Thanks to "Berry's World" for this item. I'd heard it referred to last night, but didn't have the exact quotes:

It's not often that I repost BRAD BLOG comments here as their own item.

But in honor of the nutty Zell Miller's jump to the Republican Party tonight, it seems only "Fair and Balanced" to highlight a spot-on comment from a Republican, or at least somebody who was one up until George W. Bush and his Theocrats came along and hijacked the party. Teddy was once a proud member of the GOP. However, unlike the whacky "cross-dressing" Senator Miller who will give the RNC keynote tonight, Teddy is anything but nutty.

In an attempted bi-partisan spirit, I highlighted his excellent "Bull Moose Forum" blog earlier today. I realize that this would be two pops in one day, but when one chances upon that rarest of creatures --- an intellectually honest Republican --- it seems only proper to give him his due. Especially in this fierce, Crazy World we seem to now live in.

Teddy was replying to Paul's parrot about the GOP's "Big Tent" sham on this item concerning the hypocrisy of Dubya's several flip-flops over the last two days about being able to win, and then not win, and then win the "War on Terror".

Paul is one of the BRAD BLOG's notably intellectually dishonest fake conservatives slash Bush suck-ups slash GOP apologists for those of you who may not bother to read the comments.

Here's Teddy's on-the-money reply:

Keep up the good fight, Teddy. Your party and country will thank you some day. The BRAD BLOG goes ahead and thanks you now.

We also thank Paul for his contributions here, making the difference between your father's GOP, and George W. Bush's GOP painfully clearer each and every day.

The Republican Party had the entire United States of America from whom to chose their nominee for the US Senate seat in Illinois. Demonstrating quite clearly the kind of party they are, they chose Alan Keyes. From Maryland.

On Tuesday, Keyes called the "Vice-President's" lesbian daughter Mary Cheney, a "selfish hedonist" apparently solely because of her sexual identity.

He did both that, and took a swipe at married couples who either can't, or choose not to have children all in one fell Republican swoop.

Said Mr. Keyes in a satellite radio interview this week:

So there ya go. You folks in the "married state" out there who have no children, are apparently "selfish hedonists" along with lesbian Mary Cheney. You, like those homosexuals who'd like to simply be recognized as a legitimate American family seem to have an "improper basis" for your marriage according to your party's national pick for the U.S. Senate.

Bush/Cheney '04: What's not to be proud of?

FOX News Primetime Convention Speech Coverage

Courtesy of Media Matters

Teddy, the erstwhile BRAD BLOG commentor and author of the excellent "Bull Moose Forum", a right leaning blog in the true TR/Conservative sense (as opposed to the "Fake Conservative" nonsense one often sees parrotted in comments from the Right on this blog and elsewhere) has an excellent analysis of last night's speech by the Governator.

Using quotes from William Saletan's Slate commentary today on why Republicans like him, should reject George W. Bush, Teddy points out that there is no "Big Tent" in the Republican party. No matter the smoke and mirrors they haul out every four years to appear as though they are either "compassionate" or "conservative".

Of note, along with his own insight and analysis, Teddy ran these quotes from the Slate story:

On the nosey, my boy. And this one...

Right again. And, as the Bush daughters might say, "it's like, provenly knowable!"

I've heard it suggested of late by several Conservative commentators that the real reason the RNC has chosen to give all of their primetime speaking slots to their largely Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay, Anti-Gun superstars like McCain, Schwarzzeneger, Guliani etc., is because they are the most popular Republicans in America.

So can someone please explain to me how so many of the Neandercons can keep a straight face when they keep trying to tell us that they and the policies they support are the "Mainstream" beliefs in America?

In other words, the most popular Republican Leaders in the country are the ones who wholly disagree with a bulk of the Republican Platform, most of the Ditto Heads, all of the Freepers, and certainly George W. Bush on issue after issue after issue.

Isn't that proof-in-the-very pudding that in reality, it is George W. Bush and his Rightwing Gang of Theo-Neo-Neadner-cons who are the real outside fringe minority group in this country?

I'm just askin'.

"Franklin Roosevelt didn't want to go to war, but he knew defeating tyranny demanded it. And my husband didn't want to go to war, but he knew the safety and security of America and the world depended on it."
- Laura Bush at tonight's RNC Convention on the Iraq War.

FDR and George W. Bush. Yes! Exactly what all of America is thinking! Two peas in a pod those two! Last night he was Churchill and tonight he's FDR!

Abe Lincoln spins in his grave in anticipation of tomorrow night's speeches! But, I digress...

Can anybody here demonstrate a single shred of evidence to support Laura's contention that her "husband didn't want to go to war" in Iraq?

While you're at it, I'll take any shred of evidence that "the safety and security of America and the world depended on it".

Anybody?

Doing a few code tweaks in the background! May cause an error or two momentarily! Please ignore!

Blog should be usable as always despite the possible error messages!
Apologies for any inconveniences!

Brad the Fisherman!

Brad the Tree Hugger!

Brad the Fireside Blogger!

...And a few other photos from our recent Pacific Northwest Road Trip now available online for those who may care.

So said Virginia's Republican US Congressman, Edward L. Schrock when trying to change Clinton's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. Schrock, in October of 2000, told the Virginia-Pilot the he supported asking enlistees whether they have had homosexual experiences in an effort to try to keep gays from serving.

Yesterday, Schrock suddenly dropped out of his race for a third term in Congress due to unspecified "allegations", and now the Republicans are scrambling to find a replacement to run for what had been considered a safe seat.

What were those unspecified "allegations"? That the Married with Child "conservative" US congressman lived a double life as a gay man and tapes existed of him cruising gay phone lines for sex.

Still waiting for the "Liberal" media to give the same type of coverage to the story as they did to McGreevy. Have a feeling we'll be waiting for a while.

As has been pointed out by Josh Marshall and several others, imagine if it was Kerry who said about the "War on Terror" that "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world –- let's put it that way."

Think about it. What if John Kerry had said that yesterday in a speech?

Do you suppose the Republicans, and therefore their handmaidens in the Media, would condemn John Kerry for saying "we can't win the war on terror"? That this war is not about "creating conditions" to make terror "less acceptable in parts of the world"? That it's about defeating and destroying the enemy. Period! And only George W. Bush is strong enough to understand that!

Can you imagine what would have been said about John Kerry capitulating to the terrorists?!

Well, it was Bush who said it. Not Kerry. And so he and his spinners have been out all day trying to spin themselves out of this mess, even though the Media has done little to hold Bush accountable for his statements. None the less, he realizes he screwed up when he was interviewed, as one of his spinners described it, "on a moving bus". (That can be horribly confusing you know!)

But when Dubya shows up on Rush's show, as he did today, you know Dubya realizes he needs to staunch some heavy bleeding.

The hardball interview with Rush (yes, that would be "irony" for those of you Right Wingers not familiar with the concept) included this lie from Bush:

So exactly how was Saddam "systematically deceiving inspectors"? How is it, that with no arms in the first place, as we've since discovered, Saddam had "no intention of disarming"?

I, personally, refuse --- no matter what the rules are about it --- to give up my Assault Rifle to the Authorities! Trouble is, I don't have an Assault Rifle. According to the practicalities of the "Bush Doctrine", it sounds like someone needs to throw me in jail!

It's amazing how the "Commander-in-Chief" can lie and the media says and does nothing about it. But a War Hero can tell the truth, and he's held accountable and charged with lying by the same media.

There is no more 4th Estate. There is no more investigative journalism. There are only sychophants who repeat the Press Releases of those in power. And those, like Rush and Bush, who complain about the Free Speech of Americans as expressed through the legal 30 second ads of 527's even while they have 24 hours a day of 30 seconds ads around the clock, on every radio (and virtually every television) frequency in the land where they can express any and every lie they feel like. Over and over again.

But take heart America Lovers! Don't be cowed by liars, sycophants and spinners! As Bush might cynically say, whereas I actually mean it; Have faith that Good will triumph over Evil. It will. There is no doubt. I just hope it happens by November 2nd.

Today, George W. Bush told Matt Lauer on Today that the "War on Terror" cannot be won.

Actually, he said "I don't think you can win it". Here's the exact transcript:

Not being able to win this "war" is a new position for Bush who has said over and over that "we will win" it.

As recently as July 30th of this year he said in Springfield, MO., "We have a clear vision on how to win the war on terror and bring peace to the world."

And yet that's not what he said on the bush to Matt. So the rest of the day Team Bush went apoplectic contorting to explain that Bush didn't really mean we couldn't win the war on terror...he was...referring to something else. To not being able to win, because there is nobody available to sign a surrender document. But other than that, we'll win. Or something.

They said a lot. They apologized a lot. They spun and danced and twisted and flip-flopped. Even McCain and Guiliani had to change their speeches to try and make sense of the torturued logic and apparent lack of clarity from the "Commander-in-Chief" they tell us should be re-"elected" due to his "clarity of vision". Or something.

Much was said. I'll let you go and figure out how they're now trying to spin it. Spinning is what they do well.

The statement (and I not only read it, but saw it several times) seemed very clear to me, but the Bushies say it wasn't. Bottom line: Apparently, it all depends on what the meaning of "it" is.

Go figure.