Amazingly, this story gets dumber and dumber by the day...

This is f'n awesome.

That's gotta be one of Repoz' top ten intros.

I bet his kids cheated on a math test.

So, while some evidence shows HGH might do absolutely nothing at all. It is clear in every study that it does not increase muscle mass, and/or decrease fat. I have a hard time believing Clemens' wife saying being on that cover was "the turning point in her life", as if it was the greatest thing that could ever happen.

I'm getting tired of this story, especially because for the average person that isn't a baseball fan, it really makes it look like baseball players are horrible people. Why does MLB get blamed so much when more people have been suspended for roids in the NFL since 2004. Also MLB has a tougher Steroid Policy.

Has anyone tested Koby Clemens yet?

I gave my dog HGH once. Boy, does that thing run fast.

But did he inject her in the ass?

This is all just lies to bring down the great roger clemens. The months of usage mcnamee gave mitchell, the types of steroids he told clemens not to use, the types of steroids he injected clemens with, all a hoax. His wife on HGH? nah, this is just another one of mcnamee's fairytales he thought of at night.

Note that the Mitchell Report says that after the 2001 season McNamee "had no further discussions" with [Roger] Clemens about performance-enhancing substances. I guess Roger was out of town when McNamee injected Debbie.

"His wife on HGH? nah, this is just another one of mcnamee's fairytales he thought of at night."

I know I shouldn't respond to trolling but you know many entertainers (The great Timbaland, 50 cent, Mary J Blige, LL Cool J, Tyler Perry(wtf?) and more) have been linked to HGH because it makes their bodies look better, or at they think it does.
It isn't so far-fetched to think his wife would want a little of what he takes to look good for the eyes of America.
Hell, if I was a girl I'd want to look like the living embodiment of sex if I was going to be in SI swimsuit

There are many studies that show HGH does increase muscle mass and reduce fat. However, there have not been any findings that show it increases muscle strength or speeds recovery/healing.

"Note that the Mitchell Report says that after the 2001 season McNamee "had no further discussions" with [Roger] Clemens about performance-enhancing substances"

If we listen to JC Bradbury, HGH isn't a performance enhancing substance. So I guess McNamee wasn't lying.

I've got work to do and I can't stop laughing.

See, this is why you can't trust McNamee. He was supposed to tell Mitchell all he knew. Leaving this essential bit of information out of the report damages the credibility of both McNamee and Mitchell.

Bizarro kevin? Nivek?

i think McNamee told Roger it would get Debbie in shape just so he could stick something in her naked ass.

And yet again, kevin tries to make a joke, well after it was already made and less skillfully.

It wouldn't surprise me at this point if they had a three-way.

I hope this is true, because it's damn funny.

She took oral steroids,

Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

That really is Debbie in that commercial? She could have used some work done for that.

wonder what's going to happen to that cell phone commercial now, the one of Clemens and the dropped call to Debbie?

If AT&T;stops running that ad, Debbie Clemens should sue McNamee for costing her millions in future endorsement deals.

this clemens-mcnamee saga has been one of the saddest and most pathetic developments in recent u.s. history

No it's not, it's awesome.

I won't believe this until I see gauze pads with Debbie Clemens' blood on them, photographed next to a can of Tab.

This is technically unrelated, but some people may enjoy seeing it anyway: Jose Canseco half-assedly "denying" steroid use during the 1988 World Series.

As a bonus, you can listen to the innocent, defrauded fans who knew absolutely nothing about baseball's hidden secret doing the "sterrrroids, sterrrrroids" chant.

Tomorrow, Clemens' cat, Kitty (of course it starts with a K) will be revealed as taking HGH.

Tomorrow, Clemens' cat, Kitty (of course it starts with a K) will be revealed as taking HGH.

I guess FGH is too hard to find.

Has anyone tested Koby Clemens yet?

And what about his other sons, Ku and Klux?

I guess FGH is too hard to find.

Not true.

Man, this story...

At this point, I don't even care what the truth is. I'm just enjoying the show!

My daughter (OB-GYN) told me that the other day one of the docs in her department was asked by a woman if she needed to stop her "HGH treatments" before getting pregnant. The woman was 35 and in excellent shape. But apparently was taking HGH to keep looking young.

Thought that was interesting.

I'm reading about this fiasco and listening to a song called..."Our Life is Not a Movie or Maybe" by Okkervil River

Scary

I think the before and after pictures of Debbie Clemens are fairly good prima facie evidence that not only did she take HGH, but it works.

From the looks of the manly stomach she's got in this picture, I absolutely believe that she was on the full Brian McNamee training program.

http://i.cnn.net/si/pr/subs/swimsuit/images/03_rclemens_01.jpg

Several years back (early 2000s) I took care of a prominent elderly physician. Turned out he was taking HGH to maintain his youth and vigor, so the word was definitely out on the street for usage along these lines. Although I think a one time dose probably wouldn't do all that much.

Wow...those sure look fake, but they are nontheless spectacular.

I jacked off to Debbie's pictures in that issue of SI. I have been defrauded and plan to sue.

My guess is is that this is true, and that it will piss off Clemens more than anything McNamee has said about him. I expect a "leave her out of it" statement from Camp Clemens soon enough, and I am sympathetic to that POV, although I am no Clemens fan and tend to believe McNamee is telling the truth.

I'm reading about this fiasco and listening to a song called..."Our Life is Not a Movie or Maybe" by Okkervil River

Phil, if I want to get an Okkervil River album, which one should I go for?

Look fake? yes.

Spectacular? no.

fake? again, yes.

I expect a "leave her out of it" statement from Camp Clemens soon enough, and I am sympathetic to that POV, although I am no Clemens fan and tend to believe McNamee is telling the truth.

McNamee's lawyers say that tape recorded conversation which was played nationally showed McNamee what the rules of this game were. He was especially pissed that his twelve year-old son's problems were brought up on a national stage. So he can point to that, and say that Roger crossed the line first.

Link to a video of that 2003 SI shoot. Can't tell if they're fake, but they sure look like it. Wonder if she has (Ren's?) pectoral implants, too?

Maybe McNamee injected HGH in her tits fake boobs?

Small world, I just became aware of the Allison Stokke phenomenon on the internet yesterday. She looks pretty hot as a polevaulter and then looks like your typical teenager in normal clothes.

Why do I get the feeling that Amy Winehouse is somehow involved in this?

ESPN is just eating this chit up!

I wonder if they plan on having Roger do anymore commercials for them. My guess is no.

I also bet they don't have a three hour special sports center anymore to televise him pitching in a minor league game.

what a joke they are ..

I jacked off to Debbie's pictures in that issue of SI. I have been defrauded and plan to sue.

Thank you so much for that tidbit of info rr.

Now if you'll excuse me I've gotta call my therapist.

Best Regards

John

After that little gem I may have to call John's therapist too, robin.

this clemens-mcnamee saga has been one of the saddest and most pathetic developments in recent u.s. history

Levski, given that very recent u.s. history includes

--the legalization of torture,
--the assertion that waterboarding is torture only if done to the attorney general of the united states,
--that prisoners aren't human--according to a u.s. appeals court and thus can't have their rights taken away, but,
--but corporations are--and therefore have human rights, i'd have to say, levski, that you're not... even... close.

It's enough to make this conservative think about voting democratic in 2008.

Maybe McNamee injected HGH in her tits fake boobs?

Actually, McNamee gave her implants that were filled with HGH instead of silicone. I'll leave the obvious reason why for the reader to discern.

It's enough to make this conservative think about voting democratic in 2008.

If your regular anti-corporation histrionics are any indication, you're about as conservative as Emma Goldman.

It's been my experience that people who are pro-corporation are a lot more histrionic about it, actually. But no, I wouldn't have pegged arkitekton as a conservative either. ;-)

*inserts I Like Where This Thread Is Going jpeg*

Meanwhile, the odds on McNamee being another Blair/Glass/Hart keep going up. I wonder what his next big revelation will be.

There was a "fad" among the very rich, and Hollywood types, to take HGH as a fountain of youth type elixir at that time, IIRC. Roger and wife are quite strange, BTW.

Very funny intro...I agree. Sparta is the perfect town, for some reason.

Mildred “The Crisco Gal” McLanguid of Sparta, N.J.

In other news, RMc was in Sparta NJ just last week, covering a high school basketball game.

Developing...

I wouldn't have pegged arkitekton as a conservative either.

That's because what it means to be conservative has changed. An old fashioned conservative would believe that corporate welfare and mixing government and business isn't any better than mixing government and religion or welfare for the poor. It's one thing to want an environment where businesses are unfettered by government regulation and wanting an environment where the government takes an active part in moving wealth to corporations. It's shocking, really. Basically, to be considered a conservative today you have to want the government to intervene in people's bedrooms while shuttling wealth and resources to the richest folks in power. It's bizarre as both of those things would be anathema to an old fashioned conservative. Indeed, when I hear Rush say that John McCain is no conservative, I think to myself (well, after thinking 'why am I listening to Rush') that, 'that's okay, Rush, you aren't either.'

Small government controlled as much as possible at a local level. A view that a great deal of power in a centralized government is to be avoided. Avoiding "nation building". All things a conservative used to be for but for which today's conservatives label you a terrorist lover.

This is the first aspect about the whole story that I believe 100%.

If your regular anti-corporation histrionics are any indication, you're about as conservative as Emma Goldman.

You're confused, Nutting. Authentic conservatism has nothing to do with being "anti-corporate" (or "pro-corporate", for that matter).

Allow me to point you to bunyon's excellent post, 62.

It's been my experience that people who are pro-corporation are a lot more histrionic about it, actually. But no, I wouldn't have pegged arkitekton as a conservative either. ;-)

Hush up, Lassus, or I'll have to remind you that your beloved Renzo Piano, designer of the NYTimes building, was recently awarded the American Institute of Architects' Gold Medal.

People consider "conservative" to be a frame of mind as much as or MORE than simply an economic policy, I think. The connotation of the word itself pulls it out of primarily economic and political definition. May be annoying, but that's the way the public sees it, words and meanings shift and are pulled places by the population.

Bunyon, I remember the 70's, and the definition and connotation of "conservative" then wasn't so much different from now. Again, at least from the definition of regular folk on the streets as opposed to politicos who only think they are in touch with the people. And that's 40 years ago. Was it really that much different in the 50's and 60's?

As far as Renzo Piano, I did some googling and - other than his excellent name - the only thing of his I like so far is the Paul Klee Center. Everything else is kind of hackneyed to my eye.

People consider "conservative" to be a frame of mind as much as or MORE than simply an economic policy, I think. The connotation of the word itself pulls it out of primarily economic and political definition. May be annoying, but that's the way the public sees it, words and meanings shift and are pulled places by the population.

I actually agree completely with your take (though I think the beginning of the modern meaning of conservatism started in the early 80s rather than the 70s and was a result of the old conservatives needing the Christian Right to win elections). But, then people will also equate a "true" conservative belief with the modern variant, which is annoying and wrong. Was it different in the 50s and 60s? I have no idea. Despite sounding like an old fart much of the time, I was born in 1971. But my sense is that conservatism has slowly been sliding toward what it is today over a fairly long period of time. I have read Goldwater and he was no social conservative. Nor was Reagan until he had to make deals with that side of the movement to get elected. I suspect both of those men would be appalled by what Bush has done. They may well have leveled Iraq and Afghanistan (and any number of other countries) after 9/11 but they wouldn't have us in there trying to build a democracy. We can debate the merits of such a policy, but it's clear enough to me that Bush's foreign and economic policies have little to do with that of Goldwater and Reagan. The overriding view of "old" conservatism was that the federal government should have its power curtailed as far as possible without destroying the union. With Goldwater this manifested itself as a sort of libertarianism. And, despite what Americans like to think, most of them want stuff from the government. With Reagan, he mainly focused on national security vis a vis the Soviets. Strong (and big) national defense, little else in the federal government. Only because of his association with evangelicals and his adherrence to a few of their views is Bush viewed as a conservative. And, I think you're right that the old meaning of the word has no meaning today. A conservative today is defined by his position on just a few issues that an "old" conservative would say the government has no business messing with, however they might actually feel about that issue.

I have no quibble with society using the word "conservative" however they like. It is why I don't define myself today as a conservative. (I'd use libertarian bu that doesn't really quite fit either.) But I do object to someone assuming they know how I feel about, say, abortion (or evolution, etc.) because they find out I favor limited federal government or lower taxes.

BTW I don't think conservatism was ever just an economic policy. It was a philosophy of government. Just as liberalism was. Today, the two are essentially the same. Both sides think the federal government should be actively involved in individual lives, they just think the priorities are different. That is movement from both of the traditional uses of the labels, but it is a much greater change for 'conservative' than for 'liberal'.

Where did all these budding liberal experts on American Conservatism come from, and why do they presume to define conservatism?

If you haven't lived at least a year in fly-over country--and I don't mean any of the college enclaves like Austin/Boulder--you don't know jack squat about "conservatives".

I'm not sure who you're defining as a liberal expert, but if it's me:

I'm not a liberal, either.

I spent 22 years in Oklahoma. I'm not sure people on the coasts even deign to fly over that state.

Edit. And I think conservatives are defining themselves. The folks everyone refers to as "conservative" in the media and on the street have emphasized the "social" conservatism they prefer.

If you haven't lived at least a year in fly-over country--and I don't mean any of the college enclaves like Austin/Boulder--you don't know jack squat about "conservatives".

A little grouchy? Must be sick of all the media buzz about the Democratic primaries.

Fill us in. What's a conservative? Neither Lassus nor bunyon was talking about "regular folks" per se--they were talking politicos, trends and rhetoric--the Neo-Cons vs. the old school, so to speak.

And I live in San Diego, an overgrown Navy town that is heavily Republican, and talk with plenty of self-labeled "conservatives."

Hard to imagine anyone could argue that contemporary right-wingers have much in common with conservatism, which I'll take for the moment from the Latin, com servare, meaning to preserve, to protect from harm, to prevent loss...

Having spent a decade in fly-over country, it's apparent to me right-wingers there generally believe in enormous government involvement in people's lives--but only so long as that involvement conforms to their particular beliefs. I'm not claiming this is universally true--it's just that I know of literally no one on the right who returned a government check, ignored a government agricultural subsidy, refused government paid- for medical care, and so on. Government-compelled school prayer was something favored by most right-wingers. Another belief was that people should certainly not be free to marry whomever they wished--indeed, government should actively interfere should a church wish to marry two women to each other, and certainly should not recognize such a marriage. Government should subsidize and foster commercial development of a certain kind, actively intervene abroad, and so on. How is any of this consistent with conservatism?

We can debate the merits of such a policy, but it's clear enough to me that Bush's foreign and economic policies have little to do with that of Goldwater and Reagan.

Bush's foreign and economic policies have little to do with that of Goldwater, but a great deal in common with that of Reagan. Bush and Reagan are both extreme foreign adventurists and interventionists. Both believe in a bloated military, both believe in intervening on behalf of expanding corporate power and minimizing corporate accountability, both believe in minimizing or simply ending governmental accountability, and on and on and on.

arkitekton,

How do you feel about McCain?

I've got to run but I thought I'd address these:

How is any of this consistent with conservatism?

It isn't. I'd argue there are very, very few "true" conservatives in the US. Everyone seems to want a piece of everyone else. Some want other's money and property, some want their very souls.


We can debate the merits of such a policy, but it's clear enough to me that Bush's foreign and economic policies have little to do with that of Goldwater and Reagan.



Bush's foreign and economic policies have little to do with that of Goldwater, but a great deal in common with that of Reagan. Bush and Reagan are both extreme foreign adventurists and interventionists. Both believe in a bloated military, both believe in intervening on behalf of expanding corporate power and minimizing corporate accountability, both believe in minimizing or simply ending governmental accountability, and on and on and on.

I'd disagree. I think Bush and the neo-cons actually believe (or believed) that they could create democratic nations by invasion. I think Reagan thought there was nothing at all wrong with getting mixed up in other nation's affairs so long as it was to further US interests. Maybe I'm splitting hairs (and I'm not a big fan of most of Reagan's foreign adventures) but that seems key to me. Whether it was long-term good for the US, I think Reagan achieved much of what he hoped in his adventures. The Soviets fell, folks we favored gained power, etc. I'd argue it was short-sighted. But I don't think he ever thought he'd create a democratic utopia in El Salvador and he didn't do it for those people.

I probably am splitting hairs. That argument falls flat to me, but I'll leave it to let you see where I was coming from with the original statement taht you quoted.

It's sunny and I'm off to enjoy. Cheers.

arky was no doubt bummed when the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union collapsed.

arkitekton,

How do you feel about McCain?

I trust him about as much as I trust Hillary, which is to say not much. He's an opportunist and a flip-flopper, and an astute Democratic candidate will make mincemeat of him on that basis, and end the Straight Talk Express nonsense. He was against Bush's tax cuts. Now he's for making them permanent. He recently disparaged Roberts and Alito and their brand of right-wing judicial activism, now he promises CPAC he'll appoint more judges like them. He decried the gang who smeared him on Bush's behalf in the South Carolina primary, now he's hired them to script his campaign. Now that it's causing him grief with the far right, he refused to answer a direct question about whether he'd even support his own immigration bill if it came to the Senate floor.

I'm also appalled by his thinking on Iraq. From his bumbling appearance where he gurgled about how safe a Baghdad market was while three helicopter gunships flew overhead and one hundred troops armed to the teeth surrounded him (reminding me of nothing so much as Dukakis's Snoopy imitation in that tank and oversized helmet, and a deadly insult to Iraqis who have to actually brave conditions there), to his willingness to commit American troops to Iraq for a century, his approach is interventionist, imperialistic and, frankly, surreal. That he imagines that we should gut our military in order to fight the minor danger of Al-Qaida-in-Iraq on its own turf shows an astonishing ignorance of basic military strategy.

In this and other matters he has a fundamental lack of common sense that concerns me very much. I've even tried to like McCain and his homely lawyer jokes, but his hyperbolic, incendiary, and patently false nonsense about Romney and troop withdrawals, even as McCain accuses the Democratic candidates of wanting to "wave the white flag of surrender in Iraq", is pathetic. It's difficult, too, to not feel contempt for a man who cheats on his disabled first wife and divorces her for a woman seventeen years younger.

It's sunny and I'm off to enjoy. Cheers.

I'm envious. Enjoy!

If you haven't lived at least a year in fly-over country--and I don't mean any of the college enclaves like Austin/Boulder--you don't know jack squat about "conservatives".

How about 18 years?

Bite me.

While the coastal libs are out plotting how to turn America into France, fly-over country is busy keeping America great.

arkitekton,

So, if it's McCain/Clinton, you'll vote Libertarian or Constitution? Same if it is McCain/Obama?

I ask in part because many of the hard-core Hillary-loving women I work with got irritated yesterday when I suggested that Obama has a better chance to beat McCain than Clinton does. So strictly from a "prognostication" perspective, as well as ideologically, I am interested in conservatives of various types opinions of McCain. My guess is that Obama would narrowly defeat McCain, whereas McCain would narrowly defeat Clinton. But it's early.

While the coastal libs are out plotting how to turn America into France, fly-over country is busy keeping America great.

This is a really great post because it's funny both as parody and non-parody. More bang for your BTF buck.

If the French somehow discovered a cure for every disease on the planet, a majority of Americans would be against it.

That's because the cure would be worse than the disease.

France and Europe have been thoroughly pussified in the post-WW II era, and that's the stuff liberal dreams are made of. And they hate fly-over country for not sharing that dream.

arkitekton,

So, if it's McCain/Clinton, you'll vote Libertarian or Constitution? Same if it is McCain/Obama?

Oh boy. Astonishingly enough, I can just barely imagine voting for Clinton--and I can't believe I just wrote that. For me, by far the greatest danger (for many reasons) to America's security is her continued presence in Iraq, so if I want to make that my top consideration, I have to vote for the candidate most likely to get us out of there. As for Obama, I don't see him as any more "big government" than McCain--they're just big government in different ways.

I ask in part because many of the hard-core Hillary-loving women I work with got irritated yesterday when I suggested that Obama has a better chance to beat McCain than Clinton does. So strictly from a "prognostication" perspective, as well as ideologically, I am interested in conservatives of various types opinions of McCain. My guess is that Obama would narrowly defeat McCain, whereas McCain would narrowly defeat Clinton. But it's early.

It's essentially intuition on my part, but I agree "Obama has a better chance of beating McCain than Clinton does." The wingnut right loathes McCain, but I can see them coming out for him if the alternative is another Clinton--not so much if the alternative is Obama. I also know a few evangelicals for whom Obama was their second choice, after Huckabee. Startled the hell out of me to hear it, and there's the small sample size issue, and McCain could cut into that by naming Huck as his running mate, but there it is. So, I'll go along with your prognostication while emphasizing your caveat. It is, indeed, early.

And so, robin, what's your opinion of McCain?

And so, robin, what's your opinion of McCain?

I am in many respects a liberal Demo bleeding heart as well as a public educator, so all of my opinions about Republican politicians should be taken about as seriously as Hank Steinbrenner's "final" words about ongoing Yankee contract or trade negotiations. I have a friend who is a very centrist Democrat with a military background, and while this guy voted for Obama in the primary and said he would in the general as well, he likes McCain OK and sometimes votes Repub. I asked him about Iraq; he said "I don't think we should have gone in in the first place, and the loss of life there makes me sick, but now that we are there, I think a premature pull out might make it worse, so it's tough. Sometimes I think we need to hit them harder." This guy does not like what McCain has said about Iran, OTOH, at all.

I tend to be more of a hard-on liberal about social conservatism--people who are hardcore anti-gay, and IMO conflate church and state, etc--and more agnostic about geopolitics and macro economics, which I believe are essentially centrist endeavors, regardless of the ideology of who is in office. On that level, McCain appeals to me more than many other Repubs. The wife thing...that is a tough one, but I tend to try to ignore stuff like that for the most part in evaluating pols. If it is Clinton/McCain, that issue will create some nasty #### on the net and on TV/radio.

It's essentially intuition on my part, but I agree "Obama has a better chance of beating McCain than Clinton does." The wingnut right loathes McCain, but I can see them coming out for him if the alternative is another Clinton--not so much if the alternative is Obama. I also know a few evangelicals for whom Obama was their second choice, after Huckabee. Startled the hell out of me to hear it, and there's the small sample size issue, and McCain could cut into that by naming Huck as his running mate, but there it is. So, I'll go along with your prognostication while emphasizing your caveat. It is, indeed, early.

I agree--I do not see much of the evangelical right staying home if Mrs. Satan is the Democratic candidate, and the fact that I said so bothered some women at work. I personally would be OK with Hillary Clinton as President, but even given my ideological slant, she has zero personal appeal to me and I simply do not think that working leftist women on the coasts really get how many people around the USA have a visceral hatred of the Clintons. But like you I think those people might sit out if Obama is the nom, and I also think Obama can pull in a few more independents based on novelty and personality.

I assume Huckabee is staying in in part to try to get on the ticket and bring the Christian right into the tent. If that occurs, and I am correct in believing that Clinton gets the Demo nom (Obama is nowhere with Latino voters, which means he cannot, as we saw, take CA or NY, and likely not TX as well, which gives her a big, big, edge. I work with Latinos daily, and I told people Tuesday morning that Clinton would kick Obama's ass in CA in spite of what some polling numbers showed) I think McCain's team spins/triangulates his Iraq policy and he beats her in a close one.

France and Europe have been thoroughly pussified in the post-WW II era, and that's the stuff liberal dreams are made of.

You got me. I do indeed dream of being thoroughly overrun by pusssy.

John McCain is older than Casey Stengel was when Stengel took over the Mets.

I want to apologize. In a thread about a week ago, I suggested that Photoshopping the 2003 Debbie and Roger shot in SI could make the link between the Lewinsky/Clinton and the McNamee/Clemens affairs clear. Little did I know what would come next...

Sordid, tawdry. Anybody got a better word?

arky=Ron Paul?

arky=Ron Paul?

Paul's a pretty good guy, for a pol. He served, which could be part of why he was against the invasion of Iraq, and against the occupation (even as he--correctly imo--was in favor of invading Afghanistan). That's "served in the military", unlike this bunch of bloody clots who never found a war they couldn't say no to, or a defense contractor they wouldn't bend over for:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-MI, Senate Republican Conference Chairman Jon Kyl, R-AZ, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair John Ensign, R-NV, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-OH, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-MO, House Republican Conference Chair Adam Putnam, R-FL, House Republican Policy Committee Thaddeus McCotter, R-MI, National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Tom Cole, R-OK, President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney (30 months in France!), Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Former House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, R-PA, formerly third ranking Republican in the Senate, and so on.

My favorite chickenhawk, though, is Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay, of whom a spokesman said, "So many minority youths had volunteered ... that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself." That actually tops Dick "five deferments--'I had other priorities' " Cheney.

And thanks for post 86, robin.

The antipathy between blacks and Latinos really may sink Obama in the general election, if he gets there. OTOH, McCain is genuflecting to the right on immigration right now. That's going to be the stuff of ads in the general. OTOH...

I'll have to disagree, mildly, with regard to McCain v Clinton. I think in that particular case the Latino vote could well be decisive, and put Clinton in. If they don't bloody each other too much, and if Clinton asks Obama to be on the ticket, and if he agrees, then I really don't see McCain winning.

I dunno, kevin, I haven't really heard that from any friends or co-workers of mine. I'm not married to any of them, granted, but I would simply doubt that's a hard-held view in the black community. Both of our experiences are colloquial, however, so who knows?

As a liberal, I fear a Hilary-led ticket, even with Obama as the VP. And if the rancor is so advanced that she DOESN'T tap Obama for VP, I think the democrats are well and truly ###### against McCain.

(And yes, I wanted those number signs there.)

Paul's a pretty good guy, for a pol. He served, which could be part of why he was against the invasion of Iraq, and against the occupation (even as he--correctly imo--was in favor of invading Afghanistan). That's "served in the military", unlike this bunch of bloody clots who never found a war they couldn't say no to, or a defense contractor they wouldn't bend over for:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-MI, Senate Republican Conference Chairman Jon Kyl, R-AZ, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair John Ensign, R-NV, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-OH, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-MO, House Republican Conference Chair Adam Putnam, R-FL, House Republican Policy Committee Thaddeus McCotter, R-MI, National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Tom Cole, R-OK, President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney (30 months in France!), Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Former House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, R-PA, formerly third ranking Republican in the Senate, and so on.

George Bush is admittedly no Kevin, but he did, of course, serve.

What an inane list (Adam Putnam was born in 1974. What war was he supposed to serve in?), as well as an infantile attack. Would you suddenly support the war if veterans did/do? Of course not. So your complaint is completely dishonest.

Are people who don't serve supposed to vote against war? Are all women -- who by law are excluded from combat -- disqualified from voting for war? In which case, no woman would be qualified to hold public office, since voting for war is sometimes necessary. Robert Heinlein once proposed that only veterans be allowed to vote, but most leftists -- and people who rant about corporations are not conservative, regardless of the "tu quoque" arguments they employ -- would not endorse such a position.

These people are either right or wrong in their position on Iraq. Whether they served has no bearing on that. The biggest hawk in Washington is John McCain, who certainly served.

Small sample size I know but AA students at the best Catholic HS in NE Ohio are very much Obamites.

Phil, if I want to get an Okkervil River album, which one should I go for?

Black Sheep Boy is probably the best one to start with. I personally think Down the River of Golden Dreams is their best, but it could be a little much to start out with.

If you're really into the rock, the newest record might be the place to start. It's certainly the most accessible in a straightforward rock sense. But, good as it is, I don't think it can really stand up to the very best of their earlier stuff.

Definitely check out "The War Criminal Rises and Speaks" and "Westfall."

Gulf I?

Not legally. That ended in January 1991, when he was 16. In the U.S., one can enlist at 17 with parental consent, but one may not serve in combat until 18.

Adam Putnam was born in 1974. What war was he supposed to serve in?



Gulf I?

At 16?

Black Sheep Boy is probably the best one to start with. I personally think Down the River of Golden Dreams is their best, but it could be a little much to start out with.

If you're really into the rock, the newest record might be the place to start. It's certainly the most accessible in a straightforward rock sense. But, good as it is, I don't think it can really stand up to the very best of their earlier stuff.

Definitely check out "The War Criminal Rises and Speaks" and "Westfall."

Thanks Baldrick. I went with the Black Sheep Boy Definitive Edition. If I like it, I'll make sure to try to Down the River of Golden Dreams next.

Adam Putnam was born in 1974. What war was he supposed to serve in?



Gulf I?



At 16?

Now that's what I call reaching. I wrote "serve".

In Putnam's official biography on house.gov, there is no mention of military service. Apparently, he graduated from the University of Florida in 1995, when he was 21.

DMN, not to split hairs but women are not placed into certain combat units. They can and have served in combat.

DMN, not to split hairs but women are not placed into certain combat units. They can and have served in combat.

That is correct. there are plenty of women fighter and bomber pilots. They wouldn't be much good if they couldn't be in combat.

During the Gulf War I, women were not allowed to be in combat. I know of a few KC-135 crews who flew missions over Iraq, took plenty of AAA and SAM fire, but were ineligible to receive air medals or any other combat related citations because there was a female crew member aboard. Such decorations were handed out to all male crews like it was Halloween candy.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?p=749

At 17? Drop out of high school and head to Kuwait?

#97 - Nieporent:

What you said. If there's any argument that marks it maker as a fool, it is the "chickenhawk" argument. Pure dishonest rhetoric, emotionally targeted ad hominem. I could go the rest of my life without hearing it made.

Arkitekton:

I figured you for a Ron Paullish type of conservative, if at all. (Honestly, every position you've staked out publicly seems to be traditionally liberal, as the modern term is described; your biggest issue seems to be Iraq, and the attacks you make on McCain are standard Democratic talking points, so forgive me if I think your self-identification is somewhat idiosyncratic.) But I happen to be a conservative myself and I think your definition of the term couldn't be more off-base. Mostly because there IS no one accepted definition. Orinoco may have sounded like a grumpy old man when he said that if you haven't spent time in flyover country then you don't know jack about conservatism, but he's got a point: those who think being a conservative is about fiscal policy alone, or a certain isolationist foreign policy stance, has forgotten the critical role of social conservatism in the coalition. The vast majority of conservatives stand for traditional social values in at least some sense. Heck, I even fall into that barrel though I'm generally a pretty libertarian guy: my attitude is that the health of the nation demands a fealty to and encouraging of traditional cultural values (I think the European malaise can be traced to this exact sort of failure of nerve) just as the American principle of liberty demands that we still allow folks to do whatever they please in the end.

This is no secret, nor is it anything new. Anyone who's read up on the modern history of American conservatism knows about "fusionism": the undertaking of Buckley, Meyer, Reagan, et al. to fuse the key disparate strands of conservative thought - libertarian, economic, and trad social conservatism - into one coalition. That coalition is fraying severely these days, in no small part because of the big gov't spending of Bush and the economically populist religious appeal of evangelicals like Huckabee.

Me, I'm disgusted with Bush-style conservatism (if it's conservatism at all, really), but not specifically because of foreign adventurism (although it has been ill-advised and poorly executed, don't get me wrong). Rather, because of the disgustingly unconservative willingness to increase the size of government, to spend beyond our means, and to adopt a clannish secretiveness w/r/t the actions of the executive branch.

That coalition is fraying severely these days, in no small part because of the big gov't spending of Bush and the economically populist religious appeal of evangelicals like Huckabee.

And the lack of a common enemy to unite them. Godless communism could unite social and economic conservatives as well as libertarians. No surprise that Clinton could win once the Cold War ended. Of course, 9/11 could have shored up the coalition, but Bush's mismanagement of Iraq -- not the fact of the war, but the handling of it -- combined with Bush's complete lack of interest in fiscal discipline or small government, has shattered it, possibly beyond repair. (Certainly McCain is not likely to rebuild it.) Romney was the perfect product for doing so, except for the fact that he looked like a product rather than an actual person.

I couldn't help but chuckle at Newt on CNN whining that the social conservative wing of the Republican Party is being shut out of the 2008 election.

i would think that someone who broke up his first 2 marriages by cheating on his wife would be in favor of social conservatives being shut out of the election. Or, I should say, at least the serious social conservatives.

Esot,

With regard to your objections to my use of "chickenhawk", I must call fowl. As with larkin4hof's post 112, when hypocrites attack, or whine, it's remiss not to point out their lack of bona fides. Military service is not absolutely necessary to overseeing a war, but who would argue it's not, at the least, useful? Many Republicans in the administration, and Congress, ducked military service. These same folks have no trouble accusing their opponents of a lack of patriotism. To deride these clucks for their hypocrisy and lack of service, then, and point out how willing they are to use other people's kids as cannon fodder, endlessly, in an unwinnable war is certainly fair play. If you want to be a militarist, you're vulnerable to charges that you never put your life where your mouth is--and vulnerable you should be. It's the same with self-proclaimed social conservatives whose lives reflect anything but social conservatism. It's called hypocrisy, and hypocrites deserve to be brought up short, mocked, and ridiculed--whether they call themselves Republicans or Democrats.


To trouble to claim, as you do, that my criticism of McCain "also happens to be standard Democratic talking points"--that's intellectual laziness on your part, and my reply has to be, "so what"? Some Democratic "talking points" have kernels of truth in them, as do some Republican "talking points". Why not actually address what I had to say?

The vast majority of conservatives stand for traditional social values in at least some sense. Heck, I even fall into that barrel though I'm generally a pretty libertarian guy: my attitude is that the health of the nation demands a fealty to and encouraging of traditional cultural values (I think the European malaise can be traced to this exact sort of failure of nerve) just as the American principle of liberty demands that we still allow folks to do whatever they please in the end.

I'm not sure what your point is here, as I never claimed that conservatism was or should be confined to positions on foreign adventuring or fiscal policy. As for "European malaise", I honestly don't have any idea what you mean by that, or what the "failure of nerve" is that you refer to...

This is no secret, nor is it anything new. Anyone who's read up on the modern history of American conservatism knows about "fusionism": the undertaking of Buckley, Meyer, Reagan, et al. to fuse the key disparate strands of conservative thought - libertarian, economic, and trad social conservatism - into one coalition. That coalition is fraying severely these days, in no small part because of the big gov't spending of Bush and the economically populist religious appeal of evangelicals like Huckabee.

Bravo! This is a smartly written paragraph. I believe the coalition is inherently unstable and, frankly, that it was always intellectually sloppy. Social conservatism can be practiced, of course, but for it to work, it must be somehow enforced--and that means highly intrusive government, activist judges, and so on--hardly features of "conservative" philosophy, however you might define that.

Forgot about this one:

(Honestly, every position you've staked out publicly seems to be traditionally liberal, as the modern term is described;...

How so? Quotations would help.


And just to preserve my claim to be an equal opportunity offender, I'll note that Al Gore deserves relentless lampooning for his lifestyle. I'm delighted he lectures on the facts and dangers of global warming--at the same time he could easily afford to convert his mansion to solar power. I know how it's done, I know what it costs. A lot of people can't afford it. Gore can. And should. To not do so is ludicrous, given what he professes. Obama deserves to be skewered for his shady dealings on his house and neighboring lot with Tony Rezko and Rezko's wife, especially given that Obama plays up his time as a community organizer of poor folks, and that Rezko is a slumlord. As for Hillary... I wouldn't even know where to start.