Monday, May 28, 2007

Carnival of Divided Government TERTIUS DECIMUS - Special Memorial Day Fishing Holiday Edition

UPDATED: Friday, June 1, 2007- It's a long wait until the next carny scheduled for July 4, so we added some recent and overlooked posts - introduced below in red.

Welcome to the May 28, 2007 edition of the Carnival of Divided Government TERTIUS DECIMUS - Special Memorial Day Fishing Holiday Edition. This edition brought to you from the global headquarters of the DWSUWF blog, temporarily relocated to an undisclosed location near a bass lake and trout stream in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

Introduction
As explained in earlier editions, we have adopted Latin ordinal numeration in order to impart a patina of gravitas reflecting the historical importance of the series. In this edition, as in all of the CODGOV series, we select volunteers and draftees from the blogosphere and main stream media on the singular topic of government divided between the major parties (leaving it to the reader to sort out volunteers from draftees). Consistent with this topic, the primary criteria for acceptance in the carnival is to use the words and/or concept of "divided government" in submitted posts. A criteria that, to our endless befuddlement, is ignored by many of the bloggers submitting posts, which sadly results in DWSUWF reluctantly ignoring their fine submissions.

Fishing for Divided Government Posts
Our first catch is from the Boston Dissentator, who secured top billing in this carnival by employing a fishing metaphor in support of his thesis that blogs can be a posiitve influence in moderating the polarizing partisan divide in "Uniting Our "Divided" Nation" posted at The Dissentators:
"Our impulses and our emotions may sometimes cause us to take the bait when media and politicians dangle the partisan hook, but deep down inside I think we all know that the divisive culture is not helping at all and in fact doing real damage, and we also know deep down inside that no one agrees with everything every politician from one party believes. So we are ready for this change, and I think that this change can only come from the blogs, since the media and the politicians all benefit from the increase in attention they get from keeping the divisive atmosphere alive."
There is a lot to like in this essay. It is thoughtful, optimistic and the dissentator practices what he preaches, maintaining an engaging, respectful and high level discourse with his fellow dissentators around the globe. But alas, "deep down inside", as a skeptical realist, I conclude that the BostonDissentator makes more than a few mistakes in this essay. He assumes that a "unified" America is a desirable, even normal state, that partisanship is bad, and then compounds these errors by implying that polarized partisan bickering is a relatively new phenomena that can be attributed to modern main stream media and politicians. This blogger finds those assertions to be a bit naive and practically Un-American. This is ground that DWSUWF covered in the post "Unity08 and fellow travellers Tony Snow and David Gregory promote Un-American activities", in which we outline the historical case that "Polarized Partisan Politics Promotes Popular Participation." There is something to be learned about the postive effect of divided government and partisan wrangling in the recent legislative efforts on Iraq, immigration, and Congressional oversight.

Divided Government and the Emergency Iraq War Funding Bill
Consider this stringer of keeper posts we caught nibbling at this recent David Espo AP story - "Analysis: an Iraq Bill No One Loved":
"The Iraq war funding bill cleared by Congress represents a triumph of divided government, beloved by none, crafted to avoid a protracted veto struggle that neither President Bush nor Democrats wanted..."
Captain Ed calls the bill a victory for the President in his post "That Wasn't So Hard, Was It?":
The Democratic-controlled Congress finally accomplished something after over four months of the 110th's session. They managed to pass a supplemental funding bill for the troops in Iraq, even though it took them 108 days to figure one out -- and they managed to vote overwhelmingly for it... A majority of Democrats agreed to fund the troops without timetables for withdrawal. Only 14 opposed a bill that many Democrats promised they would never support, which they now have to explain to an enraged base. The White House will sign this at the first opportunity. Why not? They spent the last four months fighting for this victory, and George Bush will want to ensure it lasts all summer long."
Thereisnospoon bitterly agrees this was a defeat for Democrats in "Democrats: The Party of Pork!" posted at There is no Blog:
"...In other words, the Dems didn't give the GOP everything they wanted on a silver platter--this was just politics as usual in Washington. A give and take. Compromise. Sausage-making at its finest, leaving both sides relieved but discontent. The Republicans got what they wanted and Democrats didn't (a never-ending occupation) and Democrats got what they wanted and Republicans didn't ($8 billion in spending). Sounds like a fair trade to me! Epso's article continues with quotes from both sides supposedly signaling the difficult complexity of the issue, but instead demonstrating the incredible capacity for mendacious bullshit on the part of elected officials on both sides of the aisle."
Outraged Liberal takes a more measured view in "Wrong Target" posted at Massachusetts Liberal:
"We are in the midst of divided government, in every sense of the word. The Democratic majority rests on slender roots and there simple are not enough votes to get things done as we would prefer, at least not yet... But the list of bitter-enders who will support him until the end (of his term) is growing shorter. Let's not build it back up by attacking those who chose a strategic retreat to fight another day with more tools at their disposal. Cancel that circular firing squad."
Madeleine Begun Kane was moved to limerick as it her wont in "Democrats, Heal Thy Selves!"
The Dems disappoint once again,
Caving in to Dub’s warmong’ring yen.
Timeline’s gone from the bill.
Checks on Bush? Nothing! Nil!
Bush says, “Heel!” and the Dems reply, “When?”.
Henry Neufeld sums it up best in his post "Tensions of Constitutional Government" posted at Thread's from Henry's Web:
"Anti-war forces need to simply realize that, as angry as you may be, it takes more than one election to change the course of the country. If you don’t have the staying power to carry this through the next election, you shouldn’t have bothered to start. (I use “you” rather than “we” here because though I oppose the war, I think it’s appropriate that policy be a compromise between congress and the president in a divided government. I’m not angry. Things are about as expected... )"
Finally, you gotta love Bret's take and the title in his post "I Love Divided Government! I really do!" posted at the Great Guys Weblog:
"Congress ultimately backed down, but they put the Iraqis on notice first. That fact is that if there is no progress in Iraq over the coming months, we may actually leave and leave them to their own devices (and civil war, and mayhem, and genocide, and famine, and mass refugee migration, etc.). My feeling is that the American people, in their infinite Wisdom of Crowds, correctly put the Democrats into office all so this showdown would happen and enable progress in Iraq. We're good, we are!"
Bottom line: The acrimonious, polarized partisan debate over the Emergency War Funding Bill, resulted in a better outcome than we would have gotten had either party held single party control of both executive and legislative branches. This is exactly as predicted in this DWSUWF April 16 post:
"After the veto, a compromise bill with less pork and softer language on the withdrawal timetable will be passed by the legislature and signed by the executive. Both parties will declare victory. The country will get a better, more rational, and less wasteful funding legislation. Chalk up another win for Divided Government."
The pork was reduced in this bill as a result of the veto. On the off chance that the military surge strategy will create enough breathing room to secure a stronger negotiating posture by this fall, it yields a slim hope for a better long-term result for the Iraqi people, and is probably a risk worth taking. The stage has been set for a bipartisan bill in September to begin disentangling ourselves from Iraq when the Defense Appropriation Bill comes before Congress.

Divided Government Fish Stew
Immigration to Surveillance to Congressional Oversight and more.
Athenae quotes an Allison Hantschel Sun-Times News Group article in "Columnwhoring: Oversight, Bitches!" posted at First Draft:
"That President Bush re-asserted his support for Gonzales following his dismal performance and that Gonzales refused to resign in the face of his failure hardly matter. The hearings proved one thing, and one thing only: The executive branch no longer has a blank check to run the country into the ground. Divided government can be good for America. The questioning by one party of policies implemented by the other can result in stronger legislation and more fair and equitable distribution of resources."
J.D. Tuccille asks "Did you hear that?" in the wake of revelations of F.B.I. abuses of security letter provisions posted at Disloyal Opposition:
"Congressional Democrats don't seem too keen on the idea. The Bush administration's misuse of existing surveillance powers gives them pause and, besides, they just don't like the Republican-led executive branch. You gotta love divided government."
Jim Harper agrees in "Congress Moves Against NSA Spying" posted at The Technology Liberation Front:
"Ars Technica reports that an amendment to the FY 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act “upholds the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Backed (FISA) as the only means by which to do electronic surveillance—and … requires continuous judicial oversight of requests.” Divided government is a real boon."
Blog Goliard likes divided govenment but asks "Why Teddy" sould be selected as the Republican partner for immigration reform legislation, posted at Blog Goliard:
"There’s so much to write, and so much already being written, about the new immigration deal. Here’s the one thing I’ll never understand. Striking bipartisan deals is often both good and necessary, especially when you’ve got a divided government. But why is it so often Ted Kennedy that the Republicans—especially W.—go running to when they make these deals?"
Marc Parent quotes David Lindroff making the dubious claim that the election of a divided government is a justification for impeachment in "Impeach Bush or Get Rid of the Impeachment Clause" posted at Crimes and Corruption of the New World Order News:
"Excuse two is that impeachment is divisive. This seems the height of absurdity. When voters handed Congress to the Democrats, they knew they were setting the stage for divided government. That was the whole point. Moreover, divisiveness in Washington has largely emanated from the White House, not from Congress."
Baltimoron quotes Cato and asks "What Becomes of the Pays-As-It-Goes War?" posted at Left Flank:
Hell's Handmaiden helpfully corrects another blogger's flawed moronic understanding of checks, balances, co-equal branches of government, and the Constitution in "Morning dose of Irony" posted at Hell's Handmaiden:
"More chilling than the White House’s weak Constitutional argument is the suggestion by Left Wing = Hate that the President simply dismiss Congress until the end of his Presidency. That… just… seems… so… monarchical. Dictatorial. Tyrannical. I’m really not sure how you go about convincing yourself that such a thing is sensible– hell, that such a thing is sane. Hasn’t history proven time enough that giving one man that kind of power is absurdly dangerous? I’m not sure how it is possible that anyone this side of the last century’s dictatorships can argue for creating another one, and removing Congress would be doing exactly that."
HoyStory snickers about the hypocrisy of Democratic party promises to "drain the swamp", showing why the most trustworthy government is a divided government in "Cleaning House" posted at Hoystory:
"We’re five months into the Democrats tenure in charge of both houses of Congress and thus far we don’t have much in the way of substantive legislation passed. The count often repeated lately in newscasts is that 26 bills passed by this Congress have been signed into law by President Bush — and 12 of them do nothing more than rename federal buildings. This may be divided government at its best — and worst."
DWSUWF is not sure where Hoystory sees "the worst", as it all looks pretty darn good to us.

Jack at Wang Chi's House of Pancakes has an epiphany remarkably similar to the one that prompted DWSUWF to start this blog in his post "A Modest Proposal":
"But if things were different-- If we had the opportunity to consciously select divided government or gridlock or whatever you want to call it. If we already knew what we had in the White house when we voted for Congress (or vice versa).... How different things might have been."
Indeed. And as I mention in a comment on his post, we do have that opportunity and should think about how different things still can be if we, as voters, consciously continue to select divided government as our preferred form of leadership in Washington D.C.

George Will ruminates on how we may yet maintain a divided government in 2008 in his column "Republican plan still adds up to divided government" posted at Recordnet and in the Washington Post:
"Although Cole is playing to win, and expects to win, in 2008, retaking the House may be, he says, "a two-step dance for us." He thinks Republicans have a good chance of winning control even if they do not win the White House.... But Republican House candidates may get considerable help from the Democrats' presidential candidate. Cole thinks that Democrats, who he says have more litmus tests for their presidential candidates than Republicans do, are so convinced that they are going to win the White House, they are not resisting what they enjoy surrendering to -- the tug from the party's left... Americans seem to like the government at least somewhat divided. They are apt to have that for a while."
George is reporting on Tom Cole's strategy to retake majority control of the house in 2008 even if the Republicans lose the presidency. DWSUWF thinks they are both whistling in the wind, and ignoring the "100 year Rule". Since the US has directly elected Senators (more than 100 years), the House has never changed majority control unless the Senate did also (as in 2006). The first chance the Republicans will have to retake a majority in either house will be in 2010. The only chance for continued divided government past 2008 is to elect a Republican president.

A single off-topic catch of the day.
Athough we normally throw back any off-topic (non divided government) catches, we will continue the longstanding tradition at The Carnival of Divided Government of frying up one "off-topic" submission as a grudging acknowledgement and symbolic proxy for the many off-topic submissions received. The winner for this edition is ...

Emo Mom
presenting "Will the Real Republican Please Stand Up?" posted at Emo Mom's Daily Podcast - just because I am amused by Emo Mom's handle, and despite the fact that she gets the Ron Paul/Rudy Giuliani debate "moment" completely wrong in her post. For a somewhat less "emo" analysis, check out Jesse Walker's post here, and Andrew Sullivan's post here.

Miscellany
With that we conclude this edition. Thanks for stopping by, and thanks for all of the submissions (on-topic or not). The next edition will be the Carnival of Divided Government Quârtus Decimus - Special Independence Day Edition, to be posted July 4th, 2007. Blog articles may be submitted for the carnival of divided government using the carnival submission form. Past posts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

Finally, if you enjoyed this carnival, you should also check out these other recent fine collections:

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

7 comments:

nlv said...

"the fact that she gets the Ron Paul/Rudy Giuliani debate "moment" completely wrong in her post"

I'd like to know how quoting conversation verbatim is getting it completely wrong.

Reading comprehension C-

Emo Mom
http://emomom.com

mw said...

Ms. Mom - or - may I call you Emo?
First, thank you for your submission and comment. We appreciate all visitors to our humble corner of the blogosphere.

In reply to your query: "I'd like to know how quoting conversation verbatim is getting it completely wrong."

Quite simple really. It is not your quotes that were wrong. I assume you can cut and paste with the best of them. It is your representation and interpretation of the selected quotes that are completely wrong. Specifically:

"Ron Paul was probably the kid in the lunchroom who gave up his lunch to the bully, and then did his homework for him!" -em

Emo nonsense.

"Give Ron Paul the keys to the White House, and he'll probably invite Bin Ladin for tea!"- emo

More of the same.

"Americans, be afraid, be very afraid of Representative Ron Paul and those like him, who blame America for the attacks of 9/11." - emo

Flat wrong. As a commenter on your post pointed out, there is a difference between "blame" and understanding the terrorists "rationale" for the attack. At no point did Ron Paul blame America for the attacks. He was referencing the "blowback" view which is an accepted view by many in the CIA. This article may be helpful for you:

"Yet since Giuliani “scored some of the best, and perhaps easiest, points of the night,” Ron Paul has seen donations soar, has topped a respected national straw poll by a margin of nearly two-to-one and has appeared on “Real Time” to a welcome so warm that it shocked host Bill Maher. Ron Paul also hosted a press conference where he urged Giuliani to read books and white papers including the 911 Report, which itself featured the very analysis that Ron Paul had made during the debate. In the past weeks, there have been fewer and fewer comments on the ‘Net and elsewhere defending Giuliani’s attack on Ron Paul’s theory of Middle East "blowback." Meanwhile, Ron Paul’s advocacy of a small-government, defensively-oriented military policy - one he considers Constitutionally sound - has received a good deal of attention and analysis."

Back to Emo:

"They [Ron Paul and supporters] are almost as dangerous to our country as the terrorists!"-em

Why Emo, how very Rosie O'Donnelish of you. Complete hyperbolic, hysterical nonsense.

Then there was this little bit in your comment I found particularly ironic: "Reading comprehension C-"

While I appreciate the passing grade, I cannot be so generous with you, and will have to give you an "F" in reading comprehension, with three words for you to consider: Pot, Kettle, Black.

I am curious, which part of these sentences in the description for this blog carnival did you not understand?

"Like all of the CODGOV series, use of the words or concept "divided government" is a requirement for inclusion in the carnival."

"If the words "divided government" or "gridlock" are not in your post, you probably do not want to submit it to this carnival."

nlv said...

1. Ms. Mom - or - may I call you
Emo?
First, thank you for your submission and comment. We appreciate all visitors to our humble corner of the blogosphere.

Apparently you have a problem with my moniker. I’m not a licensed
therapist, therefore I cannot help you with that issue.

2. “Your representation and interpretation of the selected quotes are completely wrong, specifically:

"Ron Paul was probably the kid in the lunchroom who gave up his lunch to the bully, and then did his homework for him!"

"Give Ron Paul the keys to the White House, and he'll probably invite Bin Ladin for tea!"

"Americans, be afraid, be very afraid of Representative Ron Paul and those like him, who blame America for the attacks of 9/11." “

Is that all you’ve got?

These satirical statements are meant demonstrate the ridiculous nature of the man and his devotees. To qualify one’s own writing with further interpretation, dumbing it down, so to speak, would be rude and condescending. If what you were trying to say is that you don’t agree with my attempts at humor; I’m sure you’re not alone.

3. “Flat wrong. As a commenter on your post pointed out, there is a difference between "blame" and understanding the terrorists "rationale" for the attack.”

hmmm….. use of the word “rationale” seems a bit oxymoronish.
“Rationale” Etymology: [Origin: 1650–60; < L: neut. of ratiōnālis RATIONAL ] This word would indicate a reasoned approach to a belief.

Formulating and postulating beliefs based on ignored, incomplete, or distorted interpretations of reality, reports or rhetoric, is hardly rational. In fact, this schema is exactly the method used by terrorists, to garner and recruit support for their cause. Careful reading of the 911 Report, Chapter 2, outlines the manipulative tactics used by Bin Ladin to entice the disillusioned into a distorted view of Islam, which proclaims the infidel (uh…that would be us) must be killed.

Perhaps you could lift your eyes from your script, err… blog, long enough to let your fingers do the walkin’ and do a little research, before say, 1990.

(Excerpted from my earlier response to the post in question)

There are those who would have you believe that Westerners (in particular Americans) are hated and despised by the Middle East because of our foreign policy. In fact, this hatred has nothing at all to do with politics, or being in Iraq (although it is a convenient talking point for currying constituency).

If one dares to research the subject, history books site hundreds of years of conflict between Islam and Christianity, one struggling to survive, the other struggling to dominate; both believing they are the one true path to heaven. Eventually, Christianity gained a foothold in Europe and the West, and as a result, radical Islamic leaders scorn the Western World (the U.S.) as an evil temptress to the followers of Islam; we are the infidel, and the mere fact that we exist is the problem. We were the infidel long before we became dependent on oil, long before Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, or Saddam Hussein rose to power, and we'll be the infidel whether Hilary, Barack or Bush is in the White House. Foreign policy has nothing at all to do with the fanaticism of the terrorists and their supporters, and no amount of making nice with these people is going to make them lay down their swords.

Of course, if you prefer to believe the talking heads who blame American foreign policy, you're just fooling yourself. But then again, believing the libs is much safer on the psyche than believing there's somebody (or a bunch of somebodies) out to get you. It doesn't matter if you're Oprah or O'Reilly, Jessie Jackson, or Mother Theresa, Reverend Al or Rosie O'Donnell, you'd be just as scorn, just as hated, and if they had their way, you'd be dead.

The 911 report bears this out, but it is up to YOU to do the legwork to verify it. This is where most people get off. Is it laziness, indifference or fear that makes people embrace subjective view of the 911 Report, and completely ignore the factual information contained therein?

Excerpt from 911 report: Chapter 2, Sections 2.1:

"We are certain that we shall--with the grace of Allah--prevail
over the Americans." He went on to warn that "If the present injustice continues, it will inevitably move the battle to American soil."

Plans to attack the United States were developed with unwavering single-mindedness throughout the 1990s. Bin Ladin saw himself as called "to follow in the footsteps of the Messenger and to communicate his message to all nations," and to serve as the rallying point and organizer of a new kind of war
to destroy America and bring the world to Islam.

2.2 BIN LADIN'S APPEAL IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD

It is the story of eccentric and violent ideas sprouting in the fertile ground of political and social turmoil. It is the story of an organization poised to seize
its historical moment. How did Bin Ladin--with his call for the indiscriminate killing of Americans--win thousands of followers and some degree of
approval from millions more?

The history, culture, and body of beliefs from which Bin Ladin has shaped and spread his message are largely unknown to many Americans. Seizing on symbols of Islam's past greatness, he promises to restore pride to people who consider themselves the victims of successive foreign masters. He uses cultural and religious allusions to the holy Qur'an and some of its interpreters. He appeals to people disoriented by cyclonic change as they confront modernity and globalization. His rhetoric selectively draws from multiple sources--Islam,
history, and the region's political and economic malaise.

(later in that section) Bin Ladin's Worldview

Despite his claims to universal leadership, Bin Ladin offers an extreme view of Islamic history designed to appeal mainly to Arabs and Sunnis. He draws on
fundamentalists who blame the eventual destruction of the Caliphate on leaders who abandoned the pure path of religious devotion.

He repeatedly calls on his followers to embrace martyrdom since "the walls of oppression and humiliation cannot be demolished except in a rain of bullets."

(even later in that same section)
Bin Ladin also relies heavily on the Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb. A member of the Muslim Brotherhood executed in 1966 on charges of attempting to overthrow the government, Qutb mixed Islamic scholarship with a very
superficial acquaintance with Western history and thought. Sent by the Egyptian government to study in the United States in the late 1940s, Qutb returned
with an enormous loathing of Western society and history. He dismissed West-
ern achievements as entirely material, arguing that Western society possesses
"nothing that will satisfy its own conscience and justify its existence."

Three basic themes emerge from Qutb's writings. First, he claimed that the
world was beset with barbarism, licentiousness, and unbelief (a condition he called jahiliyya, the religious term for the period of ignorance prior to the rev-
elations given to the Prophet Mohammed). Qutb argued that humans can choose only between Islam and jahiliyya. Second, he warned that more people, including Muslims, were attracted to jahiliyya and its material comforts than to his view of Islam; jahiliyya could therefore triumph over Islam.Third, no middle ground exists in what Qutb conceived as a struggle between God
and Satan. All Muslims--as he defined them--therefore must take up arms in this fight.Any Muslim who rejects his ideas is just one more nonbeliever worthy of destruction.

Bin Ladin shares Qutb's stark view, permitting him and his followers to
rationalize even unprovoked mass murder as righteous defense of an embattled
faith.

Many Americans have wondered, "Why do `they' hate us?" Some also ask,
"What can we do to stop these attacks?"

Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions. To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight
with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands .America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as "your agents." Bin Ladin has stated
flatly, "Our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you."

These charges found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America's support for their countries' repressive rulers. Bin Ladin's grievance with the United States may have started in reaction
to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper. To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda's answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture: "It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind." If the United States did not comply, it would be at war with the Islamic nation, a nation that al Qaeda's
leaders said "desires death more than you desire life."


4. “At no point did Ron Paul blame America for the attacks. He was referencing the "blowback" view which is an accepted view by many in the CIA.”

He said what he said.

Please review the video available here … and make an effort to pay attention.

5. This article may be helpful for you:

"Yet since Giuliani “scored some of the best, and perhaps easiest, points of the night,” Ron Paul has seen donations soar, has topped a respected national straw poll by a margin of nearly two-to-one and has appeared on “Real Time” to a welcome so warm that it shocked host Bill Maher. Ron Paul also hosted a press conference where he urged Giuliani to read books and white papers including the 911 Report, which itself featured the very analysis that Ron Paul had made during the debate. In the past weeks, there have been fewer and fewer comments on the ‘Net and elsewhere defending Giuliani’s attack on Ron Paul’s theory of Middle East "blowback." Meanwhile, Ron Paul’s advocacy of a small-government, defensively-oriented military policy - one he considers Constitutionally sound - has received a good deal of attention and analysis."

This blogger is hard-pressed to find any significant support for Ron Paul, that does not emminate from one of his own (and numerous) websites, or those of his smallish following. However, if this is a pissin’ match, here are my contributions:

FOXNEWS: GOP Debate Text-Vote Results
— 29% Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney
— 25% Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas
— 19% Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani
— 8% Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee
— 5% Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. Hunter
— 4% Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
— 3% Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
— 1% Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
— 0% Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore
— 0% Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson
Another Debate Poll
Another recent poll:
and of particular note...
6. Back to Emo:

"They [Ron Paul and supporters] are almost as dangerous to our country as the terrorists!"-em

Why Emo, how very Rosie O'Donnelish of you. Complete hyperbolic, hysterical nonsense.

Covered in #2, above

7. Then there was this little bit in your comment I found particularly ironic: "Reading comprehension C-"

While I appreciate the passing grade, I cannot be so generous with you, and will have to give you an "F" in reading comprehension, with three words for you to consider: Pot, Kettle, Black.

I am curious, which part of these sentences in the description for this blog carnival did you not understand?

"Like all of the CODGOV series, use of the words or concept "divided government" is a requirement for inclusion in the carnival."

"If the words "divided government" or "gridlock" are not in your post, you probably do not want to submit it to this carnival."


Unlike yourself (according to you profile) I do not need to take an internet quiz to find what my politics are. I don’t buzz around the internet “presuming to tell” people how to vote, critique content and then dictate silly rules for posting a response.

If you mention my name, my articles or quote from my posts, it is my right to respond, without hunting for ridiculous Terms of Service designed to keep dissention to a minimum.

And finally, regarding your fixation with the emo thing…might I suggest counseling?

mw said...

I am on holiday, the weather is great, the fish are biting, and even an ad hominem filled rant of a unrepentent 28%er cannot dent my mood. Oh- wait, even Noonan and Gingrich have has turned their back on this incompetent adminstration. Make that a 27%er.

Emo,
I am not going to conduct a debate on Bin Laden or Al Queda's motivation in this thread. You've expressed your views here and on your blog, I on mine. We agree that there is a real threat. Failing to understand the actual rationale and motivation of the 9/11 attackers (as you fail to do, as this administration failed to do) results in support for flawed policy (like the occupation of Iraq). Better decisions result from working in a reality based world, with unvarnished facts and not through the filters of narrow pre-judged tunnel vision and pre-determined conclusions. I will make this one point regarding testimony to the 9/11 commission you neglected to mention:

"In looking into the background of the hijackers, the staff found that religious orthodoxy was not a common denominator since some of the members “reportedly even consumed alcohol and abused drugs.” Others engaged in casual sex. Instead, hatred of American foreign policy in the Middle East seemed to be the key factor. Speaking to the F.B.I. agents who investigated the attacks, Hamilton asked: “You’ve looked [at] and examined the lives of these people as closely as anybody. . . . What have you found out about why these men did what they did? What motivated them to do it?”

These questions fell to Supervisory Special Agent James Fitzgerald. “I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States,” he said. “They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States.” As if to reinforce the point, the commission discovered that the original plan for 9/11 envisioned an even larger attack. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the strategist of the 9/11 plot, “was going to fly the final plane, land it and make ‘a speech denouncing U.S. policies in the Middle East,’” Kean and Hamilton say, quoting a staff statement. And they continue: “Lee felt that there had to be an acknowledgment that a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was vital to America’s long-term relationship with the Islamic world, and that the presence of American forces in the Middle East was a major motivating factor in Al Qaeda’s actions.


I will, however, respond to a couple of the more ridiculous of your comments.

First. I don't have a problem with your moniker. As I said in the post, I find it amusing. Correct me if I am wrong, but "Emo Mom" is your moniker, right? You did choose it, correct? It was not forced on you, was it? If you want to work on your reading comprehension skills, you might notice that I say nothing about "emo" except to address you by your chosen moniker. That's it - I call you by the name you chose for yourself. I don't understand what the hell you are whining about. I don't even know what "emo" means. Wikipedia is not much help in that regard. None of their defintions seem applicable. It must be this MSN Encarta defintion:

emo e·mo adjective
Definition: over-excitable: given to excessive displays of emotion (informal)


Yup. That sounds right.

Regarding:"If you mention my name, my articles or quote from my posts, it is my right to respond, without hunting for ridiculous Terms of Service designed to keep dissention to a minimum." - emo

Permit me to remind you of one inconvenient fact: I did not go looking for your blog or posts. You submitted your post to me for inclusion in my Carnival on my blog. You clearly did so without bothering to read or understand what my carnival or blog is about. You submitted your post using a Blog carnival form where I again clearly explain what the carnival is about (which you also did not bother to read). Fine. I included your post anyway, with my commentary, which is what I do with all submitted posts, which you would have understood if you had chosen to bother to look at it before you submitted your post to me. Any questions?

Always Right said...

Sorry to disillusion you dolly, but I did not submit my article to your website; the only place this article was posted (by me) was at digg.com, buffalo.com, where I am a featured blogger, and http://emomom.com, my own website.

I came upon it quite by accident "during an SEO search earlier this week.

Perhaps you were short on content, and went trolling outside of your "humble corner of the blogosphere".

FYI: Emo Mom - A pet name lovingly bestowed on me by my 15-year-old daughter; it's even on my license plate! Imagine that!

mw said...

Okay sweetie. It arrived in my e-mail inbox with your e-mail address from your domain. Maybe you should ask your daughter if she is promoting your posts on your behalf.

theinadvertentauthor said...

Nice try, but emomom@emomom.com has NEVER generated an email.

All email to emomom@emomom.com is forwarded to my default mail, and all responses are generated from that email address.

Anyone can plug in an email address on a webform, techie, even you.

Seriously, its been two weeks, don't you think it's time to move on?

nlv (Emo Mom)