Thursday, May 18, 2006

Lessons From the Bogeyman


Well, it turns out I’m famous - sort of. Over at my old digs, my goodbye post got a lot of responses, including a lot of stories. Turns out I’m the Bogeyman. Huh, and I did not even like hiding in closets, what do you know about that!

What I mean is, I am getting all sorts of things pinned on me. Seems I was a hothead, held crazy ideas, and even days after losing my posting powers, I am still somehow blocking selected victims from being able to post comments on Polipundit. Maybe my next gig should be Freddy Kreuger?

But seriously, all this talk tells me I should probably lay out a few things, just for clarity. Believe them or not as you wish, but no one will be able to say I did not answer the questions. So here goes.

First, there were three significant issues which created some controversy at Polipundit; the nomination of Harriet Miers, the control of boorish behavior on comment threads, and of course the Illegals crisis.

When President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to be a Supreme Court Justice, the resulting explosion from the Hard Right was regrettable. Some folks at Polipundit have claimed that I was a champion of Miers, and that I referred to anyone who opposed her as a “bastard”. Neither claim is accurate. What I wanted for Harriet Miers, is simply what Republicans and alleged Conservatives had said for years that they considered the base for Congressional behavior - a chance to be heard, and a right to a vote, up or down. But when Miers was nominated, the demands by extremists for her to be removed prior to even her first day before the Senate Judiciary Committee smacked of an intolerant special-interest group; when Liberal groups made the same attacks on prior nominees by Republican Presidents, Conservatives rightly castigated their litmus-test attitude, as well as the notion that a Presidential nominee was not entitled to a fair chance to have his or her qualifications considered. When the bullying finally succeeded in forcing Ms. Miers to withdraw her acceptance of the nomination, the extremists crowed with delight. The people I called “bastards” were not the Conservatives who were concerned about Miers’ qualifications, but those who had just found a tool to demand ideological conditions for appointments, and who had just demonstrated an ability to blackmail the Executive Branch. Such conduct is reprehensible, no matter what politics are involved. The process, the American people’s right to see nominees in public hearings, was badly abused, and so when I wrote “the bastards won”, I meant (and specifically said so) those persons who found thuggery acceptable when it serves their purpose. The fact that such tactics have only increased in number and venom, proves I was right, that the worst elements in politics are in the ascendancy, and far too few people find Reason before they look for Rage.

The second episode is not so clear-cut. It is the cornerstone to an effective debate, that contrary opinions should be allowed, even encouraged. However, there are limits to what should be tolerated, when the practice of one person’s free speech tramples another. Polipundit is a strong advocate of free speech, to such a degree that he allowed profanity, vulgarity, and all manner of rhetorical bullying. Frankly, I strongly disapproved of this, because it shut down the more civil posters, and all too often solid conversations devolved into shouting matches. To control this, I used three general types of response; I would remove part or all of an offensive post (including ones which were simply being disruptive), if a poster kept it up I would mock them in their own style - this was not well received by the bullies, as such people are never interested in receiving their own style, and in extreme cases I would ban the IP from that thread. I should mention here a unique aspect of Polipundit; writers did not have the power to permanently ban any IP or individual; that was never even a possibility. So while there are, even now, still a few people at Polipundit claiming I locked them out of the site, this is a ridiculous and completely false claim. Of course, it tracks with the sort of behavior I saw when I was an official - while you did not have the power or place to mock a player or coach, you did have the ability to address the various fouls and violations. And like the blogs, the guilty parties always made themselves out to be the victims, blaming the officials for their own misdeeds. I mention this, because while I fully believe in Free Speech, on a blog it’s a privilege, not a right, and I will not allow anyone to derail the discussion with excessive vulgarity or deliberate provocations. Treat the other side with respect, and avoid name-calling, and we should be fine. But if I find it necessary to take action, I will do so, and I will neither apologize nor explain unless I find it necessary.

Finally, there is the issue of illegal aliens coming into our country. This is, as I noted a couple days ago, actually several issues happening together to make a crisis. The complaint I had is actually pretty simple, common sense to my mind. You don’t change someone’s mind by yelling at them, so calling the President of the United States a ‘liar’ or similar tactics is not only rude and a false charge, it is a poor plan of debate. Same thing for yelling at the people who have another opinion; listening to them and offering evidence for your side is smart, but calling them names and writing insults in ‘ALL CAPS’ is immature and foolish.

And that brings you up to speed. I’m sure I will be accused of something else in coming days; legends of monsters and evil hosts tend to grow in size and number. What I ask from you here, is to read my work, respond as you see fit, and judge me by the results. And as always, thanks for your visit and comments.


smh1012 said...


How could one be surprised by the attitude and behavior of the commentors at Polipundit as of late.
When the site owners behavior becomes that of a kindergartner, those who behave the same follow.

Frankly, I am glad you guys are on your own as I feel you all were being tarred by the same brush by some and that simply was not fair.

Someone commented either here or at Lorie's site that Poli was becoming the "Kos blog of the right." Who could disagree?

As far as anyone at Polipundit being a "victim" if anyone would have the right to claim so it would be the 4 of you who carried that site when Poli would put up one article every two weeks.

Good piece and thanks for the explanations but anyone who read your former "owners" rants knows both you and we are better off without him.

Jeanette said...

DJ, you owe no one an explanation of why you did it as the ones who will believe you knew anyway. Expect to see your post all over PP either in a post by the grand poobah himself or in the comments so they can ridicule you.

When they stoop to the level of calling Lorie basically ugly what more can you expect from those children?

If you remember I wrote an email to you and to Lorie just a few days before the Monday Night Massacre to ask why you would continue to associate yourselves with all that hatred that was being spread encouraged by Poli and his syncophants.

They think because he still has advertisers he's a success. What they don't know is you pay for the advertising in advance up to several months and you can't just pull it down. I know because I had a blog ad with the Anchoress that I bought in advance for 3 months.

They think because the same 20 or so people can get a thread to 400 or more it means there's a lot of traffic, when in fact it's the same people saying the same things over and over ad nauseum.

They are now even accusing you of being a troll on their posts. They admire the ones who are hateful or refuse to take a stand and are bold enough to tell those they disagree with to leave. You're better off without that place any day of the week.

Keep on keepin on!

Gene PK said...

DJ I always found you to be a voice of reason. Lori was great on social issues. Jason kept us on message and reminded us our vote counts. Alexander's analysis of polls were my favorite part of that old site. I tried to think of what I read Mr. Polipundit for and I realized I didn't read him at all. He has always been negative and didn't move Conservatism or Republicans forward, only backwards. I didn't read for him, I read for everyone else.

DJ don't take half those comments seriously, I think when the immigration issue and Polipundit jumping the shark blows over, that site WILL lose 3/4's of its visiters and you and the rest of the old lineup will be the victors of the spoils

JimBob said...

Good luck DJ!

BigV said...

Good post DJ. I was amazed and quite frankly startled by some of the posters that tore into you (and anyone who, while agreeing with them in principle, objected to the sharp rhetoric.) There were a few of them that I had previously held in high esteem.

While I only took a couple of shots online and got a couple emails from yahoo addresses, it was nothing to what they did to you and then Alexander.

I posted this over on Poli's site just prior to the blowout but I still think it fits. When you are stating 'opinions' why is it some people are so adamant that their opinion is the RIGHT opinion? My favorite line to showcase that idea comes from an exchange between Jesus and Pilate in the opera 'Jesus Christ, Superstar.'

Jesus: 'I look for truth and find that I get damned'

Pilate: 'But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths, are mine the same as yours?'

KnightHawk said...

I would be interested if you could address what seems to me to be a large disconnect between your praise so far for the president post speech, and your post and comments from thursday the 11th. Perhaps you could fit it in in part 13 of your review. Thx and goodnight you bogeyman :)


PS: BCL didn't accuse you of banning him since you were gone, he said the issues that arose with your banning him from a thread on thursday which blocked him from the site (for whatever reason) still were not resolved.

Rich said...

Except for the point about judicial nominations Hewett appears to be amazingly prescient:

"It will be the lasting glory or the lasting shame of The Corner and others involved in driving Ms. Miers from the field, depending on what happens, and not just with the next nominee and his or her votes on the court, but all the nominees that follow, and all the Senate campaigns that will be affected, as well as the presidential race in 2008."

Let me add my own worst-case scenario. Rasmussen now has the President polling at the lowest level ever for him. Note: this could be in part because he changed his Republican/Democrat mix this month. We have all the talk radio folks as Rush is saying "leading the revolt" presumably against the President but they are now not in control. For example one caller was bashing Santorum because he wasn't perfect on immigration. Rush tried to convince her not to do this but was not successful. This is a foul wind that is getting ahead of everyone. Remember President Carter's malaise? This will make it look like a giggle fest. If things break like I fear not only will the Republicans be swept out but so will the entire conservative movement.

The Rabies Right think this is a Reagan moment. Ronald Reagan had big ideas and was more importantly an optimist. He created Reagan Democrats -- you know those guys that weren't "true" conservatives but bought into Reagan's vision. No, this could be a Goldwater moment trashing the conservative movement for a generation.

Now why would a moderate like I fear a conservative meltdown? Because moderates tend to synthesize other people's ideas. If the conservatives meltdown, there will be no ideas to synthesize. The Democrats already have no ideas and are defined merely by what they oppose. The Rabies Republicans just want to be a mirror image of the Democrats without any other ideas other than the biggest, baddest fence since the Berlin Wall.

Conservatives please, please, please come to your senses. Your country needs your ideas, your passion, and your patriotism. DJ is not your bogeyman. Rather, he shows the way out for conservatives to become once again successful.

FedUp said...

The Harriet Miers debacle left me with such a bad taste in my mouth and precisely for the stated reasons. How could the Right scream about nominees not getting an up or down vote, BUT attack her?

The far Right will never come to its senses. There will always be some issue they will be screaming about and no Republican Pres. will ever be Conservative enough.

They are as disruptive to the Repubs as the kooky left is to the Dems. I have had it will all of the pundits who started with Miers and haven't let up since.

THEY are responsible for Pres. Bush's low approval numbers. They stir up the Rabid Right. The rest of us need to hang tough and start disowning the screamers.

DJ, I am so delighted you and the other 3 are out of the Poli blog. I loved reading you 4 and gave up on him with Miers. Your traffic will grow as people realize there are sites where reasonable discussions can be held without acrimony.

Paul said...

I have de-linked Polipundit and out of my favs. That is a rather boring site.

Dan M said...

The reason that Meirs had to be defeated BEFORE the hearing, was that by the time that she got to the hearing, a sense of inevitibility would have attached itself to her nomination, and the political juice necessary for defeating her, would, by the time of the hearing, have been exhausted. By then, the objections of Conservatives and Conservative groups would have been laughed at, just as Barnes laughed at Conservative attempts to thwart Meirs, before of course, they actually thwarted her.

WHICH THE WHITE HOUSE counted on, which is why when they, as usual, belatedly understood the fierceness of the passions they unleashed, they tried to blunt those passions by simply saying "let her get a hearing, and see how she does."

AS IF the White House wouldn't be twisting arms all along, behind the scenes.

It was a dishonest tactic on their part, those of us who opposed her, who were in fact HORRIFIED at her nomination, weren't just then overwhelmed by the appalling nature of the selection, we were then hit with an additional outrage, our intelligence was imputed, and our political savvy likewise.

Sorry, but the only way that Meirs would be stopped was PRIOR to the hearing.

Not to mention, she bombed on the initial questionaire of the Senate Judiciary Comm. It was so bad, it needed to be sent back for a do over.

What do you think the damage would have been done to the Presidency's clout with the party, if she had gone up there, and thoroughly bombed under some close questioning, and we were presented with the video of southern Senators trying to rush to her assistance, because it was so obvious that she was over her head.

This was the big leagues, and she had no business being nominated, and what's more, she had NO business accepting that nomination. She wasn't qualified for a Circuit Court judgeship. And that's a fact.

And there isn't a great deal served by rehashing that nomination. Hariet Meirs was a bullet that our party narrowly averted.

And some of you seem to be forgetting her gushing comments over Streisand and some other noted feminists.

And some of you are also forgetting that HARRY REID RECOMMENDED her to the President and to Card. And you are also forgetting that Andy Card seconded her selection, indeed forwarded her nomination, and we all remember that Card played a huge role in the White House selection of David Souter, when GHWB was President.
She wasn't one of us, she's never been one of us.

Just compare her record to that of Alito, the most qualifed nominee in 80 years.

Not to mention, the GOP has finally, FINALLY broken free of the Bork fears, and we have finally broken free of the habit of nominating stealth candidates. AND NONE of that would have happened, had the base quietly accepted the horror of Hariet Meirs.

Moreover, just take a look at the nominations since Clarence Thomas, by Republicans. Souter, Roberts, then Meirs. We were becoming MORE STEALTH like, not less. Democrats nominated successfully the CHIEF trial counsel for the ACLU. Yet the GOP had to rely upon hints, hopes, speculations and conjectures that our nominee, was in fact, Conservative, despite the lack of clear evidence, in fact ANY evidence so indicating.

The destruction of the Meirs nomination was the long awaited response to the Bork nomination.

And it needs to be seen in that historical context.

Ed the Oregonite said...

Brother DJ...I appreciate your comments regarding the lack of courtesy, which has become epidemic in political discourse at PP. Differing ideas and creative arguments are great, but name calling and abusive language should not be accepted. I think the current gang of posters have effectively driven away the female element that helped make Polipundit what it was.

Yesterday, I dared to compare the hostile anti-immigration rhetoric on Polipundit to the same statements made by Klansmen and skinheads...for that I was called a racist...who needs that?

I am sure that the folks there will get quite bored with their shrinking club, and many will come here and try to disrupt the civility on your site...I hope you will apply the same high standard of commuication and edit/delete any obnoxious and purposefully inflammatory comments that might degrade your site.

Good Luck, God Bless, and I will be back often.

Tryptic said...

The whole episode must be really painful. It has certainly left a bad taste in my mouth. About a week ago, I was posting in one of your threads about 'concerns' I had with the site. Frankly, I am going to miss; not because I am *never* going to go back (which is a silly thing to say), but that I am not going to be going back nearly as much.

My prediction for Poli is that his site will slowly begin to bleed readership as Poli returns to his status quo ante of minimal posts, containing minimal thought. A few posts on The DaVinci Code cannot make up for a lack of intellectual curiosity about anything other than illegal immigration. He will get some 'rubbernecking' numbers as people stop by now to see a little bit more of the wreckage from Monday, but Poli will have to change his stripes to put his blog or his reputation back together.

It's a shame, but there it is. I'll miss the old because it had a homey feel and allowed easy posting of comments. But the site was about politics, and I seem to recall the old saw about getting a dog if you want a friend in politics ...

As bitter a pill as it must be, I hope you'll put it behind you and get on with blogging. Cross-link with Lorie. Cross-link with other bloggers. Get Alexander to do some election handicapping. Do your own handicapping. You're a good writer and have a lot to say.

I do hope the four of you 'guest' bloggers (funny, I was a regular on for two years and never recalled hearing that term used there until a week ago) will continue to explore working together. In a previous post you discussed how Lorie was getting more traffic than you; Lorie has a lot of appeal because she is very sisterly (in the best sense). But she would benefit from continuing to blog with you, just as you would from her. She synthesizes through linking, open discussion, talking about entertainment. You like to synthesize through going deep into a topic, fleshing out the ifs and buts. You will always be more of a lightining rod than her (so less popular?), but your two styles are complimentary. So is Alexander's style on election commentary ... complimentary. And, yes, Jayson too (as much as I wished he would break up some of his posts into smaller pieces as they would sort of *** their way over about 10 ideas - I do miss him though).

You all were a nice Polyglot. Maybe you can call yourselves that ;)

BCL said...

Someone mentioned this thread so I'm here to comment.

I may be one of those he described as disruptive. Disruptive because I was pressuring Drummond to back up his claim that Bush didn’t stand for something or other. I forget what it was we were discussing and it really doesn't matter at this time. Offensive because I disagreed with him.

Of course most if not all of my posts on that thread are likely gone so the only ones who actually know what I wrote and what went down are the ones that were there at the time.

In that thread last Thursday, he provided a link to the WH to prove we were wrong, but on that very WH link it contradicted what Drummond claimed and it seemed to prove true what we had claimed all along.

Drummond refused to answer me and instead insulted me. I continued asking him to explain what I found and he kept avoiding the question and continued insulting. I finally used all caps, which I don’t usually do, just to get his attention. As I recall it, Drummond used bold for some words. In one comment I used ALL CAPS in at least one sentence,

Drummond started deleting some of my comments then all of them that I posted so I gave up and left. He later locked up that thread completely.

I went to a Poli thread instead and wrote about Drummond deleting me. Next thing I know those comments on Poli’s thread disappeared and I could not post on the entire site.

I asked Drummond if he deleted and blocked me. He said only from that one thread. He would not consider that perhaps it may have inadvertently blocked me on the entire site, though I asked him several times to check. I emailed Poli and asked if he or Drummond had deleted me from the Poli thread. I told Poli that I was blocked from the entire site and asked who did it. I explained what happened .

Poli’s email response came today stating that in the next few days he will allow most posters banned by DJ to be unbanned.

It looks like Poli didn’t ban me so Drummond may have. Not only on that thread but Drummond’s blocking may have affected my posting on the entire site.

Drummond’s claims that he couldn’t do that could be wrong.

I give Drummond the benefit of the doubt though. That's just my way.

I wish you all the best. I will not be visiting here gain though.

Rich said...

Has anyone else noted that the "purged" elements of the conservative blogosphere are by and large Christian? I don't believe that this is an accident. While conservatives in general place a high priority on truth, many Christians note that this is incomplete. That is, the Biblical injunction is to tell the truth in love.

This can produce some miscommunication. For example, when I heard DJ and Hugh Hewitt support the Miers nomination, I did not assume that they believed that she was well-qualified. Rather, I noted they both were dismayed not that she was opposed but HOW she was opposed. The truth may have been told but most definitely not in love. If you don't have that understanding, the wrong assumption is well you must think she should be confirmed by the Senate.

Unfortunately, such misconceptions quickly move into the noxious realm of lying. Nehemiah 6 is instructive here.

1 When word came to Sanballat, Tobiah, Geshem the Arab and the rest of our enemies that I had rebuilt the wall and not a gap was left in it—though up to that time I had not set the doors in the gates- 2 Sanballat and Geshem sent me this message: "Come, let us meet together in one of the villages on the plain of Ono."
But they were scheming to harm me; 3 so I sent messengers to them with this reply: "I am carrying on a great project and cannot go down. Why should the work stop while I leave it and go down to you?" 4 Four times they sent me the same message, and each time I gave them the same answer.
5 Then, the fifth time, Sanballat sent his aide to me with the same message, and in his hand was an unsealed letter 6 in which was written:
"It is reported among the nations—and Geshem says it is true—that you and the Jews are plotting to revolt, and therefore you are building the wall. Moreover, according to these reports you are about to become their king 7 and have even appointed prophets to make this proclamation about you in Jerusalem: 'There is a king in Judah!' Now this report will get back to the king; so come, let us confer together."

8 I sent him this reply: "Nothing like what you are saying is happening; you are just making it up out of your head."

The Westminster Larger Catechism references this passage when it notes that the imputation of motives is a violation of the Ninth Commandment (Protestant Numbering). This latest bit of ugliness has woken many Christians up.

To our shame, we may have not made a big deal when Bill Clinton's or Teddy Kennedy's motives were questioned, but it is clearly evident that the Rabid Right does not value truth in the sense the Bible teaches it by imputing motives to our President. We know our own motives and that others are mistating ours. If others get our motives wrong almost all the time, maybe the same could be said of assuming the motives of the President, or RINOS, or Democrats? I am not saying stop being Republicans nor that we should adopt Democratic policies. Rather, I am saying we can do this without assigning motives to others that we don't have a slightest clue about.

Maybe you don't value the Bible, so I will end with a pragmatic argument. When the unwarranted attacks on the President occurs, not only is he destroyed, but also the Republican Party and conservatism in general, even our country. I appeal to your patriotism to stop it.

Cynical Observer said...

I guess those of us who used to be regular visitors to Polipundit watched the meltdown with our observations tempered by our own expectations, political priorities, and historical perspectives.

For myself, and for what it might be worth, I started visiting the so-called alternative media primarily because I knew the MSM was no longer objective and truthful. I wanted to explore alternative interpretations of what was happening on the news front. That objective has not changed. I particularly enjoyed DJ's posts at Polipundit because their obvious depth and intellectual insight. I didn't always agree with DJ on every point, but his articles - at the very least, and even when I disagreed (which was not often) -expanded my grasp of the issue(s). The other writers, except Poli himself, did not bring as much of the depth I was seeking, but their unique contributions and insights were also much appreciated. And I never went to alternative media sites to seek a fight.

For myself, I also saw the Republican/Conservative and right-of-center blogosphere meltdown start with the Miers nomination brohaha. Her nomination may have been very poorly considered, but it did not in any way justify the lynch mob tactics that ensued from the rabid right. We'll never really know how she would have performed as a Justice, so I find it still disturbing that those who opposed her so vehemently accept it as a foregone conclusion that she would have been a disaster.

But the Miers incident really opened my eyes to the fact that the Conservatives had an element within itself that was every bit as rabid and unhinged as the far-left demagogues and was every bit as willing to stoop to the reprehensible tactics of distorting facts in their arguments, and using the worst kind of smear tactics. It was an extremely ugly sight for me, and at the time I commented that I feared where this bullying intimidation, all-or-nothing approach would go if rewarded by the withdrawal of her nomination. At that point - and I cannot say it strongly enough - the issue for me was NOT the Miers nomination, but rather it was the Brown Shirt tactics and attitude exhibited by the far right idealogues.

I feel that the immigration issue is going down a very similar road. There's no discussion or debate on the issue among Poli and disciples (not even a discussion of the fact that Poli's "plan" is probably very over-simplified), and no acknowledgement that the issue is extremely complex. Rather it has become a very simple shut your mind and mouth, adopt my plan or you will be the target of character and intelligence assassination followed by the Brown Shirt lynch mob attack.

At this time, needless to say, I am very suspicious of the self-identified doctrinaire (a.k.a. rabid) Conservatives. There are simply too many historical parallels that come to mind, as I alluded to above.

Just as the moderate Democrats have been trying to regain control from the rabid left, and losing, I seriously fear that Republicans, Conservatives and other group in the right-of-center coalition are now going down the same losing path - God help us!

In summary (in case you couldn't figure out where this was leading), DJ please just let the criticism from the unbalanced roll off your back. The worst that you can be accused of is passion in your beliefs, but you never let your passion get in the way of reasoned, sane debate, or openness to reasoned critique. Wish I could say that about the folks still left at Polipundit.

myronhalo said...


Your're doing just fine with your system. I agree 100% with your rule of civility because nothing else ever changes another's mind.
Your arguments are well thought out, logical, and not condemning of others who disagree.

Keep up the good work, and don't let the enemy discourage you.


MG3 said...

Cynical Observer,

Well said. I feel/felt the same way watching the behavior of some on "our side".

Ron Ballew said...

Thanks DJ, rudeness and vulgarity have no place in open dialogue. When all a person does is tear down there can be no building up.

RFA said...

Level headedness, tolerance, civil discourse, intellegent debate and flexibility are signs of a mature adult.

When a commenter deviates into ad hominiem blathering they only reinforce the oppositions resovle in their own ideology.

Many times i've change my overall position on issues because of thoughtful explanation and reasoning from somone who I respect.

Having lost respect for many of the participants on that other blog, I don't care to participate there any longer.

Moonbat bashing is fun when you have information and facts at hand. Name calling and screaming for the sake of argument is not.

my $.02

Anonymous said...


I am always amazed that what you write is EXACTLY what I am thinking and\or feeling about a subject! I feel so much better knowing that someone is saying it!

You definately have kindred out here who see things exactly like you do.

The difference is that you are brave enough to blog it and take on the name calling and problems that blogging entails ....... Some of us aren't that brave.

Please keep talking for all of us.

Boghie said...


You are 100% correct on the Harriet Miers issue.

The biggest problem with that little episode is that the screamers were let out of the barn – including crazy aunts I never expected to be crazy. Now they prance about and demagogue all they do not concur with... They no longer have a leader – they are all chiefs. And, they are all right - at least in their own minds.

Hence, the immigration ‘debate’...

Even the Heritage Foundation goes all in. That silly study which concluded that every Mexican (population ~100 million) would run across the border within the next 20 years was a complete joke. And, Laura Ingraham let the author off with unsubstanciated blather.

There was a reason our Founding Fathers created a Republic rather than a Democracy.

CharlyG said...

As some of you know, I have beenposting on Polipundit under the moniker lyricman for quite a while. I want tot hrow my two cents in. I have not seen a change for the worse in the tone and laguage at Poli. Except for a little problem with a fellow named Congress Bob, it has been reasonable. I am not in lock step with Ace, Oak, or KnightHawk, but believe that now is the time to push for enforcement. I agree with most of the House Bill, and persoanlly would like to see legislation that I like out of committee. Some like the idea of scuttling legislation and forcing the govt to enforce the laws we already have.

I say all this to say, there is some reasonable debate going on, the vitriol just gets in the way!
Peace Out!