Vast Right Wing Cabal?
Gandalf Grey
GLUEService=ABCNewsCom
Vast, Right-Wing Cabal?
Meet the Most Powerful Conservative Group You've Never Heard Of
By Marc J. Ambinder
W A S H I N G T O N, May 2
- When Steve Baldwin, the executive director of an organization with the
stale-as-old-bread name of the Council for National Policy, boasts that "we
control everything in the world," he is only half-kidding.
Half-kidding, because the council doesn't really control the world. The
staff of about eight, working in a modern office building in Fairfax, Va.,
isn't even enough for a real full-court basketball game.
But also half-serious because the council has deservedly attained the
reputation for conceiving and promoting the ideas of many who in fact do
want to control everything in the world.
For many liberals, the 22-year-old council is very dangerous and dangerously
secretive, and has fueled conspiratorial antipathy. The group wants to be
the conservative version of the Council on Foreign Relations, but to some,
CNP members - among the brightest lights of the hard right - are up to no
good. The CNP meets this weekend at a Washington location known to fewer
insiders than the identity of the vice president's undisclosed chunk of
bedrock.
Look for them if you're at a ritzy hotel in Tyson's Corner, Va.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is the headliner. White House counsel
Alberto Gonzales will speak, as will Timothy Goeglein, deputy director of
the White House Office of Public Liaison. There have been no public
announcements, and there won't be. The 500 or so members will hear private,
unvarnished presentations.
White House spokeswoman Anne Womack said Gonzales' remarks would not be
released. The CNP's bylaws keep out the press and prevent disclosure of the
transcribed proceedings - unless all the speakers give their assent. Few do.
In a 2000 filing with the Internal Revenue Service, the CNP says it holds
"educational conferences and seminars for national leaders in the field of
business, government, religion and academia." It says it produces a weekly
newsletter keeping members abreast of developments, and a biyearly
collection of speeches. Executive Director Morton Blackwell was paid a
little more than $70,000. The organization took in more than $732,000.
Baldwin said he doesn't get many calls from the press. But he's happy to
answer some basic questions.
Of the group's reputation, he said, "There's a lot of stuff out there
claiming we're a lot more than we are."
What they are - or rather, what sway they hold - is a source of some
dispute.
In 1999, candidate George W. Bush spoke before a closed-press CNP session in
San Antonio. His speech, contemporaneously described as a typical
mid-campaign ministration to conservatives, was recorded on audio tape.
(Depending on whose account you believe, Bush promised to appoint only
anti-abortion-rights judges to the Supreme Court, or he stuck to his
campaign "strict constructionist" phrase. Or he took a tough stance against
gays and lesbians, or maybe he didn't).
The media and center-left activist groups urged the group and Bush's
presidential campaign to release the tape of his remarks. The CNP, citing
its bylaws that restrict access to speeches, declined. So did the Bush
campaign, citing the CNP.
Shortly thereafter, magisterial conservatives pronounced the allegedly
moderate younger Bush fit for the mantle of Republican leadership.
The two events might not be connected. But since none of the participants
would say what Bush said, the CNP's kingmaking role mushroomed in the mind's
eye, at least to the Democratic National Committee, which urged release of
the tapes.
Partly because so little was known about CNP, the hubbub died down.
The CNP Against Liberalism
The CNP describes itself as a counterweight against liberal domination of
the American agenda.
That countering is heavy and silent, in part because few people, outside its
members, seem to know what the group is, what it does, how it raises money,
and how interlocked it has become in the matrix of conservative activism.
Conservative, it clearly is.
Unlike other groups that meet in darkened chambers, the CNP doesn't seem to
favor, as a matter of policy and choice of guests, one-worlders, secular
humanists, or multicultural multilateralists.
According to one of its most prominent members (who asked that his name not
be used), the CNP is simply and nothing but a self-selected, conservative
counterweight to the influential center-left establishment.
Panel topics at this year's convention hew to the CNP's world view, but
Baldwin, who wouldn't give specifics, said they reflected many different
vantage points.
"We'll probably discuss some of the hot issues that are relevant today. The
Middle East . We'll have a number of speakers from different perspectives.
We're not of all one like mind when it comes to what's going on there."
He continued: "Worldwide terrorism. Campaign finance reform. Generally, we
kind of mirror what's going on in society. We pride ourselves on being
relevant and timely, so that members want to come to our meetings."
Still, the group's shadowy reputation deters some high-profile figures from
speaking before it - those who directly influence policy.
For example: A knowledgeable person lists former CIA Director James Woolsey
as a Friday night speaker and says that on Saturday, Reagan defense official
Frank Gaffney will debate former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan about
Israel.
The cavalcade of "formers" resembles nothing more formidable than a Fox News
prime-time guest lineup.
In the 1990s, social issues tended to dominate the panels, and guests tended
to be talking heads who were plugged in to policy circles, rather than
operating from within them.
The concoction of federalism, economic growth, social traditionalism,
religious activism and anti-secularism goes down well among members because
it is spiced with disdain for a common enemy: the creeping influence of
political and philosophical liberalism.
Many current and former members politely said they would prefer not to speak
on the organization's behalf. Those who did respond to telephone and e-mail
messages declined to talk about their interest in the organization. More
than a dozen did not respond at all.
"Obviously, membership would imply that there is a commonality, so that goes
without saying," said Alvin Williams, CEO of a political action committee
that promotes black conservatives. "I don't think it is anything threatening
at all."
He declined to elaborate.
Darla St. Martin, associate executive director of the National Right to
Life, would only say, "Since everyone else is so skeptical [about speaking],
I don't think I should."
Even Judicial Watch's Larry Klayman, the watchdog and open government
proponent, would not comment, a spokesman said. His busy schedule - four
depositions in two days - precluded a short telephone interview.
Gary Bauer, the former presidential candidate and ubiquitous media presence,
asked a spokesman to decline a request for an interview about the CNP,
citing the group's long-standing policy against press publicity.
Judging by its 1998 membership roster, which was obtained by a secular
watchdog group called the Institute for First Amendment Studies and posted
on its Web site, the New Right's many colors are represented, but there are
few, if any, neo-conservatives, Republican moderates and libertarians.
Selective name dropping doesn't juice up a conspiracy. The evidence that the
CNP is an axis of nefarity is slim. Conservative groups are quick to point
out that liberal watchdogs like Common Cause have a great influence in
public policy debates, and, for instance, a direct hand in writing the
campaign-finance legislation.
A New Force in the Age of Reagan
But even CNP backers claim that the liberal establishment has nothing
comparable - no central gathering of its powerful members. The idea for CNP
gestated since the late 1960s, when the American Right, aiming for more
cake, desired a vigorous voice to influence policy and elite opinion at the
margins. Intellectuals it had, but practical policy seminars were missing.
The Moral Majority flashed into being after Roe vs. Wade, but it was
oriented toward Middle America, not to not-liberal Washington power-brokers.
CNP was conceived in 1981 by at least five fathers, including the Rev. Tim
LaHaye, an evangelical preacher who was then the head of the Moral Majority.
(LaHaye is the co-author of the popular Left Behind series that predicts and
subsequently depicts the Apocalypse). Nelson Baker Hunt, billionaire son of
billionaire oilman H.L. Hunt (connected to both the John Birch Society and
to Ronald Reagan's political network), businessman and one-time murder
suspect T. Cullen Davis, and wealthy John Bircher William Cies provided the
seed money.
Top Republicans were quickly recruited to fill in the gaps; hard-right
thinkers met up with sympathetic politicians. And suddenly, the right had a
counterpart to liberal policy groups. Christian activist Paul Weyrich took
responsibility for bringing together the best minds of conservatism, and his
imprint on the group's mission is unmistakable: It provided a forum for
religiously engaged conservative Christians to influence the geography of
American political power.
At its first meeting in May of 1981, the CNP gave an award to Reagan budget
guru David Stockman, strategized about judicial appointments, and reveled in
its newness.
Since then, at thrice-yearly conventions, the CNP has functioned as a
sausage factory for conservative ideas of a particular goût: strong
affirmations of military power, Christian heritage, traditional values, and
leave-us-alone-get-off-our-backs legislation. That red meat is seasoned by
groups like David Keene's American Conservative Union, researched and vetted
by conservative policy groups, chewed on and tested at statewide activist
meetings.
There's no denying their influence: Money is transferred from benefactor to
worthy cause. Aspirants meet benefactors.
The CNP helped Christian conservatives take control of the Republican state
party apparati in Southern and Midwestern states. It helped to spread word
about the infamous "Clinton Chronicles" videotapes that linked the president
to a host of crimes in Arkansas.
But the CNP is one factory among many. It stands out nowadays because it
prefers not to stand out.
Unlike, say, the Heritage Foundation, which has a media studio in its
headquarters, or the American Enterprise Institute, which publishes
journals, the CNP is content to operate in the alleyways of downtown
Washington. Part of what keeps it so healthy, according to current members,
is the same penchant for secrecy that drives outsiders crazy.
As then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton prepared to tell NBC News' Katie
Couric that her husband was a victim of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy," a
senior Clinton adviser asked Skipp Porteous, then the head of a secular
watchdog group, for information on the CNP. Porteous' conclusions - "that
this is a group that has the ideology, the money and the political backing
to cause social change in the United States" - became a part of the White
House litany.
Such talk is an apparition, members say. Much ado about nothing.
CNP will forever be nothing more than a "comfortable place" for like-minded
folks to brainstorm, one member said.
"What they decided at one point was that people will simply feel more at
ease," said another member, Balint Vazsonyi, who joined the group in 1997.
"It's certainly not for a political reason. The views discussed here are
among those you see on the television or when you open a newspaper."
Vazsonyi, a concert pianist who writes a column syndicated by Knight-Ridder,
said CNP gave him a chance to meet people who shared his views.
"I knew very, very few people in the political world. I knew lots of
musicians, but nobody in politics. Then someone said to me, 'There's a place
for people who are and have been interested in what you're interested in,
and you might like to be known by them.'
"That," he said, "was really the hook."
Quiet - Just the Way They Like It
CNP may simply be press-shy because of traditional qualms about the
establishment media's secular, often politically liberal perspective, and
because "they attribute things that individual members may do to us,"
Baldwin says.
The London Guardian linked arch-conservative gun-rights activist Larry Pratt
with Attorney General John Aschroft by saying "the two men know each another
from a secretive but highly influential right-wing religious group called
the Council for National Policy."
More recently, when California gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon disclosed
his campaign's contributors, The Associated Press made sure to note that
four members of CNP had donated to Simon's campaign - as if conservatives
donating to conservatives was worthy of a news story all its own. (Simon's
father, the former treasury secretary, was a CNP member).
Other CNP press leaks have been less the product of liberal media snooping
than of internal jockeying. When James Dobson, president of Focus on the
Family, told a CNP gathering in 1998 that he was thinking of withdrawing
support for the Republican Party, rival conservative leaders made sure the
national media got word of the speech.
The CNP remains obscure. Experienced Washingtonians often mistake them for
another organization, the liberal Center for National Policy. The Washington
Times reported Jan. 23 that Sen. John Kerry spoke to the Council for
National Policy about AWNR drilling, when, in fact, the Massachusetts
Democrat spoke to the Center for National Policy, a very different
organization. Both the Council and Center are not to be confused with the
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Or the National Center for Policy
Analysis.
Porteous' group, The Institute for First Amendment Studies, posted the CNP's
roster on its Web site and managed to slip past security at several CNP
meetings throughout the 1990s and soon published details notes of the
proceedings.
If their summaries are reliable - and the IFAS swears they are - the
from-the-fly-on-the-wall thrill and the occasional agitated quotation for
Democratic opposition research files do little to sustain the belief that
the CNP is ruling America behind those French doors of the Fairfax hotel
conference rooms.
"There's nothing wrong with what they are doing," Porteous said. "It's just
that they're ultraconservative and a lot of people don't agree with that."
"I don't think they are out there pounding their chests," said Joel Kaplan,
a Syracuse University journalism professor who has studied CNP's ties to
conservative projects. "But I don't think that they're hiding either."
Who's Who at the CNP
According to a membership roster obtained by Institute for First Amendment
Studies, notable former and current Council for National Politics members
include:
Attorney General John Ashcroft and Health and Human Services Secretary
Tommy Thompson. (Both are no longer members).
Christian businessmen like Holland and Jeffrey Coors, of the brewing
company, and entrepreneur and Orlando Magic owner Rich DeVos.
Two of fundamentalist Christianity's most prominent end-of-the-world
theologists: John Ankerberg, who believes that biblical prophecies were
literal promises and are coming true; and Dave Breese, who hosts The King Is
Coming, a show devoted entirely to Christian eschatology. Also: Chuck
Missler, an Idaho radio host who has predicted an imminent invasion of
Jerusalem by forces guided by the Antichrist.
Former presidential candidate and Christian Coalition founder Pat
Robertson; former Texas GOP Rep. Steve Stockman, who stunned the political
world in 1994 by ousting House Judiciary Chairman Jack Brooks from his seat;
the Rev. Don Wildmon of the American Family Association.
Christian reconstructionists like Rousas J. Rushdoony.
Williams, the founder of BAMPAC, a political action committee that
promotes black conservatism.
Sam Moore, president of Thomas Nelson, the country's most successful
Christian book publishing company.
Prominent creationist Henry Morris; political scientist Dora Kingsley;
Red Cross board member Ann Drexel; Rutherford Institute founder John
Whitehead.
Center-right coalitionist Grover Norquist and values activist Phyllis
Schlafly.
Oliver North, whose speeches to CNP members during the height of his
involvement in Iran-Contra stirred up debate.
--
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.
"Israelis have been too quick, over the years,
to view criticism of their government as motivated
by anti-Semitism."
---Bithead/Eflorack
"*I* take points off the character of any homosexual, right off the bat"
---Billy Beck
"Keep lying in defense of Jew haters."
---Christopher Morton
oldlib
eternal truth that the traditional family is still the best way to live.
" - Phyllis Schlafly
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:aatalm$sag$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Joe S.
http://www.ifas.org/cnp/text.html
This page is NOT authorized by the CNP, who would prefer that the page not
be public -- but it is.
--
- - -
Regards,
Joe S.
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:aatalm$sag$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
Ninure Saunders
<fo...@ogrntyo.com> wrote:
-" What Liberals are really afraid of is not the right wing, but the
-eternal truth that the traditional family is still the best way to live.
-" - Phyllis Schlafly
-
Phyllis Schlafly?
LOL!!!
Next thing you know will be quoting Dvid Duke on "ravical harmony"!!!
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/ninure
The world's second most subversive document
http://www.geocities.com/ninure/declaration.html
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
eflorack
> Visit the unofficial web page for the CNP here:
> http://www.ifas.org/cnp/text.html
>
> This page is NOT authorized by the CNP, who would prefer that the page not
> be public -- but it is.
You guys are astounding in your double standards.
When we on the right, mention that there are some underhanded and
possibly criminal actions on the part of Democrats, particularly when
we have facts backing us, you guys defend, conceal, secrete, cache,
screen, bury, cloak,deny,contradict, contravene, disaffirm, gainsay,
negate, traverse,argue,quarrel, 1wrangle, squabble, bicker,twist,
deform, contort, warp, hide, etc etc, and call us wild and unfounded
in our acusations... making references to black choppers and how we're
all losing it.
And yet, when something like this comes along that you can blame all
your troubles on... you all come out of the woodwork, sounding for all
the world like deranged victims of space aliens trying to mount an
attack on area 51 before the world runs out of tin foil and dill
pickles.
Like, how many in here don't remember the nonsense the left tried with
Bush Sr, about how he flew an SR71 to Iran the night before the
election? I view this as yet another one of those non-events.
Why not just admit that the reason Democrats have lost and contuinue
to lose is not some secret conspiracy, but simply because they have
failed to move the minds and hearts of the public, and have pushed
people away with their socialism?
oldlib
"Ninure Saunders" <RainbowChri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RainbowChristiannoh...@user-105necu.dialup.mindspring.
com...
> In article <OhqA8.647$2C1....@newsfeed.intelenet.net>, "oldlib"
> <fo...@ogrntyo.com> wrote:
>
> -" What Liberals are really afraid of is not the right wing, but the
> -eternal truth that the traditional family is still the best way to live.
> -" - Phyllis Schlafly
> -
>
> Phyllis Schlafly?
>
> LOL!!!
>
> Next thing you know will be quoting Dvid Duke on "ravical harmony"!!!
"The defining weakness of modern, conventional 'liberalism' is a fear
of ideas, and rather than confront and debate conservative ideas, the
instant reaction is: Suppress them. Dilute them. Get them off the air,
or at least limit the people's exposure to them, lest the masses be
led astray and grow restless." --Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
rightwi...@douchebag.com
wrote like a right wing scumbag:
>When we on the right, mention that there are some underhanded and
>possibly criminal actions on the part of Democrats, particularly when
>we have facts backing us, you guys defend, conceal, secrete, cache,
>screen, bury, cloak,deny,contradict, contravene, disaffirm, gainsay,
>negate, traverse,argue,quarrel, 1wrangle, squabble, bicker,twist,
>deform, contort, warp, hide, etc etc, and call us wild and unfounded
>in our acusations... making references to black choppers and how we're
>all losing it.
Wrong, halfwit
The facts have NEVER "been on your side"
The problem has always been, that the "facts" never supported the
conclusions you inferred from them..........NEVER.
You cannot name a "fact" or piece of evidence (save one) that backed
up any conclusion you drew from them.......in filegate, travelgate,
chinagate, fostergate, campaigngate or whitewater.
>Like, how many in here don't remember the nonsense the left tried with
>Bush Sr, about how he flew an SR71 to Iran the night before the
>election? I view this as yet another one of those non-events.
Whatever that "story" was wasn't taken to the halls of congress,
caused to launch millions of dollars in investigations, used as a
mantra in paid ads, media, or talk shows for months on end, either was
it?
>Why not just admit that the reason Democrats have lost and contuinue
>to lose is not some secret conspiracy, but simply because they have
>failed to move the minds and hearts of the public, and have pushed
>people away with their socialism?
You don't seem to get it
MORE people voted for democrats than republicans and have since 1994
If we're not "winning hearts and minds", why are you du mb assholes
LOSING seats EVERY election, and LOST the national vote in the 2000
election?
You can't seem to recognize your inability to take "facts" and make
sensible conclusions. You failed in whitewater, filegate, travelgate,
fostergate, campaigngate and chinagate by making silly-assed
conclusions from "facts" and you simply don't get it.............
=====================================================
*Try* it, you crappy little faggot bitch. Don't just sit there:
come try it.
I'll take your fuckin' life, instantly, and sleep like a baby.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
Gandalf Grey
"oldlib" <fo...@ogrntyo.com> wrote in message
news:Z%yA8.708$2C1....@newsfeed.intelenet.net...
>
> "Ninure Saunders" <RainbowChri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
news:RainbowChristiannoh...@user-105necu.dialup.mindspring.
> com...
> > In article <OhqA8.647$2C1....@newsfeed.intelenet.net>, "oldlib"
> > <fo...@ogrntyo.com> wrote:
> >
> > -" What Liberals are really afraid of is not the right wing, but the
> > -eternal truth that the traditional family is still the best way to
live.
> > -" - Phyllis Schlafly
> > -
> >
> > Phyllis Schlafly?
> >
> > LOL!!!
> >
> > Next thing you know will be quoting Dvid Duke on "ravical harmony"!!!
>
> "The defining weakness of modern, conventional 'liberalism' is a fear
> of ideas
The defining weakness of modern, conventional conservatism is an absence of
ideas.
Trilling was right. Conservatives don't really have ideas. They have
irritable gestures that they try to pass as ideas.
Keynes
>"Joe S." <j...@schlatter.org> wrote in message news:<aatme...@enews3.newsguy.com>, as the black helecopters circled above his head with the pink elephants....
>
>
>> Visit the unofficial web page for the CNP here:
>> http://www.ifas.org/cnp/text.html
>>
>> This page is NOT authorized by the CNP, who would prefer that the page not
>> be public -- but it is.
>
>You guys are astounding in your double standards.
>
>When we on the right, mention that there are some underhanded and
>possibly criminal actions on the part of Democrats, particularly when
>we have facts backing us, you guys defend, conceal, secrete, cache,
>screen, bury, cloak,deny,contradict, contravene, disaffirm, gainsay,
>negate, traverse,argue,quarrel, 1wrangle, squabble, bicker,twist,
>deform, contort, warp, hide, etc etc, and call us wild and unfounded
>in our acusations... making references to black choppers and how we're
>all losing it.
>
Bang that thesaurus. I like it.
>And yet, when something like this comes along that you can blame all
>your troubles on... you all come out of the woodwork, sounding for all
>the world like deranged victims of space aliens trying to mount an
>attack on area 51 before the world runs out of tin foil and dill
>pickles.
>
>Like, how many in here don't remember the nonsense the left tried with
>Bush Sr, about how he flew an SR71 to Iran the night before the
>election? I view this as yet another one of those non-events.
>
>Why not just admit that the reason Democrats have lost and contuinue
>to lose is not some secret conspiracy, but simply because they have
>failed to move the minds and hearts of the public, and have pushed
>people away with their socialism?
Screw the socialism charge. You know it's not true.
So a large number of people now are dittoheads.
Why not? The rightwing has been broadcasting
propaganda unopposed for the last 20 years.
They finally have a large audience of zombie clones.
But the dems did pretty well in the last few elections
and will do even better in the fall. They actually won
the presidency too, vote-wize. The ditto machine
is getting pretty boring by this time. Too shrill to
last forever, you know. Not to mention that even
ditto heads can see that it is consistently dishonest.
Keynes
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try and blame Bill Clinton."
( CONs - men at work greasing the "Axles of Evil". )
Gandalf Grey
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:toi5du09sf35j438p...@4ax.com...
> On 3 May 2002 09:26:20 -0700, eflo...@rochester.rr.com (eflorack) wrote:
>
> >"Joe S." <j...@schlatter.org> wrote in message
news:<aatme...@enews3.newsguy.com>, as the black helecopters circled above
his head with the pink elephants....
> >
> >
> >> Visit the unofficial web page for the CNP here:
> >> http://www.ifas.org/cnp/text.html
> >>
> >> This page is NOT authorized by the CNP, who would prefer that the page
not
> >> be public -- but it is.
> >
> >You guys are astounding in your double standards.
> >
> >When we on the right, mention that there are some underhanded and
> >possibly criminal actions on the part of Democrats, particularly when
> >we have facts backing us, you guys defend, conceal, secrete, cache,
> >screen, bury, cloak,deny,contradict, contravene, disaffirm, gainsay,
> >negate, traverse,argue,quarrel, 1wrangle, squabble, bicker,twist,
> >deform, contort, warp, hide, etc etc, and call us wild and unfounded
> >in our acusations... making references to black choppers and how we're
> >all losing it.
> >
>
> Bang that thesaurus. I like it.
Don't get too excited. It's pretty obvious Bithead posted that response
from some other source. Not his style at all. Too many three-syllable
words.
oldlib
oldlib
When people begin to think instead of just feeling; they
sometimes disconect from modern Liberalism. Most Liberals
believe that government control of the private lives of
citizens is not akin to socialism. The most intolerant people I
know are Liberals.
Gandalf Grey
.....yadda, yadda, yadda.
Put your fingers over your ears and reciting the conservative mantra really
doesn't change much of anything, oldfib.
oldlib
Gandalf Grey
You really are just an enormous baby, aren't you?
eflorack
> On 3 May 2002 09:26:20 -0700, eflo...@rochester.rr.com (eflorack)
> wrote like a right wing scumbag:
>
> >When we on the right, mention that there are some underhanded and
> >possibly criminal actions on the part of Democrats, particularly when
> >we have facts backing us, you guys defend, conceal, secrete, cache,
> >screen, bury, cloak,deny,contradict, contravene, disaffirm, gainsay,
> >negate, traverse,argue,quarrel, 1wrangle, squabble, bicker,twist,
> >deform, contort, warp, hide, etc etc, and call us wild and unfounded
> >in our acusations... making references to black choppers and how we're
> >all losing it.
>
> Wrong, halfwit
>
> The facts have NEVER "been on your side"
They've never been elsewhere.
> The problem has always been, that the "facts" never supported the
> conclusions you inferred from them..........NEVER.
Always.
> You cannot name a "fact" or piece of evidence (save one) that backed
> up any conclusion you drew from them.......in filegate, travelgate,
> chinagate, fostergate, campaigngate or whitewater.
I've named many. I've gone into great detail as regards Foster, for
example.
As have many others. Did you miss these, or are you simply ignoring
them?
>
> >Like, how many in here don't remember the nonsense the left tried with
> >Bush Sr, about how he flew an SR71 to Iran the night before the
> >election? I view this as yet another one of those non-events.
>
> Whatever that "story" was wasn't taken to the halls of congress,
> caused to launch millions of dollars in investigations, used as a
> mantra in paid ads, media, or talk shows for months on end, either was
> it?
Because unlike the charges against Clinton, there was no facts to back
it up.
> >Why not just admit that the reason Democrats have lost and contuinue
> >to lose is not some secret conspiracy, but simply because they have
> >failed to move the minds and hearts of the public, and have pushed
> >people away with their socialism?
>
> You don't seem to get it
I get it just fine.
>
> MORE people voted for democrats than republicans and have since 1994
>
> If we're not "winning hearts and minds", why are you du mb assholes
> LOSING seats EVERY election, and LOST the national vote in the 2000
> election?
That's funny; I don't seem to recall any major shift. Oh, of course
there was Jim Jeffords..... But they didn't vote for a Democrat there,
did they?