I hope SAAB will build some parts for that Airbus-Grumman tanker plane, like they do for Airbus civilian aircrafts.
Anyway, I like McCain more and more for each day. He seems to have the best ideas for improving US foreign policies, and the most realistic ideas for immigration and trade.
"Batman is only meaningful as an answer to a world which in its basics is chaotic and in the hands of the wrong people, where no justice can be found. I think it's very suitable to our perception of the world's condition today... Batman embodies the will to resist evil" -Frank Miller
"Conan, what's the meaning of life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!" -Conan the Barbarian
"Well, yeah." -Jason E. Perkins
"If I had a dime for every time Pariah was right about something I'd owe twenty cents." -Ultimate Jaburg53
"Fair enough. I defer to your expertise." -Prometheus
what did Hagee say that was anti-american? i'm not saying he did or didnt, i just havent read anything about it. whomod seems to compare him to wright.
Significantly, after previous bitter rivalry, Romney began campaigning for MCain this week.
I admire Romney's ability to overcome differences and rally the Republican party. His expertise on economic matters can only enhance McCain's ability and appeal.
As one half of the general election campaign moves into full swing, John McCain is launching his most focused effort yet to define his persona for voters, projecting the steadfast image of a patriot and selfless commander in trying times.
McCain launched his first general election ad Friday, in which a baritone narrator describes the Arizona senator as “the American president Americans have been waiting for.” The ad shows images of McCain when he was a POW imprisoned in Vietnam, and it begins with campaign clips of McCain telling voters “stay strong” and “do not yield.”
Next week McCain kicks off his “Service to America Tour,” a week-long biographical swing through Mississippi, Virginia, Maryland, Florida and Arizona, highlighting locales that have played defining moments in his life and that showcase his service to his country.
With that lifetime of experience we keep hearing that John McCain has, you'd think he'd know better than to let Osama Bin Laden set the terms of the battle and choose the battle site. But, like Bush, that's what McCain has done:
If there's one thing that we know Osama Bin laden is good (and experienced) at, it's bankrupting superpowers by entangling them in endless war.
a link from a liberal site that twists the facts. it must be true!
How were the facts twisted? (Seriously, go ahead. Give me sources that proves this article wrong.) Or is it just because it's a liberal site, it must automatically be false?
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Matt probably doesn't realize who David Brock is. He's the guy that runs Hillary Clinton's "Media Matters" site.
Again, because an uber-liberal says it, it's automatically false?
Or is it just because any article from any biased source is suspect, regardless of allegiance?
If that's the case, what do you suggest we do, not post anything from any site with biases and agendas? That would make a hell of a lot of websites and newspapers off-limits.
Go ahead, gimme an answer. I want to learn the ways of the Source and be an RKMBer like my original ID before me.
Oh, I'm also invoking the G-Man Doctrine, wherein it states that a question mark at the end of a comment means I'm just raising a question instead of actually making a claim.
This is not vengeance. This is pun-ishment.
"The goodness of the true pun is in the direct ratio of its intolerability." — Edgar Allan Poe
What happened to the good ol' breakings when posters were driven into a fit of foaming frenzy until they posted three-page monologues cursing everything under the sky and wishing the worst sorts of agonies on everyone?
If a post like mine is all it takes to consider someone broken, bsams, your low standards take all the fun out of the game.
Anyway, back to my point. So who can we use as a legitimate source, since everyone from Tom Broke-aw to Daryl269 from some blog is now suspect?
This is not vengeance. This is pun-ishment.
"The goodness of the true pun is in the direct ratio of its intolerability." — Edgar Allan Poe
Matt probably doesn't realize who David Brock is. He's the guy that runs Hillary Clinton's "Media Matters" site.
...as well as being a conservative journalist during the 1990s. During that time he was best known for his book The Real Anita Hill and authoring the Troopergate story, which led to Paula Jones filing a lawsuit against Bill Clinton. He tells his personal story in his memoir Blinded by the Right and criticizes the "conservative media machine" in his book The Republican Noise Machine. His work on the latter book led him to found Media Matters for America, a non-profit organization that describes itself as a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
In Blinded by the Right (2002), Brock said that he had reached a turning point — he had thoroughly examined charges against the Clintons, could not find any evidence of wrongdoing, and did not want to make any more misleading claims. Brock further said that his former friends in right-wing politics shunned him because Seduction did not adequately attack the Clintons. He also argued that his "friends" had not really been friends at all, due to the open secret that Brock was gay.
In July 1997, Brock published a confessional piece in Esquire magazine titled "Confessions of a Right-Wing Hit Man", in which he recanted much of what he said in his two best-known American Spectator articles and criticized his own reporting methods. Discouraged at the reaction his Hillary Clinton biography received, he said, "I... want out. David Brock the Road Warrior of the Right is dead." Four months later, The American Spectator declined to renew his employment contract, under which he was being paid over $300,000 per year.
Writing again for Esquire in April 1998, Brock apologized to Clinton for his contributions to Troopergate, calling it simply part of an anti-Clinton crusade. He told a more detailed story of his time inside the right wing in his 2001 memoir, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, in which he settled old scores and provided inside details about the Arkansas Project's efforts to bring down Clinton. Later, he also apologized to Anita Hill.
Brock directly addressed the right-wing "machine" in his 2004 book, The Republican Noise Machine, in which he detailed an alleged interconnected, concerted effort to raise the profile of conservative opinions in the press through false accusations of liberal media bias, dishonest and highly-partisan columnists, partisan news organizations and academic studies, and other methods. Also in 2004, he featured briefly in the BBC series The Power of Nightmares, giving his updated account on what was behind conservative allegations against Bill Clinton.
About the same time he founded Media Matters for America, an Internet-based liberal political organization "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media".
Inspiring story proving there may yet be hope for G-man.
The only really truthful thing that David Brock has said is that he's a liar.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Arizona Sen. John McCain is running strongly in three states that have been solidly Democratic in recent presidential elections; a particular surprise is New Jersey where, a month ago, Illinois Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton had a double-digit lead, according to a new round of state-by-state general election match-ups.
The series of polls by Rasmussen Reports, which included Michigan and Washington State, also underscored what most other national and state polling has found - high negatives for Clinton as far as favorability ratings. McCain often scores the highest favorability ratings, while Obama comes out on the positive side, but by lesser margins.
Rasmussen says McCain and the Democrats are in a statistical tie in New Jersey, with McCain leading Clinton 45 percent to 42 percent and Obama by 46 percent to 45 percent, with a 4 point margin of error. A month ago, Obama ran closely with McCain but Clinton, showing strength in her neighboring state, had led McCain 50 percent to 39 percent.
McCain is also running a close race with the Democrats in Michigan, according to the Rasmussen survey conducted March 25. He leads Obama 43 percent to 42 percent, and Clinton by 45 percent to 42 percent, with a 4.5 percent margin of error.
McCain is viewed favorably by 55 percent of voters, Obama by 50 percent and Clinton by 47 percent. This is a state the Democrats have carried in the last four elections. It is also one of the two states (the other being Florida) where the controversy continues over the Democratic Party's decision to strip both of their delegates for breaking party rules by moving up the dates of their primaries. Forty-five percent of Michigan Democrats say there should be some kind of a re-vote, while 39 percent disagree. Mirroring a Gallup poll earlier today, a plurality of Democrats believe Obama would be a stronger opponent for McCain than Clinton (by a 48 percent to 41 percent margin) and 58 percent expect Obama to win the nomination.
Rasmussen noted that the Republicans have not carried New Jersey for 20 years, but added "in recent years, several GOP candidates have done well in spring polls only to see their hopes fade in the fall." Clinton's favorability rating - at 50 percent - is a little better here than in other state-by-state surveys, but it still represents a 6 point decline since the last poll. McCain's favorable rating is 61 percent and Obama's is 58 percent. The economy is cited as the top issue by 47 percent with only 12 percent rating it excellent or good. Twenty-two percent cite Iraq as the top issue, but among those, 39 percent believe the situation will worsen in the next six months compared to 32 percent who believe it will improve.
And in Washington State, Rasmussen finds McCain is competitive with both Democrats, according to a poll conducted March 27. Obama leads him 48 percent to 43 percent while McCain leads Clinton 46 percent to 43 percent. The margin of error is 4.5 percent. In its Feb. 28 polling, McCain and Obama were statistically tied while Clinton was ahead 48 percent to 40 percent. On the scale of favorability ratings, Obama registers at 57 percent, McCain at 56 percent and Clinton, whose negatives repeat state after state, is at 43 percent. The last time a Republican won this state was in the Ronald Reagan landslide of 1984.
The economy is cited as the top issue by most voters (37 percent) with Iraq next (24 percent). Only 14 percent of Democrats say the economy is good or excellent. Thirty-nine percent believe the U.S. is winning the war on terror.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Americans' views on the economy and the general state of the country have hit an all-time low in the history of the CBS News/New York Times poll. Eighty-one percent of those polled say the country is on the wrong track, while only 14 percent believe it is heading in the right direction.
Asked to compare the state of the country to how it was five years ago, 78 percent say things are worse today - the highest percentage since CBS News began asking the question in 1986. Only four percent say things are better now.
You think Americans want four more years of the George Bush policies that brought us to this? Because on the issues, Bush and McCain are the McSame.
If you are male and a Led Zeppelin fan, chances are you may be leaning toward voting Republican in the U.S. presidential election, according to a survey of rock radio fans released on Wednesday.
The Jacobs Media's Media/Technology Web Poll IV of more than 27,000 respondents cited stronger than expected interest in the November 2008 election among fans of rock, classic rock, and alternative radio stations.
It also found that John McCain, the Republican candidate for U.S. president, was the top pick for the Oval Office for men and classic rock partisans -- those people who tune in to stations playing music from the "original classic rock era" of 1964 to 1975, comprised of bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who and Pink Floyd.
Jacobs Media said the survey, conducted among 69 U.S. rock-formatted stations in markets as diverse as Los Angeles and Knoxville to Buffalo, found 84 percent of the respondents planned to vote in the November election.
Any classic rock listener idolizes Led Zeppelin, but knows that the DNC is where truly The Song Remains the Same !
i.e., the same tired ideas of tax and spend liberalism, and rallying minority support by whipping up exaggerated fears of racism, under a transparent mask of "change".
If you are male and a Led Zeppelin fan, chances are you may be leaning toward voting Republican in the U.S. presidential election, according to a survey of rock radio fans released on Wednesday.
The Jacobs Media's Media/Technology Web Poll IV of more than 27,000 respondents cited stronger than expected interest in the November 2008 election among fans of rock, classic rock, and alternative radio stations.
It also found that John McCain, the Republican candidate for U.S. president, was the top pick for the Oval Office for men and classic rock partisans -- those people who tune in to stations playing music from the "original classic rock era" of 1964 to 1975, comprised of bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who and Pink Floyd.
Jacobs Media said the survey, conducted among 69 U.S. rock-formatted stations in markets as diverse as Los Angeles and Knoxville to Buffalo, found 84 percent of the respondents planned to vote in the November election.
Well considering white males are more likely to be classic rock fans, it stands to reason they'd also vote Republican. White Males are one of their main pillars of supoport.
Yesterday on Hardball, the question of the white male vote and national security came up and Obama's response the day earlier when he did the college interview at West Chester University of Pennsylvania.
Quote:
MATTHEWS: So Michael, what was the overall reaction in the area on your show this morning?
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, he made no mistakes, and he looked good and he sounded good. I mean, the feeling in that fieldhouse at West Chester last night was more along the lines of a Final Four game than it was, you know, political discourse, and that‘s because of the magnetism that this guy has. I mean, I felt like I was at a college pep rally.
What I like about that answer, Chris, is that he combines it with saying that our resources have been diverted in Iraq from a battle that should be taking place in Afghanistan or in Pakistan. And what I think he‘s doing is showing his bona fides among white males who are looking for a tough guy on national defense. And the way he overcomes this issue of wanting to get over Iraq, to the extent that makes him look weak on defense, is he reminds the country we still haven‘t found bin Laden. And I got to tell you, that scores points with someone like me.
Obama, like John Kerry in 2004, is vacillating all over the place. One day he's talking about invading Pakistan, the next day he's talking about withdrawing all our troops from Iraq. Mostly, he talks about withdrawing from Iraq, in between fielding responses to his own anti-American remarks, and associations with ultra-liberal socialists, black racists, and his closet Muslim life.
No one I talk to believes a word of Obama's waffling and exaggerations.
Chris Matthews is absolutely orgasmically partisan for Obama. It doesn't surprise me that he'd invite the rare conservative that has something enthusiastic to say about Obama.
I couldn't help thinking of Whomod when I watched this clip:
The opinionated insults, the recurring Darth-Vader/Cheney-esque snarling still photo of McCain, the juxtaposing nuclear explosions from the 1950's with McCain's completely unrelated voice-quotes... it's totally Whomod-style all the way.
The music is kind of snappy, though, and it's fun to watch.
It's actually not liberals who put this video together, as far as I can tell. It looks to have been posted by Ron Paul supporters, and it looks favorably toward Paul while bashing McCain.
The New York Times: "Senator John McCain has staked his candidacy on the promise that U.S. troops can stabilize Iraq. What he almost never says is that one of them is his own son."
It must kill the far left Michael Moore types that, not only can't they call McCain a "chickenhawk," but his son is serving in the military right now.
The New York Times: "Senator John McCain has staked his candidacy on the promise that U.S. troops can stabilize Iraq. What he almost never says is that one of them is his own son."
It must kill the far left Michael Moore types that, not only can't they call McCain a "chickenhawk," but his son is serving in the military right now.
I don't know about the far left but I respect McCain's military record. He also gets extra credit for how he has & hasn't used it in this campaign.
The New York Times: "Senator John McCain has staked his candidacy on the promise that U.S. troops can stabilize Iraq. What he almost never says is that one of them is his own son."
It must kill the far left Michael Moore types that, not only can't they call McCain a "chickenhawk," but his son is serving in the military right now.
With McCain, his service or his sons service is admirable but it really is not the issue. what seems to be the main issue, apart from his continuing on with Bush's war is that every statement he makes, seems to reinforce the fact that far from being the foreign policy "expert" that his campaign touts him as, he really doesn't seem to have a clue what's going on there.
McCain really doesn't know what he's talking about when he talks about Iraq. Well, he either really doesn't or he's really confused. Not sure which is worse.
Appearing on Fox News Sunday this morning Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) repeated the false claim that Muqtada al-Sadr declared the ceasefire in Basra last week, which he pointed to as proof that Sadr didn’t “think he was winning” the battle in Basra. He also said that the Iraqi army performed “pretty well”:
The GOP nominee doesn't understand what happened over the past couple weeks. McCain thinks 1) al Sadr asked for the recent ceasefire; and 2) the Iraqi military is functioning "functioning very effectively." Wrong and wrong:
After repeated mendacity about the (virtually nonexistent) relationship between Iran and al Qaeda, Senator McCain once again demonstrated his lack of foreign policy abilities today. During the course of the hearings with Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus, he implied that al Qaeda is a Shia group, before lamely trying to recover with "or Sunnis or anybody else" as an appropriate label for the group.
His lack of knowledge of the political dynamics of a war we're now five years (and 4,000 lives) into is embarrassing, especially considering he's running on that as his main strength. I mean, even if he didn't know it before, shouldn't he, y'know, take the time to learn it now?? And if not, shouldn't the press occasionally mention the fact that he appears to have no idea what he's talking about?
John McCain can't raise money for his campaign and wants to use the public financing system for the general election. He really wants Obama hamstrung by those spending limits, too. What McCain thinks doesn't matter because McCain's already gotten himself into legal trouble with the public financing system - an issue largely ignored by the traditional media. But, today, there was some progress -- not nearly as far as we need them to go, but at least an acknowledgment that McCain has serious problems with campaign finance laws:
Quote:
As for Mr. McCain, he has crusaded against the influence of money in politics in the Senate and has criticized Mr. Obama for hedging on his earlier decision to apply for public financing. But Mr. McCain drew criticism of his own earlier this year when he backed away from public financing for the primary elections. He initially sought those public matching funds, which come with limits of their own, after his campaign nearly ran out of money, but decided to bypass them after donations started coming in.
Okay, like I said, this is just a start. And, there are some very important points that are missing. For example, McCain can't decide to bypass the system. The FEC decides and the FEC Chair (a Republican) said explicitly McCain can opt out on his own:
Quote:
But McCain's attempts to build up his campaign coffers before a general election contest appeared to be threatened by the stern warning yesterday from Federal Election Commission Chairman David M. Mason, a Republican. Mason notified McCain that the commission had not granted his Feb. 6 request to withdraw from the presidential public financing system.
McCain, therefore, is still in the public financing system and subject to its limitations. McCain already exceeded the spending cap and that is a campaign finance crime:
Quote:
Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison.
That makes McCain a campaign finance criminal.
Keep in mind that the FEC is not functioning because McCain's GOP Senate colleagues won't allow a vote on new Commissioners.
Given McCain's shady dealings with the FEC and his attempt to scam the public financing system, Barack Obama should never, ever enter into any deal with McCain about campaign spending. And, any pundit or editorial writer who challenges Obama's position is ignoring McCain's criminality.
McCain really doesn't know what he's talking about when he talks about Iraq. Well, he either really doesn't or he's really confused. Not sure which is worse.
Except for the fact that, alone among the candidates, McCain advocated the Surge, and that it decisively turned the war in our favor.
Obama and Hillary would both undermine that victory and reverse it with immediate reductions in troops, and by pulling out prematurely.
The rest of the points you raise are piddly technicalities, that don't really warrant a response. They don't exceed errors made by the opposing candidates, which are equal if not worse.
McCain really doesn't know what he's talking about when he talks about Iraq. Well, he either really doesn't or he's really confused. Not sure which is worse.
Except for the fact that, alone among the candidates, McCain advocated the Surge, and that it decisively turned the war in our favor.
Obama and Hillary would both undermine that victory and reverse it with immediate reductions in troops, and by pulling out prematurely.
Oh I'm sorry. I must not have been paying attention. I thought the point of the surge was by the President’s own measure, to give the Iraqi government breathing room to make progress on political reconciliation, halt sectarian violence and train its own security forces.
Also, A report last September by the Government Accountability Office showed Iraq had perhaps met three to five of 18 benchmarks.
I must've missed all this "success" happening while posting about Hillary Clinton.
IS AMERICA A CENTER-RIGHT NATION? John McCain is counting on the idea that the country is center-right at heart. The Democrats are going to have to convince Americans that bad government is the result of conservative contempt for basic institutions of governance.
by Paul Waldman April 8, 2008
John McCain faces a serious challenge in this election year -- a struggling economy, a war the public is eager to see ended, a deeply unpopular president, and perhaps most importantly, the natural swing of the pendulum after eight years of Republican rule (only once since the 1940s has a party won three consecutive presidential elections). Nonetheless, conservatives continue to assure themselves that in the end, they reside where the country sits ideologically.
McCain, avers George Will, is "a center-right candidate seeking to lead a center-right country."
Tom Cole, the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, agrees: "I believe that it is still a center-right country, and I think this election will show that," he told the New York Times Magazine.
"America is a center-right country and in modern times has not elected a thoroughgoing liberal as president," pleaded former Bush adviser Peter Wehner last week in the Wall Street Journal.
You can hear the hint of desperation in their voices. What they probably suspect, and what progressives are hoping, is that the conservative era that arrived with Ronald Reagan in 1980 is finally reaching its end, dragged into its grave by George W. Bush. The moment for a resurgence of activist government may have finally arrived.
But in order to make it happen, Democrats will have to overcome a deep skepticism among the public, not about the relative abilities of the opposition party but about government itself. As the most recent Gallup poll on the subject shows, the public's faith in government is as low as it has been at any point since they started asking the question thirty-five years ago.
Given the combination of dishonesty, corruption and incompetence that has marked the current administration, it's hard to blame the American people for their distrust. Republicans argue that government can't do anything right, then set about to prove it once they grab government's reins. Each successive Republican administration only provides more evidence for their contention that government is a bumbling beast incapable of solving problems. Few notice that they never deliver on their promises to reduce its size and scope; as a portion of GDP, the postwar federal government was at its biggest during the years of that famed enemy of big government, Ronald Reagan.
And what we hear from the soon-to-be Republican nominee sounds little different from the standard GOP litany: cut spending, cut taxes on the wealthy, have faith in the magic of the market. In other words, you're on your own. As Jacob Hacker put it in a 2005 New Republic article (not currently available on the web), "Call it the vicious cycle of insecurity -- if Americans feel no one can help them, they will back leaders who won't. In the '30s, Democrats saw economic security as the keystone of a broad coalition in support of their party. Today, Republicans appear to see insecurity in the same way." This has certainly been the strategy behind their doomsday predictions on Social Security: convince the public that the system is going bankrupt, and people will be much more open to dismantling it, because what does it matter?
But the faith that McCain and other conservatives have that the country is with them rests on a fundamental misperception about public opinion. Since Lloyd Free and Hadley Cantril's 1964 book The Political Beliefs of Americans, political scientists have known that as a group Americans are "symbolic conservatives" but "operational liberals." In other words, if you ask them whether they'd define themselves as conservative or liberal, most choose conservative; but if you ask them about what they want government to do about specific issues and problems, most choose the liberal solution, i.e. that government should do more and spend more.
As a consequence, a substantial portion of the population -- nearly a quarter, according to the General Social Survey -- are what political scientist James Stimson calls "conflicted conservatives," those who pick "conservative" when asked their ideological identification, but nonetheless support liberal policies. As Stimson wrote:
The conflicted conservatives are the interesting group. Large enough to swing all elections one way or the other, their votes are potentially available to both parties. They want liberal policies and respond to specific Democratic appeals to do more and spend more on various domestic priorities. They think of themselves as conservatives and respond to Republican identification with conservatism. Which is the stronger appeal, liberal policies or conservative symbols, is a close call and so varies with the times. Where demand for liberal policies is at a low ebb as in 1980, symbols prevail and Republicans win. When that demand is strong, think 1960 or 1992, then the policies carry the day and Democrats win. Whether such voters are "conservative" in any meaningful sense, there is little doubt which kind of moment we're in now. As the Pew Research Center reported last fall, the gap between the number of people calling themselves Democrats and those calling themselves Republicans is larger than it has been in twenty years. The severity of problems like the current economic troubles and the disaster that is the American health care system make the conservative reluctance to do much of anything look both clueless and heartless, like Bush twiddling while New Orleans drowned. And let's recall that when Bush finally tried to deliver on the long-held conservative desire to begin the dismantling of Social Security, the public reaction was dismay and disgust; the more the president tried to make his case, the less persuasive he became.
Of course, it's always harder to institute a change than it is to stop a change from happening. If the next president is a Democrat, his or her health care reform proposal, for instance, will no doubt be greeted as a frontal assault on all that conservatives hold dear, demanding the most furious and well-funded opposition they can muster. And they'll be right -- as William Kristol warned Republicans in 1993, a successful effort to fix the health care system would "revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will, at the same time, strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government."
The deck is stacked in the Democrats' favor this November, but the more important question is whether the next four or eight years will mark a new era of progressive governance. If a Democratic president could prove that government can solve some of our country's most pressing problems, then success will build on success, and the conservative case will be that much harder to make in coming years -- particularly when the last Republican president was such an all-encompassing disaster. The conservatives certainly know this well, which is why they'll be fighting with all their might, if only to prove that a Democratic president can be just as much a failure. ______________________
Paul Waldman is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, and auther of Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success.
If that were true, liberals (who deceitfully euphemize themselves as "progressives") would campaign as liberals, instead of trying to veil themselves more palatably as moderates.
But when liberals reveal themselves as the anti-American schmucks they truly are, who plan foreign policy, welfare, race relations, legal immigration, illegal immigration, (lack of) border security, class warfare, race-baiting, de-Christianizing state policy, and virtually everything else in a way that divides and destroys our nation... the truth is, it is the liberals who pretend to be something they're not, and rely on deceit to have the slightest prayer of getting elected.
