Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Morgan

  • Rank
    Full Member
  1. Rasputin, I don't think you bothered to read the my post thoroughly or Hanson's for that matter or the preceding posts on this discussion thread. I disagreed with Craig's interpretation of what Hanson said. Hanson said that both social liberalism and business interests created a situation where 8-16 Million illegals are living within the USA. Hanson DID NOT say that illegal immigration caused social liberalism. That's my point. And btw, the main topic is ILLEGAL immigration, although immigration policies themselves need re-evaluation and reform, as I mentioned. I'd suggest you read previous posts more thoroughly before you ask why, how come, where's your support? Speaking of which ...where's your articles/stats support for your all-knowing opinions like "most employers are small time firms that use illegal labor"or that you "don't buy that immigration lowers wages" or these whoppers "You can't blame lack of legal enforcement on recognising the reality that 8 million workers are there and many if not all are working " or that low income tax paying guest workers will pay for their high cost maintenace. Your mantra of the wonderful benefits of immigration on a nation do not recognize that America is now 200 years older. Back then there was a wild frontier to settle, and natural resources like water for all not infastructure decay and overuse like highways electrical grid, there were no nanny state benefits, no activist ACLU to twist the intent of laws what few laws there were, and assimilation melting pot was the unspoken rule for immigrants,immigrants came from a variety of country sources,immigrants were checked for diseases before being allowed in,and there was a long period to assimilate immigrants example Irish.Scottish, English immigrants from 1880-1930-800,000 came over the course of 50 years!!!, not 8-16 MILLION from one country in under 20 years. Also, daisy chain family re-unification of families was not the case until the last 50 years. Before, an immigrant could only bring in spouse and minor children. The 14th amendment did not allow for anchor babies of illegals. It was specifically written to address blacks after the Civil War. Current Admins. have changed the law in practice to include birthright citizenship to children of illegals without being mandated to do so. The following sites have great research material to disabuse you of any romantic notions that illegals contriubute more than they take, that guest worker permits are good for the economy and national security, blah, blah, blah. If you are too lazy to read the material, that's your problem, be it a function of literacy or ideaology, not mine, as you suggest, for not providing adequate support documentation. I've included 2 websites that are just current news links on the topic: a)www.numbersUSA.com [NumbersUSA] b)www.cis.org [Center for Immigration Research] c)www.fairus.org [Federation for American Immigration Reform] d)www.betterimmigration.com good report cards on Congress not enforcing realistic measures that would realistically deal with immigration, legal and illegal e) www.VDARE.com f) www.americanpatrol.com/ g) www.steinreport.com As for the 16 Million illegals figure, I specifically said that the figure was quoted by the President of Border Control. It's no more of a guesstimate than Tom Ridge and the Census Dept. who guestimate a range of 8-12 Million. How can the latter be believable any more believble when they give a 4 MILLION cushion range??? At least the border patrol President works on the front lines himself and is involved in the apprehensions, documentation, and in seeing the daily numbers of illegals who run through the borders as other illegals are apprehended.Ridge and the census beaurocrats sit in cushy offices in DC far, far away from the borders. Border patrol assails Bush's proposal LA Times, Jan.23/04 As for the $20 Billion annual cost for social services including welfare: What's wrong with illegal immigration, fairus.org *Immigration during an economic turn down How illegal immigration puts US schools into the red Other links to reports on enormous costs of illegal immigration: *Links to reports and statistical reports on negative impact of illegal immigration *Voodoo economics about the jobs Americans won't do *Welfare costs of illegal immigrants This article supports information that 25% of Mexicans illegally here on welfare and based on what happened after previous amnesties, the welfare rate for Hispanics INCREASES the rate of their welfare dependence as opposed to decreasing it when the illegals are allowed "to come out of the shadows" *links to articles on guest worker programs *Hidden costs of cheap labour and illegals-summary of aforementioned links *Illegal crime wave and how guest worker permit regualtion and enforcement is doomed-same useless gov't agences will be involved"Heather MacDonald, City Journal, Jan.2004 EXCELLENT ARTICLE! *Bush amnesty threatens the economy Matt Hayes *Mexican senate see no program with interfering with the legislative process of another sovereign nation as they try to influence approval of migration agreement in United States *Point by point argument [with links to supporting outside research] against myths promoted by those who are pro-Bush plan, FrontPage,Jan.19/04 *National data debunks Bush's myth that Hispanics promote family values *Emigration does not help Mexico's corrupt feudal sociaty get better *Mexicans never return to Mexico and let it become a greater cesspool *Senator is opposed to guest worker permits *High price of cheap labour, National Review,Jack Dunphy *Testimony before House Sub-Committee that addresses assumptions underlying guest worker plan *New bills take tough stance on illegal immigration that would be more effective than Bush's plan, Jan.24/04 *Bush is in trouble with conservative voters due to overspending and guest worker proposal, Jan.25/04 Now I'm tired of providing support. Don't bother responding until you have read my support documentation and only after you put together documentation support for your opposing opinions.
  2. The EU's infatuation with multiculturalism and high levels of immigration appears to be drawing to a close. The mantra of we are citizens of the world is kaput with lefties in the EU. I think it is very interesting that border control, maintaining a nation's sovereignity which has not had much play for decades with Europeans has gained political respect. And the renewed desire to protect nations' borders does not seem to be associated with any particular ethnicity, colour, political party, or religious organization. That is to say, the Labour Party WASP's in the UK are just as committed to protecting their borders as the olive skinned conservative Catholic Italians and the secular French, etc. a. Do you think this tough response to illegal/refugee immigration and interest in good border control will catch on in Canada and the USA? b. How will this play out in the UN, specifically with regards to the power of the office of the UN High Commissioner re: assigning minimum immigration acceptance quotas to First World countries? c. Will there be more accountability re: Third World leaders accepting foreign aid? That is will they be under the gun to make life good for their nationals so there is less illegal immigration/flight to First World countries? EU plans charter flights to speed up deportations, Stephen Castle, Independent, Jan. 24/04
  3. Craig, I disagree with your views on Victor Hanson's article and Hanson was just appointed Senior Fellow at Hoover Institute, Stanford U, Palo Alto. Maybe he is on a sabbatical leave from Cal. State Fresno. Illegal immigration has definitely become a politicized issue in the USA. And politicians of both political parties have turned a blind eye to non-enforcement of existing immigration laws in response to their voters' demands/needs. The Republicans appease business interests who want a steady supply of cheap labor, while passing on the hidden cost burdens of $20 Billion annually re: medical/welfare/education entitlements to regular tax payers. Ditto for the Democrats. The Democrats appease their Hispanic voting bloc, and their bleeding heart elitist liberals while ordinary taxpayers pick up the tab as a result of noble ideas about the merits of muticulturalism and the guilt of felt by elites expressed in a noblesse oblige mindset. The ordinary J.Q. Public taxpayer is screwed royally by both parties, and their voices are ignored because up until this proposal, they are not as organized in the same way as business and La Raza. Here's why Bush's plan is doomed. It's not that different from Reagan's amnesty, let's face it, what with motor voter registration laws in effect, no proof of citizenship ID checks done at polling booths, birthright citizenship in effect, and no manpower to track and deport temporary workers at the end of three years. If the Immigration Dept. can't issue green cards and visas in a timely manner, nor can they deport apprehended illegals[Malvo was identified by the INS as an illegal who was given a letter to keep in touch with the INS for his hearing...18 months later he re-surfaced as one of the two DC snipers]what makes you think this same agency can "regulate" and deport guest workers? Craig, you of all people, should know that to put your hopes in the effectiveness of a gov't agency like the notoriously incompetent INS is as good as saying you believe in miracles. Some of the 9-11 terrorists had their renewed visas mailed to them 6 months after 9-11. That's the INS at work for US taxpayers. Also, even if these guest workers start paying income tax, big deal. They will be at the lower end of the income tax bracket anyways and so will contribute a pitiful amount of money to the general Treasury, but since Bush is allowing them to being along their dependents, usually a wife and 3 to 4 kids, with baby on the way for birthright citizenship, the taxpayers are still on the hook for the same costs as before the guest worker plan and perhaps more because no doubt the INS will squeal for more funding because they are SOOOOO overworked. In 1986, when Reagan gave amnesty to illegals, there were approximately 3 Million illegals in America, primarily Mexicans. In 2004 there are approximately 16 Million illegals according to the President of the US Border Patrol, still mainly Hispanics. Not all of them are picking lettuce, working in construction,and slaughter houses. Did those industries expand so quickly that an extra 13 Million illegals had to cross the border in a little over 15 years? Doubters. And when this humongous degree of immigration from one source country, some of it for jobs some of it for a safety net and birthright citizenship, hits a country in approximately 15 years, how can you say immigration has nothing to do with social, educational, political issues? [And keep in mind, those numbers do not include the immigrants coming to the USA each year via annual legal mandated quotas for immigrants from Mexico as well as other countries]. Furthermore, immigration is not a given positive for a nation. Importing a huge underclass of low skilled workers is not good for the nation long term, especially if there is a down turn in the economy. For example, the most prosperous state in the union, and the 6th largest economy in the world, California, was thrown into bankruptcy partly because of the entitlements given illegally to illegals from Mexico. The only court ordered entitlement that an illegal is entitled to is public school education. And it's no accident that entitlements were handed out holus bolus by a Democrat dominated state legislature and Democrat Governor who was known by the monikers of Red Davis or Greyout Davis. I think it's significant that the public became so p.o.'d by the flagrant and contemptuous disregard for existing federal immigration laws that they recalled Grey Davis, when he signed legislation to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens. At exit polls on the recall election night, even registered Democrat voters said the single most important issue that tipped the scales in their minds to vote recall was Grey Davis legitimizing illegals with state ID. It's my belief, that Karl Rove has miscalculated the anger of middle America for rewarding illegal immigration. I think Bush Jr. may go down on one issue like his father before him. He has 9 short months to blink and win back the trust of his core voters. Rove is thinking Bush will get the Hispanic vote instead to make up the difference. I think he's wrong. Hispanics are a traditional voting bloc for Democrats. And although business owners can donate big bucks to Bush's re-election campaign, come election day, those very important business owners only count for one vote each. This problem took 20 years to develop. So enforcing the current laws will not clean up the mess overnight. But at least you are not piggy backing a flawed costly plan over the mess like Bush wants to do. And more importantly, by enforcing the existing laws, you will not be causing America to be more of a magnet to the world's population. Guest worker plans have a poor track record in large economies like Germany and France that have used them. Even the US currently has a type of guest worker plan for farmers-what a joke-so Bush's plan is tried and true useless. In addition to enforcing existing immigration laws, the feds should withhold federal funds from any state, county, and city which do not check citizenship and legal residence ID before delivering social, welfare, medical services. Enforce the laws about fining employers who do not check acceptable ID. Repeal the practice of accepting Mexican consular Matricular ID cards. Suspend birthright citizenship by Presidential decree or Congressional action. Start moving in the direction of developing national biometric ID and get it through Congress as part of the war on terror/national security bills. Withhold foreign aid from Mexico until the gov't there meets US drawn annual goals which demonstrate that monies are being applied to better the lives of locals instead of the lives of the ruling oligarchy in that country. Once the troop size is reduced in Iraq this summer, bring back the National Guard and have them work on building a 26 foot high fence along the southern border. Pull out troops completely from South Korea-they're in a hostage situation there anyways and bring them to the USA to act as back up to the border patrol agencies. If Presidente Fox allows his Federales to escort coyotes and drug dealers into US land, the US has every right to use their military to keep the Federales "honest" and on their side of the border. Border patrol agents have been terrorized and intimidated by Mexican Federales riding shot gun into US territory and chasing border patrol agents on US soil. I'd like to see the Federales' expressions when they're getting their kicks chasing a little border patrol truck in Arizona and all of a sudden out of the sky come a few 747's and Black Hawk helicopters. Yes, one could make big bucks filming a short documentary with those "tough" Federales making tracks post haste back to where they came from. If the US can put robots on Mars and if they can do regime change in a ME country 1/2 way around the world within 6 months, I think the US could control its own borders pretty easily if the politcal will were there. Every President swears to uphold the laws and defend America., If a Republican President of all people has no desire to carry out the duties he swore to do, he should not be re-elected. A valuable lesson for Congress as well. Get serious about immigration for you don't get re-elected, morons. Electing a Democrat President with a fired up Republican majority held Congress would not be so bad. A president cannot do much without money from Congress. And Democrats, though demented in their political philosophy, are self serving little weasels like all politicians are. If they see Bush not re-elected by the public, there willl be little motivation for a Democrat President to pull a similar immigration "reform" no-no. A nation is defined in large part by its borders and if you wave a white flag every 15 years to a small corrupt 2nd rate Third World country that assaults your border, you won't stay a distinct sovereignity for too long a time. Sovereignity terrorism can be as lethal to a nation as boom-boom violent terrorism. The following is an excellent article written by a courageous Republican Congressman from California who responds to Bush's guest worker plan in a direct, honest fashion. It's time for the US to show Mexico some tough love, Jan.22/04
  4. Good news for the Bush Admin. from the National Bureau of Economic Research's official business cycle dating committee, a non profit, non partison research organization. This announcement should lay to rest that the myth that the Bush Admin.'s fiscal mismanagement/malfeance/whatever caused America's loss of jobs and propelled the economy into a recession. It looks like this panel of economists have revised their original dating for the start of the recession. It appears that the recession started a year BEFORE Bush took office, when Slick Willy was still at the helm. I wonder if CBC will feature this as a news item? Do you think? Economists Say Recession Started in 2000, Washington Post, Jan.22/04
  5. maplesyrup, That Maher is suing the Attorney General is inconsequential actually. Ashcroft gets served with papers probably several times a week. I wouldn't assume Maher is innocent. If you read the Dec.30/03 Nat'l Post article, Maher's activities and old pals are worrisome. The US was under no obligation to let him visit their country, especially after the Canadians had tipped them off that they had a dossier on him. Maher was a dual national. And since the Canadian authorities were in a dither about what to do with him, the Americans shipped him off to his birth country. I'm sorry but I can't work up a whole lot of outrage about Maher. His shady pals and his being at an Al Queda training camp, really don't cause me to have too much empathy for him. For goodness sake, this guy's pals were planning to blow up the Parliament bldgs. Give me a break. And to compare him to Sampson is a stretch, too. I saw Maher's picture in Macleans shortly after he returned from Syria, and he looked the picture of health. He certainly didn't look like he had done without meals while he was in Syria. Very strange for a person who was ill-treated. Were there any reports of Maher seeing a medical examiner about his torture related injuries? No, didn't think so, and you better believe if such evidence existed, Maher's lawyer would have made a big toodoo. In some ways I kind of feel sorry for Martin because he's between a rock and a hard place with this guy. The truth will not set Martin free. yuk, yuk
  6. maplesyrup, I agree with you. I believe Martin is spinning this case and blocking the inquiry because he does not want to offend or embaress voters within the Muslim community. According to a National Post article Dec.30/03 which I posted within the US-Canada relations topic, Martin had been extensively briefed on the Arar case, so he knows he dealing with a can of worms - even though Arar the individual is responsible for his own actions, I'll bet Martin does not want to take any chances so near the election that the Muslim community might feel embaressed if all of Arar's dirty laundry were made public, especially since Arar has become a cause celebre.No one wants their heroes shown to have clay feet. You can read much more of the article on the other thread. It looks like Arar may be a bad boy wannabe. With regards to the Star Wars stuff, I think it's solidarity posturing with the USA that has more to do with quid pro quo-getting permission to bid on contracts in Iraq as a sub-contractor. I doubt Canada will be expected to pony up $ to the Star Wars project. I think it's basically verbal support. I think the USA is fine with Canada. The Americans are too busy focusing on the upcoming election. After Saddam was captured and now that the Iraqi people are sort of, kind of co-operating with one another to form a gov't by June, I think the events leading up to Iraq are pretty much a blurred memory. No dog house stuff. Heck if Bush is still talking to Chiraq after what he did, Chretien's bad mouthing was like a small mosquito bite. Martin is hustling & bustling to make it look like he's planning to make a big changes in foreign policy. Big show, no substance. What's to change, except to behave politely with foreign leaders, eh?
  7. dnsfurlan said to Morgan: Oops. Thanks for the reminder. To tell you the truth, it must be the media fixation/adoration of Red Tory Stronan that makes me slip with the PC label. She would do as much harm as leader of the conservatives as Joe Who did to the PC's, IMO, by representing the conservatives as a diluted version of the governing party.
  8. udawg, Bush mentioned the immigration proposal in his address...about a paragraph's worth...40 seconds...no different than his other domestic plans. Actually, I was surprised he DID mention it, because he's getting alot of flak even from neo-con conservatives who are usually in step with him. Mars...I'm not whether it was because he thought he might cause a massive collective heart attack in his Republican party caucus because of his other big ticket plans. Bush is really under the gun with party loyalists for being such a big spender. Here's another negative take on Bush's guest worker plan this morning on FOX News online site by an experienced immigration lawyer, Matt Hayes.Nasty. Bush Amnesty Plan Threatens the US Economy, Jan.21/04, Matt Hayes, FOX News
  9. dnsfurlan and udawg, I am not sure if I agree with this sentiment: To a limited degree, perhaps it's good that there is a flurry of media coverage for a week or two re: PC leadership candidates. But media coverage is not a problem for the PC party. Keep in mind that it was only 6 months ago that the PC party had the first leadership convention, that ended up in a Brittany Spears type annulment. I think flaky or inexperienced candidates and the attendent media coverage can re-affirm the image of the PC's chasing their tails around in circles...sorry, but the McKay-Orchard event doesn't give the PC party high marks for looking like a party ready to govern. Belinda in my opinion is another Joe Who. And doting as much as the media are doing because of the glamour factor[i think it's more her wealth than her beauty]will just make the PC party seem...well...kind of frivolous, not to be taken seriously...and in platform not too different from the more experienced LPOC. So the voters may say to themselves, forget all this flighty nonsense...better the devil known than the devil unknown, if you catch my drift.
  10. Listen up, a lack lustre limp wristed approach that Belinda is planning is not effective. She said SOME tax deductible portion of mortagage interest may be deductible. She's not contemplating bold action that will put big bucks in consumers' pockets. And the money she's throwing at a broken medicare system will not generate new jobs, new growth. You've got lots of physician jobs open...but you have no warm qualified bodies who want to do the job in a socialized medicine environment. Hospitals have been run to the ground, costly equipment like MRI machines are lacking. The system she is broke. Adding money to build another super bureaucracy as envisioned by Romanowski will do nothing to create meaningful jobs. And in fact that bureaucracy may drive the few remaining physicians over the deep end with more nosy rosey silly servant interference. Money to the military...I don't know about firing up the Canadian economy, pal. It may fire up France's economy though because that's where the money for military equipment will be directed. LOL.
  11. How's this for being "bothered" by Belinda's positions? 1. Belinda is not fluent in Canada's official languages. That's a real handicap for the new re-constituted PC party's image if she is chosen as leader. Having a tutor for the next few months may help her with a vacation to Paris for a week, but it isn't going to play too well with Quebecers. Nor will it shake the image that the lefties claim hurts the PC/CA party being viewed as only representing the West. 2. Saying she will throw more taxpayer money at the black hole called socialized medicine is not very novel in terms of problem solving, making hard decisions to have a health care system that's good for sick people not just for bragging rights. 3. Don't underestimate the legalizing gay marriage issue with the general population. Maybe you think there has been too much said, because you don't want that can of worms re-opened because you favour gay marriage. Don't assume the electorate shares your view. How is Stroner's view any different than Joe Clark's, whose socially liberal views almost torpedoed the PC party? 4. That she would like to build up the military and give more money to a failing health care system, but still give some income tax deductions for mortgage interest equals pipe dreams. You can't spend more and take money away from the Treasury, without people like me wondering. about Stroner's sincerity..
  12. maplesyrup and Hardner, Pardon me for butting in and I don't want to tread on Craig's posting toes -he has his own url support, no doubt...BUT here's what I've read that outlines why the "lost jobs" rhetoric is a desperate canard by the Democrats to malign Bush. It has to do with what measure you use for estimating employment. Basically, you cab use employer surveys or household surveys. The problem with using employer surveys is that you're only picking up on a certain size of company and you don't get to count those people who have home based businesses, or who have been hired as consultants and do not appear as employees[ manysoftware engineers went the consultant route after the dot.com bust and actually are very happy with this consultant designation because they earn much bigger bucks this way and have more flexiblity in their personal lives[read: 2 career families wanting to raise their own children]. And a big problem is of course the obvious, when you start comparing apples and organges to each other and not recognizing that an economy is not a static construct. The nature of jobs change in response to other societal variables. More home based small businesses will flourish in a certain age segment who are raising families for example. And initially after an economic bust[dot.com], initially cautious employers will hire more consultants than employees to avoid getting stuck with layoffs and termination packages as a precaution. Here are some url's that expand on what I've said: a) Here's a new report from a Joint[non-partisan]Economic Senate Committee. It's a 2 page pdf. file that also addresses the discrepancy between the 2 measures of employment, along with a chart. Joint Economic Senate Committee Report 2. Here's another url to help de-mystify the mystery. It's actually more user friendly than the pdf. but makes the same point.Econopundit Jan.19/04 Non Hyperventalare post Hope this helps and does not add more confusion.
  13. righturnonred, I think President Bush delivered the speech better this year than in the past. He looked Presidential. The war on terror was good and his plan to give income tax credits for catastrophic health insurance was good, but there was too much pork barreling-Bush is pretending he's FDR or something. Even prisoners are getting New Deal projects. This is driving his Republican core nuts. There were some good things about catastrophic health insurance being entirely income tax deductible and he took a poke at litigation reform. There was a notable abscence of any mention of NASA and Mars...BUT...I agree that quick little hop and skip about immigration left a queazy pit in my stomach. 1. Did you read the Victor Davis Hanson piece in WSJ? He's a neo-con and he canned the plan. I just heard him interviewed on streaming audio on the Laura Ingraham show tonight and Hanson said this proposal does more harm than even ignoring the problem. Hanson was very upset. He's a prof at Stanford now but he lived in the Central Valley of California and has seen the illegal issue from up close. The case against Bush's plan, VDH, Wall Street Journal, Jan.19/04 2. Here are some other articles that make me crazy. That corrupt free loader Vincente Fox will be sending his Mexican senators to DC to "work closely" with the US Congress to see this pandering proposal get passed. When in US history has a President ever allowed the gov't of another nation to be joined at the hip with US elected politicians re: prospective federal legislation? It's like Bush is allowing Vinnie to highjack the US gov't. This shameful. Mexican senate pushes for approval of migration agreement in United States, Jan.19/04 3. Here's another article on the border guards: Border Agents rip Bush's plan Jan.20/04 4. Also, another article in LA Times by Heather Macdonald: Sanctuary Laws stand in Justice's Way, LA Times, Jan.19/04 5. Also, here's a peek at how overwhelmed the INS is already, never mind the extra burden of guest worker permits: Real Cost of Bush's Immigration Plan, Capitol Hill Blue I think Bush is VERY foolish for going to the wall on this illegal alien issue for Vinnie and Big Business.
  14. I thought this article might make for a good discussion thread on how Holland's multiculturalism policy. Could the problems have been prevented through an "old-fashioned" melting pot [assimilation] policy re: immigration? Does the Dutch experience hold any implications or cause any second thoughts for you re:Canada's policy of multiculturalism?Holland's 30 year race policy a failure, Telegraph, Jan.20/04
  15. maplesyrup, Maybe I was not clear. Republicans would never vote for a gridlock between the WH-Congress with Dean as Democrat Presidential candidate. They may be angry with Bush's domestic entitlement programs, but they are not crazy mad. Dean's a loose cannon. Please. Even the Democrats think he's nuts and that's why they drafted Clark into the race. Of course Dean probably looks like a centrist to someone who votes NDP. The Democrat candidates are shabby candidates, IMO. If Bush would just get his domestic spending under control-he hasn't used his line item veto pen I don't think in 3 years- and if he got serious about illegals living on the dole in the US, he could easily knock the socks off any of the 8 dwarfs.Bush is the better wartime President and he has better people in his cabinet. The Democrats have the same old same old message-tax the rich and let's sing Kumbaye with Kofi Annan and the kleptomaniacs at the UN. BORING. And they'd have the same old faces in the cabinet from academia who have never lived in the real world and probably could never find it in their hearts to say a bad word about terrorism. With regards to Ted Kennedy, barn burning speech or was he just drunk again? Ted Kennedy's Iraq Lunacy, Rich Lowry, Townhall, Jan.19/04 With regards to O'Neill and his revelations, err...that dog doesn't hunt. O'Neill announced that he's going to vote for President Bush because he's the best man for the job. That kind of put the kabosh on the media frenzy. With regards to the Democrat candidates, here's an analysis by Rush. I know not everyone likes Rush but I think this piece is quite clever and it has great links at the end of the article to other commentaries. Dean courting the liar wing of theDemocrat Party as opposed to the angry Bush-haters With regards to Nader, I don't think he'll run but who knows? it makes no difference to the final November outcome. Right now it's Bush's election to lose, IMO.
  • Create New...