Comments on: Only ‘liberal chorus’ against tanker contract?

By: RS

RS — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:43:46 +0000

When kansassam is right, he’s right.

By: Bentley

Bentley — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:10:27 +0000

Well, the National Review team needed a topic to snivel about while they wait to see who their opponent will be in the fall. A few weeks ago, when Obama’s nomination seemed more probable, they performed their annual reworking of liberal criteria data so as to label him as being farther to the left than any other senator. Somehow, the Democratic Party nominee always winds up farthest to the left on National Review’s little chart. (Kerry held the mantle in ‘04.) So if Clinton manages to edge Obama out, after all, then the National Review editors will have to put out an addendum saying they had a glitch in the rework of the rework, whereby the spreadsheet indicated Obama when it should have come up Clinton. And what’s comical about it is people like Russert and a few of their other mouthpieces will recite that nonsense, over and over again, as if it’s gospel.

By: Phantom

Phantom — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:50:26 +0000

I see Trent Lott retired just in time to get in on the French gravy train, like his bud McCain.

By: Phantom

Phantom — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:13:06 +0000

When push comes to shove they’ll all “Learn to love John McCain”

By: CF2K

CF2K — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:10:13 +0000

ksagnostic,

Indeed: pork makes whores of them all. To see Norm Dicks (D-WA) and Tiahrt (R-KS) bleating in time to Boeing should be enough to warm the clammiest capitalist heart.

By: ksagnostic

ksagnostic — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:43:19 +0000

The loss of IQ at the National Review is just sad. The correlation between where a politician stands on the Tanker issue has almost no correspondence to left verses right, it has to do what area of the country the politician represents. A conservative republican from Seattle (as unlikely as such a creature would be) would be every bit as opposed to the current tanker contract situation as a liberal democrat from Seattle. The same in reverse from south central Kansas.

By: kansassam

kansassam — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:31:32 +0000

As a Kansas voter, I feel it is the duty of our representatives in Congress to fight for Kansans, not for the Republican party and especially not for John McCain. I would also expect to hear more from our Governor on the subject. This is NOT the time to be trading Kansas jobs for political posturing!

By: Bentley

Bentley — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:32:05 +0000

This may prove to be a touchy subject for Brownback, Tiahrt and Roberts. Conservative journals are going to be swift to protect their boy McCain, especially since he’s running for prez. The National Review piece, for instance, mentioned the conflicts that Boeing went through several years ago, but made no mention of McCain’s potential problem with this ongoing sore spot. McCain, after all, employs advisers who were lobbyists for Airbus at the point when this latest deal was under review. Did anything take place that the public ought to know about? Well, you’d certainly hope that Brownback, Tiahrt and Roberts would sort of ante up with the sixty-four thousand dollar question if they truly mean what they say on this. Otherwise, you start to wonder if the old Kansas pols are merely playing a theatrical game of pretending to care, all the while backing off when the issue is on the line to save their man McCain in the showdown for prez. They can’t afford to have the ballyhooed maverick under the microscope when power is up for grabs. This is sure to be a shindig of a show for these fine fellows. Watch for the Kansas Delegation to do a lot of faking and jabbing, but no real punching. Otherwise, their very own Republican brethren will get them up against the ropes and start landing some blows to remember. Perhaps the National Review piece was a bit of a word to the wise: “Careful, there, Sammy. We’re watching you.”

By: kansassam

kansassam — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:00:12 +0000

Must be all those drugs in the drinking water..LOL :)

By: Econ101

Econ101 — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:06:14 +0000

Wow
I agree with Kanssam and CF@K as well.

Anyone seen those “three horses” riding by lately?

This is creepy!

By: CF2K

CF2K — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:53:01 +0000

When kansassam is right, he’s right.

By: kansassam

kansassam — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:21:56 +0000

Boeing won the first rigged competition. Airbus won the second rigged competition. Now it’s time to see who can win the true competition. It is not a liberal vs conservative issue, it’s an issue of having a fair competition with people like John McCain keeping their noses out of it!

By: Ben

Ben — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:53:27 +0000

The National Review is a joke. Since when are Tiahrt and Brownback liberals? And since when are the rest of the Boeing cheer-leaders liberals? I think they have is backwards.

By: writerdog

writerdog — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:40:09 +0000

Why is it this sound so much like “Dogs are Cats and Cats are Dogs!” Otherwise saying that if you are Conservative than you must always side one way. And if you are liberal you must always side one way, to very on some degree on a given topic. Immediately you are the opposite and shall be damn to the fiery pits of Hell for it. Circumstances change at times from topic to topic, as should one’s opinion change given the facts and realities of the subject. Even the most ardent Pro-lifer does not state that abortion in the case of it being the life of the mother is at stake, should be under the circumstance illegal. Either liberal or conservative should be guided by common sense. To do otherwise make the person a moron and not a thinking human being.