For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: another Bush tell-all:
Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush “veered terribly off course,” was not “open and forthright on Iraq,” and took a “permanent campaign approach” to governing at the expense of candor and competence.
Is this just another former White House official willing to do and say anything to sell books and further his career, or do you think McClellan's telling the truth? What is it about this Administration that has produced so many of these tell-alls? Is it the Administration's fault, or all the money now available from publishers for such things?



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I never liked Scott McClelland but.....
May 28, 2008 - 09:40 ET by shawn228....he was a Bush insider and I am very interested in what he has to say. He obviously had a bone to pick, since Libby. Rove and maybe Cheney threw him under the bus about what they knew about the Plame thing.
I have never been a liberal that believed Bush led us into a war based on lies, but I am very interested on what he has to say about twisting evidence.
I never liked Scott
May 28, 2008 - 10:21 ET by NewsbusterbrownI never liked Scott McClelland but.....
...you like him now? ;-)
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Scott knows how to make
May 28, 2008 - 13:07 ET by TruthMongerScott knows how to make $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!
dkos eat your heart out...
Libby. Rove and maybe
May 28, 2008 - 11:50 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsLibby. Rove and maybe Cheney threw him under the bus about what they knew about the Plame thing.
Check the mirror there shawn228, your ignorance is showing. It was Richard Armitage who put Plame's name out there. The facts won't kill you, try them.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
But they didn't throw their
May 28, 2008 - 13:03 ET by Jack BauerBut they didn't throw their grannies under the bus though?
McClellan is a whore. I
May 28, 2008 - 09:44 ET by HelenSMcClellan is a whore. I despise him and any like him who can be bought to turn on their friends and/or associates.
He is a scourge and a disgrace.
The only thing Bush has done is show by example that a real man has a back-bone, standards, and consistency. The wishy-washy libs in search of an ever wafting reality are rendered uncomfortable by anyone who shows them to be the spineless tripe that they are.
McClellan is an embarrassment and a coward.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
What is the answer to 99
May 28, 2008 - 09:46 ET by taterWhat is the answer to 99 out of 100 questions? Money. -vanilla sky
He can make a buck and get lots of media hoopla for it (in fact I bet the MSM were frothing at the mouth to get this out).
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
the love of money is the
May 28, 2008 - 13:08 ET by TruthMongerthe love of money is the root of all evil...
Funny my liberal friends
May 28, 2008 - 16:26 ET by Dan The Man 2Funny my liberal friends say that Bush is the root of all evil.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Looks like Scott McClellan
May 28, 2008 - 09:53 ET by balboaLooks like Scott McClellan wrote a book. Looks like Rove doesn't care for it.
No More Honor
May 28, 2008 - 11:29 ET by bradbenj5952It is sad to see that there is no more honor in many in this country. Scott, shame on you. You are selling out someone who believed in you and gave you a prestigious opportunity for a buck. You created a big batch of koolaid for the drinkers on the left just to make some money. Shame on you! I for one will not be adding to your fortunes, but unfortunately, there are far too many who will.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
Another staffer striking
May 28, 2008 - 09:58 ET by motherbeltAnother staffer striking out at his boss after he was fired....
Yaaaaawwwwwn......
$$$$$$$$$$$$
May 28, 2008 - 10:06 ET by OldSailor88A Pro Bush book would get no press and no sales. The dude is strapped for cash. Whatever.
Noli habere bovis, vir!
well
May 28, 2008 - 10:09 ET by candanceI think it's a combination of the money to be made and maybe a little frustration from their jobs. We all love W but we've never personally worked on his staff and don't know everything McClellan saw behind the curtain.
When Dee Dee Myer or Dick Morris come out to criticize the Clintons we all say "finally the truth is revealed." When the same thing happens to a Republican we call the person a shameless little weasel.
I'm not buying McClellan's book for a variety of reasons, but if he has genuinely been thrown under the bush he has a right to say whatever he wants.
Good points. It'll be
May 28, 2008 - 10:27 ET by balboaGood points. It'll be interesting to see the general reaction to this book.
it's scary Bal
May 28, 2008 - 10:35 ET by candanceThe level of hatred and insults being directed to McClellan on here is almost fascist.
The book hasn't even been released yet to put those cherry picked quotes into any context. For all we know it's not even all that bad and the media is exaggerating.
But McClellan is a greedy, ungrateful, backstabbing attention whore with no class because he's acting like a coward. Nah, people on NB don't resort to namecalling....
At lease you didn't . . . .
May 28, 2008 - 10:44 ET by Caringwhiteguy. . . . call posters Nazis. Just junior Nazis.
Since when is something
May 28, 2008 - 10:48 ET by mofosesameSince when is something "almost fascist"?
Are you unable to read between the lines?
Candance I think you make some good points
May 28, 2008 - 11:11 ET by Carl KolchakI think you make some good points about how the GOP reacted to books about Clinton, and how people react when books are written about Bush. Republicans aren't perfect angels who have enver done anything wrong. However, I don't recall as much msm coverage of books about Clinton, and the msm seems to think anyone who doesn't think Gore is the most awesomest person ever, and worships him for his environmental issues, is the equivalent of a Holocaust denier.
agreed Carl
May 28, 2008 - 11:22 ET by candanceOf course the MSM will run with this for weeks, giving it far more attention than it really deserves. And yes I agree they ignore criticisms against the Dems. When was the last time Katie Couric inteviewed Dick Morris?
Look at all the MSM
May 28, 2008 - 11:24 ET by ThisnThatLook at all the MSM knee-jerk reaction. They are taking this as an opportunity to bash Bush and set up McClassless as a hero. There is no one in the MSM that questions anything McClassless is saying -- they are in the tank, completely.
Instead of you taking cheap shots at NB, why aren't you questioning the motives and statements of McClassless and the band of clueless MSM-types?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Maybe candance almost
May 28, 2008 - 11:27 ET by mofosesameMaybe candance almost doesn't have almost all the information we almost have or is almost an apologist. I can't be sure but I've almost figured it out...almost.
the MSM
May 28, 2008 - 13:12 ET by TruthMongerthe MSM Hussein-lovers will be absolutely desperate for vindication for the rest of eternity...
this book ain't gonna do it...
they can have a nice circle jerk for a week or so, and that's about it:)...
then it's back to reality
which significantly bites:)
sorry thisnthat
May 28, 2008 - 11:37 ET by candanceEveryone who knows me on here knows how much I question the MSM. I've already said I disagree with McClellan on the war and won't be buying this book.
But instead of discussing the meat of the issue we're all just sitting around looking for creative ways to insult McClellan.
Apparently name calling has offiicially become a smart debating strategy, and anyone who thinks otherwise is taking cheap shots at NB.
Any chance McClelland
May 28, 2008 - 11:45 ET by balboaAny chance McClelland actually has some good points in this book?
He got me to consider
May 28, 2008 - 11:48 ET by sarcasmoWhether I've ever been drunk enough to actually not-recall trying a drug like cocaine. It doesn't seem too likely, but I guess anything's possible.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I'm not sure I've ever been
May 28, 2008 - 11:57 ET by balboaI'm not sure I've ever been THAT drunk.
I'm not going to say McClelland is the "smoking gun" to all of the left's claims, but I think it's a little premature to dismiss the whole thing out of hand.
these "points" have all
May 28, 2008 - 13:18 ET by TruthMongerthese "points" have all been hashed, re-hashed, re-re-hashed and on and on and on...
this is simply pouring salt on an open wound - a totally unnecessary wound caused solely by partisan traitors in the MSM and DNC...
thanks Scott!
of course these purely anectdotal opinions of yours on top-secret matters you were not privy to at all as just the PR guy will of course further hamper the WOT, and get more of our soldiers killed - just what we need!!!
salute, ya GD bastard
Well, now we can
May 28, 2008 - 13:20 ET by balboaWell, now we can rehash(cubed) those points, but this time through McClelland's unique POV.
what fun! completely
May 28, 2008 - 14:25 ET by TruthMongerwhat fun!
completely pulverizing an extremely dead horse - again...
the left loves terrorists and fascist dictators - we get it already...
candance - I didn't notice anyone calling you names
May 28, 2008 - 11:51 ET by Dee Bunkthey just seem to be disagreeing with your premise.
got it Dee
May 28, 2008 - 11:58 ET by candancePlease read my post once more. No one is calling me anything. I was talking about the personal insults against McClellan and whether or not that does any good.
Oh - so now we shouldn't be allowed to refer to public figures
May 28, 2008 - 12:06 ET by Dee Bunkwith "name calling". Does that only apply to the public figures who don't call us names or all public figures or just liberal public figures?
You called people here "almost fascist" I'd consider that more name calling than calling some public figure fascist.
No, you can name call all
May 28, 2008 - 12:11 ET by balboaNo, you can name call all you want. And I think she said the level of insults was almost fascist, not the people.
You can name call all you want too balboa
May 28, 2008 - 12:20 ET by Dee BunkI'm sure you wouldn't deny that you've done it. That's a real big distinction you made there.
Boy, your are just LOADS of
May 28, 2008 - 12:30 ET by balboaBoy, your are just LOADS of fun these days.
Who's no fun?
May 28, 2008 - 12:45 ET by Dee BunkI'm just using your type of "humor" right back at you balboa. Maybe you are no fun.
You think I'm going to let you imply that I was name calling here right now? That's supposed to be funny?
You said "Oh, so now we
May 28, 2008 - 12:46 ET by balboaYou said "Oh, so now we shouldn't be allowed to refer to public figures with 'name calling.'" I said, no, you can name call all you want. I never said you were actually 'name calling,' never implied as such.
I'm sorry balboa - it's not worth arguing about
May 28, 2008 - 13:49 ET by Dee BunkI said "we" you said "you" an equivalent would have been "you guys" or something.
I take you at your word though and I'm sorry. You were not trying to be funny though.
I do agree that I'm no fun lately and have a hard time finding amusement with anything liberals say. You did say something the other day that made me laugh though - but I didn't want to admit it. It was one word "Zing!" You are a good sport and I wish I could be the same right now but I can't.
I've got one place in the world where I can vent and that is here and I have a lot of venting to get out. Sorry (and that isn't sarcastic). I don't expect any of you to like me. You are completely justified in hating me. I know I'm not being nice but I'm not being dishonest either.
forget it Dee
May 28, 2008 - 12:19 ET by candanceForget I brought the whole stupid thing up. I never said anything about not being able to refer to public figures.
Instead of discussing the content, viewpoint, and possibe impact of McClellan's book we're all just sitting around saying "he's a greedy attention whore who sucked at his job." It's the same darn thing on every thread. "Oh he made a bad comment about Bush, well he's a no talent hack who sounds stupid on TV."
Yes I still say that the effort on conservie blogs today is to simply shout McClellan down by branding him an attention whore. No debate, no proving him wrong, simply branding him a traitor before the book is even released. That's all I see going on here.
But whatever. I know you'll come back with a comment about me taking their side and purposely trying to derail this thread. So just forget I ever brought it up.
Why forget it? Just because we disagree?
May 28, 2008 - 12:32 ET by Dee BunkI'm sorry that you take this so personally Candance. I have a huge problem with the liberals on this site right now, but you can take their side all you want and it's not going to make me have a problem with you. Only what you say and do to me will do that and it takes a really long time to make me give up on someone. If you can't stand me, then there isn't much I can do about it. I'm not here for friendships anyway. They used to be an added bonus.
I'm trying to argue points with you because I would think as a conservative, you might be a little more receptive to our VALID arguments.
I have not name called you or treated you disrespectfully at all, but it appears that disagreeing is automatically disrespect to some. I can completely understand where you are coming from because I used to be a lot like you. I always considered myself conservative but for a long time bought into many of the media stereotypes of them. I often considered myself a "different kind of conservative".
not taking it personal
May 28, 2008 - 12:53 ET by candanceI'm not taking anything personal. :-) This is just the way I discuss things because I'm very passionate. Sometimes I come off like I'm snapping at people but that's really not my intention.
Debating valid points - I'm all over that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far the only points being made on here are:
-McClellan sucked at being press secretary.
-He's writing this book as treatment for his BDS.
-It's nothing but a chance to make some cash.
My responses to these points are:
-We can't blame him for doing a crappy job if Bush kept him for two years, and I fail to see how that affects the point of his book.
-If his book truly is an attack against Bush then we have every right to debunk it as soon as we have access to read it. Attacking the content is always more effective than smearing the author.
-We never called Bernie Goldberg an attention whore when he wrote Bias and never attacked ABC for embarrassing the Clintons with The Path to 9/11. You can say the book should not be released the summer before an election, but only if the same rules would apply to an October surprise against Obama.
I'd love to debate these points with you or anyone else as long as it doesn't involve any variation of "McClellan is stupid anyway." I look forward to you picking apart my assertions with valid points.
Candance - my debate points
May 28, 2008 - 14:38 ET by Dee Bunk1.) McClellan sucked at being Press secretary - You say we can't blame him for doing a crappy job because Bush kept him there. - I disagree STRONGLY. Bush was stupid to keep him there but he surely didn't do it because he wanted to be represented so poorly. He obviously had a personal affection for this guy and didn't want to throw him to the wolves. Had he known that the reason he was so bad was because he disagreed so strongly with the war then he never would have stuck behind him like this. We all complained about what an idiot and horrible press secretary he was before the book came out and constantly during the time he was press secretary. It's quite obvious now that the Secretary before him and after him could do it just fine, combined with the fact he now admits he didn't understand any of the valid reasons for going to war and saw them strictly as a PR campaign.
2. ) He's writing a book for treatment of BDS - You say we can only attack the content, not the author and that we have to wait until we read the book. Again I strongly disagree. So far what's been said in the press is complete fair game to respond to. So far there has been nothing new. Only the same old liberal talking points and ignoring of the valid reasons for going to war. We have already attacked that argument over and over and over. He's bringing it up as if it's new but it's not, he's what's new and we are attacking him. That is valid.
3. ) Nothing but a chance to make some cash - You say that because we didn't think Goldberg was out for the same reasons or that the Path to 9/11 wasn't just for cash that we can't think McClellan is. Well first - I don't think that he's only out for cash, I think he never agreed with the war AND is out for cash. Everyone who rights a book or makes a movie does it hoping to make money. It's the sell out and total inablity to understand the conservative argument that we are complaining about. Bernie Goldberg didn't owe any professional loyalty to anyone. The path to 9/11 didn't hold the Bush administration to be right about everything. Liberals completely slammed those two over and over and got great media attention for doing so. What is your point? That conservatives should just shut up an take it? Liberals can complain about much less egregious breaches with total publicity and vigor and we can't even complain about liberals on a blog? Please! You can't really believe that.
McClellen should have quit
May 28, 2008 - 15:19 ET by TruthMongerMcClellen should have quit immediately if he felt his ethics were being compromised - but he stayed in his position instead - why?
so let's run with his proposed scenario - he was intentionally lying during his briefings - instead of quitting right away and blowing the whistle on the administration - which apparently led us to an ill-concieved war - and he admits all of this in a highly publicized book?
This sounds like criminal activity on McClellen's part to me...
He kept his mouth shut - so he's just as culpible as Bush - if his allegations are true...
His allegations are grounds for POTUS impeachment - so now we need another independant council and a gazillion dollar investigation and impeachment proceedings - if all of his alleged crap is true - this is what we have to do now isn't it?
and if Bush is impeached then McClellen needs to do life in prison for compicit support of an illegal and immoral war...
fun, fun, fun...thanks much McClellen - good man...
Right TM - I'm in shock that you are agreeing with me
May 28, 2008 - 15:26 ET by Dee BunkWell said. I was thinking the same thing a minute ago and I couldn't have said it better. I would only add that he probably never should have taken the position because we went to War BEFORE he started. He's even bigger scum than Richard Clarke.
pretty good post
May 28, 2008 - 15:39 ET by candanceA thoughtful and clever attack on McClellan's book from a substance POV.
This is the kind of argument we should be making against McClellan.
awesome Dee
May 28, 2008 - 15:20 ET by candanceThanks for replying with serious arguments, and I really mean that.
1) He obviously had a personal affection for this guy and didn't want to throw him to the wolves. Let me play the devil's advocate for one second: this is verbatim the defense used by Obama fans as to why he kept his friendship with Jeremiah Wright. Ah well, you get to know someone, they become your friend, you overlook their politics and just want to be their friend. What ever happened to "it tarnishes his leadership and judgement to hire the best?"
Also, you mentioned on another thread that McClellan stymied Bush's ability to speak to the American people. Bush couldn't set the record straight himself? And furthermore, what does it mean when a life or death issue is hindered to protect your friend?
2)I agree that what was leaked to the press is fair game as long as we know the correct context. My only complaint was the high amount of posters who were too busy calling him a sellout to attack the content.
3)So McClellan is a backstabber because he owes his tail to Bush? Yet when Clinton's press secretary stabbed him in the back you thought it was funny. Ah, but Myer remained a lib who only complained about Clinton's personality - so that made it cool. You don't see that distinction as hair splitting?
Yes everyone hopes for a paycheck out of a book, but why is that only a bad thing when libs do it? Look at the level of rhetoric being used against McClellan...political whore, money grubber, prostitute, etc. Doesn't sound to me like "everyone writes for money." I remember when Ann Coulter debuted Slander and the left called her....a money grubbing attention whore - and conservatives said it was hateful to call her a whore. Sounds like a double standard to me.
Goldberg owed no professional loyalty to the network who employed him for years? Myer owed no loyalty to the Clintons when they covered for her during Travelgate? Dick Morris owes no loyalty after they paid him for decades?
Candance
May 28, 2008 - 16:03 ET by Dee Bunk1.) The comparison with Obama and Wright is not valid at all in my opinion. In this case Bush didn't know that he was strongly against the war and couldn't understand any of his points. If he knew that, he certainly would not have kept him. He took him at his word. Obama did the opposite. Obama heard Wrights words and decided to ignore them for political gain. Bush did the opposite. He suffered political fallout for someone (everyone complained about McClellan). He took the blame and didn't push it on McClellan. Bush was dead wrong. No one is arguing that Bush was right to leave him there. I'm just saying Bush did it for unselfish reasons.
Bush didn't see Mclellan as the problem, because he was taking responsibility for the fallout and everyone hating him. He didn't realize what a snake Mclellan was and neither did many of his staffers.
2.) seems like we agree. What's said in the press is fair game
3.) No I don't see it as hair splitting at all. There is a huge difference between someone who agrees with someone's politics criticizing them and someone who dosen't.
I was responding to your two points of The path to 9/11 and Goldberg. No Goldberg does not owe any loyalty. His was a job like any other. None of us owe any loyalty toward former employers. McClellan has no credibility because he never agreed with his positions.
Of course conservatives are going to love it when liberals come out and trash other liberals. That is natural. Just like it's natural for liberals to love McClellan right now. It's not natural for a conservative to defend the greatly unequal treatment in the media by saying - well we do the same thing on our little blogs - so okay - they should have every right to have days of the airwaves to make bogus claims. The media is not supposed to be like a partisan blog
I don't get your defense at all. The press either ignores conservatives when they do it or lambastes them. It's really strange that you can defend this. If the press were taking some angle that McClellan was a vicious traitor and Bush should have realized it, that would be different. They are not. Liberals are not. They are holding this guy in high esteem. We know enough to know he shouldn't be. I'm surprised that any conservative could agree with them. It really shows how powerful they are.
response to Dee
May 28, 2008 - 18:07 ET by candanceI think it's a little far fetched that McClellan was everyone's friend but nobody knew he was a flaming liberal. Bush doesn't interview these people before he hires them? It would seem that a basic part of the job description would be "generally agrees with the White House and wants to articule their message with candor." You make it sound like McClellan got the job either because he was Bush's friend or Bush simply wanted a lackey who would stand at the podium.
Either Bush takes the blame for his two years of bumbling or not. If Bush is to blame, we should drop the whole "he did a bad job" attacking point.
McClellan's job at the White House was just a job. You've said yourself that he wasn't paid to believe in the war, he was paid to be a press secretary. White House staffers should be allowed to write their memoirs the same as anyone else without having to sugar coat it.
I understand your basic argument against McClellan's book, that he has an axe to grind because he simply hates the war and is using his position to pretend to have special information. And as truthie said above, he either knowingly lied to the press to keep his job or is exaggerating about it now. And the media is drooling all over it with no regard to fact check because they like his insinuations. We're in perfect agreement on all of this.
My point is that we can attack McClellan's book without having to stoop to calling him a whore, and that his bumbling job performance is a superficial way to ridicule him. These are distractions that take us away from the damage caused by the contents in the book.
If you'll notice I never said the MSM is justified in promoting this book or suddenly being McClellan's best friend. Like you, I find it too convenient that they've suddenly decided to count him a reliable source. And I think it's tragic that they ignore Fleischer's memoir but drool all over this. Once again we are in perfect agreement but you seem to think I want to defend them.
I really think you're projecting your anger at the MSM onto me. More than once here you've put words in my mouth that I never said because you assume that's what I'm doing. All I want is to attack liberal hatchet jobs with the smartest, strongest and most precise ideas we can.
Candance - I wasn't projecting anything
May 28, 2008 - 18:39 ET by Dee Bunkyou were sounding just like the MSM and liberals with your defense of him and not wanting others to be harsh because you thought he may have some good points. I guess you were probably acting that way because you didn't know that much about the situation.
McClellen is like a Whore no matter what way you look at it. I had not used that term before so I don't know why you bring it up to me, but it's not inaccurate. He either sold out for the money and power beforehand or he's doing it now or both. The war had already started before he came so he joined when he didn't believe we had valid reasons for going and then willingly perpetrated what he believed to be lies (not that they were actually lies) on the public. He's disgusting no matter what way you look at it.
Your high and mighty attitude about how to argue is exactly what got Bush into trouble. He didn't fight fire with fire and while I admired him greatly for it, it's what got us to where we are now. The Dems constant unprofessional vicious attacks worked. That's the reality.
You're missing the point
May 28, 2008 - 15:04 ET by ThisnThatYou're missing the point entirely. Look at what the MSM thought of McClassless as represented by this WaPo article which goes so far as to state "the entire fourth estate thinks McClassless is clueless". That's the reason we here at NB are saying that McClassless sucked. Now look at the MSM reaction, today, over his book. "There, McClassless was right, Bush is evil" -- they are falling hook, line, and sinker for his opinion. Yet, since we all know he is clueless, he's only doing this for two reasons -- revenge and money. It's not likely his book is worth anything, except to the MSM as bashing-fodder.
So when you come back and say all we're doing is basing our comments on lack of information, you're simply wrong. We have plenty of information, and we're taking advantage of it. Yeah, our data is incomplete, but nontheless -- we all believe it's pretty good.
Now stop accusing us of knee-jerk reactions. It ain't true.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
But aren't you connecting
May 28, 2008 - 15:17 ET by balboaBut aren't you connecting two things unfairly? Does poor job performance preclude him from being able to write a book worthy of discussion?
he should have quit right
May 28, 2008 - 15:23 ET by TruthMongerhe should have quit right away - but stayed on and apparently lied willingly from the official WH podium - worse yet to support a supposedly immoral war - so why do you think he did that, bal?
was that wrong of him at all? or no big deal...
I think the assumption is
May 28, 2008 - 15:43 ET by ThisnThatI think the assumption is clueless, not general poor performance. Clueless as in "didn't get it" or "didn't understand". Given that assumption, then the book is full of opinion rather than fact and data, providing more than enough reason to dismiss it.
The MSM, however, is not going to give it a critical review. Instead, they are going to do what they do best -- extract snippets that support their template (Bush is evil), ignore context, and just hammer away.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
not understanding your point
May 28, 2008 - 15:29 ET by candanceI totally get the hypocrisy of the media in saying he was a bumbling fool until he became useful. But I don't see what that has to do with calling him a political whore.
Candance - there is a difference - Morriss and Myer still hold
May 28, 2008 - 10:43 ET by Dee Bunkliberal positions on things.
McClellan obviously disagreed with the War and should have never taken the position of Press secretary if he had any character what so ever. It's clear now that his bumbling was because he didn't understand the reasons.
I don't care if Bush is secretive or what ever else he wants to say about him as a Boss. He is trying to make a case that there were no valid reasons to go to war when it's obvious that there were.
Conservatives too often buy into this liberal junk and think it makes them fair. It doesn't. It just shows how much the media influence even us conservatives.
This is bogus, McClellan isn't saying anything new other than he agrees with liberals. And now conservatives are supposed to go - oh a Republican disagrees now we should all have more pause. Come on. None of the arguments have changed one bit about the war and whether it was right or wrong based on what this idiot says.
*sigh*
May 28, 2008 - 11:08 ET by candanceI'm not agreeing with McClellan or saying he's right about the war.
My whole point was that we have three cherry picked phrases from the book that the publisher has thrown out there to stir up some attention. If the media can take Bush's Israel speech and say he was attacking Obama, then they can exaggerate a few sentences in a memoir.
Wait until the book is realeased to see how bad it is. That's all I'm asking.
And as to your point that McClellan should never have accepted the job, maybe Bush should never have chosen him.
Double "Sigh" Candance
May 28, 2008 - 11:21 ET by Dee BunkMaybe you only have three cherry picked phrases but I've been reading all sorts of things and reviewers that say it's scathing. I would never ever ever spend money on this book.
Of course Bush should have never chosen him (if he had known how he would be, I'm sure he wouldn't have). Bush's biggest flaw is that he's loyal and trusts people too much. He should have fired Colin Powell too. He trusted Kennedy to be a human being and was screwed by him also.
The reason Bush gets lambasted more than any other President is because he allows people who don't agree with him in his circle - the exact opposite of how the press portray him. His biggest problem is trusting liberals. Period. He thinks that people will treat him with the same respect he gives them and he's wrong.
then we agree
May 28, 2008 - 11:31 ET by candanceI've already said I refuse to buy the book so we're in agreement there.
Bush does have a soft spot for liberals which has bitten him in the butt more than once. Like others on here have said, we should have seen this coming.
The main reason is that he
May 29, 2008 - 17:35 ET by zfThe main reason is that he has been so cartoonishly demonized by the press, Hollywood, Europe and other powerful voices that a sizeable amount of the public thinks he's evil, thus such books have a huge market, large populations who won't question their accusations, and are built-in best sellers. They are the ultimate in win-wins, unless you happen to have something called integrity (cough-cough.)
Liberals claim conservatives demonized Clinton, but that was NOTHING compared to real demonization, which we have seen against W. It's a firecracker vs. an atom bomb.
The problem is not that we think Republicans are angels and Bush is flawless (a cursory examination of this board will shoot that theory down) but these types of books are desgined to portray Republicans in general and Bush in particular in the worse possible light using the most vitrolic accusations of America's biggest enemies. They are not intended to just highlight a "few flaws" at all as part of a balanced treatment.
We cannot fall into the "give equal treatment so we seem fair" trap and give Republican bashers equal credence with Democrat bashers in an attempt to look non-partisan. That would be like giving equal treatment to Islam bashers and Christianity bashers.
One other point, people often belive quantity over quality. To use an extreme example there could be five hundred crappy books arguring the world is flat and just one high quality book saying it's round but folks will assume the flat earthers have a better argument because hey, they have five hundred books, so they must have more evidence and five hundred books can't be wrong!
Remember, the more often a lie is repeated and the more people who repeat them does have an effect even on the most cynical of folk in getting them to believe.
Simple, because the
May 29, 2008 - 17:15 ET by zfSimple, because the criticisms against Clinton were based on fact and backed up by evidence, while all the nonsense spewed at W. and parroted in these "books" have shown to be inaccurate and psuedo-intellectual babble.
Your comment is like saying, "Why do you Republicans praise books trashing Stalin but call those who write tell-alls about Mother Teresa shamless little weasels?
P.S. McCellan was about as much as an "insider" to the Bush White House as a fast-food clerk is to the inside workings of McDonalds.
you right-wingbloggopshere'
May 28, 2008 - 10:11 ET by mister josephyou right-wingbloggopshere' guys (and michelle malkin) just got blamed on the view for Dunkin' Donuts pulling a Rachael Ray ad with her wearing a 'muslim-like scarf'
i think it's funny, the righetous indignation of the untalented sister of a true talent.
Yeah, we're awful people.
May 28, 2008 - 10:47 ET by OldSailor88Yeah, we're awful people. We all know how nice and civil those left wing bloggers are and we're in a jealous rage.
Now I think I'll head over to Dunkin' Donuts for a cup 'o joe and a big old donut.
Noli habere bovis, vir!
Disgruntled former employee
May 28, 2008 - 10:12 ET by Free ThinkerDisgruntled former employee writes tabloid-opinion book for easy money. Take it for what its worth - not much.
I'd like to know if his publisher...
May 28, 2008 - 10:14 ET by Prester John....pushed McClellan to get the book done BEFORE the general election in order to get as much bad press for the GOP (I know, how get it much worse, right?) out there as possible.
What he says may be true, but it still stinks of financial opportunism and stabbing your boss in the back. I guess it would've been too much to ask to wait until Bush is out of office to release it.
Looks like public affairs
May 28, 2008 - 10:30 ET by taterLooks like public affairs publishing....other books include
Soros new book
and others www.publicaffairsboo...
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
Shocked that there's gambling in Casablanca?
May 28, 2008 - 10:16 ET by Mark JaboMark Jabo
How about a multiple choice question? Does the book claim:
a) The White House used political spin to further its goals
b) McClellan was lied to by other people in government
c) Washington D.C. is a byzantine bureaucracy that is inefficient
d) None of this is McClellan's fault
e) All of the above
I may have to sit down and pause to catch my breath after those startling revelations.
Let's give credit where credit is due, though. A self-proclaimed "open and honest" book being written by a guy who spent his career as a professional B.S. artist accomplishes the difficult task of raising the Washington irony bar another notch.
Excellent!
May 28, 2008 - 10:35 ET by CaringwhiteguyYour comments are as well-put as can be. The people with whom McClellan associated were politicians. How naive does one have to be to believe they'd be pure as the driven snow? That said, Scotty Boy was one of them. He tried his best to spin the tale. Sadly, he was one of the most inept Press Secretaries of all time. His deer-in-the-headlights appearances were painful to watch.
Let's not let the rest of this Administration off the hook. There was plenty of ineptitude to go around (starting right at the top). There was plenty of bad governance, bad political philosophy and plenty of woeful leadership to go around (starting right at the top). There were plenty of miscalculations to go around (starting right at the top). Because of the terrible hole the President dug for himself he can't really fight back against McClellan's book. His credibility with most, including many readers of this website, has been squandered.
A veto proof, or super-majority Congress (depending on which bad Presidential candidate wins in November) is a distinct possibility. Thanks Dubya.
There's no doubt that Scotty is a whore. But who hired him?
Another illegal imigrant story
May 28, 2008 - 10:17 ET by ricklailThree people were killed this weekend by a drunk illegal imigrant on the beltline around Raleigh. Here's the story.
“A debate is a conflict which clarifies a position. A dialogue is a conversation which compromises a position.” –John E. Ashbrook, The New Neutralism II, P. 7
This is on CNN.com
May 28, 2008 - 10:21 ET by OldSailor88Here's an article that really ticked me off. A list of a few of the things that made me the most angry.
1) Burdened by high cost of food and fuel, they are having trouble balancing their budget even though Chuck Burris earns a "comfortable salary" as a software engineer. The parents of five children, three of whom are grown, have essentially stopped eating out and entertaining and are considering canceling the annual family vacation to Maine.
I'll bet you my next paycheck that this guy makes $20,000 more a year than I do, and I'm not this "BURDENED."
2) Never before in previous recessions have they had to cut back like this.
a} We're not currently in a recession, and,
b} How many recessions have we had in our recent history?
3) "We are struggling to stay in the same place," said Stacy Burris, 47. "You don't mind pinching pennies to send your kids to college. You do mind pinching pennies when it's simply to buy some eggs."
Our poor little software engineer can hardly afford eggs. I throw the B.S flag on that one.
4) "What's really pushing consumers into a funk is the fear of what's coming next," Goldstein said. "You can't be sure you know exactly where we are or where we're going. Consumers are afraid that the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train."
I think the stock market and consumers are afraid that we'll vote a Democrat into office so they're saving what they can now. I am.
Noli habere bovis, vir!
maybe in the past they didn't own...
May 28, 2008 - 11:05 ET by SouthJersey1953...a huge 5000 sq ft house that cost them 60% of their income. For the life of me I cannot figure out why so many people bought HUGE houses in the past 5 years...What in the world can a family of 4 (3 have already moved out, so it is not a family with 5 kids) do with that big of house? I have seen 4000+ sq ft houses around here bought by couples with NO children. You don't bury yourself in house debt then complain when the price of things (so far, just gas and some foods) goes up "a little."
These people (like the mentioned software engineer) get NO sympathy from me.
I have no sympathy for
May 28, 2008 - 11:15 ET by goldbarI have no sympathy for these type of people either. If the guy is a software engineer, he must be reasonably intelligent. I do have a problem with people who bought houses to have better lives for their families and were mislead on getting ARMS or interest only loans. Most of us only buy one house in our lifetime and it can be a daunting and confusing process.
On your other point--the price of gas has gone up "a little"!?
They'll get bailed-out anyway.
May 28, 2008 - 11:20 ET by sarcasmoThere's Bear Stearns socialist precedent for bailing out irresponsible bankers. Why should irresponsible home buyers be treated any different? They won't be, and it won't matter whether the statist or the socialist wins the coming election.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
People weren't misled
May 28, 2008 - 11:23 ET by OldSailor88They were uninformed and irresponsible. None of them had a gun held to their head to sign the bottom line and all of them had the option of having a lawyer read the terms of the contract. I wish them the best in their life, but I don't feel sorry for any of them, and I REALLY don't believe I should pay to keep them in their poorly purchased loan.
Noli habere bovis, vir!
So you don't mind the
May 28, 2008 - 11:32 ET by goldbarSo you don't mind the taxpayers being charged BILLIONS of dollars to bail out corporate lenders?
I don't like that either,
May 28, 2008 - 11:43 ET by OldSailor88I don't like that either, but that's not what we were discussing.
Noli habere bovis, vir!
Where did he say that???
May 28, 2008 - 11:43 ET by sarcasmoYou're trying to do to him what some conservatives around here try to do to me. It's not workin' any better for you than it does for them, though. The separate banking-bailout issue you mentioned, as I already said, functions as socialist precedent for future bipartisan socialism in the form of a homeowner bailout OldSailor88 & I both fear will happen.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Does your scope of vision
May 29, 2008 - 08:34 ET by NL207Does your scope of vision extend beyond the bounds of your own life? If it does, you would know that the precedent for government bailout of banking systems has its roots in the Roosevelt administration of the 1930s. Since you seem ignorant of this fact, I think it necessary to remind you the Congress of this period was also overwhelmingly Democratic. FDIC and FSLIC have their roots there. These are the policies of the left.
Sooooo.... if you object to the Government bailing out banks who made unwise loans, then why do you suppport the political ethos responsible for it?
It really sucks to be a leftist in a debate, doesn't it?
Big deal, I've cut down on
May 28, 2008 - 11:31 ET by taterBig deal, I've cut down on my eating out and entertainment out of necessity after finding out most entertainment is crap to begin with and it's cheaper to cook your own food. Other than this last winter I haven't been on a real vacation in 10 years. It's not the end of the world. Play board games with your kids for entertainment. I make significantly less and I have a savings account, no credit card debt (but still have the student loan one), and am doing ok.
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
Must not believe
May 28, 2008 - 10:32 ET by goldbarMust not believe McClellan....must not believe truth....cannot listen to facts....FIGHT THE URGE...BUSH IS GOD AND DOES NOT LIE....REPEAT! REPEAT! ARRRGGGHH.......
goldie
May 28, 2008 - 10:35 ET by mofosesameWhat was said in the book? Is it all true? When you read it, were you surprised to see him turn on Bush?
cannot listen to
May 28, 2008 - 10:38 ET by Newsbusterbrowncannot listen to facts....
What facts from the book have been substantiated so far?
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Goldbar,
May 28, 2008 - 10:40 ET by RESTLESS 1Gee, have you read the book? How do you know that there is any truth in it? Just because you agree with something, does not make it true. Frankly, if you agree with it, it must be far from the truth.
Here's some logic for all
May 28, 2008 - 10:54 ET by goldbarHere's some logic for all of you to use in your arguments against McClellan.
'Since he lied to us during his tenure as White House Press Secretary, why should we believe he's not lying to us now in his book?'
Go ahead an use it. I'll even waive my consulting fee.
Sorry Goldbar
May 28, 2008 - 11:27 ET by OldSailor88I'm afraid you're the one that owes NB consulting fees. We've been using that logic with you liberals for years and years. :o)
Noli habere bovis, vir!
McClellan's Resume and Interview
May 28, 2008 - 11:53 ET by lotrSCOTT MCCLELLAN
OBJECTIVE
To write a "memoir" confirming the ineptitude of President George W. Bush from the "insider's" point of view.
EXPERIENCE
White House Press Secretary, The White House, Washington, DC
Publisher Interview Questions:
1. Are you, Mr. McClellan, qualified to make grandiose, military, stategic judgements on matters of U.S. security?
2. Are you capable of making neutral, detached judgements about your former Employer?
3. Are you capable of writing a memoir that will sell, turn a profit and sabotage the pro-war GOP nominee in '08?
Ahhh, there is nothing quite
May 28, 2008 - 10:51 ET by Roger the ShrubberAhhh, there is nothing quite like the smell of unbridled BDS rage in the morning air.
Must not believe a
May 28, 2008 - 14:37 ET by TruthMongerMust not believe a Republican POTUS....must not believe congress that authorized Iraq invasion....must not believe major Democrats during Clinton Administration fearing Iraq WMD's....must believe this former press secretary instead - incidentally making tons of $$$$$ off of this book....cannot listen to facts....FIGHT THE URGE...DKOS IS GOD AND DOES NOT LIE....REPEAT! REPEAT! ARRRGGGHH.......
Attack the CS-MSM
May 28, 2008 - 10:35 ET by kilrodWell i don't know how to go about this are exactly where to post this "idea", but i think folks need to go on the attack against the CS-MSM,(CS stands for chicken droppins). Folks are always sayin the media ia biased, unfair, and untruthfull, and i agree with that, but i'd like to do somethin about it, maybe a petition and/or boycott callin for the firein of the talkin heads on abc. nbc. and cbs., the evenin news, the mornin shows, the news magazines, and shows like matthews and olbermann, etc.etc. Maybe if the networks got a long series of e-mails with millions(maybe even thousands) of names callin for the firein of them people, we could get some fair and honest objective news coverage, at least they would have to acknoweldge the problem and their advertisers might put some pressure on em. Some of you folks on here seem to know how to go about somethin like this are know who could,??, any way i'd like to see it happen.
(Grins)
kilrod
The problem that I'm seeing
May 28, 2008 - 10:36 ET by NewsbusterbrownThe problem that I'm seeing as I read some of the excerpts is that McClellan doesn't sound any different than your typical cliche-spewing liberal. Was he really a closeted "progressive" while he worked in the White House? That might explain why he wasn't anywhere near as effective as Tony Snow and Dana Perino (sigh!) have been.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
And now, today's Shrub
May 28, 2008 - 10:54 ET by Roger the ShrubberAnd now, today's Shrub Report®:
Holy crap, can the Penguinis play any worse? Inconceivable!
Mr. Excitement embarks on his "Lull Asian leaders into a deep sleep" tour.
Mexico has a navy? Inconceivable!
Introducing, The Genius Democrat of the Week.
I thought Musharraf was a puppet of the Republicans?
Homosexual couples might be child molesters? Inconceivable!
This shrubber is happy to note that his most-favored actress has bad days, too…
It's time again for Jihadi Bloopers!
Introducing Female Genital Mutilation Light!
The chorus from the DNC: "Dammit".
Eveeeel Karl Rove will be in Rochester, NH this weekend, speaking at the NH Republican state convention. Ron Paul will be in the Wendy's parking lot across the street.
The DNC is too inept to raise money for its national convention, but the Republicans aren't? Inconceivable!
254 years ago today, the first shots of the French and Indian War were fired, in SW PA. A young George Washington survives the humiliating defeat at nearby Fort Necessity, and those life lessons help him become the leader he became, 20 years later.
Watched any good movies
May 28, 2008 - 11:35 ET by MassConservWatched any good movies lately?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
;-)
MC, what you mean lately? like in the last year?
May 28, 2008 - 12:10 ET by upcountrywaterThe most recent : MSM gave it an "F" is eXpelled..no intelligence allowed. VERY very good.
My favorite in the last year is, "In the shadow of the moon".
Indoctrinate U
I havn't seen it yet
Bella was ok.
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
UCW,
May 28, 2008 - 14:11 ET by MassConservSorry, I wasn't referencing any of Roger's links.
Just his use of the word 'inconceivable' which reminded me of Wallace Shawn's character Vizzini from Princess Bride.
The line I used was another character's reply to him at one point.
Inconceivable!
May 28, 2008 - 16:10 ET by Roger the ShrubberInconceivable!
OMG! I just say a Hilary
May 28, 2008 - 11:26 ET by lnthompOMG! I just say a Hilary campaign ad, complete with Hilary's voice at the end saying "I approve this message", which consisted of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson expounding on how GWB "tricked" us into war! This was during a show we recorded just before the Oregon primary.
I guess being easily tricked is now considered a qualification for President. And how can Hilary or anyone else take VP or JW seriously any more?
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
I'm trying to figure out
May 28, 2008 - 11:27 ET by RESTLESS 1I'm trying to figure out how he can say that he "...stood at the White House briefing room podium in front of the glare of klieg lights for fort the better part of two weeks, and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.
There was one problem. It was not true. I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libbey, the Vice President, the President's Chief of Staff, and the President himself."-Scott McClellan's new book "What Happened".
First of all, if he was such an unknowing dupe, how can we take anyghing he says as fact.
Second, where is his proof? It will be interesting to see how he backs his claims up in the book.
Second, where is his proof?
May 28, 2008 - 11:41 ET by NewsbusterbrownSecond, where is his proof? It will be interesting to see how he backs his claims up in the book.
He won't back his claims because he can't.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Whew!!
May 28, 2008 - 11:30 ET by sarcasmoNew Yorkers get saved from a true menace. And the blog post features bonus-questions for conservatives, greens, etc. so enjoy.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Break in moment
May 28, 2008 - 12:07 ET by Eileen RightDidn’t George Stephanopoulos pull a similar stunt w/ BJ to earn impartial “cred” for his network position?
Compare & Contrast
May 28, 2008 - 13:16 ET by Caringwhiteguyhttp://www.breitbart...
Talented class act vs. Babbling Buffoon.
Prayers are with you Tony.
Cwg... Amen. It sure
May 28, 2008 - 14:01 ET by bigtimerCwg...
Amen.
It sure hasn't been looking good for Tony lately...my prayers are sent too.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Alas, things are so tight---
May 28, 2008 - 13:50 ET by misterbillAlas, things are so tight---I have had to give up two of my young mistresses. I also drink Thunderbird instead of Moet. What's a geezer to do????
All kidding aside--the gas price surge hurts me more than the rest. We have 3 cars--two students. My gas bill last month was almost $800. Up about $400/mo. My utilities went up about 20%, food too. They did not increase as much as the gas bill did.
It ain't hard to get there.
2 commuting students, one working Mom,
one infant to go to day care
and one Dad who goes to the Y 3 times a week
= approx 130/140 gals and about 60 gals shopping, entertain, etc= approx 200/210 avg/month * 3.95/gal /avg= $790. /mo.
I went back and checked some monthly gas bills from about a year ago. They were in the $350-$370 range. I am retired, my wife works--no one has told me that we received a $400 raise, yet. I do not expect they will.
Obama's Campaign Erects Porta-Potty on Police Memorial
May 28, 2008 - 13:54 ET by Gothampchttp://www.kptv.com/news/16412289/detail.html
Here's something for those
May 28, 2008 - 14:00 ET by RESTLESS 1Here's something for those who care about the SCOTUS and possible nominees from McCain and Obama.
Don't look now, but John
May 28, 2008 - 14:26 ET by RESTLESS 1Don't look now, but John Kerry may be "reporting for duty" once again.
R1... Oh gawd that
May 28, 2008 - 14:47 ET by bigtimerR1...
Oh gawd that thought is terrifying.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
BT
May 28, 2008 - 14:55 ET by RESTLESS 1I like this quote from Kerry aides:
"Kerry aides insist he's not angling for the
job and point to his long involvement in foreign affairs. It started
with his famous testimony as a 27-year-old veteran questioning the
Vietnam War before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It continues
today, at age 64, as the No. 3 Democrat on the same panel."
So trashing the Vietnam war, and badmouthing your fellow military personell qualifies as foreign affairs expertise now?
R1... I read it, it
May 28, 2008 - 15:07 ET by bigtimerR1...
I read it, it infuriated me...and I am tring not to get that way today...the leftists are the enemy. Period.
Enemy within equates to be oh so good...the good guys that defend and protect...bad, evil evil evil.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
BT
May 28, 2008 - 15:11 ET by RESTLESS 1I can't come to NB and not get infuriated about what is going on. Luckily, we have some good posters who eventually put a smile back on my face.
I'm sure most of you had
May 28, 2008 - 14:41 ET by RESTLESS 1I'm sure most of you had heard this before, but here is video of Maxine Waters threatening oil execs with the govt. taking over their companies.
Yep..... Don't know if
May 28, 2008 - 15:31 ET by BDYep.....
Don't know if you saw the president of the Czech Republic in front of the National Press Club, but it leads me to say Vaclav Klaus for President. I would happily replace John McCain on the ballot with Klaus.
(I know Britcom, he is not born a US citizen. If only...)
If anyone is interested,
May 28, 2008 - 18:32 ET by RESTLESS 1If anyone is interested, "Texas Monthly" has a small piece on this. Doesn't shed much light, but...
The nerve of
May 28, 2008 - 20:48 ET by UphillDetroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (D) to veto a resolution to oust him. Wouldn't it be nice to have this kind of power at a normal job?
Up... I cannot believe
May 28, 2008 - 20:57 ET by bigtimerUp...
I cannot believe the silence in the msm about this all, this whole thing would be huge if this was a republican Mayor from a big city like Detroit, in fact with the msm he/she would of already tucked tail and left....nothing has been more infuriating that the treatment Jefferson and Kwame have been getting let alone Obama with the msm, it is either the msm remains silent or doesn't question anything at all with these guys...this is getting past tiresome...
I want my country back.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
if polar bears are on the endangered list, then
May 28, 2008 - 21:54 ET by lunaticcringeradiothen why aren't the baldwin brothers?
lifted that joke for mencia.
join the carbon belching day june 12th
i'm proud to say i tend to do most of these carbon belching suggestions daily.
http://www.carbonbel...
lunaticcringeradio
Christianity Makes a Free and Safe Society Possible
May 29, 2008 - 03:44 ET by BritcomSource: The Mail (UK)
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
Good to see sanity still
May 29, 2008 - 07:53 ET by lotrGood to see sanity still prevails in the minds of at least some individuals -- perhaps others will heed such observations before it is too late.