They always project onto others that which they are guilty of. What else can explain our current state of affairs besides pure emotion and no thought going into all their rhetoric, policies, and descisions.

-- gcc burger

That's so true. Are they going to try to argue that their stance on gay marriage, for example, comes from a rational, thoughtful, detatched place? How about their abject fear that they're going to be killed by a terrorist in Kansas? Their refusal to accept science, including evolution and global warming, are also emotion-driven. These examples could go on an on.

Mr. Pence is the perfect example of someone who substitutes beliefs for facts. Emotion? Yes. Rational, realistic thought? Not so much.

And I see it comming again in 2008 with Obama, and Hillary. I've seen Obama speak in person, and he's good, but he's certainly no "firebrand." And we all know that names people are calling Hillary, none of which are "warm."

-- orbitboy

A friend of mine said the same exact thing recently, (except he sees Obama as charismatic). And, the friend is a registered Democrat.

Obama does tend to draw large crowds, especially of that untapped voting demographic of 18-24 year olds.

I don't necessarily disagree with the theory. I don't think that charisma = good leadership abilities, but I do think that Americans with short attention spans will vote for someone they can relate to. (See the "Bush seems like a great guy to have a beer with" voters.)

Newt's batting 1.000 this week. He called Spanish the "language of the ghetto" this week.

If he's a true conservative, everything we've been saying about conservatives is true.

Who is left? Santorum? Ashcroft?

-- Iokannan in the Well

Point well taken, but this country did elect Bush. Twice.

Anything is possible.

Beside the fact that those at the NRO are certifiably insane, how could the outcome of the hostage issue be considered anything other than a success?

He got the soldiers released, unharmed, within a relatively quick amount of time!

NRO's and Newt's proposed actions would do nothing but ensure that those soldiers were killed. But, it just goes to show, they don't care about anything but bloodshed, toughness and threats, even if it is clear that the exact opposite is exactly what was successful here. And, they're looking for justifications of that attitude.

The point the people in that video were making isn't about simply about opening dialogue with Syria, it is about Dems doing it on their own, starting their own Foreign Policy... Lee Hamilton discussed it in the very beginning of the video.

-- Hankest

Then they should be discussing the fact that the Republicans who traveled to Syria earlier said things like this:

“I don't care what the administration says on this. You've got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country,” said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. “I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070404-1605-republicans-syria.html

It's not just the Democrats who are making their "own" policy, but the Democrats are the only ones who face any scrutiny. And that is the issue here.

Where is your evidence that Nancy Pelosi even brought up foreign policy issues?

-- Jim Montague

He's just reading out of The Handbook. I don't think there's anything else in there on the Logan Act, besides the completely unserious allegations he and seemingly every conservative blogger and blog commenter in the country have made.

"Historically, the act has been used more as a threat to those engaged in various political activities than as a weapon for prosecution. In fact, Logan Act violations have been discussed in almost every administration without any serious attempt at enforcement, and to date there have been no convictions and only one recorded indictment."

http://law.jrank.org/pages/8357/Logan-Act.html

Like when Ronald Reagan threatened Jesse Jackson.

Someone please explain how the Speaker of the House is "unauthorized" to conduct foreign relations? That's the crux of the argument. The Act nowhere says that permission must be granted by the President. It just refers to persons "without authority of the United States."

Since there's no case law about this, and no convictions, I wonder how the GOP is going to explain how "authority of the United States" = authority of the Executive Branch.

In addition, if these people are correct, then the three Republicans who went the week before must be convicted, everyone who went with Pelosi, including the Republican from Ohio must be convicted, and so should Darrell Issa. Don't forget Newt, DeLay and Hastert, either.

This is eye-rollingly absurd.

Even assuming the WSJ is correct (I'm not remotely convinced by two paragraphs from 150 pages of legislative history and a few words from cases that didn't deal with the Logan Act. The statute was enacted in response to actions by a private citizen.), then why is only Pelosi being accused?

What about Wolf who said "I don't care what the Administration says"? Hobson? Issa?

That's what's far more suspect about this argument.

Put me (and most of my family, and several others I know) down as a liberal who disapproves of Bush, Iraq, Gonzales, and Congressional Democrats. I think the Dems lay down for Bush, the beltway pundits, corporations (how else are they going to get campaign funding?), and, to a certain extent, the uber right (Dianne Feinstein lost my vote forever based, in part, on her vote on Iraq and her support for the flag burning amendment).

They're just too weak against Bush. Pelosi is better than I thought, and I respect Waxman, Murtha, Webb, Feingold and Leahy. Otherwise, I am vastly unimpressed.

Until we have publicly financed campaigns (which is about as likely as GWB getting a grasp on the English language, I know), I'll be a "decline to state" voter who mostly votes 3rd party.