SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: PROLIFE who wrote (424445)7/8/2003 11:23:38 PM
From: David Howe  Respond to of 769670
 
<< bunch of sad sacks if ever there were any >>

As sad as it gets. How the Dems think they can win in 2004 when all they can put together for a list of candidates is that pathetic assembly of losers is beyond me.

IMO,
Dave



To: PROLIFE who wrote (424445)7/8/2003 11:56:18 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
comcast.net
Davis Recall Group Claims 1.4M Signatures




Organizers of a Republican-led effort to oust Democratic Gov. Gray Davis declared Tuesday that they have 1.4 million signatures _ more than enough to force a recall election in the fall.

"An election's going to happen here pretty quick," said Tom Hiltachk of Rescue California Recall Gray Davis.

The effort needs 897,158 valid signatures, 12 percent of the number of voters in the previous California gubernatorial election, to get on the ballot.

The signatures collected will be sent to county election officials to be verified. The results will be reported to the secretary of state, and if the secretary of state certifies that enough signatures have been gathered, an election must be called within 60 to 80 days.

If the Davis recall makes it onto the ballot, voters will be asked two questions: whether to remove the governor, and which candidate on the ballot they want instead. The only declared major-party candidate so far is Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, who is bankrolling the recall campaign.

Democrats questioned the current party strategy of keeping Democratic candidates off the two-part ballot. Analysts believe Davis' chances of survival would be better if there were no Democratic alternatives.

Some Democrats believe Davis should resign to spare the state the $30 million cost of a special election and ensure that another Democrat, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, would become governor.

Davis has said he won't quit, and many Democrats insist there's no pressure on him to do so.

"Everybody is holding very firm. No Democrat is doing anything but fully supporting Gray Davis in this," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe. "There are conspiracy theories galore, but I can tell you, there are no secret meetings or anything."

Davis is vulnerable because of voter wrath over the state's energy crisis and a budget deficit estimated at $38 billion. His approval rating is down to 21 percent, the lowest on record for a California governor.

Steve Smith, the campaign manager for Taxpayers Against the Governor's Recall, said it probably won't be known for a several weeks if there are enough signatures for an election, but his side is prepared to spend $15 million or more.

"Meanwhile we have to act, of course, as though this may be on a ballot," he said. "We have to get ready just like you do in any gubernatorial race. And that's what we're doing."

Rescue California now plans to shift its focus to getting the recall passed if it hits the ballot, director Dave Gilliard said.

"We have an aggressive campaign planned for that phase," he said.

Gilliard said a $13 million budget is planned for the effort, which will involve all the elements of a traditional political campaign, including direct mail, precinct walking and television advertising.

He said he is meeting with major donors who have been reluctant to get involved so far but who said they would reconsider once the recall became a reality.

"We are now going to go back and make our case as to why they should be involved," Gilliard said.



To: PROLIFE who wrote (424445)7/9/2003 12:51:24 AM
From: CYBERKEN  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
I see 2004 as more like Goldwater/Johnson than McGovern/Nixon. In 1972 there was a massive public vomiting on the anti-American Democrat candidate, but it didn't affect the Congressional races much (that may be about the time O'Neil said "All politics is local."). The people just told the anti-American left to take Hanoi George and shove him.

1964 is a better parallel. Johnson won his landslide, and brought in dozens of House and Senate members on his coattails. The Congress became a virtual subsidiary of the presidency for the next 20 years. The biggest strategic error of the last 3 years has been the Democrats screaming, even from a minority position in BOTH houses, that they will obstruct for partisan purposes without compunction until someone fires enough of them that they can't do it anymore. They have thus missed the single biggest message in the 2002 results: The public has HEARD them, and is proceeding to DUMP them...



To: PROLIFE who wrote (424445)7/9/2003 2:12:36 AM
From: Neeka  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
Ann Coulter sees them for what they are. You and I see them for what they are and the American people see them for what they are.

Ask any liberal if he/she is proud to be an American and they will reply not always.

M

Editorial Reviews

Book Description

“Liberals’ loyalty to the United States is off-limits as a subject of political debate. Why is the relative patriotism of the two parties the only issue that is out of bounds for rational discussion?”

In a stunning follow-up to her number one bestseller Slander, leading conservative pundit Ann Coulter contends that liberals have been wrong on every foreign policy issue, from the fight against Communism at home and abroad, the Nixon and the Clinton presidencies, and the struggle with the Soviet empire right up to today’s war on terrorism. “Liberals have a preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason,” says Coulter. “Everyone says liberals love America, too. No, they don’t.” From Truman to Kennedy to Carter to Clinton, America has contained, appeased, and retreated, often sacrificing America’s best interests and security. With the fate of the world in the balance, liberals should leave the defense of the nation to conservatives.

Reexamining the sixty-year history of the Cold War and beyond—including the career of Senator Joseph McCarthy, the Whittaker Chambers–Alger Hiss affair, Ronald Reagan’s challenge to Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” the Gulf War, and our present war on terrorism—Coulter reveals how liberals have been horribly wrong in all their political analyses and policy prescriptions. McCarthy, exonerated by the Venona Papers if not before, was basically right about Soviet agents working for the U.S. government. Hiss turned out to be a high-ranking Soviet spy (who consulted Roosevelt at Yalta). Reagan, ridiculed throughout his presidency, ended up winning the Cold War. And George W. Bush, also an object of ridicule, has performed exceptionally in responding to America’s newest threats at home and abroad.

Coulter, who in Slander exposed a liberal bias in today’s media, also examines how history, especially in the latter half of the twentieth century, has been written by liberals and, therefore, distorted by their perspective. Far from being irrelevant today, her clearheaded and piercing view of what we’ve been through informs us perfectly for challenges today and in the future.

With Slander, Ann Coulter became the most recognized and talked-about conservative intellectual of the year. Treason, in many ways an even more controversial and prescient book, will ignite impassioned political debate at one of the most crucial moments in our history.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spotlight Reviews (What's this?)
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Ford was right, History IS Bunk!, June 28, 2003
Reviewer: Bryan C. Weber (see more about me)
Some people have dismissed this book as a work of fiction. They're the ones this book is talking about. Unlike the recent works of a noted LIBERAL (who I won't name, out of common decency), this book is not only informative, it backs up its facts with source material, research, and basic facts.
I read this book out of curiosity, believing that a book titled "Treason" on Liberals would be a cry from the far right so extreme as to be laughable.
I was wrong.
With documented facts, footnotes, and an extensive mountain of research, Ann Coulter has laid the basic facts bare for all to see. Liberals have consistently and efficiently defied reason, common sense, and flat out lied over the years.
All the American History I learned in school is called into extreme question. I was taught that McCarthy was a bully who used a cry of "Communist" to silence his political opponents. What they did not tell me in school, what I did not even hear on the six o' clock news, was that declassified Soviet documents proved that almost everyone McCarthy named was, in fact, on the Soviet payroll.
They told us that containment won the Cold War. They did not point out, President by President how much ground the Soviets gained (and usually when a Democrat was President). They did not tell us how Reagan won the Cold War by not backing down from his foes.
I urge you to read this book...

Was this review helpful to you?



Nothing like the truth to destroy the liberal agenda!, June 27, 2003
Reviewer: Patrick "Sarge" Murray from Lexington, Indiana
Forget all the revisionistic tripe that's been crammed down our throats that Joe McCarthy was this evil fire-breathing dragon; I mean, it's not as if we haven't heard this liberal mantra a thousand times before! Ann Coulter's "Treason" uncovers the truth, and proves not only that McCarthy was patriotic in his "witch hunts," but that the State Department under FDR and Harry Truman was crawling with communist spies under orders from Stalin himself. When a high-ranking official in the State Department brought evidence of Alger Hiss' ties to the Soviet Union to FDR, the crippled dictator-wannabe told the man to go f--- himself. Let's not forget that FDR referred to Stalin as "Uncle Joe," while we're at it.

Still think liberals love the USA? This book proves otherwise. In short, this book provides the greatest education money can buy on one of America's most critical periods of history (the early Cold War), and how the liberals tried to undermine us from within. Anyone who won't acknowledge the validity of this THOROUGHLY researched magnum opus has their head in the sand.

Oh, and about the 'Hollywood Ten' that got blacklisted? They were also taking orders from Stalin. It's all in the book. Buy it today; those are Sarge's orders!

Was this review helpful to you?

All Customer Reviews
Avg. Customer Review:

Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.

Scary!, July 6, 2003
Reviewer: Andrew (see more about me) from Gainesville, Florida United States
I don't really know where to begin. This book is terrifying. Not because of what Ann is claiming, but because people are buying it. Ann is at the forefront of a movement that is killing political dissent in America. Her quotes are often incorrect and taken out of context, and her fact checking is either laughable or deliberately misleading. It is irresponsible to even treat this book as nonfiction.

I am at a loss as to why so many Americans are quick to embrace Coulter's apologist view of McCarthyism. I beg anyone who is considering a purchase of this book to balance out their learning with some books based on reality. At least read Brendan Nyhan's well written online retort to gain some sort of perspective.

Was this review helpful to you?



A real eye-opener, July 6, 2003
Reviewer: A reader from Illinois, USA
This is a book that needed to be written and couldn't have been written better. As I read through the first few chapters, I was first amazed, and then angered, that the facts about paid
Soviet agents in our government in the 1940s and 1950s had been dismissed and then, when incontrovertibly proven, ignored by mainstream media. Ann makes a convincing case that the left has actively supported treasonable activity and has consistently taken the anti-American, pro-enemy position on every foreign policy issue since World War II. None of the negative reviews here or elsewhere has answered these assertions.