Mrs. Bush Steals Show at Reporters' Dinner

You've called me dense and immature, and I didn't even use any of the keywords you took the trouble to list. Why would you have a problem with BUSHACTEDLIKEANIDIOT when you're tossing around insults just as strong?

Heck, many of those keywords appear to be playing right off the theme of Laura's speech. We have some people stooping to her level and giving Laura a taste of her own medicine with NAGGINGHOUSEWIVES, ANAUGHTYFIRSTLADY, LAURADIGSMEINTHONGS and LAURANEEDSALITTLE. If you thought Laura's speech was funny, some of these keywords should have you giddy with giggles!

Do you think this sort of stuff is an acceptable way to discuss the First Lady of the United States?

Hillary? Yes. Laura? Only if she brings it on herself.

As for my hypothetical Peroutka-Kerry-Bush question, I suspect you might be afraid to answer it. If you would've voted for Bush even if he had no chance to win, you would've been your own dreaded fringe voter. If you had voted for Peroutka because he had a chance to win, you would've admitted a willingness to dump Bush in order to give in to peer pressure through the polling companies like Zogby and Gallup. And if you had voted for Kerry, of course, all hell would've broken loose.

You've criticized my vote for Peroutka because he didn't have a realistic chance of winning. You've implied I threw my vote away. Well, I'm in Washington state. There was no way in hell Bush was going to carry this state. And I didn't even need any polling company to tell me that. Therefore, my send-a-message vote for Peroutka on Election Day was a very reasonable way to cast my ballot.

If I had voted for Bush, I can guarantee you that would've been interpreted by the White House as an endorsement of the Administration. Instead, I voted for a candidate whose campaign was largely based on concern about illegal immigration. Anybody in the White House who bothered to crunch the numbers would've likely recognized that each vote for Peroutka was a vote they lost because of their failure to adequately address border security. That wasn't my only disagreement with Bush, but it was a big one.

I made a very calculated decision that wasn't final until I actually headed to the polls on Election Day. I knew at that time that neither Bush nor Peroutka would be getting any electoral votes out of Washington state.

Finally, how can you criticize me voting for Peroutka even though he had virtually no chance to win nationally when just about the same thing could be said of George W. Bush's prospects in Washington state, such a liberal hellhole that it's represented in the U.S. Senate by left-wing nut Patty Murray?

I will address your entire post tomorrow. I'm way too tired to make sense of that jumble right now. My bedtime passed about 2 hours ago.

I'll answer in detail later.

Good nite.

Tammy

Don't let the bed bugs bite!

Pleasant dreams.

Charlie

She was marvelous, but now the MSM is sniping at her. What a bunch of idiots. In order to deserve Americans' votes, dems are going to have to figure out something else other than negative smears.

In a word, Laura Bush pandered. And that is beneath the dignity of a First Lady as she is not a politician. Further,logical outcomes of behavior have to be considered. If there was a show on about excessive drinking which had acceptability across the culture, would that justify a First Lady's identifying with it for some laughs? I hope not. I hope we would all as adults realize that shows about excessive drinking are sophomoric and don't really deal with the issue of the negative results of excessive drinking which can be onerous.

I have decided that the generation in charge, the sixties generation, is not, after all the "me" generation. The current establishment is actually the "O" generation. And that "O" stands for orgasm. In our national waking dream state our national obsession is for the almighty orgasm. Every show, every ad, normal conversation, it's all orgasms all the time. We go from one suggested titillation to the next.

We may be dressed up; we may ride in limos; we may have fancy homes; we may be the President's wife, but we are not above embracing our national obsession: the mighty "O". The suggestive titillation as a precursor to the mighty "O".

And anybody who steps back and says "wait a minute here, this is becoming downright uncivilizied and undignified," well, God help that person for getting in the way of our national obsession. V's wife.

In our national waking dream state our national obsession is for the almighty orgasm.

Orgasms? I think you need to get some help for this.

No one is thinking about orgasms.

You should be embarrassed about this.

Hi Charlie. Okay let me try this. (BTW, I had mostly pleasant dreams, except for the last one where I was getting back together with my ex husband.....yuck)

I didn't mean to imply that you used any of those keywords. Those words and similar thoughts are being used all over this forum to describe Laura and her routine by lots of people. And in my opinion they are inappropriate and over the top.

There is nothing wrong with disapproving of the First Lady's jokes, AS LONG AS IT'S A SINCERE OBJECTION.

But what we are seeing, is that the fringe voters are the main ones to have a problem with it. Therefore, the way it looks is that the people complaining are looking at this as a way to bash the PRESIDENT and further the "fringe" agenda.

That's where it crosses the line from sincere objection, to political mudslinging.

The reason you and I started talking in the first place was because I saw your post wondering why your post was pulled. I wanted to be honest with you about the fact that it was me that asked for it to be done.

Your initial post about the routine was pretty unpleasant but in all honesty I don't remember what you said.

So, I guess in reality, we have been talking about this more in theory rather than actual practice. (sort of)

Now, before we get to your last post to me, let's have a snack.

Okay...

There is a big difference between words exchanged between people on a forum and being disrespectful to the First Lady of the United States.

We are talking one on one here, with the ability to give and take freely.

You may see all of these keywords and comments as acceptable, but I don't. Actually, I'm pretty sure you don't really like them either. In addition to not being stupid, you are also not a mean person.

Your comments to me have been well measured and non confrontational. So I know you aren't a total jerk.

About your hypothetical Petroutka question, first let me say that it is not so much that you voted for Petroutka that bothers me. My problem, as I have said before is that there is a distinct personality trait that seems to be shared by all of the fringe voters. It's a VERY low tolerance for things, a tendency towards excessive drama and a mean streak.

Note...I'm not saying you are mean people, but there tends to be a mean streak in the posts. I'm speaking about "fringers" as a group.

Have you ever noticed that you can watch the news with the sound off and still be able to tell which one is the democrat and which is the republican just by looking at them? The democrat always looks mean and tends to have a "hard" looking face and the republicans tend to look softer and smile more. Have you ever noticed that?

It's sort of the same thing here on FR.

By the way a post is worded or a reaction to certain things, we can usually tell the fringe voters from the more "mainstream" freepers.

You certainly have the right to cast your vote for the person you truly think is best for the country.

But, to cast a vote as a punishment vote seems immature to me. You say that in Washington State, it was "safe" to cast a protest vote. But what about all the other "protest" voters in Ohio? Or "protest" voters in Florida in 2000?

Those could well have cost the election if the campaign to get more "protest" voters had succeeded. You and I both know that there was a BIG campaign here on FR for exactly that purpose.

If your campaign had succeeded, we would have had John Kerry as president and we all know the dangers of that.

So, this "protest" thing was not really about "principles", it was political warfare. I think this objection to Laura is exactly the same thing. Political warfare.

To engage in such political warfare during such a close election was immature and irresponsible, especially considering the fact that we were ALL in agreement that Kerry would have been a disaster.

That's what I mean by learning to think ahead.

Your battle is best fought at times like this, not during an election season. Get your message out there and strengthen your party if you can, but don't destroy the country in order to do that. It is certainly inappropriate to attempt to destroy a good woman in order to do that same thing. I'm sure you were taught to never hit a woman, but some of you think nothing of "hitting" her in order to further an agenda. Is that who you want to be? I don't think that's who you really are.

But let's go back to attitude...with the unpleasant demeanor of the fringers, we simply aren't interested and immediately turn off. Perhaps you guys should work on your presentation skills a bit.

How many votes did Petroutka get in Washington State? How many nationwide? Do you really think the President got your "message"?

Do you REALLY think Petroutka or Tancredo is qualified to be president of the United States? You said yourself that Petroutka ran on an anti illegal immigration platform. You admitted that he is a one issue candidate.

I want a President who can run the entire country, not just the border. Bush can run the whole country and has done it very well for four years.

To vote for someone who can't do that is irresponsible and immature regardless of how many electoral votes are at stake or how many electoral votes there are to spare.

So, I think I did answer your hypothetical Petrouka-Kerry-Bush question. I would vote for the person most qualified to run the entire country. That would be George W. Bush. Yes, Bush has to do something about the illegal immigration problem. He hasn't done as much as he could do, but he is very much capable in other areas. Historically, he will be remembered very well.

What makes you a fringe voter is not your actual vote, it's the fact that you would vote for a single issue candidate and have a single issue on your mind.

You are smarter than that my friend.

Hi Tammy. Let me apologize in advance for the length of this post, but you've raised many points that I thought warranted responses. But I promise it's a good read, even if there aren't any snack breaks in it. ;-) This conversation we've been having has kind of evolved from a dirty mud-wrestling contest into a high-level chess match:

My problem, as I have said before is that there is a distinct personality trait that seems to be shared by all of the fringe voters. It's a VERY low tolerance for things, a tendency towards excessive drama and a mean streak.

Note...I'm not saying you are mean people, but there tends to be a mean streak in the posts. I'm speaking about "fringers" as a group.

Well, my problem with a lot of the Bush supporters and even Bush himself is that they have too much tolerance for certain things and don't get fired up about injustices that occur in this country.

One of the reasons Hillary is being considered such a viable presidential candidate for 2008 is that some Republicans like Bush have never bothered to seriously confront the widespread corruption of the Clinton years, 1993-2001. Heck, it was like pulling teeth just to get about 50 moderate House Republicans to vote yes on impeachment when we had a mountain of evidence. Then the Republican Senate wimped out in several different ways.

Now I turn on the TV and hear Bush41 saying he considers Bill Clinton to be "a friend." Bob Dole seems to have the same opinion. And at the recent tsunami relief press conference, the current President Bush actually said Bill Clinton is a man with "a good heart." That may not seem like a big thing to you, but it's heart-breaking for me to hear Bush personally praise Clinton in that way, especially when I think of Juanita Broaddrick, a very credible woman from Van Buren, Ark., who is on record saying she was brutally raped by Clinton. How would you feel if you were raped by someone, then you turned on the TV and saw the sitting president of the United States - arguably the most powerful man on the face of the earth - complimenting the pig who raped you?

In that instance, I believe Bush was pandering to a country that still contains a lot of people who either approve of Clinton or want politicians to get along with each other no matter who they are. It sickens me to think that there are teenagers out there who are too young to remember all the scandals of the Clinton years who must now have a positive first impression of the creep when they hear Bush and his father - both from the opposite political party - saying such flattering things about him.

More recently, President Bush deeply offended me when he criticized the work of the minutemen volunteers on the Arizona border. Bush called them vigilantes. Now that is mean. That was totally uncalled for. The definition of vigilante is: A member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law appear inadequate).

By all accounts, the minutemen were acting within the current law. They were not punishing anyone summarily. They were alerting the border agents and informing them anytime an illegal alien was spotted trying to break into this country. The Arizona minutemen are HEROES. They are PATRIOTS. They donated their time. I'd say they even risked their lives. And what thanks did they get from their prez? Nothing but a big fat insult hurled in their direction. That's outrageous. That's mean. That's nasty.

Has Bush apologized yet for that rude remark? Has he taken immediate action, so there's no need for volunteers to help border agents do their job efficiently? I would contend Bush has too high a tolerance for ILLEGAL ALIENS. I'd contend Bush would be wise to direct his mean streak at the law-breakers violating our border instead of the volunteers who take time out of their own lives to help protect it.

I saw a former Justice Department official on TV two days ago who said something like 1 out of every 5 federal prisoners in this country is an illegal alien. Most aren't in prison for breaking into the country. They're in prison for other crimes they committed after they arrived here. How many people have to be murdered before Bush wakes up? How many gangs have to threaten our towns before Bush gets fired up? How many children have to be offered drugs before Bush does something? Just in the last month, a New Hampshire police chief caught an illegal alien, called INS and was told to just release him. That happens daily in this country. It's INSANE

Bush panders to Clinton supporters and he panders to Latinos - even the ones who come here illegally. And I believe Laura Bush was pandering when she gave her speech, as well. She may not watch a gutter show like "Desperate Housewives," but the people she was talking to definitely do. They ate it up. Meanwhile, people like me puked. It's a difference in taste. It's a difference in culture. It's a difference of opinion. I thought Laura was classier than that, but the speech she gave could just have easily been given by Teresa Heinz Kerry, who would've been the most obnoxious First Lady this nation would've ever seen - even more so than Hillary.

...to cast a vote as a punishment vote seems immature to me. You say that in Washington State, it was "safe" to cast a protest vote. But what about all the other "protest" voters in Ohio? Or "protest" voters in Florida in 2000?

If I had been in Ohio this past election, it's very possible I would've voted differently. As I said, I didn't make my final decision until I was actually headed to my polling station. It was the most difficult voting decision I've had to make in my life. The person who made it so difficult is named George W. Bush.

How many votes did Petroutka get in Washington State? How many nationwide? Do you really think the President got your "message"?

Well, obviously Bush didn't get my message, nor does he want to receive my message. My impression of Bush lately is that he doesn't take criticism well, even when it's constructive criticism. If he had gotten my message, he certainly wouldn't have labeled American heroes "vigilantes."

Do you REALLY think Petroutka or Tancredo is qualified to be president of the United States?

If Bush was qualified to be president when he ran in 2000, I definitely believe Peroutka was qualified when he ran in 2004 and Tancredo would be qualified if he decides to run in 2008. To be honest with you, I think there are millions of Americans at any moment in time who are qualified to be president.

You said yourself that Petroutka ran on an anti illegal immigration platform. You admitted that he is a one issue candidate.

NO, I never said Peroutka was a one-issue candidate. I said his campaign was "largely based on concern about illegal immigration." One could also say Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign was "largely based on lowering taxes and defeating the Soviet Union." Peroutka was not a one-issue candidate. I agreed with most of the Constitution Party's platform and appreciated its emphasis on border security that was sorely lacking from Bush's four-year record in office.

Get your message out there and strengthen your party if you can, but don't destroy the country in order to do that. It is certainly inappropriate to attempt to destroy a good woman in order to do that same thing. I'm sure you were taught to never hit a woman, but some of you think nothing of "hitting" her in order to further an agenda.

Oh, Tammy, you know better than this. I'm not destroying the country. America is plenty strong enough to handle candid political debate. I'm not destroying Laura Bush. She's a big girl. And when the Bush Administration sent her out many months ago to announce a funding increase for the pathetic National Endowment for the Arts, Laura certainly became fair game for criticism.

You try holding you two middle fingers together like that it is not easy!

You are kidding right? Try reading a Brave New World! V's wife.

And btw, what do you think those Desperate Housewives are desperate for? Sheesh, and I need help? As for embarressment, that's exactly the point, in our search for the almighty "O" and any titillation that might hint of it, we have lost the ability to be embarressed.

Pointing that out doesn't make me embarressed at all. It makes me sad for our immodest country. V's wife.

On the contrary -- it is the Vulcan salute that is difficult at first. Quite the opposite, IMHO.

What are you trying to say?

Hi Charlie. I took a FR break yesterday and that's why I'm just getting back to you now.

I'll try to respond in the same order as your post

You say that Bush supporters have a lot of tolerance for things. In a way, you are probably right, but not in the way you think. A lot of it is patience and an understanding that the world is a very complicated place.

Most of you guys think things are simple, but they aren't.

It goes back to the maturity thing. Most of us easily see the big picture. No President is perfect and President Bush certainly isn't perfect. But he is a good and decent man who really cares about this country. You know that too, or you wouldn't have voted for him.

So, we chose not to call him names or accuse him of treasonous behavior, or claim that he is in bed with Vincente Fox or big oil or any of the other claims that are often made (falsely) about him.

What you see as "injustices" are simply part of this complicated world.

You say that Hillary is being considered a viable candidate because Bush never seriously confronted the Clinton corruption.

Uh, Bush wasn't the sheriff in town when all that happened. He was the Governor of the (Great) State of Texas.

I don't see how you can blame Bush for that. His job is not to delve into the past, his job is to set the course for the future. Blame the justice department, blame the cowardly republican congress, but this isn't Bush's fault.

Do you really think Bush would have a prayer in the world of getting ANYTHING done if he came into office and began to personally take on the Clintons? You know full well he would have spent four completely useless years in office. Absolutely nothing would have been accomplished. That includes getting support for the war on terror.

No, Bush had to stay above all that.

Besides, there are still investigations going on into Clinton dealings.

Don't assume that the republicans have just decided to sit back and let Hillary skate. Don't assume that Bush is unaware of activities to expose Hillary. The "dreaded" Karl Rove has not been sitting back, doing nothing and waiting for a Hillary term.

I believe that there are big surprises in store for Ms. Hillary.

I don't understand why you guys get so worked up about Bush 41 saying he and Clinton are friends. Likewise, I don't understand the problem with President Bush treating Clinton with respect.

President Bush is a Christian. We are commanded to do exactly as Bush is doing right now. Those of you who are throwing hissy fits because of Laura's routine are saying it's because you are Christians right? Well, I am a Christian also and I completely approve of the way Bush treats Clinton.

Do you know that there is a very high profile prophetic minister who says that Clinton is at a point where he is ready for God? This person has spoken with President Bush about Clinton.

Yes, my heart aches for Juanita Broderick and for ALL of them. All of those poor women victimized by Clinton. But I also know that the only way they are going to get any sort of justice on this earth is for Clinton to turn to Christ.

The fact that Hillary is waiting in the wings is EXACTLY why it is crucial for Bill Clinton to be brought to the Father. President Bush and Bush 41 are doing what they can to be an example to him.

Think back. What does Bush 41 say about his friendship with Clinton? Each and every time, he says that he thinks Clinton sees him as the father he never had. Even someone of Clinton's age still need a father's influence.

Bush 41 wouldn't say that unless there was something in their relationship that caused him to feel that way. Instead of freaking out about this, why not pray that Bill can be led to God through the example of these good men?

What better way to defuse Hillary, but to have Bill turned to God?

Now, about the minutemen. I know that President Bush's vigilante comment offended you, as well as many others here.

BUT, lets think about this for a minute. From all the comments on here about the illegal aliens, I honestly considered them to be vigilantes as well.

I NEVER thought they would behave as well as they did. But they performed admirably.

Some of the comments, and indeed some of the posters here, have been very racist. No one will admit to it and certainly not all of you are racist, but some most assuredly are.

I have seen posts advocating killing illegals. I have seen posts here just brimming with hatred.

Sure some have expressed their concerns as how it affects our national security, but many have been strictly hateful.

Not just about the illegals, but also about the government and the agencies tasked with border control.

Believe me, I know what I am talking about. My ex-husband is a border patrol agent and I was the target of many frighteningly hateful and venomous posts when I mentioned that. It was bad enough that I was afraid of anyone finding out who I was. Honestly. It was downright threatening at times. Some even have the nerve to tell me that they hoped my ex-husband would be killed.

That is the absolute truth.

President Bush gets that information as well. He would have been negligent if he wasn't concerned about what would happen on the border. I most certainly was.

The whole way this minuteman project was brought out was with a definitely negative tone. It was stuff like, "Bush won't protect us", "Bush is in bed with Fox", "Bush doesn't can about the country", "The government doesn't care about us", "Bush wants to turn this country into the United States of Mexico", "Bush is giving away our national sovereignty" etc.

How would YOU feel about this project if you were Bush?

You guys have crappy PR people to be completely honest. The vitriol didn't win your side any support. The experiment went well and that works in your favor, but before hand, most of us were prepared for a great big mess, possibly with some deaths.

Okay, so everyone was well behaved and things went well. That's great. Bush has also never said that again has he?

In fact he is sending Chertoff down there to meet with the organizers and with local politicians. But still people are bitching.

The fact is, Bush made some proposals for dealing with the illegal problem. But that wasn't good enough for you guys. You guys said it was an amnesty program and it isn't.

It was a start and this situation is far more complicated than you guys will acknowledge. Bush was the two term governor of Texas. He knows lots more about the intricacies of border control, border relations, economic factors etc. than ANY of us do and that includes the immigration god, Tancredo.

Besides, Tancredo simply has his claws in an issue that is garnering political support. He is using you guys just like you are using him.

You seem to be bothered by the fact that Bush hasn't "apologized" for that remark. Why the hell would he? You guys are nothing but hateful to him, why would he be ready to kiss your feet? I wouldn't do it either.

Besides, you know that any apology from a President is taken as a weakness despite the claims that Americans are forgiving people. "We the people" might be, but the press and political opponents smell blood and they would be relentless in their attacks. So the apology thing is just being silly.

Again, Bush has acted by sending Chrenoff to the border to decide what should be done. Also why do you think Bush could just stick thousands more agents on the border? Where would they come from and how would we pay for it?

You seem worked up about the people in our federal prisons. Are you aware that the numbers you quoted amount to only 4%?

So while we do have a problem, lets keep things in prospective here. We are at much more danger from our own homegrown criminals. Much more danger.

Get serious Charlie. Do you honestly think Laura Bush was "pandering" when she did that routine? Get real. This is what I mean about being overly dramatic.

For you guys EVERYTHING is sinister. It's just not that way for heaven's sake. It was a simple comedy routine that almost every American who saw it enjoyed.

To see a boogeyman in everything is to be unbearably paranoid.

Laura is not the monster under your bed. Your monsters are coming from inside you.

I'm glad to see that you would have reconsidered your protest vote if you had been in a more contested state this election. However, many people here clearly stated that they wanted Bush to lose because that way the GOP would "get the message".

If there was a country left after Kerry got through with us, then I would have been surprised.

To think the way many did was treasonous in my opinion. Destroy the country in order to save it? Those people should be shot in my opinion.

You say that Tancredo and Petroutka are qualified to be President of the United States. Based on what?

Being a school teacher turned congressman in 1998 that few outside of Colorado have even heard of?

Or a lawyer from Maryland that NO ONE has heard of?

If you run someone that no one knows, they aren't going to win. Period.

You don't like me saying that they are single issue candidates, but in reality they are just that.

The only thing that either of them really have to offer that Bush didn't was a strongly voiced position on illegal immigration. You seem to be forgetting that Bush spoke up on this topic long before the election, but it wasn't enough for you guys. Nonetheless, it was a very good starting place and you guys rejected it immediately because it didn't involve immediately locking down the borders and executing any crossers on sight.

Don't say that isn't what you guys want because plenty of posters wanted exactly that.

Can't you guys see the benefit of the President's plan that identifies who is here and that doesn't cause sudden and catastrophic damage to the economy?

Finally, sure America is strong enough to handle political debate, but what has been going on lately is beyond debate and is heading towards a very frightening clash. We have got to work together period. To continue to let conservatives be split apart does nothing but weaken us all. Then who is left?

Hillary.

It must be miserable for you. What is it like to have sex on your mind like that all the time?

Let me tell you something, Church Lady, we are not all thinking about sex, but you sure seem to be.

Do you really think Bush would have a prayer in the world of getting ANYTHING done if he came into office and began to personally take on the Clintons?

No, but he doesn't have to kiss Clinton's ass whenever he gets the chance. If Bush wants to be nice to a former Democrat president, he should be nice to Jimmy Carter. At least Jimmy Carter genuinely does have a "good heart" in addition to core principles and values. Also, Jimmy Carter hasn't raped anyone, committed perjury or arrogantly dragged this country through one scandal after another like Clinton did. However, Jimmy Carter has criticized Bush sharply for some policy issues, and Bush doesn't take criticism - even deeply principled criticism - well at all.

And it's one thing for Bush to focus on the future, but it's another thing to help cover up for Clinton. After the Elian Gonzalez raid, many Republicans (including myself) wanted Congressional hearings to be held regarding the use of force and the INS actions. I was saddened when I saw a couple of news reports indicating that the Bush campaign was privately urging the Republican Congress not to hold hearings. I don't think hearings were ever held. The Bush campaign wanted to stay on message, so I guess they got their selfish wish. As you know, I still voted for Bush in 2000, but it was mainly a vote against the widespread Clinton-Gore corruption than it was for Bush. Meanwhile, we never got to the bottom of what I believe was very corrupt action taken by the INS.

Those of you who are throwing hissy fits because of Laura's routine are saying it's because you are Christians right?

No, I never have said that. Never will.

Well, I am a Christian also and I completely approve of the way Bush treats Clinton.

It's really disturbing to hear you say that. I can guarantee you that Clinton's legacy improves with each Bush family compliment. Young people across this land, who learn very little about recent political events in our public schools, have more and more of a positive impression of Clinton each time they see his GOP rivals patting him on the back and praising him more than he deserves. That will most definitely translate to Hillary in 2008. If the GOP loses in 2008, you'll have Bush to blame. But you'll probably blame Tancredo or Peroutka or Perot or someone like that to make yourself feel better.

Just out of curiosity, would you feel the same way about the Bush family's repeated praising of Clinton if Juanita Broaddrick was your sister and if Billy Dale of the White House travel office was your brother?

Do you know that there is a very high profile prophetic minister who says that Clinton is at a point where he is ready for God? This person has spoken with President Bush about Clinton.

Uh, if Clinton was ready for God, shouldn't he have begun dealing in the truth when he wrote his book just months ago??? Maybe start issuing some apologies to people. Maybe start confessing some of his sins. Darling Tammy, actions speak so much louder than words, and I won't start believing Clinton is ready for God based only on hearsay evidence that winds its way from Clinton's mouth to Bush's ears and from Bush's mouth to an unnamed minister's ears and from a minister's mouth to your ears and from your typing fingers to my computer screen. It would truly be a miraculous day if Clinton ever did manage to turn his life around, but it appears he's too busy figuring out various statutes of limitation before he ever comes clean.

Instead of freaking out about this, why not pray that Bill can be led to God through the example of these good men?

I've been too busy praying for people like Pvt. Jessica Lynch, who Thank God returned home alive. While I pray for our troops, you can spend your time praying for the most corrupt president in our nation's history who used prayer breakfast meetings as photo ops and multiple spirtual advisers (like Rev. Jackson) as political pawns.

Some of the comments, and indeed some of the posters here, have been very racist. No one will admit to it and certainly not all of you are racist, but some most assuredly are.

That's one of the major reasons we so desperately need to control our borders. There are a number of communities in this country where a huge percentage of crime is committed by Latinos - many of them illegal aliens. That is undoubtedly breeding a new strain of racism.

Believe me, I know what I am talking about. My ex-husband is a border patrol agent and I was the target of many frighteningly hateful and venomous posts when I mentioned that. It was bad enough that I was afraid of anyone finding out who I was. Honestly. It was downright threatening at times. Some even have the nerve to tell me that they hoped my ex-husband would be killed.

That's horrible to hear, and I'm sorry you had to go through that. However, there are easily thousands and thousands of families throughout this country who would gladly trade places with you and your ex-husband. One such family was mentioned on the O'Reilly Factor recently. A mom was murdered at her home by an illegal alien who had been hired by a company doing work at the victim's home. After the murder, the illegal alien called all the mom's pre-recorded numbers on her cellphone and taunted her family and friends. You can see how many of us would become very active on the illegal immigration issue after hearing a story like that, especially considering that preventable attacks like that are taking place every single day in this country.

I have no anger whatsoever for the border agents who are trying to do their jobs. I do have anger, however, when George W. Bush doesn't come through with the additional border guards he said he would. Then when volunteers try to help out, Bush calls them vigilantes. And then when numerous local law enforcement agencies call the INS to say they've apprehended illegals, Bush's INS tells those local police officers to just re-release the illegal aliens back into society. There's simply no excuse for any of this.

Bush was the two term governor of Texas. He knows lots more about the intricacies of border control, border relations, economic factors etc. than ANY of us do and that includes the immigration god, Tancredo.

Janet Reno was this nation's Attorney General for a long time. Does that mean she understands this nation's laws more than anyone else? Of course not.

People are dying, and you bring economic factors into the illegal immigration debate. Bush supporters do this all the time. They ask who will harvest the crops if we don't let the illegals in. They ask who will change the bedding in the motel rooms if we don't let the illegals in. They say Americans don't want those jobs. Well, we don't really know that for sure because we've never seriously addressed our border problem. And even if Americans wouldn't take those jobs, there's a group of people called LEGAL immigrants who likely would.

It's awfully ironic that people on my side are labeled racists, considering that it's the current immigration insanity that is supremely racist. When people try to come here legally from countries like Canada, Switzerland, Africa, Japan, etc., they fill out mountains of paperwork and wait and wait and wait. Meanwhile, law-breakers from Mexico sneak in daily and are tolerated. That's discrimination plain and simple. Or reverse discrimination if that's what you want to call it.

Besides, Tancredo simply has his claws in an issue that is garnering political support.

That's because he's on the right side of this issue, while Bush is on the wrong side. Live with it. Columnist Michelle Malkin has many of the same views, but she's not a politician. Tancredo and Malkin are present-day Paul Reveres. I appreciate what they are doing. I wish Bush was a good listener.

You seem to be bothered by the fact that Bush hasn't "apologized" for that remark. Why the hell would he?

Because he was wrong about the minutemen. Before you learn from your mistakes, you first have to acknowledge them. Bush has a well-known record of not doing either. At a press conference and then again during the 2004 debates, he was given ample opportunity to admit to just one or just a few errors. First, he said he couldn't think of any. Then, at the debates, he said he may have been mistaken when he appointed some wrong people to positions. In other words, he blamed the performance of other people for his own mistakes. He's arrogant. He's stubborn. Those can sometimes be good qualities for a leader to have. But they can also be fatal flaws for a country that needs to grow and improve.

Also why do you think Bush could just stick thousands more agents on the border? Where would they come from and how would we pay for it?

Well, you should ask Bush that question because he's the one who proposed adding more agents but then refused to fund them in the budget, thus taking it all off the table. An army of volunteers is out there ready to help as they recently proved. And, of course, it would also help if Bush could find the energy to pick up the phone, call his INS and insist that they start following up on every case reported by local law enforcement.

If we don't catch the illegals coming in, we should at least take action when those illegals come in contact with local law enforcement. We're not doing that. Read Michelle Malkin's book INVASION if you haven't already. Watch the O'Reilly Factor. It's not just about our border. It's about the INS not enforcing existing laws.

You seem worked up about the people in our federal prisons. Are you aware that the numbers you quoted amount to only 4%?

You mean compared to state prisons??? That still adds up to thousands and thousands of convicts who would've never gotten the chance to commit their crimes if they had been denied access into the United States. The alarming truth is that there are a number of Mexicans who have no problem breaking our immigration laws just like they have no problem breaking our drug laws, our rape laws, our murder laws, our laws period. They've proven that. Law-abiding Mexicans who are willing to go through the process of coming here legally are overwhelmingly more likely to be law-abiding in other areas, too.

Get serious Charlie. Do you honestly think Laura Bush was "pandering" when she did that routine?

Of course she was. I didn't hear her giving that speech - or anything even remotely like it - at lighthearted campaign events in the South. That's one reason she's receiving such passionate criticism from a vocal minority. It was a side of Laura we hadn't seen before. She pandered to the audience as her husband continues to pander to Latinos. Laura's pandering, however, is a million times more excusable than the president's. Nobody's dying because of Laura's speech. I wish I could say the same about Dubya's immigration policy.

If there was a country left after Kerry got through with us, then I would have been surprised.

To think the way many did was treasonous in my opinion. Destroy the country in order to save it? Those people should be shot in my opinion.

If you really mean that, you're the one on the fringe. You're the one being overly dramatic. You're the radical here.

The only thing that either of them really have to offer that Bush didn't was a strongly voiced position on illegal immigration. You seem to be forgetting that Bush spoke up on this topic long before the election, but it wasn't enough for you guys. Nonetheless, it was a very good starting place and you guys rejected it immediately because it didn't involve immediately locking down the borders and executing any crossers on sight.

Executing any crossers on sight? Give me a break. Again, you're being overly dramatic and just downright wrong about me and most people on my side of this issue.

Can't you guys see the benefit of the President's plan that identifies who is here and that doesn't cause sudden and catastrophic damage to the economy?

I addressed the false claims regarding the economy earlier in this same post. As far as Bush's plan to identify who is here, how exactly does he propose to do that? Isn't that a little like trying to count the people who weren't counted for the census? Do you think all the drug dealers, murderers, check-bouncers and rapists are going to allow themselves to be "identified?" I think not. That's one of the reasons Megan's Law hasn't worked as it was intended to work. The perverts just move away and don't re-register. That's why states like Florida have to go back and put more teeth in the law. The only solution to that problem is to just keep the perverts in prison. And the only solution to the illegal alien problem is to keep them out of the country in the first place. If they came here illegally, they are on record having no regard for our laws. They shouldn't be allowed to stay. They shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose which laws they want to obey.

We have got to work together period. To continue to let conservatives be split apart does nothing but weaken us all.

Apparently, your idea of working together is to support Bush. Support Bush. Then... support Bush. And after that, support Bush some more. However, as time goes on, George W. Bush appears to be more of a clueless wonder than anything else. Bush is the one splitting this party apart and weakening us all. And quite honestly, it appears Laura did the same thing to a much lesser degree with her speech. You can't always get your way. If you want this party to truly become united, you need to start urging your fellow Bush supporters to demand more from the White House. To borrow a phrase from my favorite country band Sugarland's latest hit: There's gotta be something more.

Apparently I am not the only one who is not wearing rose colored glasses: BUCKLEY JR., WILLIAM F.

National Review

November 19, 2001

The subject is pornography and Pervasive Presence. That last is a legal term meaning-it's everywhere. Is it really everywhere? In February I picked up the current Esquire. The issue began with letters-to-the- editor. Readers gave their opinions of Esquire's year-end issue marking the end of President Clinton's administration. That issue had come in with a cover photo of Mr. Clinton, seated, smiling defiantly into the camera, hands resting on widely separated knees, the picture snapped at crotch level. Leer time.
The editors introduced a running feature called "Man at His Best." Its theme-What shall we do? What shall we think about?-was given by the editors for serial weeks in the month of February. For Valentine's Day (Week Two), ". . . we recommend the Valentine's Day Sex Tour at the San Francisco Zoo. Learn that chimps make it with their sisters. Marvel that a male lion can copulate up to 50 times a day." For Week Four, there is a dark observation: "Observe
...

You can go here to read the whole thing, or not, but do us a favor and stop running away from reality. Porn, indeed, is pervasive and you marginalizing me as a church lady is nothing more than a name calling swipe which doesn't adrress the fact or the argument, but merely runs away from it.
http://static.highbeam.com/n/nationalreview/november192001/pornpervasivepresencethecreepywallpaperofourdailyl/

Charlie, I'll get back to you probably tomorrow. This one is too long for me to tackle tonight.

I hope you were able to spend a nice Mother's Day with the moms in your life.

Tammy

I am a adult and I don't need you to keep giving me these suggestions for reading material. I know how to think for myself. You should try it.

I'm not denying that there is a freer use of sex and sexually oriented content in the world today.

That isn't my point. The point is, that you are really reaching to say that the world is only concerned about the "mighty O" as you called it.

That is being too dramatic. Especially when you accuse the First Lady of the United States of that sort of thing.

The routine may not have been your style but to accuse Laura Bush of attempting to titillate and seduce is just plain wrong.

There may be some sort of sickness in your head that causes you to think that way, but not everyone thinks that way.

I am a committed Christian and I didn't take any of her jokes that way and neither did plenty of other committed Christians.

You seem to have that on your mind, but not all of us do. Therefore I think you might want to examine your own thoughts.

I hope you were able to spend a nice Mother's Day with the moms in your life.

Yes, I was. Thanks. And I hope you had a wonderful Mother's Day, as well.

Pleasant dreams, Tammy. No nightmares this time, OK!

Charlie