Losers Don't Get To Define Political Parties

Amazing. After running one of the most inept campaigns in contemporary politics, Steve Schmidt actually thinks he has something to offer to the Republican Party as to it's future direction.

From: Ana Marie Cox
To: Steve Schmidt
Sent: Fri Nov 07 08:50:28 2008
Subject: Re: Calling you in 30

the passing of prop 8... any comment?

From: Steve Schmidt
To: Ana Marie Cox
Received: Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: Calling you in 30

I was disappointed with the result

No wonder the campaign was such a disaster. The man who ran it doesn't like the result of an initiative for which more people, not fewer voted. So his vision is to begin supporting positions that have been refuted by popular votes in state after state? Incredible. It sounds more like Schmidt's only rationale for the party is based on his own opinions and not what the majority of Americans might prefer. Sounds like he was working for the wrong party, if you ask me.

Schmidt goes on to blame Republicans in Congress and their initial opposition to the bailout. What Schmidt seems to actually want to do is blame anyone but himself.

On Palin - more hilarity ensues:

But when you were talking about moving forward, the new, GOP 2.0, or whatever it is we’re going to be seeing in the future, it doesn’t seem like she’s especially reflective of any kind of new thinking about policy, or that she could be someone who could potentially appeal to Latino voters, and people who are not social conservatives. While an incredibly exciting presence, as a person, she doesn’t seem to represent any kind of new approach to conservatism or to the Republican Party.

Schmidt: Umm, I think, I disagree with that because she now returns to Alaska as governor, not as a vice presidential candidate, with her own standing in the party, not in the shadow of the nominee. So her ability to lead a broad coalition that can create an electoral majority in the party has not been tested. So it should not be pre-judged.

Yeah, Steve - you really want to talk about being in the shadows of someone when Palin totally eclipsed your man. He struggled to get some hundred number of people to his events while she was drawing tens of thousands. Just who cast the shadow and who was in it, my man? He doesn't even appear to be in touch with reality, this guy.

Look at this:

You saw Republicans pioneer direct mail in an earlier age. You saw, you know, the use of television advertising pioneered in an earlier age. You saw microtargeting—you know, the overlaying of consumer and consumer data against the voter file, earlier in the decade, to much effect. There’s been a profound leap forward in technology and from a community organizing perspective by the Obama campaign in this election. The Democratic Party is a generation ahead technologically. And the Republican Party is going to have to be competitive to catch up in a world where viral information is just as important as what might be in the network news.

Yeah, that Internet totally sneeked up on you, didn't it Steve? I mean, it's only been around for years.

The Republicans ran a perhaps noble (his bald-faced lies about Romney in the primaries tarnished his image more than anything for me) but outdated candidate who hired someone to run an undisciplined and outdated campaign. But don't point that out to Schmidt. In his mind, it was everyone else's fault.

He's correct about Latino and minority outreach, but very little else. Thank God, as I said, losers don't get to define political parties. Because from everything I saw and am now reading about Schmidt in political terms, a loser is precisely what he is.

Comments

[proofreading angel]

I think you mean "bald-faced" lies.

[Greg Q]

Um, Dan, Palin was "in the shadow" of McCain because he was the P, she was the VP, and so she had to match her positions to his, and campaign based on his needs, rather than being her own person.

Now that she's no longer running for VP, she gets to be her own woman again. That's what Schmidt's saying, and he's right.

[Dan Riehl]

I know precisely what he's trying to say, Greg. The fact is, his messaging and his candidate were so F'd up, McCain hardly had a presence. They keep talking about the "McCain brand." Yeah, if you've been watching the Sunday morning talk shows for 20 years. McCain didn't have a national brand that rose to the level of a presidential campaign. And they never built him one. Well, they built him about five in 45 weeks. Same difference.

[Dennis D]

I do not agree with chasing the black vote. We have tried this over and over and failed. Now with the Dems electing the 1st black President any such attempt will be futile for perhaps a decade or more. I expect a 90-95% Black Dem vote regardless of what the GOP does to court them.

Now on the hispanic vote. What can be done short of promising to open our borders and allow their cousins to enter freely and become citizens? Hispanic Americans oppose border security. So we trade the sovereignty of the United States for the Hispanic Vote?

[rightwingprof]

Remember when right after the 2006 elections, DeLay started blogging at Red State? Mr. Everything Wrong About The GOP giving advice, and the idiots at RS hanging on every word.

[el gordo]

Dennis,
Obama has pretty much peaked when it comes to the black vote whereas the GOP should be able to do much better among hispanics and Asians. A couple percent here or there can make a huge difference. In other words: we can mobilize reserves while he fights with his back against the wall. Gentlemen, we can win this!

Keep in mind that over 30 percent of hispanic voters still vote GOP even though they are disproportionately low-income and and we have not even tried very hard to talk to them. If we cannot build on that residue of goodwill, we are guilty of political malpractice. When it comes to immigration, I take Tito Munoz over George Soros any day.

Not all hispanic voters oppose border security (those who are American citizens anyway), but they cannot be happy about single-issue deportation advocates that always show up, and unfortunately those are all on our side. Instead of just pushing quietly toward border security the GOP had to have a big debate in 2007 about "shamnesty" when it was always clear that we were not going to deport 12 million people. A debate that achieved nothing and then it turned out that it did not even keep McCain away from the nomination. Some winning issue, eh?

Too many on the right have bought into the liberal myth that conservative policies are bad for minorities. In fact they are only bad for elites and deadbeats. In every working man is a conservative that wants out. The problem of Republicans is money, communications, organization, stupidity (not least the belief that the white middle class will alway be enough to bail them out). But I see no intrinsic reason why we cannot have 45+ percent of the hispanic vote.

[NonHispanicAmerican]

Ah, "Latino outreach" means one thing: What do Latinos want more than anything:

NON ENFORCEMENT OF THE SOUTHERN BORDER AND INTERIOR IMMIGRATION LAWS.

Duh.

[Mark_0454]

No one representing a republican or conservative point of view should ever go on TV and allow the other side to say, "....well you can't just deport 12 million people, so your ideas won't work." This has to be challenged immediately and every single time. No one is talking about actively deporting 12 million people. That would be crazy. What we are talking about is enforcing the the employment and immigration laws and letting attrition take its course.

This needs to be the reply every single time.

We need to get this through to these people. It's not hard.

[Steve]

Great post!

Would you like a Link Exchange with our new blog COMMON CENTS where we blog about the issues of the day??

http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

[EnglishForDirtyForeigners]

Whilst not entirely related to the thread, let me tell you of the only place on the internets that will lie to you about English language, traditions, customs and stuffs.

Oh yes, we have many stuffs:
http://www.EnglishForDirtyForeigners.com

Come for the comedy, stay for the hilarity.

[el gordo]

Mark, I agree. But the majority opinion even among Republicans is: secure border plus path to citizenship.

And it´s not like there wasn´t any talk about deportation by people who were identified with the GOP. Attrition is just another word for that (in fact, some thought they were very clever by calling it self-deportation). The talk was destructive, even more so because it was empty talk. Republicans were in power long enough; they could have reached out to hispanics AND enforced the laws. Instead, they do it the other way around: talk loudly to repel voters and carry a toothpick when it comes to controlling the border.

Now the Democrats get to decide and the immigration absolutists are at least partly to blame.

[Mike]

The point is that no matter how much the GOP changes to meet perceived voter wants as defined by the Dems, we will always be demonized and never accepted into the fold of Democrat politics. Dems don't want us on their side, they want to destroy us - they hate us.

The GOP must define its principles and stick to them. It's not about being liked.

[NonHispanicWhiteAmerican]

The Latino is a non-American, a non-Westerner. Mestizos are a native American tribe. They will not abandon Spanish language. Their allegiance is exclusively to the failed, chronically corrupt state of Mexico.

The only solution for the United States is strict immigration enforcement - deportation in large numbers and hardened physical borders. Otherwise, the USA will become "North Latin America" very soon. In fact, Jorge Bush and Juan McAmnesty along with Barack the Great Redeemer, all favor that happening.

[NonHispanicWhiteAmerican]

WorldNetDaily.com
Court: Quit saying 'illegal aliens'

Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor stirred up a hornet's nest by endorsing a demand from the Hispanic Bar Association to censor words and phrases such as "illegal aliens" and "illegal immigrants" and substitute "foreign nationals" in court documents...

[jharp]

Why not consider changing a few of the republican stances on the issues.

1) Health care reform - McCain's plan sucked and everyone knew it
2) Abortion - Move to the middle - Don't try to ban them in all cases
3) Tax cuts for middle class not the wealthiest Americans
4) Leave Social Security alone
5) No more preemptive wars against countries who don't threaten us
6) Equal rights to all Americans - even gay ones
7) Shut up about religion - don't try to force it in public schools

I would like to know what complaints the posters here would have regarding these changes.

[Lala]

Tax the Rich - kill the economy

New Luxury Tax Trimming Boat Sales

By PENNY SINGER
Published: July 21, 1991

According to the manufacturers association, new boat sales, which reached a high of 749,020 in 1988, dropped to 504,100 in 1990 and are expected to drop even more sharply this year. .

Mr. McMichael's father, who founded the business, said this season is the worst he can remember.

"Everything hit at once," he said. "The luxury tax plus the recession left boat dealers with large inventories of boats they can't sell while they owe the banks millions of dollars in outstanding loans."

excerpt read whole article at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE4DC1239F932A15754C0A967958260

[jharp]

Lala,

Gasoline at the marinas this summer was $5 per gallon.

And it's not unusual for these to have 200 gallon or more fuel capacity and to use 100 or gallons per day.

Ya think this might have something to do with the boat business sucking?

[jharp]

In August, Paul Krugman had a fairly devastating piece identifying the GOP as "the party of stupid." As the Nobel Laureate explained, "What I mean ... is that know-nothingism -- the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there's something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise -- has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party's de facto slogan has become: 'Real men don't think things through.'"

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_11/015591.php

[Lala]

This is an interesting article, especially the part about Patrick Kennedy introducing legislation that says "the purchaser of a $1 million yacht would get a $200,000 credit against his federal income taxes".

"In 1990 the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the 1991 revenue yield from luxury taxes would be $31 million. It was $16.6 million. Why? Because (surprise!) the taxation changed behavior: Fewer people bought the taxed products. Demand went down when prices went up. Washington was amazed. People bought yachts overseas. Who would have thought it?

According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off by $38.6 million."

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will102899.asp

[jharp]

I anxious for the wingnut response when President Obama starts wiretapping their phones and monitoring their e mail. And then starts declaring them enemy combatants and imprisons them indefinitely with no charges, no lawyer, no trial.

I sincerely hope that you all now see the absurdity of the power grab of Bush and the GOP.

Pretty frightening for the president to have such power, huh?

[Mark_0454]

El Gordo/Penny

I see your point. But I would contend that deportation and attrition are two different things. Attrition would be individual decisions.

I think we should be as genrerous as we possibly can with respect to immigration and citizenship. But, there are some of us old enough to remember the amnesty under Ronald Reagan. It was promised in two parts. First, amnesty, then enforcement. The public largely agreed to the first part in order to get to the second. The trouble they never got around to the second part. It was a bait and switch.

I think we do need a comprehensive plan that is generous to new immigrants. BUT, I don't trust the government. First show me the enforcement, then be as generous as we can concerning a path to citizenship.

Maybe I am really showing my age here, but one of the defining lessons I remember in economics was when Jimmy Carter instituted a tax on luxury yachts. At the time I was in high-school and thought it was a good idea. If you can afford a luxury yacht, what is a few more grand of extra tax. There was a place in our county that actually made hgh-end yachts. For guys coming out of high-school it was pretty good work. Eventually you wanted to move into the paper mills, but starting out the boat building was pretty good. It was enough to get married and start a family. When the luxury tax hit people were laid off. A lot of the business went overseas and it took a long time to recover.

[Mark_0454]

jharp,

let me know when you see a conservative worried about FISA (it's not wiretapping, it's monitoring for key words) or enemy combatants. I think it will be a long wait. At least try to get your facts straight.

I would turn it around I am looking forward the let wing going crazy as a President Obama realizes that Guantanamo, FISA, and the military commisions are all necessary tools for preventing people who want to kill Americans from doing so. Will you be able to take if if a President Obama leaves at least some of these elements in place? Will you be able to take it if a President Obama elects not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? I will wait and see what he does. If I think he is wrong, I will disagree, but he is President.

[Fred Beloit]

God this guy Harpo is an ass (and so is Krugman):
"In August, Paul Krugman had a fairly devastating piece identifying the GOP as "the party of stupid." As the Nobel Laureate explained, "What I mean ... is that know-nothingism -- the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there's something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise -- has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy."

Want to hear about something really stupid? I offer the War on Poverty. Hundreds of billions spent, perhaps more, since the mid-sixties, well over 40 years worth of spending. Who is winning? Neither side. The war-makers haven't won, poverty hasn't lost. But by all means let's keep it going, we need that government-dependent underclass to keep on voting for pie-in-the-sky Democraticic promises.

[Lala]

British troops 'cannot bear brunt of Barack Obama's Afghanistan surge'

British troops must not be sent in support of US President-Elect Barack Obama's planned "surge" in Afghanistan, the head of the armed forces has said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/3411286/British-troops-cannot-bear-brunt-of-Barack-Obamas-Afghanistan-surge.html

[Lala]

We better double our efforts on FISA

"According to the British daily, the report headlined 'International Terrorism' states that "some thousands" of extremists, many believed to have been trained in overseas terrorist camps, are active in the UK.

"The majority of extremists are British nationals of south Asian, mainly Pakistani origin but there are also extremists from north and east Africa, Iraq and the Middle East, and a number of converts," it warned. PTI

http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.nsf/0/64929B67C76904FA652574FC00205807?OpenDocument

[jharp]

"(it's not wiretapping, it's monitoring for key words) or enemy combatants. I think it will be a long wait. At least try to get your facts straight."

It is listening in on phone calls and the monitoring of e mail.

It is you who have the facts wrong.

I think President Obama should begin at once starting with the hate groups(GOPers) within.

I think there is a reasonable chance one of these wackos tries to plan for the demise of the President. Two of them have already.

And when he catches someone. Off to jail. No charges, no trial, no lawyer, for as long as the messiah chooses.

We don't need no stinking judicial oversight. We've just elected the messiah. He wouldn't misuse this power.

[jharp]

"Want to hear about something really stupid? I offer the War on Poverty."

And I offer the war on drugs. Reagan.

And the war on terror. Bush.

All of them were lost the day the began.

[jharp]

Hey mark_0454,

Try this. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/10/nation/na-intel10

"U.S. intelligence analysts eavesdropped on personal calls between Americans overseas and their families back home and monitored the communications of workers with the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations, according to two military linguists involved in U.S. surveillance programs."

"The linguists said that recordings of intimate conversations between citizens and their loved ones were sometimes passed around, out of prurient interest, among analysts at an electronic surveillance facility at Ft. Gordon, Ga."

"They also said they were encouraged to continue monitoring calls of aid workers and other personnel stationed in the Middle East even when it was clear the callers had no ties to terrorists or posed no threat to U.S. interests."

Kruman was right. Republicans are the party of stupid.

And especially Krugman nails it here. The party's de facto slogan has become: 'Real men don't think things through.'"

[scarshapedstar]

"So his vision is to begin supporting positions that have been refuted by popular votes in state after state? "

True or false: If you put anti-miscegenation laws to a vote in the 1950s South, the population would have overwhelmingly voted to keep them.

[Mark_0454]

Jharp,

one article from the LA times a month ago. you'll have to do better than that. I don't believe this anymore than I believe Pres-elect Obama thinks there are 57 states. Something out of context or misunderstood.

[jharp]

"I don't believe this"

Oh, well then it must not be true? Right?

And why do your suppose Bush and the GOP fought so hard for retroactive immunity for the spying?

Because they were breaking the law and listening to American's phone calls.

I'll add to Krugman's analysis of the republican party. It is also the party of denial.

It's imbeciles like you that get republicans elected. Thank God there aren't very many of you. Loser.

[templar knight]

Why should we worry, jharp? You said your side was against any form of wiretapping. Were you lying when you said that? Yeah, I was pretty sure you were. Still, it's nice to know for certain that you were lying.

[jharp]

Here's some more for you Mark_0454.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5987804&page=1

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27107196/

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/244/story/53703.html

http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=116&sid=1494529

I am very much looking forward to President Obama using this new power. Should keep the republicans irrelevant for decades. And I hope put quite a few of them in jail without charges, without a trial, and without a lawyer for however long he chooses. Enemy combatants remember, just because the President says so.

[jharp]

"Why should we worry, jharp? You said your side was against any form of wiretapping."

You left out a key word. Warrantless.

And yeah, I'm still against them.

Are you?

[ASDF]

jharp boy......yep, too stupid to recognize that hijab on their head, the koran their read and that "jihad" they scream!

Nah, they are just new immigrant Americanos! Pass the hooka pipe!

[Todd]

And especially Krugman nails it here. The party's de facto slogan has become: 'Real men don't think things through.'"
Posted by: jharp | Sunday, November 09, 2008 at 02:17 PM
-------------------

Exactly, jharp. I mean who would wanna have barbeque or a beer with someone who would say intelligent things? How boring ! Much better to have someone like Sarah Palin around, doggoneit. "That country of Africa sure does have a lot of animals walkin' around. Can you imagine how much fun it would be to go huntin' there ! You betcha!"

[Mark_0454]

jharp,

you really show your colors with the name calling. it is apparent you aren't interested in discussion.

[jharp]

I'm interested in an intelligent discussion.

However, you offer nothing with your "I don't believe that".

And worse you don't even understand what the wiretapping and phone taps are.

[templar knight]

Todd, you are quite the bore. Palin doesn't believe Africa is a country any more than Obama believes there are 57 states. And yes, hunting in Africa would be a wonderful experience, and discussing the types of animals and the methods of hunting them would be stimulating conversation. As for your comments, you've never offered anything of merit. You're just another troll that Dan needs to ban.

[el gordo]

Jharp, if you can stop the hate for a second we can have a conversation here.

Here is my understanding: there are new modern world problems that current law does not address. Foreign communciations, whether cell phones or e-mail, use American infrastructure and are proteced from spying, by laws which are supposed to protect only US citizens. Waiting for a warrant is simply not feasible when you are trying to catch terrorists on the move in foreign countries.

I am no lawyer but I have my doubts that Bush "broke the law". It is a gray area. Spying on foreign enemies is one thing the excutive can and must do. There may have been better ways to address this problem but I have not heard what they are and I have not heard congress come up with anything better than the FISA amendments which Bush wanted and which Obama voted for.

The abuses you link to - if they can be proven! - seem to be more due to a lack of professionalism on a lower level, but I agree such things should not happen.

Having said this, here is what I want to know: How about you, jharp, will you still fight this if Obama uses the same methods? Will you go on pro-Obama sites now and harass them? I mean, Bush is gone - you have what you want, right? Sooner or later you must realize that you are barking up the wrong tree now. You are either defender of our rights or you aren´t.

I think that you are asking just rhetorical questions, but you point to an important distinction. Bush never went after his numerous critics, he never tried to subvert the first amendment, he clearly didn´t intimidate anyone. If Obama and the Democrat party want to do all that, they and their supporters must bear the responsibility.

[Lala]

Maybe this will happen here -

From The Sunday Times
October 5, 2008
Government will spy on every call and e-mail
David Leppard

Ministers are considering spending up to £12 billion on a database to monitor and store the internet browsing habits, e-mail and telephone records of everyone in Britain.

GCHQ, the government’s eavesdropping centre, has already been given up to £1 billion to finance the first stage of the project.

Hundreds of clandestine probes will be installed to monitor customers live on two of the country’s biggest internet and mobile phone providers - thought to be BT and Vodafone. BT has nearly 5m internet customers.

Ministers are braced for a backlash similar to the one caused by their ID cards programme. Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “Any suggestion of the government using existing powers to intercept communications data without public discussion is going to sound extremely sinister.”
Related Links

* There’s no hiding place as spy HQ plans to see all

* First ID cards are to be issued within weeks

MI5 currently conducts limited e-mail and website intercepts which are approved under specific warrants by the home secretary.

continue reading at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882600.ece

[el gordo]

Lala,

I don´t think so. Too obvious. That would force Obama to explain himself and he plainly doesn´t like that. The Dems will consolidate their power doing things that stay under the radar: arcane legislation that most people do not understand, appointments, education, lawfare by allied organisations and so on. Unlike the Bush administration they will use these tools relentlessly to silence and destroy their opponents. All in a good cause. All with a view to building a permanant majority. A machine, if you will.

http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/06/saul-alinsky-takes-the-white-h

Remember that this is what the left always accused Bush of doing. "Using the present crisis to shred the constitution." Well, Bush didn´t destroy democracy and now he´s gone. But I think it was projection by the left. It is what they would have done. And now they get their chance.

[George Bruce]

This thread is getting somewhat highjacked. In response to the original article, yes we must stop competing with the Democrats for the voters who take the minority view of an issue. If the Dems want to associate their party with gay "marriage", let 'em. Let's go for the side of the issue supported by a majority of the American people. Same thing with offshore drilling. Newt is good at this type of analysis and I hope he is the new leader of the RNC.

Second point: The party can stand four square for controlling our borders and enforcing our laws without taking an anti-Hispanic position. And that is precisely what we must do. Some of you need to remember that there are millions of Americans who have Hispanic ancestry. Many of their families have been in the US longer than many non-hispanic white families. They identify entirely with America and they are strong patriots. Many have served in the military. They have won Medals of Honor for heaven's sake. Large numbers of them are solid middle and working class and have conservative values. Millions of them are natural members of the Republican Party. Millions of them want our borders to be controlled. They must be welcomed to the Party with open arms, if they are not already here. You can drive them to the Democrat side if you try hard enough, but without them we might not win another nation election ever. The same is true of the Asian vote.

For the creature above that styles itself "nonhispanicamerican" and "nonhispanicwhiteamerican" I can only say that I hope you are a Democrat troll. I don't want you in my Party.

[Lala]

There is a movement to have an Obama holiday - Hitchens understands

The night we waved goodbye to America... our last best hope on Earth

Last updated at 9:52 PM on 08th November 2008

Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernise Heaven and Hell – or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead.

The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something.

I really don’t see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.

more at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1084111/PETER-HITCHENS-The-night-waved-goodbye-America--best-hope-Earth.html

[jharp]

"Waiting for a warrant is simply not feasible"

el gordo,

Bullshit. FISA provided a safeguard against this. If necessary they can begin the wiretap immediately and have 48 hours to obtain a warrant. And if this isn't enough change it 72 or 96 hours.

It's the lack of judicial oversight that is the huge problem.

"How about you, jharp, will you still fight this if Obama uses the same methods?"

Will you?

[PA]

Florida passed a similar state constitution amendment by a wide margin.

[davis,br]

"I'm interested in an intelligent discussion." jharp|Sun Nov 09 2008 @04:56P

Heh. And pigs fly.

[jharp]

I'm interested in one of you cowards stepping forward and defending President Obama's power to listen to your phone calls and monitor your e mail.

And imprison you without charges, a trial, or a lawyer for as long as he sees fit. For only the reason that he considers you an enemy combatant.

Payback is a bitch. Isn't it?

[Dinobotprime]

jharp
Gee, didn't the Democratic party during the Clinton Administration had already done that against their political opponents or you had surely forgotten that . You see the difference between Bush and your Obama is this , the former is protecting the country against threats internal and external caused by Islamic extremism while Obama will be protecting his power and ideology from fellow Americans who disagree with him . Pity , that you are an idiot that you cannot see .

[jharp]

Posted by: Dinobotprime | Sunday, November 09, 2008 at 09:20 PM

So I guess I will mark one vote that President Obama needs no judicial oversight.

He can spy on who ever he chooses and without charges or a trial can imprison them for as long as he sees fit.

Next.