Conservative Calls for Bush to Name Himself 'President for Life'
On Aug. 3, a writer for Family Security Matters, a national security group associated with a conservative think tank, argued that President Bush should appoint himself "president for life" and "empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans."
He wasn't kidding.
I fished out the full commentary from the Google cache for Watching the Watchers.
Before you dismiss the piece as a rant of a fringe group, Family Security Matters has a board that includes a former CIA director, talk show hosts Laura Ingraham and Monica Crowley, and a bunch of big Republicans fundraisers. The group recently disappeared the article and everything else by Philip Atkinson from its web site.
Comments
Of course, thanks to the this piece of legislation (aka "Directive 51") all he'd need is a national crisis of undefined proportions to suspend elections and create what the document refers to as an "Enduring Constitutional Government."
This is so scary.
This is so funny.
It amazes me -- the importance you wish to ascribe to
some reactionary demonstration of Alzheimer's disease. An example of commentary even denied by the sponsoring site which removed it as such. At the same time, you all tend to disparage any references to radical groups; nominally idendified as "leftwing"; and
describing them as "fringe elements" and not truly
associated with American Democratic philosophy?
How much more so for groups or commentary that are
NOT, in any way, associated with American
conservative philosophy?
It seemingly represents a desperate desire to vilify
conservatism, and to deny it any validity in the
future political process. But, how could an abrogation
of the constitution be considered "conservative" to any American?
This is a desperate misdirection away from the fact that true leftwing radicalism is embarrassing all Democratics who have previously supported their mob demands/desire for retreat and failure in Iraq; against true fascism from human sacrificing elements of Islam.
This is no one-man minority of thought you attempt to smear all conservatives using -- it is a significant minority of the Democratic Party who desires defeat for all of the USA, so that their brand of socialism and rank idiocy can prevail ...
... and you are helping them ... ?
Wow. He sounds almost half as nutty as your average Kos Kid.
What's the latin for the particular logical fallacy I just committed? I can't remember.
P.S. LOVE the Ann Coulter banner.
I have to agree with Tadowe on this one. The article is the product of a raving loon. A Maoist screed would be as lost in reason (and reality), yet would garner little attention if it were posted at some socialist worker's party web-site.
At times, a cigar is just a cigar - and not meant to poke someone with.
Regards,
etc.
The article's nuts, but the fact it was published by the Republican establishment makes it newsworthy. The think tank and the prominent Repubs affiliated with Family Security Matters should explain whether they agree with his premise or not.
P.S. LOVE the Ann Coulter banner.
They kill me. I wish her people would stop buying those ads through Google AdSense, because it makes the sites look right-wing at first glance, but I'm not going to explicitly ban them. I think it's wrong to deny ads on a political basis.
"The article's nuts, but the fact it was published by the Republican establishment makes it newsworthy."
My rhetoric is mocked by your friend, but yours whizzes right past their attention. I suppose because they know you personally and the pompous assertion vis a vis "publish" and "Republican establishment" is so familiar; if not in exactness, at least in yellow-dog bias.
To "publish" on the internet requires only that your typing be ... well ... there. And, to hold the "Republican establishment" as guilty of this unconstitutional cry for tyranny is ... well ... moderation policy infringes my reply ...
"The think tank and the prominent Repubs affiliated with Family Security Matters should explain whether they agree with his premise or not."
They removed the offending post, and as you stated but pretend to ignore; even disavowing all other efforts by the nut and which you have spun 180 degrees in order to spread some partisan venom ...
The Center for Security Policy and Family Security Matters are part of the Republican establishment. I think it's fair to hold their feet to the fire over publishing this commentary.
At a minimum, I'd like to see the mainstream press take note of Atkinson's essay and ask people like Ingraham, Crowley and former CIA director Woolsey whether they agree with him.
It's no different than expecting liberals associated with Jerome Armstrong to repudiate his stock touting after the SEC settlement was reached. (To my disappointment, most of them pretended the story didn't exist.)
"It's no different than expecting liberals associated with Jerome Armstrong to repudiate his stock touting after the SEC settlement was reached. (To my disappointment, most of them pretended the story didn't exist.)"
So? This is payback? You must have felt some sense of shame as a "liberal" to be associated with Jerome Armstrong's insider trading, eh? So, you scrounge around until you (find) an article on another site which you can snowball into an effort to revile conservatives -- to make them ashamed of themselves for their "association" ...
Bravo. You are an icon for the benefits of partisanship.
Tadowe sez 'You must have felt some sense of shame as a "liberal" to be associated with Jerome Armstrong's insider trading, eh?'
Who amongst us is not surprised at this?
Note the inflection, the incidental, regional idiom, slipped in at the end of the approbrious hectoring of our host over his liberal creds.
Who would have thought a poster would out themselves as a Canadian, yet be in such denial in the presence of a fellow liberal?!
Shame on Tadowe I say for calling our honourary Canadian webmaster's liberal sense of shame into question!
Of course he feels shame Tad! He's getting in touch with his inner "eh!".
Like, pass me a beer, eh?
Regards,
etc.
PS deduces, "Note the inflection, the incidental, regional idiom, slipped in at the end of the approbrious hectoring of our host over his liberal creds. Who would have thought a poster would out themselves as a Canadian, yet be in such denial in the presence of a fellow liberal?!"
The perfect misdirection, what?
"Shame on Tadowe I say for calling our honourary Canadian webmaster's liberal sense of shame into question!"
Really, why spin that into some reality? It is obvious that Rogers does NOT feel any shame for the actions of some criminal, who happens to be a Leftwing/Democratic, and that was the point, after all ... or did it whiz past you? Are you in the wrong forum?
"Like, pass me a beer, eh?"
Are you imitating an American? A Canadian would say, "Pass me a beer, aye?"
I don't feel shame over Jerome Armstrong's stock touting. I don't know the guy beyond exchanging a few emails when I belonged to the Liberal Blog Ad Network, which he created along with Chris Bowers and Markos Moulitsas. I was kicked out of that network.
Rogers confirms, "I don't feel shame over Jerome Armstrong's stock touting. I don't know the guy beyond exchanging a few emails when I belonged to the Liberal Blog Ad Network, which he created along with Chris Bowers and Markos Moulitsas. I was kicked out of that network."
Of course, and as I mentioned to PS who avoided the sarcastic intent of the rhetorical question -- a form of joke-stepping I didn't know Canadians practiced, aye?
So? I wondered at your disappointment over his associations not being forced to practice their freedom of speech in reply to the question: why are you a bird of similar feather to this criminal?
Schadenfreude, 'ooroo?
"aye"?
I've not lived every day within the boundaries of Canada but I've yet to hear the hailing of a drunken ship's first mate equated to the perfectly crafted "eh".
It's "eh".
Not "aye" as in "Aye Aye Captain!" or ... Ouch! You poked me in my "aye".
The sound is more clipped, lower in pitch, and a distinctly better piece of punctuation at the end of the sentence than the sound some slapstick comedian makes when you run the car over his toes.
Actually a Canadian would say "Another beer? Comin' right up."
Regards,
etc.
.... by the by..
LZK
said
aye.
Regards,
etc.
PS in dissonance, "aye"? ... I've yet to hear the hailing of a drunken ship's first mate equated to the perfectly crafted "eh".
Of course, it is a spelling difference in expressing the consonance in sounds. Indeed, your example explains why the evolution of the sound is expressly Canadian, on this continent, and because the Limey influence in language was emphasized by the contact that remained between colony and master; the navy and commercial British shipping. So ...
Not "aye" as in "Aye Aye Captain!"
Was the beginning of what has become the Canadin, "Aye". No other country uses the sound "eye" to express the question -- not even Canada, where it has become more like "hay" with a silent "h". That "'ay" sound is probably better expressed in exactly that way, with apostrophe, but the written tradition is longer lasting than the spoken one, and "aye" remains my favorite because it better expresses the piratical lineage of you Canadians.
"The sound is more clipped, lower in pitch, and a distinctly better piece of punctuation at the end of the sentence than the sound some slapstick comedian makes when you run the car over his toes.
'Ay?
"Actually a Canadian would say "Another beer? Comin' right up."
Comin' right up, 'ay?
Wow -- this is fun. I can banter along with some of you conservatives for a time.
Ann Coulter is a hoot. Did you hear her tell the Mexican deportee, perhaps Americans would sympathize -- with her -- if she would speak English while presenting her case on the news? My coffee ended up on the screen.
The socialists have their agenda and their standard/bearer, HRH hillary. She is working overtime to get her foot BACK in the door at the White House.
Every group has it's "fanatics"..............
I almost forgot -- the correct way to pronounce "ey" -- is simply take the "h" from hey -- and you've got it. By jove -- you've got it.........
Lzk joins in, "... the correct way to pronounce "ey" -- is simply take the "h" from hey -- and you've got it. By jove -- you've got it........."
I agree with the consonance of "hey" with a silent "h". However, abbreviating with "ey" can produce a different understanding; e.g., some might think of the sound "eye" when looking at "ey".
Canadians, as PS demonstrates, hear the sound the same as we do, but hear it differently when reading "aye" as opposed to "eh". Meanwhile, Americans mentally hear a different sound when reading "eh", but not with " 'ay ". Neither would a Canadian be confused as to sound when reading " 'ay "
But, it matters not, because any such expression means the same questioning sound -- it certainly isn't the exclusive possession of Canadians, notwithstanding any claims to the contrary which might be taken from the above thread's commentary ....
An excellent exercise in elocution. Thank-you for the lesson.
Regards,
etc.
Add a Comment
All comments are moderated before publication. These HTML tags are permitted: <p>, <b>, <i>, <a>, and <blockquote>. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA (for which the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply).
Social Media
Subscriptions
Blogroll
Projects
Statistics
This blog has been published since Nov. 7, 1999 (a span of 9,151 days).
Thank you for visiting Workbench.
