48 Comments

• 1. Shagbark  |  April 15th, 2008 at 10:18 am

  It is still way too early but the Dems just might get the 10 Vote majority in the Senate needed to undo the tremendous damge to our nation brought on by this Republican/Neocon administraiton. The polls at pollster.com are headed in the right direction.

  Alaska:Stevens (R-i) 43.5 vs. Begich (D) 46

  Colorado (R-open): Schaeffer (R) 38.3 vs. Udall (D) 45.4

  Louisiana:Kennedy (R) 42 vs. Landrieu (D-i) 46

  Maine:Collins (R-i) 54.5 vs. Allen (D) 33.5

  Minnesota:Coleman (R-i) 49.3 vs. Franken (D) 43

  New Hampshire:Sununu (R-i) 36.9 vs. Shaheen (D) 48.9

  New Mexico (R-open):Pearce (R) 37 vs. Udall (D) 54

  Virginia (R-open):Gilmore (R) 38.5 vs. Warner (D) 55.8

• 2. OhioOrrin  |  April 15th, 2008 at 10:22 am

  I liked hill drinkin that beer n shot.

  bet ear bama loses a 3 way drinkin contest.

• 3. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J.  |  April 15th, 2008 at 10:34 am

  Clinton- Hopefully this is the on going occupation of Iraq by way of a scaled withdrawal and reduction in forces to 30 000 US troops by 2011

  Obama-The truth will set you free.

  McCain-Stay the course.

  I think this would have been more fun if Noonan had left off his “identifiers” and asked the readers to form opinions based on the statements and then sprung the “who is it” on us all. But this is not my blog.

• 4. bagni  |  April 15th, 2008 at 10:35 am

  dearest markafreakacaladocious
  the space sluts think it’s lame
  all three quotes have a hollow radarian ring to them
  it’s politics and politicking
  instead of core belief, character, competency
  and
  just when your country needs overcommitment and sacrifice most from your inhabitants most….

• 5. Carlton Pryor, Lead Economist, TED-OG  |  April 15th, 2008 at 10:43 am

  Oil hits a new intraday record of USD 113, 90 today at the NYMEX with the stress being caused by technical matters at three crucial ports in Mexico. PEMEX supplies the US with 5.8% of its crude oil. This driving the cost of everything petroleum based up as noted by a frigteningly higher producer price index number today. My analysts expects 0.8 % headline and flat core what we got was a staggering 1.1% headline inflation number and a 0.2% core inflation.

  Recession and stagflation and higher petrol prices all on their way in the next three months. Can anyone imagine how bad the Holiday 2008 shopping season will be with heating oil futures peaking for October 2008 at records already AND jobs being sliced to support shareholders expectations propping up the sideways motion of the DOW and the downward dive to ¥ 90 for the dollar?

  Raise the Fed Funds Rate to 4%. Now!

• 6. Greenthumb  |  April 15th, 2008 at 11:02 am

  “Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak,” said McCain after a campaign stop at Dordt College. Yet in February, McCain voted against a bill banning the CIA from using torture, specifically including waterboarding.

• 7. Pain  |  April 15th, 2008 at 11:13 am

  Deleted - topic only allowed when blog puts it out for discussion.

• 8. Tractatus  |  April 15th, 2008 at 11:22 am

  So Bush has admitted knowing about torture discussions among top national security advisors, essentially confirming what we (minus the wingnuts, of course) already knew. Understandable why Noonan & Co. wouldn’t want to discuss it, but one can readily assume that they will continue to insist that:

  1) We don’t torture

  2) The Bush Administration has been unflinchingly honest

• 9. OhioOrrin  |  April 15th, 2008 at 11:22 am

  u know, I was scopin some of those polygamist moms in a photo gallery.

  I could see throwin down w some of ‘em, despite the little-house type dresses…or maybe because of ‘em.

  hey some of them looked cute & I’m a healthy male so whadaja want…

• 10. Diana Powe  |  April 15th, 2008 at 3:35 pm

  U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis, a Hebron Republican, compared Obama and his message for change similar to a “snake oil salesman.”

  He said in his remarks at the GOP dinner that he also recently participated in a “highly classified, national security simulation” with Obama.

  “I’m going to tell you something: That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button,” Davis said. “He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.”
  ___________
  Source: http://polwatchers.typepad.com/pol_watchers/2008/04/republicans-tal.html

  Hmm, “boy”, I guess that Congressman Davis must be several years older than Senator Obama. Oops. He’s three years older. I wonder why he would refer to him as a “boy”? I wonder…

• 11. Plaza  |  April 15th, 2008 at 3:55 pm

  So McCain is the person the Republicans would have us believe could lead America out of the Bush economic calamity. John McCain to the Wall Street Journal editorial board admitted he “doesn’t really understand economics.”

  He has no credibility to undo the Bush administration’s stuctural damage to our economy. Who can believe McCain when he pledges to balance the budget by end of his term by making Bush’s tax cuts permanent? The same tax cuts Bush said would lead to more surpluses than Clinton could ever dream of and the same tax cuts McCain voted against.

• 12. OhioOrrin  |  April 15th, 2008 at 3:57 pm

  diana wrote - “Hmm, “boy”, I guess that Congressman Davis must be several years older than Senator Obama. Oops. He’s three years older.”

  “several” = 3 or more. since I’m ur visiting editor lets rewrite that as “many” yrs older.

  still, luv ur style, made me chuckle.

• 13. Some Assembly Required  |  April 15th, 2008 at 4:01 pm

  Wow, from ‘affirmative action’ candidate to ‘racist’ to ‘boy’. If Obama gets the Nomination, anyone care the wager when the N-bomb will be dropped?

• 14. Diana Powe  |  April 15th, 2008 at 4:23 pm

  As evidence of how non-elitist and just-regular-folks Senator John McCain and his wife, Cindy, are (current estimated assets between $21 and $32 million), the campaign website posted some of Cindy’s “McCain Family Recipes”. Oops. The recipes were copied word for word from The Food Network. By way of being non-elites, the campaign blamed an intern.

  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/15/mccain-camp-pulls-its-proposal-for-passion-fruit-mousse/

• 15. Tractatus  |  April 15th, 2008 at 4:41 pm

  John McCain doesn’t want to update the GI Bill. But it’s clearly the Democrats’ fault, as they are the ones who hate the troops and whatnot.

• 16. Diana Powe  |  April 15th, 2008 at 5:04 pm

  Tractatus,

  Yep, first they wanted to inflict the troops with better body armor. Then, they tried to sneak up-armored HMMWVs past the watchful eyes of the Administration. Next thing you know, they’re trying to attack the troops by giving them extended periods between deployments. Now, it’s expanding the G.I. Bill of Rights. Will the Democrats ever give up their campaign of undermining our men and women in uniform?

• 17. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot  |  April 15th, 2008 at 5:27 pm

  Mark & Matt,

  Congratulations, your site is now officially a left-wing- conspiratorial fever-swamp where late night humor is taken as news, how proud you must be. And just like Kos, DU, Huffpost, Smirking Chimp, etc. conservatives don’t read, post or even visit here anymore. Have fun with your new friends; I’m sure they appreciate you.

• 18. Seaside  |  April 15th, 2008 at 5:39 pm

  Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | April 15th, 2008 at 5:27 pm

  Then go get your talking points from Limbaugh. Today he was ranting the liberals were out to take your freedoms away. His case in point was the elimination of candescent light bulb. Give me a freaken break. We have a President who admitted America has tortured, the nation’s top lawyer admitted we wiretapped Americans with out proper warrants and a justice department employee who stated under oath we may have gone too far in politicizing the selection process.

• 19. Diana Powe  |  April 15th, 2008 at 6:14 pm

  Oh my goodness, now Herkimer X. Arbuthnot is bitterly snarling and snapping at Mark and Matt. It’s just not any fun anymore when it’s not exclusively a self-congratulatory conservative echo chamber.

• 20. Aitch  |  April 15th, 2008 at 6:24 pm

  Things politicians say in an election year (2004 in this case):

  Good morning. This week brought good news about homeownership in America. The Census Bureau reported that new home sales in February rose to an annual pace of 1.16 million homes, a 24 percent increase over the past year. This success follows one of the most impressive years in America’s housing industry. More homes were sold in 2003 than ever before. Housing starts last year were at their highest level in a quarter century. Rising home values have helped take the wealth of American households to a new record level.

  In our growing economy, more Americans can afford a new home. Incomes are rising. The unemployment rate is falling. Mortgage rates are low. And because of tax relief, Americans have more to save, spend and invest — and that means millions of American families have moved into their first homes.

  Our nation’s 68 percent homeownership rate is the highest ever, and our government is taking steps to make owning a home a reality for more Americans, especially minorities and those with low incomes. In June 2002, I set the goal of adding 5.5 million new minority home owners in America by the end of this decade. Since then, more than 1.5 million minority families have moved into houses of their own. And for the first time, most minorities own their own home.

  We are building on this progress. I have signed into law the American Dream Down Payment Act, which will help low-income Americans to afford the down payment and closing costs on their first home. I’m asking Congress to provide an annual $200 million for this program. That additional money would help an estimated 40,000 low-income families every year become first-time homeowners. I’m proposing that we make zero down payment loans available to first-time buyers whose mortgages are guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration. And this will help about 150,000 families buy homes in the first year alone.

  Another obstacle to homeownership is the often complicated process of buying a home and getting a loan. My budget for 2005 would more than double funding for housing counseling services from 2001 levels.

  A house and a mortgage represent a big personal commitment, and we want to prepare more Americans to make that commitment with confidence. To make homeownership attainable for more of our citizens, I have asked Congress to create a tax credit to encourage the construction of affordable homes. Under my proposal, builders will have an incentive to provide an additional 200,000 affordable homes over five years for families with low incomes.

  And finally, we are encouraging the real estate and mortgage finance industry to join in our efforts in closing the homeownership gap. More than two dozen major companies and organizations have committed to extending more loans to low-income families, financing the construction of more affordable homes, and providing financial counseling to potential buyers. These policies will make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans.

  This week, I met with Lori Benavidez, a single mom living in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Last November, with the help of a federal homeownership program, she moved into her first home. Here’s what Lori says: “I never thought the day would happen when my girls and I would be sitting in our own home. It is a miracle.”

  Every time a family moves into a home of their own, it fulfills a dream and it shows faith in the future, and that faith is well-placed because America’s economy is strong and it is getting stronger.

  Thank you for listening.

  Enabler.

• 21. Tractatus  |  April 15th, 2008 at 6:40 pm

  Will the Democrats ever give up their campaign of undermining our men and women in uniform?

  Obviously not. Next thing you know, those military-hating, terrorist-loving traitors are going to be fighting for better health care for returning veterans! What horrible people.

• 22. neocon  |  April 15th, 2008 at 9:24 pm

  It’s heartwarming to see how the liberals win the hearts and minds.

  BEIJING — Bristling at criticism in the run-up to the Summer Olympics, China is lashing back at its foreign critics — by name.

  Earlier this week, the state Xinhua news agency called House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “disgusting.” And on Tuesday, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu lambasted a CNN commentator, Jack Cafferty, for his “vicious” commentary on China.

  “We solemnly request that CNN, and Cafferty himself, take back the malicious remarks and apologize to the Chinese people,” Jiang said at a news briefing.

• 23. neocon  |  April 15th, 2008 at 9:28 pm

  “when it’s not exclusively a self-congratulatory conservative echo chamber.” - Diana

  I notice far and away more liberal posters on this blog than conservative. But your dishonest assertion is at least consistent with your other posts.

• 24. Diana Powe  |  April 15th, 2008 at 9:54 pm

  Gosh, that Senator McCain just has so much foreign policy expertise. Really. Between not being able to distinguish between Sunni Islam and Shi’a Islam, now he doesn’t know what General Petraeus said just a few days ago:
  

  Speaking Monday at the annual meeting of the Associated Press, McCain was asked whether he, if elected, would shift combat troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to intensify the search for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

  “I would not do that unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that,” McCain said, referring to the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

  Petraeus, however, made clear last week that he has nothing to do with the decision. Testifying last week before four congressional committees, including the Senate Armed Services Committee on which McCain is the ranking Republican, Petraeus said the decision about whether troops could be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan was not his responsibility because his portfolio is limited to the multi-national force in Iraq.

  Decisions about Afghanistan would be made by others, he said.

  “I’ve been sort of focused on another task,” Petraeus said when pressed about whether more troops should be diverted to Afghanistan rather than Iraq.

  McCain did not stay for the full Petraeus appearance before the armed services committee, so he might have missed that explanation.
  ____________
  Source: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/04/military_mccain_petraeus_041408w/

  Oh, so he might have missed that because he was too busy to hang around for the whole hearing. Well, that makes it all okay, then.

• 25. neocon  |  April 15th, 2008 at 10:03 pm

  Diana,

  I might point out that McCain did not say it was Petraeus’s decision, but that he would rely heavily on his counsel.

  That is how the adults understood it anyway.

• 26. JD  |  April 15th, 2008 at 10:08 pm

  The current occupation of Iraq does not enhance US security. Our military forces do not belong in Iraq. I have been there twice and have realized that the Cheney/Bush administration misled the American public and the military about the need to invade and occupy Iraq. Semper Fi

• 27. neocon  |  April 15th, 2008 at 10:18 pm

  JD,

  Thank you for that fresh perspective.

• 28. Diana Powe  |  April 15th, 2008 at 10:30 pm

  neocon,

  That’s nice that you “understood” it that way. Of course, that really doesn’t help much given that General Petraeus specifically denied having the information to make such a recommendation. So, your version is Senator McCain says he’d make a decision using information from someone who hasn’t been paying attention to the issue. You’re right, that’s much better.

• 29. Diana Powe  |  April 15th, 2008 at 10:33 pm

  By the way, if you were paying attention, you might have noted that my Comment # 22 was in response to the complaint by Herkimer X. Arbuthnot in Comment # 20 about the number of “liberal” comments.

• 30. neocon  |  April 15th, 2008 at 10:35 pm

  Strike two Diana. He did not deny he lacked the information. He said he was not part of the decision and that he lacked the responsibility.

  Not that he couldn’t offer advice. McCain is seeking input, not decision making or responsibility.

• 31. neocon  |  April 15th, 2008 at 10:42 pm

  And if you’re infering that Patreaus claimed he hadn’t the proper information to offer advice then you’re more delusional than I had previously thought.

• 32. Diana Powe  |  April 15th, 2008 at 10:49 pm

  neocon,

  I’m fully prepared to stipulate that you would think I was “delusional” no matter what I wrote as long as it wasn’t properly worshipful of Senator McCain.

• 33. neocon  |  April 15th, 2008 at 10:57 pm

  Oh by all means if you want to bash McCain, I’ll join right in. Our criticism of him though would most likely be on different issues.

• 34. Canuckguy  |  April 15th, 2008 at 11:05 pm

  Regarding the radio address by Bush posted earlier here by Aitch, the comment Bush made “These policies will make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans.”

  Wow, he really hit it on the nose. What brillant foresight.

• 35. Freedom1  |  April 15th, 2008 at 11:21 pm

  Obama’s Posters: Message in the Image - American Thinker

  There is something unsettling and very familiar in the Obama poster campaign which has plastered his image over the country. The posters depict the same graphic closeup of the candidate with one block word either “Hope,” “Change” or “Progress” at the bottom. I knew that I had seen this before, and then it came to me that this image appropriates the graphic style of totalitarian Soviet propaganda. It recalls the idealized portraits and personality cult of the “Beloved Leader” such as Stalin and Lenin. The leader, face illuminated by a “holy” light, looks off to the horizon and sees the truth that is not available to his mere mortal followers, who must look up to his image.

• 36. congressive  |  April 15th, 2008 at 11:31 pm

  OH NO! THE POPE SAYS AMERICA WAS FOUNDED AS A SECULAR COUNTRY!

  “Certainly Europe can’t simply copy the United States,” he said. “We have our own history.” But he said the United States was interesting because it “started with the positive idea of secularism.”

  “This new people was made of communities that had escaped official state purges and wanted a lay state, a secular state that opened the possibility for all confessions and all form of religious exercise,” he added. “Therefore it was a state that was intentionally secular. It was the exact opposite of state religion, but it was secular out of love for religion and for an authenticity that can only be lived freely.”

  The horror. Your Pope guy doesn’t think we were founded as a Christian nation.

  He did express remorse for rampant pedophilia in the Church, a step towards healing. Now if he would just call for prosecutions of perpetrators…

• 37. Mark Noonan  |  April 15th, 2008 at 11:38 pm

  Congressive,

  What you mean by “secular” and what the Pope means are two entirely different things…

• 38. Jeremiah  |  April 15th, 2008 at 11:46 pm

  Christianity paved the way for freedom of all religions.

• 39. Judith  |  April 16th, 2008 at 12:41 am

  Yuck Mark, where did all the yellow bellies come from? Whoever said this blog had turned liberal was right. I don’t enjoy reading about their delusions as this is just Bush bashing and the same old illiterate blah blah. Can’t we go back to the discussions we used to have?

• 40. Gaijin  |  April 16th, 2008 at 12:47 am

  Mark would you please expain how the use of secular is “two entirely different things?”

  It seems pretty straight forward for the rest of us. Could you please tell us what they Pope really meant to say?

  Peace, Gaijin

• 41. Rich  |  April 16th, 2008 at 12:48 am

  Judging by the time some of these lefties spend here, it would also appear that they are either being paid to leave their dropping on this site or are unemplyed. One thing is for sure, they havent changed a single mind on anything, and are completely wasting their time.

• 42. Diana Powe  |  April 16th, 2008 at 12:49 am

  The “yellow bellies”?

• 43. Jeremiah  |  April 16th, 2008 at 1:56 am

  Mark,

  I believe there are people who want to come back here, that have been gone since this was Blogs for Bush, and there are many more who have left since then. I belive they don’t want to come now because they don’t want to waste what little precious time they have to discuss things with others who don’t wish to keep an open mind and debate rationally, and not have to contend with all the Leftism.

  People want this for Conservative discussion. Afterall, we’re supposed to defend what we have, and the best way to do that is to shut the gates on the invasion of Liberals. If Liberals want to fight, let them fight amongst themselves outside those gates - there’s an entire world-wide web out there chock-full of liberal sites that they can discuss on.

  So we beseech thee, that you might grant us this small request…

• 44. bongoman  |  April 16th, 2008 at 2:09 am

  Jeremiah, how did Christianity pave the way for Buddhism? Pray tell…

• 45. Diana Powe  |  April 16th, 2008 at 2:52 am

  The “open minds” who automatically reject all things that are “Liberal”. An interesting idea of open-mindedness…

• 46. extramedium  |  April 16th, 2008 at 3:04 am

  Jeremiah,

  It’s completely Mark’s prerogative to “shut the gates”, but how would you recommend he do that? How would he decide who gets to post or what gets posted? I suppose he could:

  - Make people “apply” to be a comment poster, and require that they provide evidence that they are truly conservative. If they disagree too much, he could revoke their rights.

  - Delete comments which don’t seem conservative - “deleted - you don’t seem conservative”.

  - Delete any comments which disagree with the original post. Only allow posts that say “Yeah! You’re right!”

  Whaddya think? And what do you do with all the liberal comments on your blog?

• 47. Pain  |  April 16th, 2008 at 7:04 am

  37. Mark Noonan | April 15th, 2008 at 11:38 pm

  Can you share with Us what the “other” definitions of secular are? We mean the ones that Pope Benedict XVI meant?

  Here are all the ones We, Ourselves could find:

  From farlex
  secular; adj.

  1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
  2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
  3. Relating to or advocating secularism.
  4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
  5. Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
  6. Lasting from century to century.

  From Merriam-Webster

  Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime
  Date: 14th century
  1 a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal b: not overtly or specifically religious c: not ecclesiastical or clerical
  2: not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation
  3 a: occurring once in an age or a century b: existing or continuing through ages or centuries c: of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration

• 48. Jeremiah  |  April 17th, 2008 at 11:15 pm

  Bongoman,

  God gave the Israelites a king in His anger, because they had not sense and virtue enough to like a free commonwealth; that where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty! It must always be remembered that freedom from oppression meant that the people had to have a desire to serve the Lord, and when they did, He sanctioned orders to destroy the oppressors - Such as the lands that Moses and Joshua conquered by God order and power, some of them huge armies coming against Joshua’s tiny army, yet He gave them the victory, because they sought to serve Him with all their hearts; and they had great faith in the Lord, and it’s through that same kind of faith that Moses and Joshua had that led our Founder’s to defeat slavery and Revolutionary war, by their hearts joined together in Faith imploring God’s favor.

  No, friend, God doesn’t like war, but He won’t stand for brutal dictators who hold His people in oppression and tyranny, and who make them bow down and worship false idols. He overthrows their governments, kings, governors, and destroys all the people in the cities who disobey Him - And He does it in any way that He so chooses, either by His might hand from on High, or by those whom He sees and knows that they are trying to serve Him.

  Jesus is King!

  Extramedium,

  Yes. It’s completely at Mark’s discretion whom he wishes shall comment. Not a problem there.

  I just thought I’d offer up a bit of advice that would make it more a comfortable and pleasant atmosphere for Conservatives who like to discuss things on a Conservative basis in their spare time - without having to continue reading an endless string of ACLU fanaticism.

  As for what I do with the Liberal comments on my blog? They tried the same thing they get away with here, and I said, ‘Nope, not going to here.’ Whether I get any comments or not is fine with me, otherwise, ACLU leftism isn’t welcome. Period!!
  

  Frederick Schwartz,

  I haven’t met too many Liberals that didn’t like “fiery debate”, most of them are on fire with hatred, BDS to the tenth degree.
  Yes sir, you can do whatever you like at your blog, but I want no part of those who live with such hatred for life.
  If you want to know why the regulars have gone away, just look in the mirror along with the rest of your leftists friends.

  As for “lies”…that’s all you on the Left know.

  But oh well, who am I to change argue, eh?

  Have a good evening.

  Psalm 118:24 ‘This is the day that the Lord hath made, let us rejoice and be glad in it.’

Matt Margolis on Twitter