John Edwards was in Charleston today, doing his usual "I’m just a plain li’l ol’ boy from South Carolina" thing (at least, that’s what he had intended to do before this question
overtook him — ironically, in light of our last post). Hey, it worked for him in 2004, when ours was the only state primary he won. Might as well schtick with it.
Meanwhile, within the very same news cycle, the Associated Press was so obliging as to move an aerial photograph of Mr. Edwards’ actual home in North Carolina, the state he briefly represented in the U.S. Senate.
The cutline makes sure we don’t miss the fact that the Edwards spread "includes a gymnasium, a pool, a raquetball court, and a 10,778 square foot main home."
Related Posts
Who should fire angry “Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League” for the following statements?
““Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity, in general, and Catholicism, in particular. It’s not a secret, okay? I’m not afraid to say it.
[…]
Hollywood likes anal sex. They would like to see, uh, the public square without nativity scenes. I like — I like families. I like children. They like abortions.”
I’m saying if a Catholic votes for Kerry because they support him on abortion rights that is to cooperate in evil. [MSNBC, Hardball, 10/21/04]
This same guy [Dean Hamer] came up with this idea of the gay gene. I remember when that conversation was going on. Gays were all of a sudden worrying if people would start aborting kids when they found out the DNA suggested the kid might be gay or God forbid, we’d run out of little gay kids, so all of a sudden, they became pro-life. [MSNBC, Scarborough Country, 12/14/04]
I’m saying if a Catholic votes for Kerry because they support him on abortion rights that is to cooperate in evil. [MSNBC, Hardball, 10/21/04]
======
John Edwards lives according to his means as a successful capitalist and AP thinks it’s worth hiring a helicopter. George W. Bush runs business after business into the ground and the MSM doesn’t think that it’s worth noting prior to his election.
I wonder why.
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/16658617.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
As Trajan helpfully points out, Charlotte follows the same stupid, harmful Kulturkampf-over-substance path as the national media here.
Once again, I’m glad that our own Aaron Sheinin played it straight, actually telling readers what Mr. Edwards had come to Charleston to say.
Oh, by the way — I just deleted messages from RTH, Ed, bud, Mark, John/Mary and Phillip. That last one hurt, but I feel fine about the others. As I said in a comment on the following post, I have very specific reasons for what I say about John Edwards, and it has nothing to do with anyone’s partisan fantasies — which is why I deleted all the above pointless comments. That will be the subject of an upcoming column. For now, I have to go back to writing one on an entirely different subject that was due a couple of hours ago.
That AP moved that picture of Edwards’ house amuses me, so I shared it. It’s not the reason I say he’s a phony. That will be the subject of my column.
Lighten up, folks.
Brad, I don’t know why you’re getting so snippy. I admit I’m partisan. Any politician that favors a continuation of military efforts in Iraq is automatically excluded from my consideration. That includes Graham, Lieberman and McCain. Why not just admit that you have the same partisan bias from the other side?
I can’t, bud. That would mean I have a “partisan bias” toward Joe Wilson, for instance. He’s an adamant supporter of victory in Iraq, but I disagree with him about a whole lot of other things. Ditto with Jim DeMint (although I AM rather proud of him for the way he worked with the new Democratic leadership to rein in earmarks).
You see me backing McCain, Lieberman and Graham on a variety of issues because (drum roll) I happen to agree with them on a lot of stuff. The more stuff I agree with them on, the more I like them.
It’s a simple formula, but it’s hard for a lot of folks to get their heads around, since we’re all so brainwashed by the hyperpartisan model.
Hmmm, let me get this new “civility” policy straight.
If Brad doesn’t agree with the post then it’s toast.
Do I have it right?
Brad,
There was nothing whatsoever wrong with my message that you deleted. I happened to read Ed’s message, and there wasn’t anything wrong with his post either. My message was neither vulgar nor offensive. You need to put it back.
Mark, I don’t remember saying anything that was so terrible, other than that it probably was either anti-John McCain, or called Brad to task for some inanity he’s put forward. These are unpardonable sins both here and on the editorial page of the newspaper. You can’t speak the truth about McCain, and you certainly can’t get away with being brutally honest about Brads’ silly, biased ideas. This is the same way he runs the editorial page, and it’s a primary reason that the newspapers’ circulation is what it is. By the way, read this quickly, once Brad sees that it isn’t kind to him, he’ll delete it too. Ed
Well said Mary and Ed,
Ed, I do appreciate the sentiment that you elucidated in your message. I understand that you want a real conservative to run for president. It’s important to the democratic process for people to understand your message. I am sure that many people in the Republican Party would happen to agree with you on this point. Unfortunately, Mr. Warthen has made sure that your voice will not be heard.
Mary, you are one of the best writers that I have had the pleasure to read. Your writing skill far surpasses my writing ability. I appreciate your articulation of ideas that I would otherwise have difficulty expressing. I often read your arguments to help make my writing better. Thanks.
Before we nominate Mary for the Nobel…
RTH, the answer to your question is, “Nope, look around you. And guess again.”
Ed was going on about the merits of liberals vs. conservatives, and people were answering that, and I’ve made it pretty clear that’s not what this blog is about.
Mark did something I will not allow: He explain my “real” motives for writing what I write, which of COURSE are not the reasons that I go to the trouble to explain. I’ve had it with that bull. Maybe you people have time to waste, but if I take the time to write on this blog, it will be to tell you EXACTLY what I think and why I think it. I can’t even begin to imagine any other reason for me to be spending the time. You don’t have to play guessing games. Claiming that people are liars and here’s their REAL reason for writing as they do is the ultimate in bad faith, and I’m not going to put up with it for another moment.
That cuts out about 90 percent of Mary’s posts, because that’s her M.O. Well, that’s her choice. She has shown that she is perfectly capable of being rational and fair when she wants to be.
Oh, also — aside from explaining the “real” reason for what I was saying, Mark didn’t understand what I was saying to begin with. But he wasn’t alone. I partly blame myself for that, but I blame even more the hyperpartisan environment that we all dwell in, which prevents people from seeing when someone is not playing the usual game.
Well, my whole purpose here is to provide an alternative to that game. I’m certainly not here to play it with you.
If you don’t like that, go someplace else. Most of the blogosphere is set up for just what you want to do. If you stay here, and don’t change… well, to quote Dr. Evil, “I have a whole bag of ‘Shhh!’ with your name on it.”
“…going on about the merits of liberals vs. conservatives…and I’ve made it pretty clear that’s not what this blog is about…”
What the hell Brad? What IS this blog about, if not opposing ideas and ideals? And how exactly does one compare and contrast ‘political’ ideas without venturing from time to time into discussions about conservatism and liberalism? In the past you’ve said some things I flat disagree with, but I think I’ve always pretty much understood your thinking…until now. Again, what the hell? This is incomprehensible gibberish. My post was obliterated because I went on anout conservatives and liberals? Unless this blog has suddenly become about sewing or recipes, I dare say you’re going to have difficulty with this new policy…or not. It IS your blog. Maybe a good pot roast recipe would liven it up a bit. Ed
Brad, you’re in denial. You are clearly partisan. You favor the pro-war crowd by selectively, viscously attacking pragmatists that recognize the failure in Iraq while at the same time ignoring truly reprehensible behavior from the war-mongers. You attack Edwards because he has a big house. You call Kerry to the carpet because of what is obviously a blown joke. You accuse war veterans (Warner, Kerry) of cowardice because they push for a resolution condeming what is clearly a misguided foreign policy.
Conversely you ignore a deplorable act by a truly disgusting president when he makes a cruel joke about weapons of mass destruction. You ignore the numerous examples of John McCain flipping all over the place and making a complete fool of himself kissing the backside of the right-wing neo-cons as a required first step toward the GOP nomination for president. You turn a blind eye to the self-serving ambitions of one senator from Connecticut who shamelessly ran as both VP and senator (as a backup) simply to maintain power.
No Brad, you’re a partisan. You blindly support a war that you must know cannot be won. A failed war you’ve supported in word but not in deed. A war that is leading us as a nation in the wrong direction. A war that’s both immoral and counterproductive.
You mention Wilson and Demint as men you disagree with on certain issues. Yet I haven’t seen one disparaging word amount either man to the same hateful level that you leveled at Kerry, Edwards or Warner. You’re consumed by the war. It’s obvious by your blind support for it and hateful, unsubstantiated condemnation for those who oppose it.
Sadly, this damnable war is lost and the vast majority of the American public recognizes it. But those few who remain to support it can use whatever tactics they have left to keep it going. But it will be in vain. You may restrict us from using your blog, but in the end we will prevail. We will return our troops home. We will repair our country and the respect we’ve lost from around the world. It’s inevitable. Righteousness is on our side.
By the way Brad, I was firing for effect when speaking to Mark above…I do admit that I’ve taken some fairly gratuitous and cheap shots at you from time to time, and you’ve taken slings and arrows with dignity and aplomb. I want to compliment you on the job you’ve done in general with your blog. It has been an interesting place to come, read, think and vent. This new policy concerning not going on about liberals and conservatives has me puzzled, however. “Going on” about that particular area has been a primary reason that I, and I daresay others, have come. If this blog turns into a “coombaya” let’s all just get along and only talk about stuff that you like and in a way you like…I’m gonna quit. (Which, as I think about it, is probably not a bad outcome in your mind). Nevertheless, I think that pointed, stinging and edgy ray-par-tay is a GOOD thing rather than a bad one. I humbly suggest you reconsider. (Except for the part where you blow up all of Marys’ posts…that part is fine!) Ed
I didn’t answer Mark immediately, because he was making me blush. I will acknowledge that I am about a million times better writer than Warthen, but I also admit that I am just an OK writer. I write reasonably clearly, but I would characterize my style as kind of pedestrian, although I do have a good grasp of grammar and syntax.
Now, as to Warthen’s silly comments:
“Mark did something I will not allow: He explain my “real” motives for writing what I write, which of COURSE are not the reasons that I go to the trouble to explain. I’ve had it with that bull. Maybe you people have time to waste, but if I take the time to write on this blog, it will be to tell you EXACTLY what I think and why I think it.”
NO!!! NO!!! NO!!!
You tell us exactly what you WANT us to think you think, and what you WANT us to believe are your reasons for thinking it. You can’t make us believe you’re thinking in a particular way just by saying so, because we believe that you’re a dishonest person. A number of your explanations for why you think what you think cannot possibly be right. For example, the reason you think that McCain is honest cannot be that he is in fact honest, because you have been provided access to abundant information tending to demonstrate that he is a dishonest panderer. I do not believe that the reason you say that Senator Edwards is a phony is that it’s true, because I have seen no evidence that he is in fact a phony, and the only evidence that you have pointed to is that he has a bigger house than you do. That proves that he earns more money than you do, and that he is a better provider for his family than you are, but it doesn’t prove that he’s a phony. In addition, you have shown an inveterate habit of attacking people who are more successful than you are, and have contributed more to the society in which they live than you have, on the most trivial and silly of grounds. Regardless of what you say, therefore, I believe that you call Senator Edwards a phony because you envy him his success, and resent the fact that he’s a good provider for his family.
I don’t believe that you see the need for energy independence as the equivalent of war, the way you represent it, because you don’t take all the steps you could take to help achieve energy independence. For example, you have not bought a hybrid, because you consider it too expensive.
I don’t believe that the reason you advocate endless war in Iraq is that you have the best interests of the United States at heart, because you have been shown abundant evidence that it is not in the best interest of the United States, and you have given no reasonable explanation of why that evidence is wrong. In addition, you have taken no steps to shoulder any of the burden imposed by your advocacy of war. I believe, therefore, that your representations of your motives are false, and that your actions are better explained by a vain attempt to vindicate your father’s actions in Vietnam, and to claim for yourself a false courage consisting of a willingess to countenance danger to others.
Those are just a few of the reasons that your bald assertions of your motivations are not accepted by me, and I expect that some of these, as well as others, are included in the reasons some others have for questioning or scorning your explanations.
If you want us to believe that you you have a particular motivation for advocating one thing or another, you will have to show it by actions. Your own claims are perhaps the least weighty evidence.
Edwards is a phony because every public act of his just that – an act.
He is a poster boy for our corrupt legal system. Just read his book about the handful of cases he won. Judges let him get away with unethical sentimental stories, leading the witnesses, introduction of hearsay and worse, in a successful manipulation of jurors to empathizing with his clients and making them rich, just as they would like to use the courts to enrich themselves.
Edwards spent six years in the Senate and did nothing.
The main reason he didn’t run again is that he doesn’t want a track record of votes on any issues. If he were still in the Senate, his positions on every issue would look even more silly when compared with his vote, or his more likely avoidance of voting.
Lee, in other words, Senator Edwards is financially successful and a good provider for his family, and is building a 24,000 square foot house instead of forcing his family to live in a tarpaper shanty?
Lemme guess, Lee, you spent the night at a Holiday Inn Express last night and now you’re an instant legal expert.
You’re missing a great legal career while blogging here. Somehow, judges with years of trial experience AND a JD just aren’t up to your demanding legal standards.
BTW, where did you get your JD?
Wow, how underhanded– getting jurors to empathize with your client.
Lee, if your partisan blather wasn’t so ludicrous on the face of it more people might be suckered into believing you.
Edwards did the courageous thing by admitting he made a mistake with his Iraq war vote in 2002. Knowing that the GOP spin machine will use that admission to brand him as a flip-flopper (or worse) Edwards still followed his conscience rather than trying to spin. Edwards has certainly had his share of personal tragedy but he’s handled it with great dignity. I like the way he’s stood up to the wealthy corporate special interests as a trial attorney. His modest roots speak for themselves. He knows what it’s like to live a life of meager means. Edwards is intelligent, articulate and dedicated to the causes he champions. His honesty in the 2004 VP debate stands in stark contrast to the vile lies spouted by Mr. Cheney. Yet he did not respond in kind either during or after the debate. He was a class act as a candidate then and continues to be one now.
I find the personal attacks on John Edwards because he lives in a big house reprehensible. Did he pretend to be poor? Does he hide the fact that he’s wealthy? Of course not. John Edwards understands what working class people go through. He’s a man of the people. He has become a staunch opponent of what can only be described as an immoral war of imperialism. As it stands now I’m casting my support for John Edwards to be the next president of the USA.
Sorry, but I’m going to change the subject (a little) and gore another of Brad’s sacred oxen: Holy Joe Lieberman.
From the WaPo, 1/24:
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) asked Army Lt. Gen. David H . Petraeus during his confirmation hearing yesterday if Senate resolutions condemning White House Iraq policy “would give the enemy some comfort.”
Petraeus agreed they would, saying, “That’s correct, sir.”
Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), until recently chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a co-sponsor of one of those resolutions, later explained to the general that he needed to be more careful about appearing to wade into a political debate and warned Petraeus to not let himself be trapped into portraying members of Congress as unpatriotic for disagreeing with President Bush:
We’re not a division here today of patriots who support the troops and those who are making statements and working on resolutions that could be translated as aiding and abetting the enemy. We’re trying to exercise the fundamental responsibilities of our democracy and how this nation has two co-equal branches of the government, each bearing its own responsibilities.
=====
It’s really difficult to sink lower than Holy Joe (I-Fox News).
I don’t see how you gored him. He asked the general a reasonable question, the general answered frankly, and Warner — for understandable reasons — took exception.
I realize that people who understand the risks of national division are expected to keep their mouths shut so as not to offend people who will scream that they are being accused of lack of patriotism, yadda-yadda.
But Joe is talking about a very real dynamic of how the world works. It doesn’t matter whether people are patriotic or not; if they work to show that the U.S. Congress does not support the mission Gen. Petraeus (and not accomplish any practicaly goal other than making that statement), they are indeed hurting the soldiers’ cause, and encouraging the enemy.
There’s no point in people getting their feelings hurt about that. No one impugned their motives; they merely described the likely practical effect.
Why is it so hard to communicate the difference there? It’s obvious.
RTH has so busted Lieberman. Joe L. uses Petraeus as a conduit for a pro-war partisan assault by asking a leading question, the expected answer to which, will be widely perceived by the right-wing spin machine as proof that the anti-war resolution senators are unpatriotic. By asking the question Lieberman is attempting to set in motion a chain of events that will serve as a form of swiftboating. Petraeus is not qualified to determine if the enemy takes any special comfort in the senate’s resolution. Since he’s not a psychologist he can only offer a layman’s opinion. And Lieberman knows that. But this set’s in motion the spin machine. These senators must be unpatriotic, Petraeus said they are giving comfort to the enemy.
By playing the “not supporting the troops” card Lieberman is despartely seeking to turn the political tables. Public opinion is against him on the surge issue so he uses the troops, by way of Petraeus, to change the debate. The only motive for asking this question is to make a clever, partisan attack (hiding behind Petraeus in the process) on those who oppose the surge.
Brad, it’s really quite obvious what Lieberman is doing. It’s an act of desparation that is quite transparent and very disgusting.
Holy Joe, safely elected to the senate by Republican voters, seems to have a change of heart. He’s even more hawkish than Dear Leader. Stay the course– but more so!
JOE LIEBERMAN RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION:
“By the end of this year we will being to draw down significant numbers of American troops and by the end of next year more than half of the troops who are there now will be home.” – Lieberman, 7/7/06
“No one wants to end the war in Iraq more than I do.” – Lieberman, 10/18/06
JOE LIEBERMAN NOW:
“When asked if he could support sending another ‘20,000 to 30,000′ troops, Lieberman said, ‘I can and I hope it‘s exactly what President Bush does.’” – AP, 12/31/06
RTH, this quote, from the same article, is particularly telling:
“Lieberman likes expressions of American power. A few years ago, I was in a movie theatre in Washington when I noticed Lieberman and his wife, Hadassah, a few seats down. The film was “Behind Enemy Lines,” in which Owen Wilson plays a U.S. pilot shot down in Bosnia. Whenever the American military scored an onscreen hit, Lieberman pumped his fist and said, “Yeah!” and “All right!””
Remind you of anyone?
What a sicko, huh? He goes to the movies and cheers for the Americans.
I had previously thought Mary was a guy from Massachusetts. Now I see she’s from the Bizarro world. Everything for her is twisted. Truth is a lie, supporting one’s countrymen a dead giveaway to a character flaw. On the Bizarro world, you’re supposed to cheer for the Serbian ethnic cleansers.
One thing Joe isn’t, though, is a movie critic. “Behind Enemy Lines” was pretty badly done.
Wow Brad, you really don’t want to see any flaws in your heros. I personally find it quite disturbing that a 60 year old U.S. Senator would vocally cheer in a movie theater when someone gets killed.
I see flaws. I said that was a lousy movie. I’m a big movie fan, so having poor taste in movies is a flaw to me. I may not attach as much importance to it as Rob, Dick and Barry do in Nick Hornby’s High Fidelity; I don’t consider poor taste a deep character defect.
But I do like people who appreciate the good stuff.
The good guys blew a great opportunity in Connecticut. And now we’re all paying for it. To think we came so close to getting rid of this war-mongering blowhard. This underscores how important it is to win and not just come close. A 10 point loss or 40, the end result is the same.
No, bud, there was a happy ending. The good guys WON in the end, after the setback of the primary.
That was the greatest blow struck in years against the poisonous grip of political parties. To see the partisans of Connecticut dealt such a defeat at the very time that the Uberpartisans of the GOP were knocked back at the same time was a wonderful moment. Add to it the fact that in numerous cases, extreme partisans (say, Santorum) were replaced by moderate Democrats who give the nervous shakes to the extremists in their own party, and the GOOD guys made progress on many fronts in November.
Why, even here in SC, the good guys won over Karen Floyd, for no identifiable reason beyond her the extremism she represented. Very encouraging.
What’s the matter, Brad? Do you not want any blog readers to understand that Lieberman thinks his former-fellow party members in the senate are “pacificsts and isolationists?”
I guess that could lead to some awkward questions, such as:
(1)Why did Lieberman stay a member of the same party for so many years if the members were so antithetical to his philosophy?
(2)Could it have been because he’s looking out after what’s best for Joe Lieberman?
(3)Why would he run for VP for a party of such folks?
(4)Could it have been because he’s looking out after what’s best for Joe Lieberman?
(5)Why would he threaten to leave the caucus if the Dems actually tried to represent their constituents on the most crucial issue of the day?
(6)Could it be because he wants everybody to focus on the importance of his swing vote?
(7) Why couldn’t he just announce that he would vote his conscience– instead of threatening the Dems slim hold on majority?
Go ahead, erase this post like the two before it. I’ll repost it and every other one that you erase, repeatedly.
You have no grounds of “civility” to erase it. I’ll leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions about your motives.
Here’s hoping the Senate DOES focus on his swing votes. That would be a very salutary thing for the country. I certainly haven’t heard much good from the people wearing party labels lately.
In reality, Brad, Lieberman’s vote isn’t a “swing vote,” at all, when it comes to the futile occupation of Iraq. And you know it.
Can you be any more disingenuous? Lieberman’s vote is in the bag for escalating the war. Is that why you think that it’s so “salutory” for the country?
Since you won’t answer the question why Lieberman threatens to make the Dems a minority party in the senate, I will. It’s because he’s power hungry. It’s obviously not because he’s some idealist alienated from his party. He’d simply vote his conscience, if that were the case. He wouldn’t have run in the Dem primary if he were honestly alienated from his party. He wouldn’t have made a huge show of still being an “independent” Dem and caucusing with the his old party mates.
Holy Joe repeatedly assured Connecticut voters that he would vote Dem and work to end the war. Safely elected for another six years and back in the senate Lieberman reverses his campaign talk about ending the Iraq meat grinder. He recognizes that he’s in the catbird seat to negotiate with either side. Since he shares Bush’s willingness to sacrifice American lives in a mistaken war, Lieberman is obviously looking at what kind of deal the Rethugs will cut.
Don’t tell me that becoming the second un-elected Rethuglican VP hasn’t entered his mind. Only in Holy Joe’s fevered imagination would signing on as second in command on the Titanic after striking the berg would be pathway to promotion.
I’m not a much of a Joe Klein fan but here’s his prediction (made on Tweety’s Hardball shout-a-thon):
This is just a guess, but it’s an educated and a reported guess. The Democrats in the Senate are getting really, really angry at Joe Lieberman, especially because he’s been accusing them of undermining the troops’ morale. And Joe Lieberman isn’t too happy with the Democrats, either. I think there’s going to be an explosion and perhaps a party switch pretty soon.
===================
I can’t imagine why Senate Dems would be agravated at Lieberman virtually calling them traitors.
Maybe they’ve decided that Lieberman’s price for keeping them in the majority is too high.
Push the sanctimonious hypocrite overboard and let the Republicans have him. In the long run he’ll find out that turncoats have a short shelf life. The party of Brownback, Santorum and Imhofe will hold their nose until they can throw him overboard, too.
Actually, I read John Edward’s book about the 6 trials that made him rich in the library, not the Holiday Inn Express.
Let me guess, RTH, that you have not read it, which is why you don’t realize that I was abbreviating how John Edwards said he manipulated the judges and juries. It was not my opinion, much less conjecture like you use most of the time.
Lee, what’s the matter, they wouldn’t let you take the book out of the library? Couldn’t scrape enough money together to pay your overdue fines?
In other words, Mary Rosh also hasn’t read John Edward’s book about about how he milked the legal system.
I read fast enough to finish it in the library without checking it out, but you may need a few weeks to wade through it before you are ready to post an intelligent reply to me.
Lee, I suggest that you review your understanding of the role of a lawyer in our tort system.
I don’t have to read John Edwards’ book to understand it. Obviously, your reading of his book didn’t educate you about it.
Try again.
I don’t often watch the Bill O’Reilly show but occassionaly when the GOP is having a difficult time I’ll tune it to see how he’s going to “spin” the issues of the day. Last night he had a democratic operative on who was defending John Edwards so-called “blogger-gate” non issue. He may as well have had a stuffed animal on the show for he would not allow her to have her say. She tried, in vane, to make her points about the issue but O’Reilly would have none of it. He simply would not allow her to talk. At one point he threatened to never have her on his show again unless she answered his question the way he wanted her to answer!
Talk about spin. This whole non-issue started when Mr. Donahue, a bigoted, partisan blowhard dug up some obscure blog posts by a couple of low-level Edwards staffers. The fact that O’Reilly blew any criticism of Donahue off speaks volumes about his integrity.
Of course O’Reilly is not alone. Sean, Rush and the others are nothing but partisan hacks. Fox News really is nothing but a propaganda wing of the GOP.
And back to Lieberman and his Republican allies in congress. It appears the Republicans are just simply not going to discuss Iraq. They are going to talk about supporting the troops and the global war on terrorism instead. Clearly they understand the mood of the public is against the surge idea. So instead of debating it on the merits just change the subject. From a leaked talking points letter:
In the letter, leading conservative Reps. John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) inform their allies: “The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily.” Shadegg and Hoekstra warn, if conservatives are forced to debate “the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.”
The pitiful thing, Hurl, is that you want to believe that you understand a book you never read better than someone with an education in that subject who actually did read it.
Like all liberals, you “just know” what opinions to hold, from your feelings.
It’s so much easier than bothering yourself with learning.