Replies

Sunday Top 10 List.

10. A.Hun. #80 We, as conservatives, may never have the opportunity we had after the 2004 election. Instead of standing with our moderate/conservative coalition, everyone went off on a tangent. Every talking head found something to bash Bush on, suddenly he wasn't conservative enough on every issue for some conservatives. There were plenty of warnings on FR about what the consequence of such an approach would have. Oh well...we were in a minority for forty years and the nation survived.

9. Miss Marple. #982 Coulter is right about the victim strategy the Rats use, but there has to be a better way to combat this than rushing headlong into an attack on these supposedly sacrosanct spokespeople. Some of the things I think that would help is defusing the "authority" of these people early, before they get famous and have amassed a war chest. That means when they first show up on a talk show, someone needs to make an effort to appear as soon as possible to refute them. This refutation has to NOT be belligerent, but rather sympathetic. Things like "I understand why Miss X feels that way, but here is why her idea can't work. I really wish it could, because I hate to see anyone suffer." It is disastrous to ignore these people (like Cindy Sheehan) because they simply get more well-known over time and eventually begin to be seen by the public as authorities on whatever they are griping about. And lastly, much as it pains me to say this, as long as the democrats can drag out victims for whatever issue they want to push, we should have people we can use to refute them. We did have some people refute Cindy (parents of soldiers who died in Iraq) but she had the stage by herself for far too long. I don't like the idea of recruiting our own victims, but I don't know how else we will be able to refute them otherwise

8. Peach. #107 Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is expected to take over as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and The (Calif.) Daily Journal reports that Leahy is drafting a bill to undo portions of the new law in an effort to restore habeas corpus rights for enemy combatants. In 1996, Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act which makes it more difficult for murder defendants to have their habeas corpus appeals heard in federal court. So American citizens (albeit murderers) will have a difficult time having their habeas corpus appeals heard, but terrorists will be granted the RIGHT! If we all don't call our elected officials about this, we're just part of the Silent Majority that got us in this position in the first place.

7. Chiller. #118. I suspect the timing was Rummy's call. As soon as he knew Dems won the Senate, Rummy knew he'd be going through two years of congressional hearings. He may be required to testify but I suspect he'll tell 'em to stuff it.

6. Johnny 7 # 435. No perhaps about it... they make a BIG difference. The New Media doesn't report news... it comments/corrects the news the DBM spins/reports. When the DBM decides to spin or even CREATE ALL OF ITS NEWS... New Media is simply out-gunned and it becomes a simple game of media-saturation

5. Anita. #117 Saw this interesting item. Senator-Elect Webb's Surprises for the Moonbat Base He started off by mentioning that "tomorrow is an extremely important day for America," and the crowd went wild, thinking he was talking about taking power. But of course, he launched into his praise of the Marine Corps, and the crowd cheered a little less loudly. Then he thanked all the brave veterans and brave men still fighting, and the crowd cheered a little less loudly again. Then he mentioned that he received a call from Sen. Allen, and the crowd went nuts again. Then he mentioned how pleasant and dignified Allen was, and the crowd grew quiet. Then he said he was having lunch next week with Allen -- and the crowd was dead silent. Finally he told the audience that they should all thank Sen./Gov. Allen for his many years of dedicated service to the people of Virginia -- and you could almost hear the people gathered looking at each other asking, "What the $#@! did we just do?"It was priceless. (Worth Reading in full.)

4 Samantha/Kabar. I am giving a tie for 4th because Samantha and Kabar had a really instructive exchange. Both have a valuable insight to add to the battle of 2008. One side sees the political glass half full the other sees it half empty. We need both. If we assume the battle is all ready won, we will not wage the fight effectively, if we assume the battle is all ready lost, we will not fight at all. We need to balance these two sides of the Conservative Movement to win.

3. Seattle Conservative: Princess Links proves ones again why she is one of the best. # 491 I would, too. All I can think of is that she was considered a bit of a centrist, especially on nat'l sec and has supported Bush on that; and Pelosi dislikes her (my guess is that Boxer and Hill do, too). Though, I believe her change started after she won the primary (IIRC it was a harder fight than expected). A couple of possibilities for Pelosi and others disliking her: Her name was supposedly on the list as a possible for Nat'l Intelligence Director: Click here. She was mentioned as a possible candidate for Sen when DiFi retires: Harman positioned to run statewide (DiFi's successor?) The Hill ^ | 10/21/05 | Peter Savodnik Posted on 10/21/2005 10:16:51 AM PDT by NormsRevenge Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) insists she has no plans to run statewide anytime soon, but it’s conventional wisdom in Washington and California that her centrist voting record and leadership spot on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence make her a prime candidate to succeed Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1506729/posts Democrat Harman defends Bush (program essential to security, disclosure damaged intelligence) NewsBusters ^ | December 21, 2005 | Brent Baker Posted on 12/21/2005 7:45:35 PM PST by Names Ash Housewares Click here

2.Phsstpok. If this is Phsstpok in action when he is recovering from eye surgery, I look forward to watching him when he is 100%. #1018 We could do it on a blog or on a series of blogs, maybe state by state. We could get volunteers to keep up with specific people. There's 535 members of congress so that would be not an overwhelming task. I bet we have somebody in almost every House district and I'm certain we have to have someone from every state. A searchable database would certainly be the best approach. Maybe one of the political blogs, such as RedState or TownHall, that offer free space would be willing to work with us to set this up.

#1015Were I living in Connecticut I would have voted for Lieberman as the best choice, regardless of his party. Had I been of voting age in NY when Daniel Patrick Moynihan was our Senator I probably would have voted for him, even though he was as liberal and partisan as just about any Democrat ever. But he also had the benefit of being fundamentally honest and exceptionally insightful about issues like liberal welfare policies destroying black families. By the way, while looking up something completely unrelated I came across these great Churchill quotes: I refuse to remain impartial between the fire brigade and the fire. However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.I think these are particularly appropriate to our current situation.

1. Alas Babylon! The post speaks for itself. No one else even came close this week.

#1 !!!!!!IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!!!!! I will not point fingers at anyone on our side for our loss on Tuesday, because I really don’t think we are to blame. I thought we would do better, frankly, but it appears we just couldn't get it over the goal line before time ran out. In many cases, the victory/defeat line was only a few thousand votes apart. It’s not like we got a thumping, thrashing, or butt-kick. The only thing is how it will effect our country. That has a lot of us concerned more than how it happened. In any case, you know who I blame…The drive by media. Their bias has been well documented on this thread. My wife and I were talking about it on the drive home from work. Neither of us could think of a way--beyond what we're doing (on this thread, for example)--to counter the media. We just have to keep doing what we’ve been doing for 8 years—only harder!!! So folks, here is my challenge for the Sunday Morning thread for the next two years: We need to be reporters on the reporters. We need to document their lies, distortions, smears, half-truths and omissions. We need to howl in their faces, and call them on it each and every time. Will you join me? I’m going to find a comprehensive media email list (someone has compiled and posted it before) to start sending out emails to the Sunday screaming faces with word-for-word transcriptions of what they said, and why it is biased. In the past I’ve sat here and typed about Tim Russert’s biased, hunched-over-questioning; this time I’m going to tell HIM about it. Timmy, you are on notice! Every frown, every hunch, every pudgy-fingered grasping your talking points memo while you interrogate Republicans will be documented and you will be called on it!!!! (Insert John Belushi scream and flips out of chair, papers flying)