I just finished (two years after its publication) Misunderestimated by Bill Sammon. That was one well-written, well-researched, top-notch book that did a GREAT job advocating for President Bush's leadership.
He didn't have to call the other side screwballs.
This blog and others like it have contributed to me feeling more sympathy for the Left, but Sammon's book was not condescending (rather, he pointed to how condescending Kerry was). Sammon didn't say Kook, Moonbat, Leftie, etc. He didn't have to. Sammons book helped me reevaluate many of my positions without making me feel stupid for holding another opinion. He really did a great job justifying our intervention in Iraq.
I think O'reilly was right when he called blogs garbage, or something along those lines.
You will push more people to the right by not stooping to the Democrats condescending messages. Isn't that right? Just deliver the news and we can make up our minds that they are screwballs or unfit for leadership.

It should be fun watching the Leftist Dems implode over the next 2 years. Hopefully they don't manage to destroy everything in their wake.

Nick

We could all agree that name calling is not the road to persuasion, however, to get on point, there is a clear and present threat to the security of the USA. That threat is liberalism in its worst form. People like Ward Churchill, Michael Moore, (are you getting my drift), Sean Penn, John Kerry, Hitlery and many others are chipping away at our (conservative) ability to instill, at an early age, the morality and intestinal fortitude that our youth will need to lead this great nation.

There is no doubt that religion has become the antithesis of good for many American youths and if we don't act now with consistancy, they will surely grow to believe that is true.

As you've seen here at B4B, the kook left bloggers claim to be the "mainstream" in America and if we conservatives don't do our best to defend conservatism, we will surely look back and ask ourselves why we didn't do a better job of educating.

So, if there is only one thing that we can look back at 20 years from now and say that we did right, it would have to be that we educated our youth to believe that there is a God, there is a right and a wrong and that good will always prevail over bad and as long as we're united, we will never fail.

Today, we're not united, and God help us all if we don't get it together...and soon.

So, if there is only one thing that we can look back at 20 years from now and say that we did right, it would have to be that we educated our youth to believe that there is a God, there is a right and a wrong and that good will always prevail over bad and as long as we're united, we will never fail.

Navydad, it's difficult, however, to observe, with a straight face, the Left's attempts to argue against those principles.

the Democratic majority survives on the backs of a score of conservative Democrats

It will be interesting to see how the Heath Shuler Democrats vote. Will they be true to their relatively conservative constituents, or will Pelosi et al. pull them leftward? It is a horrible irony that some of those who ran to the right of Republicans on issues such as border security may help bring about the totally open border and other things that so many on the left desire. I wonder if Shuler and his type will be like Daniel Patrick Moynahan, whose socialogical research had a conservative bent, but whose Senate voting record was virtually indistinguishable from that of Ted Kennedy.

You will push more people to the right by not stooping to the Democrats condescending messages.

Mark, I think Nick has a point. Name-calling has long been a left-wing tactic, such as when they cry "racist" when you disagree with them in race relations, "xenophobe" when you disagree with open borders, etc. Showing that we're above that sort of thing wouldn't be a bad idea. However, I don't think that all names are equally bad. I don't mind "lefty" (or "righty", for that matter), but maybe we can do without "leftard" and a few others. For me, the term "moonbat" doesn't even make sense. Of course, I plead guilty to using the term "Islamobigot" to describe our extremist muslim enemies, but due to the vicious hate that they have for all non-muslims, I submit that this term is justified. And I like to refer to Hillary's hubby as "Mr. Bill", because of a soft spot for the early years of the TV show Saturday Night Live. Apologies to the whippersnappers too young to be familiar with that.

We could all agree that name calling is not the road to persuasion, however, to get on point, there is a clear and present threat to the security of the USA. That threat is liberalism in its worst form. People like Ward Churchill, Michael Moore, (are you getting my drift), Sean Penn, John Kerry, Hitlery and many others are chipping away at our (conservative) ability to instill, at an early age, the morality and intestinal fortitude that our youth will need to lead this great nation.
---navydad

Now, this'll probably ignite some sort of argument on here, because it's one of those sticky issues that never gets resolved...

Frankly, no matter what "Hitlery" or Kerry do in Congress, and no matter what books Michael Moore writes, it doesn't (or shouldn't) have an effect on your ability to raise your children in a "moral" fashon. If it does... then you have some issues...

Similarly... raising your child religiously isn't necessary for and does not guarantee morality... Two cases: 1.) Girl raised in a strict Christian household (RLDS to be exact), spent the two years I dated her trying to convert me... and she cheats on me. 2.) I was raised athiest, and I have respect for others, am straight, do go around stealing people or preach against god...

If you want to raise your kids to be moral... the responsibility is yours alone. You can't rely on the government, TV/movies, Church, or others to do it for you... Certainly things like church and community can help... but your kid turns out to be Ted Bundy, the only thing you can blame is yourself...

Wow Georgia:
It's all about character. It needs to be developed. And in large part, having a community that is strong (which often means in large parts of America today, particularly in urban areas) means a church and/or schools.

However, schools can't teach morals or character for fear of offending a student's parents.

Churches are great at showing people a way to live. Obviously there are people who take that to the extreme. Your former girlfriend does not obviously represent all RLDS, just as you don't represent all atheists.

The problem with many social conservatives is they've seen social liberals use the machinations of government to push their agenda on America, they think it's 100% acceptable and right to do the same. In the long history of this Country, morality has always been legislated.

It's just something we have to deal with. And at times, there are people in power that others don't agree with.

The Kooks Are Coming Home to Roost
By Mark Noonan at 02:40 AM
Democrats, casting about for any club they could to belabor Bush with, brought these kooks into the mainstream, and now they've got to deal with them:

House Democrats tried to unveil their lobbying reform package today, but their press conference was drowned out by chants from anti-war activists who want Congress to stop funding the Iraq war before taking on other issues.
Baby Bush has brought this on to himself. He (baby Bush) does not care or understand what he has done. He (bush) has no concept on a holy war. He (baby Bush) only knows OIL $$$$. This man child (baby bush) wets his bed still, and has falling into a trap set up by men who know war. War is all they practice and plan; they are the best at it and plan far into the future way past Baby bush's pea brain thoughts are plans. Baby bush is a hero in the muslim world and has killed more human beings than died at the world trade center. All hail the hero of the muslim world. Hip-hip hoo-raw. He (baby bush) is the killer of young blood, just for OIL $$$$$

"I was raised athiest, and I have respect for others, am straight, do go around stealing people or preach against god..."

I'm hoping that the last part of this is a typo??

GF
As we older folks have seen over the past Oh let's say thirty years or so, there has been slow degredation of morality in our homes and educational system and with the advent of the internet, there's more to come if unchecked.

I'm not advocating censorship, on the contrary, I'm advocating more factual information fed to our children when in the educational system and less liberal ideology.. that's all, it's called balance.

When our children are force fed Al Gore and Michael Moore's movies in the fourth grade, or when teachers tell fifth graders that Bush lied and children died, instead of issues of historical, political or economic value, I take offense, especially since I/you can't be there to dictate what public school teachers teach.

Furthermore, the left has a major tendency to generalize their feelings when speaking of religion and politics, but not when speaking on issues such as the war on terrorism or entitlement programs...why is that?

They only take responisibility when things go their way, and yes that's a generalization, but it's to the point.

It is like calling conservatives warmongers and religous fanatics while saying "the american people agree with the Dems." These are generalizations that are misinterpreted by the youth that mostly likely will have an adverse affect on their future as an American. Very much like the youth in countries that sponsor terrorism.

Why is it so tough to say that the terrorists are bad and Americans are good...come on say it with me...terrorists are bad and Americans are good. That is a good generalization!

It's called taking a stand on principle...together.

Just because it has "always happened" doesn't make it right. The government's job is protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens... and none of those are accomplished by legislating morality. Priests, parents, and peers are better for instilling morality than legislators and Presidents. In fact, legislators and presidents are definitely not the ones I want deciding what "morality" is or should be.

If you can convince me that the government should do anything for me other than protecting my life, liberty, and property, I would love to hear it...

heh, navydad... that was a typo... thanks for catching it...

"I do not"

navydad-

I agree that schools need to be apolitical, neither taking a liberal or conservative stance on anything. I have also only heard sparce instances of propagandizing in schools from either side (such as the Bush=Hitler guy in Colorado and the evangelist in New England).

Religion and morality should be taught at home, not in taxpayer funded schools.

Oh, and terrorists are bad; Americans are good... I never said otherwise.

No problem.

Glad to see we agree on some things!

Deleted - personal insults

Gavin,

First, Cindy Sheehan has a right to do what she does (although I vehemently disagree with hr position) solely because she is an American, not because her son died in Iraq. Second, Casey Sheehan died in Iraq of his own volition: he vounteered to enlist and reenlist in the Army. She (by law) had no legal means to prevent him from doing so. Therefore, your statement about her right is fallacious. Besides, she has taken on more than the issue of Iraq which negates her "moral authority" due to her son's death.

You speak very "loudly" about GOP shills -- and I am not one -- but I am very conservative (not Republican) when it comes to national defense (which by its very nature cannot be looked at simply as a short term issue; one has to view it in the long term -- many call that vision). I am a retired Army officer and have the DD 214 and the blue ID card to prove it. My father (rest his soul) was also a retired soldier. My two brothers also have served, one of whom returned this year from a year proudly spent in Ramadi. Between us, that makes 4 combat tours + an expeditionary tour and curerently more than 75 years of service in our Army. Would I go to Iraq? In a heartbeat if called upon to do so. I am a little older, but I understand that I am still in the "recall to active duty" age category. If called upon to do so (return to active duty), I will not hesitate to move out to my duty station. I believe in service to our nation and believe that some form should be required of every citizen. I also think that initial commitment should have some basis in our military basic training.

My question to you is whether you've served? If so, I salute you for that. If not, why don't you try it? Believe me, it has clearly benefited many young men and women -- and has changed many of them profoundly for the better. One thing you'll have to understand though; you will have to subjugate some of your own preferences and liberties for the greater common good. NOnetheless, it is amazing how that works so well (and not only in the military) to further the successful completion of the mission and allows one to find a wonderful family among fellow soldiers (or members of whatever service one joins). It's a bond forged well and difficult to break.

Frankly, no matter what "Hitlery" or Kerry do in Congress, and no matter what books Michael Moore writes, it doesn't (or shouldn't) have an effect on your ability to raise your children in a "moral" fashon. If it does... then you have some issues...

Despite my strong dislike for you, GF, I have to say I agree with you on this one. It also ties in to the fact that whoever's in power in D.C. shouldn't have an effect on one's happiness. Ms. Piglosi ain't gonna affect my golf game one way or the other. Well, I may have to pay higher taxes on my greens fees, but other than that, no affect at all.

One correction to your post--it's not "Kerry;" it's "ol' Spitball."

Cindy Sheehan lost her son. That gives her the right to do what she wishes.

So, Gravel, you read MoDo and watch Letterman. Big deal, boy...