Posted on 07/27/2006 12:32:29 PM PDT by eartotheground
What made you want to step out in favor of Sen. King? You do this very rarely. "I've done a few but it's not the norm, I guess that's probably right. ... Tom Lee and Jim King this year did significant work in building and passing an aggressive agenda, and I'm a grateful governor. I believe when people work hard to create a shared agenda and then work hard to pass it, it's appropriate to show your appreciation."
Does this represent a distancing from a conservative segment of voters? "There is no distancing from my perspective. People know where I stand on these issues. On end-of-life issues, life issues in general, issues surrounding people of faith - nothing changes in that regard. The notion somehow, though, that Jim's opponent is representative of some group of people, I reject. I reject that. In fact, having gone through the [Terri] Schiavo matter, having stood on principles, having worked within the law as best I could under enormous pressure, I can tell you that the president of the Senate [King] saved Terri Schiavo's life for more than a year. Randall Terry, during that period of time and afterward, made no positive contribution. In fact, he was a hindrance."
What were his actions that you considered a hindrance? "Let me rephrase that: There was no help. No help. Not a single thing that was done to help. He managed to take people who maybe were open to supporting the efforts we were making, and turn them off. I guess you could say that's no help, or a hindrance. You pick which one it is."
How much of that factored into this decision? "None. The broader issue is governance. The issues over the next four years for a state senator relate to emergency preparedness, tax policy, property insurance issues, education. ... Those are the bigger issues that will come up for a state senator from the Jacksonville area."
Mr. Terry's criticism of you over the Terri Schiavo issue didn't play a role? "No. Look, when you're in a situation like the one that we had to live through for several years, I can understand people acting on their heart, acting on their beliefs and passionate about those beliefs. I totally understand that and I'm totally respectful of people disagreeing with the actions I took - ironically, in this case, on both sides. I got ripped both ways. All I can tell you is, I didn't do it for politics. I didn't act from a political perspective. And I don't lose any sleep worrying about whether people oppose me or not. I sleep well at night."
That must not be permitted to be the choice. We have will have 16 years of liberal rule by then. 20 if you count the first Bush. [ He was pretty merciless in flushing away all the Reaganites, and only kept "his own" people, like James Baker ]
Another 4 year will finish the U.S.
If the US is not "predominant," then who is?
Your rant reads like a Duncan Hunter wet dream, funding programs that even the military doesn't want any more.
Do you work for a defense contractor?
I recently relocated back to CA from FL.
I was somewhat active with the party while in the Sunshine State.
I am very familiar with Mr. King and I have done a lot of reading on Mr. Terry, including positive endorsements (old though they may be) from the likes of Dr. Dobson.
I find Mr. Terry, his organization, and his associates to be extreme to the point of dangerous.
The Communists. If you note, the Russians still have a First Strike weapons force with the SS-18, and the new Topol-M rolling off of a hot weapons line. They also have a National Missile Defense already, with not just the Moscow System of 200 interceptors around Moscow...but 8,800 SAM-300s around the periphery of the country. All NMD capable. And they have sold at least 800 to China now too.
Meanwhile the U.S. has its ass hanging naked in the breeze...just waiting to be sucker-punched again like 9-11. Bush even had the gall to sign the Treaty of Moscow which had an attached Strategic Framework Agreement that Putin insisted on that kept the U.S. NMD intentionally limited into futility.
I would also commend to your notice, the complete inattention to the very real danger to our country of an EMP attack. The Administration just doesn't take civil defense preparedness seriously. They appear to be almost completely wed to the idea of defense being obsolete as a practical matter, while giving their "limited national missile defense" only lip-service for political vote-getting purposes. Hence they kept the Strategic Framework Agmt secret from the public.
Your rant reads like a Duncan Hunter wet dream,
That would be a high honor. As you know, few are worthy to tie that fine gentleman's shoes. I would support him, or any combination of Peter Hoekstra or Curt Weldon for a vice presidential run along with either J.D. Hayworth or Tom Tancredo for President.
Of course, your idea of "wet dreams" apparently is equal to anything even slightly more than "totally deficient spending on national security". I.e., you don't regard national security is the primary duty and constitutional requirement of the CIC. Sloughing it is not a legitimate object of the CIC. That was one of the main failings that Xlinton destroyed his own popularity and sank Al Gore's campaign.
funding programs that even the military doesn't want any more.
Like what, in particular are you saying the military doesn't want? An NMD that actually defends us? The military only wants what is TOLD it wants. There is no "independence." Look at how the administration got the Pentagon to CANCEL, the TBM, THEL, dismantled all the MX and half the Minuteman's has the Navy at well under where Jimmy Carter had it, 286 ships and 55 subs, and it was damn near cancelling the F-22. This is just the short list of things the Administration has done to neglect defense.
Do you work for a defense contractor?
Do you? Unlikely. Doesn't sound like you know what you are talking about.
And spending on the WOT is not a substitute for preparedness. Al Queda is hardly the mortal threat that Russia, China, and Iran/NK Axis are. It is merely one of their little proxies. Yet the Bots seem to think it is. Their tunnel-vision is entirely predictable.
Come out of the bunker.
We have weapons capable of executing a first strike fully deployed.
They also have a National Missile Defense already, with not just the Moscow System of 200 interceptors around Moscow...but 8,800 SAM-300s around the periphery of the country. All NMD capable.
To say that the S-300 is NMD capable is to grant that same honorific to the PAC-3 Patriot. Do you?
Hence they kept the Strategic Framework Agmt secret from the public.
If it's secret, how do you know about it?
And you didn't give a straight answer about whether or not you work for a defense contractor.
Jeb went from Jeb! to Jeb??##** overnight. Goodbye to 50 plus % approval rating. Incredible.
Until today, I really thought Jeb was an exception to the rule that all politicians are lying scum. My bad.
Perhaps it is YOU that has changed.................
or
Perhaps you have failed to evolve into the 21st century version of the gop....................................................
If so, there might be hope yet............
Horse hockey.
My favorite were the ones demanding that President Bush send in the army to "save Terri Schiavo" and "kill anyone who stands in the way".
There was a serious case of Schiavo Derangement Syndrome going on back then.
Perhaps it is YOU that has changed................. or... Perhaps you have failed to evolve into the 21st century version of the gop....................................................
The same way as Reagan failed to evolve into a late-20th-century version of the Democratic Party?
Jeb Bush took over the efforts to save Terri, and then he dropped them. He now endorses one of the men who worked to get Terri killed.
While it is true that most people support Michael Schiavo, that's because most people are extremely poorly-informed about the case. Michael changes his story about things so many times that to someone who really pays attention it's obvious he's a liar, but to someone who only catches glimpses Felos can make him seem convincing.
Most people believe that since nobody can possibly be as evil as Michael would have to be if even half of what Terri's supporters claim were true, therefore their claims must be false; they further believe that because any truth to Terri's supporters claims would make the case non-controversial, the fact that the case is controversial means the supporters are lying.
Somehow people never grasp that if one drops the premise that "nobody could possibly be that evil", the nature of the case becomes crystal clear. The controversy is a smokescreen created by a smokescreen. Remove the faulty premises and there is no controversy. The fact that something is controversial does not necessarily impart any legitimacy to both sides. It's possible for something to be "controversial" even when it's obvious to any informed person that one side is so clearly right there's no honest basis for arguing the other.
Unfortunately, Jeb Bush refused to come out and say that. Instead, he made it look as though government was "meddling" without offering the public any explanation as to why.
Not anymore it isn't. Your not very knowledgeable about Russia, China, the Koreas, Venezuela, Iran and what is happening in the EU...and right under your nose here are you? You think Soros just appeared out of thin air?
Reagan won it.
Yes he did. But not permanently. Your ilk let the enemy back up off the mat, and while you're dancing around thinking you had won the match when all we had accomplished was a knock-down. The match goes on, and the enemy is coming up behind you...(but only because you refuse to turn and see).
Come out of the bunker.
You and the rest of us all need to be getting into and building bunkers ASAP. Because Xlinton, and W, have dropped the ball. Big Time!
Do you work for a defense contractor? Do you belong to the John Birch Society?
False. Fully deployed? B'wahahahahahaha! And W eliminated our entire MX force. How many Minuteman IIIs have we got left Smart Guy? And what is their CEP and range after they were "upgraded"? Guess what, in both cases...those essentials went down after Xlinton's improvement program.
The Trident D-5 is the only possible first strike weapon...and we would need three times as many as we have to actually execute a first strike necessary to take on both the Russians, Chinese, Iran and Korea. And we have already forcibly dismantled four Trident submarines from SLBM carriers, converting them to mere tactical cruise missile carriers...and W is elminating another 4. Guess you don't know much about strategic targetting in nuclear planning either. You probably think we can get by with a couple hundred warheads and a mere launch-on-warning strategy (which, btw, we are not actually following...we are publically and officially in a "take it on the chin" policy. And as far as retaliatory capability, he is ignoring serious risks to the policy of stationing so many of SLBMs at home port, rather than constant deployment as we used to with Blue and Gold teams. And W cut our B-1B force in half...and parked them all in one base...just saying "hit us here."
They also have a National Missile Defense already, with not just the Moscow System of 200 interceptors around Moscow...but 8,800 SAM-300s around the periphery of the country. All NMD capable.
To say that the S-300 is NMD capable is to grant that same honorific to the PAC-3 Patriot. Do you?
They are not equally capable. The SAM-300 have a substantial number of nuclear warheads deployed in the field to maximize their NMD potential. The PAC-3s don't. Nor do they have the closing velocity of the SAM-300. But our PAC-3s are certainly a useful starting point technology for a terminal defense against the cruise missile and Ship-launched SCUD threat....but guess what.... They are not deployed for the homeland.
The U.S. home territory is almost completely wide open...except to the single axis of attack from North Korea.
Hence they kept the Strategic Framework Agmt secret from the public.
If it's secret, how do you know about it?
I am not going to hazard any officers. This is a perversion of our national security laws. Using them to muzzle the publication of knowledge of dire threats to the U.S. (first started by Xlinton, and now W), and insane commitments made by a CIC who could not care less about actually deploying a real NMD.
Disprove a single contention. I have postulated what it does in effect. You deny it. Clearly W ("The Man of his Word") has promised to keep our NMD limited to futility. The burden is on you to disprove it. Everything else checks out. You get a copy of the Strategic Framework Agreement. Go ahead. Try.
And you didn't give a straight answer about whether or not you work for a defense contractor.
First, it was an implicit insult, presuming first that if anybody were a defense industry type that they couldn't argue from anything other than a venal self interest, and don't value the country over the industry. This is an insult to all Americans, not just those who work in the defense of the country. Second, that kind of liberal inference is at base, symptomatic of Left-Wing-think. And this assault really shows where both of you are coming from. Just like liberals, you are projecting courrupt venality on everyone else. No shred of public or civic duty in either of your worlds.
Hence, I am not going to answer a question like that...especially to ones as malific as you guys.
Nor would you...who hides behind a pseudonym.
How about tit for tat. I am a citizen of the U.S. Are you? Somehow, I doubt it. Writing from Beijing are you? Do you work for the PLA? A PLA contractor?
Do you belong to the John Birch Society?
No. But do you have a problem with them? Are you a communist? Do you believe that the Rosenbergs were innocent? Or that Whittaker Chambers was full of it? History has shown that there really was a vast communist movement. And they are rather blatantly coming back into the public view today.
Thanks. Your last post told me all I needed to know about your motivation in revving up production of dead military armaments.
And there then followed a get-well program. Funny how you missed that detail.
The Trident D-5 is the only possible first strike weapon...and we would need three times as many as we have to actually execute a first strike necessary to take on both the Russians, Chinese, Iran and Korea.
There is this amazing little bit of technology called a . . . wait a minute, it's coming to me . . . ah, a "gravity bomb."
We've got a LOT of those lying around all over the world. And it's not uncommon to get miss distances on the order of five feet with those.
And we have already forcibly dismantled four Trident submarines from SLBM carriers, converting them to mere tactical cruise missile carriers...and W is elminating another 4.
Source, please. For some odd reason, I do not believe every bit of pontification that comes out of your mouth (see the note on the double-top-secret "Strategic Framework Agreement" you bandy about).
Guess you don't know much about strategic targetting in nuclear planning either.
I know enough to understand that most "nuclear war" plans make good fodder for a technothriller, but lack any connection to reality.
You probably think we can get by with a couple hundred warheads and a mere launch-on-warning strategy (which, btw, we are not actually following...we are publically and officially in a "take it on the chin" policy.
Interestingly enough, we "publicly and officially" followed such a policy during the entire Cold War--all while secretly following a far different policy in private.
So what's actually changed?
And as far as retaliatory capability, he is ignoring serious risks to the policy of stationing so many of SLBMs at home port, rather than constant deployment as we used to with Blue and Gold teams.
Which, incidentally, just happens to match the Russian policy re: SLBM patrols and mobile missile deployments (they tend to park them in their garrisons as opposed to moving them around). Makes a US first strike much easier.
And W cut our B-1B force in half...and parked them all in one base...just saying "hit us here."
The B-1B went out of the nuclear delivery business about a decade ago.
And the Russian strategic bomber force is similarly parked at one base as well.
They are not equally capable. The SAM-300 have a substantial number of nuclear warheads deployed in the field to maximize their NMD potential. The PAC-3s don't. Nor do they have the closing velocity of the SAM-300.
How will the command and control network (which, being necessarily of high bandwidth, will be extremely vulnerable to nuclear weapons effects) fare in a real, no-kidding engagement?
I am not going to hazard any officers.
Let me guess: someone in the Texas Air National Guard gave you some memos, and Dan Rather and Jayson Blair vouched for them.
Disprove a single contention.
No, you need to actually prove a single contention.
I have postulated what it does in effect. You deny it. Clearly W ("The Man of his Word") has promised to keep our NMD limited to futility.
The burden is on you to disprove it.
Again, the burden is on you to prove your assertion.
You get a copy of the Strategic Framework Agreement. Go ahead. Try.
You're the guy who claims to know the content of the Strategic Framework Agreement; please produce a certified true copy of same.
First, it was an implicit insult, presuming first that if anybody were a defense industry type that they couldn't argue from anything other than a venal self interest, and don't value the country over the industry.
It's a valid question. I always ask liberal moonbats if they get their money from the money-down-the-rathole programs they support. They respond pretty much as you do--they get all huffy, and never answer the question.
Just like liberals, you are projecting courrupt venality on everyone else.
One must always ask "who gains?" when the question is how to disburse public funds, and it's always a good idea to disclose one's pecuniary interest if one exists. (For the record: I would actually make a fair chunk of change if your recommendations were made national policy.)
No shred of public or civic duty in either of your worlds.
There are a lot of liberals who prattle about "public" and "civic" duty. It boils down to "give me lots of money and I'll spend it for you." I don't pretend that conservatives, whether genuine or narcissistic Internet trolls, are immune to that disease.
Hence, I am not going to answer a question like that...especially to ones as malific as you guys.
Guess that tells me the answer.
Nor would you...who hides behind a pseudonym.
Already did. I don't work in the defense biz any more (I am retired, so I don't have to deal with either trying to deal with Air Force SSEBs [frequently peopled by colonels and above looking for nice jobs in their retirement] or the abortion of an acquisition system we have, THANK GOD!), but I do own shares of LockMart, Boeing/Mickey-D, Northrop Grumman, GE, and other defense contractors. Going back to the grand old days of large-scale defense acquisition would do my finances a world of good, but I don't pretend that my financial interest is automatically the national interest.
False. You know nothing. Not about me or defense issues.
But you are evidently a Lefty who can only think with a wallet in his brain.
The Defense industry, from what I see as a knowledgeable citizen, btw, is doing fine...from a profit standpoint.
No, the issue is what the heck we are spending money on, and not getting the job done.
As far as "dead" military armaments...tell it to Russia, China, Iran, NKorea, and the rest of the planet. The only ones who think these are "dead" military armaments are died-in-the-wool liberals.
We Reaganite "hawks" can spot the appeasement gang at a glance... Appeasers and unilateral-disarmers are so flagrant, and their tell-tale signs so characteristic, and their mental shallowness so transparent...its a piece of cake.
It's already proved. The conduct confirms it. You can't gainsay the conduct of this Administration...and the verbage that his speaking about NMD is always couched in.
Didn't miss it. It didn't really work. The range is constrained. Nothing they could do about that, and it seriously degrades any counterforce capability.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.