Redstate

My senators are Carl and dopey Debbie. Good luck to anyone getting anywhere with them.

Praise be to Jesus Christ, now and forever!

Why do people want to make a party loyalty issue out of this?

The 06 election was lost because of this mess, do we want to jump in further?

And does calling people who reasonably and politely disagree terms like "surrender monkeys" advance our cause? That is the sort of rhetoric you would expect from a lunatic like Carville not a party of principle.

This vote should not be a litmus test of conservatism.

that the US will embrace if we show our enemies that we are weak and have no will to fight? Have you considered the suicide pact that the US will show its allies that we will not keep our word and we will shrink away from any conflict that gets too deadly? A Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg once gave a speech and said that partisan politics should end at the water's edge. We can and should debate and disagree about decisions that put our troops in harms way. If the side loses that did not want the troops to go fight they should not embolden the enemy by sending out a message of no confidence in the troops.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

I remember hearing that the US would lose the cold war if we pulled out of Vietnam. The Soviets, emboldened, invaded Afganistan and Reagan knocked 'em out.

If we left Iraq, NOBODY know what would happen. Shiite and Sunni will be in a death match with each other. al qaeda in Iraq in going to be under unrelenting, vicious and blood curing attacks - without the US to hold 'em back, the Shiite would likely be far worse.

Suggesting we can really predict anything over there or have any certainty about outcomes is simply fooling ourselves to try to logically support our emotional views.

I am reminding people that there are lessons we should have learned from past history. One of these lessons is that if we send a message out to the world that we have no confidence in our US forces then we embolden our enemies. Our enemies already know that they are not defeating US forces on the battleground. They also know from the headlines that they are winning the propaganda war.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

I can tell you from having lived through and participated in the Cold War that it was a near run thing.

By the late 1980s it was not at all certain that NATO was going to survive. Germany was on the verge of making us move our battlefield nukes out. Incredible pressure was generated in Britain to make us get rid of the Pershing IIA missiles. German politics were drifting from Christian Democrats/Social Democrats to a coalition of Social Democrats and Greens. The Nuclear Freeze movement. Communism looked like it was going to triumph in Central America and subSaharan Africa.

And, yes, that was all a legacy of Vietnam.

Your logic is fine if you ignore the millions of Cambodians, Laotians, and Vietnamese who disappeared into death camps and killing fields.

It is fine if the death of million of Africans in the proxy wars in Angola, Mozambique, Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, and South Africa.

It is fine if you ignore the hundreds of thousands, Russians and Afghan, killed during the decade that war stretched out and further ignore how that war gave rise to the enemy we're fighting today.

How about the thousands of dead and disappeared in the dirty wars in Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Peru, and Central America.

So if history is any guide I think we can make some pretty intelligent guesses about what defeat in Iraq will mean.

But not by the late 80's. The Soviet Union was crumbling from the inside out - the cancer of communism had completed its work.

We won the ideological/economic war. We out lasted them. We played to our strength.

The GWOT is also a ideological war. Going into the middle east and trying to hold a piece of ground is playing to our enemies greatest strength.

we didn't know that. As late as 1988 the CIA was predicting the USSR's GDP would ourstrip ours within ten years.

In the late 80s Central America was still up for grabs.

Demonstrations sponsored by the SANE/Freeze numbered in the hundreds of thousands in Europe.

Sovietologists everywhere were stunned when Gorbachev threw in the towel.

If we are going to win the ideological struggle we need a base from which to wage it. Iraq is the ideal spot.

But our intelligence community was wrong. They underestimated the power of the cancer that is communism.

helps you out if you give up before he completes the process.

In Vietnam, we now know based on the memoirs of Giap and others that the NV government was on the verge of suing for peace after Linebacker II in December 1972. We didn't know it, we quit, they won.

During the Cold War we now know that the economic distortions of communism were evident even the the 1960s. We didn't know that. We almost gave up.

Right now we don't know whether the bad guys are winning or not. But we're on the verge of giving up on the off chance that a defeat in Iraq is going to help us win seats in 2008.

So Iraq is like Vietnam when it's convenient for pro-war arguments, but not for anti-war arguments?

I agree defeat in Iraq would be bad. However,
1. Leaving Iraq within the next decade is not necessarily defeat.
2. The war on Islamic terrorists is not going to be won or lost in Iraq.

"... we're on the verge of giving up ... "

If the new offensive bears fruit, domestic support will soon cease to be a problem. If it doesn't, then why would we want our forces stuck there indefinitely? Part of war is choosing the battlegrounds that favor you.

but reading comprehension would be a big aid to your contribution here.

No one but you drew an analogy to Vietnam, the discussion was about the Cold War and how no one knew the USSR was collapsing except, perhaps, a few senior Soviets.

But nice try though.

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

is NOT economics. The Soviet Union & Communism in general collapsed because of economic reasons. Islamists don't give a rip about economics. They care about women in burkas, guys with beards (I may have to shave), and a living standard that approaches the poverty level in the seventh century.

There is almost no probability that we can "outlast" them. We really, really need to kill them. A lot of them. If they don't walk away from Iraq with the heartfelt knowledge deep in whatever they've got for a soul that if they mess with us again we'll kill even more of them, you better buy a prayer rug.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer

We've already shown our weakness to our enemies a hundred times. Just a couple hours ago Secretary Chertoff repeated that "religion of peace" lie in Davos, Switzerland; this was hard on the heels of the British Conservative party-leader lecturing us for excessive criticism of Islam.

We have numerous reports of large Islamic infiltrators coming through our southerner border. We do nothing. We have Jihadist provocatuers on airplanes, where the passengers stood up and cheered when they were removed. The administration responds by sending the entire air marshall corps to sensitivity training.

We are weak; we show it virtually every day on the more important question of resistance to the domestic agents of the Jihad; and our enemies know it.

_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

For me, though, I consider this one of many ways we can support our men and women in combat.

I refuse to give a single dime to ANY senator who believes in retreating and providing the enemy hope that we will withdraw from the battlefield before victory is attained.

I'm afraid this could have horrible consequences. While I'm not a Republican in the sense I once was, or I guess, strictly speaking, one at all, I nonetheless really, really, really don't want to see the democrats in complete control of the government. Especially given the number of senate seats the GOP has to defend, I fear that there is already, without this, better than a 50% chance of this coming to pass. This sort of thing could make it all but inevitable.

-exits

It sends a signal that America's government is weak and irresolute. It also sets a bad precedent.

Supporters of this non-binding resolution say they're trying to send a message to the President. Oh--I didn't know the phone and e-mail lines to the White House have been cut. Nor did I know that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has stopped accepting visitors.

The President has heard their message. He's rejected it, because the Senate offers no viable alternative path to success. They instead counsel retreat. As Commander-in-Chief (his job), he's chosen a different path.

The Senate could act within its authority and cut funds. They won't do that. Instead, they opt for a cover-your-butt resolution that lays a foundation on which they can try to escape blame for any future problems in Iraq.

Does that sound like the actions of a "strong horse" to you? Or, those of a "paper tiger"? (Background: Bin Laden called America a "paper tiger" for retreating from Somalia).

Jihadhis are keen students of American politics and debate. They are looking for words/actions of ours that they can then trumpet to the Arab street as proof that America is shirking away from Iraq. "Look, my neighbor," they'll say to the Arab on the street, "the American Senate lacks the guts to really act! They pass instead this joke of a measure. Does THIS sound like a country you can trust? No, my friend, you cannot trust the Americans. They are preparing to run! They just lack the courage to come out and admit it!"

These Senators know this. They know that a non-binding resolution will not stop President Bush from pushing forward with the surge. So, why pass it? What practical value does it add? None. BUT, it can serve as a powerful weapon for our opponents in the PR war.

It is important to hold Congressmen and Senators accountable for the bad messages they send. Especially in wartime. Especially when we have our own people in the field getting shot at/bombed, who will have to deal with (or try to compensate for) the consequences of those bad messages Congress is choosing to send. As a party man/woman, there are plenty of things you shrug off or overlook. IMO, not this one.

Our troops in Iraq will be safer if the enemy feels this fight is not worth fighting. Resolutions like this, designed on their face to be nothing more that PR stunts, make us seem like an irresolute nation. Like a paper tiger. Like someone who can be beaten. That will inspire the jihadhis to fight harder, and will lead potential supporters of the new Iraq government to stay on the sidelines.

ALSO, this sets a bad precedent in WH/Congressional relations in how to handle wartime decisions. Now I'll fall back on my Army experiences.

When an Army staff comes up with possible Courses of Action (COA) for a particular operations, often the COAs differ drastically. One COA may say that, in order to secure the town, we should enter it in force and occupy the town center. Another COA may say we should avoid the town altogether, and instead capture the bridges leading into town. A third COA may say we should occupy just the residential neighborhoods.

All drastically different ways of accomplishing the same goal. It's not uncommon for individual staff members or subordinate commanders to think that this COA or that one is disastrous, and express that feeling vehemently.

That's why we have a commander. He picks the best COA he sees. At that point, the entire command is expected to work together to accomplish that COA. The staff could debate forever, if you let it. It's the commander who brings focus, and whose words/guidance actually leads the command to do something.

So, for those who disagreed vehemently to the chosen COA, what are their options? They could try to get the commander to change their mind. They could resign.

But, what if they chose instead to wander through the staff tents, or the mess hall, telling everyone that they thought the CO was making a big mistake? Or, what if one of the subordinate commanders held a formation of his unit, at which he told that that he thought the chosen COA was wrong, and that he's not responsible if it fails?

Would you want to be part of a unit like that? Would you want to fight with an organization like that? I wouldn't.

If Congress passes a non-binding resolution on Iraq, it will be as if they are wandering through the mess tent, telling everyone standing in line that the plan they've been tasked to execute is wrong, that it will likely fail---but it's not the Congress's fault!

Congess knows this. NOTHING forces Congress to pass a resolution like this. Congress has already been heard. It's been given more than enough chances to provide alternatives in Iraq that offer a better chance for success; they have either failed or chosen not to do so.

As to Leon's point on fighting for a democratic Iraq---IMO, if a democracy of some sort is possible in Iraq, then it's worth fighting some more for. American soldiers don't have to fight democracies very often. We've already expended so much in Iraq. If two years of additional effort--and that's all we're really talking about here, folks--will help us achieve some of our goals, then IMO it's worth it. If Congress has a better plan, I'd sure like to hear it.

But, if Iraq won't become a democracy, a stable country that doesn't threaten us is a viable second alternative.

No one else can do this but America's military. And, IMO there are still many worthwhile goals to achieve. So, we should press on. Regardless, we shouldn't do anything to undermine the effort in Iraq. Those who sign this resolution do just that. It's a contemptible thing to do.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

I blame my parents, who didn't nurture me properly, or give me enough fiber in my diet as I was growing up. Should I sue them?

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

explain fully, the course you recommend and the consequences of the course you recommend.

"Damnant quod non intellegunt."

with some of the basic ideas behind your decision (I am no longer convinced democracy is the best system of government - though perhaps I must accept the old saw that it is the "worst system, except for everything else" - or a good unto itself), I am divided in my own mind. While holding those same doubts, I at the same time do support the mission of developing a democracy in the Middle East, think it is good, noble, and right, and also achievable.

so I guess I may not necessarily agree with your ultimate reasons for not signing. I am sympathetic to the creators and supporters of this petition, and I am adamantly opposed to the dangerous resolutions put forward by those invested in defeat. but I also am not convinced to sign yet, for a more limited reason - I fear it is counterproductive. I may yet resolve that this is an issue on which such a stand, even if potentially suicidal, must be taken. But I am not sure yet that that is necessary.

If Iraq goes completely pear shaped it will be bad for the country and the world. So the debate should be about how to win not about how to lose with grace.

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

At least I have some senior, experienced, honest Rebpublican Senators speaking to the reservations that I, and many others, have now. I have been following Lugar on foreign policy for most of 20 years. He knows what he is doing and he tells the truth as he sees it. Lugar is going to vote against the resolution, it's toothless anyway, but to use language like "surrender monkey" to describe Republican Senators who are unwilling to support a policy they view as flawed is not doing the party much good.

You will notice, by the way, that I, and those who, like me are getting off the bus on the war, are not lobbing invective and divisive terms back at those using terms like "surrender monkeys" but rest assured, terms like that will be remembered for a long time.

Voinovich of Ohio......

"Many of us feel you are not listening," Voinovich said of Bush, his voice rising. "You are not listening."

John Warner's resolution.....

Warner's states: "The Senate disagrees with the plan to augment our forces by 21,500."

"Both (resolutions) recall November testimony before the Senate by Gen. John Abizaid, the retiring Middle East commander, who said troop increases will not help."

Dick Lugar (indiana) challenged each premise of Bush's strategy:

"I am not confident that President Bush's plan will succeed," he said. "Militarily, the plan may achieve initial success. But the premise that clearing and holding high-risk areas of Baghdad will create enough space of an effective political reconciliation is dubious.
"The plan is likely to be encumbered by the unwillingness of the Iraqi government to confront Shia militias, the questionable loyalty of many Iraqi army and police units, the resilience of the Sunni insurgency, the meddling of Iran, the ineffectual history of our economic aid and the political and military limits of our ability to hold indefinitely large swaths of urban landscape in hostile circumstances."

Then, while misrepresented by the left, there is this poll of the military...

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php

I politely and respectfully suggest that the idea that more force, and specifically 21-22000 troops, will create a victory is dubious at best.

Trying to force elected officials to walk a straight line in the face of the public attitudes and the military reality, well, history will judge this.

I don't believe that jamming Senators on this will have a positive effect, but I defer. I won't sign and I hope they all vote their consciences.....

But let me ask what are the consequences of us pulling out without accomplishing our goals ?

Assuming the troop surge will not aid in the accomplishment of our goals what are the consequences of implementing it anyway ?

If you feel that it is alright for senators to send a message to the president in a public and embarrassing fashion shouldn't we the people be able to do the same to the senators ?

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

It would be ridiculous to pretend that we had nothing to do with it.

And as others have observed here, country over party.

And I added my name and contacted my Senator (Smith).

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

Yes. But preferably after being waterboarded.

You think this is a "suicide pact for conservatism" while ignoring the fact that supporter of this policy, and those who are not willing to fight this war to win, are signing a suicide pact for America and the West.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer

Refusal to support this particular troop surge does not necessarily indicate refusal to confront Islamism. Fighting the war in Iraq this way is not the only way to prevent the death of America and the West, your assertions notwithstanding.

------------
Fnord.

Don't reward those that have nothing but defeatism on the table.

I am not a military guy, and I am also no expert in counterinsurgency tactics, but I do know one thing, if you don't believe you can win you can't.

This resolution says we can't win.

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

Is not any specific resolution, but rather any resolution which criticizes the commitment of additional troops. Regardless of whether those voting for it have alternative plans for success or not.

------------
Fnord.

But I would still hold that any resolution that demonstrates disunity and a failure of will on our part emboldens our enemies.

The only thing the people wearing suicide belts and building IEDS should hear is that we will hunt them down till they are no more.

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

But how does a resolution against the strategy laid out by the President and recommended to him by the military leaders on the ground not undermine our chances of success? I really don't understand how this resolution is anything but a obstinate slap in the face to the President. It may be good politics for certain members but in my book it is cowardice and sophistry dressed up as courage. These type of votes do nothing but makes us look weak and divided.

----------------
Kevin Holtsberry
www.kevinholtsberry.com

to fight. I also degree that the different ways to fight should be discussed and debated. However, after a decision is reached I do not think the losing side should pout and tell the world Ok, this US involvement will go forward, and we think it's stupid and the US troops are going to be miserable failures. Do you think this is going to encourage our enemies?

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

"Fighting the war in Iraq this way is not the only way to prevent the death of America and the West", it is the only way being proposed.

Instead of yet another "No, not that", I would like to see Congress (or anybody for that matter) propose a solution.

It's not the Congress's job to propose a solution. It's not their job to second guess how the war is being fought. It's not their job to fight a war at all. It's their job to run the country, as needed, by passing laws.

You can't get 500+ politicians together - half of whom practically hate the other half - and expect them to come up with a unified War plan.

That's why we have one Commander-in-chief.

Besides, just the idea of "The Swimmer" or my new Rep. Steve "Millionaire Jerk" Kagen could show 1) the balls and 2) the brains to actually come up with a viable plan is laughable.

And yes I signed. But calling the twin bed posts that are Feingold and Kohl and expecting results is also laughable.

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

Modern Language Association.

The whole point here is that the reason, at least the major reason, the US is under attack from Islamists is because they perceive us as a bunch of weak sisters. This certainly goes a long way to reinforcing that perception and if we follow the crowd on this issue, we may NEVER break that perception.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer

Thank you.

but reelected him to fight. Why would anybody vote for a Republican in 2008 that did not support America in 2007. A Republican that votes to surrender in 2007 with Democrats, has nothing to run on in 2008. But even more important, there
are the members of the US military, hundreds of thousands of which, are in harm's way every day. A vote against the President is telling the terrorists that they have won. Telling our soldiers, that they are dying, to defend a country that doesn't want to be defended. Just like Vietnam, when those who didn't die, came back to an America that spit on us, called us baby killers, and every other vile name they could think of. Telling us as soon as we landed in the US, to get our uniforms off, it was OK to wear the uniform in Vietnam, but dangerous to wear it off base in the States. If one can't bring themselves to support America, why not just say nothing.

Does your declaration of jihad extend to Richard Lugar and John Warner as well?

Bad choice of terms, von. How's the hatefest over at ObiWi?

Both have indicated that they believe that the Presidents' plan is bad policy, although neither appears likely to support the nonbinding resolution.

I suspect Lightweight Lugar will.

Is thinking that the President is making a mistake on this issue enough to deprive someone of your support? Or do they have to not only oppose the President but vote for a nonbinding resolution in order to be cast out.

Well, I can't speak for Erick, but "forgetting who is the Commander in Chief and undermining by speech or act his war policy" comes right to mind. We lack Thought-O-Meters like we lack Soul-O-Meters.

More to the point: are you truly cleaving to the notion that folks like Lugar and John Warner can be dismissed likely (or that the opinions of Reynolds, Hewitt and NZ Bear are entitled to greater weight)?

Well, I think any group of rational people can agree that Dick Lugar is and has been a mental lightweight for decades. As to the rest, I wasn't aware that we had one hundred cults of personality running. When did that happen?

In other words, are you stark raving mad?

It is madness to speak ill of the Great Leaders.

This has to be an issue on which it's legitimate for folks to take the other side, because only the ridiculously foolish think that one approach -- be it the President's, Lugar's, Warner's, Casey's, or Petreus's -- is so obviously inerrant that folks on the other side are all-but-traitors to the cause.

I didn't see the word "traitor." Perhaps you can show me where it appears?

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Does your declaration of jihad extend to Richard Lugar and John Warner as well?

Bad choice of terms, von. How's the hatefest over at ObiWi?

What else to call it? Crusade? Crazed agenda? I'm open.

And, unfortunately, we're still woefully without voices on the right at ObWi, as I and Sebastian (once a front pager at RedState, as I recall) apparently no longer suffice, and our comment section continues to lean hard-left despite my best efforts. Thanks for asking.

I suspect Lightweight Lugar will.

Let me choose my terms carefully here: if your position is that Lugar and Warner are "lightweights" on foreign policy, you are an idiot. You may not realize it now; you might realize it ever. But it is true. (There was a time when conservatives recognized that experience -- not to mention respect for one's elders -- was worth something.)

On the other hand, it's more likely that you're only trying to get a rise outta me.

Well, I can't speak for Erick, but "forgetting who is the Commander in Chief and undermining by speech or act his war policy" comes right to mind. We lack Thought-O-Meters like we lack Soul-O-Meters.

What poor sophistry. It is possible to criticize a policy without "forgetting who is Commander in Chief."

Well, I think any group of rational people can agree that Dick Lugar is and has been a mental lightweight for decades. As to the rest, I wasn't aware that we had one hundred cults of personality running. When did that happen?

There you go again. I'm again just going to assume you're trying to get a rise out of me, because there is no way you're this much of an idiot.

It is madness to speak ill of the Great Leaders?

I don't even know what this means.

This has to be an issue on which it's legitimate for folks to take the other side, because only the ridiculously foolish think that one approach -- be it the President's, Lugar's, Warner's, Casey's, or Petreus's -- is so obviously inerrant that folks on the other side are all-but-traitors to the cause.

I didn't see the word "traitor." Perhaps you can show me where it appears?

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to establish here, either.

But, sure, throw Lugar, Warner, and the rest under the bus.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

I fixed your comment's html.

What else to call it? Crusade? Crazed agenda? I'm open.

No, you aren't, or you wouldn't have tried out that term. Maybe "expression of disgust with an announced policy position." Or maybe even "thinly veiled ultimatum," if you prefer. But I forgot, what with your long absences, that anyone who disagrees with you is a crazy idiot.

And, unfortunately, we're still woefully without voices on the right at ObWi, as I and Sebastian (once a front pager at RedState, as I recall) apparently no longer suffice, and our comment section continues to lean hard-left despite my best efforts. Thanks for asking.

There aren't a lot of righty writers at dKos, either. Just noting.

Anyway, didn't you once qualify as the tiebreaking moderate or something? I admit that I stopped reading after the Scourging of Moe.

Let me choose my terms carefully here: if your position is that Lugar and Warner are "lightweights" on foreign policy, you are an idiot. You may not realize it now; you might realize it ever. But it is true.

Let me choose my terms carefully here: If you are incapable of distinguishing between a criticism of Dickie Lugar and a criticism of Dickie Lugar and John Warner; or if you are incapable of realizing that not everyone thinks that St. Richard is actually a foreign policy genius (given his rather thin resume and powerful ability to summarize the status quo); then you are an idiot. You will never realize it, because you are, at best, incapable of reading thoroughly, let alone conceptualizing of someone intelligent or even sane disagreeing with you (or even understanding what a conjunction is); but it is true.

(There was a time when conservatives recognized that experience -- not to mention respect for one's elders -- was worth something.)

There was also a time when conservatives felt that the word "Senator" in front of someone's name did not automatically entitle that person to a presumption of wisdom, intelligence, or gravitas. Conservatives also once recognized that young idiots turn inevitably into old idiots. Then again, you'd have to be a conservative to know that.

On the other hand, it's more likely that you're only trying to get a rise outta me.

A little from Column A, a little from Column B.

What poor sophistry. It is possible to criticize a policy without "forgetting who is Commander in Chief."

Given your comment in this thread, I'd be careful with that first sentence. As to the second, if one elects to make that criticism in certain ways, one should expect consequences. (This is the point of having "elected" officials.) Further, it is entirely possible to criticize a foreign policy without forgetting who is Commander in Chief; however, it is equally possible to criticize while doing so.

There you go again. I'm again just going to assume you're trying to get a rise out of me, because there is no way you're this much of an idiot.

I hate to share this with you -- though I admit to trying to get the rise -- but statues of Dick Lugar are not actually used as foci of worship across the land. Seriously. It's true.

I don't even know what this means.

You opened the insanity debate. I'm simply exploring it.

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to establish here, either.

Too much time in that comments section.

But, sure, throw Lugar, Warner, and the rest under the bus.

There are more efficient, less messy ways to do the job.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I fixed your comment's html.

Thanks.

No, you aren't, or you wouldn't have tried out that term. Maybe "expression of disgust with an announced policy position." Or maybe even "thinly veiled ultimatum," if you prefer. But I forgot, what with your long absences, that anyone who disagrees with you is a crazy idiot.

I don't know what's "thinly veiled" about this ultimatum, so I'll go with "profoundly unwise and unserious ultimatum."

Incidentally, not everyone who disagrees with me is a crazy idiot: some are merely crazy while others are simply idiots.

This proposal -- to withhold support for Republican Senators who speak/vote/argue/etc. against the surge, when there's (at the very least) good reason to doubt its worthiness on policy grounds -- is pure foolheadedness. The President, Erick, Hugh, and the like may very well be right that the surge is the right way to go -- but it takes a special kind of pride to so brusquely dismiss folks who have spent decades studying foreign policy issues and are rightly regarded as experts in the field (Warner has been on the Armed Services Committee since at least 1979 -- likely is longer than Erick has been able to drive).

Anyway, didn't you once qualify as the tiebreaking moderate or something? I admit that I stopped reading after the Scourging of Moe.

I used to, until the aforementioned left-hand turn in our readership. And the posts on SS reform & the Iraq war.

Let me choose my terms carefully here: If you are incapable of distinguishing between a criticism of Dickie Lugar and a criticism of Dickie Lugar and John Warner; or if you are incapable of realizing that not everyone thinks that St. Richard is actually a foreign policy genius (given his rather thin resume and powerful ability to summarize the status quo); then you are an idiot.

You don't need to think Lugar as a foreign policy genius; you can even think that his various foreign policy initiatives over the last two decades were wrongheaded. You do have to recognize that calling his resume "thin" on foreign policy, however, is untrue. You probably should educate yourself on the subject before you utter another word, or further insult a man who has been a party stalwart for longer than you've been alive. Start here (http://lugar.senate.gov/sfrc/), which will give you some indication of Lugar's foreign policy work since the mid-1980s.

I hate to share this with you -- though I admit to trying to get the rise -- but statues of Dick Lugar are not actually used as foci of worship across the land. Seriously. It's true.

As you know, I'm working to change that. I promise that the nudes will be tasteful.

There are more efficient, less messy ways to do the job.

Yes, but they're all foolish.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

I don't know what's "thinly veiled" about this ultimatum, so I'll go with "profoundly unwise and unserious ultimatum."

Ah, right. Forgot the effect of disagreeing with you.

This proposal -- to withhold support for Republican Senators who speak/vote/argue/etc. against the surge, when there's (at the very least) good reason to doubt its worthiness on policy grounds -- is pure foolheadedness.

No, it's called being a small-r republican, and a large-R Republican. We believe that our elected officials are sent to represent our views in government. When they differ from those views, we remind them of our views, and the consequence of differing from those views. We elected representatives, not philosopher kings. (We save those for the Judiciary.)

The President, Erick, Hugh, and the like may very well be right that the surge is the right way to go -- but it takes a special kind of pride to so brusquely dismiss folks who have spent decades studying foreign policy issues and are rightly regarded as experts in the field (Warner has been on the Armed Services Committee since at least 1979 -- likely is longer than Erick has been able to drive).

Kevin Phillips has been studying electoral politics since before, I believe, you were alive. Does this mean that you should defer to his judgment? (Actually, bad choice: You probably do. How about one of the Bozells? One of the Podhoretzes? The Kristols?)

I used to, until the aforementioned left-hand turn in our readership. And the posts on SS reform & the Iraq war.

Wow. Worse than I thought. (When was the that turn? Day two?)

You don't need to think Lugar as a foreign policy genius; you can even think that his various foreign policy initiatives over the last two decades were wrongheaded. You do have to recognize that calling his resume "thin" on foreign policy, however, is untrue. You probably should educate yourself on the subject before you utter another word, or further insult a man who has been a party stalwart for longer than you've been alive.

A few points:

(1) How old do you think I am?

(2) There are "party stalwarts" who have been such for longer than either of us; this does not mean that you or I should think any great deal of them for this. Indeed, we can even think them first-order fools. It is our right to do this, and our right to express this opinion of them. Principle before Party, at least for me -- and for you, when it's your hobbyhorse being ridden.

(3) I'm actually familiar with the good Senator's work. He has a profound -- nearly unmatched -- ability to restate the prevailing wisdom; to announce it and push it forward unhesitatingly; and to work within that tiny spectrum to advance semi-interesting policy positions that will never leave that spectrum. If this be genius or gravitas, we have the most powerful foreign policy tool in Human history in the United States Senate -- one hundred men and women all just like that.

And he likes cameras. Can't underrate that.

As you know, I'm working to change that. I promise that the nudes will be tasteful.

The words "nude" "Richard Lugar" and "tasteful" almost never appear in the same sentence together.

Yes, but they're all foolish.

To a hammer, the whole world is a nail.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

As a matter of fact, Hugh Hewitt definitely considers Sen. Warner's own resolution to fall within the scope of "the pledge."

Since RedState has endorsed the litmus test, will this policy lead to disabling the logins of commenters here who oppose such a pledge?

for conservatives? I'm all ears.

What kinda crazy world is this? Warner has a conservative Republican for ages; heck, he's the kind of Republican with whom I frequently disagree (and that should be an endorsement for you). Yet, because he disagrees regarding the surge and has the temerity to mention it in public -- perish the thought! -- it's "what has he done for me lately."

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Warner has a conservative Republican for ages; heck, he's the kind of Republican with whom I frequently disagree (and that should be an endorsement for you). Yet, because he disagrees regarding the surge and has the temerity to mention it in public -- perish the thought! -- it's "what has he done for me lately."

ACU ratings are our friend. A pro-choice, pro-spending, pro-tax Republican is a pretty long shot for "conservative."

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

ACU ratings are our friend. A pro-choice, pro-spending, pro-tax Republican is a pretty long shot for "conservative."

I don't know why you'd put so much stock in one organization's ratings, but you should know that Warner has a lifetime score of 81 and a 2005 score of 88 (see http://www.acuratings.org/2005all.htm#VA). By comparison, Santorum has a lifetime rating of .... 88.

I don't know exactly why you call Warner pro-choice and, given Warner's support of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, you must be simply mistaken in calling him "pro-tax". I do agee, however, that the entire Congress and the Administration has been pro-spending the last few years. Since this includes Warner, you've score a 33%. Unfortunately, that's still an F.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

I read back over what I wrote, and I saw DeWine, but not Santorum. Can you help me here?

don't know exactly why you call Warner pro-choice

Only because he does. Aside from that, no reason.

given Warner's support of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, you must be simply mistaken in calling him "pro-tax"

Wow. Good thing those are the only tax votes that have come before him.

I do agee, however, that the entire Congress and the Administration has been pro-spending the last few years.

Try "since 1996," after the Party got spanked for trying to cut spending.

Since this includes Warner, you've score a 33%. Unfortunately, that's still an F.

We don't even want to get into your grades for reading, researching, and arithmetic.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I read back over what I wrote, and I saw DeWine, but not Santorum. Can you help me here?

Chose Santorum because he's typically regarded as an arch-conservative and his ACU numbers aren't that far from Warner's.

Only because he does. Aside from that, no reason.

Where has Warner endorsed abortion? You keep on making this assertion; I assume you're basing it on some kind of evidence. What is it?

Wow. Good thing those are the only tax votes that have come before him.

I've provided evidence that Warner is not pro-tax; you're response is that you consider Warner pro-tax based on some unidentified other set of votes -- votes which are so decidedly in favor of taxes that they overwhelm Warner's support of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and entitle you to label him "pro-tax." Wonderful. Now provide some evidence to back up your slur.

We don't even want to get into your grades for reading, researching, and arithmetic.

Again with the silly insults, Thomas. But, if you slander someone -- here, a respected Republican Senator -- you should at least have the decency to provide the evidence. Otherwise, your case is not so compelling.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Chose Santorum because he's typically regarded as an arch-conservative and his ACU numbers aren't that far from Warner's.

No one here thinks that Santorum is an arch-conservative. However, I did say something about DeWine.

Where has Warner endorsed abortion? You keep on making this assertion; I assume you're basing it on some kind of evidence. What is it?

Google the man's name and "Roe v. Wade." And that's the last research I'm doing for you.

I've provided evidence that Warner is not pro-tax; you're response is that you consider Warner pro-tax based on some unidentified other set of votes -- votes which are so decidedly in favor of taxes that they overwhelm Warner's support of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and entitle you to label him "pro-tax." Wonderful. Now provide some evidence to back up your slur.

I don't feel like reliving the Clinton years. (Funny that being pro-choice isn't a slur, huh?)

Again with the silly insults, Thomas.

Now, von, you're the one who went with the tired failing-grade shot. You can't complain about the discourse when you open the door.

But, if you slander someone -- here, a respected Republican Senator -- you should at least have the decency to provide the evidence. Otherwise, your case is not so compelling.

I'm again intrigued that you consider being pro-tax so awful that is merits the terms "slur" and "slander," but being "pro-choice" not so. I guess an increase in the marginal rate is really that much worse than a dead child.

But anyway, I'll say what I want of a Republican Senator, any time I feel like it, regardless of how "respected" or long his tenure. Principle before Party.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Where has Warner endorsed abortion? You keep on making this assertion; I assume you're basing it on some kind of evidence. What is it?

Google the man's name and "Roe v. Wade." And that's the last research I'm doing for you.

OK. First, searched "John Warner Abortion" on Google. From http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_Warner.htm, received the following overview:

Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Rated 21% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)

Some of that undoubtably bothers you, but it doesn't support (indeed, directly contradicts) your statement that Warner is pro-abortion.

But I expect that you're cleverer than that, and that you wouldn't simply lie. So I did your preferred search: "John Warner 'Roe v. Wade.'" And thereby found the evidence that you must be relying upon: Warner voted for the Harkin Amendment when he voted to ban partial birth abortions, which was a sense of the Senate resolution stating that Roe v. Wade should not be repealed. Voting "no" on the Amendment was, of course, Harry Reid -- and we know that you're a huge fan of his.

I would have been much more persuasive if you simply stated from the get-go that you're no fan of Warner because he's indicated that he believes Roe is settled law. Instead, we get:

Google the man's name and "Roe v. Wade." And that's the last research I'm doing for you.

Which is, of course, very persuasive, particularly since it would have been such tremendous work to simply cite this vote while candided acknowledging that Warner has voted to impose substantial restrictions on abortion. But why should you care about things like being persuasive or candid? It's not like you're a lawyer or something, and know better ....

I don't feel like reliving the Clinton years. (Funny that being pro-choice isn't a slur, huh?)

You know my position on both RvW (I think it should be overruled) and abortion (I will not agree to a total ban). So I don't know what points you think you'll score here.

Of course, had you been candid in your reference to Warner and abortion, you would have pursuaded me to agree with at least one of your dings against the man. But why try to persuade, when you can keep your arguments evidence free?

Now, von, you're the one who went with the tired failing-grade shot. You can't complain about the discourse when you open the door.

Fair is fair, I suppose.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

I'll accordingly make this short.

Warner has, on several sense of the Senate moments, affirmed his belief that Roe is the settled law of the land and should not be overturned. His campaigns have made it a point to avoid pro-lifers like the plague. Both of these things are public record.

You may make of that what you will. In fact, you already have.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

We are instituting mandatory common sense and IQ batteries that must produce an average score of 100.

Given your non-sequitur, it's clear that you're flirting with offering yourself as a test subject. Am I correct?

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I don't know what kind of agenda is being pushed here post-acquisition -- nor do I really want to know -- but I don't see any utility whatsoever in you playing enforcer, Thomas. Among other things, your insults lack bite. ("We are instituting mandatory common sense and IQ batteries that must produce an average score of 100"? Is there some reason to limit participation in RedState to cyborgs?)

If you want to purge those long-time commentators who fail to toe the RedState line -- which, more and more, is not the party line -- just do it. You'll soon get the echo chamber that you seem to want.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

But you'll pardon me if someone whose whopping contribution to this discussion is to ask about banning policy -- someone whom I have, probably to my regret, not banned -- is not our ideal poster; and you'll further pardon me, I hope, if I express that.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I gather that you are referring to my brief comment above. If so, I don't think you characterize it accurately.

An earlier commenter had inquired if "the pledge" was intended to include Sen. Warner, and I provided a matter-of-fact link showing that the answer to this question was yes. I think that was a "contribution to this discussion."

To this, I did append my question about how this new RedState litmus test would affect the banning policy. And I learned that in your view, the very act of asking that polite question would put a commenter at risk of being banned.

...out of the clear blue, and asked for what reasons you might spank your child, with your child right next to you, would you then give them the time of day? I'd tell them to get lost.

Similarly, your rude, off-topic interjection earned a get-lost.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I don't know what kind of agenda is being pushed here post-acquisition

None.

nor do I really want to know

Good.

but I don't see any utility whatsoever in you playing enforcer, Thomas.

...which would be such a change from the last two and change years.

Among other things, your insults lack bite.

Hey, I have to do this stuff all year. Sometimes I give the A material. Sometimes, you guys get stuck with the B stuff.

We are instituting mandatory common sense and IQ batteries that must produce an average score of 100"? Is there some reason to limit participation in RedState to cyborgs?

If I could get the average of IQ and common sense from our trolls and one-shot artists to 100 -- or even to what cyborgs register -- I would probably explode and die from sheer joy.

If you want to purge those long-time commentators who fail to toe the RedState line -- which, more and more, is not the party line -- just do it. You'll soon get the echo chamber that you seem to want.

As a rule of thumb, this sort of head-shaking, finger-wagging stern disapproval from someone who almost never comments here is reserved for when someone is actually banned.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

As a rule of thumb, this sort of head-shaking, finger-wagging stern disapproval from someone who almost never comments here is reserved for when someone is actually banned.

There was a time in which there were multiple posts on the front page with which I agreed. Now, it's more frequent that I see stuff on the front page that makes me wince, such as this effort. You have Republican congressmen and women whom RedState is actively trying to defeat because they've allegedly taken the wrong side on an issue that's highly debatable. That seems to be an exceedingly poor idea from any number of perspectives, not the least of which is the seriousness with which the electorate is likely to regard Republicans in general and this website in particular.

So, yes, I've held my tongue and not commented as much because there's very little point to do so: RedState seems intent on driving the Republican party off a cliff, while insulting me (and folks like me) at the same time. You can't win elections without moderates, however.

There's no point to register disagreement, so I'll save my disagreements for the truly boneheaded moves -- like this one. I shouldn't have to say this to a website named "RedState" but: Stop frontpaging a move aimed at making Republicans lose elections. Hugh Hewitt is neither a Republican nor military strategist. There are good reasons for this, including his latest effort.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

There was a time in which there were multiple posts on the front page with which I agreed. Now, it's more frequent that I see stuff on the front page that makes me wince, such as this effort.

The fact that you wince at it convinces me we are on the right track.

You have Republican congressmen and women whom RedState is actively trying to defeat because they've allegedly taken the wrong side on an issue that's highly debatable.

Gee, von, we do the same when in comes to taxes, spending, and abortion. This is a political site, we are about electing people who conform to certain policies. Just because some fraud like Olympia Snowe, or the late and unlamented Linc Chafee, styles themselves a Republican doesn't mean we necessarily want them in office.

That seems to be an exceedingly poor idea from any number of perspectives, not the least of which is the seriousness with which the electorate is likely to regard Republicans in general and this website in particular.

Thanks for the concern. We'll take it under advisement.

So, yes, I've held my tongue and not commented as much because there's very little point to do so: RedState seems intent on driving the Republican party off a cliff, while insulting me (and folks like me) at the same time.

Mighty big of you, too bad you broke the pattern.

You can't win elections without moderates, however.

And you can't win with them. You certainly can't win with them in policy making positions.

Hugh Hewitt is neither a Republican nor military strategist.

Neither is Chuck Hagel or Carl Levin or Joe Biden.

Really, von, if all this is so abhorrent to you why don't you scurry back over to some place more amenable to your lack of conviction?

The fact that you wince at it convinces me we are on the right track.

I suspected I'd get that reaction when I wrote it.

Gee, von, we do the same when in comes to taxes, spending, and abortion. This is a political site, we are about electing people who conform to certain policies. Just because some fraud like Olympia Snowe, or the late and unlamented Linc Chafee, styles themselves a Republican doesn't mean we necessarily want them in office.

That's your choice, but, if implemented, it will cause Republicans to be a minority party for a long time to come. (Chafee is a special exception; he should've just switched sides.)

Really, von, if all this is so abhorrent to you why don't you scurry back over to some place more amenable to your lack of conviction?

Because, in general, I would like Republicans to win elections. Although this Administration has been something of an aberration, historically, Republicans have been more right than Democrats on taxes, national defense, and the size of government. Republicans are the only one who might enact the kind of SS and tort reform I favor. Republicans are likely to appoint Judges who show more restraint in their judicial philosophy and stand closer to the actual Constitutional text. And Republicans have been surer votes on free trade than Democrats (Clinton's admirable conversion on the issue notwithstanding).

Finally, it's frankly bizarre that Thomas (rightly) critizes me for my intemperate expression of my firm convictions (i.e., his comment about how I treat everyone who disagrees with me as a "crazy idiot") while you assert that I "lack ... conviction." Indeed, it seems that there's a degree of projection going on.

I was in favor of more troops before it was cool, and was criticized on this site and others for that. Now that those criticisms are shown valid and the Administration concedes that more troops are need, it goes for a half measure that is unlikely to get the job done and which probably comes too late anyway -- particularly since Iraq's current PM seems intent on consolidating Shia power in Iraq rather than consolidating Iraq the nation. I (and others) express doubts about the wisdom of the current plan. Given the admitted past errors of the Administration on this subject, the fact that the surge seems to contain 50,000 troops too few, and the fact that the Administration itself seems to have belatedly agreed that our past criticisms were right, one would expect that we would be given a modicrum of respect this time around. But, of course, we're wrong again. We also "lack ... conviction" because we have the temerity to want to make sure that the policies that do get enacted are winning ones.

If there's a particular conviction that's guiding your effort, please let me know, because all I see here is a spirited defense of the Administration at all costs. It's not clear whether that is in either the nation's or the Republican party's best interests.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

"You can't win elections without moderates, however."

And you can't win with them. You certainly can't win with them in policy making positions.

One of the best political observations I've seen in a long time! A lesson I hope more Republicans take to heart!

I mean, we've run through military tendencies, abortion voting patterns, and positions on tax cuts -- all of which you seem to think will doom the Republican Party to being a minority party for decades. (I suppose if they adopt your positions, we can have those principled Republicans who were in the minority all but four of the forty-eight years from 1932 to 1980, and who incidentally voted for everything the Democrats wanted, but just not so much.) If you eliminate a hawkish military, tax cuts, and opposition to most legalized abortion, you've just gutted the modern Republican Party. Why, then, would you want Republicans? Why not Democrats? Why not Greens? Why not anyone, in fact?

Anyway:

There was a time in which there were multiple posts on the front page with which I agreed. Now, it's more frequent that I see stuff on the front page that makes me wince, such as this effort.

John Cole felt it would be better to vote for Democrats. Sorry. Now he can continue to support the pork-barrelling and nanny-statism of Senator Highway and Congressman Corrupt to his heart's content. I think you know where to find his work.

You have Republican congressmen and women whom RedState is actively trying to defeat because they've allegedly taken the wrong side on an issue that's highly debatable. That seems to be an exceedingly poor idea from any number of perspectives, not the least of which is the seriousness with which the electorate is likely to regard Republicans in general and this website in particular.

As streiff noted, and as others have pointed out, we're a bunch of conservatives. It is our job to drive primary results a certain way, and then to be, where possible, Good Republicans in the General. (It may surprise you to find out that all sorts of well-regarded conservative groups do this and even -- surprise! -- sometimes do not vote for Republicans in the general. It's true. Cross my heart.)

So, yes, I've held my tongue and not commented as much because there's very little point to do so: RedState seems intent on driving the Republican party off a cliff, while insulting me (and folks like me) at the same time. You can't win elections without moderates, however.

Unfortunately, you can't win if you aim your appeal directly at them, either. Sorry. (By the way, when you have some time, assuming you have unlimited access to Lexis or Westlaw, do a little digging to see how many times "driving the GOP off a cliff" or the equivalent was used in connection with Reagan or Goldwater. Be amazed.)

Stop frontpaging a move aimed at making Republicans lose elections. Hugh Hewitt is neither a Republican nor military strategist. There are good reasons for this, including his latest effort.

Hugh Hewitt is the closest thing to a water-carrying conservative the Republican Party is likely to find in this generation or the next. If they have him dissenting, they have issues.

(By the way, when I last checked, Hugh was still a registered Republican.)

von, not to get all snippy here, but on this entire comments board, there is a single fellow who can lay a claim to being a military strategist, and it is neither you nor I. If we're going to make that a baseline for going after Senators on the basis of their policy positions, you and I are both going to have to shut up, and let streiff take this issue by the horns. I assure you, he's willing to do so. (I, however, value civilian control of the military.)

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

So I'll just respond to this:

I mean, we've run through military tendencies, abortion voting patterns, and positions on tax cuts -- all of which you seem to think will doom the Republican Party to being a minority party for decades.

I don't know that we've run through any of these things* (certainly not on this thread). I do think that your and Streiff's preferred Republican platform, if actually run upon, will doom the party to minority status.

von

*I do recall mentioning that I generally favor tax cuts, want a limited government, and would prefer that Roe v. Wade be overruled. Obviously, we diverge in part on the issue of whether abortion should be made wholly illegal. And I think that the Iraq war has been terribly managed, although that says nothing about my views on "military posture" in general.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

actually George Casey was in favor of more troops while John Abizaid was not.

And I know the corps commander in Baghdad wants more troops. And I know the Chairman of the JCS wanted more troops.

But even assuming for the sake of argument that there was truth in your statement are you saying that the earlier strategy was working from a political perspective? Don't you think the president, who is the commander in chief, has the right to exercise that command?

As to the "fifth tour" that may be true. But what do you propose? A military that will only fight for one or two tours? Or do you want a military that doesn't fight at all? Or maybe you'd like a rotation policy like we had in WW II where units deployed OCONUS in 1942 and didn't return until to 1946. They only served one tour.

He has explained why it would work when he proposed it. You simply don't agree with him. Your privilege, of course.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Oh yes, comparing Red State with a suicide cult. Very useful and non-insulting to your hosts.

Run like Reagan!