there from which we need to extricate ourselves NOW.

    Comment by Ian S — September 13, 2007 @ 1:36 pm - September 13, 2007

  6. I never said Petraeus was lying but like any PR person, he was massaging the data to make his presentation look good.

    LOL…..based on what?

    But, if you print out the graph and blow it up, then with a ruler and a pen and some time you can eventually abstract some rough raw data

    As for the assassination of Risha, there’s a good chance that it was not the work of al Qaeda at all.

    And then, ironically, the PR spinning starts.

    Now Ian is desperately trying to smear one of our allies in Iraq who has undoubtedly helped us and undoubtedly saved American lives — so he can rationalize why al-Qaeda shouldn’t be blamed.

    Ian and his fellow Democrats are utterly terrified by the fact that the Iraqis are putting sectarian and other concerns aside to fight terrorists — because it is causing improvements in Iraq and it is saving American lives, both of which are completely contrary to their plans for political power.

    Ian wants Iraq to remain a mess. He has said so himself. And he and his fellow pig leftists are willing to sabotage anything they possibly can to keep it that way.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 13, 2007 @ 1:47 pm - September 13, 2007

  7. LCR has now denounced the ad. What is the evidence of an “extensive web of money connections between MoveOn.org and” LCR?

    Comment by MichaelnotMike — September 13, 2007 @ 2:04 pm - September 13, 2007

  8. Ian: “Oh No! The terrorists have killed one of our allies. All is lost! We must quit the war now! Obviously, there will be no negative consequences to giving into the terrorists in Iraq.”

    What a pathetic shill.

    (Never mind his unseemly glee at the death of a friend to the US.)

    Comment by V the K — September 13, 2007 @ 3:35 pm - September 13, 2007

  9. This episode shows the growing power of liberal interest groups; A growth that can be largely attributed to the internet. The internet is fundamentally changing American politics. Most distinctly, the Internet has negated the once formidable advantage Republicans held in direct mail solicitations, allowing the Democrats to catch and, in most instances, pass their GOP rivals in fundraising. While talk radio remains the favored format of the right, the most heavily trafficked blogs are dominated by the left. Likewise, the Democratic presidential candidates hold a distinct web advantage over their Republican counterparts in fundraising, myspace support and web hits.

    Simply, the disparity of the Democrat’s internet advantage will have far reaching effects on American politics for years to come. MoveOn.org’s ability to capture the attention of the political establishment with just one ad is simply today’s example.

    Comment by Chase — September 13, 2007 @ 4:06 pm - September 13, 2007

  10. Another case in point: former Virginia Senator George Allen would’ve been the Republican presidential nominee in 2008 were it not for YouTube. Not to mention, Republicans would still hold the Senate Majority today.

    Comment by Chase — September 13, 2007 @ 4:16 pm - September 13, 2007

  11. And it’s no wonder Ian is gloating about the death of Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha. If he gets his way and the U.S. surrenders in Iraq, his death will only be the first of thousands upon thousands of Iraqis slaughtered for daring trying to fight against al Qaeda. While this slaughter takes place, Ian and his leftist friends will be gloating at their cocktails parties… just as liberals did in the seventies while the Khmer Rouge waged bloody genocide after the U.S. retreat from Indochina.

    Comment by V the K — September 13, 2007 @ 4:18 pm - September 13, 2007

  12. 7: Meanwhile, Chase gloats because his hearthtrobs at MoonBat-dot-org have succeeded in slandering an honorable man. Such is the indecency of the left these days.

    Comment by V the K — September 13, 2007 @ 4:20 pm - September 13, 2007

  13. Well V, the mistrust is warranted as the Bush Administration has a history of giving us selective information. And that’s putting it politely.

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/index_np.html

    Comment by Chase — September 13, 2007 @ 4:46 pm - September 13, 2007

  14. So, was Congressman Baird also on the BushCo payroll? Is Katie Couric? Is Michael O’Hanlon? Is Der Spiegel? All of those reliably anti-Bush sources have reported progress in Iraq, and some have even done what other lefties refuse to do and acknowledge the consequences of retreat.

    Despite the left’s wild spinning, General Patreaus is not the only person reporting progress in Iraq.

    Comment by V the K — September 13, 2007 @ 5:28 pm - September 13, 2007

  15. Meanwhile, Society’s freaks, losers, and other rejects universally oppose victory in Iraq.

    Comment by V the K — September 13, 2007 @ 5:34 pm - September 13, 2007

  16. Was there any doubt what this man was going to say over the two days of testimony? It was no surprise to me, so I doubt it was a surprise to any others. This man, indeed, was and is, in a most untenable position.

    I’ll agree that the ad was stupid, mean, and unneccesary, but its launch really wasn’t much of a surprise considering that American voices of dissent have fallen on completely and utterly deaf ears.

    So, things continue basically stay as they are, with a pre-surge troop reduction possible sometime next year, and this mess slogs on indefinitely with more death and cost.

    Comment by fnln — September 13, 2007 @ 6:02 pm - September 13, 2007

  17. Also, the Kossacks and the MoveOn Moonbats aren’t much of a grassroots movement since most of them are aging white hippies from blue liberal enclaves.

    Comment by V the K — September 13, 2007 @ 6:07 pm - September 13, 2007

  18. Was there any doubt what this man was going to say over the two days of testimony?

    No: For the simple reason that (1) his report preparations had been thoroughly leaked in the MSM, and (2) lately the MSM has made a least some efforts to get more accurate in its Iraq reporting, or adjust it to the improving realities on the ground – see Bruce’s posts on Katie Couric.

    I’ll agree that the ad was stupid, mean, and unneccesary…

    Thank you. That’s something. I’ll give credit where it’s due.

    Now if only Clinton, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc. could bring themselves to do likewise.

    …American voices of dissent have fallen on completely and utterly deaf ears.

    A self-pitying and, frankly, absurd claim.

    So, things continue basically stay as they are, with a pre-surge troop reduction possible…

    Do you not hear your own words? Are you unaware of the self-contradiction in that sentence?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 13, 2007 @ 6:24 pm - September 13, 2007

  19. #7

    Re: MySpace Support.

    I can see the bumpersticker slogan now: “Losers for Losers ’08”

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 13, 2007 @ 6:31 pm - September 13, 2007

  20. Good for Sammon. I won’t hold my breath that the others will find a shred of decency in themselves to follow suit.

    Comment by John — September 13, 2007 @ 6:34 pm - September 13, 2007

  21. Guys, I don’t really think there’s any there there. This is a little too ‘third derivative’ to really be too damning. Furthermore, I’m not sure the MoveOn thing has any traction beyond the far right.

    Even though I’m a non-HRC non-NGLTF member, I’m not in support of attacking companies that support HRC/NGLTF.

    If you guys are upset about HRC/NGLTF’s inclusion of Gay mainstream individuals on their boards, why don’t you create your own political orgainzation?

    Comment by Tom in Houston — September 13, 2007 @ 6:39 pm - September 13, 2007

  22. considering that American voices of dissent have fallen on completely and utterly deaf ears.

    Maybe if you were honest for a change?

    Give us a reason why anybody should give the un-“American voices of dissent” the time of day? Why in the hell would anybody want to listen to a child who stomps his feet and screams “I hate you!’ over and over?

    Oh BTW, cavorting with communists and sypathizing with our enemies is not how you win real friends and influence people. It gets you the disdain and derision that you (unwittingly) demand and deserve.

    In short, why in God’s green earth would anybody want to listen to you?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 13, 2007 @ 6:43 pm - September 13, 2007

  23. Guys, I don’t really think there’s any there there… Furthermore, I’m not sure the MoveOn thing has any traction beyond the far right.

    How sad is that?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 13, 2007 @ 6:45 pm - September 13, 2007

  24. Why indeed..

    Comment by V the K — September 13, 2007 @ 6:47 pm - September 13, 2007

  25. When even Hillary acolyte Susan Estrich flames MoveOn for their ad… it’s bad for them:
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296590,00.html

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 13, 2007 @ 6:49 pm - September 13, 2007

  26. V, I really think what motivates Troofers is that imagining it’s our fault – that all we need to do is smoke pot and defeat a President here at home – is so much easier than facing the horrible truth.

    (The reality of human evil. The reality that a megalo-maniacal religion has been making war on some form of “us” for 1400 years, and there is nothing we can do except continue fighting them.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 13, 2007 @ 7:26 pm - September 13, 2007

  27. Goodness, still hyperventilating over the MoveOn ad, I see. While you’re all still in a state of high dudgeon, perhaps you’d also care to condemn Houses Repub Leader John Boner’s belief that the tens of thousands of Americans killed or wounded so far in Iraq are merely a “small price to pay” for what? Dear Leader’s vanity war?

    Comment by Ian S — September 13, 2007 @ 7:28 pm - September 13, 2007

  28. Ian,

    I wouldn’t have put it that way about Boehner, but it is still a valid point.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — September 13, 2007 @ 7:35 pm - September 13, 2007

  29. Instead of screaming about Boehner and MoveOn, why don’t people discuss the status of the benchmarks? I think the reason that most people aren’t mad about MoveOn and Boehner is that quite frankly they know what they are going to say. The Right thinks that any criticism of the Bush Administration’s conduct in Iraq must come from ‘dirty hippies’ would rather capitulate to Al Qaida than let Bush have a victory. The left thinks that anything coming from anyone who supports the Bush’s Administation is going to lie cheat and steal to keep our troops dying so Bush doesn’t have to admit failure. Both analysis’ are wrong.

    The American people have moved on. Just as the Iraqis can simultaneously hate Saddam and resent the American invasion, the American people can separate blame for the war from the prosecution of it. They largely don’t believe Bush and believe his administration has lost the Iraq war through arrogance and incompetence. To get them back, the right needs to establish credibility with someone other than their own base. On the other hand, the American people also largely think that pulling all the troops out right now isn’t a viable option. They hate the war, and will blame Bush and the GOP for it. But they are looking for a viable exit strategy (military/political) rather than slogans.

    So to my friends on the left, I say ‘if you’re worried about the Republicans getting a bump from good news in Iraq, don’t. The Republicans get blamed every time Iraq is mentioned and even if Iraq blossoms into the perfect Democracy, the American people will regard the GOP’s prosecution of the Iraq War to be a failure’. To my friends on the right I say ‘if you just attack the two thirds of the American people who disagree with you on Iraq, you’re not going to get anywhere. Two thirds of the American people are not dirty hippies who hate America.’

    Comment by Tom in Houston — September 13, 2007 @ 7:56 pm - September 13, 2007

  30. “I’ll agree that the ad was stupid, mean, and unneccesary, but its launch really wasn’t much of a surprise considering that American voices of dissent have fallen on completely and utterly deaf ears.”

    The ad was stupid. Yes, reflecting its authors and sponsors.

    The ad was mean. It was mean-spirited, but I don’t care about its emotional content or import.

    The ad wasn’t much of a surprise. Yes: See ‘stupid’ and ‘mean’, above.

    The ad was unnecessary. Well, if it was unnecessary, then why would you claim that ‘American voices of dissent’ (Dissent? My, my! Doesn’t that pig’s ear make a fancy rhetorical silk purse?!) have ‘fallen on completely and utterly deaf ears’, attempting to justify (i.e. make necessary) the ad’s existence and not merely due to stupidity and mean-spiritedness, but due to the fault of those who disagree, meaning those who possess the ‘utterly deaf ears’? You’re circuitously implying that Petraeus and us other chimps who have our hands clapped over our ears had it coming.

    Nice try.

    Comment by HardHobbit — September 13, 2007 @ 8:28 pm - September 13, 2007

  31. #29: Oh-oh, with that bit of reason and sanity, be prepared to join the ranks of the rest of us “D.F.H.’s as far as the conservatives around here are concerned! The main problem with the war supporters is their inconsistency: while claiming that the very survival of western civilization itself hinges upon the GWOT and what they consider its primary battleground, Iraq, they adamantly refuse to demand that the country be put on full war footing with all that entails. That would include a draft, switching manufacturing over to war materials, criminalizing war profiteering, and yes, some kind of war tax to pay for it all. That they blithely ignore the proof before their eyes that we simply do not have anywhere near the number of troops in Iraq to pacify the country nor will we ever in the absence of our truly committing to a full war footing demonstrates they are simply not serious. I think the American people are starting to see that. Fortunately.

    Comment by Ian S — September 13, 2007 @ 8:47 pm - September 13, 2007

  32. I wonder what the polls would show if news organizations asked “Do you think it’s in America’s best interest to let Al Qaeda win in Iraq?” I am sure most of the smelly social rejects at MoveOn and Code Pink would answer yes, but I wonder if a majority of Americans would feel the same way.

    Comment by V the K — September 13, 2007 @ 9:45 pm - September 13, 2007

  33. They largely don’t believe Bush and believe his administration has lost the Iraq war through arrogance and incompetence.

    They who?

    So to my friends on the left, I say ‘if you’re worried about the Republicans getting a bump from good news in Iraq, don’t.

    The DNC and their media sycophants will invent another “scandal”, where none exists, to distract “those idiot voters”. They’re already hard at work burying Hillary’s Money Laundry just like they burried DiFi’s war profiteering and Jefferson’s cold cash.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 13, 2007 @ 10:14 pm - September 13, 2007

  34. Goodness, still hyperventilating over the MoveOn ad, I see.

    Goodness, still running defense for the dispicable, I see. How about explaining the anti-war asshole who went to Amsterdam to kill a soldier?

    Or Hillary’s Money Laundry

    Or Edward’s indicted donor

    Or Turban Durbin violating ethics rules

    I could go on.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 13, 2007 @ 10:26 pm - September 13, 2007

  35. Realistically (that is to say, addressing Iraq in a way leftists refuse to), the Bush Admin made mistakes. But has any business or any enterprise ever succeeded without making mistakes along the way? Was World War II flawlessly executed without a single strategic or tactical error? Is nothing worthwhile unless it’s flawlessly executed?

    I’d give the Democrats credit if they had a strategy for winning and for making sure Iraq doesn’t fall to al Qaeda, but they don’t have a plan, and don’t seem to give a damn about the consequences of withdrawal… either to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who would almost certainly be slaughtered or to the resurgence of a victorious Al Qaeda.

    And, so far as I can tell, one mistake Bush hasn’t made is taking illicit campaign funds from a sleazy fugitive. Oh, and last I heard, their frontrunner’s key national security adviser was a guy who stole classified documents by stuffing them into his socks.

    Comment by V the K — September 13, 2007 @ 10:28 pm - September 13, 2007

  36. #32:

    I wonder what the polls would show if news organizations asked “Do you think it’s in America’s best interest to let Al Qaeda win in Iraq?”

    What an asinine question! Al Qaeda is not going to win in Iraq whether we’re there or not. They weren’t there before we invaded and they won’t be there for long once we leave. Now, do you want the US to pacify Iraq or not? If you do, step up to the plate and call for the 500,000 troops necessary to do so to be deployed ASAP to Iraq. Sh!t or get off the pot.

    Comment by Ian S — September 13, 2007 @ 10:38 pm - September 13, 2007

  37. Ah, so the Democrat approach (as defined by Ian) is to deny reality, and substitute one of their own.

    And they’re going to pay for socialist health care by selling magic ponies.

    Comment by V the K — September 13, 2007 @ 11:02 pm - September 13, 2007

  38. Oh, Ian also denied that Hugo Chavez was a dictator. He tends to believe in what he wishes were true, rather than what is.

    Comment by V the K — September 13, 2007 @ 11:03 pm - September 13, 2007

  39. #37, 38: Interesting you have no substantive comments regarding the issue at hand i.e. the Iraq occupation. You must still be recovering from Bush’s inspirational message tonight.

    Comment by Ian S — September 13, 2007 @ 11:15 pm - September 13, 2007

  40. Sen. Jack Reed said:

    We intend to exercise our constitutional duties and profoundly change our military involvement in Iraq.

    Could someone please show me where in the constitution this might be located?

    I’d ask Ian, but he’s pretending not to read my comments just so he doesn’t have to hurt his brain answering my questions.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 13, 2007 @ 11:24 pm - September 13, 2007

  41. Ian, you never engage any issue substantively, you just spew party propaganda from the DNC and MoveOn. You’re a blinkered partisan shill, you excuse any and all corruption and hypocrisy on the part of Democrats while holding Republicans to a standard of perfection. You’ll even defend a megalomaniacal dictator like Chavez because he assuages your BDS.

    In contrast, I belong to no party, I criticize all sides honestly and relentlessly when they are wrong and give them credit on the rare occasions when they are right. I’m not the one drinking Kool-Aid here.

    FWIW, I don’t think a draft is necessary. A professional soldiery is more motivated than conscripts, and with the force multipliers of technology and civilian contractors, a military force of 100,000 today can accomplish what would have taken a force far larger back in the Vietnam Era where you and the rest of the lefties are permanently stuck.

    Now, why don’t you go check with Hill Obama and Silky Pony so you know what talking points the party expects you to use in order to excuse their dirty campaign donations. That’s a good shill now, move along.

    Comment by V the K — September 13, 2007 @ 11:39 pm - September 13, 2007

  42. Actually, I think Ian is the schizophrenic one here.

    He whines about how much the war costs, but demands we spend more.

    He complains about how many troops we already have there, but demands more.

    He opposes a draft, but then demands it be implemented.

    He claims carrying out a military occupation is “declaring war on the Iraqi people”, but demands we send in hundreds of thousands more to “pacify” them.

    In other words, he’s a typical Democrat — incapable of articulating a coherent or consistent message other than complete and utter opposition.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 14, 2007 @ 1:02 am - September 14, 2007

  43. You mean there’s straight people in MoveOn.org???

    Seriously, you know the study I’d like to see? Percentage of Gays/lesbians in society at large v. percentage of the kook leftwing fringe that is gay/lesbian.

    Comment by American Elephant — September 14, 2007 @ 2:00 am - September 14, 2007

  44. It’s a mess there from which we need to extricate ourselves NOW

    At which time it stops being “Bush’s War” and becomes “the Democrats War”, and guess which will be much much worse? Since youre incapable of looking at anything other than through partisan glasses, perhaps you better reconsider with that reality in mind.

    Comment by American Elephant — September 14, 2007 @ 2:07 am - September 14, 2007

  45. I’d ask Ian, but he’s pretending not to read my comments just so he doesn’t have to hurt his brain answering my questions.

    He cant answer your questions because
    A) He isnt quite sure what this constitution thing you speak of is, and
    B)You’re absolutely right. unless some sort of treaty enters the picture, having already confirmed all Bush’s nominees, the senate has no constitutional role whatsoever.

    Have Democrats in congress ever read the damn thing?

    Comment by American Elephant — September 14, 2007 @ 2:18 am - September 14, 2007

  46. Sh!t or get off the pot.

    Indeed. The liberals claim we gave them a “mandate”, 100% of Americans wanted Iraq over yesterday, and yet the liberals lack the balls to cut the funding. I thought surely on her first day, Pelosi would whip out her dick, slap it on the table and proclaim it over, but it ain’t happened yet.

    Sh!t or get off the pot.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 14, 2007 @ 2:19 am - September 14, 2007

  47. Oops! Forgot the Spew Alert.

    Sorry Pete.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 14, 2007 @ 2:19 am - September 14, 2007

  48. I’m advocating Republican victories in 2008. =)

    Comment by fnln — September 14, 2007 @ 3:21 am - September 14, 2007

  49. I’m advocating Republican victories in 2008. =)

    That’s fairly smart since George McGovern stands a better chance of winning than the sackless cowards the liberals have put forth. =)

    Hillary’s done.
    Obama’s done.
    Edwards’ done.
    And there’s really nobody left.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 14, 2007 @ 3:29 am - September 14, 2007

  50. Anyways, back on topic:

    This week just goes to show how desperate the liberals are. They’re flailing about wildly to grasp at any straw that might save them from their political demise. Problem is, their strategy to save themselves was to trash anybody who doesn’t felch and snowball the party line of defeat thereby pi$$ing off the voters. Of course they’ve arrogantly convinced themselves that everybody agrees with them because that’s the reality they created for themselves.

    Just when you think liberals couldn’t stoop any lower than a snake’s a$$ in a wagon rut, they manage to sink even lower. Add the fact that they lack the common decency or sense to know better or to feel remorse for their actions and you see the sorry state they’ve put themselves. They believe that if they champion the embarrassing defeat of the United States, everybody will line up to suck them off in gratitude. However, the reality is that they’ll suffer the sting of the American voter in a landslide defeat and will be cast off to wander in the desert for years to come.

    Long story short, the libs have dug their grave and their racing to cover themselves with dirt. Felchers like Keving, gil, Ian, the DU and Daily Kooks are unwittingly shoveling like mad to finish the job and destroy anything that might resemble the real democrat party. The liberals, along with the democrats, are finished and are racing headlong toward their final eulogy.

    America is winning and the liberals are losing. What’s good for America is bad for democrats. Therefore, they have to present the United States military as incompetent and charge that they general, whom they confirmed, is a liar. They wail that the report came from the WH. Well of course, dumba$$. You didn’t dictate that it should only come from Petraeus and Crocker. That’s your own d*mn fault. If you don’t like what you declared, tough sh*t.

    So yes, I do question their patriotism and the liberal left who squeal like Ned Beatty for the defeat of this country (Ian, gil, Kevin, Schumer, Lantos, Biden etc.) can drop down to the fifth ring and cook.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 14, 2007 @ 5:50 am - September 14, 2007

  51. Well there was really no doubt that the TGC podunk perch would go Republican. It is Florida afterall.

    With a Republican victory in 2008, maybe we’ll not only NOT get these pro-homosexual bills passed, but maybe we’ll also get a large majority and we’ll finally get some hard federal anti-homosexual legislation passed too. I mean really, not only do these liberals want DADT and DOMA repealed, but they want to build a wall of separation between church and state and that just goes against everything a good Republican believes in. Hell, some of them there homosexuals will even help us win.

    Comment by fnln — September 14, 2007 @ 6:03 am - September 14, 2007

  52. #5 Ian S writes: “It’s a mess there from which we need to extricate ourselves NOW.”

    The poor boy meant to say EXECUTE, not extricate. If Iraq would just be a Jonestown of dead US solldiers, Ian S and his merry band of blatherers could finally find closure.

    Comment by Heliotrope — September 14, 2007 @ 8:39 am - September 14, 2007

  53. Yes, NDT, it is indeed comical that despite the supposed overwhelming public support for the smelly drug-addled hippie and MSM position that America should pull out now from Bushiler’s illegal oil war…. Democrats still vote to give Bushitler and his shady oil cabal more money to fuel their deadly Imperial war machine.

    Maybe, just maybe, despite their need to pander to the far left America-hating kooks at DailyKos and MorOn who now own their party, maybe there is some residiual acknowledgment of the devastatiing impact to American security and credibility abroad that would come from abandoning an ally to Islamic fascism.

    Comment by V the K — September 14, 2007 @ 8:54 am - September 14, 2007

  54. #42:

    I think Ian is the schizophrenic one here.

    Hardly. I’m the one consistently calling for withdrawal. You and the rest of the Bush cult, OTOH, talk big but refuse to provide the resources necessary to achieve anything near what you claim is critical to the survival of western civilization. Now I understand that Bush simply wants to run out the clock so he can pass the mess on to the next President. What’s your excuse for supporting such an patently foolish position?

    Comment by Ian S — September 14, 2007 @ 9:31 am - September 14, 2007

  55. There are essentially three ways to confront Islamic Fascism.

    1. Ignore it and hope it will go away. (The favored approach of the Democrat Left, and was US policy under the Clinton Administration). This is one easy solution, it is also suicidal. Lefties may want to treat Global Jihad as a police matter, but how many muggers and vandals are seeking access to WMDs?

    2. Unleash Hell on the Islamic world in the form of catastrophic destruction. This would also be relatively easy given our arsenal of nuclear and powerful conventional weapons. It would cause severe economic disruption in the short term, but it would work. Most sides reject this option because of the suffering it would inflict on millions of innocent Muslims not involved in Global Jihad. (Note; It may yet come to this.)

    3. Third option, selectively target terrorist operations and destroy them militarily while working for political change in the Muslim world. This is the Bush administration policy. It is an exceedingly difficult and very costly strategy, but it saves lives in the long run over options 1 and 2, and had a better chance of success than option 1. It may work, or it may not. Any grown-up would see that the policy is only in its very early stages.

    Now, who is really thinking through this, and who is just parroting dumb slogans?

    Comment by V the K — September 14, 2007 @ 9:52 am - September 14, 2007

  56. #54 – Not only that.
    They have no idea to as what victory in Iraq is.
    Democracy and ally on terror?
    The vague term: “progress”?
    We hear again and again about how success is vital (where did victory go?)
    But what does success mean?
    You never success and victory defined because they don’t want to set another goal that will never be met.

    Therefore you have wingnuts like V&K calling them dirty Hippies
    GP going on witch hunts to vilify the dissenters
    And TGC and NDT spewing their usual hateful tripe
    Its quite similar to 2005-2006…Conservatives only know “Stay the Course” and “Slow and Steady Wins the Race”
    and “Close your Eyes and listen to Me”

    Incidentally did you hear that when Bush met with abu Risha Bush did not even know that Sunnis were being killed due to their names? Or that the guy whose hand he was shaking was responsible for “ridding” his province of Shiites thus Bush alienated Shiite factions of the Iraqi Gov?
    He is terrible and it makes me wonder if the General is giving Bush the straight dope about Iraq.
    As you know, Petraeus has a reputation as “an ass-kissing little chickenshomething”
    Perhaps that is making him not give the full story to Bush…..

    Comment by gil — September 14, 2007 @ 10:13 am - September 14, 2007

  57. Victory means an Iraq that is self-governing and positioned to resist Islamic Fascism. The Islamic Fascist Jihad took decades to metastasize, only a fool would imagine it could be cleaned up in a few short years… or contained by police actions and lobbing cruise missiles at empty camps when it was politically convenient to do so.

    And I didn’t just call them smelly hippies, I linked to the pictures that prove it. Which is far more proof than Thomas Beauchamp ever provided.

    Comment by V the K — September 14, 2007 @ 10:21 am - September 14, 2007

  58. Wow – I’m surprised that Moveon.org ad is causing such a stir….Petraeus DID IN FACT contradict numerous (government) reports about how things are going in Iraq. MoveOn tried to put pressure on him to be honest, and given the unlikeliness of that, cast public doubt over his dubious claims and whitewashing. I say way to go! Of course it has only had the effect of making them look like sore losers in the propaganda war…..when will the left develop a decent (mis)information machine anyway?

    Comment by Ben — September 14, 2007 @ 12:10 pm - September 14, 2007

  59. #3 Again leftists are heartened by the death of innocents if it can advance their selfish goals. Shame.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 14, 2007 @ 1:18 pm - September 14, 2007

  60. I understand not one Democrat questioner in the House or Senate asked the General if there was anything Congress could do to help him or the troops. How shameful. “We support the troops but not the mission.” Lies.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 14, 2007 @ 1:20 pm - September 14, 2007

  61. #55:

    It is an exceedingly difficult and very costly strategy

    If it’s so difficult and costly and presumably critical to the survival of western civilization, why aren’t we putting everything we have into the fight? Especially after we have so little to show for our efforts after more than four years? The Bush/Cheney strategy is not working and they have to keep replacing generals who eventually figure that out. This half-assed effort in Iraq is a disaster except for what is its increasingly obvious goal: run out the clock so Bushco can hand it all off to the next President.

    Comment by Ian S — September 14, 2007 @ 2:25 pm - September 14, 2007

  62. I would love to see the gay left, the entire community of them, go to Iraq and Iran to march in opposition to our troops presence in Iraq. Then they´ll experience first hand the love and the devotion the muslims will shower upon them. Then will see them on tv in their final appearance on the stage of life, if there is enough rope to go around.

    I get so tired of them calling gay conservatives ¨jewish nazis.¨ What can be more self-loathing than giving support to regiimes that are hell bent on dextroying our way of life in general and exterminating gays and lesbians in particular.

    Comment by Roberto — September 14, 2007 @ 2:46 pm - September 14, 2007

  63. If it’s so difficult and costly and presumably critical to the survival of western civilization, why aren’t we putting everything we have into the fight?

    It amazes me how we supposedly don’t have enough money for Iraq, but we sure as hell have enough money for building canoes in Hawaii or a Woodstock museum in New York. And how about Oberstar getting the CAGW’s Porker of the Month award?

    Or how about the liberals using pork to buy votes for their “Fcuk Iraq and US Soldiers” legislation?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 14, 2007 @ 2:57 pm - September 14, 2007

  64. If it’s so difficult and costly and presumably critical to the survival of western civilization, why aren’t we putting everything we have into the fight?

    Because, as V the K put it:

    Third option, selectively target terrorist operations and destroy them militarily while working for political change in the Muslim world. This is the Bush administration policy. It is an exceedingly difficult and very costly strategy, but it saves lives in the long run over options 1 and 2, and had a better chance of success than option 1.

    What makes this battle difficult is that we, in essence, must fight with one hand tied behind our back and under a set of rules that are antithetical to ease of warfare.

    If we wanted, it would be no problem to vaporize virtually all the insurgency for very little cost; plain high explosives aren’t that expensive. Problem is, though, given their habit of using civilians as shields, we would also kill thousands unnecessarily in the process; as a result, we can’t use cheaper weapons and we can’t use the weapons we can as readily.

    Add to that the fact that we are dealing with a double standard. Leftists and Democrats like Ian constantly harass our soldiers, smear them publicly, and fabricate allegations about them — then turn around and ignore clear evidence that the terrorists are using human shields, are brutally torturing and murdering thousands who don’t do their bidding, and are in utter and complete violation of the same “conventions” that these screaming leftists try to use to hammer our troops.

    And finally, Ian, how about YOU and your fellow Democrats put something into the fight?

    Denounce and purge your terrorist-supporting friends like Lynne Stewart and the Democrat organizations that support them, like International ANSWER, Code Pink, and Cindy Sheehan.

    Denounce and purge your fiction writers who are slandering our troops, like Scott Beauchamp.

    Demand that terrorists follow the rules of the Geneva Convention in order to claim the protections of it — and put the blame for the death of civilians on the terrorists who are using them as shields, rather than on our troops.

    In other words, start fighting the terrorists, instead of protecting them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 14, 2007 @ 3:01 pm - September 14, 2007

  65. File this under “You’ve GOT to be kidding me”:

    “What makes this battle difficult is that we, in essence, must fight with one hand tied behind our back and under a set of rules that are antithetical to ease of warfare”
    If ONLY we could nuke them all, THEN we would win.
    If ONLY we could set up death camps, THEN we would win.
    If ONLY we could drop poison gas, THEN we would win.

    Of course lets not think about the following:
    No post war strategy, striping our forces out of Afghanistan, too few troops from the get-go, Abu Garib, ,“Stuff Happens” and the rest of horrible decisions by Rummy, the incompetent Bremer, the incompetent Franks, hiring rightie disciples to run post war Iraq, staying the course for far to long, Arming factions to buy shorterm peace, and on and on and on.

    Instead of facing the reality of our own making, you stare at our morality and call it a hindrance.
    classic…

    Comment by gil — September 14, 2007 @ 4:41 pm - September 14, 2007

  66. #63:

    What makes this battle difficult is that we, in essence, must fight with one hand tied behind our back and under a set of rules that are antithetical to ease of warfare.

    There is nothing about the set of rules that prevents going in with a massive number of boots on the ground. Indeed, that is precisely the way you get the best shot at quickly establishing security in the vacuum that was Iraq post-invasion. The fact that this wasn’t even tried shows how incompetent the whole invasion was. Now I doubt that even that would have worked and I’m even more skeptical about the chances of a massive boot-on-the-ground effort now. In any event, Bush/Cheney have guaranteed that it is not an option for the foreseeable future so the whole idea is moot.

    So, you’re left with two choices: an orderly withdrawal or continuing a half-assed attempt to referee a civil war with insufficient resources. The American people are finally realizing those are the options and they want us out.

    Comment by Ian S — September 14, 2007 @ 4:56 pm - September 14, 2007

  67. Thank you for so obviously demonstrating my point, gil.

    You have terrorists who are actively seeking a nuclear weapon so they CAN “nuke them all”.

    You have terrorists who are kidnapping people, taking them to their camps, and sawing off their heads, a la Daniel Pearl or numerous other tortures they inflict on people for daring to side against them — as well as carrying out wholesale genocide against non-Muslims or people in sects of Islam that they consider objectionable.

    You have terrorists who are actively blowing up chlorine and other tankers to produce poison gas clouds and kill hundreds of people.

    Who are you whining about?

    The US.

    Who are you calling “freedom fighters” and claiming their actions are justified?

    The terrorists.

    You are so patently anti-American that you bash us for something that you praise and support other people doing — and that you will not let us put a stop to happening.

    The terrorists know damn well that they can shove a child in front of an oncoming tank and that you and your Democrat Party will blame the tank driver for not stopping fast enough.

    They know that you are so depraved that you and yours will openly fabricate stories about US soldiers being inhuman — and then scream and whine that documented proof of terrorists doing the same is propaganda.

    Therefore, it’s no surprise that you “blame America first” — even though what should be obvious to all is that what prevents our troops from fighting effectively are hypocrites like yourself.

    Or, put more precisely, people who inexplicably allow the terrorists to do whatever THEY want and justify it while doing everything in their power to prevent our troops from stopping it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 14, 2007 @ 5:06 pm - September 14, 2007

  68. #64

    Meanwhile the liberals focus on getting Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Rove etc. rather than doing anything about the REAL threats to our country.

    Not to mention raking in cash from fugitives and the indicted.

    They were for the war before they were against it. They were for funding it, now they drag their feet. They claimed we were losing because we didn’t capture Hussein. When we did, we were losing because we didn’t capture Zarqawi, then we killed him. Then we’re losing because al Sadr is on the loose. Now he’s gone off to Iran and his militias aren’t a problem.

    The excuses keep changing. No matter what our soldiers do, they’re incompetent, the general’s a liar. America sucks and we deserve to lose.

    Meanwhile the liberals suck up all the pork cash they can, ignoring their promises to reform pork and then bitch about how we can’t afford anything.

    Nevermind the TRILLIONS of dollars spent on an unending “war on poverty/America’s families”.

    Give us a break, gilly. The liberals NEVER gave a fcuk about the military before. Why should we believe you do now?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 14, 2007 @ 5:08 pm - September 14, 2007

  69. I wish to hell Ian would share his credentials in determining how many soldiers he thinks we should have had.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 14, 2007 @ 5:10 pm - September 14, 2007

  70. There is nothing about the set of rules that prevents going in with a massive number of boots on the ground.

    Yes there is, Ian; you and your fellow Democrats screamed that a massive and tightly-run occupation was “going to war against the Iraqi people”.

    Meanwhile, why don’t you step up to the plate and put something into the fight? Denounce and purge your terrorist-supporting friends like Lynne Stewart and the Democrat organizations that support them, like International ANSWER, Code Pink, and Cindy Sheehan. Denounce and purge your fiction writers who are slandering our troops, like Scott Beauchamp. Demand that terrorists follow the rules of the Geneva Convention in order to claim the protections of it — and put the blame for the death of civilians on the terrorists who are using them as shields, rather than on our troops.

    Or can you do none of those?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 14, 2007 @ 5:17 pm - September 14, 2007

  71. Ian, you got a couple of the local queens all fired up here. Lots of gnashing and baring of teeth. Way to go bro. Absent sanity in the WH, and with Repug corruption and scandals littering the map, guess an ad for MO.org is about all they got going for them these days.

    Comment by KYKid — September 14, 2007 @ 6:01 pm - September 14, 2007

  72. #69:

    why don’t you step up to the plate and put something into the fight?

    Oh but I am. I’m working hard to see that the vast majority of my fellow Americans who want us out of Iraq get their wish. Unfortunately, that probably won’t happen until the next election. Which is looking mighty good now. Senate seats in Virginia, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oregon, Minnesota, Maine, and Colorado are all likely to switch from Rep to Dem. A few more and we could have a filibuster proof majority.

    Comment by Ian S — September 14, 2007 @ 6:13 pm - September 14, 2007

  73. LOL….Ian, keep screaming about the Iraq war.

    The desperation of your side was made obvious this month, when you had to slander US soldiers with Scott Beauchamp’s false accusations and your advertisements accused a United States general with a distinguished record of lying. But as Iraq improves — and it is improving, much to your chagrin — Americans will have other things to think about.

    Such as your party’s opposition to enforcement of immigration laws.

    Your case on that one completely unraveled when the first people to sue to block enforcement of the new no-match rules was the Democrat-controlling AFL-CIO.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 14, 2007 @ 6:27 pm - September 14, 2007

  74. Actually, what Wonder Woman is doing is spinning attention away from the ugly fact he can not answer: that despite the consistent insistence by the Democrats (whose boots he eagerly licks) that they have a popular mandate to surrender in Iraq… when given the chance to vote for surrender, they folded faster than Superman on laundry day.

    Comment by V the K — September 14, 2007 @ 7:37 pm - September 14, 2007

  75. and with Repug corruption and scandals littering the map

    Well, I suppose you can’t be blamed for your colossal ignorance. The liberal media is making damn sure as few people as possible know about Hillary’s laundered money, DiFi’s war profiteering, Jefferson’s cold cash etc. ( I can go on, if you like).

    BTW, like any good gay liberal, Ian prefers you to cry while you screw him. He’ll forgive you for anything after that. Worked for Clinton.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 14, 2007 @ 9:48 pm - September 14, 2007

  76. #56 git:

    They have no idea to as what victory in Iraq is…
    But what does success mean?

    Actually, Bush has defined it many times and very clearly, as he did again is his speech last night,

    Perhaps you liberals should come out of your echo chamber, pull your noses out of your trite, vapid talking points and pay attention every once in a while.

    The vague term: “progress”?

    actually its a quite meaningful term. It means improvement as opposed to a stagnation or worsening. I would say you should know this, but you liberals apply the term to your ideology, which clearly shows you have no idea what it means.

    Its quite similar to 2005-2006…Conservatives only know “Stay the Course”

    actually it was liberals who used that term dishonestly (as always) Republicans never used it. Republicans were talking about a new strategy that is now in place. Democrats are only in power now because they absolutely refused during the election to say what they would do. only that “its time for a new direction”. They certainly never said they were going to pull out, in fact, they flatly denied it. Lying to the american people again.

    As you know, Petraeus has a reputation as “an ass-kissing little chickenshomething”

    Only among liberals who know less than nothing about anything military so they believe (and start) the most ludicrous lies (ie haditha, beauchamp, etc). In the real world, Petraeus is known as a top flight general and the best there is in counter-insurgency warfare.

    Comment by American Elephant — September 14, 2007 @ 11:40 pm - September 14, 2007

  77. #75: “Ian prefers you to cry while you screw him.”

    A fitting and effective metaphor, without a doubt. However,…….ummm….EEEEEEEEWWWWWWWW!

    Comment by Sean A — September 14, 2007 @ 11:51 pm - September 14, 2007

  78. pull your noses out of your trite, vapid talking points

    And I thought “rectal-cranial inversion” was a fancy way of saying “head up your ass”.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 15, 2007 @ 2:34 am - September 15, 2007

  79. hey #75, you forgot to blame Bill Clinton. Isn’t he still worth a scandal squeal from Repigs? You mention ONE (1) real Demo blot — old Refrigerator Jefferson (and he’ll eventually get his), but can’t bring yourself to acknowledge Vitter, Craig, Stevens, Lewis, Cunningham, Abramoff, Ney, DeLay, and all the other Repig litter across the political landscape. Muck is like quicksand and your side is sinking in it. And note that I didn’t even mention the ultimate scandal of your party lying us into a useless war with no end (if your party has anything to do with it).

    Comment by KYKid — September 15, 2007 @ 7:22 am - September 15, 2007

  80. As you know, Petraeus has a reputation as “an ass-kissing little chickenshomething”

    One unsubstantiated, anonymously sourced, hearsay account does not rise to the level of a “reputation.” Except among lefties, where the only standard of proof is “gossip that re-affirms my prejudices.”

    Comment by V the K — September 15, 2007 @ 7:50 am - September 15, 2007

  81. A few more and we could have a filibuster proof majority.

    And then we’ll really be screwed.

    Ian may be ignorant of history. Well, Ian *is* ignorant of history, but the last time we had a left-wing president with a veto-proof left-wing congressional majority, America enjoyed 70% tax rates on marginal income, 13% inflation, 22% interest rates, gas lines, international humiliation. malaise.

    Then, of course, America wised up and began electing more conservative leadership. Hopefully, that will happen again after the lefties get in and screw things up… which, given their policies and the global situation and their thrall of marxist economic theory… is pretty much inevitable.

    Comment by V the K — September 15, 2007 @ 7:58 am - September 15, 2007

  82. It will be interesting if the Virginia Senate race is between Mark Warner and Tom Davis because the Republican will actually be more liberal than the Democrat.

    Comment by V the K — September 15, 2007 @ 9:23 am - September 15, 2007

  83. 82. How is Tom Davis more liberal than Mark Warner? Just because you meet with LCR doesn’t make you a liberal. He hasn’t supported any LGBT legislation in recent memory. Maybe there is something else that Davis is more liberal than Mark Warner, but help me out there. Now, Tom Davis does have a REPUTATION for being a moderate (as he has to in order to get reelected in his Fairfax Congressional District), but I haven’t seen much moderation in his votes. Furthermore, expect Davis to pull a Romney/Giuliani and jettison prior moderate views to
    appeal to hard care conservatives in the Virginia GOP “election”.

    Davis will still probably not be the nominee. He could win a GOP primary, but the Virginia GOP leaders will probably decide to have a “nominating convention” somewhere outside of Northern Virginia so that moderate Republicans will have to drive to Richmond to vote.

    Finally, Davis still probably loses to Mark Warner in a general.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — September 15, 2007 @ 10:42 am - September 15, 2007

  84. Ian,

    Not so fast on the Senate projections. Colorado and New Hampshire look pretty good right now. Maine and Virginia are almost there. But beyond that it not a done deal. Minnesota is at best a toss up. Oregon has a liberal third party candidacy and a weaker challenger than I’d like. Kerrey will have more trouble than you think running for Senate in a Presidential year in Nebraska. While Stevens in Alaska has ethics issues, it remains to be seen if the Dems can capitalize on them or that the voters up there will blame the GOP for them. Finally we have our own (albeit shrinking) problems in Louisiana and South Dakota. Finally, remember that if Hillary is the nominee, more Republicans will be voting in 2008 than 2006. I’d only be able to predict 4-5 switches right now. The Democrats need 10 turnovers to get to a filibuster proof majority in the Senate (the extra vote is to account for Lieberman). While I wouldn’t be tremendously surprised at 7 switches next year, I wouldn’t see that as likely. Unfortunately, getting to 10 switches is even less likely.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — September 15, 2007 @ 10:58 am - September 15, 2007

  85. 79 You forgot Sen. Murkowski(AK), Reps. Young (AK), Renzi (AZ), Calvert (CA), Doolittle (CA), Weller (IL), Feeney (FL), and Goode (VA), and Govs. Fletcher(KY) and Gibbons (NV). That’s in addition to your current list of Sen Craig (ID), Sen Vitter (LA), and Rep. Lewis (CA). Oh yes and then theres (newly) anti-Gay Democratic Congressman William Jefferson (D-LA). Fletcher, Craig, Doolittle and Renzi will most likely not be in office by 2009. Its too early to tell how it will play out with the others.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — September 15, 2007 @ 11:46 am - September 15, 2007

  86. It is incredible how America has changed. In the past the Generals and the military were respected. At the end of World War II, the military was cheered as they marched down Broadway in New York. When General Mac Arthur was relieved of his command during the Korean War because he wanted to cross the Yalu and finish off the Red Menace, China, he was given a ticker tape parade in New York.

    If these radical leftist had lived in those days, probably the eastern half of the United States would now be saying ¨seig hiel¨and the western half would be cow-towing as a japanese general walked by. These days they´re okay with us becoming muslim and chanting Chavez´s mantra ¨socialism or die¨ Speaking of the Red Menace has anybody noticed the modern weaponry displayed by the Peoples Republic? These are dangerous times that we´re living in and they (left) want us to capitulate. Sad!!

    Comment by Roberto — September 15, 2007 @ 12:26 pm - September 15, 2007

  87. There are plenty of generals that have publically disagreed with Bush policy on Iraq. Rightly or wrongly, there is a perception that Bush shifts the generals till he gets an opinion he likes.

    Comparing the two thirds of Americans that disagree with Bush on the Iraq war to Nazi appeasers is a bit over the top. Its also highly counterproductive to your cause.

    People are fed up with this war. They know the rationale for the war turned out to be false, and the Administrations prosecution of it has been a profound failure. Most people don’t know nor care who Hugo Chavez is. Most people don’t believe that opposing the war means capitulating to Al Qaida.

    And I today have no clue what Republicans mean when they say ‘win in Iraq’ means. And I’m not alone.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — September 15, 2007 @ 3:22 pm - September 15, 2007

  88. 85, you’re right — I left off a whole slew of them. BTW, have you tangled with North Dallas Thirty yet? You’ve a s’load of facts and good analysis to refute the distortions and diversions he trades in. I’ll look for your next encounter.

    Comment by KYKid — September 15, 2007 @ 6:27 pm - September 15, 2007

  89. Tom, people better get to know Hugo Chavez because he wasnts us to pay $100 or more for his oil. The money will go to setting up dictatorships in Latin America. This will allow his terrorists buddies to set up shop in this hemisphere. He looks like clown, he acts like a clown but don´t under estimate the man. His goal is to be the ¨capo di capos¨ of
    dictators/terrotist leaders. One visit to Russia and Putin dissaolves Parliament. After his return from Russia he spent 4 hours on tv reading Karl Marx´s Das Kapital to a live audience. Nobody leaves the auditorium.

    Comment by Roberto — September 15, 2007 @ 6:40 pm - September 15, 2007

  90. Hey KYjelly,
    you forgot to blame Bill Clinton. Isn’t he still worth a scandal squeal from Repigs?

    Ehh, he’s been busy with his Amazon.com #29 best seller.

    You mention ONE (1) real Demo blot — old Refrigerator Jefferson (and he’ll eventually get his),

    I believe I mentioned DiFi and Hillary. Of course I could include Reid, Hastings, Benny Thompson, Trafficant, Condit, Hoyer, Murtha, McDermott, Emanuel, Mollohan, Obama, Pelosi, Abercrombie, Ballance, Boxer, Brown, Corzine, Dorgan, Durbin, Ford, Kerry, Kucinich, Kennedy, Baucus, Bayh, Harkin, Lautenberg, McKinney, Pomroy, Torricelli, etc. etc. etc.

    Then there’s the Abramoff liberals such as Rangel, Kennedy, Reid, Dorgan, Daschle, Carson, John, Harkin, Breaux, Landrieu, Frank, Kildee, Baucus, Gephart, Pallone, Rahall, Mikulski, Inouye, Cantwell, Pelosi, Oberstar, Wellstone, Leahy, Waters, etc. etc. etc. I can go on here.

    but can’t bring yourself to acknowledge Vitter, Craig, Stevens, Lewis, Cunningham, Abramoff, Ney, DeLay, and all the other Repig litter across the political landscape.

    If they were the subject, I would. If you’d bother to look, you’d see that those have been discussed in depth. As far as DeLay goes, you know that’s a freakin’ joke and a classic example of liberal bastardization of justice.

    Muck is like quicksand and your side is sinking in it.

    Muck is actually the contemptable sh!t that you’re writing. You’re side is sinking in it, but nobody knows about it because the drive-by media is dutifully running defense for them if it’s acknowledged at all.

    And note that I didn’t even mention the ultimate scandal of your party lying us into a useless war with no end (if your party has anything to do with it).

    Well maybe you might have at least one shred of honesty because you know DAMN well that if Bush lied, so did the liberals including both Clintons. Otherwise, there’s nothing redeeming about any of your posts. No wonder you’re so enamoured with the “facts” that Ian and Tom are posting since you lack any. It goes without saying that you’re pretty damn sad if you’re impressed with Ian’s muck.

    Cheers!

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 15, 2007 @ 10:43 pm - September 15, 2007

  91. 90, you live your days here at Gp.org. I don’t. I have a life. So, I appreciate it when other commenters take the time to post what I’d love to, if I had the time. BTW, anybody ever tell you what a nasty mofo you come across as? No? Then consider yourself told.

    Comment by KYKid — September 16, 2007 @ 9:25 am - September 16, 2007

  92. 89. I care who Hugo Chavez is. I’ve had the displeasure of living in Venezuela when he tried his coup back in 93. To say I’m not a fan is an understatement. But American policy towards Chavez under Bush has been a complete failure as well. First the facts, Chavez was democratically elected twice (yes – there were games but Chavez would have won without them). Bush supported publically a coup attempt against him, thus heightening his paranoia. Second, Bush has refused to hit Chavez where it hurts – he is currently completely dependent on US refineries to refine his oil. We could have issued an import tax or seized Citgo payments to compensate judgements against his regime. But we never bothered (I’m speculating because Lyondell Oil/Valero would have been hurt financially by this) and now China is building refinineries that can accept Chavez’s oil.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — September 16, 2007 @ 11:13 am - September 16, 2007

  93. If Republicans are concerned about Chavez, why is a former lobbyist for Hugo Chavez a leading GOP Presidential Candidate

    Comment by Tom in Houston — September 16, 2007 @ 11:19 am - September 16, 2007

  94. Tom, I´m glad you care about Hugo. The referendum last December has to be suspect. The oppositions complaints were never investigated.
    Any election Jimmy Carter puts his imprimatur on has to be suspect. If elections were held today, and they´re honest he´d lose. He has since threatened the Catholic hierarchy, Globovision, and refused to renew the license of Channel 2 which went off the air despite so much protest. Many have become disillusioned with his brand of socialism, which is really cdommunism. He has forced the military to pledge loyalty to him personally, that the public is asking is the military his military or Venezuela´s which will they defend? Since you lived in Venezuela, if you watched Globovision there is a program called Ola Ciudadano. They take a daily poll, whatever the issue is with Chamvez , his support is around 37 to 39%. Probably that is why he wants to lower the voting age to 16 thinking kids are dumb enoughto support him.

    I remeber readling in the Wall Street Journal in a column by Anastasia O´Grady that he had a lobbyist but his name escapes me. Are sure he is a Republican?

    Comment by Roberto — September 16, 2007 @ 5:59 pm - September 16, 2007

  95. Tom,

    The relevance of a connection between Guiliani and Chavez that you are attempting to inject into the debate, is diminished by the inaccurate and misleading way in which you have delivered it.

    The centerpiece of Chavez’s plot to establish his totalitarian reich over Venezuela (and probably the entire continent of South America) is the country’s state-controlled oil corporation, Petroleos de Venezuela. PV acquired Citgo, a gasoline company based in Texas in 1990. Giuliani became a partner with a Texas law firm in 2005, and that law firm represents Citgo. Giuliani has had no involvement with Citgo’s representation and the company became a client of the firm two years before Giuliani even got there.

    Is it relevant? Maybe. I believe political candidates should be vigilant in their efforts to know where their income and donations are coming from to ensure there is no threat of influence from foreign, corrupt powers (hear that, Hillary?!). But to frame your comment in coy, misleading language similar to that found in the blind items of US Weekly is to expose your own doubts about its real significance.

    Giuliani, a lobbyist for Chavez? Not even close.

    Comment by Sean A — September 16, 2007 @ 7:27 pm - September 16, 2007

  96. #91
    you live your days here at Gp.org. I don’t. I have a life.

    If you were honest, you’d realize that I don’t “live my days” here compared to others. Bruce & Dan can vouch for that. I do have more time lately since I wrapped up a reorganization project at work, but I’ll still be pretty busy until the end of hurricane season. And yes, I am able to work in enough time to have a life.

    BTW, anybody ever tell you what a nasty mofo you come across as? No? Then consider yourself told.

    While nobody’s ever used the ghetto term “mofo”, I have been told. However, the important thing to remember is that I really don’t care about what opinion you or anybody else have of me. As much as it probably pi$$es in your Cheerios, I don’t wring my hands over whether or not somebody likes me or what I could do to make somebody like me. I grew out of that a long time ago so frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn what you think of me.

    And no, I’m not content to wallow in the mud of victimhood, unlike some others on here.

    Cheers!

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 17, 2007 @ 2:16 am - September 17, 2007

  97. Oh yeah:

    And by “life” I don’t mean masturbating furiously to the fantasy of being teabagged by lord BJ with great big handfuls of KY.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 17, 2007 @ 6:29 am - September 17, 2007

  98. Ok, I so did not need that image on the way to work. *laugh*

    Comment by The Livewire — September 18, 2007 @ 8:52 am - September 18, 2007

  99. Support the troops and the war in Iraq: start a blog with “Patriot” in the name.

    Comment by sean — September 19, 2007 @ 1:44 am - September 19, 2007

  100. Why weren’t the Homo’s outraged and out demonstration when the President of Iran said there were no Homo’s in Iran. But when General Petraeus made comments about Homo’s in the service there was no letting up? In Iran, they whip & hang Homo’s. Yet in the US, a democratic & free speach country, not one peap from the Homo’s.

    Comment by Frank — September 29, 2007 @ 11:27 am - September 29, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.