I was trying to figure out exactly what you were referring to. That was my guess.

I've defended Clinton plenty of times, and, in fact, when he was president, it was a full time occupation. When i moved to the Muslim boards, he was the maind attack point until Bush was elected, and even then, sometimes they forgot to change the name.

"united face to the worlkd" is an old unwritten rule I mentioned, sometimes stated that our differences stop at the border. You are either stupid or just being a schmuck if you think that it has anything to do with not criticizing Bush. Remember, another tradition in America, apart from that one, is pillorying the president.

Now, Specter, please tell me ONE policy of Bush's that i have defended. Put up or eff off.

btw, he is the least political president in my lifetime. Time and again he has made decision that no person thinking politically would have made, including throwing away his second term on a war. (Oops, the Dems gave it back to him.)

What I "attack," Specter, are stupid arguments. The liberals hjere, in general, and generally, are so sure of their position that, like the religious, they don't see the need for reasoned arguments. They just believe, and they chant the accepted line a lot. I just find it fruistrating.

Now, prove me wrong. I have been trying to get an answer from anyone, on any side of the political spectrum, for years now:

What are we going to do about the 75 Trillion dollar indebtedness due to entitlement programs, more than all the money in America?

Specter, you are very good at building strawmen, as you did here once again. Doesn't it get a little boring? Don't you ever wish to actually discuss something, looking for a truth bhetween you and another person, contributed to by both of you, rather than some silly contest so that you can say you won?

SAs fopr defending your position, I have no idea what that would be. Mostly I hear from you what i can hear all over the blogosphere. It's the leftist choir. Not unlike the rightist choir. I'm more interested in what people themselves have to say, not what they can chant. Tell me how your position is different from the average leftist.

As for me, I hav stated that i tend to agree with the classical liberals that we each own our own life, and that no other person has claims on my life just by being a person, nor do I have claims on his, and that government cannot creat such obligations in the name of some abstract noun like "society." Do you want to argue with my actual position, or one you've made up and assigned me to?

But Greenspan & Tenet both had their jobs before Bush and neither were eye-opening "tell-alls"

But thanks for chiming in from the cheep seats!

that turned into a test of voting or support. The statement from Jefferson that that government governs best which goversns least is a fine piece of wisdom, but when turned into a litmus test, leads to overly partisan politics based on ideological purity, not electing the best person for an office.

The most common example is abortion, which is used as a litmus test by both the deranged sides of the abortion debate.

As for the coast theory, it is true to some extent. We don't cotton to strangers in the interior. On the other hand, many of our wildest American movement6s came from places like Kansas. Ever been to Liberal, Kansas? Don't forget, women's right to vote, interior.

btw, the Republican mantra is properly stated, although seemingly never followed, that less government is better, not that it is bad, and that when taxes are too high, a tax decrease is better for the economy and the people in the country. Again, the truth of this mantra is not in doubt. But the application at any time for any p[articular policy must be determined at that time on practical grounds, not for the sake of ideological purity. See?