This is why they fight so hard, why Clinton fights so hard, to keep their “better” ways alive, even if it’s on life support and slipping into a permanent vegetative state.

Carter’s policies twenty years ago were seeds to today’s problematic weeds. He senses it, and he will do almost anything to cover it up with “if only you’d listened to me” excuses.

If he and his ilk weren’t so damn petty, they’d be honored for their service, but every time they open their mouths, we are reminded of years of failure.

Too bad Church isn’t around to share the embarrassment.

And if Fox really wanted to be mean-spirited, they would run, back-to-back, clips of Clinton’s rant against Chris Wallace and his infamous “I did not have sexual relations with than woman, Ms. Lewinski” rant in 1998.

Same guy, different suit.

In God We Trust–all others bring data… especially for observations like this that are vulnerable to the charge of tendentiousness. Staged marches and the antics of border lobbyists do not constitute data–any more than do my personal experience getting to know a few hundred Oaxacan illegals, whose lives (I would contend) refute the above characterization.

“In republican democracies,” Lincoln observed, “public sentiment is everything. With it nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed.” One can reasonably doubt that the public would have put up with so many illegals for so many years if their sense of grievance and entitlement–on balance, as a class–were as bad as you suggest.

I am not with the open-borders crowd, but your sloppiness here ill befits the tradition of the great historians who shaped you.

One encouraging thing in Mexico, when the PAN party wanted to kneecap Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, they compared the leftist populist with Hugo Chavez. It worked – who needs Yankee bashing?

Exactly what steps was the Bush admin taking after he got into office to deal with terrorism? Few have been very clear on this.

The same simpletons who label criticism of what they say ‘stifling of dissent’ or a refusal to buy Dixie Chicks CDs ‘censorship’ give Islamists a pass when they rant and riot over what what others say or write.

Or take the Islamist protestors calling for the Pope’s execution outside Westminster Abbey after Sunday services.

Was there any attempt to keep the hecklers away from those attempting to exercise their religious freedom without harrassment?

Or was preservation of the protesters’ free speech rights of paramount concern to the police?

Did any of the threats being made constitute ‘hate speech,’ worthy of investigation, as has been the case with negative comments made about Islam?

More important, was there any variation in the ‘see-how-angry-the-Pope-made-them’ template of media coverage?

If a group of protesters, insulted by constant incitement to murder emanating from mosques — or, perhaps incensed over the slaughter of innocents by Islamist terrorists — stood outside a mosque calling for the submission or murder of Islam’s ‘holy men,’ think the coverage template would be ‘look-how-angry-they-are-over-Islamist-atrocities’?

Hardly. Instead, boilerplate about intolerance and the influence of ‘right wing hate groups’ would be trundled out for yet another encore. ‘Society as a whole’ would be blamed for its insensitivity and for fostering an atmosphere where such an appalling display of bigotry could take place.

Any police attention would focus on protection of the mosque and its attendees, lest law enforcement authorities be chastised for failure to extend the protection law to ‘beseiged’ minorities.

Please pardon my long comment.