Heh.

Heheh.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/world/middleeast/12galbraith.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=galbraith&st=cse

Peter W. Galbraith, an influential former American ambassador, is a powerful voice on Iraq who helped shape the views of policy makers like Joseph R. Biden Jr. and John Kerry. In the summer of 2005, he was also an adviser to the Kurdish regional government as Iraq wrote its Constitution — tough and sensitive talks not least because of issues like how Iraq would divide its vast oil wealth.

In the constitutional negotiations, he helped the Kurds ram through provisions that gave their region — rather than the central Baghdad government — sole authority over many of their internal affairs, including clauses that he maintains will give the Kurds virtually complete control over all new oil finds on their territory.

Isn’t it Bush who said that Iraq’s oil would be used to enrich the people of Iraq? Oh, and a few corrupt hangers on.

A familiar ring throughout history. If it makes your ego feel superior then go for it.

(I wonder if Osama Bin Laden tells his followers this?)

The fact that President Clinton’s inactivity and not President Bush’s putative warmongering did much to bring the present conflictual situation upon us is conveniently dismissed from consideration.

My condolences to your institution. I weep at the standards of our educators.

Forgive me for saying so, Elliot, but you’re STILL working this thing backward, rather myopically focused on a political ‘solution’ and ignoring the reality that such a solution is completely dependent on the state of the electorate’s awareness. That awareness will have to change if the Republic is to be preserved.

The public’s attention and interest is governed by what they know. When EVERYTHING they know comes from what they’ve been relentlessly beaten over the head with by The Left Wing Media (e.g., “Bush Lied”) or some derivative thereof – rather than from a solid, classical education and a modicum of annual civic activity spent holding elected representatives accountable and being engaged in issues of governance – they are going to exhibit a delusional view of reality, like BC, and toe the leftist party line. This is why the GOP has morphed into the Socialist Lite® Party – it’s the only way they think they can get traction. The problem is that while it may give them a modicum of political traction (and power, which is all most of them are after anyway) in the short run, in the long run it is only detrimental to the Republican form of Government guaranteed by our Constitution.

As things stand, the only way the GOP thinks it can garner support now is to appeal to the overarching leftist, unwarranted self-esteem, morally adolescent, entitlement mindset we’ve allowed to flourish in America.

That broken mindset would be the reason why political parties feel that they can now only field candidates that range from “compassionate conservatives” like Romney, Bush (I & II) and McCain (i.e., Socialist Lite®) to unabashed marxists and socialists like BHO and Hillary. The combination of reaction to BHO’s socially suicidal policies and the alternative offered by people like Sarah Palin has a chance to change that, but the left is going to pull out all the stops to prevent it. Simply reacting to and whining about their hypocrisy, double standards, deceits and lack of reason in this context isn’t going to do much to change the outcome. Unfortunatly, right now, that’s all most constitutional conservatives are doing.

– … it is a tad difficult for people not to react to things outrageous to them …

Again, you’re either intentionally evading the point or you didn’t read what I wrote. If reacting and whining is ALL one ever does (and that’s pretty much the case at sites like PJM and among so-called “leaders” like those currently vying for spots in the GOP), one doesn’t change anything.

No,….but yeah. While I don’t want to see conservatives attempting to be something they are not(compromising their values), particularly when, for instance, they know socialism is wrong for this nation, I still understand that a political party has to get the public’s attention and provoke interest in order to win support for their ideas/priciples/values.

The above are two separate things. Great eloquence in speaking isn’t important to me but real communication is. If a person is going to be placed in a position of authority where they make decisions that have impact on people’s lives, they have to connect and stay connected. The girls fainting for Obama wasn’t just silly, it was really sorta weird scarey We have plenty of rock stars and I’m not suggesting conservatives want or need any of that but it does take a smidgeon of charisma to lead.

I guess I am a little confused by your use of reaction. If conservatives are trying to emulate in a small way the ideals of the leftists, then I would prefer the words compromising priciples or even capitulation. Since it is a tad difficult for people not to react to things outrageous to them( because it can create pretty strong emotions) I think you are going to have to allow people their reactions. I’m not sure I agree it is wholly uneffective anyway.Reactionary people tend to dig in.

Nevertheless, I agree with you that no one should put up with the marxist crappola-be proactive in going after it. People need to be students of human nature too-historical fact isn’t enough, and Marc Malone mentioned the importance of teaching kids critical thinking. I could use a refresher in critical thinking myself. So, thanks for the exchange here. You have been thought provoking.

This is precisely my point. You seem to think – based at least on what you’ve written – that conservatives need to figure out how to be “exciting” and “cool”. That’s reactive thinking, and it won’t preserve the Republic. In fact, that’s the entire rationale behind the broken GOP’s move toward Socialism Lite®. What’s required is to restore education, media and representation in governance to a state where “exciting” and “cool” don’t have any bearing on the political process.

– Catching citizens up to speed seems rather daunting …

Of course. And that goes double when all one does is react, as opposed to marching socialism back out of the institutions it has infested. Again, reacting to what the left does seems to be the conservative punditry’s and leadership’s only strategy. No one’s outlining – let alone offering – the rational alternative. This is not a winning plan.

– … you might offer up some suggestions of your own.

See #29, which I guess you missed. That’s precisely what I’m doing. Suggestion #1: stop reacting to the left and start actively restoring what they’ve broken. That needs to be centered on restoring the quality of academia, tearing down The Left Wing Media and holding our alleged representatives accountable for their actions instead of constantly re-electing them. So far, what I see from conservative leaders, Tea Party activists and conservative punditry is a lot of whining, criticizing, second-guessing, feigning perplexity and, generally, incessantly attacking the left rather than actively working to rebuild the aspects of America that would make it resistant to the leftist virus in the first place.