Carol Platt Liebau: Feingold's a Fraud

Monday, December 19, 2005

Feingold's a Fraud

As Hugh Hewitt points out, Russ Feingold seemed to think that the President had plenty of "inherent powers" as Commander in Chief back when Congress authorized him to take all necessary actions to respond to 9/11.

What a difference four years without attacks -- and a presidential bid -- make.

17 Comments:

Blogger Greg said...

President Bush said it best today in response to yet another bogus attack by the MSM and the Democrats:

"I've reauthorized this program more than 30 times since September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill our American citizens."

The Dems have no answer to bold leadership. That's why Reagan cleaded their clocks. That's why Bush has and will do the same!

11:05 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

Another excellent point was made today by John McIntyre at Real Clear Politics:

"...the White House’s initial response is a pretty powerful signal that they aren’t afraid of where this is heading."

11:27 AM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

"...the White House’s initial response is a pretty powerful signal that they aren’t afraid of where this is heading."

No, it's because they're eager to refocus everyone's attention on the mystical Bush "swagger," what they call "walking" in Texas. The concocted image of the swaggering cowboy who, to boot, is a vigilante who smugly flouts the liberal, girly-man Geneva Convention and the United States Constitution.

This image plays well in Peoria where everyone is tuned out of what is really going on in their country, counter to their economic interests and right under their noses. Instead, the herd is prodded to the polls by homophobia and xenophobia to the steady drumbeat of 9/11.

With all the scandals swirling around this administration, why not get everyone to focus on the one that plays the macho vigilante card?

4:46 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Let's let Feingold speak for himself. "This is just an outrageous power grab. Nobody, nobody, thought when we passed a resolution to invade Afghanistan and to fight the war on terror, including myself who voted for it, thought that this was an authorization to allow a wiretapping against the law of the United States."

What evidence do you have that Russ Feingold actually believed that by voting to invade Afghanistan he was voting to let the President violate the law of the land and vitiate the fourth amendment to the Constitution? What evidence do you have that any sitting member of Congress felt that way at the time?

Lacking such evidence Carol, it is clear who the fraud is here. (No, not Hugh Heiwtt, he's merely a self-righteous blowhard addicted to the sound of his own voice.)

7:58 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

Hi all,

Unfortunately, I am brand new here. I have heard the proprietor of this blog on Hugh's show, and I thought that she comported herself well. I hate to annoy her by feeding any known trolls; but hey, I do not know any better. :)

To the probable troll "Duke..." (or leftist nut, whatever): I read your "comment" and it makes damn little sense. If any Bush swagger is mystical what is the origin of your problem with it? Doesn't that mean you do not think it really exists (or do you have a spookier meaning)? Bush has had an epiphany that you likely can't comprehend. The previous swagger of a talented rich young man (that I have no doubt that he had) is history. Even if he never had a religious epiphany, I would still respect him. The lame frat-boy argument works so much better on most liberals. How many liberals mastered flying a fighter plane?

I recently argued with an unfortunately ill-equipped young woman about her contention (pretty much the only thing that she revealed on her Yahoo profile) that Bush was an idiot. I have always been a registered independent, but always a conservative because I am reasonably intelligent. I probably won't do it again, but I made a very reasonable argument that calling Bush an idiot flies in the face of some very easily found facts which make it a very hard position to support. I suppose that I overestimated the potential for reason even if this gal was intellectually challenged. Her retort was that all of her other lemming friends found my arguments humorous. I made it clear that I am no genius, but I have degrees in physics. I graduated from the U of C as an undergrad. At least when I graduated from there it was respected as a reasonably elite school (not really as respected as those attended by Bush, but did I mention that I have degrees in physics! :) ).

I have always thought it very humorous when people use the quote from the Princess Bride where it is said that I do not think that the word that you use means what you think it does (or whatever the exact quote is). I think that too many on the Left have a similar lack of knowing even how to have an argument. Most can't make any cogent argument at all, so they punt immediately with an expletive or other ad hominem attack.

I have argued elsewhere on the blogosphere that I am worried that this is not really healthy. If the "loyal opposition" reneges on their role completely (which they have in my opinion), then they need to be replaced. Like most conservatives, I am concerned when radical change is possibly imminent. I think that we still have some time since so many supposed Republicans are not at all conservative, but I do not see the radical Democrat party as currently configured getting power back. That would be truly dangerous, and I think that most people know that. Still, a reasonable opposition party must evolve eventually.

Mike

P.S. How did homophobia get in the rant? Also I ask, what Bush administration scandals? Impeach him. I dare you and your ilk.

9:25 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Mike wrote:

"To the probable troll 'Duke...' (or leftist nut, whatever):"

"I have always been a registered independent, but always a conservative because I am reasonably intelligent."

"this gal was intellectually challenged"

"all of her other lemming friends"

Mike, what exactly do you think the phrase "ad hominem attack" means? Thank you for a truly content-free first post.

You fizzycysts sure is smart.

10:20 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

It has yet to be seen whether Bush violated the law with his wiretaps. So far it's lookin' like he didn't. So Feingold is lying. The powergrab comment rings hollow as well coming from a member of the powergrabbing Democratic Party.

11:32 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

Hi Twister,

Thanks for your help, but I definitely know what an ad hominem attack is. Could calling me a fizzycyst (that took me longer than it should have, but in my defense it is late and I am not used to concocted words to be cute) and impugning my intelligence count? I will leave it to intellects such as yours to decide, since it is your wont apparently.

As to content-free, I never claimed to be like the folks at Powerline or others. I just give my opinion and anecdotes as I see fit. Perhaps suspecting someone might be a troll or nut because his post makes no sense seems harsh to you, but then I recall that you said that Hugh Hewitt was a self-righteous blowhard (nowhere near the mark in my opinion). My advice is that maybe political arguments might not be suited to people with your sensitivities.

Mike

P.S. You changed the meaning entirely by only writing a fragment of this sentence: "I suppose that I overestimated the potential for reason even if this gal was intellectually challenged." Anyone who encounters someone who purports something which an informed intelligent person knows to be drivel suspects that they could be dealing with someone who is just not very bright. I did not claim that she was by the full sentence listed above, and I think it ridiculous that you edited it to twist its meaning.

Is hating Bush your chief characteristic? It was apparently for the young woman whom I contacted. I found it extremely odd, which is why I wrote her. I did not anticipate that it would go any other way than it did, but I was still disappointed that she showed no interest in any reasonable discussion.

P.P.S. Your problem with: "I have always been a registered independent, but always a conservative because I am reasonably intelligent." is interesting. Maybe you could claim a bit of hubris on my part, but how is it an attack?

12:53 AM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

Mike, I too am baffled by the hundreds of words you have managed to string together that somehow fail to make any point, other than Bush having some sort of epiphany, that most liberals haven't mastered flying a fighter jet, and that you have a degree in physics.

In my post that apparently inspired you to begin writing the first chapter of your bio, I was merely pointing out why the Bush administration has no fear of where this wire-tapping story is going. They (his handlers) are so beleaguered by scandals and the fruits of his hubris that they are eager to return to the emotional touchstones that keep his base united: 9/11, homos wanting to get married, and the image of the swaggering rancher, replete with his big Ford truck rambling across the non-ranch set his campaign bought so he could look like an "everyman" on the way to do some "show-chopping" of some cedars and mesquite for the cameras. (Dianne Feinstein is as much of a rancher as he is.)

These are the things he most relies on when the ugly details of his incompetence and arrogant greed start to see the light of day. His handlers have long known that the U.N. and the Geneva Conventions don't poll very well in the heartland, especially when they are portrayed as obstacles to American imperialism. So why not add the U.S. Constitution to the list of silly constructs that are meant to be defied when they are inconvenient?

The Toby Keiths of America won't take the time to think it through. They'll just pump their fists in the air and whoop it up for the macho vigilante.

7:40 AM  
Blogger Pete said...

OmiGod, duke - I gotta apologize! Here I thought you were a harmless fuzzball of a socialist, when in fact you are a nut case communist! Can you ever forgive me?

Your remark on American imperialism was the givaway that helped me wake up. Better late than never, eh? Lead on, Mr. Lenin.

7:51 AM  
Blogger COPioneer said...

Mike, I think you are doing a fine job here. As we conservatives know, #1. the Democrats only care about their power, and don't really care about defending our freedom. #2. Bush let Clinton off by not investigating the Chinese Communists funding of his campaigns. #3. The only way the Democrats feel they can get power is by frivolous indictments that gum up the system and cost tax payer money. And #4. Name calling is the liberals only strategy in these blog debates.
Merry Christmas!

8:49 AM  
Blogger COPioneer said...

Oh yeah, Mr. Twister/Duke-stir/et. al. Honestly, what do you think Kerry would have done to Iraq, border security, taxes, or oval office carpeting if he had won? Do you think that Iraq would now be a democracy? And about civil liberties, have yours been infringed upon by conservatives? And how?

8:57 AM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Mike write, "Thanks for your help, but I definitely know what an ad hominem attack is."

I sincerely doubt that, Mike, as you continue, "Could calling me a fizzycyst (that took me longer than it should have, but in my defense it is late and I am not used to concocted words to be cute) and impugning my intelligence count?"

No, because by definition (which you claim you "definitely know") I would only be engaging in ad hominem attack, if I said mean things about you to advance an unrelated argument (actually to impugn your witness on an unrelated matter).

It is clear from my post, I said a mean thing about you for no reason other than to jape at your intellectual pretense. I found it funny that you would claim all liberals have is ad hominem while engaging in the same yourself.

8:13 PM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

Mike said... "The previous swagger of a talented rich young man (that I have no doubt that he had) is history. Even if he never had a religious epiphany, I would still respect him."

I belatedly realized that you thought I was referring to Bush's behavior as a "rich young man." I'm sorry, but that would be "stagger."

What I was referring to is his current "swagger," what he himself alluded to during last year's nomination acceptance speech when he joked that "in Texas, they call it walking." This swagger is not only the result of his delusions of competence but also the knowledge that due to his purported epiphany, he has God on his side and can do just as the kings of old did: anything he wants. (Including riding in fighter planes to victory celebrations.)

10:05 PM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

Kirkill wrote...
"The only way the Democrats feel they can get power is by frivolous indictments that gum up the system and cost tax payer money."

Let's see now, whose playbook does that sound like? How much time and money did Ken Starr spend? And to what end? Hmmm.

10:28 PM  
Blogger Bachbone said...

In answer to the question about the results of Starr's investigations: Monica Lewinsky cooperated with prosecutors and avoided perjury charges; Susan McDougal, James McDougal, William Marks, Sr., Stephen Smith, Neal Ainley, Larry Kuca, Jim Guy Tucker, Christopher Wade, Robert Palmer, Webster Hubbell, John Haley, David Hale, Eugene Fitzhugh, Charles Matthews, and John Latham were all convicted (Hale, Fitzhugh, Matthews and Latham's convictions came after Starr had resigned). And, oh, yes...Bill Clinton was found guilty of Contempt of Court for lying under oath (i.e., perjury), had his law license suspended, and impeached by the House of Representatives.

10:03 AM  
Blogger Pete said...

Thanks for the refresher, Bachbone. Terrible what loss of memory can do. I am glad you remembered all these names from Clinton's "most honorable administration" of the last century. "Honorable?" Riiiight!!!

Scumbags - as are those who blindly defend them!

5:49 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google