<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Taranto Absolved</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/</link>
	<description>The blog of the mystery writer, screenwriter and CEO of Pajamas Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:10:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: ed</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/#comment-39180</link>
		<dc:creator>ed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2005 02:48:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/#comment-39180</guid>
		<description>Hmmm.



&quot;And that is why you don&#039;t understand the conservative voter.&quot;



That&#039;s pretty funny because I&#039;ve been a conservative all my life.



What&#039;s even funnier is that you don&#039;t have any sort of reply to my points.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmmm.</p>
<p>&#8220;And that is why you don&#8217;t understand the conservative voter.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s pretty funny because I&#8217;ve been a conservative all my life.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s even funnier is that you don&#8217;t have any sort of reply to my points.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jerry</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/#comment-39179</link>
		<dc:creator>jerry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2005 01:42:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/#comment-39179</guid>
		<description>ed:



you said:  &quot;Heh. I was a Democrat. My family still ARE Democrats.&quot;



And that is why you don&#039;t understand the conservative voter.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ed:</p>
<p>you said:  &#8220;Heh. I was a Democrat. My family still ARE Democrats.&#8221;</p>
<p>And that is why you don&#8217;t understand the conservative voter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ed</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/#comment-39178</link>
		<dc:creator>ed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2005 01:23:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/#comment-39178</guid>
		<description>Hmmm.



1. &quot;You make some interesting political points here:&quot;



*shrug* I&#039;m stating my opinions.  Any validity depends on circumstances and decisions beyond my control.  How it all plays out depends.



2. &quot;You mean overturn Roe v Wade? That will play well in the Democratic Party.&quot;



The Democratic Party, as currently configured, has maxed out it&#039;s political power.  There isn&#039;t any more untapped.  The key to winning is to change that configuration.  How many people are hard-core pro-choice?  How many people are hard-core pro-life?  How many are people that are kinda in-between and want to actually get a chance to decide?



This is might cost Hillary some votes, but it would buy an enormous amount from the conservative side.  While many, mostly religious conservatives, would prefer an outright ban, they&#039;ll gladly settle for a chance to fight it out in the state legislatures.  That alone would buy Hillary an enormous amount of prestige and would plant her directly in the center.  Pro-life, pro-choice and, most importantly, pro-voter.



The pro-choice crowd will settle for nothing less than pro-choice.  The pro-life crowd will settle for a negotiated settlement by diverting the contention into the state legislatures.  At this point Hillary gains everything, loses very little.  The pro-choice people will get pro-choice laws in blue states.  The pro-life people will get pro-life laws in red states.  People will simply travel to get their &quot;cosmetic operations&quot; as necessary.  And everyone, save for the ultra-extremists, goes home happy.



3. &quot;Surrender to the radical religious right? Surely you jest.&quot;



Heh.  I know.  It&#039;s crazy isn&#039;t it?  I&#039;m not a Christian, but I absolutely respect it for the great good it has done in the world.  To disrespect Christianity is a disservice to the world.



All Hillary really has to do is come out openly against the anti-Nativity people.  Christmas is Christmas, not &quot;Winter Holiday&quot;.  All Hillary has to do is point that out, repeatedly, and she&#039;ll win big points.  Nothing infuriates the religious conservatives than the hypocrisy of calling Christmas &quot;Winter Holiday&quot;.



4. &quot;Oh yes conservatives will love the higher taxes to pay for Hillary care.&quot;



Heh.  Excuse me but we&#039;ve got Medicaid.  We&#039;ve got Medicare.  We&#039;ve got Prescription Drug.  We&#039;ve got most of the elements of Socialized Medicine already.  As for the taxes, haven&#039;t you kept up with Bush&#039;s plan for Social Security reform?



Look.  The tax breaks were good for jump-starting the economy.  But we&#039;re adults here.  We all know that the taxes are going to go up again.  We all know this because $200-$300 billion is going into Iraq and $1 trillion is going into the drug plan.  There&#039;s only so much that can be borrowed and so taxes are going to have to rise again at some point.



An emphermal win, isn&#039;t really a win.



If Bush seriously cut expenses, then I could believe that the tax cuts were real.  But the spending just keeps on rising at ever increasing rates.  And anyone who thinks, for even a second, that the &quot;guest worker&quot; plan won&#039;t cause a MASSIVE increase in costs, is fooling himself.



5. &quot;So you think that alienating the non-loony Democratic voter and raising taxes is a formula for victory? You have future as Democratic consultant.&quot;



Heh.  I was a Democrat.  My family still ARE Democrats.  Most of my conservative friends WERE Democrats.  Many people, who voted for Bush in 2000 or 2004, are STILL registered as Democrats.



The simple fact is that most conservatives have always been, and possibly still are, Democrats.  We were brought up as Democrats.  Our heritage is FDR.  Truman.  And then Ronald Regean.



The conservative loyalty to the GOP is skin deep.  If that.  We&#039;re all Democrats just waiting for the Democratic Party to either wise up or die.



And the GOP is forgetting this.


</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmmm.</p>
<p>1. &#8220;You make some interesting political points here:&#8221;</p>
<p>*shrug* I&#8217;m stating my opinions.  Any validity depends on circumstances and decisions beyond my control.  How it all plays out depends.</p>
<p>2. &#8220;You mean overturn Roe v Wade? That will play well in the Democratic Party.&#8221;</p>
<p>The Democratic Party, as currently configured, has maxed out it&#8217;s political power.  There isn&#8217;t any more untapped.  The key to winning is to change that configuration.  How many people are hard-core pro-choice?  How many people are hard-core pro-life?  How many are people that are kinda in-between and want to actually get a chance to decide?</p>
<p>This is might cost Hillary some votes, but it would buy an enormous amount from the conservative side.  While many, mostly religious conservatives, would prefer an outright ban, they&#8217;ll gladly settle for a chance to fight it out in the state legislatures.  That alone would buy Hillary an enormous amount of prestige and would plant her directly in the center.  Pro-life, pro-choice and, most importantly, pro-voter.</p>
<p>The pro-choice crowd will settle for nothing less than pro-choice.  The pro-life crowd will settle for a negotiated settlement by diverting the contention into the state legislatures.  At this point Hillary gains everything, loses very little.  The pro-choice people will get pro-choice laws in blue states.  The pro-life people will get pro-life laws in red states.  People will simply travel to get their &#8220;cosmetic operations&#8221; as necessary.  And everyone, save for the ultra-extremists, goes home happy.</p>
<p>3. &#8220;Surrender to the radical religious right? Surely you jest.&#8221;</p>
<p>Heh.  I know.  It&#8217;s crazy isn&#8217;t it?  I&#8217;m not a Christian, but I absolutely respect it for the great good it has done in the world.  To disrespect Christianity is a disservice to the world.</p>
<p>All Hillary really has to do is come out openly against the anti-Nativity people.  Christmas is Christmas, not &#8220;Winter Holiday&#8221;.  All Hillary has to do is point that out, repeatedly, and she&#8217;ll win big points.  Nothing infuriates the religious conservatives than the hypocrisy of calling Christmas &#8220;Winter Holiday&#8221;.</p>
<p>4. &#8220;Oh yes conservatives will love the higher taxes to pay for Hillary care.&#8221;</p>
<p>Heh.  Excuse me but we&#8217;ve got Medicaid.  We&#8217;ve got Medicare.  We&#8217;ve got Prescription Drug.  We&#8217;ve got most of the elements of Socialized Medicine already.  As for the taxes, haven&#8217;t you kept up with Bush&#8217;s plan for Social Security reform?</p>
<p>Look.  The tax breaks were good for jump-starting the economy.  But we&#8217;re adults here.  We all know that the taxes are going to go up again.  We all know this because $200-$300 billion is going into Iraq and $1 trillion is going into the drug plan.  There&#8217;s only so much that can be borrowed and so taxes are going to have to rise again at some point.</p>
<p>An emphermal win, isn&#8217;t really a win.</p>
<p>If Bush seriously cut expenses, then I could believe that the tax cuts were real.  But the spending just keeps on rising at ever increasing rates.  And anyone who thinks, for even a second, that the &#8220;guest worker&#8221; plan won&#8217;t cause a MASSIVE increase in costs, is fooling himself.</p>
<p>5. &#8220;So you think that alienating the non-loony Democratic voter and raising taxes is a formula for victory? You have future as Democratic consultant.&#8221;</p>
<p>Heh.  I was a Democrat.  My family still ARE Democrats.  Most of my conservative friends WERE Democrats.  Many people, who voted for Bush in 2000 or 2004, are STILL registered as Democrats.</p>
<p>The simple fact is that most conservatives have always been, and possibly still are, Democrats.  We were brought up as Democrats.  Our heritage is FDR.  Truman.  And then Ronald Regean.</p>
<p>The conservative loyalty to the GOP is skin deep.  If that.  We&#8217;re all Democrats just waiting for the Democratic Party to either wise up or die.</p>
<p>And the GOP is forgetting this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jerry</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/#comment-39177</link>
		<dc:creator>jerry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:43:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/#comment-39177</guid>
		<description>Ed:



You make some interesting political points here:



For example:  &quot;a. State by state resolution of abortion. Let each state resolve for itself how abortion is to be handled.&quot;



You mean overturn Roe v Wade?  That will play well in the Democratic Party.



and:  &quot;c. Actively counter the anti-Christianity prevalent in the DNC today.&quot;



Surrender to the radical religious right?  Surely you jest.



or:  &quot;5. &quot;Bush cut marginal rates, is ending the estate tax, etc. Nothing for conservatives? Only if you&#039;re a paleocon.&quot;



So what? He cut taxes, but then implemented a $1 trillion dollar entitlement. Right when the baby-boomer generation is about to retire. So he cut how much in taxes? $50 billion? $100 billion? And then added $200+ billion per year entitlement? That&#039;s a gain? That&#039;s a plus?



Estate tax? So what?&quot;



Oh yes conservatives will love the higher taxes to pay for Hillary care.



So you think that alienating the non-loony Democratic voter and raising taxes is a formula for victory?  You have future as Democratic consultant.
















</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ed:</p>
<p>You make some interesting political points here:</p>
<p>For example:  &#8220;a. State by state resolution of abortion. Let each state resolve for itself how abortion is to be handled.&#8221;</p>
<p>You mean overturn Roe v Wade?  That will play well in the Democratic Party.</p>
<p>and:  &#8220;c. Actively counter the anti-Christianity prevalent in the DNC today.&#8221;</p>
<p>Surrender to the radical religious right?  Surely you jest.</p>
<p>or:  &#8220;5. &#8220;Bush cut marginal rates, is ending the estate tax, etc. Nothing for conservatives? Only if you&#8217;re a paleocon.&#8221;</p>
<p>So what? He cut taxes, but then implemented a $1 trillion dollar entitlement. Right when the baby-boomer generation is about to retire. So he cut how much in taxes? $50 billion? $100 billion? And then added $200+ billion per year entitlement? That&#8217;s a gain? That&#8217;s a plus?</p>
<p>Estate tax? So what?&#8221;</p>
<p>Oh yes conservatives will love the higher taxes to pay for Hillary care.</p>
<p>So you think that alienating the non-loony Democratic voter and raising taxes is a formula for victory?  You have future as Democratic consultant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ed</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/#comment-39176</link>
		<dc:creator>ed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:45:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/#comment-39176</guid>
		<description>Hmmm.



1. &quot;You missed the entire point. Hillary is not &quot;to the right&quot; of Bush on immigration. She is to the left of Bush. The left doesn&#039;t like immigration because they think in depresses wages.&quot;



Frankly I don&#039;t care if she&#039;s left, right or center.  If she&#039;ll fight illegal immigration then she&#039;s got one up on any of the current GOP contenders.



2. &quot;Do you really think Conservatives will trade a more agreeable position on immigration for socialism? Nonsense, they will stay home. Besides, she isn&#039;t going to be the nominee anyway.&quot;



Ummm.  Like a Prescription Drug plan?



Look I don&#039;t speak for all conservatives, not by a long shot, but the simple fact is very plain.  The current GOP has done almost *nothing* for conservatives.  And now Arlen Specter looks like he&#039;s going to screw conservatives over the judiciary.  Conservatives fought over this and were assured, by the GOP, that Arlen would not stand in the way of conservative judges.  Now it looks like he&#039;s going to do whatever the hell he feels like, as conservatives warned, and the GOP is going to do nothing about it.



Want to see conservatives get really frigging angry?  Just wait until Arlen screws with the judicial nominations and the GOP rolls over.



Get &quot;socialism&quot;?  We&#039;re *getting* &quot;socialism&quot; as it is.



3. &quot;Jerry&#039;s right. Conservatives HATE Hillary and for good reason. Anyone can tell any &quot;movement to the right&quot; by Hillary is nothing more than ...&quot;



I&#039;m not saying that Hillary is conservative.  I&#039;m saying that Hillary can BUY the conservative voters by promising the right things.  The very things that the GOP has NOT delivered.  The GOP currently is acting like they don&#039;t need to pay for the conservative voters.  This is wrong headed.



4. &quot;How can anyone on the right believe the woman who railed about the VRWC for all these years has suddenly had a conservative epiphany? Please....&quot;



Again.  I&#039;m not saying that Hillary is conservative.  I&#039;m also not saying the Bush is conservative, he&#039;s most definitely not.  But Hillary can acquire the conservative voters by adopting the major portions of the conservative agenda.  An agenda that, so far, the GOP has not delivered on.  Lots of promises, no delivery.



The biggest three items that Hillary could promise that would get her the conservative voters are:



a. State by state resolution of abortion.  Let each state resolve for itself how abortion is to be handled.



b. Eliminate illegal immigration and seriously crack down on illegal aliens.  The best way is to change the law so that being an illegal alien results in an automatic 50 years sentence, with 48 years probation, and absolutely no chance of ever becoming a citizen.  Couple this with a charge-back program whereby the person&#039;s country is responsible for paying any imprisonment charges.



This alone would get Hillary a bundle of voters.



c. Actively counter the anti-Christianity prevalent in the DNC today.



These three things would buy an enormous amount of conservative support.



5. &quot;Bush cut marginal rates, is ending the estate tax, etc. Nothing for conservatives? Only if you&#039;re a paleocon.&quot;



So what?  He cut taxes, but then implemented a $1 trillion dollar entitlement.  Right when the baby-boomer generation is about to retire.  So he cut how much in taxes?  $50 billion?  $100 billion?  And then added $200+ billion per year entitlement?  That&#039;s a gain?  That&#039;s a plus?



Estate tax?  So what?



How about some more of that &quot;etc&quot;.  Because from where I&#039;m sitting, the list ain&#039;t impressive.


</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmmm.</p>
<p>1. &#8220;You missed the entire point. Hillary is not &#8220;to the right&#8221; of Bush on immigration. She is to the left of Bush. The left doesn&#8217;t like immigration because they think in depresses wages.&#8221;</p>
<p>Frankly I don&#8217;t care if she&#8217;s left, right or center.  If she&#8217;ll fight illegal immigration then she&#8217;s got one up on any of the current GOP contenders.</p>
<p>2. &#8220;Do you really think Conservatives will trade a more agreeable position on immigration for socialism? Nonsense, they will stay home. Besides, she isn&#8217;t going to be the nominee anyway.&#8221;</p>
<p>Ummm.  Like a Prescription Drug plan?</p>
<p>Look I don&#8217;t speak for all conservatives, not by a long shot, but the simple fact is very plain.  The current GOP has done almost *nothing* for conservatives.  And now Arlen Specter looks like he&#8217;s going to screw conservatives over the judiciary.  Conservatives fought over this and were assured, by the GOP, that Arlen would not stand in the way of conservative judges.  Now it looks like he&#8217;s going to do whatever the hell he feels like, as conservatives warned, and the GOP is going to do nothing about it.</p>
<p>Want to see conservatives get really frigging angry?  Just wait until Arlen screws with the judicial nominations and the GOP rolls over.</p>
<p>Get &#8220;socialism&#8221;?  We&#8217;re *getting* &#8220;socialism&#8221; as it is.</p>
<p>3. &#8220;Jerry&#8217;s right. Conservatives HATE Hillary and for good reason. Anyone can tell any &#8220;movement to the right&#8221; by Hillary is nothing more than &#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not saying that Hillary is conservative.  I&#8217;m saying that Hillary can BUY the conservative voters by promising the right things.  The very things that the GOP has NOT delivered.  The GOP currently is acting like they don&#8217;t need to pay for the conservative voters.  This is wrong headed.</p>
<p>4. &#8220;How can anyone on the right believe the woman who railed about the VRWC for all these years has suddenly had a conservative epiphany? Please&#8230;.&#8221;</p>
<p>Again.  I&#8217;m not saying that Hillary is conservative.  I&#8217;m also not saying the Bush is conservative, he&#8217;s most definitely not.  But Hillary can acquire the conservative voters by adopting the major portions of the conservative agenda.  An agenda that, so far, the GOP has not delivered on.  Lots of promises, no delivery.</p>
<p>The biggest three items that Hillary could promise that would get her the conservative voters are:</p>
<p>a. State by state resolution of abortion.  Let each state resolve for itself how abortion is to be handled.</p>
<p>b. Eliminate illegal immigration and seriously crack down on illegal aliens.  The best way is to change the law so that being an illegal alien results in an automatic 50 years sentence, with 48 years probation, and absolutely no chance of ever becoming a citizen.  Couple this with a charge-back program whereby the person&#8217;s country is responsible for paying any imprisonment charges.</p>
<p>This alone would get Hillary a bundle of voters.</p>
<p>c. Actively counter the anti-Christianity prevalent in the DNC today.</p>
<p>These three things would buy an enormous amount of conservative support.</p>
<p>5. &#8220;Bush cut marginal rates, is ending the estate tax, etc. Nothing for conservatives? Only if you&#8217;re a paleocon.&#8221;</p>
<p>So what?  He cut taxes, but then implemented a $1 trillion dollar entitlement.  Right when the baby-boomer generation is about to retire.  So he cut how much in taxes?  $50 billion?  $100 billion?  And then added $200+ billion per year entitlement?  That&#8217;s a gain?  That&#8217;s a plus?</p>
<p>Estate tax?  So what?</p>
<p>How about some more of that &#8220;etc&#8221;.  Because from where I&#8217;m sitting, the list ain&#8217;t impressive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: richard mcenroe</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/#comment-39175</link>
		<dc:creator>richard mcenroe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2005 03:13:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/#comment-39175</guid>
		<description>Roger -- I&#039;ve been letting this percolate for a couple days now, but... isn&#039;t drawing a line between Hillary pre and post 9/11 kind of like running Neville Chamberlain for Prime Minister in 1941 and saying, &quot;This is not your 1938 Neville?&quot;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Roger &#8212; I&#8217;ve been letting this percolate for a couple days now, but&#8230; isn&#8217;t drawing a line between Hillary pre and post 9/11 kind of like running Neville Chamberlain for Prime Minister in 1941 and saying, &#8220;This is not your 1938 Neville?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin P</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/#comment-39174</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin P</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:39:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/#comment-39174</guid>
		<description>Roger:



When I say that Clinton would be hard to beat it is not because I plan to vote for her. But I think republicans are fooling themselves if they think she will be a slam dunk loser. I agree that her moderate offensive is not genuine but I think it will be effective.



And the republican loathing factor should not be ignored. If any of you remember the Harvey Korman character in &quot;Blazing Saddles&quot; when he begins foaming at the mouth. The lefts attacks on President Bush this year often resembled this look and it rebounded back on them in the eyes of the non-political voter. I had that attitude towards President Reagan in the 80&#039;s (this was in my ignorant leftist moron days) and I witnessed this in the 90&#039;s against the Clintons and I fear it would happen again when Hill runs. I think if the republicans stick to the issue&#039;s she will lose but if they revert to re- running the scandals of Billy the moderate voters will blanche at that and vote for her out of sympathy.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Roger:</p>
<p>When I say that Clinton would be hard to beat it is not because I plan to vote for her. But I think republicans are fooling themselves if they think she will be a slam dunk loser. I agree that her moderate offensive is not genuine but I think it will be effective.</p>
<p>And the republican loathing factor should not be ignored. If any of you remember the Harvey Korman character in &#8220;Blazing Saddles&#8221; when he begins foaming at the mouth. The lefts attacks on President Bush this year often resembled this look and it rebounded back on them in the eyes of the non-political voter. I had that attitude towards President Reagan in the 80&#8242;s (this was in my ignorant leftist moron days) and I witnessed this in the 90&#8242;s against the Clintons and I fear it would happen again when Hill runs. I think if the republicans stick to the issue&#8217;s she will lose but if they revert to re- running the scandals of Billy the moderate voters will blanche at that and vote for her out of sympathy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: someone</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/#comment-39173</link>
		<dc:creator>someone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:52:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/#comment-39173</guid>
		<description>Bush cut marginal rates, is ending the estate tax, etc.  Nothing for conservatives?  Only if you&#039;re a paleocon.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bush cut marginal rates, is ending the estate tax, etc.  Nothing for conservatives?  Only if you&#8217;re a paleocon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/#comment-39172</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:18:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/#comment-39172</guid>
		<description>Jerry&#039;s right. Conservatives HATE Hillary and for good reason. Anyone can tell any &quot;movement to the right&quot; by Hillary is nothing more than a cynical ploy to get her foot in the door...she&#039;s smart and calculating enough to know the Moveon moonbats cannot win a general election...but were she to actually gain power she would do everything she could to implement her leftist agenda.



How can anyone on the right believe the woman who railed about the VRWC for all these years has suddenly had a conservative epiphany? Please....
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jerry&#8217;s right. Conservatives HATE Hillary and for good reason. Anyone can tell any &#8220;movement to the right&#8221; by Hillary is nothing more than a cynical ploy to get her foot in the door&#8230;she&#8217;s smart and calculating enough to know the Moveon moonbats cannot win a general election&#8230;but were she to actually gain power she would do everything she could to implement her leftist agenda.</p>
<p>How can anyone on the right believe the woman who railed about the VRWC for all these years has suddenly had a conservative epiphany? Please&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jerry</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/#comment-39171</link>
		<dc:creator>jerry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:36:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/02/22/taranto-absolved/#comment-39171</guid>
		<description>Ed:



You missed the entire point.  Hillary is not &quot;to the right&quot; of Bush on immigration.  She is to the left of Bush.  The left doesn&#039;t like immigration because they think in depresses wages.  They are getting over their enfatuation with the idea that immigrants will vote left.  They viewed immigration as importing the prolitariat. They now see that as immigrants become successful they move to the right.



Do you really think Conservatives will trade a more agreeable position on immigration for socialism?  Nonsense, they will stay home.  Besides, she isn&#039;t going to be the nominee anyway.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ed:</p>
<p>You missed the entire point.  Hillary is not &#8220;to the right&#8221; of Bush on immigration.  She is to the left of Bush.  The left doesn&#8217;t like immigration because they think in depresses wages.  They are getting over their enfatuation with the idea that immigrants will vote left.  They viewed immigration as importing the prolitariat. They now see that as immigrants become successful they move to the right.</p>
<p>Do you really think Conservatives will trade a more agreeable position on immigration for socialism?  Nonsense, they will stay home.  Besides, she isn&#8217;t going to be the nominee anyway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

