Chip off an old, quirky Minnesota block

November 8th, 2007 – 4:19 PM by Patricia Lopez

lopez.jpgThe newest hire on the governor’s communications staff has political chops that reach back to the state’s earliest days.

McLean Donnelly, a communications assistant, is the great, great, great, great grandson of Ignatius Donnelly, Minnesota’s donnelly.jpgsecond lieutenant governor. He’s also the son of Stan Donnelly, big-time businessman and fervent unicameralist, who has spent much free time extolling the virtues of a one-house Legislature.

That could be what earned him his other political distinction: Stan Donnelly was, for a brief time, chief of staff to Minnesota’s shortest-serving U.S. Senator _ political maverick and former car wash operator Dean Barkley.

Political passions ran hot in the Donnelly family.

Ignatius cut a distinct figure in Minnesota politics, advocating for the Freedman’s Bureau and women’s suffrage when those were not popular causes. A die-hard populist, he ran for governor on a platform that would abolish national banks, create a graduated income tax, abandon the gold standard and push for an eight-hour workday.

Ignatius also wrote popular and somewhat eccentric books on such topics as the lost civlization of Atlantis and the real authorship of Shakespeare’s plays.

At 23 and fresh out of college, McLean has memories of being hauled around on his dad’s unicameral quest, but said he does not yet know whether he will follow in the storied footsteps of his forerunners.

“I just started swimming,” he said as performed the lowliest of political tasks _ passing out press releases in the dungeon of the Capitol Press Corps. “I might get beached before I even get started.”

But McLean also might see a hint of his future in his predecessor’s path. Tom Erickson, who held the job before Donnelly, just stepped up to communications director for what promises to be a bare-knuckled brawl _ the reelection campaign for U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman.

170 Responses to "Chip off an old, quirky Minnesota block"

parthian says:

November 8th, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Oy, this is not only not a “Big Question” it’s not a question at all.

The governor’s newest 23 year old communications assistant? As a topic?

Fie! Boo!

Cash N. Carey says:

November 8th, 2007 at 6:31 pm

Great topic Patricia! Keep up the great work. I see that the Star’s circulation figures reflect the quality of the journalists at the paper.

Newsweek is featuring “how to treat manboobs” if you wish to tackle a meatier BQ.

Dora says:

November 8th, 2007 at 7:02 pm

What’s the question?

dare2sayit.com says:

November 8th, 2007 at 7:11 pm

I think we all agree here for the first time.

O.T. says:

November 8th, 2007 at 8:34 pm

You won’t believe this and you will probably never read it again but I agree with Dora.

Maybe we should take this opportunity on this crappy thread to get to know each other a little, since we do correspond with each other nearly evry day. Something simple like age range, hobbies, whatever.

Jay says:

November 9th, 2007 at 8:19 am

“I think we all agree here for the first time.”

“You won’t believe this and you will probably never read it again but I agree with Dora.”

Put me on the list too……truely an historic day.

bsimon says:

November 9th, 2007 at 8:53 am

Likewise. Though if we want to quibble about something, I think cash n carry’s ‘meatier’ should be ‘fattier’ within the context of moobs.

O.T. says:

November 9th, 2007 at 9:01 am

How about we just bask in the good natured humanity we have encountered today. For as little as it may last. I’ve got about five days off- in case you wondered why the good mood.

bsimon says:

November 9th, 2007 at 9:07 am

Big puffy flakes coming down out here. Another cause for good cheer.

Jay says:

November 9th, 2007 at 9:13 am

must be global warming

O.T. says:

November 9th, 2007 at 9:13 am

Dare, here is a story you will like-

“WASHINGTON – Sen. Norm Coleman took a shot at his native New York Thursday, introducing a resolution condemning states that issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.

The plan to do so by New York’s Democratic governor, Eliot Spitzer, has led to a national debate on the issue. Coleman, R-Minn., weighed in with a resolution along with 15 co-sponsors, all Republicans – including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

‘When states engage in this practice, we are telling illegal immigrants that you can live here with impunity,’ said Coleman, who was born in the New York City borough of Brooklyn. ‘At the core, this is a national security issue. Following the attacks of 9/11, we made a promise to the American people to make this country safer.’” Source: Associated Press, November 8, 2007

bsimon says:

November 9th, 2007 at 9:37 am

“Sen. Norm Coleman took a shot at his native New York Thursday, introducing a resolution condemning states that issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.”

I’d be more impressed if Sen Coleman were addressing the real problem rather than trying to score political points.

lebowski says:

November 9th, 2007 at 9:42 am

Coleman is really good with the low hanging fruit. This is such an easy one to get a majority of Americans behind him. And of course, I agree.

I’ll likely end up voting for him (given the choices), but he’s your classic example of a politician with National aspirations.

O.T. says:

November 9th, 2007 at 9:49 am

b, it doesn’t as if anyone of them want to address the real problem. On that note, if no one is working on it, I will temporarily be satisfied with addressing the little annoyances such as giving illegals drivers licenses, welfare, free health care, in state tuition, etc.

O.T. says:

November 9th, 2007 at 10:03 am

it doesn’t look.. it should say.

Does anyone else feel a bit bothered that they will vote on bringing the troops back just as they are turning the corner and showing real and obvious improvements? I really do hope this isn’t political wranglings for next year’s elections. There are too many lives given and on the line to play games right now. They are using the coorect gameplan for once there and I would hate to see two steps forward turn into three steps back.

bsimon says:

November 9th, 2007 at 10:15 am

“it doesn’t as if anyone of them want to address the real problem.”

Does that include Sen Coleman? Shouldn’t he be addressing the real problem instead of wasting time taking potshots at the NY Gov?

Taking politics out of it, here’s my thought-train:

To get a drivers license, you have to prove your identity. How are illegal immigrants proving their identity? If they’re using fake docs, go after the people producing/selling fakes. If they’re using their real identities, use the data collected by DMV to get their address and identity & send ICE over to pick ‘em up.

Seems to me like the problem is a failure to enforce existing laws; the Feds should focus on that problem, not get into the business of telling states how to ensure public safety.

Jay says:

November 9th, 2007 at 11:30 am

“If they’re using fake docs, go after the people producing/selling fakes.”

…..in addition to those individuals actually using fake docs. I’m assuming you were viewing that as a given.

Mark the sequel says:

November 9th, 2007 at 11:40 am

bsimon says:

To get a drivers license, you have to prove your identity.

Except you don’t. When I moved to Minnesota I didn’t have to. I had let my license lapse in my old state and so I ended up retaking the test. I passed and got my license. Never had to show anyone any I.D. at all. This was in 1993; perhaps it’s changed since then? I certainly hope so.

O.T. says:

November 9th, 2007 at 11:57 am

Yeah, I am not sure what the requirements are anymore. I haven’t had to get a new license since the 80′s, I have just renewed the old one. But back then, you didn’t have to show anything. In fact, that is how most teens gat their fakes then. If I get achance, I will look at the requirements today.

O.T. says:

November 9th, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Actually a quick find- you do need to present some id and the list is long but pretty formal documents. One problem- if the documents have a picture on them, you get the five year dl. if your documents do not have a picture on them, you still get an id but only for a year at a time. so, while they are checking, there is still a very simple sidestep for them. Also, interestingly enough, there is a spanish version of the dl requirements online for those “american” citizens to obtain their id.

Jay says:

November 9th, 2007 at 12:04 pm

i want to say that this varries greatly by state, but that might be incorrect. I had a college roommate that had a valid WI license that didn’t have a photo on it……it just said “valid without photo” where the picture was supposed to be. He got it over the phone/through the mail and never actually went in to get the photo done because he was attending college out-of-state. Strangest thing I have ever seen, and he ran into a lot of trouble trying to get into the bars because no one weanted to accept it as a valuid ID, eventhough we were of legal age.

O.T. says:

November 9th, 2007 at 12:32 pm

What I meant was the qualifying document doesn’t neccessarily have to have a picture , but the license will have one. So, even though it may not be the actual person, the fake person’s picture will be on the ID. Is that clearer?

bsimon says:

November 9th, 2007 at 12:40 pm

I didn’t state it explicitly clearer – as Jay points out, nothing can be assumed here – but the driver’s license issue is not the point. The point is that people come here to work. You’re supposed to have proof of identity to get a job, for which a driver’s license is not good enough. Keeping illegals from getting a driver’s license is irrelevant in the face of not stopping them from getting a job.

Shut down access to jobs & the driver’s license issue is moot.

Jay says:

November 9th, 2007 at 1:02 pm

“Shut down access to jobs & the driver’s license issue is moot.”

I’m not in 100% agreement with that, simply because the issue to me is illegals gaining legal doc’s through illegal means (fraud). Jobs is a portion of the puzzle, but I’m also concerned- in fact, more concerned- with illegals who come here and acquire false identification doc’s, who have no intention of actually getting a job. Those are the individuals who scare me most.

bsimon says:

November 9th, 2007 at 1:45 pm

“I’m also concerned- in fact, more concerned- with illegals who come here and acquire false identification doc’s, who have no intention of actually getting a job. Those are the individuals who scare me most.”

Why? If they have the docs that acquiring a DL requires, the problem already exists. Restricting such folks from DLs presumes such folks can be identified. Having the docs necessary for a DL implies they’ve already acquired alternate identification – particularly if they’re the nefarious sorts about which you seem most concerned.

Jay says:

November 9th, 2007 at 1:54 pm

your assessment of the situation is accurate enough, I disagree that shutting off the jobs is more important that preventing the falsified doc’s. As I said, while the threat to the job market is real, I’m more concerned about the illegals here to conduct something a little more sinister. Preventing illegal immigrants from bussing tables does nothing to get what I consider to be the ‘security risk’ crowd identified and out of the country.

Don’t get me wrong, both kids of illegals are a problem. I’m just prioritizing the problem……get rid of the illegals who potentially want to physically harm me or my family, then go ahead and get rid of the ones who might take my job.

bsimon says:

November 9th, 2007 at 2:03 pm

“I disagree that shutting off the jobs is more important that preventing the falsified doc’s.”

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that preventing the falsified Fed docs that are required to get a job are more important than shutting off state docs like driver’s licenses.

As far as the ‘other’ kind of person goes, they are not necessarily ‘illegals’. I could be mistaken, but I think the 19 dudes in 2001 were on tourist and student visas. They entered the country legally. Which is not to minimize the risk of such people, but to point out that focusing on documents could produce a false sense of security.

Jay says:

November 9th, 2007 at 2:50 pm

i was commenting on your belief that stopping them from gaining things like an id are irrelevant, if we don’t stop them from getting jobs. My belief is that the jobs thing is secondary, at least to me.

“Keeping illegals from getting a driver’s license is irrelevant in the face of not stopping them from getting a job.”

Jay says:

November 9th, 2007 at 2:51 pm

and your point about potential terrorists or security risks who are here legally, is well taken. But we need to start somewhere.

bsimon says:

November 9th, 2007 at 3:31 pm

“i was commenting on your belief that stopping them from gaining things like an id are irrelevant, if we don’t stop them from getting jobs. My belief is that the jobs thing is secondary, at least to me.”

And it is. While it wasn’t necessarily clear, in the context you quoted, ‘ids’ means drivers licenses or state-issued ids. Keeping people who can’t legally work from getting jobs will shut down the flow of illegal labor into the country – i.e. if there is no job supply, people won’t come here for jobs. That is the bulk of the immigration problem. The security problem is entirely different & shouldn’t be intermingled with the labor migration issue, in my opinion.

The initial point is the same: writing legislation to punish states for doing what they think is necessary to ensure public safety is misdirected, at best. If Norm wants to solve the immigration problem he needs to do something that will keep illegal workers from finding jobs. Telling New York not to give them driver’s licenses won’t do a thing to solve the problem.

bsimon says:

November 9th, 2007 at 3:32 pm

“Telling New York not to give them driver’s licenses won’t do a thing to solve the problem.”

And, I hasten to add, I fail to see how it would address the security problem either.

Jay says:

November 9th, 2007 at 3:54 pm

It won’t solve the problem, but allowing illegals to get driver’s license solves the problem even less. I agree that we need to do more. But I also insist that this is one of many things that need to be done.

The effective solution to this issue involves an entire ‘grocery cart’ of items. This is just one item. I won’t agree that we need to focus attention elsewhere, when we need to focus attention on other areas *in addition* to this.

Jay says:

November 9th, 2007 at 4:00 pm

lebowski says of Norm: “but he’s your classic example of a politician with National aspirations.”

I don’t get the use of this as constant criticism (for Norm, or Pawlenty). We just had an article of HHH earlier in the week…..clearly a man who had national aspirations as well. So what?

O.T. says:

November 9th, 2007 at 4:03 pm

The only part I want to add is the allowing of them to have dl’s is it is legitimizing them. I want them to remain illegal. It just adds to the confusion when they have goverment issued identification. Alot of time, police, or security will not have access to computers to check them past what they are carrying. That is changing though, soon alot of departments will have blackberry type computers to check on the go.

dare2sayit.com says:

November 9th, 2007 at 5:15 pm

The biggest problem with giving illegals drivers licenses is the fact they they can and will vote with these ID’s. What would stop them?

With millions of illegals pushing for amnesty and open borders, these foreigners could easily determine the outcome of our elections and get what they want.

Bill Prendergast says:

November 9th, 2007 at 10:40 pm

Hey, I just got back from a two day hunting trip and I was all excited to hear that the people who write in to the Big Question had all agreed on something for the first time…let’s see what it was…

hmmm…hmmm…

ooo, boy. Ms. Lopez, that’s not good. I haven’t seen a Big Question this bad since Eric Black wrote one that was a two thousand word piece about what happened to him while he was walking his dog in the park.

This is a “fishwrapper journalism” news item, Ms. Lopez. Your usual stuff is far, far above this. This kind of piece is the reason why I stopped subscribing to Sarah Janacek’s Politics in Minnesota, and I’m not sure *they* ever ran anything that was this irrelevant.

This is really terrible. You couldn’t even keep the thread off the “voter ID” topic with an item like this. This week we got Turks crossing the Iraqi border, the Mukasey nomination and confirmation, the first successful overturning of a Bush veto, new dictatorial rule in Pakistan…

…and instead you went with the great, great, great, great grandson of Ignatius Donnelly. This is like sending in a piece about “the lovely fall colors in Minnesota.” Is this gonna stay up all weekend? Are you deliberately trying to drive us all out of here?

Maybe this is part of some marketing plan to get us to write into the other Strib blogs, like McGrath’s “McMemo” or von Sternberg’s “Prez Fight” blogs. If it is, I think that’s very cynical, Mr. Tice.

O.T. says:

November 9th, 2007 at 11:35 pm

the first successful overturning of a Bush veto

big whoop, it was his second veto, wasn’t it?

isn’t it correct that the army corps of engineers originally asked for 5 million and now with the pork, it is about 35 million. and then they wonder why everyone thinks they are dishonest and corrupt (dem or repub).

O.T. says:

November 9th, 2007 at 11:37 pm

whoopsie, third or fourth veto

O.T. says:

November 9th, 2007 at 11:39 pm

Here’s another topic:

The CBS Evening News, which has aired only one full story on the scandal surrounding Hillary Clinton’s fugitive donor Norman Hsu, on Friday night ran its second full story on the impact on Rudy Giuliani of Bernard Kerik’s indictments as Byron Pitts told Kerik that “people” say you’re “a poster child as to why Giuliani shouldn’t be President.” Back on August 31, in the newscast’s only full story on Hsu, fill-in anchor Harry Smith didn’t even mention Hillary Clinton’s name in his introduction, but on Friday Katie Couric put Giuliani front and center: “Kerik isn’t the only one who could face trouble. It’s also bad news for his friend and mentor, Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani.”

In the Hsu story, CBS reporter Sandra Hughes didn’t warn about any negative impact on the Hillary Clinton campaign or speculate about what Hillary Clinton knew about Hsu’s criminal past or suspect bundling. But in the Giuliani piece, Pitts predicted: “Kerik’s legal problems could mean political problems for Giuliani and the inevitable questions of the presidential candidate: What did he know and when did he know it?” In an exchange with Kerik, Pitts proposed: “There are people who say that you, forgive me, are a poster child as to why Giuliani shouldn’t be President, because of your own troubles.”

Pitiful!

wishIwuz2 says:

November 10th, 2007 at 9:44 am

Also in agreement. So now it’s an “open” thread….!!

Spitzer’s license proposal was hardly a national debate until Hillary spaz’ed her reply, giving the GOP a talking point. Suddenly, there is no more important issue facing our nation. Witness Pat Robertson’s complete sell-out by endorsing Giuliani.

The DFL Congress issues earmarks, and Bush discovers the veto. An actual policy veto too, not like stem cell research or something else meant to save our souls. After 7 years, Bush’s newfound distaste for pork is astonishingly hypocritical.

O.T. says:

November 10th, 2007 at 11:27 am

This is a little community service present for you. If you live in or around Mpls, you should put this site on your favorites. It is really a very good non-police website to keep you informed of goings on. Even if you don’t live by it- there are some good tips and some interesting stories. The people who run the site really do care about their community.

http://www.mplscrimewatch.blogspot.com/

dare2sayit.com says:

November 10th, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Thanks O.T.

We need to know bad the crime problem really is in Minneapolis because the liberal media likes to cover it up, especially if it involves criminal illegal aliens or refugees.

By the way, does Mayor R.T. Rybak still have his Illegal Alien Sanctuary City policy going on?

O.T. says:

November 10th, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Yes he does.

O.T. says:

November 10th, 2007 at 7:58 pm

And people call Coulter divisive and repugnant, although it does explain where parthian gets his material from-

I don’t know about you guys, but I am so sick and tired of these lying, thieving, holier-than-thou, rightwing, cruel, crude, rude, gauche, coarse, crass, cocky, corrupt, dishonest, debauched, degenerate, dissolute, swaggering, lawyer shooting, bullhorn shouting, infra-structure destroying, buck passing, hysterical, criminal, history defying, finger pointing, puppy stomping, roommate appointing, pretzel choking, collateral damaging, aspersion casting, wedding party bombing, clearcutting, torturing, jobs outsourcing, torture out-sourcing, election fixing, women’s rights eradicating, Medicare cutting, uncouth, spiteful, boorish, vengeful, jingoistic, homophobic, xenophobic, xylophonic, racist, sexist, ageist, fascist, cashist, audaciously stupid, brazenly selfish, lethally ignorant, journalist purchasing, genocide ignoring, corporation kissing, poverty inducing, crooked, coercive, autocratic, primitive, uppity, high-handed, domineering, arrogant, inhuman, inhumane, inbred, inept, insipid, incapable, incompetent, ineffectual, insolent, insincere, know-it-all, snotty, pompous, contemptuous, supercilious, gutless, spineless, shameless, avaricious, noxious, poisonous, imperious, merciless, graceless, tactless, brutish, brutal, Karl Roving, backward thinking, persistent vegetative state grandstanding, nuclear option threatening, evolution denying, irony deprived, consciously depraved, conceited, perverted, peremptory invading, thirty-five day vacation taking, bribe soliciting, hellish, smarty pants, loudmouth, bullying, swell headed, ethics eluding, domestic spying, medical marijuana busting, Halliburtoning, narcissistic, undiplomatic, blustering, malevolent, demonizing, Duke Cunninghamming, hectoring, dry drunk, Muslim baiting, hurricane disregarding, oil company hugging, judge packing, science disputing, faith based advocating, armament selling, nonsense spewing, education ravaging, whiny, insane, unscrupulous, lily livered, greedy (exponential factor fifteen), fraudulent, delusional, CIA outing, redistricting, anybody who disagrees with them slandering, fact twisting, ally alienating, betraying, chickenhawk, sell out, quisling, god and flag waving, scare mongering, Cindy Sheehan libeling, smirking, bastardly, voting machine tampering, sociopathic, cowardly, treasonous, Constitution shredding, oppressive, vulgar, antagonistic, trust funding, nontipping, tyrannizing, peace hating, water and air and ground and media polluting (which is pretty much all the polluting you can get), deadly, traitorous, con man, swindling, pernicious, lethal, illegal, haughty, venomous, virulent, mephitic, egotistic, bloodthirsty, yellowbelly, hypocritical, Oedipal, did I say evil, I’m not sure if I said evil, because I want to make sure I say evil . . . EVIL, cretinous, slime buckets in the Bush Administration that I could just spit. Impeachment? Hell no. Impalement. Upon the sharp and righteous sword of the people’s justice. Make it a curtain rod. Because it would hurt more.
Will Durst

O.T. says:

November 11th, 2007 at 12:16 am

I guess Hillary and her staff were confused when they were planting questions at her rallies. She probably just thought she was on all of the liberal media shows and would only get softball questions and speak about what she wants. Otherwise, some of these scandals might get some airtime and we can’t have that.

Dora says:

November 11th, 2007 at 6:38 am

Yeah, what she should have done is taken a page out of Bush’s playbook to make sure those rallies were only filled with people who supported her to assure all of the questions would be softball so she could repeat her talking points. Or maybe she could have just called a fake press conference like Bushs’s FEMA guy did.

dare2sayit.com says:

November 11th, 2007 at 7:23 am

By the way, I’m confused on where Hillary stands on the issue of illegal immigration. I know she ducked the question about giving illegals drivers licenses in NY.

Also, has Barack Hussein Obama ever told us which faith he practices? I know he was raised Muslim and may now claim to be Christian, but isn’t that conversion forbidden and punishable by death in Muslim law?

These democtat party candidates need to be more open with the American people if they hope to get anywhere.

Dora says:

November 11th, 2007 at 7:51 am

DTSI, if you want to know Hillary’s positions then go to her website.

And I see you are recycling the religion fearmongering related to Obama that was throughly covered the first time the rw tried that smear. He wasn’t “raised Muslim”. Snopes.com has debunked all of the claims made along these lines. If you repeat it again we’ll know you are deliberately lying.

dare2sayit.com says:

November 11th, 2007 at 8:44 am

What was he raised then Dora?

Dora says:

November 11th, 2007 at 9:04 am

Read his book DTSI. Did you read the Snopes link?

parthian says:

November 11th, 2007 at 10:22 am

Anyone who spends 14 minutes at this site knows that Conserva-Post 2.0 ™ is deliberately lying. That’s how the RNC wrote the program.

It is interesting to see how the braindead conservatives cogs parrot whatever their “leaders” tell them. It’s quite clear that the Repubs are again going to push the “illegal alien invasion” as the chief issue of the 2008 campaign. When you’re at the bottom of the barrel, you go for racial politics.

Conserva-Post 2.0 ™ is stuffed to the gills with it already and we know he reads and thinks nothing other than what his “conservative” Talk Radio and wingnut-internet garbage trough programmers put in front of him.

As to the status of BQ, it seems pretty clear to me that the Strib simply does not have the available resources to continue a blog devoted to the “big idea” behind this one. The posts all now seem to be focused on some state and local hook, the only time a serious issue facing the nation is raised is if one of MN elected officials has said something about the issue. There has not been a post on the Iraq occupation in a month or longer.

As for this particular “Ignatius Donnelly” post, I almost wonder if it’s not satire. It almost can’t be taken with a straight face.

Cash N. Carey says:

November 11th, 2007 at 11:06 am

Partisan – glad you brought up Iraq. Seems that our surge continues to work. If the libs of this country cared about our country half as much as they whine about President Bush, they would be supporting this effort. Instead they threaten to cut off funding and “change course”.

Maybe you can explain to us why you would “change course” when you are winning? It seems to be true patriots would be more worried about Iran’s killing of American soldiers than bashing our president’s efforts to control Iran.

O.T. says:

November 11th, 2007 at 11:40 am

look at Dora, its so cute how she defends her dems. she even uses the defense she castigates others for. hows that “but he does it too” strategy working for you? yeah, and if you want the truth about a candidate, you should consult their propaganda, whoops I mean their autobiography for the “facts” about someone. I guess that means everything in K. Willey’s book is on the money then- why isn’t Bill in jail for sexual assault then?

O.T. says:

November 11th, 2007 at 11:41 am

Hey cash, you should always change strategy when you are winning, just ask brad childress. his coaching strategy is working, isn’t it?

Dora says:

November 11th, 2007 at 12:02 pm

So OT doesn’t get sarcasm either. Not surprised. I also see you don’t know how an autobiography differs from a book written by someone else. So you don’t believe what Obama says about his own childhood but you’ll believe what someone else says about it even though as snopes.com shows there is no evidence and nobody from his childhood that corrobates the lies.

What are we “winning” OT? Are we any closer to leaving? The number of American deaths this year is the highest it’s been since the invasion. Are we any closer to political reconciliation? That was the point of the “surge” after all.

I see you’re turning your sites on Iran too like the good little keyboard soldier that you are. Let’s attack another country, two wars going badly isn’t enough. Maybe the third one will do the trick! Yeah! That’s the ticket!

Publius_1959 says:

November 11th, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Parthian:

Exactly.
Where was the “Big Question” when Mrs Clinton voted on classifying the Qods as a “Terrorist Organization”?

And whether that helps the diplomatic situation of the race to war.

I would have thought a question of how different Hillary is from Bush/Cheney lite and what meaningful differences she has would have been good.

Publius_1959 says:

November 11th, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Did Obama call for an invasion of Pakistan?

O.T. says:

November 11th, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Its a press release. Not a book. Does he mention his “black supremacy church” he belongs to in it?

I am glad to see you have your talking points down. Since the surge is a huge success, the AP and NYT use the entire years casualties to bring it down. Good little code pink soldier you are.

Where do I mention Iran?

Dora says:

November 11th, 2007 at 5:13 pm

what press release are you babbling about OT?

“Huge success”? I see you couldn’t address the fact there has been no political reconciliation which was the point of the “surge”. The only thing they could agree on was pulling Blackwaters immunity. I don’t think that’s what Bush was aiming for with the “surge”.

You’re right, you didn’t mention Iran CNC did. One of the other keyboard soldiers here.

O.T. says:

November 11th, 2007 at 6:06 pm

His autobiography is a campaign tool/press release for adoring idiots.

I was speaking militarily, something you have no experience in but seem to think you do know more than veterans about.

I find it offensive that you mock veterans on Veterans day. But I do not expect much more from such a “great american” such as you. Didn’t you say Limbaugh was offensive for nearly the same thing, but then again the rules do not apply to Dora. When you use the “he did it too, the ad hominem or you’re lying” tactics it is ok, but if you feel someone elese is doing it, you cry foul. P*ss poor.

Dora says:

November 11th, 2007 at 6:11 pm

Boy are you stretching to say I’m mocking veterans. I didn’t mention veterans. Nor did I ever say I know more about the military than veterans. But I do read what veterans say. In fact, the strib today had a story about veterans against the war. But those are the ones that you rightists dismiss as “phony”.

Obama’s autobiography was published in 1995.

O.T. says:

November 11th, 2007 at 6:18 pm

You call me a keyboard soldier fully knowing I am a combat veteran. You are the one stretching with the “phony” comment. Everyone but you code pinkers know what he meant. But if you keep repeating it like the “Bush lied” bs, then some other weakminders will follow.

Here is another Gore hypocrisy:

“The worlds champion environmentalist Al Gore, lists the laundry line in his top ten things we can do right now to reduce our eco foot print. ”

When I have seen the photos of his multiple, million dollar homes, I do not recall seeing clotheslines strung about, and I think it would be hard to miss Al’s tighty-whiteys flapping in the wind.

Dora says:

November 11th, 2007 at 6:49 pm

Yes it’s quite clear what he meant no matter how much you deny it. I don’t belong to Code Pink. Are you actually saying that only women who belong to Code Pink criticized Limbaugh for his comment?

I can’t seem to find that top ten list of his OT, got a link? I found that quote by some women trying to sell clotheslines but that’s all.

O.T. says:

November 11th, 2007 at 7:02 pm

I only saw the article stating Gore has this on his top ten, but I can find no top ten. I had seen a top twelve earlier that did have it on there though I think. I did find this though:

Al Gore was arrested for shooting a spotted owl. When he got to court, the judge said, “You know it’s illegal to shoot spotted owls. They’re an endangered species.”
Gore replied, “I know, your Honor, but I was lost in the woods and I was starving. That poor owl was the first food I had seen in three days!”
The judge took pity on Mr. Gore and said, “Well, I’ll let you off with a warning this time. It’s obvious that you were trying to survive. Just don’t do it again.”
The Vice President swore that he wouldn’t and thanked the judge profusely. On his way out, the judge stopped him. “By the way, Mr. Vice President, how did it taste?”
He thought a moment then replied, “Not bad… not bad, a lot like bald eagle.”

dare2sayit.com says:

November 11th, 2007 at 7:14 pm

By the way, please check my recent post on the previous topic. It compares the homes of Bush and Algore and it’s shocking!

Dora says:

November 11th, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Old news DTSI. I had a discussion about Bush’s house with Mark ts quite a while ago.

dare2sayit.com says:

November 11th, 2007 at 8:07 pm

Dora,

Most people haven’t heard how Gore’s mansions consume many times more energy than Bush’s ranch. I just think it’s important to expose the hypocracy of the “environmentalist” left.

Thanks for your concern though.

O.T. says:

November 11th, 2007 at 8:23 pm

Clinton Responds: ‘Well
It Was News to Me’
Clinton responds to accusations her campaign planted questions, saying she does not approve of such tactics

This fom the woman who assails Bush every time some low level worker does something and she says he is responsible for it. And no I am not talking cabinet members. She has really lost a lot of sredibility this last week with her debate flaws, having Bill coming to defend her, playing the gender card, and now this. If we could just get a couple reporters to seriously look into her scandals and start asking hardhitting questions, she will go down in flames.

O.T. says:

November 11th, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Have you read about this sh*thead?

Bobby Caina Calvan is a new reporter at McClatchy’s Baghdad bureau. Today he blogged about an astonishing encounter he had with a US soldier at a checkpoint. According to Calvan, he tried to enter the Green Zone without a passport or drivers license. Without documentation he was stopped and questioned. Calvan got annoyed at all the questioning, and told the soldier he was with Knight Ridder (the company McClatchy purchased last year). The soldier evidently had never heard of Knight Ridder, referring to it as “Night Rider.” Calvan’s annoyance turned to anger. He continues, “I continued to get pushy. I asked him how could he not possibly know Knight Ridder. We’re bigger than the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times.”

Calvan’s rude behavior gets worse after the soldier asked Calvan if he knew the number to the media office. Calvan writes, “I snapped. What’s the use of these media badges if people like you don’t honor them?” Then Calvan began gesturing like he was writing down the soldier’s name.

Maybe if Calvan read the story – “Baghdad bomb kills eight near police checkpoint” – he’d have a little gratitute to the soldier.

dare2sayit.com says:

November 11th, 2007 at 8:33 pm

Hopefully they will be women with the hardhitting questions, or she will again claim anti-woman bias.

Dora says:

November 11th, 2007 at 8:44 pm

Was she claiming anti-woman bias? I thought Bill said she was being swiftboated.

dare2sayit.com says:

November 11th, 2007 at 9:06 pm

I wish Hillary could take questioning like a man like Mary Kiffmeyer did during Keith Hakim Ellison’s attempt to expand voter fraud. Hillary whined, but Mary took Keith and Mark Ritchie’s abuse very well.

O.T. says:

November 11th, 2007 at 10:51 pm

You just can’t let a democrat take the heat for anything, can you? Can you name one democrat that has done anything wrong, Dora. Think hard.

O.T. says:

November 11th, 2007 at 11:01 pm

Good strib story today on Obama and Hillary not talking to the reporters.

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1540834.html

O.T. says:

November 11th, 2007 at 11:11 pm

Whhhhaaaaatttt?????

On Sunday’s “Late Edition,” CNN host Wolf Blitzer asked former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage about his role in accidentally leaking that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, an event often ignored as most media coverage has focused on Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. While Armitage agreed with Plame’s contention that what he did was “very foolish,” he also argued that he believed her status not to be covert because he had “never seen, ever, in 43 years of having a security clearance, a covert operative’s name in a memo.” When asked by Blitzer if he had assumed that she was “just an analyst” at the CIA, Armitage responded: “That’s what it, not only assumed it, that’s what the message said, and she was publicly chairing, chairing a meeting.”

Dora says:

November 12th, 2007 at 7:33 am

What the h*ll are you yammering about OT? Only your conservative pea-brain would think my question was defending Hillary. The headlines I read said Bill said she was being swiftboated. If that’s not what he said then correct it.

Great OT, that’s what Armitage assumed. Fabulous. He didn’t check it out. Perhaps that’s why they leaked it that way so others would assume. Why do you think he went to Fitzgerald as soon as he found out the truth? All the information that has come out proves she was in fact covert. Continuing to deny the truth about it like you do just reinforces your lack of credibility.

parthian says:

November 12th, 2007 at 9:22 am

The Strib is really going to have to pay OT something for trying to keep the conservative BQ running (sort of).

And he’s doing it on his vacation to boot!

whatdidisay says:

November 12th, 2007 at 12:10 pm

“Rice Park’s Christmas tree hits the road”

The Red Star said Christmas tree
The Red Star said Christmas tree
The Red Star said Christmas tree

O.T. says:

November 12th, 2007 at 12:50 pm

I know Partyan and Duhora won’t do it so here is a small tirbute to veterans today-

The Veteran

For every hero on the stage
On parade or in the grave
With medals pinned and glory flags unfurled

The humble serviceman by scores
Packs the caissons, Guards the doors
Sails sea and sky across the troubled world

Comrades in arms they share the call
Who stepped across that line for all
Knowing well that fate might call their name

They crossed that sword mark in the dust
For freedoms sake and God they trust
And did it not for fortunes gold or fame

So on Remembrance Day give thanks
To veterans past and current ranks
And Praise Eternal God that they were there

Oh quiet heroes, every one
Without your hand, naught would be won
Pray our acclaim, the purest badge you wear

Beto Ochoa

God bless the true heroes.

dare2sayit.com says:

November 12th, 2007 at 4:18 pm

What’s going on with the BQ anyway? They haven’t posted a new topic since Thursday. I realize that liberal bias is hurting their circulation and causing financial problems, but hopefully that won’t effect BQ.

Katherine Kerstine’s blog is doing great, probably because of the excellent topics she comes up with.

dare2sayit.com says:

November 12th, 2007 at 4:23 pm

******WARNING********

Partisan’s LibCon Commu-Post 2.0 â„¢ contains flawed Marx*st logic and should be used for amusement purposes only.

parthian says:

November 12th, 2007 at 5:12 pm

Wouldn’t it be great if you could come up with some original witticisms all by yourself, 2D?

A human brain that generated its own individual thoughts—think how incredible it would be if you had one! But you’d have to first stop being a mindless, unthinking cog parroting whatever is put in front of you by the coaches of Team Conservative.

Unfortunately, that’s impossible.

parthian says:

November 12th, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Have you ever seen the fab classic “Wizard of Conserv-Oz”, 2D? It’s a really engrossing story where one of the young conservative heroes–a scarecrow, I think–undertakes a long and difficult journey to ask Grand Wizard Karl Rover for a real functioning brain. I think you could identify with this character, really.

Wizard Karl says no, of course. And he orders the destitute young scarecrow to contribute his life savings to the RNC anyway to make life better for the oppressed wealthy of Conserv-Oz. You’d love it, I’m sure you can Netflix it!

dare2sayit.com says:

November 12th, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Thanks Partisan,

Seeing your reaction REALLY MAKES MY DAY!

O.T. says:

November 12th, 2007 at 5:43 pm

I wonder what Dora and parthian did for veterans’s day? I am guessing they disparaged the troops, threw a brick through a recruiter’s window and then sat back and felt all warm and tingly.

O.T. says:

November 12th, 2007 at 5:46 pm

The financial scam involved in advancing climate alarmism got even more obvious Monday – to folks outside of the media, that is! – when Nobel Laureate Al Gore joined “Silicon Valley’s most prestigious venture capital firm to guide investments that help combat global warming.”

As reported by the Associated Press “Gore, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last month for his work on climate change, joins Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers as it and dozens of other venture firms expand into so-called ‘clean-tech’ investments worldwide.”

Even though he is donating his “salary”, I am betting there are stock options involved. Just guessing,but I expect it is right.

dare2sayit.com says:

November 12th, 2007 at 6:06 pm

If you can read this blog, thank a teacher.

If you can read it in English, thank a Veteran.

parthian says:

November 12th, 2007 at 6:11 pm

I bought about one hundred flags and put them all over my yard, OT. I had the “Star and Stripes Forever” blaring on my patio loudspeakers starting at 6 am. The neighbors loved it, naturally. Of course my house and car were festooned with “Support the Troops” yellow ribbons, that’s a given.

Then I handled out little flags to veterans at exurban homeless shelters (according to a recent study, one of out four homeless are veterans–support the troops!). After that I wrapped myself in a very large flag and thrashed around in the street in it to demonstrate my overwhelming concern for the troops.

Unfortunately the police arrived and arrested me for excessive displays of patriotism and troop support. Although they deviously called it “impeding traffic flow”. Or somethin’ like that. All in all, quite a day. And I didn’t even get a chance to finish my “Operation Abu Graib” yard diorama–maybe next year!

dare2sayit.com says:

November 12th, 2007 at 6:37 pm

Partisan,

You’re such a kidder! I’ll bet you proudly celebrated the October Revolution Day marking the Bolsh*vik uprising in 1917 though.

O.T. says:

November 12th, 2007 at 9:02 pm

See, you made the mistake of having a flag when you were arrested. If you had your bike and another hundred anarchists with you, Rybak would allow you to impede traffic- he may even bike with you.

Dora says:

November 12th, 2007 at 9:50 pm

I see OT’s conservative pea-brain is working overtime.

O.T. says:

November 12th, 2007 at 11:21 pm

Why ya gotta be like dat, Dora? Are you upset there is a Veteran’s Day and not a Code Pink or Moveon.org day? If we give the dems enough time, I am sure they will make your wish come true.

Are you saying that Rybak did not give implicit instructions to the MPD to allow them to break the law?

parthian says:

November 13th, 2007 at 8:46 am

BQ RIP

wishIwuz2 says:

November 13th, 2007 at 10:42 am

Tell me more about “Code Pink”. Doesn’t mean the same thing it did in my high school days, does it? Damn.

I had to come back here and find out whether conservatives understood that liberals really hate the troops.

I see that they do. And I’m sure they figured it all out for themselves too.

Dora says:

November 13th, 2007 at 10:53 am

No OT, I’m saying you’re yammering on about garbage.

You conservative pea-brains don’t understand that keeping troops in a war that has no exit strategy, multiple deployments, inadequate time between deployments, inadequate body armor, and inadequate health care when they return does not support the troops. You’ve got your slogan and that’s good enough for you.

Jay says:

November 13th, 2007 at 10:56 am

exactly what kind of war does support the troops, Dora?

parthian says:

November 13th, 2007 at 11:31 am

It’s your side’s slogan, jay, you tell us.

We’re just pointing out clear ways the troops aren’t being “supported”.

lebowski says:

November 13th, 2007 at 2:30 pm

unfortunately most wars don’t go as planned. in your elitest world, it may be nice, but they are waged in the real world. sorry we can’t map everything out for you, Dora. I guess you’ll have to continue your nit-picking ways.

parthian and dora…
if there are 97 positive reasons and 3 negative reasons to pursue a course of action (regardless of what it is), you will focus adamently, blindly, vehemently, (and for the sake of parthian) EVIL-ly on the 3 negatives.

Dora says:

November 13th, 2007 at 2:41 pm

So it’s just business as usual that the troops are enduring the number of deployments that they are, that the National Guard is being deployed like it is, that there is inadequate time between deployments, inadequate body armor, and their health care needs are so woefully underfunded?

You conservative pea-brains are farther gone than I thought. Put another yellow ribbon on your cars to show us how much you support the troops. Or tell us again how they volunteered so they can’t complain. That’s exactly what the vet in the Sunday strib was talking about. I believe his quote went something like, “they tell us we volunteered so we should just shut up and die”. It’s not those of us against the war that he was talking about. And how about the vets who were denied the ability to march in the Veteran’s Day parade because they opposed the war? Yeah, you pea-brains really support the troops but only if they agree with you.

O.T. says:

November 13th, 2007 at 2:54 pm

So, the red star finds 3 or 4 soldiers against the war, so that must be the feeling of all 140,000. Well, I personally know four guys from work, two of which are there as we speak who feel it is worth it. The two home now are hoping they get to go back to assist the people they have met so nothing happens badly for them. I don’t see the strib asking them anything I also know another 8-10 from own military days that are stil in and they see the merit too. But to dora and pitian, they must all be wrong. One of the guys was actually interviewed by the pi-press but they cut him after hearing his pro stance.

Do you two support the war in Bosnia- we still have troops there. Clinton left them there- what color ribbon do you have on your prius for that?

O.T. says:

November 13th, 2007 at 3:10 pm

CNN has the interview with Muriel Gallo-Chassanoff :

In an exclusive on-camera interview with CNN, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, a 19-year-old sophomore at Grinnell College in Grinnell, Iowa, said that giving anyone specific questions to ask is “dishonest,” and the whole incident has given her a negative outlook on politics.

Gallo-Chasanoff, whose story was first reported in the campus newspaper, said what happened was really pretty simple: She says a senior Clinton staffer asked if she’d like to ask the senator a question after an energy speech the Democratic presidential hopeful gave in Newton, Iowa, on November 6.

“I sort of thought about it, and I said ‘Yeah, can I ask how her energy plan compares to the other candidates’ energy plans?’” Gallo-Chasanoff said Monday night.

“‘I don’t think that’s a good idea,” the staffer said, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, “because I don’t know how familiar she is with their plans.

He then opened a binder to a page that, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, had about eight questions on it.

“The top one was planned specifically for a college student,” she added. ” It said ‘college student’ in brackets and then the question.”

lebowski says:

November 13th, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Dora-

do me a favor and come out of the basement.

do you really believe what you say?

you need to get out in society, talk to people, gain a perspective from a few different people.

parthian says:

November 13th, 2007 at 3:32 pm

I can see the official Army motto for the Iraq occupation now:

“Iraq–It Didn’t Go as Planned”

Maybe Lebowski will get a certificate of commendation from a grateful nation for coming up with it!

We’ve now had around 62,000 military casualties (dead and wounded) in Bush’s War. A decade out, something like 50% of the Gulf War I vets had filed for or been approved for some level of disability. Those are the real casualty rates of these idiotic, foolish militarist adventures, which the American Right simply can’t get enough of.

Iraq will very likely be much the same, although it will generate many, many more disabled vets based on the length of the absurd occupation and the huge number of troops rotated through for extended deployments. The Army is now broken, with enormous amounts of equipment crapped out and worthless.

Iraq is now a destroyed country, in complete chaos. There is no functioning economy, and religious parties have completely torn apart Iraq’s previously secular society.

The educated, secular middle class has fled the country. Expert epidemiologists have calculated that there have been around a million “excess” deaths arising from our invasion. Millions more have had to flee their homes, likely forever.

And the Militarist Right consoles itself that “wars don’t go as planned” and congratulates itself about Spreadin’ Democracy. Tell it to the millions of victims of this naked aggression for oil.

O.T. says:

November 13th, 2007 at 3:47 pm

I think your news is four or five months old and you need to get updated info. It must be nice to read leftist blogs and then speak out on such things- how again do you have that abiity to speak your mind but for the US military defending you. appreciate them, I know it is hard for the likes of you, Reid, Durbin, Kerry, and Murtha though.

mark says:

November 13th, 2007 at 4:15 pm

“We’ve now had around 62,000 military casualties (dead and wounded) in Bush’s War”

This is a typical outright lie found in Parthian’s post. The actual facts are that there have been 3,860 deaths in Iraq and 28,541 wounded. Of this total, 15,554 were Wounded-RTD,which means that they returned to duty within 72 hours of their wounds (think of John Kerry’s Purple Hearts).

I guess when you look at Parthian’s numbers you need to cut them in half. Nice try.

mark says:

November 13th, 2007 at 4:20 pm

“Tell it to the millions of victims of this naked aggression for oil.”

Again, and again the Left makes this claim. Yet, they really cannot show how this really works.

But, the fact is that a “naked” war of agression for OIL would look much, much different.

For example, a naked war of agression for OIL would completely avoid the built up cities in Iraq. A naked war of agression for oil would avoid even deposing Saddam Hussein;why bother. We could have seized and secured most of the oil producing areas in the entire Middle East without suffering any casaulties and expending a minimum of treasure.

Further, why would we want to go to war for oil? There is plenty of oil available and the Middle East and other oil producing areas like Russia are very willing to supply it. The war has caused oil prices to increase,not decrease which is apparently the opposite of what we would want in a “war for oil”.

parthian says:

November 13th, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Whoops, the Gulf War I vet disability rate arising from combat service ten years out was around 30%, not 50%—sorry for the error.

In any event, the actual US casualty rates of these Wars of the Right are stupendous. But they’re nothing compared to what the civilians of our “enemies” suffer.

Saddam’s Iraq—a looming threat to our cherished freedom of speech! That all-powerful Madman, he was on the brink of invading the Homeland! Sharia law! And who knows what the omnipotent Serbian menance would have done to our civil rights….thank god our “Defense” (ha-ha) Department heads off these imminent foreign invasions before they occur!

mark says:

November 13th, 2007 at 4:28 pm

“the actual US casualty rates of these Wars of the Right are stupendous. ”

Again, comments like these are just ridiculous babble. The word “stupendous” means that they should be incredibly high. To make such statements we need something to compare to.

Of course, any comparison to other military conflicts reveal that the casaulty rate in Iraq is minimal. In fact, “stupendously” minimal.

To put our casaulty rate in perspective, the rate of KIA in Iraq is about 80% of the KIA rate of the allied forces (like Australia and South Korea) during the Viet Nam War.

mark says:

November 13th, 2007 at 4:31 pm

“Whoops, the Gulf War I vet disability rate arising from combat service ten years out was around 30%, not 50%—sorry for the error”

I bet you are real sorry because it reveals that you are more interested in spreading propaganda than facts. Of course, any person with intelligence understood this already.

What your makes your report ridiculous is that none of these disabilities are tied to the war, then or now. Yet, the breathless reporting of these “facts” tries to imply.

parthian says:

November 13th, 2007 at 4:46 pm

GOoPer mark ignores the 30,000 or so “non-hostile” casualties which occurred in Iraq, just as all the MSM do. But a casualty is a casualty.

And yes, those long term Gulf War casualty rates ARE based on injuries from service in the war. Deny away, mark, that’s what your side always does.

The cat’s now out of bag on our reason for invading Iraq, with both Greenspan and Abizaid acknowledging that the invasion of Iraq was about oil. That’s what every historian will be concluding as well, GOoPer mark, but keep “holding the fort”, such as it were.

The goal of the war was to liberate Iraq’s oil from Saddam, and to get our oil companies a piece of the action, from which they were permanently shut out by Saddam.

As global oil production now moves into permanent decline, getting more oil online is crucial for the gas guzzling world (and us especially) and Iraq has the second largest reserves on earth. Iraq “floats on a sea of oil” to use Wolfowitz’s piglike phrase of aggression. Saddam had to go as a result.

As for my error, I dutifully and quickly corrected it, GOoPer mark. Never seen you do the same.

dare2sayit.com says:

November 13th, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Partisan,

Too bad liberals are preventing us from using our own vast oil reserves (ANWAR). It would be nice if we weren’t so dependant on the violent middle east and the leftist lunatic in Venezuela for oil.

parthian says:

November 13th, 2007 at 5:52 pm

You’re right 2D, we’re completely and hopelessly dependent upon other nations that don’t like us for our oil.

You’re utterly wrong about the Wildlife Reserve having any appreciable ability to change the oil equation, but I’ve wasted enough breath on this topic with you–your knucklehead is completely impervious to the actual facts.

So the answer is reduced dependence upon hostile foreign sources by oil conservation at home—increased CAFE standards, more local food supplies, massive public transportation and rail investment, an ever-increasing gas tax and minimum mpg requirements for vehicles–for starters.

O.T. says:

November 13th, 2007 at 6:22 pm

“In any event, the actual US casualty rates of these Wars of the Right”. As usual, pathifier ignores the fact that in both cases, democrats overwhelmingly supported and vored for both wars, but somehow it is Bush’s war. pretty convenient isnt it?

It like if you and a friend (we will hypothetically say you have one) buy a dog together and then the dog bites someone and your “friend” now says it is just your dog.

dare2sayit.com says:

November 13th, 2007 at 6:37 pm

Partisan,

You sound just like Jimma Carter. His energy policies were disasterous!

And raising the gas tax is not the answer. People who drive for a living have a hard enough time the way it is.

dare2sayit.com says:

November 13th, 2007 at 6:47 pm

Hey Guys,

Since we seem to have scared off Patricia Lopez, and D.J. is no where to be found, maybe we could do a better job ourselves. Why don’t we take turns picking topics? How about this?

Monday – Mark
Tuesday – Parthian
Wednesday – O.T.
Thurday – Dora
Friday – D2SI
Saturday – ?
Sunday – ?

Just an idea. What think?

O.T. says:

November 13th, 2007 at 7:57 pm

Thats sad. that is pretty much all the people left on this thing. I may have to begin searching for a new site. it is not even fair arguing with the likes of democrat dora and pathological partialbirth.

dare2sayit.com says:

November 13th, 2007 at 8:08 pm

Jump in right here O.T.

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/kersten/?p=309

We would love to have you!

Hopefully the Strib has this blog paid up until the end of the month, and we can start our own topics for a while.

Maybe they could get Comrade Nick Coleman to lead it! That would be sweet!

wishIwuz2 says:

November 13th, 2007 at 8:34 pm

There’s more of us around. Maybe you five should check out a few other discussions. Some that don’t get abandonded after only 3 posts (?)

dare2sayit.com says:

November 13th, 2007 at 8:41 pm

wishIwuz2,

Can we pencil you in for Saturday?

wishIwuz2 says:

November 13th, 2007 at 8:42 pm

Erasable pencil?

dare2sayit.com says:

November 13th, 2007 at 8:44 pm

Someone from the Strib must be monitoring this blog, and I wish they would fill us in.

dare2sayit.com says:

November 13th, 2007 at 8:47 pm

Sure, why not.

Can we get one more volunteer? That would make a new blog topic everyday!

Thanks wishIwuz2!

parthian says:

November 14th, 2007 at 8:51 am

Around 50% of Dems in Congress voted against giving Bushco the “authority” to invade Iraq as part of his UN campaign. Both MN senators (Dems) voted against it, for example.

And Bush refused Dem calls to hold a final vote authorizing the invasion after Bush’s UN gambit fell through. There’s almost no doubt that such a vote would have been far, far different.

So Inspector Cretin’s imagined “overwhelming” Dem support for the invasion of Iraq is just another of his crazed wingnut fantasies picked up from his wingnut internet garbage troughs. But we’ve had this discussion before and the clownish copper simply can’t (or won’t) remember the facts.

It is true that the Dems in Congress overwhelmingly supported the attack on Afghanistan. But that was not an duplicitous exercise in oil aggression, cloaked in lies.

Jay says:

November 14th, 2007 at 10:33 am

your day was yesterday, not today.

dare2sayit.com says:

November 14th, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Partisan,

Are you trading with O.T.?

dare2sayit.com says:

November 14th, 2007 at 3:29 pm

O.T.,

Katherine Kersten has a pretty good topic on liberal activist Hanoi Jane. I think you would like it.

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/kersten/?p=310

O.T. says:

November 14th, 2007 at 5:32 pm

To me, 50 % of democrats showing a spine is overwhelming.

Parthian, they need a refill of beef jerky at your convenience store- get hoppin!

O.T. says:

November 14th, 2007 at 5:58 pm

A couple of thoughts:

Isn’t it nice of Spitzer to abandon his stupid id program so Hillary won’t have to flip flop ten more times this week?

It is nice of Newsweek to finally drop their charade of of non biased reporting by hiring dailykooks founder to write for the 2008 elections.

“Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a staunch supporter of President Bush and the War on Terror led his party to a big win in Denmark today” But I thought everyone in the world hates Bush and the US?

How come the same people saying that the economy is horsesh*t and no one has nay money to spend also tell us that this holiday season will be the busiest travel and airfare season in history? Are the flights, cruises and other trips free this year? If so, I want one too!

Does anyone here plan on spending any less on Christmas presents because of the economy? Except for Pitian who has no one, sorry buddy. At the estate, business is as usual and actually got a nice 28% bump in pay this year, so, woo-hoo, daddy is getting an extra nice present this year.

Did anyone else laugh when the old lady asked McCain “how are we going to beat that bi*ch?

dtsi, I logged onto kersten site once and when I went back a week or so to check it out, it wouldn’t let me, saying the passwoerd was incorrect, which is odd sice I use the same one for about everything. And when I send in for a new password, it doesn’t send one to me. It is all part of a vast left-wing conpriracy against me.

Publius_1959 says:

November 14th, 2007 at 6:58 pm

Did the Democrats “blow it” by providing the Defense appropriations bill to Bush first?

Seemingly it should be clear that this was the most important bill to Bush.

Are the leaders of the Democrats so poorly informed of politics, human nature and game theory that they decided to give away their trump card first?

They may have over-ridden the traditionally Pork-ladened Water Project Bill, but I don’t see their other “over budget” bills getting by.

Now, please don’t whine about the heartless President. I’ll concede that. In fact that’s my point. Why give up the Bill that is his only concern?

Publius_1959 says:

November 14th, 2007 at 7:32 pm

Day 7

parthian says:
November 7th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Gas will be $4 a gallon by December.

dare2sayit.com says:

November 14th, 2007 at 8:48 pm

Doom and Gloom liberal democrats. They always need a crisis, don’t they?

wishIwuz2 says:

November 15th, 2007 at 12:04 am

Doom and Gloom? It’s not that liberals need a crisis, it’s just that one is always provided.

Spitzer’s idea may have had it’s flaws, but the need to document illegals in one form or another has to happen.

Democrats will always fail to campaign successfully against Republicans. The Democratic mind is in policy. They are far too concerned with how to make things work, and consistently fail to win at Pubic-69′s “game theory”.

If they only had the Republican flair for message, spin and promotion, they wouldn’t seem so inept.

Les says:

November 15th, 2007 at 11:40 am

Hmmm. No new BQ for a week. Strib staff must be still be in schock from Hillary sowing the audience with questions down in Iowa.

Now it seems she’s reaping dollars from hubbies pardons;

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3866786&page=1

And still silence from the Strib….

Jay says:

November 15th, 2007 at 12:15 pm

wishlwas2: “Doom and Gloom? It’s not that liberals need a crisis, it’s just that one is always provided.”

It is slow enough that I don’t mind trying to pick a fight today over something stupid and trivial…..

while your comment that liberals don’t *need* a crisis is not necessarily incorrect, the statement which you refute referred not simply to liberals, but to liberal democrats. As the Democrats are often viewed by themselves, as well as others, as the “party of change” to whatever it is that people are finding dissatisfactory about the situation at hand; it seems to me that the Democratic party actually *does* always need a crisis of sorts, to insure that there is always a perceived need for change. Without such a need, the “stay the course, business as usual” tact seems to be the preceived strength, or at least perpensity, of the Republican party.

They need crisis to insure their own usefulness. Some would argue that they will invent them, when not enough crisis actually exists; although it would appear to me that they don’t need to get too creative today.

As we’ve discussed on this blog before, liberal is not necessarily synonmous with Democrat.

wishIwuz2 says:

November 15th, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Thems hardly fightin’ words, Jay.

I agree with much of your premise. Democrats consider themselves “progressives” – often in reference to some dissatisfaction with stay the course thinking. Especially lately. It doesn’t take a crisis.

Business as usual is a conservative characteristic. And conservative is not necessarily synonymous with Republican – the Bush Admin being the posterchild for that assertion.

Differences on the issues can often be paired as Republican vs. liberal, and Democrats vs. conservative. When this occurs, partisan opinions still get tossed around by each side, but they don’t apply as well.

Jay says:

November 15th, 2007 at 1:20 pm

well….that wasn’t much of a fight. Next topic….

mark says:

November 15th, 2007 at 3:57 pm

“GOoPer mark ignores the 30,000 or so “non-hostile” casualties which occurred in Iraq, just as all the MSM do. But a casualty is a casualty.”

Parthian is an absolute liar. All of the data includes “non-hostile” casualties such as accidents.

The best reporting of data about Iraq is from the Brookings Institute (such a CONSERVATIVE BASTION) Iraq Index. This compiles data tables from many sources and covers casauties, economic indexes, and even polling data from Iraq.

So, when idiots like Parthian want to try to trick you with false numbers, simply go to this site and refute their lies.

mark says:

November 15th, 2007 at 4:03 pm

ANd, just for your information, 581 out of the 3,806 deaths in Iraq have been from non-hostile causes, or about 15.3%.

Jay says:

November 15th, 2007 at 4:04 pm

only 30,000? Where is Grace with her ‘millions and millions of innocent dead’ nonsense?

parthian says:

November 15th, 2007 at 5:35 pm

From icasualties.org (using Pentagon numbers):

wounded–no air transport required: 19,871

wounded– medical air transport required: 8,580

non-hostile-related–medical air transport required: 29,584

Dead: 4,000 (including suicides)

Total casualties (10/1/07): 62,035 (that means adding the four numbers together, mark)

I can’t help it your favorite websites don’t give you accurate information GOoPer mark, you doofus. Or that you can’t understand what they say.

Cash N. Carey says:

November 15th, 2007 at 7:00 pm

The USA military and President George W. Bush have turned Iraq around 180 degrees in the last 6 months. The surge works and true patriots will support our troops.

Q: What type of Americans would deny funding to a war that we are winning? A: Traitorous ones.

God bless you President Bush

Dora says:

November 15th, 2007 at 7:04 pm

“In an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations, Gen. David Petraeus’s adviser Steven Biddle said that much of the U.S.’s recent “tactical successes” in Iraq have little to do with the impact of Bush’s escalation but instead are largely “luck.”

Q: Well what do you attribute this whole change on the ground to? Is this due to what is called “the surge,” or good diplomacy by the U.S. military, or just luck?

BIDDLE: All of those things have some role but I would put “luck” as probably the biggest.”

O.T. says:

November 15th, 2007 at 8:46 pm

The military does extrordinary work and Dora finds a guy who claims its all luck. Where have you een the last couple days- cleaning up the american flag ashes in your driveway from you rallies?

Biddle also says the surge wouldn’t work:
Over the weekend, Fox News pundit Fred Barnes claimed that in September, Gen. David Petraeus will report “great progress and say [Baghdad] is heavily pacified.” That optimistic assessment is not shared, however, by one of Petraeus’ key advisers.

On CBS Evening News last night, Stephen Biddle, an early proponent of the escalation, argued that Bush’s strategy in Iraq is “likelier to fail than succeed at this point.” Biddle assessed that there is “maybe a one in ten” chance the escalation will succeed. “Maybe it’s a one in five longshot, if we play our cards right,” he said.

Guess he wasn’t lucky when he guessed on that one, huh?

O.T. says:

November 15th, 2007 at 8:55 pm

Pardongate: The Sequel… It’s Payback Time

Well, what do you know?… Who’d a thunk it?
Hillary Clinton was hoping we would all forget about the family, friends, associates, thieves, fraudsters, embezzlers, drug traffickers, and terrorists who were pardoned by her husband in the final hours of this presidency.

But, the gang of crooks are back and donating to Hillary’s campaign!
…You never know when you’re going to need a Clinton pardon.
It’s sorta like insurance for crooks.
ABC News reported:

Three recipients of controversial 11th-hour pardons issued by former President Bill Clinton in January 2001 have donated thousands of dollars to the presidential campaign of his wife, Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., according to campaign finance records examined by ABC News, in what some good government groups said created an appearance of impropriety.

One of the pardonees who has become a donor to Sen. Clinton is David Herdlinger, a former prosecutor in Springdale, Ark., who, according to press accounts at the time of his pardon pleaded guilty in 1986 to mail fraud after taking bribes to reduce or drop charges against defendants charged with drunken driving offenses.

Now a life and business coach in Georgia, Herdlinger was pardoned by President Clinton in January 2001; he donated $1,000 to Sen. Clinton’s presidential campaign in August.

Insurance agent Alfredo Regalado, who gave Hillary Clinton $2,000, was pardoned by her husband for failing to “report the transportation of currency in excess of $10,000 into the United States,” according to the Department of Justice.

Allegedly Mishandled Government Secrets
John Deutch is a different case, having served as President Clinton’s CIA director.

Pardoned by President Clinton for charges he had mishandled government secrets — but before the Department of Justice could file the proper paperwork against him. Deutch, now a professor at MIT, gave Sen. Clinton the maximum allowable donation, $2,300.

Neither Herdlinger nor Regalado nor Deutch could be reached for comment.
It’s not the first time something like this has happened.
The New York Times reported back in July:

Clinton pardoned 140 people in the final hours of his presidency, including Marc Rich, the fugitive broker who had been charged with evading tens of millions of dollars in taxes, and who was the former husband of a top donor to Democrats and Mrs. Clinton’s first Senate campaign.

Dora says:

November 15th, 2007 at 8:55 pm

Well let’s see, there has been no political reconciliation which was the point. It didn’t succeed. Unless you call Baghdad’s ethnic cleansing a success.

O.T. says:

November 15th, 2007 at 9:23 pm

Nihilist

Top 11 Things Wolf Blitzer Can Say to Make Hillary Rodham Clinton Cry At the Debate
11. “What was lacking in you as a woman to force your husband to seek comfort with Monica Lewinski?”

10. “Could you explain one more time your position on drivers licenses for illegal aliens?”

9. “Speaking of drivers licenses, here’s a scale – let’s see whether you lied about your weight.”

8. “Have you ever heard of the Thigh Master?”

7. “Hey, anyone see the latest Iowa poll?”

6. “Al Gore will be joining the debate tonight after he makes a brief announcement.”

5. “What is it about your personality that makes half of America hate you?”

4. “What would you do if Barak Obabma snapped your bra?”

3. “The next question was submitted by Fox News.”

2. “Breaking news, Jimmy Carter has just endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.”

1. “Is that the same dress I saw Rosie wearing?”

dare2sayit.com says:

November 15th, 2007 at 9:34 pm

Spaeking of Hillary,

KFC has a special going on this week in honor of the democrat party debate, and they call it the Hillary. It consists of:

2 small breasts
2 plump thighs
1 left wing

parthian says:

November 15th, 2007 at 10:18 pm

And spare me your disingenuous “Brookings Institute isn’t a conservative bastion” nonsense, GOoPer mark.

The only reason you skulk around that site for your Iraq info is because the two guys in charge there, Pollack and O’Hanlon, are Iraq invasion supporting, surge advocating neocon tub thumpers, which are the only people you would ever read a word from.

These are the two guys who were recently pilloried for acting like they weren’t prior supporters of Bush’s War when they “reported” on their propaganda trip to Iraq this summer. So if course GooPer mark is gobbling them up.

Biddle was (is?) a conservative Petraeus advisor, I think. That he is critical of the success of Cheney’s escalation, is not a good sign for wingnut land.

dare2sayit.com says:

November 15th, 2007 at 11:01 pm

Wow!

Patricia Lopez is quit the blog master. She’s has 150 responses so far!

Dora says:

November 16th, 2007 at 7:32 am

Oh geez, and the only “jokes” that DTSI can post are the same old tired things he got from wingnutteryland last year. I believe you started cycling that one last Thanksgiving DTSI.

Time to remove BQ from my bookmarks. The repetition from the right just isn’t worth my time any longer.

Jay says:

November 16th, 2007 at 7:59 am

Dora has finally run out of friends, ammo, and spirit. Have a good weekend.

O.T. says:

November 16th, 2007 at 8:33 am

I know what you mean by repitiotion, how much Bush lied, the war for oil, halliburton this, halliburton that can you take? Well, obviously alot because that is all you libbies have.

Les says:

November 16th, 2007 at 11:18 am

Wingnutterland? DTSI, have you been reading Pelosi and Ried’s blogs again?

Say Dora, have you seen Gates’s comments about how he has to fund the war since the defeatocrats wont pass a bill without timelines in it?

Remember when I told you a year or more ago that that’s what would happen if congress didnt provide the funding??

Hate to tell you I told you so but….

Hope you dont have any friends or relatives that are Army or Marine civilian employees, especially in areas like family support and MWR.

But hey, Nancy and Harry are getting their way, sorta.

dare2sayit.com says:

November 16th, 2007 at 11:56 am

I guess Dora was offended by my Hillary joke. She also didn’t like the comment comparing guns to spoons making Rosie O’Donnel fat.

I feel so awful now…….

O.T. says:

November 17th, 2007 at 2:28 am

WASHINGTON — Rep. Keith Ellison said Friday he’ll pursue legislation that would require states to let ex-felons vote in federal elections once they’re out of jail or prison, which would nullify laws in states across the country, including Minnesota.

Let’s see, he doesn’t want anyone to prove who they are, he wants murderers and rapists to vote, I guess the next bill he proposes will just outright allow illegals to vote- that should ensure democrat victories then. I am thinking of moving to Mexico when I retire, thirteen sweet years or so from now- at least they do not allow illegals to vote, do not give them licenses and will toss out illegal immigrants- all the things they berate us for not doing. go figure.

O.T. says:

November 17th, 2007 at 7:43 am

lets offend her some more and maybe we won’t have to listen to her idiocy anymore:

Top 11 Questions Wolf Blitzer Can Ask Hillary Rodham Clinton to Suck Up to Her Even More in the Future
11. “Uh, um, remember that time, uh, remember that time you came up with that plan to, um, save the health care system? That was awesome!”

10. “Isn’t it true that people who don’t vote for you are, by definition, misogynists?”

9. “America doesn’t care about drivers licenses, what America wants to know is how you keep your skin so soft and wrinkle-free.”

8. “Wanna, I don’t know the modern way of saying it, but…do it?”

7. “How has dealing with the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy prepared you for dealing with Al Qaeda?”

6. “I simply must know where you got that lovely pants suit.”

5. “Would you be for or against Rudy Giuliani using kittens to beat young children to death?”

4. “Why do birds suddenly appear, every time you are near?”

3. “Do Americans deserve to have you as President?”

2. “Would you be willing to give John Edwards the name of your hair stylist?”

1. “Mrs. Clinton, your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?”

dare2sayit.com says:

November 17th, 2007 at 9:36 am

Great points O.T.!

Ellison knows that the more scum bags he can get to the polls, the more it will benefit the democrat party.

The Mexican government is as hypocrytical as Algore when it comes to illegal aliens. They complain about us not granting immediate amnesty, but they kill their illegals from central and south America.

Retiring in 13 years? I have about 17 or so to go.

Bill Prendergast says:

November 17th, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Wow–

Is this the end of the Big Question?

This week it looks like founder Eric Black’s noble experiment has come to an end. Without so much as an official announcement by Tice and the Strib.

Talk about going out with a whimper instead of a bang! It’s not like there’s a shortage of “Big Questions” to write about. And they seem to have abandoned a very valuable blog on a very irrelevant note (Ms. Lopez’ “final” topic for discussion isn’t representative of the topics set for discussion.)

I think my earlier comment may have been right on–Mr. Tice has decided it’s time for the Big Question to commit seppuku. The other Strib blogs on their political roundup pages are still active–but it looks like Eric Black’s pioneering effort to set questions for passionate debate on the Internet (questions posed by informed local journalists) has finally been abandoned.

Too bad; I wonder why?

dare2sayit.com says:

November 17th, 2007 at 8:52 pm

After all our hard work bloging here, the Strib owns us an explanation for this.

Any thoughts?

O.T. says:

November 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am

I say we put Niedermayer on it, he’s a sneaky little sh*t just like you. what is that from?

dare2sayit.com says:

November 18th, 2007 at 12:23 am

Animal House was a classic!

Thanks for the memories O.T,!

O.T. says:

November 18th, 2007 at 6:42 pm

Another Clinton Donor Scandal Complete With Groping

Another Hillary Clinton donor fraud gets busted.
Mauricio Celis was indicted on Friday. He has donated more than $415,000 to Democratic political campaigns since 2002.

The Nueces County Grand Jury returned felony indictments today against 36 year old Mauricio Celis.
KIII reported on the four indictments:
1. falsely holding oneself as a lawyer
2. impersonating a public servant
3. state jail felony theft
4. aggravated perjury

Maurico Celis is, of course, a major democratic donor to candidates Hillary Clinton and Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill.
The AP reported:

A major contributor to Democratic causes and political races was indicted Friday on charges of falsely holding himself out as a lawyer and impersonating a public servant.

Mauricio Celis, a Corpus Christi businessman, has a controlling interest in the CGT Law Group of Corpus Christi even though he is not a lawyer.

Does anyone think that the media will give this the coverage it gave Fred Thompson’s 30 year old scandal od his friend? Nah, I didn’t think so either.

dare2sayit.com says:

November 18th, 2007 at 7:04 pm

Great info O.T., but it’s not surprizing with the Clinton’s corrupt history.

Looks like it’s just you and I left. Did you ever check out Katherine Kersten’s blog?

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/kersten/

She’s not quite as liberal as BQ was.

I’m curious as to how long the Stib will keep this site up.

Take care buddy!

O.T. says:

November 18th, 2007 at 8:53 pm

I need to re-register or get a new password- I am locked out.

mark says:

November 19th, 2007 at 10:36 pm

“From icasualties.org (using Pentagon numbers):

wounded–no air transport required: 19,871

wounded– medical air transport required: 8,580

non-hostile-related–medical air transport required: 29,584

Dead: 4,000 (including suicides)

Total casualties (10/1/07): 62,035 (that means adding the four numbers together, mark)

IDIOT, the numbers you report are MEDICAL TRANSPORT. This means from all caused, including illnesses. OF this total over 22,000 is from illnesses. TO call such illnesses “causaulties” of war is ridiculous.

But not as ridiculous as calling the Brookings Institute “neocon tubthupmers”. ANyone who believes that the Brookings Institute is a “CONSERVATIVE” think tank and publically states it has proven to the entire world that anything they say is utter nonsense.

parthian says:

November 20th, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Each soldier medically transported by air was done for a serious medical reason, you war-mongering GOoPer nitwit.

The army itself describes serious illness as a casualty event, you pinhead. And soldiers who die from “non hostile” causes are included in the “killed” category.

To be taken of out of theatre by air transport due to serious illness is a casualty event—why in the world do you think the Pentagon is keeping track of these numbers? The military has always kept track of medical illness casualties, especially serious ones which take someone out of active duty, you clown.

As for Brookings, you apparently can’t read what I wrote, or understand it, so I’m not going to waste my time arguing with your posioned, deranged and deformed conservative “brain” over it and demolish your straw men. Non-crazed readers can see what I actually said.

mark says:

November 20th, 2007 at 9:29 pm

“medical illness casualties, especially serious ones ”

BECAUSE THESE WOULD HAVE HAPPENED REGARDLESS OF THE WAR IN IRAQ. THEY ARE INDEPENDENT EVENTS. SOMEONE BECOMING ILL IS NOT A WAR CASAULTY.

“As for Brookings, you apparently can’t read what I wrote”

LOL….you claimed that Brookings is a neo conservative think tank and that is WHY I REPORT IT. It is not. They have been posting the Iraq Index, and I have been utilizing this data from the very beginning.

THe person who is doing the ranting, and always is doing the ranting, is you.

parthian says:

November 21st, 2007 at 9:16 am

Mark, you’re so stupid and pigheaded it’s really remarkable.

Serious illness (including death) from heatstroke in 118-degrees-in-the-shade Iraq would not “have happened regardless of the war in Iraq”. The troops are also coming down with several diseases native to the region (which happens in many wars). And you haven’t the slightest basis to think that all of these illnesses would have arisen independently of the deployment to Iraq.

And of course, the “illness” category is where the army places soldiers diagnosed with PTSD and other severe mental disturbances in theatre. Think those would have arisen absent service in Iraq? What a cretin.

And why are you vehemently opposing the straight-forward, officially supported statement that there have been 62,000 casualties in Iraq to date? And calling it a “rant”? Because you don’t want to acknowledge the actual human costs of the disastrous military operation you and your war-mongering party/movement advocated? I’m surprised you even care that much.

As though it makes a huge difference to the “success” of the foolish adventure if there are 40,000 casualties (not including serious illness evacuations) or 60,000 casualties (if such illnesses are included, as they always have been)

Your pigheaded stubbornness, consistent minimization of harm and suffering, and simple denial of reality is a sign (yet again) of the serious mental disturbances which we repeatedly see in the white males who are attracted to “conservatism”, and which is another reason why this horrendous “movement” must be thrown on the ash heap of history.

mark says:

November 21st, 2007 at 9:42 am

“Your pigheaded stubbornness, consistent minimization of harm and suffering, and simple denial of reality is a sign (yet again) of the serious mental disturbances which we repeatedly see in the white males who are attracted to “conservatism”, and which is another reason why this horrendous “movement” must be thrown on the ash heap of history. ”

OF course. Keep making statements like this. It is fun to watch someone make such stretches. All of your blabber reveals that you are not a serious person and do not have serious ideas.

This is a place where open-minded critical thinkers of all political persuasions encounter information and arguments that both support and challenge their preconceptions. The goal is not to eliminate differences but to narrow and clarify them. We begin with a bedrock agreement that the search for insight and clarity is important, serious - and fun.

We ask commenters to be civil and substantive and, if possible, good humored. We reserve the right to delete comments that disregard this request.

Follow The Big Question on Twitter Do you use Twitter? Follow The Big Question.