Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 7, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

BYE BYE, TOM....Tom DeLay has resigned as Republican majority leader in the House.

Kevin Drum 12:48 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (305)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Half way there. When the gavel comes down and he is led of to jail...happy days.

Posted by: bobbywally on January 7, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

For all of you lefties expecting DeLay to resign, I believe you will be very surprised when the facts come out. Refer to my link here to nowhere.

Posted by: TBrosz on January 7, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

FakeTbrosz is the fastest growing corporation in the blogospheric sector. Many opportunities for growth! Our (im)posters are seen in many influential blogs nationwide. Please send your resume to Tbrosz@rotaryrocket.com.

Investor relations (800)623-5591

Posted by: Phobos Deimos on January 7, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

Soo, what sort of dirt do we know on Blount?
Can we do a Livingston on him?

Posted by: Mr. Bill on January 7, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Nice to read that from Jonah Goldberg, too :)

Well done.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

For information on Blount, cue Global Citizen. She is his nemesis in the Show Me State.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 7, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

ZAP.........ZAP.........ZAP.........ZAP......

Posted by: R.L. on January 7, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

It would appear that slowly, much like R.L. hinted at higher up, ZAP ZAP ZAP ZAP, the wicked witch is being slowly killed. Is there a "karl Rove" amongst the Democrats, slowly but surely taking down the republicans? or, (more likely) is it that the evidence of power corrupting is now so pervasive, that much like a rotting tree, it takes only a small shake of the trunk for branches to start falling away?

Posted by: Chris on January 7, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

Folling that link, Podhoretz's take on the stituation is hilariously awful.

I wonder if it's a coincidence that Tommy Boy is stepping down one day after word gets out that Duke Cunningham wore a wire ...

Posted by: BobT on January 7, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Dammit! It's not as big a disappointment as the premature withdrawal of Harriet Miers, but it's still unfortunate. I'd been hoping we'd have DeLay to kick around during the 2006 campaign ad season.

Posted by: Allen K. on January 7, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

He was a really fun guy when he was Hot Tub Tom.

Posted by: La Coucaracha on January 7, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

A real tbroz would have predicted that DeLay's inevitable aquittal would come the same week that the indicments of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are issued...

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on January 7, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Too bad. Nobody who's enough of a hardass to do a decent job is going to have a record squeaky-clean enough to get elected. The Democrats are probably going to get what they engineered this all for--a majority leader made of warm tapioca.

I'll stick my neck out and predict that the case against Delay will now quietly evaporate over the next several months.

Noticed that AP poll popping up again. Getting a lot of mileage out of that one, aren't they? 52 percent Democrats, 40 percent Republicans, wasn't it?

Posted by: tbrosz on January 7, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

tdoze,

You must be learning from fake tbrosz, because you're sounding more like him who actually does a better you.

There are about twenty pollsters showing a similar result as the Ipsos poll. You probably know that, though, and are just pretending. For those who don't know, they can sift through the polls here:

http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm#FullTrend

You better not click the link Tom, the percieved threat to your tax cuts might be too much for your delicate constitution. Even rocket scientists are subject to a bad case of the vapors.

I predict the Tom Delay case will be less in the news, but will continue apace in the courts where he will eventually be convicted on some charge.

I also predict that when this happens, you'll just say it doesn't really matter anyway. But that's a given.

Posted by: trex on January 7, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz:

Well that was a surprisingly honest and judicious reasponse. Nothing like a majority leader made of warm tapioca when your party owns all three branches of government :)

As for the AP poll, it's still way too early to tell, and congressional races as everybody likes to tell us are primarily local affairs. We'll see after Duke, Abramoff and Scanlon unload their pockets of dimes ...

But even with DeLay out of the picture and in a quiet stalemate over his own indictments -- the fact that the GOP had to snuff a leader who is widely given credit for its huge suuccess in ramming through legislation unpalatable to moderate Republicans -- this is not going to go quietly into the night.

A DeLay resignation *does* make the Democratic case for a Republican culture of corruption that's amenable to being nationalized.

All told, it's unspinnable. And you did an admirable job of warming to that fact in your post :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

earl's the name, yipy yio m.f.

Posted by: mestizo on January 7, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Bob:

The Democrats managed to nuke Gingrich, too. How'd that work out for you?

Attacks by one party on the corruption of the other have had a tendency to backfire. As far as PR and spin are concerned, it would only take one major Democrat to get dragged into this to largely neutralize the odd idea that only Republicans take shady money.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 7, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Good luck selling to the Americans in 2006 that the God fearing Texan is the evil incarnate responsible for all that is wrong with America and for the eath and destruction and the emptying of the treasury that occurred during the last five years.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 7, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

It would appear that slowly, much like R.L. hinted at higher up, ZAP ZAP ZAP ZAP, the wicked witch is being slowly killed. Is there a "karl Rove" amongst the Democrats, slowly but surely taking down the republicans?

Nah, it's the little people getting so ticked that finally, one-by-one, they're running up and kicking the wicked witch in the butt. She used to seem so scary, but now we see how easy and fun it is to run her out of Oz.

Posted by: ticked off munchkin on January 7, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks Kevin, for linking to the corner for the right reason: to give us all a peak into the delusional world that is the American Fascist Movement. It cannot be anything but, if Tom DeLay is their hero.

Posted by: lib on January 7, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

There is a Democratic Karl Rove.

It's the reality.

I would have said God if I believed in that sort of thing.

Posted by: nut on January 7, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

I for one, will now re-examine my position that there is no god.

And tbrosz, I am one lefty that would welcome any and all exposure of wrong doing on both sides of the aisle. Though some may prefer to see only Republicans getting taken down, I want any and all to be scrutinized. It would remain to be seen whether this exposes an inordinate amount of the Repubs.

Posted by: E. Henry Thripshaw on January 7, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, tbrosz (real one): I think you do an admirable job of battling for your views on this site. And, sometimes, I think you definitely take down your adversaries.

But when you step back and look at the big picture of what youre defending, well, I seriously wonder how you can possibly do it...

Let me ask you a question, at the risk of being called nave by others on this site (and perhaps by you as well):

With all you know, do you honestly believe that todays national Republican party is worthy of any Americans support? You honestly dont believe that its become a powerfully malignant influence in America?

With all you know about the K Street Project?

With all you know about the way House Republicans have gutted the rules that ensured at least some semblance fair and open lawmaking?

With all you know about how theyve invited corporate lobbyists in to write legislation?

With all you know about Tom DeLays visits to the Marianas Islands, and his defense of the miserable sweatshops there?

With all you know about the way this Congress has exercised its oversight function over the Iraq war, the fight against terrorism, prescription drugs, domestic issues...?

Its not enough to answer that, in an imaginary alternate universe, the Democrats might be as bad. Because if thats what you believe, you ought to be out fighting for a better alternative to both parties, not excusing the criminals who are running the government right now.

Posted by: Bill Camarda on January 7, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Mr. Tripshaw. In absence of any other information, the best prediction of the future is the present. So out with it remains to be seen... BS.

On the basis of all available evidence, it's clear that the Republicans are an order of magnitude more ethically corrupt and morally bankrupt than dems. They take bribes. They disrespect the Constitutiuon. They are for torture. They are for secret prisons. The are against habeas corpus. In other words Republicans are for everything that is not in the best interest of America. So say it out loud. Don't be on the fence.

Posted by: lib on January 7, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz:

> The Democrats managed to nuke Gingrich,
> too. How'd that work out for you?

Umm, it worked out great for Clinton. When the GOP insurgents
shut down government and gave Bill all that quality, uhh, face
time with Monica since the interns were under siege and doing
most of the work, poll numbers for the GOP congress plunged like
a stone and Clinton walked all over Dole even with a Nader threat.

The GOP congressional bombthrowers were a goodly part of
Clinton's high-50s approval rating during impeachment.

> Attacks by one party on the corruption of
> the other have had a tendency to backfire.

Really? Ask Newt about that, as he should know. Seems to me that
the Class of '94 rode a Democratic culture of corruption meme into
office. Now Newt is terrified, of course, which is why he's made
a deathbed conversion and is all over the talking heads exhorting
the Republicans to make a clean sweep before this clobbers them.

> As far as PR and spin are concerned, it would only take one
> major Democrat to get dragged into this to largely neutralize
> the odd idea that only Republicans take shady money.

Oh bullshit. This isn't about "shady money" or gullible Indians.
This is about the K Street Project -- something with no Democratic
equivalent. If it emerges that Reid or Dorgan had more to do with
the Jackmaster than taking contribs from Indian tribes that later
engaged his services, the Dems would be wise to make a huge stink
about it and call for a comprehensive set of lobbying reforms.

But you and I both know that the role of Democrats
is minimal and passive at best, and doesn't involve
St. Andrews golf course or Second Empire commodes.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

This is a request to Kevin and any others who might care to comment.

Has anyone thought of the possibility that as this house of cards crumbles, there lies the potential for a complete circumvention of the constitution and loss of representative govt?

I know it's paranoid. I know it's farfetched. Five years ago, I would've said the same about our present circumstances (torture, spying on citizens, etc.)... I do know that we are not in Kansas any more.

Posted by: Dennis on January 7, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

I'll stick my neck out and predict that the case against Delay will now quietly evaporate over the next several months.

We shall remind you of that in several months, if in fact it takes that long for DeLay to go to trial.

Posted by: brooksfoe on January 7, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

I am always baffled by people being taken in by the fake sense of reasonableness that is sometimes displayed by the posts of tbrosz. In my view he is always full of shit.

Posted by: lib on January 7, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

BYE BYE, TOM....

And as he leaves, as he looks through his rear view mirror, he sees the smoldering ruins of a once great and mighty constitution, just like he sees the smoldering ruins of New Orleans, a once great and mighty city, and the smoldering ruins of the World Trade center a once great and mighty architetural triumph and statement to the world of this nations essential qualities.

...ah a job well done, he thinks to himself. If only I had had more time... think of the damage I could have really done.

His campaign to deregulate every regulation created to provent these items, and his lack of willingness to hold the incompetant and criminally illegal President Bush to accountability as the framers of the constitution held for congress in essence has contributed to this trinity of disasters, all occuring during the republican political ascendancy.

Someone should check to see if Republicans are not really cylon double agents - a fifth column meant to bring on the collapse of western civilization by undermining all of its fundemental institutions and structures erected by responsible statesmen to hold civilization together.

Posted by: bubbles on January 7, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

lib:

Some of us have genuinely open minds.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, the Podhoretz tribute to Delay is so loaded down with qualifications and logical trapdoors that it's practically a masterpiece of unintentional absurdist humor.

I mean, how many which ways can you say "If"?

Posted by: frankly0 on January 7, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

Not on the fence Lib. I want the focus to be toward revealing corruption. Period. I agree with you that the Repubs will shake out much more then the Dems. But maybe the last election (or two) has made me cynical enough to feel more celebratory when something truly sticks. Delay stepping down IS a victory. And I will celebrate that with the sincere hope that there is, more to come.

Posted by: E. Henry Thripshaw on January 7, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Does it make a particle of sense that Abramoff would include a major leader of the opposition party, Reid, in his schemes to use ILLEGAL money?

Abramoff is going to trust Reid, of all people, to keep his mouth shut about a bribe, or money laundering, or other corruption?

Yeah, sure, that's really going to happen.

But keep whistling past the graveyard, guys.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 7, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

llb:

There's also an element of rhetorical tactics in this. Like a Senator addressing his "distinguished learned colleague" which everybody knows is a way of calling the guy as dumb as a bag of SakRete :)

I'm just giving ol' tbroszie here the proper amount of rope needed ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Some of us have genuinely open minds.

In my book it does not make sense to take a person seriously if he routinely accuses the dems of cheering for the Iraqi insurgents and hoping for American defeat. To listen to such a person is not open-mindedness but to live upto the Republican stereotype of Democrats as being weak and cowardly.

Posted by: lib on January 7, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

rmck1

Sorry. my bad.

It's a beautiful day in San Diego. Off to the beach.

Posted by: lib on January 7, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK


Really? Ask Newt about that, as he should know. Seems to me that the Class of '94 rode a Democratic culture of corruption meme into
office.

Actually Newt rode the Contract with America into office. You seen to offer a positive outlook ala 'Morning in America" to win elections. The Democrats have nothing nor the means to create anything.


Now Newt is terrified, of course, which is why he's made a deathbed conversion and is all over the talking heads exhorting the Republicans to make a clean sweep before this clobbers them.


Newt is far from terrified. Newt is thrilled. This is a case of opportunity meeting preparation. Newt would love to be considered a serious candidate for President and he needs publicity for that and he needs it now. This is much to the gain of Newt Gingrich and the GOP. He's as much as a ham as Chuckie. The more Newt is on Camera the less face time for Chuckie.

Newt and Tom Delay are good examples of how the GOP handles those who's performance fails to meet expectations. Newt thought he might catch a break after 1994. But he ran a bad election and lost ground so he had to go. He was removed by the GOP. Tom appears to have gotten too close to some sleezy lobbiests. He's hard to be removed from the leadership and his party made it happen. His extremely gracious note makes it clear he's not going anywere. He'll be cleared of the texas nonsense easily. If there's nothing else he'll be the next Speaker of the House.

Th flip side is the Dems don't clean house. Nancy probably doesn't even know she needs something positive to sell and it hardly matters. She's a San Francisco liberal and than can only mean tax increases.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

What we are seeing is the classic swinging of the pendulum. Any party, once in power for long enough, will begin to lose that power due to the excesses (that are probably standard practice amongst them all) of a few high profile members of that party. The idea of the shift of power is part of the beauty of our democratic system. For me, a true Independent who will vote one way one time, and another way another time, I see the Repub and the Dem Partisans as interestingly oblivious to their own party probems, focusing only on those of the opposition. This serves the system. But each, if left to their own devices, would spell dictatorship to this country. Let's not forget the heavy handed Democrat years in the Congress over the 40 years or so since the Roosevelt era. Life goes on. Democrats corrupt just as easily as Republicans. Get over it.

Posted by: Chris on January 7, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

rdw,

You really don't get it, do you?

Delay is just the top man in the Abramoff scandal. In the end, Newt Gingrich stood for Newt Gingrich, period, and was brought down only by his own bad, narcissistic behavior.

Delay and Abramoff were part of a SYSTEM of corruption. Do you really imagine that we won't soon be hearing new Republican names turning up on indictment?

And that is why the whole scandal just begins, not ends, with Delay's resignation. The indictments are mostly still to come. The trials are still to come. This will be in the public eye for a long, long time -- easily through Nov of this very year.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 7, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

(cue Jacques Cousteau)

...Ze sharks continue zeir relentless sweeming, joost as zey have for meellions upon meellions of years. But now, suddenly, zere is a deesturbance. Ze members of ze great swarm of carnivores waver in zeir circling, jaws workeeng as zey sense somezing new in zere aquatic environment: for ze feerst time in years, a faint scent of blood...

Posted by: pcashwell on January 7, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

Delay is toast, mostly shot down by his own party. What is it with these maniacs who helm the current GOP? It's all about them and their power. Delay thinks he has done nothing wrong, because he is a good christian and good christians never do wrong. It's just all a bunch of sore loser partisans trying to handicap the rightfully elected leaders to do their job.

What's even more amusing is that these wankers didn't think they would get caught. They always trip on their dicks over some elementary thing. Since they've won so big their arrogance is what did them in.

Next, Abramoff sings, do does Duke, Fitz has a new GJ.

Damn 2006 will be a fun ride.

Posted by: green guy on January 7, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

I THOUGHT HE HAD ALREADY RESIGNED.

Its not surprising that Republicans took 2.8 million dollars in campaign contributions from a Conservative Republican lobbyist.

THE REAL QUESTION IS WHY DID DEMOCRATS TAKE 1.5 MILLION FROM A GUY THEY TOTALLING DISAGREE WITH POLITICALLY??

Posted by: Patton on January 7, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

trex:

Going down the line of the links given in that list of polls (I'm providing a link to the actual poll when I can, something Pollingreport is apparently too lazy to do):

Already commented on the AP poll.

ABCNews/Washington Post poll: Actually shows an improvement for the Republicans since the October poll. Respondent makeup: Democrats 33 percent, Republicans 32 percent, "independents" 33 percent (almost every independent I know is a liberal who just doesn't like being called a "liberal," but that's just anecdotal, not hard numbers.)

Note in the same poll document (page 9 and 10) the history of that voting question. In all years clean back to 1994, all but four show Democrats beating Republicans, often by wide margins. How's that been working out for you so far?

NPR Poll:

44 percent Democrats, 41 percent Republicans, fairly well balanced.

Diageo/Hotline Poll

37 percent Democrats, 35 percent Republicans, again fairly well balanced. I noticed, however, that "conservative" beats out "liberal" by 43 to 31 percent. Sounds like some conservative Democrats out there, unless again the "moderates" are just liberals who don't like the term.

Went back to the NPR poll, and found the spread to be 42 percent conservative, 17 percent liberal, and 38 percent moderate. Again, I find the theory that "moderates" are shy liberals a lot more acceptable than the idea that there are that many conservative Democrats out there, but one of these has to be the case.

Wall Street Journal Poll:

35 percent Republicans, 39 percent Democrats. Again, the odd trend showing 33 percent conservative, 21 percent liberal, and 40 percent "moderate."

Notice if you go back through the history on this one, that the lead in the voting question seems to flip back and forth a lot more than in the ABC News poll. The other polls above only carried that question back a few months, or not at all.

At this point, this is starting to become "work," but someone who actually DOES get paid for this sort of thing might want to keep going. The "moderate" thing seems worth exploring, as is the idea that Democrats have consistently beat Republicans in polls, yet can't seem to win the elections.

All of these polls make for some interesting reading, and it would have been fun to "cherry pick" a few things. As always, if I missed something here, feel free to point it out.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 7, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

lib:

> "Some of us have genuinely open minds."

> In my book it does not make sense to take a person
> seriously if he routinely accuses the dems of cheering
> for the Iraqi insurgents and hoping for American defeat.

Well truthfully, this is kind of disingenuous, lib. Us anti-
warroriors made the case based on the idea that the occupation
would be a disaster. So when we read about insurgent attacks
and setbacks for the American mission, we *do* tend to gloat.

Doesn't mean that our hearts are with al Qaeda, of course. But
we should at least acknowledge this. I have no problem doing it.
What I think is buying into the GOP definition of us is that we
should somehow feel the need to run away from critiquing American
"success" or flatly predicting American defeat in iraq.


Far from cheering Osama and Zawqari, I'm cheering instead that the
Americans are meeting with insurgents and trying to foster
a wedge between the jihadis and the indigenous insurgency.
I would love nothing more than to learn that Zarqawi got
melted alive by the molten copper in a Hellfire missle.

> To listen to such a person is not open-mindedness
> but to live up to the Republican stereotype of
> Democrats as being weak and cowardly.

No, what's weak and cowardly is to acquiesce to the groupthink
of a country at war. I don't need to prove to anyone that I'm
an American patriot by drawing a meaningless distinction between
supporting "the troops" and "our mission in Iraq" and criticizing the
Administration in terms so stark it amounts to admitting that we'll
never "win" either the war in Iraq or the war against terrorism.

If my critique amounts to a de-facto attack on the
mission -- so be it. Running from that like the centrist
Dems so love to do is what amounts to inexcusable cowardice.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

Delay is just the top man in the Abramoff scandal. In the end, Newt Gingrich stood for Newt Gingrich, period, and was brought down only by his own bad, narcissistic behavior.

Delay hasn't been mentioned actually. If he is the top man that's because he's the top man in the house.

Newt is no more narcissistic than any other politician. He was brought down by his own party because of poor elections results due to a move toward the center. We wanted the guy selling the Contract with America. If Newt gets back to being Newt he could be the next President.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

THE REAL QUESTION IS WHY DID DEMOCRATS TAKE 1.5 MILLION FROM A GUY THEY TOTALLING DISAGREE WITH POLITICALLY??
Posted by: Patton on January 7, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK


Nah....the real question is why haven't you been taking your medication?

Posted by: jcricket on January 7, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

Tom,

What you missed is that there are twenty polls, and in every single one Democrats are favored over Republicans, many of them by ten points. You cherry picked the ones where R's were losing the least to show "balance?"

That's pretty damn desperate, Tom.

It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that twenty out of twenty polls is as irrefutable as it gets. And actually, there's closer to fifty or sixty if you count the monthly surveys by pollsters.

You may retract your smug remark about the Ipsos poll upthread now that your ass has been handed to you.

Good day sir.

Posted by: trex on January 7, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

And that is why the whole scandal just begins, not ends, with Delay's resignation. The indictments are mostly still to come. The trials are still to come. This will be in the public eye for a long, long time -- easily through Nov of this very year.

We'll see how this unfolds. I'd rather hate to see Harry Reid get charged out of this. He's been even less effective than Tom Daschle.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Newt the next president?

Bwahahahahahahahaaaaaaa!!

Oh please, run Newt, run. Amurica loves a disgraced, washed up, tainted hypocrite of a politician don't they?

Newt is an oppourtunist, nothing more. He is so desperate to get his position back but he would be a blessing to the Dems if he ran for anything.

Gotta love those family values types, nothing like boinking your secretary all the while running around town acting shocked, shocked I say, that the PoTuS is getting a better bj than he is.

Posted by: green guy on January 7, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Bill:

With all you know, do you honestly believe that todays national Republican party is worthy of any Americans support? You honestly dont believe that its become a powerfully malignant influence in America?

Corruption seeks out power, not a particular political party. If the Democrats were running both houses, do you honestly think Abramoff, or his equivalent, would have been pumping cash to Republicans?

The real issue is a Federal government that has accumulated far more power in all areas than our founders ever intended. If you want to do something to reduce corruption, reduce the power. No "reforms," no laws, or anything else is going to keep money from flowing to legislators as long as the legislature controls markets, taxes and how businesses are run.

Changing to public campaign financing will just move the corruption over to the system that selects who gets the public money.

Jerry Pournelle once said that it used to be more important who your mayor was than who the President was. We need to start devolving some issues back to the states. Transportation and education would be a good place to start.

No politician likes this. All of them visualize themselves at the reins of power, and all of them think that that power had better be a LOT of power, or they won't be able to do what they want.


This book is getting some plugs around the blogosphere recently.

One positive result of the Republicans running all three branches of government is that we might finally start to see some liberals come around to the "smaller government" idea.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 7, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

'I'll stick my neck out and predict that the case against Delay will now quietly evaporate over the next several months.'

High time you not only stuck the neck out but extricate the head completely from the warm mushy dark place.

Posted by: nut on January 7, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

trex:

I didn't "cherry-pick" anything. I started down the list from the top down (reverse chronologically), and stopped when it got boring. Feel free to do some actual research on your own.

I notice you missed the critical point that the first poll I discussed had Democrats beating Republicans in the Congress question clear down the line back to 1994 and even earlier. Compare that to election results. Try and make the mental connection, okay?

Again, we'll see in November who gets their "ass handed to them."

Remember "Payback Tuesday?"

Posted by: tbrosz on January 7, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

One positive result of the Republicans running all three branches of government is that we might finally start to see some liberals come around to the "smaller government" idea.

shorter tdoze:

Now that Dems have seen how utterly craven and corrupt Republicans truly are and how they've lying all along about being for small government -- maybe they'll shit their pants in a weak move to make sure no party has power.

At which point the Republicans will paint the Dems as weak and just take over again, bringing bountiful tax cuts for all.

Posted by: trex on January 7, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

Well truthfully, this is kind of disingenuous, lib. Us anti-warroriors made the case based on the idea that the occupation would be a disaster. So when we read about insurgent attacks and setbacks for the American mission, we *do* tend to gloat.

It's actually worse than that. You get clowns like Kerry accusing each of our troops of terrorizing kids, Dean saying we can't win and Murtha babbling out whatever comes to mind. You want so much for this to be Vietnam. It could not be more different:

Saluting Sergeant Seavey

Great thanks to Sergeant Mark Seavey, returned from Afghanistan, for attending the televised town hall meeting with Congressmen Jim Moran and John Murtha in Arlington. Sergeant Seavey addressed the congressmen:

"Yes sir my name is Mark Seavey and I just want to thank you for coming up here. Until about a month ago I was Sgt Mark Seavey infantry squad leader, I returned from Afghanistan. My question to you...(applause).

"Like yourself I dropped out of college two years ago to volunteer to go to Afghanistan, and I went and I came back. If I didn't have a herniated disk now I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops, three of which have already volunteered to go to Iraq. I keep hearing you say how you talk to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. (applause) The morale of the troops that I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back, despite the hardships they had to endure in Afghanistan.

"And Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just returned from Afghanistan. We never got a letter from you; we never got a visit from you. You didn't come to our homecoming. The only thing we got from any of our elected officials was one letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That's reprehensible. I don't know who you two are talking to but the morale of the troops is very high."

Confusing himself with the host of Jeopardy, Moran responded: "That wasn't in the form of a question, it was in the form of a statement." Perhaps Moran can find his true calling as a game show host.

Michelle Malkin has the video clip here. Michelle also notes this post at Mudville Gazette. At Polipundit, Lorie Byrd has more followed by a thread including comments from Sergeant Seavey.

UPDATE by JOHN: Turns out there was a second vet at Moran's "town hall" meeting, who I believe is a retired general. Michelle has the video here. If you want to hear a feckless war opponent blasted in clear and uncompromising terms, don't miss it.

The biggest difference is of course the MSM is not defining the story. This clip will be played on Fox repeatedly as well as other stations, talk radio and all over the web. John Murtha gets stupid and we know about it in 5 minutes and he's building a long track record of stupid.

You of course know if John Kerry really becomes a serious candidate (I can't see it but you have a weak bench) exactly what the RNC commerical will be. 'Then and Now' but the SAME KERRY. HE trashed our heroes from Vietnam and he's doing it again. Of course the RNC has to work out a mixed messge. Can someone be a one trick pony AND a flip-flopper?

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

"... the idea that Democrats have consistently beat Republicans in polls, yet can't seem to win the elections."

It's clear that you are a dolt and a willing liar and cheerleader for all things Republican, but can't you just shut the fuck up with your ignorant nonsense?

The US Senate is divided for the Republicans by only five seat changes. The House of Representatives is divided for the Republicans by only 13 seat changes. Governorships are divided for the Republicans by only 3 seat changes. State legislatures nationwide elected a slim Democratic majority. A Republican won the last two presidential elections and a Democrat won the two before.

Given the small lead Republicans hold in any office, it would take a cretin of your caliber (I'd say .000) to say "Democrats can't win elections". I hope someone feeds you, as you are certainly too stupid to live unassisted.

P.S. "beaten"- say it with us.

Posted by: solar on January 7, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, sorry, trex. Went back and reread my post, and noticed my phrasing wasn't all that clear in spots. When I was showing the "balance," I was showing the political parties of the respondents, not the answer to the question of which party they wanted to see in Congress. I listed this number as "respondent makeup" in the first paragraph, and should have added the words "respondent makeup" to the other ones as well.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 7, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

An unrepentant Delay vowed to fight for reelection even in the face of his Texas indictment, saying, "I have always acted in an ethical manner." What else would you expect from a man who compared himself to Jesus?

For the details, see:
"Delay Down, Not Out."

Posted by: AvengingAngel on January 7, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone who wonders how Democrats in Washington can be so messed up should observe our trolls like tbroz and con-nut and consider the effect of them standing next to you and whispering ( yelling ?) in your ear for ten years or longer.

Over 30 Washington right-wing "think-tank" propaganda factories, the well financed right-wing media and thousands of right-wing operatives, lobbyists and media beaters.

All of them pouring out oily, deceptive,.but reasonable sounding arguments, just like trosz.

Cons are the nasty kids in high school who enjoyed "psyching-out" the naive and well-meaning.

Posted by: Archie on January 7, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

solar:

When Jeffords bailed on the Republicans, a lot of power switched hands. Committees, you name it. It doesn't take much of a margin either way to run pretty much everything the way it's set up. Might be worth looking into who originally set it up that way, and why.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 7, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

I notice you missed the critical point that the first poll I discussed had Democrats beating Republicans in the Congress question clear down the line back to 1994 and even earlier.

I noticed you missed the critical point that at least forty some polls agree that you're full of hot air, and that at this moment in time Republicans are in serious trouble.

That's called "overwhelming evidence."

I'm not arguing what will happen in November, I'm arguing what people are saying right now. You can't win on that point so as usual you change the subject. You and rdw are nothing but puerile prophets of doom.

Posted by: trex on January 7, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

"One positive result of the Republicans running all three branches of government is that we might finally start to see some liberals come around to the "smaller government" idea."

Obviously you are cooking up some crack while you post as you stagger from one exceptionally stupid remark to another. The party that has controlled all three branches of government since 2001 is also the party responsible for record deficits, spending, and public debt. The only thing anyone can learn from them (and you) is that some folks are simply too stupid and venal to be allowed to handle money.

Don't post while under the influence. You don't have much to work with while sober.

Posted by: solar on January 7, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

> "Delay is just the top man in the Abramoff scandal. In the
> end, Newt Gingrich stood for Newt Gingrich, period, and was
> brought down only by his own bad, narcissistic behavior."

> Delay hasn't been mentioned actually. If he is the top
> man that's because he's the top man in the house.

OMG. Denial's in Egypt, Wooten. You seem to be mistaking it for
the Schuylkill in Philadelphia :) Hel-lo, my clueless little
Yuengling enthusiast. *What* exactly changed here that made DeLay
step down? Something new in Earle's case? Wasn't DeLay all about
fighting that partisan smear job until he was duly exonerated?

What changed was the Abramoff indictment. Why? Because DeLay is
up to his bald spot in associations with the guy. Because the email
trail between the two is like the string of spit that connects two
lovers having oral sex. He's not mentioned in any indictments yet,
but that's only because Abramoff hasn't started *singing* yet.

If this was all a buncha partisan hooey -- why did he step down?

> Newt is no more narcissistic than any other politician.

And you are no more narcissistic than any other right-wing troll :)

> He was brought down by his own party because of poor
> elections results due to a move toward the center. We
> wanted the guy selling the Contract with America. If Newt
> gets back to being Newt he could be the next President.

OMFG, you'll literally believe *anything*, provided you read it
on some right-wing blog. Thank gods you haven't been sidelined yet
into Holocaust revisionism. Moved to the center? Don't you think
Gingrich can read polls? The GOP House shut down the government
and impeached Clinton. You -- who so loves to justify *everything*
that goes on in Washington by citing popular opinion -- are strangely
blind to the fact that both of these moves cost the party dearly.

Newtie lost in large part because he was viewed as personally corrupt.
The way he treated his first wife was abominable. The fact that he
justified the government shutdown because Clinton made him get off
the back door of Air Force One, or somesuch ridiculous slight. He was
a comic-opera poltroon -- yes, narcissism was a huge factor -- and
the public read him as such. He was all about Newt and not the GOP.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

"When Jeffords bailed on the Republicans, a lot of power switched hands. Committees, you name it. It doesn't take much of a margin either way to run pretty much everything the way it's set up. Might be worth looking into who originally set it up that way, and why."

Losing one argument ("Democrats can't win elections") Tdolt changes to another one ("Republicans are in charge of Congress"). Of course Republicans are in charge. This has nothing to do with whether Democrats can (and have) won elections. Focus. Put down the crack pipe.

Posted by: solar on January 7, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Archie:

I don't think "we're just too damn naive, well-meaning, and gormless to deal with the Republicans" is going to be a good campaign slogan.

Harry Reid has, however, tried this, pointing out his lack of a fancy education when explaining a so-called slip of the tongue.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 7, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

I hope you guys are satisfied.

Posted by: egbert on January 7, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

If this was all a buncha partisan hooey -- why did he step down?

I said the Texas stuff is garbage. Abrahamoff is definitely serious. Tom stepped down because the GOP was going to sack him because he's got to deal with this and he can't lead at the same time. His letter as an admission he is in complete agreement. It's also clear he's not buring any bridges.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Newtie lost in large part because he was viewed as personally corrupt.

I have no idea what you are babbling about. You act as if Newt lost an election. He had his house seat for life. Gossip about his wife had nothing to do with it. Conservartives don't peak into other peoples bedrooms. Newt was sacked as majority leader because conservatives were upset he lost his edge. The shut down as poorly managed and the plane thing embarrasing. The worst problem was his management of the election cycle. He had to go. He resigned because the GOP house was dissatisfied. The democrats had nothing to do with it.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

I am glad that the trolls are here.

I wouldn't have been much fun, and we would have to resort to singing Kumbaya, if they were not.

Posted by: nut on January 7, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, a bit of off-topic:

I don't think I ever want to hear the term "girly-man" out of Arnold's lips again. Good Lord.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 7, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

The 94 class of Repugs came in because of only one reason - reaction to the passage of the Brady Bill in 93 - Corruption, Contract on/for/against America had nothing to do with their sweep to power.

Spell check as well as fact check, Witless.

How, did Kevin miss the In and Out Burger story out of Irvine? Have wished that we had some in Oregon, but if the 23 year old heir takes over, we will get some locations just as they go bankrupt.
HuffPo outscooped you Kevin.

Posted by: stupid gitl on January 7, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz:

What -- you enjoyed it before?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

Hang down your head Tom Delay
Hang down your head and cry
Hang Down down your head Tom Delay
America says Good-bye
You stole from us in Congress
You stole from us in Party
Hang down your head Tom Delay
America says Goodbye

Posted by: murmeister on January 7, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

Conservartives don't peak into other peoples bedroomsPosted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 4:15 PM

Did you mean "peek"? Or is this a fruedian slip?

Posted by: jcricket on January 7, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

He was a comic-opera poltroon -- yes, narcissism was a huge factor -- and the public read him as such. He was all about Newt and not the GOP.


Newt was and is a GOP star. He is the man who made 1994 possible and has to rank with GWB and Reagan as the 3 most influential and dynamic politicians of the last 30 years.

Clinton was merely a transitional figure able to capture the Presidency but do nothing to stop the Conservative revival. From a political perspective the two most significant events of his tenure were 1994 and the impeachment. Clinton has no footprint. There is no legacy.

Newt absolutely lost it in '98. Clinton's political victory regarding the shutdown led to a short term rebound but also led to the ascention of Hastert and Delay and even tighter GOP control of the house and a more conservative bent. With only 202 house seats in 2004 Democratic fortunes at the worse in 75 years. Had the GOP kept Newt it's doubtful this would have happened.

I don't think Newt is a good candidate for President nore does hehave a shot at the nomination. He will however drive much of the debate and it won't be to the DNCs favor.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the response, tbrosz.

I respect what I understand to be your libertarian case, but can't agree. The question is: why is the federal government so big?

Putting aside FDR for the moment, and using your examples, the federal role in transportation and education began growing significantly in the 1950s when it became crystal clear that localities and states were failing to provide these services at the level needed by a nation trying to compete and win a cold war. Hence, the interstate highway program, and the growth in federal funding for science education after Sputnik. Obviously we've come a ways down the path since then, but the point remains valid.

Elsewhere, federal involvement grew to deliver on the promise of the 14th through 16th amendments to the constitution, when the nation's citizens decided they could no longer look themselves in the face while certain states and localities systematically denied millions of their people basic justice or fairness.

Go back and read those National Review archives to see how "principled conservatives" viewed these intrusions on states' rights. One's priorities say a lot about them, and their priorities NEVER, EVER included justice. Then listen to certain Republican legislators from Georgia and Louisiana and tell me those days are gone forever.

Corruption certainly pursues power. But as Transparency International can tell you, there are significant differences in the levels of corruption amongst nations that have what you would call Big Government. Big Government can be run well, or badly. No question that it's harder to run well, but it can and has been done.

Make fun of him, but Al Gore tried to run government well, and much of the Reinventing Government initiative worked. It is, for example, possible to implement good purchasing mechanisms with strong safeguards. Or else you can hire people like David Safavian, as Bush did, and then hire auditors with no experience other than as GOP activists, and corrupt those purchasing mechanisms entirely. If you're ideologically opposed to government in the first place, and if your only real priority is making sure your friends get funded (in Defense, in Faith-based initiatives, etc.) hey, what difference does it make?

One last point: I doubt you believe that all politicians are equally corrupt. Some are better than others. The honest ones need encouragement. The dishonest ones need exposure and shaming. I know there are corrupt Democrats. I live in New Jersey, and I fought to get rid of Bob Torricelli here. When I was younger, I lived in Queens, and started a reform Democratic club to oppose Matty Troy's corrupt machine. Over the years, I could have and should have done more. But, seriously: tbrosz, which corrupt Republicans are you fighting to get rid of?

Posted by: Bill Camarda on January 7, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

> "If this was all a buncha partisan hooey -- why did he step down?"

> I said the Texas stuff is garbage.

We'll see about that. The money laundering charge still stands.

> Abrahamoff is definitely serious.

And just why do you think that is?

> Tom stepped down because the GOP was going to sack him because
> he's got to deal with this and he can't lead at the same time.

And just why was the GOP about to sack him?

> His letter as an admission he is in complete agreement.

As a matter of politics. Always keep that frame on the politics,
Wooten. If you looked at it from any other perspective, you'd
have to stick that 12-gauge in your mouth and pull the trigger :)

> It's also clear he's not buring any bridges.

That haven't been burned already.

> "Newtie lost in large part because
> he was viewed as personally corrupt."

> I have no idea what you are babbling about.
> You act as if Newt lost an election.

Didn't he lose his House seat in Georgia? To
be honest I wasn't paying much attention then.

> He had his house seat for life.

Which is a truly pointless utterance if he "retired"
because of effective political castration :)

> Gossip about his wife had nothing to do with it.

Has a helluva lot to do with his public image, though.

> Conservartives don't peak into other peoples bedrooms.

Thank you, Whitewater independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr :)

> Newt was sacked as majority leader because
> conservatives were upset he lost his edge.

He was negotiating with Clinton and hammering out legislation.
Doing the people's business. Can't let that happen when there's
a possibility to obstruct and rant during Special Orders :)

> The shut down as poorly managed

It was a political disaster, Wooten. By definition, you
cannot "manage" an act of anarchy like a government shutdown.

> and the plane thing embarrasing.

Just a tiny bit, huh :)

> The worst problem was his management of the election cycle.

How does one "manage" an election cycle?

> He had to go. He resigned because the GOP house was
> dissatisfied. The democrats had nothing to do with it.

No, the way he dealt with Clinton had *nothing* to do with it.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

rdw is the best parody troll ever. No one could really be that stupid, could they?

Posted by: green guy on January 7, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

Well, it is certainly wonderful news from Dkos that for only $110 I can have www.locate.com obtain cell phone records, incoming and outgoing, from anyone in the land. In addition, the FBI paid $160 to find the records of one of their agents in order to check the system. They had the record in three days.

Now, who would I like to check out? Isn't this a great nation or what?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 7, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

And just why was the GOP about to sack him?

Because he now has to many potential legal issues. The letter had already been circulating and the National Review wrote an editorial telling him to do exactly as he did. take the time off. Clear your name. And then come back and replace Denny.

That haven't been burned already.

Not at all. They want to keep that seat red and welcome him back when he clears his name.

Thank you, Whitewater independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr

kenny stayed out of Bills bedroom. That would be the last place to catch Bill having any fun.

Didn't he lose his House seat in Georgia? To
be honest I wasn't paying much attention then.

He had his house seat for life.

Which is a truly pointless utterance if he "retired" because of effective political castration :)

Newt is an ambitious guy. Once he lost the leadership it made no sense to stay. He's now a wealthy man. He's got it all going on. Book's, TV appearances, Speakers fee's, Etc. He's never had it so good. He is very well respected among conservatives and still an important figure.

Gossip about his wife had nothing to do with it.

Has a helluva lot to do with his public image, though.

Only in NY and CA where they live for gossip. It made it more unpopular with the same people he was already unpopular with. It wasn't a political issue. As a Southern Congressman with such power he had a seat for life.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

How does one "manage" an election cycle?


Do a google search on 'Rove, Karl' and start reading.


What's your theory as to what eveyone on the left despises him?

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

What's your theory as to what eveyone on the left despises him?

because he is evil?

because he has debased our politics?

because he has debased our political discourse?

because he has no qualms about lying and cheating to win?

Posted by: nut on January 7, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

It was a political disaster, Wooten. By definition, you cannot "manage" an act of anarchy like a government shutdown.

They were budget negotiations, not an act of anarchy. This was Newts biggest mis-calculation. He did not have enough power to offset the bully pulpit and the MSM. I think this was 1997. I'd almost love to be able to see it happen again just to see how the press angle works. I am of the opinion in this Foxnews, Internet, Talk radio world it would be a totally difference ballgame. There was Rush but talk radio is so much bigger now. The networks and CNN have probably lost 10M viewers and Fox gained some of them. There are many, many more conservative outlets. Rather amazing it was only 8 years ago.

It would be an interesting experiment.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

> "He was a comic-opera poltroon -- yes, narcissism
> was a huge factor -- and the public read him as
> such. He was all about Newt and not the GOP."

> Newt was and is a GOP star.

He's a comic-opera poltroon, Wooten. Say it: COMIC-OPERA POLTROON.
Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? WTF do you think he's a talking
head now? Because that's where comic-opera poltroons go when their
careers are washed up. He has about as much substance as Dick Morris.

> He is the man who made 1994 possible and has to
> rank with GWB and Reagan as the 3 most influential
> and dynamic politicians of the last 30 years.

And if you run the clock back another 30,
you can include Hitler and Stalin, too :)

> Clinton was merely a transitional figure able to capture
> the Presidency but do nothing to stop the Conservative
> revival. From a political perspective the two most
> significant events of his tenure were 1994 and the
> impeachment. Clinton has no footprint. There is no legacy.

Sadly enough, you're wrong here, Wooten -- though not in a way that
would gladden any Democrat's heart. Clinton's legacy -- one which
nearly destroyed his party -- is the ascendancy of the DLC and the
doctrine of triangulation. Clinton had two legitimate successes on
that score, NAFTA and welfare reform. Liberals bitched and moaned
about them (I voted for Nader in '96), but at the end of the day
they were the right thing to do both politically and policy-wise.

Otherwise, Clinton caved on nearly *everything*. And this has
sent a horrible message through the Democrats -- that we have to
slap down our left wing constantly. It's a message that you never
tire of trying to remind us -- Murtha, Pelosi and Dean, oh my!

It's a bullshit message that only serves to sew a kind of dissention
in the Democrats that you never see in the GOP -- despite ideological
cleavages that are even greater (how many big buiness conservatives
are in bed with the Christian Right?) Lesson One for the Democrats
is to grow a spine and stop running from the truth in the name
of polling marginally better with so-called swing voters.

> Newt absolutely lost it in '98. Clinton's political victory
> regarding the shutdown led to a short term rebound but also
> led to the ascention of Hastert and Delay and even tighter
> GOP control of the house and a more conservative bent.

And a culture of systemic corruption that's about to jump up and bite
your party in the ass. I hope you're wearing your leather pants.

> With only 202 house seats in 2004 Democratic
> fortunes at the worse in 75 years. Had the GOP
> kept Newt it's doubtful this would have happened.

But, ironically enough, the country might be in better overall shape,
because Gingrich was a far more serious leader than Hastert, DeLay,
Frist, Lott or any of your other back bench wannabes. If nothing
else, Gingrich proved that you could work constructively with
the opposing party. The generation of Bob Dole and Bob Michel has
sadly passed -- but Gingrich looks like Dole Incarnate next to the
current crop of crazed, immorally arrogant partisan flamethrowers.

> I don't think Newt is a good candidate for President
> nore does hehave a shot at the nomination. He will however
> drive much of the debate and it won't be to the DNCs favor.

Right. He'll swap some great reminiscences I'm
sure with Dickie Morris in the Fox green room :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

nut,

Wrong on all counts.

Karl Rove is not only a winner he is exceedingly ambitious. His goal wasn't just to but GWB in the WH but to create a durable majority. The is the GOP best position in 80 years and with campaign finance reform (incumbant protection act) and control redistricting he may already have done it.

It's clear he's going to stick around at least until the 2010 census is implemented which should seal the deal. With the pickup of 7 to 10 red state house seats, and electoral college votes, conservatives will have a daunting edge.

You hate Karl Rove because he's made you a bystander. He's not only taking down liberalism in america but around the world. The end of Kyoto and the ABM treaty have his hands all over them.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

Look at meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

And a culture of systemic corruption that's about to jump up and bite your party in the ass. I hope you're wearing your leather pants.

Come on Bob, we go thru his every other year. 11 months before an election they need to get the troops excited. It's right on schedule. If I had the energy I'd collect a book of Gephardt quotes about being he next Speaker of the House. He ran for President to put himself out of his own misery.

Have fun with it. It's harmless. Just make sure you take a few bites of reality before the actual election and you won't be devastated, again!

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

You hate Karl Rove because he's made you a bystander. He's not only taking down liberalism in america but around the world. The end of Kyoto and the ABM treaty have his hands all over them.

rdw, I hate Karl Rove because of stuff like this, from the Atlantic Monthly (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200411/green):

[Alabama judge Mark] Kennedy had spent years on the bench as a juvenile and family-court judge, during which time he had developed a strong interest in aiding abused children. In the early 1980s he had helped to start the Children's Trust Fund of Alabama, and he later established the Corporate Foundation for Children, a private, nonprofit organization. At the time of the race he had just served a term as president of the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect. One of Rove's signature tactics is to attack an opponent on the very front that seems unassailable. Kennedy was no exception.

Some of Kennedy's campaign commercials touted his volunteer work, including one that showed him holding hands with children. "We were trying to counter the positives from that ad," a former Rove staffer told me, explaining that some within the See camp initiated a whisper campaign that Kennedy was a pedophile. "It was our standard practice to use the University of Alabama Law School to disseminate whisper-campaign information," the staffer went on. "That was a major device we used for the transmission of this stuff. The students at the law school are from all over the state, and that's one of the ways that Karl got the information outhe knew the law students would take it back to their home towns and it would get out." This would create the impression that the lie was in fact common knowledge across the state. "What Rove does," says Joe Perkins, "is try to make something so bad for a family that the candidate will not subject the family to the hardship. Mark is not your typical Alabama macho, beer-drinkin', tobacco-chewin', pickup-drivin' kind of guy. He is a small, well-groomed, well-educated family man, and what they tried to do was make him look like a homosexual pedophile. That was really, really hard to take."

rdw, I don't see how any decent human being could fail to hate him for stuff like this. What about you?

Posted by: Bill Camarda on January 7, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

but Gingrich looks like Dole Incarnate next to the current crop of crazed, immorally arrogant partisan flamethrowers.

Here's what I don't get. You are just as excited now as when Newt lost his chair. This is knowing Newts replacement was a disaster for your party.

When you have an advantage of 33 seats does it really matter? Newt never had this spread and he never had a GOP President (as speaker).

BTW: Newt proved ideas matter. He'll be generating a lot of them and driving the discussion. The gap in ideas is never move obvious than when Newt is talking. Your party hasn't had a new idea in 40 years.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Take a good hard look at that piece that Bill Camarda just posted.

The fact that you think it's just peachy makes you one thing -- a moral nihilist.

You really *do* need to be met in a parking lot with five guys and a baseball bat if you can't unequivocally condemn tactics like that in the name of Winning Uber Alles.

If you have no sense of a moral picture bigger than the election results -- you have no more business being in politics than Hitler and Stalin did.

No joke, no hyperbole. It's called moral clarity, my friend.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

Bill,

This stuff is nonsense. It's only the northern libs who buy this crap because they think every red stater is a rube or a cracker or both.

This was the same excuse McCain used in Carolina. My impression is 95% of librals think McCain lost in the primaries because he lost one state. That's obviously stupid. It's just as stupid to think he lost that one state because everyone in it is a racist.

I agree with my southern cousins on this. There are many more racists in New York State and New England than in the South.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

"Look ... a puppy!"

Asshole.

Address the goddamned issue.

Attempting to change the subject here only demonstrates your complete lack of morality.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

His rocky head would probably break the bat. I thought Don P was obtuse, however, this Witless tripe is the most stupid individual to ever post here.

Posted by: stupid git on January 7, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

I hope you guys are satisfied.
Posted by: egbert

personally, I won't be satisfied until chimpeachment ... but this is a start.

Posted by: Nads on January 7, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

No joke, no hyperbole. It's called moral clarity, my friend.

No, it called being stupid. Liberals love to use these transparent smear tactics. It's so easy for a loser like McCain to sell them because they conform to your stereotypes and you want to believe.

The choice for you is to admit your party is out of ideas and nominates bad candidates OR to find a scapegoat. You just can't accept losing.

These things are urban legends.

John Kerry lied about Xmas in cambodia. That's a fact.

Dan Rather was a dupe. That's a fact.

Max Cleland voted against the Homeland Security Act to try to protect Union jobs in a right to work state. That's a fact.

Tom Daschle went to the DC Premiere of the guy who toured Europe telling everyone who would listen, "Americans are the dumbest people on the planet", one Michael Moore.

Karl Rove is effective because you dupes make it so easy for him.


Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with my southern cousins on this. There are many more racists in New York State and New England than in the South.
Posted by: rdw

there may be more people who can actually spell "racist," but not more racists, no.

Posted by: Nads on January 7, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

Bill ~ Thank you for a concise, enlightening post on what a scumbag Rove is.

Bob~ another note of thanks for calling Wooten on his switch and bait.

I like this blog.

Posted by: jcricket on January 7, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

Address the goddamned issue.

I will not address gossip. Especially exceedingly stupid gossip. You actually think law school students spreading really silly rumors can sink a candidate? You must 1st assume the state is packed with morons.

I have a lot more confidence in people than you. Most people assume trash like that is political dirty tricks and blame the opponent. It's not a productive exercise.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

> What's your theory as to what eveyone on the left despises him?

You illustrate it directly below:

> "It was a political disaster, Wooten. By definition, you
> cannot "manage" an act of anarchy like a government shutdown."

> They were budget negotiations, not an act of anarchy.

It *led* to an act of anarchy, which was the government shutdown.

> This was Newts biggest mis-calculation. He did not have enough
> power to offset the bully pulpit and the MSM. I think this was
> 1997. I'd almost love to be able to see it happen again just
> to see how the press angle works. I am of the opinion in this
> Foxnews, Internet, Talk radio world it would be a totally
> difference ballgame. There was Rush but talk radio is so
> much bigger now. The networks and CNN have probably lost 10M
> viewers and Fox gained some of them. There are many, many more
> conservative outlets. Rather amazing it was only 8 years ago.

This is why sane, moral people despise wannabe GOP operatives
like yourself, Wooten, unto wishing them personal ill.

> It would be an interesting experiment.

You actually think that the results of a government shutdown
-- which negatively affected people's lives alll across
the country in myriad concrete ways -- can be *spun*.

Like Katrina was spun out of existence *despite*
the new right-wing alternative media regime.

Right.

That's how far your head is up your ass, Wooten. You mistake your
colon polyps for the gentle, caressing touch of your child's hand.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, I should've known engaging you wasn't worth the time.

We have a source who worked directly for Rove.

We have no credible denials.

We have a pattern of well-documented behavior.

If you want to say "This stuff is nonsense," believe what you want.

Sure there are racists in the North and South both. And Rove knows how to find every one of them. All he needs to do is move 5% or 10% of the voters to win. That's what he did in both Alabama and South Carolina -- and everywhere else he goes, North and South alike. Nobody's saying that everyone in the red states is a racist, and you know that.

That's a bad faith argument.

tbrosz, like him or not, challenges me and makes me sharpen my arguments. You're just unpleasant.

Posted by: Bill Camarda on January 7, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

nads,

Your beautiful! Really!

George Clooney has been lamenting the fact the term 'liberal' is now considered a political liability. He wants to make people proud of it again. Goodnite and Good Luck as well as Syrianna were no help but he at least acknowledges reality.

You just can't treat our Southern Counsins with too much contempt for my tastes. Pile it on!
They're only going to pickup 7 to 10 more seats in the 2010 census.

Not too worry. There will be another census in 2020 and again in 2030. Of course with the Roe effect solidly in place and the North depopulating (liberals of course use aggresive birth control and abortion far more frequently) you'll lose another 20 seats but when you are so intellectually and morally superior does it really matter?

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

God damn it all - rdw is right - The people of South Carolina are not stupid - They get their news just like everyone else - They watch Fox News, O'Reilly, Hannity, Hume etc. - They listen to Rush; they go online to NRO and Hugh Hewitt - They read Victor Davis Hansen, Mark Styn, Bill Bennett; they have direct feed to WhiteHouse.gov - they are not morons, idiots or fools, they are exactly like rdw - Highly disinformed nitwits of the right.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 7, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

One positive result of the Republicans running all three branches of government is that we might finally start to see some liberals come around to the "smaller government" idea.

considering how much a Republican-controlled congress has been spending, and expanding government(see prescription drug program, Homeland Security Dept.), I wouldn't hold your breath.

it's actually the other way around. So Libertarians, how's that "half a loaf" strategery working out for you?

Posted by: haha on January 7, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

Bill Camarda:

Hear, hear.

And thank you for posting that piece.

Wooten dare not look it in the eye.

He knows if he does, the game is up and every last shred of legitimacy he might have posting here goes down the swirly.

You can't defend behavior like that in an election.

End of story.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

We have a source who worked directly for Rove.

It's funny how we're all innocent until proven guilty. unless of course you are a conservative when we all know you'r guilty. As I said initially. I don't deal in gossip. I'm not a smear artist. I leave that to folks like you.

We have no credible denials.

Pitiful! Absolutely pitiful!

We have a pattern of well-documented behavior

You have ZERO, ZILTCH, NADA. You've got gossip. You've got denial. You're the minority party because you nominate stiffs like Gore and Kerry. You lose because you haven't had a new idea in 40 years. You are the rube!


Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

I will not address gossip. Especially exceedingly stupid gossip. You actually think law school students spreading really silly rumors can sink a candidate? You must 1st assume the state is packed with morons. Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

Well....I just got back from reading the Johsua Green article that was provided upthread by Mr. Bill Camarda. This is no gossip. This is a three page list of specific 'accomplishments' by Rove and the tactics that were used to pull them off.

I am urging everyone reading this thread to take the time to read those very Atlantic Monthly pages. Bookmark them so you can refer to them later. These are what so-called "lefties" are talking about when the discussion is how winning is the only true god of the neo-cons.

Posted by: jcricket on January 7, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

3rd Paul,

Why thank you! That's not quite 100% but close. I don't watch Orielly or Hannity and my favorite source is probably the WSJ but a good effort. I don't get to hear Rush very often but count me a a huge fan. Clearly he is the most influential political figure alive today.

Give then some credit. If you don't know why ask Dan Rather and John Kerry.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks, Bob.

While I'm a bit to the left of, say, Kevin, I'm pretty comfortable with conservative disagreement around here. Unlike some folks, for example, I don't see tbrosz as a troll. He challenges my preconceptions: if I can't find strong counterarguments for him, I need to either work harder or adjust my views.

But rdw's posts represent the worst in right-wing diatribe. He really is only interested in getting people angry. I've learned my lesson with him.

Posted by: Bill Camarda on January 7, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

That's what he did in both Alabama and South Carolina -- and everywhere else he goes, North and South alike. Nobody's saying that everyone in the red states is a racist, and you know that.

Actually, no. These accusations are always made about red states. Blue staters are too sophisticated don't you know! These charges are smears against the people of the state and they correctly understand it as such. That's why they don't like liberal elitists and that's why John Kerry banned the term from his campaign and that's why George Clooney is so upset.

He can make all the movies he wants. People like you make his task impossible.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

> "No joke, no hyperbole. It's called moral clarity, my friend."

> No, it called being stupid. Liberals love to use these transparent
> smear tactics. It's so easy for a loser like McCain [...]

All you know how to do is change the subject. You can't address
the substance of this charge, can you. You can't look at it in the
face, you can't entertain the notion for one second that it could
possibly be true. You can't use any of the speculative judgment
that you insist the electorate uses on all of your opponents.

You hold the entire political universe to a double standard.

You're morally bankrupt, bro. It's really kind of sad to witness.

> "Address the goddamned issue."

> I will not address gossip. Especially exceedingly
> stupid gossip. You actually think law school students
> spreading really silly rumors can sink a candidate?
> You must 1st assume the state is packed with morons.

It was a Rove operative, Wooten. Why would he lie?

> I have a lot more confidence in people than you. Most
> people assume trash like that is political dirty tricks
> and blame the opponent. It's not a productive exercise.

Seemed to work for Bush and Willie Horton. It shook Rove's
mentor Lee Atwater up so much at the end of his life when he
was suffering from brain cancer that he, in fact, repented of it.

Death's door has a way of morally clarifying things for people.

> "We have a source who worked directly for Rove."

> It's funny how we're all innocent until proven guilty.
> unless of course you are a conservative when we all know
> you'r guilty. As I said initially. I don't deal in gossip.
> I'm not a smear artist. I leave that to folks like you.

Kerry defenders weren't smear artists, either. We attempted
to make a case in his defense. Now it's your turn.

> "We have no credible denials."

> Pitiful! Absolutely pitiful!

Your shrill responses are what's pitiful, truthfully.

> "We have a pattern of well-documented behavior"

> You have ZERO, ZILTCH, NADA. You've got gossip.
> You've got denial. You're the minority party
> because you nominate stiffs like Gore [...]

Once again, you attempt to go off on a tangent because
you can't address the issue. Nobody denied that
piece. It stands unchallenged. You'll have to attack
the credibility of the Atlantic in order to refute
it. Which I expect you'll try right about now.

You know who you remind me of right now, Wooten? Joe McCarthy.
He attempted to defend himself in precisely the same manner.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: You lose because you haven't had a new idea in 40 years.

Then again, you'd need a legion of archeologists and historians to determine proper attribution for the current conservative right's philosophy, strategy and tactics. If you are really interested in where Rove, Newt, et. al. are coming from, I suggest you start in the early/lower paleolithic; there are some illuminating and instructive cave drawings from that era.

Posted by: has407 on January 7, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

Putting aside FDR for the moment, and using your examples, the federal role in transportation and education began growing significantly in the 1950s when it became crystal clear that localities and states were failing to provide these services at the level needed by a nation trying to compete and win a cold war. Hence, the interstate highway program, and the growth in federal funding for science education after Sputnik. Obviously we've come a ways down the path since then, but the point remains valid.

Every overly-large government program started out as a well-meaning attempt to address a real need. That doesn't mean that this was the best way to address the need, that the side effects aren't a problem, or that some programs have long outlived their original purposes. How much of current Federal highway funding goes into building and/or maintaining the interstate highway system? What did Federal support of highways do to our rail systems or alternative transportation? What are the current science grades like compared to 1950? What would decentralized power technology look like now if the government hadn't subsidized running power to rural areas? I don't have all the answers to those questions, but the questions are worth asking. If there is a Federal role in highways, it would be to set some very basic safety and other standards, and let the states fund and build. Same for education, with even less interference.

My contract money comes, at the far end, from NASA, so yes, I'm paid with taxpayer money. I suspect this is true for a lot of people. In other years, my pay came from private investors.

NASA put people on the Moon, which was no small feat. But it has also spent billions on projects that should have cost millions, and saddled us with a space transportation system and space station that have eaten huge amounts of money for not that much return. Now they're building a new transportation system that could have been built twenty years ago, and looks much like systems that were built thirty years ago. This will cost more billions.

You have to ask yourself sometimes, is there a better way to do this?

Elsewhere, federal involvement grew to deliver on the promise of the 14th through 16th amendments to the constitution, when the nation's citizens decided they could no longer look themselves in the face while certain states and localities systematically denied millions of their people basic justice or fairness.

That "Jim Crow schools" were abysmal compared to their white counterparts is beyond argument, but on the other hand, decades of liberal education have now given us a black illiteracy rate of 40 percent, when it was 20 percent back in 1940. I suspect that this is an overall problem with public education as a whole more than it is with desegregation. I think the illiteracy rate for whites has gone up considerably, too.

Corruption certainly pursues power. But as Transparency International can tell you, there are significant differences in the levels of corruption amongst nations that have what you would call Big Government. Big Government can be run well, or badly. No question that it's harder to run well, but it can and has been done.

The faith that massive centralized power can be harnessed for good drives much of the liberal philosophy. History, unfortunately, tends to prove the opposite. Where the balance point is between government power and individual freedom is hard to figure out--somewhere between totalitarianism and anarchy--but I'd bet a lot it's tilted a bit too far toward the former right now. Look who tops off Transparency International's bribe payer's list. To be sure, like much of their surveys, that's more anecdotal and perceptual than hard evidence.

One last point: I doubt you believe that all politicians are equally corrupt. Some are better than others. The honest ones need encouragement. The dishonest ones need exposure and shaming.

...But, seriously: tbrosz, which corrupt Republicans are you fighting to get rid of?

Exposure is always good in politics. I'd do campaign finance reform by scrapping the laws the tell who can give what to who, and increasing the laws demanding absolute tranparency on the source of every dollar.

The electoral system as it stands selects for those who will hand out the candy, and against those who tell people to deal with their own problems when they can. Don't see this changing, soon.

I have no real Republicans to get rid of here in California. With the exception of the current governor, who will probably end up switching parties at this rate, California Republicans are mostly answers to trivia questions, and I suspect Abramoff wouldn't even return their phone calls.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 7, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

The GOP polices itself. The Dems don't police themselves, which leaves it to the voters to reject the Dems at the ballot box.

Posted by: GOPGregory on January 7, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz:

Interesting and thoughtful post.

Where do you get the 20% / 40% illiteracy rate stats from, btw?

They're such nice, even numbers I'm sure you wouldn't want anybody out here in blogger land to think you just pulled them stragight out of your ass or anything :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

haha:

So Libertarians, how's that "half a loaf" strategery working out for you?

Not so hot, to be sure. Bush's veto pen apparently rolled under his desk on Inauguration Day, and hasn't been seen since. Somehow, I don't think Kerry would have been the soul of frugality either, but knee-jerk opposition from a Republican Congress might have saved us some money.

And have you seen what kind of spending Arnold proposed for California?!?

Posted by: tbrosz on January 7, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

I have a lot more confidence in people than you. Most people assume trash like that is political dirty tricks and blame the opponent. It's not a productive exercise.

Oh the gall of this statement coming from a Rove Defender!

Karl Rove and Tom DeLay have an eminently worthy student.

Posted by: nut on January 7, 2006 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

You just can't treat our Southern Counsins with too much contempt for my tastes. Pile it on!
They're only going to pickup 7 to 10 more seats in the 2010 census.
Posted by: rdw

make sure they use their fingers when counting all those seats ... I'm not sure they'll understand their impending overwhelming numerical advantage unless they do.

Posted by: Nads on January 7, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

My heart pumps piss for that fucking bully boy.

Fuck him.

Posted by: Vinnie on January 7, 2006 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't it adorable to hear Wooten, formerly of inner-city Philadelphia and now of Bucks County, waxing all noble 'n' shit on behalf of defending his "southern cousins"?

There are *so many* possible ways to ridicule this I wouldn't know where to begin :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

"That "Jim Crow schools" were abysmal compared to their white counterparts is beyond argument, but on the other hand, decades of liberal education have now given us a black illiteracy rate of 40 percent, when it was 20 percent back in 1940."

Source?

Posted by: Dustin Ridgeway on January 7, 2006 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

Dustin:

I already asked him. Seems about now he's engaged in doing other things ....

Probably hifiving Wooten -- another strangely AWOL poster after being asked some pointed questions -- over on InstaCracker :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

I suspect that this is an overall problem with public education as a whole more than it is with desegregation.

Hahaha. He leaves open the possibility that the desegregation might be a contributory factor!

Amazing. True colors of Mr. T. B. Rosz.

He desrerves all the mocking he gets. And more.

Posted by: nut on January 7, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz, your last reply to me deserves more attention than I can give it right now (gotta go out tonight). But a coupla quick things.

Yes, some government programs have grown beyond their original intention, some probably ought to be sunsetted, there are structural reasons why politicians like to hand out goodies, etc. Yes, there are such things as unintended consequences.

Where I get off the bus is this: I find many conservatives see ONLY the unintended consequences. 40 years ago the air in many American cities was barely breathable and getting worse. Federal Clean Air Act regulation changed that. The post-WWII GI Bill arguably did more to create a lasting middle class than anything else ever has. Doubtless programs like these had unintended consequences. But by and large they worked.

Moreover -- and I know I generalize -- on many of the country's problems now (and over the decades) I find conservatives either have no solutions, or have unserious solutions. For example: relying on private charity, when a problem dwarves the capabilities of private charity -- while at the same time trying to transform the federal tax system in ways almost guaranteed to reduce giving. I can't help suspecting they are far less interested in actually solving the problems than in other elements of their agenda.

Gotta run, but thanks again for seriously responding to my point. One last thing, I just betcha that if we put out the word we can help you find some Republicans out West who might be corrupt enough to get rid of.

Posted by: Bill Camarda on January 7, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

Bob:

Where do you get the 20% / 40% illiteracy rate stats from, btw?

Turned out to be a good question. The literacy numbers came from memory. I looked them up once a long while back. Took a while to track the numbers down again. The Census Bureau is the source for the 80 percent literacy rate number (it's quoted in this paper), but the year is 1930, not 1940.

As I tried to locate my source for modern literacy rates, I ran into a possible snag: "literacy" can mean a lot of different things, and given much higher modern literacy rates for blacks from other sources (this source cites a "below basic" rating of only 21 percent for blacks) I may have combined some form of "functional" illiteracy from my original source for the modern number and/or some form of full illiteracy for the older one.

Without the methodology of the original 1940 Census bureau numbers (how the heck DO you find out how many people are illiterate by having them fill out census forms?), I would take the numbers I cited with a grain of salt. That'll teach me not to check my memory first.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 7, 2006 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

nut:

You can delete the word "more" if you like. I was just trying to avoid the obvious conclusion that some people might draw, given the comparison of dates, that desegregation of schools was the issue with any falling educational results, when other factors would actually be the cause.

If I worded it badly, I blame not going to one of those fancy private schools.

In any case, given the research I did just now, the literacy comparison I cited seems suspect. If anyone has harder data on literacy levels through the past fifty years or so, based on the same criteria, I'd appreciate seeing it.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 7, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

Need your experience & opinion: Online political news survey! ($10 reward possible)

Hello!
My name is Daekyung (danny) Kim, a Ph.D. student studying journalism and mass communication in Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. I am emailing to ask you to do me a favor. I am now working on my dissertation whose topic is about online political news and want to gather information about how and why Internet users are using news Web sites for political information based on an online survey.

This online survey will approximately take 15-20 minutes to complete. After collecting the data, I will draw to pick up 50 respondents among those who complete this survey and each will be given $ 10 gift card.

Would you please spend some time to fill out this survey? http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=594061481532
(please click on the address, OR if not working, copy it into the URL address)
Your experience will be very useful in understanding how politically interested online users are using online news and the consequent effect on traditional news media.

You can withdraw the survey at any time you want. All responses will be kept confidential and only be used for academic purposes. This survey has been reviewed and approved by the SIUC Human Subject Committee. So, there are no questions that may identify personal information.

Thank you very much in advance for your cooperation. Please email me back if you have further concerns or questions. Happy New Year!!

Posted by: danny kim on January 7, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

The beauty of all this blogging is that we, the people, are constantly being manipulated by the politicians. they like nothing better than to see the partisans out there fighting each other verbally. As long as idiots on both sides of the artificial political divide in this country can't recognize that there are ALWAYS two sides of the coin called American Politics, the politicians win. Why? they are celebrities much like actors. And like actors (Which includes the make and female types), politicians need to constantly be reminded of how important they are. The only loser? The country as a whole. Instead of forging ahead and creating common ground, our system creates a constant competition. This is much like the old concept of vendetta. And we see how well the system of retribution works in places like Ireland, the whole Eastern mediterranean, just to mention two areas where compromise is permanently out of reach because of the solidification of peoples' ideas into right and wrong. Congratulations to Evil, Corruption and Tyranny. They are the ones who win when ordinary people do nothing but shout diatribes, one louder than the other.

Posted by: Chris on January 7, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

The GOP polices itself.

Correction: local and federal prosecutors have been "policing" the GOP.

But thank you for playing.

Posted by: trex on January 7, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

rmck1: All you know how to do is change the subject. You can't address
the substance of this charge, can you. You can't look at it in the
face, you can't entertain the notion for one second that it could
possibly be true. You can't use any of the speculative judgment
that you insist the electorate uses on all of your opponents.

You hold the entire political universe to a double standard.

You're morally bankrupt, bro. It's really kind of sad to witness.

Perhaps the most pertinent and insightful comments all thread, probably all month.

Cheers!

Posted by: trex on January 7, 2006 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

Chris:

Well the only problem with your analysis, Chris, is that it amounts to a diatribe in itself :)

Getting bent out of shape and yelling about stuff we don't like is more a part of the human condition than it is culturally-conditioned attribute that we could imagine being different.

It's not the yelling that makes places like the Mideast qualitatively diffeent than here. It's all the other stuff they do aside from yelling.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz, have you considered the total education rather than merely literacy? How are "blacks" doing now compared to in the 30s and 40s? How has the growth of the federal government changed the incidence of, say, lynching?

The ugly truth libertarians want to ignore is that a larger centralized government is more able to protect the weakest among us, especially from the vagaries of local government. Even to the point of taking a little from the strongest to provide that support. But I guess that doesn't really fit in with a "I'm a productive citizen (sucking at the federal teat), why can't you get a real job and stop stealing my tax money?" mantra that is the life of a libertarian federal contractor, does it?

Posted by: mars on January 7, 2006 at 8:23 PM | PERMALINK

It was a Rove operative, Wooten. Why would he lie?

I have no idea. Why not? Who was it? We have to trust the writer don't we? Isn't this the classic he said - she said? Where is the proof?

This is pure gossip. It's nothing more.

In the America I live one is innocent until proven guilty. I will not engage in gossip. That's for fools.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

Bob, spoken like a true arguer. Can't disagree with you. But the problem with yelling your point of view (much as I'm now doing!) is that it tends to solidify the opponent's belief that he or she is right. And that, in turn, leads to more yelling form them, which then hardens your point of view. Debate, as wonderful as it is, is useless in attempting to sway people who are opponents, in other words. It serves to create more partisanship. And that is what we are seeing with Democrats and republicans: the age old battle that has always existed in politics. My point, perhaps, is to rise above it all, and recognize that both sides are part of the whole. In today's world, we are led to believe that winning is everything (see Kos!). That is a fallacy. PLaying the game competently and fairly is everything. America, and the world as a whole, has forgotten the old English attitude: sportsmanship. It works only when both parties agree to the rules, and abide by them. America is a tragically partisan society. How will this end? it won't. And while democratic partisans fight REpublican partisans, the loser is the US Constitution. Both parties trample it regularly, and neither side is willing, readily, to admit that. In other words: Fix your own damned house before complaining about the state of the neighbor's house. I'll betcha that bloggers of this stripe (or the conservative stripe, they are all the same) cannot do that. America will be a better country when they can.

Posted by: Chris on January 7, 2006 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

Once again, you attempt to go off on a tangent because you can't address the issue. Nobody denied that piece. It stands unchallenged. You'll have to attack the credibility of the Atlantic in order to refuteit. Which I expect you'll try right about now.

No I don't have to deny the piece nor would any credible adult. When one responds to gossipers one descends to their level. There's no need for that. Karl Rove is the most respected political strategist in the world because he is the most successful. That's because he is smart and savvy. Cry yourself a crocidile tear river and smear this good man all you want but it will change nothing. Karl Rove is next to God to Consrvatives.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK

When one responds to gossipers one descends to their level

A gentle reminder to anyone who responds to rdw.

Posted by: LW Phil on January 7, 2006 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

shouldn't Congress be authorizing millions for the construction of a mega prison for all the corrupt republicans?

Posted by: zoot on January 7, 2006 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

> It's funny how we're all innocent until proven guilty, unless
> of course you are a conservative when we all know you'r guilty.

Is this the same rock-ribbed conservative Wooten we all
know and uhh, love, shamelessly indulging in the culture of
victimhood? The same culture of victimhood Wooten so loves
to attack when blacks, women, gays and any other minority
has the temerity to assert their presumption of innocence?

"Help, help, I'm a 50-year-old white male heterosexual
conservative being victimized by the larger society!"

Problem here, Wooten, is you're about 20 years behind the times.
It used to work when you guys were politically and culturally
marginalized. Now it looks like exactly what it is: the most
grotesquely hypocritical kind of special pleading imaginable.

> "It was a Rove operative, Wooten. Why would he lie?"

> I have no idea. Why not? Who was it? We have
> to trust the writer don't we? Isn't this the
> classic he said - she said? Where is the proof?

Gee, I duuno, Wooten. I haven't read the article myself yet.
Why don't you read it and then judge for yourself? You want us
to read PowerLine to know why Dan Rather has no ethics, right?

> This is pure gossip. It's nothing more.

I doubt it. The Atlantic has some pretty serious credibility.
Perhaps you'd like to challenge it with something more
than the usual boilerplate about "the liberal media?"

> In the America I live one is innocent until proven
> guilty. I will not engage in gossip. That's for fools.

Except, of course, if it's the Swift Boat Vets.

Then it's gospel truth.

You're truly *are* shameless, Wooten, aren't you.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

In the America I live one is innocent until proven guilty. I will not engage in gossip. That's for fools.
Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

This is going to get thrown back in your face in the future...you can count on it.

Karl Rove is next to God to Consrvatives.
Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK

...amd if one believes the "history" in the Bible, Lucifer was once next to God. And your point was???

Posted by: jcricket on January 7, 2006 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINK

You know who you remind me of right now, Wooten? Joe McCarthy. He attempted to defend himself in precisely the same manner.

Well that's original! Not too many libs pull out tail-gunner Joe when they need a ghost. If I remember correctly Joe was big in the 1955 era. You only had to go back 50 years. Do you realize few people under the age of 65 have any recollection of Joe. George Clooney tried to change that but he merely spoke to the choir.

The fact is the memory doesn't work as well anyway. Time has proven Joe was right about most things. Hollywood WAS infested with commies. Alger Hiss WAS guilty. The Rosenbergs WERE guilty. We just found out Upton Sinclair lied thru his teeth about Sacca and V.

Bob, it's 2005. It's not 1955. This is the era of Fox. George might have been more succssful if he didn't use someone from CBS news. Murrow might be an icon to the left but CBS is Dan Rathers station now. Integrity ain't the 1st association one makes.

Let's get the recod straight. THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO DEFEND MYSELF. AN ADULT DOESN'T RESPOND TO GOSSIP.

I DIDN'T CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

I DIDN'T HIDE A THING.

BTW: How many times did you beat your wife last night?

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

mars:

tbrosz, have you considered the total education rather than merely literacy? How are "blacks" doing now compared to in the 30s and 40s?

There's no question that a real study of how they're doing would have to cover a lot of areas besides literacy. I'd welcome any links.

How has the growth of the federal government changed the incidence of, say, lynching?

Blacks dying from lynchings has gone down to almost nothing. Unfortunately, we now have large numbers of blacks dying from drug overdoses, gangland violence, and other cultural problems that I personally believe are one result of well-intended but badly-executed government social engineering programs that largely wrecked the intact black family, and didn't do poor white families any favors, either.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 7, 2006 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK

The media have had 50 years to get the story straight but still cant present the basic facts to the American people about the communist threat that McCarthy tried to expose-and which still exists today in a different but equally deadly form. Source Accuracy in Media

an undistinguished, first-term Republican senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy, burst into national prominence when, in a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, he held up a piece of paper that he claimed was a list of 205 known communists currently working in the State Department. McCarthy never produced documentation for a single one of his charges, but for the next four years he exploited an issue that he realized had touched a nerve in the American public.

McCarthy obliquely attacked President Eisenhower and directly assaulted Secretary of the Army Robert Stevens. Day after day the public watched McCarthy in action -- bullying, harassing, never producing any hard evidence, and his support among people who thought he was "right" on communism began to evaporate. Americans regained their senses, and the Red Scare finally began to wane. By the end of the year, the Senate decided that its own honor could no longer put up with McCarthy's abuse of his legislative powers, and it censured him in December by a vote of 65 to 22. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/60.htm

Posted by: WhoSays on January 7, 2006 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

> "Once again, you attempt to go off on a tangent
> because you can't address the issue. Nobody denied
> that piece. It stands unchallenged. You'll have to
> attack the credibility of the Atlantic in order to
> refute it. Which I expect you'll try right about now."

> No I don't have to deny the piece nor would any credible adult.

Most of the credible adults here at least read the two paragraphs
that were excerpted in the post, if not the whole article itself.

> When one responds to gossipers one descends
> to their level. There's no need for that.

Wooten, has it ever ocurred to you that one of your most common
modes of rhetoric is invective? That you endlessly drone on about
how Howard Dean is "unbalanced" and Jack Murtha is "an idiot" and
Nancy Pelosi is [fill in the blank]? You exist in an stench-filled
sewer of the nastiest kind of gutter language when it comes to the
character attributes of your political opponents. You can't for
one minute believe that these people might simply disagree with you.

And then you're going to try to climb up on some kind of HIGH
HORSE about "not responding to gossip" about KARL ROVE --
the man who undisputedly created the "whisper campaign" as a
tactical instrument in election politics? Not just in one, but
in virtually every campaign he's ever been involved with? And
that he has defended and bragged about this innumerable times?

The only thing that can explain this is Freud, dude. It's
called projective identification. You continually do to others
what you've done to them and you are incapable of even seeing it.

> Karl Rove is the most respected political strategist
> in the world because he is the most successful.

Once again, the only way you can defend this guy is to
attempt to change the subject from morality. Hitler was
an extremely successful politician, too. Was he moral?

> That's because he is smart and savvy.

And not beneath smearing his opponents in the ugliest
ways imaginable. Read the article, Wooten. This is
public domain stuff that's been known for years about
Rove, and Rove himself *owns up* to most of it. He even
*jokes* about it -- because, like yourself and Adolph
Hitler, he believes that winning is the only thing, too.

> Cry yourself a crocidile tear river and smear
> this good man all you want but it will change nothing.

Read the article. Confront the truth.

> Karl Rove is next to God to Consrvatives.

Which is why many evangelicals believe
that Conservatives are so distant from God.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

I hate to say it, but the rantings of a racist like tbrosz do not deserve anybody's attention here.

Posted by: nut on January 7, 2006 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

WhoSays:

hifive! :) I have "A Conspiracy So Immense" on my bookshelf
if this turkey wants to continue pressing the McCarthy issue.

rdw:

> Let's get the recod straight.

Oh, let's do, Wooten ...

> THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO DEFEND MYSELF.

Right.

> AN ADULT DOESN'T RESPOND TO GOSSIP.

Adults don't shriek in all caps, either. Unless
they're, I dunno, Patton or something :)

> I DIDN'T CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

Sure you did. You'd much rather talk about George Clooney's
box office than the ways in which your invective-laced character
assassination against your opponents resembles McCarthy's MO.

> I DIDN'T HIDE A THING.

You're hiding everything. You think you can spew the most odious
unproven bile imaginable against armies of people you don't know
and have zero ability to cogently speculate about -- and yet one
magazine piece critical of Karl Rove's tactics you can't even
begin to confront, the better to possibly refute it on the merits.

You're a coward, Wooten. You run and hide from what might be true.

> BTW: How many times did you beat your wife last night?

I'm unmarried.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

"Max Cleland voted against the Homeland Security Act to try to protect Union jobs in a right to work state. That's a fact."

Except Max Cleland voted for the Homeland Security Act:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00247

And that's a fact (Of course, the issues of union jobs had nothing to do with a "right to work" state, as this is a federal agency, but Right Wing Dickwad is a moron and liar for all seasons). Another fact, of course, is that Right Wing Dickwad is a lying piece of shit, just like the Republican criminals he worships and fantasizes about. Cretin.

Posted by: solar on January 7, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

WhoSays:

Unfortunately, the main lesson most people now draw from McCarthy's wild shooting in all directions is that there never WERE any Soviet-connected communists in the U.S. back then. That wasn't the case, but it's lost in the noise, now.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 7, 2006 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

CORRECTION:

The only thing that can explain this is Freud, dude.
It's called projective identification. You continually
blame others for what you and your proxies do to
them and you are incapable of even seeing it.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz;

"By 1950 the second Red scare was well under way. The events of the postwar era had revived the Communist issue with a vengance. It had become the focal point for Republican attacks on Democrats, conservative attacks upon liberals, and congressional assaults upon the Executive branch. At the same time, as we shall see, the Communist *problem* had been almost eradicated by the strenuous -- and sometimes questionable -- efforts of the Democratic Administration. There would be only one major case of espionage after 1949, and that one, the Fuchs--Rosenberg case, concerned a spy ring which had operated during World War II. Furthermore, the Communist Party had been battered by mass desertions, the jailing of leaders, and the scrupulous attention of the FBI. Despite the warnings of J. Edgar Hoover, it was no longer a force in American life."

--David Oshinsky, "A Conspiracy So Immense," p. 102

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 9:50 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz sees communists on every corner. if not communists then drugged and illiterate blacks.

Posted by: nut on January 7, 2006 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

Dang.

Posted by: stress on January 7, 2006 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINK

Those Hollywood 'communists' were a real dangerous group. I know they had me shaking in my boots.

Posted by: WhoSays on January 7, 2006 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

Look, there are relative levels of leftiness and rightiness. One can believe in the rights of individuals without being a communist as well as one can believe in the chance for economic improvement without being a fascist. The problem is being able to distinguish the differences. While people's rights shouldn't relate to communism, commercial rights shouldn't relate to totalitarianism. Everyone should believe in something-I believe I will have another beer.

Posted by: MRB on January 7, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

Also, God bless my recently deceased friend, HG. A Viet Nam vet, a true veteran believing in veteran's causes, and a man whose shit Bush and the fascist neocons don't deserve to smell. Tip a drink to a truly great person, Howard, my friend. Best wishes. A proud Marine that served us all, his country, and his family. I shall miss him greatly. So long. See you on the other side.

Posted by: MRB on January 7, 2006 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

To me, the tragedy of McCarthyism was several-fold. That many lives were ruined is of course very tragic in and of itself. That good people who were communists or socialists were demagogued out of mainstream politics was tragic. Organized labor being purged and self-purging its most militant elements and being turned into business unionism (which is working horribly for it) was tragic.

The most tragic result, though, was that this demagoguery was appealing for some, and they only learned that these tactics work to marginalize others. So we had a type of Red Scare again (when Reagan took office) related to Central American people's movements. FBI agents spied on nuns and sponsored death squads in poor countries. Having succeeded, the next time a conservative administration took power Karl Rove turned liberalism into communism and McCarthied the whole Democratic Party for the last four years.

Joe McCarthy was an un-american, anti-democratic tinpot piece of shit. You should be ashamed of yourself if you have respect for him.

Posted by: DiscoStu on January 7, 2006 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

Tom DeLay has served well and is the victim of an overzealous prosecutor and bad timing. This country will not fare as well without him at the helm of the Majority. Thanks for all the good service, Tom!

Posted by: webdonkey on January 7, 2006 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

DeLay's running scared on reelection to his own seat.

Heres a few things to parse from the Hammers press conference:

"But my first job has always been and it will remain to represent the people of the 22nd district. I have worked very hard to meet their needs and serve their values in Washington. Those needs and values will now best be served by allowing House Republicans to set a new course and to unite behind a new and focused leader."

Translation: This controversy is becoming too distracting. Even I recognize, bullheaded as I am, that it threatens my chance for reelection.

"I will continue to serve my constituents by reclaiming my seat on the appropriations committee from which I will work to meet the needs of the 22nd district, including improved transportation infrastructure, homeland security and a fully funded space program."

Translation: I will therefore concentrate on bringing home massive amounts of pork between now and November to grease the skids of my reelection campaign.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on January 7, 2006 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINK

webdonkey:

We'll be sure to give Jack Abramoff your love.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 7, 2006 at 11:55 PM | PERMALINK

Bob, gotta disagree with you, from the left, on your assessment of Clinton.

You said.
"Clinton's legacy -- one which nearly destroyed his party -- is the ascendancy of the DLC and the doctrine of triangulation. Clinton had two legitimate successes on that score, NAFTA and welfare reform. Liberals bitched and moaned
about them (I voted for Nader in '96), but at the end of the day they were the right thing to do both politically and policy-wise.
Otherwise, Clinton caved on nearly *everything*."

He caved on NAFTA as he did just about everything else. NAFTA may or may not have been the right thing politically, but it sure as hell wasn't, policy-wise.

Not with labor/human rights and environmental standards gutted, setting us up for more of the same with the WTO.

I voted Nader in 1996; did not vote in 2000 because I had concerns about Nader, some of his investments, etc. (yes, Democrats were throwing out some of that, I have no doubt, but the concerns were legit), and voted David Cobb/Green Party in 2004.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on January 7, 2006 at 11:59 PM | PERMALINK

SocraticGadfly:

Look, you and I aren't on the same team, bro. You contributed to Bush's election -- twice. I find that unforgivable.

I'm a Democrat. I'm not a Democrat because I'm an ideological centrist -- I'm a Democrat because I'm a political realist. I never would have voted for Nader in a bazillion years iu '96 if I wasn't completely certain that Clinton was absolutely safe.

As for NAFTA, we can disagree about the politics (I'm not inclined to dismiss a left critique of so-called "free trade" -- but I'm not inclined to knee-jerk support it, either), but policy-wise, you are dead-ass wrong. Do you remember when Al Gore tore Ross Perot a new asshole on Larry King over trade? When he whipped out the pictures of Smoot and Hawley? Clinton and Gore both believed from the gut in NAFTA.

I don't know if we are better off with or without the agreement. I tend to agree with fair trade in principle, and all the Dems in the primary last year who were critiquing NAFTA I thought had good things to say. My gut went more with Dean and Gephardt than it did with Lieberman and Kerry (and Moseley Braun, for that matter).

So I dunno ... maybe I shouldn't have said it was the right move policy-wise. But I don't know what the alternative would have been, and I'm not enough of an economist to offer a thoroughgoing analysis on the subject.

So I suppose you scored a point on this.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 8, 2006 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK

Solar wrote: "A Republican won the last two presidential elections." Not true. Al Gore won the 2000 election through and through, except for two 5-4 bullshit decisions by the supremes. He won the popular vote nationally by over 500,000 votes. As has been recently revealed, Gore won the popular vote in Florida, if you simply stop rejecting the ballots of those who wrote in and voted for the same candidate. That's right -- the people who both punched a hole for a candidate and also wrote in a name had their votes rejected, but there were thousands more people who punched the Gore hole and wrote in "Al Gore" than there were people who punched the Bush hole and wrote in "George Bush."

Al Gore won in 2000. Don't ever forget it, and don't ever stop saying it, because there is a conspiracy of lies to the effect that Bush won in 2000. Bush did not win in 2000. The election was fraudulent, and any honest person who examines the evidence dispassionately knows this.

As for 2004, there were too many states with unauditable voting to know what happened, and that's all I've got to say about that.

Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on January 8, 2006 at 12:41 AM | PERMALINK

Don't tell people that Bush lost in 2000. We've spent a lot of money and a spent a lot of time trying to convince people that the guy who got the most votes overall and the most votes in Florida is a big loser. Let the facts out and you'll ruin everything.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

Man, I hope Duke Cunningham's wire was for recording Hastert.

Pelosi in '07

Posted by: JamesP on January 8, 2006 at 1:14 AM | PERMALINK

Cheer the downfall of the figurehead of the Republican Culture of Corruption. Thomas Dale Delay. Unfortunately, there are many more where that came from.

When is Hastert going to step down for taking money from Turkish Nationals with ties to Terrorism?

Posted by: Mammon on January 8, 2006 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINK

Every so often, my pineal gland begins to expand out from my forehead. It looks like a little horn poking out from the middle of my head.

I don't know how or why this happens, but what I *do* know is that when I rub it, it makes me *very* wet ...

Am I becoming a liberal?

Posted by: Ann Coulter's twelve-speed dildo on January 8, 2006 at 1:23 AM | PERMALINK

THE REAL QUESTION IS WHY DID DEMOCRATS TAKE 1.5 MILLION FROM A GUY THEY TOTALLING DISAGREE WITH POLITICALLY??

Wouldn't you?

In fact I invite everyone I disagree with politically to send me money. I accept PayPal.

This is understood not to be in exchange for any legislative favors, of course, since I am not a Republican.

Posted by: MillionthMonkey on January 8, 2006 at 1:29 AM | PERMALINK

Every so often, my pineal gland begins to expand out from my forehead. ...
Posted by: Ann Coulter's twelve-speed dildo on January 8, 2006 at 1:23 AM | PERMALINK

Sounds like you're talking about your penile gland dear. . .

Posted by: whiskey tango foxtrot on January 8, 2006 at 1:32 AM | PERMALINK

Unfortunately, we now have large numbers of blacks dying from drug overdoses, gangland violence, and other cultural problems that I personally believe are one result of well-intended but badly-executed government social engineering programs that largely wrecked the intact black family, and didn't do poor white families any favors, either.

tbrosz, "I believe" is not the basis for argumentation. "I believe" that the fiscal conservatives whose insistence that only women with no man in the house receive welfare (in the name of countering laziness and cheating) and the horse-trading that is inevitable when trying to pass legislation is the root cause for much of the social pathology you mention. Which of us is right? Obviously I am, but without a control group and a study you are no more likely to believe me than I am to believe you.

As to the question of whether blacks are better off now than in the 30s and 40s, well, all I can say is you aren't particularly observant if you think they aren't.

Posted by: mars on January 8, 2006 at 2:01 AM | PERMALINK

As for 2004, there were too many states with unauditable voting to know what happened, and that's all I've got to say about that. - Joel Rubinstein

Well Joel, I think you might agree with me that if Gore had been declared the winner of the 2000 election Dubyas political career would have been over. If it were not for the fraudelent election and the appointment to the office of President in 2000 Bush would not have been on the ticket for 2004 so because the first "win" was a fraud the second is also a fraud. America has been without an elected President since Clinton left office on January 19, 2001.

Posted by: Eric Paulsen on January 8, 2006 at 3:30 AM | PERMALINK

rdw is the kind of guy that makes it really difficult for non-americans to not be anti-americans.

Posted by: Bruce the Canuck on January 8, 2006 at 3:40 AM | PERMALINK

rdw is the kind of guy that makes it hard for non republicans to think there is any limits to republicans stupidity.

rdw is the kind of guy that makes it hard for pro lifers not to be pro choice

Posted by: Mikmik on January 8, 2006 at 3:52 AM | PERMALINK

Said it before and will say it again: rdw makes too many demonstrably false posts, sacrificing credibility. Not worth the time to read. Ignore him/her.

Posted by: Onomasticator on January 8, 2006 at 5:21 AM | PERMALINK

Bruce,as you probably know, rdw is far from being a typical American. The man has no soul, no feelings other than for himself and only cares about power and winning.

Posted by: WhoSays on January 8, 2006 at 8:20 AM | PERMALINK

Except Max Cleland voted for the Homeland Security Act:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00247

And that's a fact (Of course, the issues of union jobs had nothing to do with a "right to work" state, as this is a federal agency, but Right Wing Dickwad is a moron and liar for all seasons). Another fact, of course, is that Right Wing Dickwad is a lying piece of shit, just like the Republican criminals he worships and fantasizes about. Cretin.


The shame of it is Solar is Cleland was just another Kerry and that flip-flopping doesn't work in the south. They're less nuanced don't you know. Bill 222 will show you he voted AGAINST it before he voted FOR it. In an especially unfortunate piece of bad timing he voted AGAINST it on Sept 24, 2002, just before the election.

Another example of GWBs brilliant political skills. Credit Karl Rove if you must. It gave the RNC 6 weeks to show the good people of Georgia Max wasn't concerned about terrorism.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 8:46 AM | PERMALINK

This thread is a riot this morning! THANKS...perfect accompaniment to a great first hour of WJ talking about DeLay/Abramoff/corruption (or could that just be ONE WORD?)...along with ANIMAL FARM and IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE (Sinclair Lewis) my reading list just gets better and better.

Posted by: Dancer on January 8, 2006 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

You're hiding everything. You think you can spew the most odious unproven bile imaginable against armies of people you don't know and have zero ability to cogently speculate about -- and yet one magazine piece critical of Karl Rove's tactics you can't even begin to confront, the better to possibly refute it on the merits.

You're a coward, Wooten. You run and hide from what might be true.

What unproven bile? What bile?

The magazine had no evidence. It had gossip. Not even very good gossip. Not that I have an issue with it. It perfectly reflects Northern elitism. The rubes down there as so stupid they'll believe anything. There's a reason the South is so solidly red and becoming redder and more powerful every decade. Northern elitism is Gods gift to the GOP.

Them crackers don't much care for you. If Teddy Kennedy says to vote one way they'll be voting the other. Liberalism' day has passed. Clooney can make a thousand more movies but no one will watch them either. Even if you came up with your 1st new idea in 40 years the Roe effect is taking over. Liberals in the USA and globally just don't have many kids. Them's the facts.

BTW Bob: Triagulation is as old as the cows. Politicians in a weaken political position the world over rely on it and have for ages. Clinton in fact wasn't especially good at it and used it most often against his own party. Consider the fact his crowning political acheivement was over the Govt shutdown. It was a friggin budget bill. We've been figthing over budget bills for 226 years. Sorry, but it'll never be the stuff of legend. Slick Willie has no legacy.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK

"Clinton's legacy -- one which nearly destroyed his party -- is the ascendancy of the DLC and the doctrine of triangulation.

This is comical and proves my point that Clinton has no legacy. The DLC barely exists and has never been important. Clinton use it to try to sell himself as a non-liberal democrat. It may have helped marginally but Ross Perot got Clinton elected and the DLC has been rarely referred to since 1994.

As discussed above Triangulaiton is as old as the cows and Reagan did it better than Clinton.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

What rdw seems to have confused 'intelligence' with 'northern elitism'. Figures a republican would confuse intelligence with elitism. The fact is that a large percentage of red voters are gap-toothed crackers and rubes who believe in myths, get their news from the fiends at Fox and are pretty gullible and quick to respond to republican message of hate and suspicion.

Posted by: Chrissy on January 8, 2006 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

". . . Max wasn't concerned about terrorism."

Name one piece of evidence that the Homeland Security Act (or any other piece of legislation passed since 9/11, or the invasion and occupation of Iraq) has prevented even a single act of terrorism. This is pure fiction, and you, rdw, have been duped. It stands to reason you are an admirer of the South, with it's low college attendence and graduation rates. You are a paragon of ignorance, a champion of ignorance in others and a useful idiot for the administration.

Posted by: Joel on January 8, 2006 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

Chrissy,

I'm not so sure we are as far apart as you think. In the spirit of comity let's discuss where we do agree and find some common ground.

For example, we both agree on freedom of the press and one man, one vote. We both cherish the fact Fox news, because this is America, where we have freedom of the press, is free to carry the news it's own way. Isn't this part of what makes America great? Of course it is!

Even more important, the constitition lays out the right to vote. No matter how stupid, ignorant, or how bad your teeth are, you get to vote. It's the right we cherish above all others.

I think we can both agree. This is America at it's best. This is why were are such a great nation. This is why the rest of the world aspires to what we have.

I realize there are times we don't like how the other guy votes but I don't think there are times when we really lose sight of the fact this is still the source of our greatness. Sure it hurts to lose but even in our darkest moments we can all at least celebrate our great fortune of living in America!

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

In addition to being paid by Schaife to spew garbage from FAUX, NRO and the rest of the right wing ilk, Witless must also have worked for the Wal-Mart Online Movie Recommendations that linked "The Planet of the Apes" with movies about the Rev Martin Luther King. Good to see firedoglake and Crooks and Liars were quick enough to pick up this drek. Wal-Mart has since cleared the link from their site.

If you moved out of West Chester and the state of Pennsylvania, their respective IQ levels would soar, Witless.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 8, 2006 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

Joel,

refer to the previous post.

I don't think Max was unconcerned about terrorism. I do think he was more concerned in Sept of 2002 of the rights of unions versus the rights of the American people for extended protection. More important, so did the people of Georgia. This is why we have elections and this is why GWB had that vote 6 weeks before the 2002 election. The man might be as dumb as a post but he's smarter than Tom Daschle AND Max Cleland.

I am certain the govt has been effective in stopping terrorist activity. I am equally certain they won't give us specifics because to do so would hand our enemoes an advantage. The fact is Al Qaeda would just love to kill 3,000 more Americans and they haven't. The fact is pograms like the NSA wiretaps have been a significant reason why and the fact is Democrats have had nothing to do with the program except leaking it so the terrorist can adjust accordingly.

There is a reason why only Feingold remains vocal on this.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

3rdPaul,

You've got me wrong. I'm just an average Joe from the PA Burbs. Born and raised in Philly and the product of the catholic school system, a few years in the Navy, worked for the phone company, etc. I define average. I am so average I am boring. I don't make a dime. I can type and watch TV at the same time and I like the dialogue.

I figure I can gauge if the left 'gets it' by reading and talking with those on the blogs. I am happy to say that's not the case. I am baffled and will always be so baffled. Wha must it be like to be a serious lib like Tim Robbins or George Clooney and Barbara Streisand and see all these signs of failure and worse of the trends suggesing more of the same.

They know what is going to happen to the electorial collge in 2010. They were smarter than Thomas L. Freidman when Tom started gloating about the coming failure of Detroit due to high gas prices. Tim Robbins to his credit knew immediately it could result in the massive loss of union jobs in the liberal North and the transfer of people and jobs to the conservative south.

What I try to find out is does any one aside from Tim Robbins get it? It's my hope and prayer the answer is NO. I want Karl Rove to have his durable majority. I'm sure I don't agree with you southerners are crackers but we can at least agree their vote counts as much as yours. At the end of the day isn't that what's important?

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Under the "all politics are local" department, here in Washington state Senator Maria Cantwell is up for re-election. Sen.Cantwell upset Republican Senator Slade Gorton in 2000 by carrying only two counties in the whole state of Washington by a tremendous margin, King and Pierce counties. Her margin of victory, on a recount, was about 1200 votes after King County kept "finding" more ballots, as this county did again in 2004 to make a Democrat governor.

Sen. Cantwell is a dot.com millionaire who reached into her own deep pockets to finance a tremendous TV ad blitz against Gorton in the major metropolitan areas--I recall a figure of something like over $10 million being spent.

Good news for Maria, however, is that after she won she was able to pay herself back for the big campaign loan with lots of money that flowed in belatedly to support the upset "winning Senator."

Some of this money came from Mississippi Indian tribes whose major lobbyist in Congress was Mr. Abramoff. Looking on a map, Washington is quite a distance from Mississippi.

But now we come to the election of 2006 and several factors have changed: Republicans are being pummelled by scandal, Sen. Cantwell has reportedly managed to lose most of her dot.com fortune through stock market misfortune, and Cantwell is going to be faced by a Republican challenger who has his own deep pockets, probably deeper than Cantwell's ever were on her best day.

The good news for Democrats is that the process of counting votes is really unreformed in King County. Voters are still on the "honor system". There is virtually no way to detect or prove multiple voting fraud, the votes eventually counted will probably still outnumber the registered voters by several thousand, and so on. . .

Posted by: Michael L. Cook on January 8, 2006 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Look rdw, with every right comes a responsibility.

And the responsibility that comes with the right to vote is to know the issues and know the way their representatives vote, who their representatives are and how much money they're getting and from whom.

Red staters that I talk to have abdicated that right. A lot are willfully ignorant. A lot of it is due to the fact that 'the media' would rather talk about a missing white woman or vacationing white man on a cruise ship than tell them who their rep is and how he/she votes etc. A lot vote on feelings and emotions and misplaced respect for "authorities" like the preacher man getting access to the WH and gov't cash.

Whatever the reasons are red staters need to stand up and get informed and stop voting on emotions like fear, suspicion, or a false belief that someone is religious.

Posted by: Chrissy on January 8, 2006 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

Draft Kreider for US Congress

www.draftkreideruscongress.org

Click on the image below to enlarge

Clearly Congressman Roy Blunt sent letters to help his buddy Jack Abramoff and his efforts to prevent new Indian Reservations from going into Louisiana.

Please read these articles and then send an e-mail or letter to the Justice Department asking them to look into these dealings, if they are not already on the top of their list of things to do!


NEWS LINKS
Click to here read story on U.S. Department of Justice website:
http://www.usdoj.gov/

MUST-SEE Click to here to see timeline and graph:
Hastert and Blunt Under Increased Scrutiny

Click here to read story on Fired Up Missouri:
Federal Abramoff Probe Inches Closer To Roy Blunt

Click here to read Conservative Voice story:
Top Republicans Give Up Abramoff Donations

Click here to read Seattle Times story:
Blunt wants permanent Leadership

MUST-SEE Click here to read Chicago Tribune story:
Abramoff Plea Could Bring Renewed Scrutiny of Hastert Letter

Click here to read New York Times story:
All in the Latest Family --- Papa Blunt Style

MAIL: Correspondence to the U.S. Justice Department, including the Attorney General, may be sent to:

U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001


MEDIA CONTACTS
BY E-MAIL: E-mails to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, may be sent to: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Please send letters to the following media contacts: Jill Abramson, Managing Editor New York Times: abramson@nytimes.com
Marcus Brauchli, National News Senior Editor Wall Street Journal: marcus.brauchli@dowjones.com
Dan Klaidman, Washington Bureau Chief Newsweek: letters@newsweek.com
Jeff Cohen, Editor-in-Chief Houston Chronicle: viewpoints@chron.com
Dean Baquet, Managing Editor Los Angeles Times: dean.baquet@latimes.com
Tim Russert, MSNBC: MTP@NBC.com

http://today.reuters.com/ContactUs.aspx

Posted by: Draft Kreider US Congress on January 8, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

Name one piece of evidence that the Homeland Security Act (or any other piece of legislation passed since 9/11, or the invasion and occupation of Iraq) has prevented even a single act of terrorism

You miss the point. It isn't whether anything can be done to prevent terror - look at all of the things GWB did to achieve his greatest success in the war on terror. Ignoring evidence was hard work. Shifting resources away from looking for Osama Bin Laden was hard work (stupid Clinton team telling Bush that terrorism was going to be a major issue of course it was, Bush needed something to start a war to be a War President). Putting Cheney in charge of stalling the recommendations of the Democrats, including a real Department of Homeland security, was hard work.

No, the point is how can gutting the civil servant protections be used to attack Democrats as unpatriotic. The fact that we got to smear a veteran who lost limbs in the service of our nation is just an added bonus. Man, that was sweet. Almost as good as painting a war hero as less patriotic than the deserter and shirker we managed to cheat into the White House.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

Red staters that I talk to have abdicated that right.

It's one man, one vote. There's nothing in the constitution about abdication. It's not all bad news. There's nothing about insufferable snobs either.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

One man one vote. Unless he can't follow directions, in which case there is that clause in the Constitution that says he has abdicated his right to vote. Oh, and the place where it says that if you are a felon, you've abdicated your right to vote. Or if your name sounds like that of a felon. Or if you don't have proper ID; that's in the constitution too. Trust me. You could look it up, but I bet you won't.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

rdw,

Please tell me it was a 'fake' rdw that wrote this...No, the point is how can gutting the civil servant protections be used to attack Democrats as unpatriotic. The fact that we got to smear a veteran who lost limbs in the service of our nation is just an added bonus. Man, that was sweet. Almost as good as painting a war hero as less patriotic than the deserter and shirker we managed to cheat into the White House.

Posted by: WhoSays on January 8, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Whew!

Hey, rdw at 10:53 am, if that was the real you, it was a nice post and gesture that might be appreciated by some here. I appreciate the gesture towards 'comity.'

And I request that the fake rdw's leave some distinguishing mark in their handles, just to leave no doubt.

Having said that, fake rdw is right on wrt:

Almost as good as painting a war hero as less patriotic than the deserter and shirker we managed to cheat into the White House.

You righties are proud of having scammed your man into power. An honest election in 2000 was your worst nightmare.

Posted by: obscure on January 8, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

I love reposting this graf, because it's such a great
summation of your vile, dishonest MO if I do say
so myself. I'm sure most of the blog agrees, though.

Including the saner, intelligent righties like tbrosz and
Steve White. They get into it with us over everything, but
they sure don't *ever* chime in to defend *your* garbage.

> "You're hiding everything. You think you can spew the most odious
> unproven bile imaginable against armies of people you don't know
> and have zero ability to cogently speculate about -- and yet one
> magazine piece critical of Karl Rove's tactics you can't even
> begin to confront, the better to possibly refute it on the merits."

> "You're a coward, Wooten. You run and hide from what might be true."

> What unproven bile? What bile?

Fuck you, Wooten. I mean .. Just. Fuck. You.

Howard Dean is mentally unbalanced. Dan Rather has no ethics.
John Kerry is a traitor. John Murtha is a boob. Ted Kennedy
is a piece of shit. Etc, etc, etc. You argue as if these vicious,
libellous characterizations were literally true. You confirm them
to yourself by reading right-wing websites that you never spend one
second second-guessing or using your critical intelligence to sniff.

You are the lowliest form of compleat partisan hack.

> The magazine had no evidence. It
> had gossip. Not even very good gossip.

Wooten, YOU DIDN'T EVEN READ IT. This is why I tell you to go fuck
yourself. This is why I'm starting to lose patience with you and
may well decide, along with a host of others here, that debating
you just isn't worth it. I enjoy few things more than a good debate
with a political opponent, but you just don't debate in good faith.

> Not that I have an issue with it. It
> perfectly reflects Northern elitism [...]

To quote your idol, there you go again. That article had nothing
whatsoever to do with so-called northern elitism. Rove's victims
there were Southern politicians. Read Texas Monthly sometime if
you think concerns about Rove's ethics are exclusively northern.

This is why I'm so enraged at you right now, Wooten. You want us
to face squarely what the SBVs had to say about John Kerry. You
want us to face squarely what PowerLine had to say about Dan Rather.

We want you to face squarely what The Atlantic has
to say about Karl Rove -- and you go mentally AWOL.

Fuck your cowardly double standards to death, Wooten.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 8, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

And I request that the fake rdw's leave some distinguishing mark in their handles, just to leave no doubt.

The 10:53 is the real me and if you can't distinguish myself and the wannabe version you're either too far left or not trying very hard. It's obvious.

Almost as good as painting a war hero as less patriotic than the deserter and shirker we managed to cheat into the White House.

The war hero wasn't painted as less patriotic as much as less honest. He suffered from the same disease as Al Gore. Why he ever told the Xmas in Cambodia story remains baffling.

If being painted as unpatriotic you mean by his speaches after the war that's unfair. They were not edited in any way. It's was vintage John Kerry. If you mean the 'I voted for it before I voted agaisnt it' same deal. His own words from his own mouth unedited.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

what about the 12:07pm rdw? Do you admit to that one also?

Posted by: WhoSays on January 8, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, I can't imagine anyone wanting to be an rdw.

Posted by: WhoSays on January 8, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

whosays,

You can't be this goofy. I'm the guy laughing at Dan Rathers pathetic attempt at making GWB into a deserter remember?

Also I never smeared Max. That he's a bad politician is a fact not a smear.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

The fake Wootens have wotten@verizon.net as their email.

The real wooten's is rdw@vz.net.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 8, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, I may be goofy, but thank god I'm not you. I guess I am stupid though, did you indeed write the 12:07 pm post or not?

Posted by: WhoSays on January 8, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

It is truly hard, hard work differentiating between gross stupidity and gross stupidity.

When it walks like FAUX, talks like FAUX, posts like FAUX, then it must be...........hmmmm.

Michael Cook,

Sen Cantwell won five counties in the 2000 election. Her first certification had her leading with over 1900 votes. The recount gained her 276 more votes. I'm sure that money will flow in to repell Rossi.

Posted by: stupid git on January 8, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

WhoSays:

The 12:07 post is the fake Wooten.

I didn't have to look at the email to tell. i've got a good ear for the sardonic.

But you can click on the email and see rwotten@verizon.net for yourself.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 8, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Alas poor Thomas; I knew him, Horatio. A man of infinite ambition and greed, unburdened by morality in pursuit of his ambition. For it to be tragical, there would have to have been a fall from grace--in the case grace was a steep climb up, finally irrevocably encumbered by his giant ego and capacity for harm.

Posted by: Sparko on January 8, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

This is why I'm so enraged at you right now, Wooten. You want us to face squarely what the SBVs had to say about John Kerry. You want us to face squarely what PowerLine had to say about Dan Rather.

We want you to face squarely what The Atlantic has to say about Karl Rove -- and you go mentally AWOL.

John Kerry flat out lied about Xmas in Cambodia. I'll even concede his latest revision that he did a run dropping off CIA, IN CAMBODIA. I am skeptical but I'll grant it
as true. The story of his epiphany, the story that was seared, seared in him, was a flat out fabrication.

Dan Rather was beyond pathetic. That will remain a journalistic scandal for 40 years.

Some lefty magazine using un-named sources for a hit piece isn't worth reading. It just isn't. The main reason is because it relies on the assumption the Sothern voting public are made up of rubes. It's so transparent. I just don't suffer this form of regional bigotry. It's typical of what comes out of a lefty rag.

On top of that, even if Rove was guilty, Rather is by far the bigger sleeze. What he did is an insult.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

> Also I never smeared Max. That he's a
> bad politician is a fact not a smear.

You have no problem that a campaign ad morphed
Max's head into Osama bin Laden's, though.

You honestly and sincerely can't understand how this is dirty pool.

Which only goes to show the rest of us how morally bankrupt you are.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 8, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

bob,

quite right that post is not authentic but clicking on the email means little. You can put anything you want in there as well.

It s/b obvious.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Let's say Kerry's whole military career was based on lies. It is still a better record than that cowardly Bush guy. Yeah, he got an honorable discharge but that doesn't mean he deserved it. It seems to me there is a lot of data indicating that Bush did go awol. Bush never gave a satisfactory answer as to why he stopped flying either.

Posted by: WhoSays on January 8, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, I wish that 12:07 PM post was obvious. It sure did sound like something you would say. Maybe you ought to think about that.

Posted by: WhoSays on January 8, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

In my experience here, nearly all spoofers are honorable enough not to copy somebody's email.

I don't recall a single case where that hasn't been true.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 8, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

WhoSays:

That's more a comment on the skill of the parodist.

What the fake rdw does (aside from a pitch-perfect copping of rdw's rhetorical style) is to argue straight from Wooten's assumptions, pushing them ever-so-slightly into the terrain of reductio-ad-absurdum.

Wooten would never flat-out *admit* the destructiveness and moral nihilism implied in the logic of his posts. In fact, in order to keep the illusion going that he's a "decent guy," he's constructed huge psychological barriers around it. Who *me*? Cheering on the devolution of political discourse? *Never*! I *love* America!, etc. etc. etc.

The key is Wooten's complete lack of self-awareness. That's how you can tell the real Wooten from the fake one.

The fake Wooten sickers loudly at his own nihilism, which he makes explicit. The real Wooten only constructs implicitly nihilist arguments which he then spends massive amounts of energy to deny.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 8, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

The fact that there were facts behind Rather's story and he chose to use some unverified document was an amazing stroke of luck. We'd managed to cover up Bush's dereliction of duty in the first election by smearing the guy who went to Vietnam and the second time we managed to smear a guy who went to Vietnam and won medals because of the distraction from the real issue represented by that document. As to Rove, well, even if he's guilty Rather is by far the bigger sleaze. I mean, a factually based story with one bad document? Come on, spreading vicious rumors based on lies is nothing compared to that. When you want to spread a lie you need to send the Secretary of State to the UN to do it. Not some punk journalist with facts on his side.

On the other hand, my constant repetition of the silly notion that Kerry wasn't in Cambodia though merely represents my personal obsession with the fact that the hero of 9/11 almost lost to a dirty American hero. What horrors awaited us if a guy with a long track record of national service and a party that has a history of actually finding and bringing terrorists to justice had won?

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

sickers = snickers.

Nihilism (for the Wootens in the crowd who slept through sociology) = literally from the Latin, a belief in nothing. Concretely, an amoral approach to human values.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 8, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

I would like to thank Bob for, while being wrong about the e-mail address I use the one that shows up on my browser, seeing that the only real difference between my posts and rdw's posts is that I say out loud what rdw only strongly implies in his posts.

I'm sure I will tire of this in a few days and go back to my normal lurker status, but in the meantime the ineffectual huffing of rdw amuses me to no end. Hopefully no one rational gets caught in the crossfire (just remember what Bob said, I have a habit of snickering loudly in the posts. Oh, and I never post anything nearly as long as some of the more ridiculous posts providing evidence that rdw does; I don't have the patience to be that stupid, even when I'm pretending).

Posted by: on January 8, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

> "This is why I'm so enraged at you right now, Wooten. You want us
> to face squarely what the SBVs had to say about John Kerry. You want
> us to face squarely what PowerLine had to say about Dan Rather."

> "We want you to face squarely what The Atlantic has
> to say about Karl Rove -- and you go mentally AWOL."

> John Kerry flat out lied about Xmas in Cambodia. I'll even
> concede his latest revision that he did a run dropping off
> CIA, IN CAMBODIA. I am skeptical but I'll grant it as true.
> The story of his epiphany, the story that was seared, seared
> in him, was a flat out fabrication.

And Karl Rove engineered a "whisper campaign" to paint a candidate
who worked with underprivileged children as a homsexual pedophile.

> Dan Rather was beyond pathetic. That will
> remain a journalistic scandal for 40 years.

And Karl Rove engineered a "whisper campaign" to paint a candidate
who worked with underprivileged children as a homsexual pedophile.

> Some lefty magazine using un-named sources for
> a hit piece isn't worth reading. It just isn't.

Some right-wing blog using self-styled "document experts"
to discredit a document without grappling at all with the
fact that their content is undisputed by the secretary who
originally typed them isn't worth reading. It just isn't.

> The main reason is because it relies on the assumption
> the Sothern voting public are made up of rubes.

The main reason is because it relies on the assumption
that the American voting public are made up of idiots.

> It's so transparent. I just don't suffer this form of regional
> bigotry. It's typical of what comes out of a lefty rag.

It's so transparent. I just don't suffer this form of wide-bore
cynicism. It's typical of what comes out of a right-wing blog.

> On top of that, even if Rove was guilty,

Ahhhh ... now it comes out, eh, Wooten? Why don't you try grappling
with the issue on its own for a minute if you'd like any of us
to have a remaining shred of respect for you as a human being.

Is it or is it not fair game in an election to start a
"whisper campaing" implying, without a shred of evidence
and not even based on rumor, that a married man who
works with poor children is a homosexual pedophile?

Answer this question, Wooten, before the entire blog
straps you down and waterboards you until you do.

> Rather is by far the bigger sleeze. What he did is an insult.

Your 5-year-old "he did it too, Mommy!" defense is what's insulting,
Wooten, both to the intelligence and to the ethics of mature adults.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 8, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

Fake rdw:

Appreciate the explanation -- and I assure you that many of us find your parodies not only entertaining, but skillful as well.

Just a question, though. How did you manage to leave a post without any email address?

Every time I've tried that by accident, the software here tells me I have to leave my name and email.

Curiously,

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 8, 2006 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

Fake rdw: You are really good fake rdw, a little too good. Yes, I think that what you write is what the real rdw actually wants to say and probably believes. But I for one would appreciate a fake email address. It won't make your posts any less entertaining. Thanks.

Posted by: WhoSays on January 8, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

WhoSays:

This person *does* leave a fake email address. I thought I cleared this up earlier.

I don't know what fake rdw means above about being wrong about the email address. The evidence is clear:

The fake rdw (including the one at 12:07) uses rwotten@verizon.net. Check it yourself.

The real rdw is rdw@vz.net.

QED

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 8, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Bob:

At 12:07 PM the email is rwootten@verizon.net. That is the email that I have always seen him post under. 90% of the above rdw posts list an eamil as rwootten@verizon.net. In fact I don't think I've ever seen him use rdw@vz.net.

Posted by: WhoSays on January 8, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK


tbrosz:
You ask how nuking Gingrich worked out for democrats. The fact that Clinton was able to constantly back Gingrich down and get around him enabled Clinton and the democrats to eventually balance the budget, reduce the size of the federal government, and get government spending under control. This without disproportionately hurting the poor or the middle class. Gingrich did not have constructive or politically sellable strategies for accomplishing his goals. Clinton did.

Getting rid of Gringrich made it even easier.

I get the idea that you may be close to my age. Doesnt the fact that the federal government grew during the presidencies you seemed to favor (Reagan, Bush I and Bush II) and deficits skyrocketed give you some pause? Do you really buy the ridiculous statements by some that it was the fault Democratic congress? Have you ever taken a look at their proposed budgets and noted how the predictions of mainstream economists and budget forecasters all came true.

The opposite happed under Carter and Clinton whose budget projections were in sync with mainstream budget forecasters. I contend, that in the fiscal management respect, the Democratic presidents submitted more responsible budgets.

I recommend (if I may be so bold and hopefully not arrogant) that you spend some time researching this on your own since you do seem to have some research capabilities

You note that GWB seems to have allowed his veto pin to roll under his desk. Well, governing via veto is not supposed to be good, but I note that Reagan was the same way. Clinton and Carter were much more aggressive and, when need be, confrontational in selling their budgets. GWB honestly seems lazy and wimpish to me, as was Reagan.

The dialog about literacy rates in the discussion above also sounds familiar to me. People throw out crazy numbers like forty percent illiteracy rates due to all these decades of liberal education. It comes across as ideological statements that cant be supported, but rather statements that liberal-haters would like to believe.

I know many of my generation have had chips on their shoulders for several decades, chips that found their places in reaction to the integration of public schools and other civil rights related advances of the 60s and 70s. You arent sporting one of those chips are you?

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on January 8, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

WhoSays:

Damn, I appear to be wrong here. I just went upthread and checked some posts that were obviously the real rdw, and there it is: rwootten@verizon.net.

I know I've seen rdw@vz.net on other threads and associated it with the real Wooten. But here, that's definitely been his address ...

Oh well ... I don't have a hard time telling the two apart. Usually I'll read one of the fake posts and feel by blood pressure start to rise as always, and then see his (assuming the parodist is not female) concluding sentences and just bust out snickering. Got me again :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 8, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

Bob, it doesn't really matter. The fake rdw is pretty amazing though!

Posted by: WhoSays on January 8, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

little ole jim:

Excellent post; very well-made points about allegedly conservative goals and the Democratic presidents who enact them :)

I called tbrosz on the 40% / 20% "statistic" and -- give him credit for this -- the man backed completely down and admitted he just pulled those figures out of ancient memory, and that you couldn't legitimately compare that data across decades without a uniform definition of "illiteracy," besides.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 8, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

WhoSays:

Yeah, I get a real charge out of those posts, too. It's like if real rdw developed Tourette's Syndrome or something :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 8, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

Don't you just enjoy it when rdw plays with himself by playing with his, in his mind funny, posts of wdr. It is similar to an early dimwitted Pong game. In the great 1974 Pakula movie The Parallax View, there is a scene of Pong playing. Rove today and the The Parallax View is not too far fetched an idea.

The Dunce of Drexel Hill? or the Douchebag of Drexel Hill? The Dimwit of Drexel Hill? FAUX presents; you decide.

Posted by: stupid git on January 8, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK


Bob: Yes, I give tbrosz credit, he will acknowledge specific facts.

However, I note that many people, especially folks fond of calling themselves conservative or libertarian, accepts many of the same facts that are not facts at all. One example is that liberals are solely responsible for the growth of government. Yet, our conservative presidents, in recent years, have been totally wild with their budgets.

They cannot seem to accept that government, beyond a military, is necessary to succeed as a society and a country. They seem to fall for all the simple-minded anti-government rhetoric. Its hard to solve problems when this sort of ideology gets out of hand.

And where I live people have most definitely not gotten over the 60s and 70s and the issues of civil rights. The resentment toward the federal government goes back to those days. Again, it makes it hard to solve modern day problems. Such people will vote for a candidate based upon such things as Willie Horton adds, Trent Lott statements about Strom Thurmond, and even ancient exaggerated connections between John Kerry and John Kennedy.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on January 8, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

Right Wing Dickwad (and again, thanks for answering to your true name) there was only one vote for the Homeland Security Act itself and Max Cleland voted for it. You lied, as is the one trick that scumbags such as yourself have. Now try to wiggle out of it with a prior vote that was not for the Act itself. This is nearly as funny as your complete and utter ignorance of US labor law (and damned near everything else- you simply spout whatever lie you glean from lunatic fringe websites).

Is there any wonder that pathological liars such as yourself are attracted to the party of pathlogical liars? You worship Bush because he has succeeded in life by doing what you have failed at- lying about everything. But never fear, you are dishonest scum and shall always be.

And Joel, please don't mistake winning with winning honestly. If you buy off the refs, you have cheated but you still win.

Posted by: solar on January 8, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

little ole jim:

You seem to be making an honest, thoughtful assessment of the political thought (and voting) patterns of your neighbors. You certainly don't seem to be broad-brush slandering them as "redneck crackers" or somesuch. Hell, you live in the region yourself; you're more than entitled to make such a judgment, especially when you back it up with a good argument.

Wooten seems to think that when we northerners apply this sort of analysis to Karl Rove's approach to leveraging cultural resentment for political gain -- we're in truth treading on odious regional stereotypes.

Can you please, for the record, set this man straight on this as a Southerner yourself?

Thanks,

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 8, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK
. I'd do campaign finance reform by scrapping the laws the tell who can give what to who, and increasing the laws demanding absolute tranparency on the source of every dollar.I have no real Republicans to get rid of here in CaliforniaPosted by: tbrosz
Scrapping donation laws is guaranteed to make a bad situation worse. Transparency is meaningless. Republican special interests form new groups at the drop of an ad and their names do not list the donors. Exposure is good, but for years, Abramoff and the K Street project have been operating in the open and no one except those you are eager to label whiners on the Left criticized it. Republican corruption is obvious and blatant. There would be no better Republican to remove than the current governor. He is worse than Gray Davis in every way, only he lacks the competence.
, we now have large numbers of blacks dying are one result of well-intended but badly-executed government social engineering programs that largely wrecked the intact black familyPosted by: tbrosz
To ignore the fact of racism, segregation, poor schools, and lack of job opportunity is, ipso facto, racist.
never WERE any Soviet-connected communists in the U.S. back then.Posted by: tbrosz
* The FBI pretty much controlled the Communist Party through Operation SOLO. The entire communist menace threat was a farce, much like Bushs use of the terrorism issue today.
For example, we both agree on freedom of the press and one man, one vote. where we have freedom of the pressPosted by: rdw
That is contrary to reality. The Republican Party has no respect for one man, one vote. The Republican Party does every thing it can to suppress, intimidate, and disqualify voters including re-instituting a poll-tax in Georgia. Nor does any Republican that I have read on this board respect freedom of the press unless it is the prevailing right wing media. Posted by: Mike on January 8, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

Don't let the door hit ya, where the dog shoulda bit ya, Tommy boy!!!

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on January 8, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

rdw writes: "I am certain the govt has been effective in stopping terrorist activity. I am equally certain they won't give us specifics because to do so would hand our enemoes an advantage. The fact is Al Qaeda would just love to kill 3,000 more Americans and they haven't. The fact is pograms like the NSA wiretaps have been a significant reason why . . . "

I didn't ask you about your religious beliefs. I asked for evidence. Clearly, you don't have any. That's because none exists. There is no evidence that any legislation passed since 9/11, any arrests, any incarcerations, or any wiretaps since 9/11 have prevented any act of terrorism. None.

Posted by: Joel on January 8, 2006 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK

Let's say Kerry's whole military career was based on lies. It is still a better record than that cowardly Bush guy. Yeah, he got an honorable discharge but that doesn't mean he deserved it. It seems to me there is a lot of data indicating that Bush did go awol. Bush never gave a satisfactory answer as to why he stopped flying either.

No one said his career was based on lies. Bush himself said he servered honourably, in harms way. I've been saying he lied about Xmas in Cambodia and that was his key mistake. If you want to tell a compelling story of bravery and make it a central point of your life make sure it's accurate and verifiable. In this case its was verifiably and obviously false.

I actually think if he came out quickly and admitted he was wrong on the details but the core of the story was correct he'd have been fine. But he pulled a Rather.

There is no data saying Bush went AWOL. Ziltch. If there was Rather would have used it. His show was a total disaster.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

> Dan Rather was beyond pathetic. That will
> remain a journalistic scandal for 40 years.

And Karl Rove engineered a "whisper campaign" to paint a candidate who worked with underprivileged children as a homsexual pedophile.

> Some lefty magazine using un-named sources for
> a hit piece isn't worth reading. It just isn't.

Some right-wing blog using self-styled "document experts" to discredit a document without grappling at all with the fact that their content is undisputed by the secretary who originally typed them isn't worth reading. It just isn't.

This has to be painful for you. The whisper campaign is pure gossip. You have nothing more thasn unnamed sources with an axe to grind.

Regarding Rather there is no question. The show was still airing on the west coast and it was known to be a fraud. The AM shows the next day were covering a probable fraud. The PM shows had it as a confirmed fraud. It was not 24 hours the experts had ruled. Over the next few days would found out NONE of the CBS 'experts' confirmed it was authentic and told CBS that BEFORE it aired.

What Dan did is going to outlive Dan. It is a scandal for the ages. He'll be long dead and his great grandkids will be covering it as disaster management in school

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

solar'

Nope, two votes. One in September under the bill number I repeated earlier and then AFTER Max lost. Max voted against it before he voted for it.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

> "And Karl Rove engineered a "whisper
> campaign" to paint a candidate who worked with
> underprivileged children as a homsexual pedophile."

> Some lefty magazine using un-named sources for
> a hit piece isn't worth reading. It just isn't.

> "Some right-wing blog using self-styled "document experts"
> to discredit a document without grappling at all with the
> fact that their content is undisputed by the secretary who
> originally typed them isn't worth reading. It just isn't."

> This has to be painful for you.

It's not painful for me at all, Wooten. I have a respect for
the truth. It's what allows me to sleep at night. At the end of
the day, I'd rather be right and act morally than win elections.

My conscience is clear.

You can't say the same. Your political approach is immoral. All you
care about is whether or not Karl Rove's techniques win elections.
You won't even answer the question on a theoretical basis whether
or not what Rove allegedly did in that election was wrong. And
when you finally confront the merest possibility that it might
be true -- your response is to bring up the sins of others.

You exhibit classic denial, Wooten. It's psychologically unhealthy.

> The whisper campaign is pure gossip.

No it's not, Wooten. It stands unchallenged. Nobody from your
side ever tried to refute it. It never got much play, because
The Atlantic doesn't have a huge circulation. But Karl Rove
himself has admitted to using the whisper campaign in interviews.

You absolutely cannot concretely dispute this.

> You have nothing more thasn unnamed sources with an axe to grind.

Bullshit. The sources are named in the article. Go read it.
Demostrate I'm wrong. Demonstrate that you're not in fact coping
through pure denial and that you're truly not afraid of the truth.

> Regarding Rather there is no question [...]

Understand something, Wooten. We're not talking about Dan Rather
anymore. We had our Dan Rather discussion last week and said
all either of us could have said on the subject. The topic has
moved on. We're talking about Karl Rove. Whatever Dan Rather
did or did not do has no bearing whatsoever on Karl Rove.

And whenever you try another deflection manoeuver by throwing up
some other set of sins by someone else -- I'm just going to delete
those comments without addressing them. They are irrelevant.

Deal with Karl Rove, or don't both to post to me.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 8, 2006 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK

You won't even answer the question on a theoretical basis whether or not what Rove allegedly did in that election was wrong.

Saying anything about anyone that is not true is morally wrong. We learned this in Kindergarden. I am not avoiding the story I am ignoring what is pure gossip. This is America. We don't use gossip to prosecute people.

It stands unchallenged. Nobody from your
side ever tried to refute it. It never got much play, because The Atlantic doesn't have a huge circulation.


There's a reason for that. If they had something more than gossip it would have been picked up by the NY Times and the networks. What we have is pure gossip. Nothing more.


But Karl Rove himself has admitted to using the whisper campaign in interviews.

If he admitted using lies I'd love to see the actual quotes. That also would have made the news.


The reason why this is so boring is because dirty campaign tricks are as old as campaigns. To pretend your party has any high ground is silly in the extreme. My favorite part about the Willie Horton ads, which were fair by the way, was that the RNC copied then from the Democratic primaries. They weren't even original. My 2nd favorite moment was when Joe Biden unraveled in the Democratic primaries when his democratic opposition put someone in the audience to accuse him of plagerism. Accurately BTW. Joe, as expected, was unprepared and showed himself to not be ready for prime time.

None of that is to justify anything Karl Rove may or may not have done. But if all you have is gossip it will remain unchallenged forever. And that's all you have.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't ask you about your religious beliefs. I asked for evidence. Clearly, you don't have any. That's because none exists. There is no evidence that any legislation passed since 9/11, any arrests, any incarcerations, or any wiretaps since 9/11 have prevented any act of terrorism. None.

Sure it has Joel. We know this because we haven't been attacked. We don't even have car-b-ques. You know as well as I Al Qaeda would love to kill Americans on their own soil. They can't thanks to the dedicated viligence of the Bush Administration.

Even if I am wrong you have to agree it's been a damn effective approach for the GOP to emphasize homeland security as an issue they can handle much better than the ACLU liberals. I think your remarks concerning our Southern Counsins are uncalled for but plase keep at it. Sometimes I really wonder if liberals really believe in one man one vote. It must turn your stomach to know these under-educated rubes count just as much as you do. it must be even worse to consider that Karl Roves strength has been to get them to the poles.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

Nor does any Republican that I have read on this board respect freedom of the press unless it is the prevailing right wing media. posted by: mike

Not true. I celebrate freedom of the press. I think the MSM is egregiouly biased against the right but because they're so incompetent they're as asset for the right.

But I celebrate thier right to their bias. I celebrate more those who follow a fair and balanced program as do most people. It's clear they are the most influential.

For an example of the problem the MSM causes look at Dan Rather. Bob had a nice little whisper campaign going claiming Bush was a deserter. Totally unfounded of course but it was catching fire. Dan Rather decided to the cause and came up with a bonehead stupid fraud and totally destroyed the story. Dan saved George.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

Glass Houses

The National Republican Senatorial Committee is reporting that 40 of the 45 Democratic Senators received contributions from Jack Abramoff, his associates or his Indian tribe clients.

In general, I think the Indian tribes have supported Democrats more than Republicans. They seem to be the Abramoff clients who are getting most of the attention.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINK

Bob: told you this was coming.

Harper hints at ditching Kyoto accord
Climate change agreement not effective, says Harper

Published: Sunday, January 08, 2006

A Conservative government would likely abandon the Kyoto accord on climate change in favour of a new global agreement that would see the world's largest emitters shooting for more "modest" targets, Tory Leader Stephen Harper hinted Saturday.

Whether a Conservative regime withdraws from the current Kyoto agreement or extends it beyond 2012 will depend on negotiations with the global community and its largest emitters -- including the U.S., which pulled out of the treaty, Harper said in a phone interview with the Herald.

However, Canada and most of the world have already "de facto" pulled out of the agreement because the Kyoto targets won't be achieved, he said from Ontario.

"We don't want to see an accord where only Canada is asked to do anything, or Canada and a handful of other countries," Harper said. "An effective global accord has got to cover the big emitters -- which the Kyoto accord does not."

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINK

"Sure it has Joel. We know this because we haven't been attacked. We don't even have car-b-ques. You know as well as I Al Qaeda would love to kill Americans on their own soil. They can't thanks to the dedicated viligence of the Bush Administration."

Heh. We weren't attacked during the four years preceeding 9/11. by your logic, that proves that the absence of 9/11-fueled legislation, arrests, incarcerations and wiretaps prevented terrorist attacks. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, eh, rdw?

" I think your remarks concerning our Southern Counsins are uncalled for but plase keep at it."

Cousins, shmusins. I grew up in the American South, bozo. Unlike you, I know what I'm talking about.

". . . get them to the poles."

Well, at least you didn't forget Poland.

Posted by: Joel on January 8, 2006 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK

"The National Republican Senatorial Committee is reporting that 40 of the 45 Democratic Senators received contributions from Jack Abramoff . . . "

Really? Can you name one Democratic Senator who received a contribution from Jack Abramoff? Just one?

Posted by: Joel on January 8, 2006 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

> The National Republican Senatorial Committee is reporting that
> 40 of the 45 Democratic Senators received contributions from
> Jack Abramoff, his associates or his Indian tribe clients.

Oh Jesus, what a bunch of conflated, half-true nonsense.
No Democrat that I know of took any money, at any time,
from Jack Abramoff. If they have -- finger the guy,
for Chrissake. These slimy little insinuations don't
cut it for people who are actually following the story.

Not saying, of course, that you're flat-out wrong.
Republican sleazebags don't need to be flat-out
wrong to do violence in a dark alley to the truth.

First, it depends on what you mean by by a "Jack Abramoff associate."
Could that mean ... anyone who ever associated with Jack Abramoff? By
that logic, then everybody in DC had some kind of connection to him.

Secondly, the issue of taking money from Indian tribes is flat-out
irrelevant. Indian tribes have been donating to Congress long before
Abramoff arrived on the scene. Saying that Democrats in states with
Indian tribes take donations from them is like accusing Republicans of
taking money from the defense or energy industries. So fucking what.

This is an unspinnable issue, Wooten. The truth will come out, the
indictments will follow, and the taint of Jack Abramoff will be shown
to almost universally affect Republicans. Lobbying or donating to
Congress is not in itself criminal. Blatant influence-peddling is.

The K Street Project employed no Democrats. Heh, spin that one.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 8, 2006 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINK

Really? Can you name one Democratic Senator who received a contribution from Jack Abramoff? Just one?

Harry Reid

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

Cousins, shmusins. I grew up in the American South, bozo. Unlike you, I know what I'm talking about.

I didn't. I grew up in PA.

But I know what I'm talking about. They're all Red states and they're growing.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 9:53 PM | PERMALINK

This is an unspinnable issue, Wooten. The truth will come out, the indictments will follow, and the taint of Jack Abramoff will be shown to almost universally affect Republicans. Lobbying or donating to Congress is not in itself criminal. Blatant influence-peddling is.

Everything is spinnable. 79% of Americans think each party is equally guilty of getting their hands dirty. Jack spread his money to both sides. The RNC has just as money as the DNC. We'll see dueling commercials and a quickly tuned out public.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 9:59 PM | PERMALINK

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Harry Reid, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, received $60,000 from Jack Abramoff, says he wont give it back. Why not?

Here's where I got the harry Reed info. He may have gotten it from an abramhoff affiliated tribe instead. That may not matter from a legal prespective, I think it does, but it will absolutely matter from a spin perspective. Harry starts tossing mud a hose will be turned on him. He knows what happened to Tom Daschle.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

rdw -- Russert is either stupendously ignorant, or lying for effect.

The money in question came from three tribes, and from Greenberg Traurig LLP, former employer of Abramoff; Greenberg Traurig have other issues and clients that intersect Reid's. Reid's last comment in late December was that he hasn't made up his mind about returning the money.

Posted by: has407 on January 8, 2006 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Harry Reid

Bzzzzt - wrong! But thank you for playing.

Oh wait -- you just mean you're going to spread the rumor that he took money from Abramoff, so it seems like the Dems are dirty too...which you think is OK because in your warped little mind since no one is perfect then it's perfectly OK to equivocate and practice character assassination on issues like this.

In other words: you're just going to make shit it because it helps your cause, and besides -- who's gonna stop you?

Just clarifying that.

Shame on you rdw, I thought you didn't participate in "gossip."

Didn't you say it was for "fools?"

Guess you were right after all....

Posted by: trex on January 8, 2006 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINK

bob, joel

A quote I came across which nicely sums up the difference between the conservative world of the US and it's coalition allies versys the liberal world of Canada and Old Europe.


* The choice for Britons now is whether they wish to be Australians post-Bali or Spaniards post-Madrid. That shouldnt be a tough call.Mark Steyn


Mark is one of the sharpest and widely read of the Conserative pundits. He and Victor Davis Hanson have very recently written severe indictments of liberal Europe. I would encourage you to read each. Last week Jacques Chirac pleaded with his fellow citizens to cheer up. He didn't read either of these guys. Liberalism is disappearing from the planet.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 10:23 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, why don't you post the answer to Russerts question?

Posted by: WhoSays on January 8, 2006 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

"bob, joel

A quote I came across . . . blah, blah blah"

Uh, and that makes it ok that you lied about Harry Reid?

You're disgusting, rdw. A lying troll of the first order.

Posted by: joel on January 8, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

has407, trex,

Tim Russert is normally very reliable. He's no Dan Rather. It was reasonable to use him as a reference. I didn't know that Schumer disputed his claim. The RNC headline said Abramhoff or his clients. Obviously there's a lot of dispute here but if Harry is even considering returning money there's legitimate suspicion of taint.

Spinning is fine as long as there's no dishonestly or libel. If for example the RNC runs an ad saying Harry took money from Jack and he didn't they should be smacked. If they say Abramhoff associated clients that's perfectly fine. My undertanding is the GOP received about 2/3'S and the Dems about 1/3 of his money. The party in power always gets more. At the end of the day the RNC will have plenty of material. This is going to get ugly. My bet is that 79% who think, "a pox on both their houses" is likely to grow and confidence in Congress drop.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

"The RNC headline said Abramhoff or his clients."

And you believed it and repeated it. Sucka.

No wonder everyone here thinks you're full of shit, rdw.

Posted by: Joel on January 8, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Cornyn, why did your fellow Texan make that decision?

SEN. JOHN CORNYN, (R-TX): Well, I think Mr. DeLay had hoped to have the criminal charges made against him resolved by a quick trial, but that did not appear to be possible. So out of respect for the House and for the nation, hes chose to put their interests ahead of his own, and I respect him for that.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think his name being linked with Jack Abramoff who pleaded guilty to multiple felonies last week also was a reason?

SEN. CORNYN: Its not clear exactly how that all is going to play out, but perhaps that played a part in his decision. But I think he made the right decision.

MR. RUSSERT: How much will the issue of corruption play in the November 06 congressional elections?

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER, (D-NY): Yeah, I think, Tim, its going to play a great deal, both in itself. After all, when the Republican Party took power in 1994, it was a party of change, and the Democrats were regarded as the party of the status quo and involved in all these various little scandals. And now it seems to have flipped.

Corruption matters in two ways. Obviously, its bad in itself, but it also indicates a status quo situation, that a party of change is there too long, becomes too enmeshed in the Washington power structure. And the public, America, Tim, says Americas headed in the wrong direction, and we, Democrats, stand for change not only in trying to clean up this lobbying and corruption but on the meat and potatoes issues like energy costs and prescription drugs and health care. And I think theyre going to be tied together and its going to be a good Democratic year in 2006 at least if things continue as they are now.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think Tom DeLay will run for re-election to his House seat?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, youd have to ask him that, but if he does, he becomes part of a symbol of too much entrenched power and need for checks and balances and need for change.

MR. RUSSERT: Would it be better for the Republican Party if Tom DeLay did not seek re-election?

SEN. CORNYN: I think, you know, what would be best if we allow the process to run its course, the charges against himtheres a lot of informed judgment that he actually will be acquitted of those charges, but I know that Senator Schumer and his party would like to claim that this is somehow systemic, but the truth is right now all we know is that individuals, like Mr. Abramoff, had plead guilty. Others are standing on their right a presumption of innocence and insisting on a trial, and well find out how the chips fall.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Harry Reid, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, received $60,000 from Jack Abramoff, says he wont give it back. Why not?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, he hasnt received any money from Jack Abramoff. In fact, I talked to Harry Reid.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, tribal clients. I mean...

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, but the tribal clients are sometimes different. I mean, lots of senators, Democrat and Republican in the West, have relationshipsparticularly in the West, have relationships with the Indian tribes. And let me say this: The issue here is not simply receiving contributions. The issue is whether services were rendered in return. Thats what the Justice Department is mentioning. The Justice Department has mentioned the names of a group of peopleJohn is certainly right; its not everybody, but every single person they mentioned was a Republican. Harry Reids name was not mentioned. Hes a person of integrity and I dont think the two are at all the same.

MR. RUSSERT: But wouldnt it better for the Democrats for Senator Reid to return that money, the way other Democrats have, just to avoid any sense of taint?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, let me say, when these things happenand youve been around Washington a long time, Timyou know, theres all sorts of allegations bandied about, many of them false and many of them put out by political opponents, and some people do return the money because they feel, Oh, gee, I dont want to deal with all those false allegations. Others say, Ive done nothing wrong, Im not going to. Thats the type of person Harry Reid is. Hes done nothing wrong. Hes a person of integrity. In fact, next week, hes going to be unveiling a whole plan to clear up the corruption, particularly with lobbyists in Washington. Hes on the right side. Hes on the force for change. And if the Republican leadership would allow his bill or a bill of their choosing like it to come to the floor, I think we could do a lot to eliminate these kinds of problems.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Cornyn, your name surfaced as receiving $1,000 from associates of Jack Abramoff. And Ralph Reed, an associate of Mr. Abramoff, was quoted as saying that he helped choreograph a response for you when you were attorney general towards a tribal problem. Will you give that money back?

SEN. CORNYN: Tim, it was a legal contribution. I dont plan on giving it back, which isyou know, to listen to Chuck and to try to have it both ways and say this is a partisan issueyou know, Jack Abramoff and the people, his clients, made bipartisan contributions and throughas long as theyre legal and appropriately reported, I dont see any reason to give them back. On the Reed e-mailand this is not Harry Reid, but...

SEN. SCHUMER: R-E-E-D of theyeah.

MR. RUSSERT: Ralph Reed, formerly of the Christian Coalition.

SEN. CORNYN: Exactly. Those e-mails came out three years after I, as attorney general of Texas, filed an injunction to enforce Texas law against casino gambling. We prevailed because the law was in our favor, and then after the fact, apparently, there were these e-mails I had no knowledge of where Reed and Abramoff were somehow claiming credit and then bilking their Indian clients for millions of dollars, apparently. And I certainly disapprove of that, did not know anything about it.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

You didn't know that Schumer disputed his claim because you didn't watch Meet the Press this morning and you didn't read the transcript. Even when you finally did read what Schumer said, you couldn't bring yourself to say 'I was wrong'.

Posted by: WhoSays on January 8, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter rdw: "Ralph Reed, Harry Reid. Whatever."

Posted by: Joel on January 8, 2006 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

whosays,

I rarely watch Russert but often read the transcripts when they're posted by realclearpolitics.com.

This is the perfect example of what I was talking about in terms of the confusion of these money/influence 'scandals' and why 79% of the public thinks both parties are the same. I had heard Harry was implicated in this mess several times over the last two weeks.

It's interesting Russert worded the question as bluntly as he did. He is essentially accusing Reid of accepting money form Abramhoff VIA his client. As if the client was merely a go-between. These questions don't just pop off the top of his head. He does his research and writes the question in advance.

The debate we are having, did he or didn't he, is lost on the public. We're debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The general public hears these asertions like Russerts and what sinks in is, Harry was on the payroll. Like it or not that's the way it is. There are few things the general public agrees on. When 79% say they are equally guilty you do not have an issue. Not with Tim Russert around.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

No wonder everyone here thinks you're full of shit, rdw.

Not my kids!!

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINK

You are a piss poor excuse for a human being rdw

Posted by: WhoSays on January 8, 2006 at 11:01 PM | PERMALINK

Bob:
Karl Rove, as did GWB for that matter, served an apprenticeship under Lee Atwater, a guy who stated point blank that race was the key to politics in the South.

Now, any single thing you can say will be an over-simplification. And any single thing you say can be interpreted as an exaggeration until a lot of context and explanation is added to it. But my opinion is that race and racial prejudice remains the single biggest factor in the South today.

I see my neighbors concerned with many things beyond race and some of us have no patience with racial bias at all. But it is safe to say racial politics is still huge in the South.

Karl and his ilk know exactly how to work the South Carolina primary, for example. Note what has happened there the past few presidential elections. McCain never knew what hit him.

What upset my neighbors most about the 2000 election fiasco in Florida? Jesse Jackson. I tried to have many rational discussions about the Florida vote, but it was totally predictable. Republicans would invariably bring up Jesse Jackson and get emotional. They felt the all-powerful Jesse Jackson was going to steal the election from GWB. It was crazy, but it was Jesse that really set them off. It was irrational.

Jesse was their excuse for excusing the Republican congressional staffers (organized by DeLay and others) descending on the local election board and disrupting their meeting, Nazi style. My Republican friends, in their words, were ready for an armed revolution should Florida stolen by the Democrats.

I got to where I would sit back and literally note the time it took for these guys to go off on Jesse Jackson, who had no important role in the Florida fiasco at all. It would be funny if it werent so decisive.

If you arent looking for it, you dont notice it so quickly. But living here all my life, I cant help but notice it right away. The code words and phrases spring up anew for almost every issue.

Katrina and New Orleans? Those people are 5th and sixth generation welfare recipients. The dead? Thats just natural selection at work. Those people are no very bright.

Public schools? Hey, I cant do social experiments with my kids.

Taxes? Hey, they just take the money and give it to the niggers. (Or, some other euphemism thats not so offensive).

I could go on and on. Its mostly under the surface now days, and slowly getting better. But its still there and every politician is very fluent with the code-speak.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on January 8, 2006 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

whosays,

I didn't write the rules. I'm just trying to explain them to you. Harry and Tim both play hardball. Russert asked that question that way for a reason. The obvious reason is he knows Chuckie is going to spin him and he wants to get what he sees as the facts out there. He chose to state as fact that Harry received $60,000 from Jack.

Why?

The 1M people watching that show have a choice of believing Russert or Chuckie. I think Chuckie is a used car salesman but that's me. If they're watching the show they're a fan of Russert. He's regarded an honest guy. Chuckie is a slick politician. My guess is if the audience was 1M then 975K figure Harry was on the payrol.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

Telling lies is my whole reason for being here. Sure, there are no Democrats who have actually taken money from Abramhoff, but why should I let facts like that, or the fact that Bush was AWOL prevent me from posting just the opposite? Don't you people remember "I am not a crook?"

Nixon is at the heart of the modern Republican Party. It isn't just his criminality, though we've used that as a model too; no, it is the ability he had to step up to the plate when a truly big lie was needed and say it with the straightest of faces. If you had any brains you would have noticed echoes of that in the impeachment (it's not about sex), in all that Bush has said to convince dumb Americans like you that Iraq was related to September 11, 2001, and here in my comments tying Democrats to Jack Abramoff (you have to admit that bit about how Russert must be telling the truth because he does research was a brilliant bit of parody given all my comments about Rather).

Stop imaginging I believe in anything except raw power.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINK

Roy Blunt is one of the most corrupt bastards that southern Missouri has ever produced, and that is no mean feat.

He is a "family values" hypocrite who divorced his wife of 35+ years and married a tobacco lobbyist, and his son Matt, the current governor of Missouri, is being investigated by Ronnie Earle for campaign finance irregularities in his 2000 Scty of State race. The whole fucking family needs to be dragged off in chains and sterilized while they are at it.

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 9, 2006 at 12:31 AM | PERMALINK

rdw:

> "You won't even answer the question on a
> theoretical basis whether or not what Rove
> allegedly did in that election was wrong."

> Saying anything about anyone that is not true is morally wrong.

Hypothetical speculation is morally wrong. Uh-huh. In the world
outside of Wooten's cavernous asshole (helllloooo in thereeee!),
hypothetical speulation is actually where one applies and moral
reasoning and learns morality. You know, like biblical parables.

> We learned this in Kindergarden.

No, we learned how to hypothetically speculate in kindergarten.
"If Joe is hungry, is he right to take Jane's apple?" Every
Sunday school teacher in America uses hypothetical examples
to teach kids the difference between right and wrong.

> I am not avoiding the story

You're lying, Wooten. If you had read the story, you would be talking
about what's wrong with it. But you're not. You're avoiding it.

> I am ignoring what is pure gossip. This is
> America. We don't use gossip to prosecute people.

Oh you high and mighty piece of shit. What you're doing is
implictly attacking The Atlantic for printing speculative garbage.
Why would a magazine as prestigious as The Atlantic print some
vile unsourced rumor about a man like Karl Rove? To answer this,
you have to pull "liberal media" conspiracy theories out thin air.

By taking this line of argument, you are indulging in gossip,
Wooten. Gossip that you believe is true at face value, with no
proof. Un-American gossip. Your hypocrisy is astounding, and
it literally turns my stomach to have to post to you sometimes.

> "It stands unchallenged. Nobody from your side ever
> tried to refute it. It never got much play, because
> The Atlantic doesn't have a huge circulation.

> There's a reason for that. If they had
> something more than gossip it would have been
> picked up by the NY Times and the networks.

Bullshit, Wooten. First of all, many stories came out about Rove
during the '04 election cycle. None of them rose to the level of
an accusation against Bush or Kerry, because a political consultant
is *supposed* to have a bare-knuckle past. Consultants are valued
on their abilitity to win, remember? The garbage about the SC
primary certainly came out. You make excuses for it. You have
literal blinders on when confronted with the illegitimate black
baby stuff -- even though it was reported in all the major press.

But you're in denial, Wooten. You have a psychological protective
mechanism that makes sure you never see what you don't want to see.

> What we have is pure gossip. Nothing more.

Bullshit, you lying sonovabitch. Stop libelling The Atlantic. If
you think they published blatant falsity -- then fucking prove it.

The Atlantic is one of the most prestigious magazines
in America. It's been around since the mid-1800s.

> "But Karl Rove himself has admitted to
> using the whisper campaign in interviews."

> If he admitted using lies I'd love to see the
> actual quotes. That also would have made the news.

It *has* made the news, you just never paid attention to it when it
came out. I can't be-fucking-lieve that you're trying to deny what
is common knowledge to every political consultant in America. Do
you remember the book Bush's Brain? Do you remember The Architect?
Two books on Karl Rove, one critical, one praising. *Both* talked
about his development of the whisper campaign to undermine opponents
in precisely the areas that are supposed to be their strengths.

This is precisely Karl Rove's *tactical innovation*.

> The reason why this is so boring is because
> dirty campaign tricks are as old as campaigns.

Ahhh, now comes the moral relativism. Your little saftey hatch;
when the whisper campaign is absolutely proven to you as being a
brainchild of Rove, then you'll switch the ground to "it isn't
so bad -- look, everybody does it." Well, there are some things
that used to be common practice -- like stuffing ballot boxes or
getting dead people to vote -- that nobody would condone today.

> To pretend your party has any high ground is silly in the extreme.

We are on higher ground than Karl Rove. Not in the eras
of Kennedy or Mayor Daley, but we certainly are today.

> My favorite part about the Willie Horton
> ads, which were fair by the way,

No they weren't, Wooten. There was a universal revulsion over those
ads. My Dad met Lee Atwater at a cocktail party, well into his
brain tumor, and he was holding court on how bad he felt about it.

> was that the RNC copied then from the Democratic
> primaries. They weren't even original.

How conveniently you forget the context. The furlough program was
the product of the previous Republican governor. It was immoral
to attack Dukakis for it because he wasn't responsible for it.

> My 2nd favorite moment was when Joe Biden unraveled
> in the Democratic primaries when his democratic opposition
> put someone in the audience to accuse him of plagerism.
> Accurately BTW. Joe, as expected, was unprepared
> and showed himself to not be ready for prime time.

The Dukakis people stole a video which had Biden making a speech
which copied almost word-for-word a speech given by British Labour
politician Neil Kinnock. Bringing this up was perfectly fair game,
but as the Dukakis campaign came about this vieeo through theft,
the morally priggish Dukakis blew a gasket and fired John Sasso,
a longtime advisor and the politically savviest man on his team.

This helped a great deal to sink Dukakis.

None of this, of course, rises (sinks) to the level
of spreading rumors that your opponent is a pedophile.

> None of that is to justify anything Karl Rove may or
> may not have done. But if all you have is gossip it will
> remain unchallenged forever. And that's all you have.

The Atlantic doesn't publish unfounded gossip.

Read the article, Wooten.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 9, 2006 at 2:15 AM | PERMALINK

Go Bob!

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 9, 2006 at 3:36 AM | PERMALINK

bob,

I'm sorry but there's remotely nothing special about the Monthly. They're Vanity Fair without the pictures. They come at it with an extreme leftst point of view and an axe to grind. If this story had ANY credibility it would have been picked up by everyone. The networks are under to much pressure to risk running stories based on rumor and innuendo.

Another reason these things don't have much effect is because you have plenty of your John Sasso's. Who is still a big time Democratic party strategist. You can pretend to be as pure as the driven snow but the public knows better.

I am not going to waste 5 minutes if my life on a hatchet job. I will never read the article. It's GOSSIP.

The only revulsion about the Willie Horton ads were from the Dukakis camp. It's called losers lament. It's sweet irony they copied the ads from Democrats and as you've pointed out Dukakis was hardly a babe in the woods. It's utterly insignificant Paul did not start the program. Paul didn't recognize the country was moving dramatically away from soft hearted liberalism regarding criminal sentencing. He didn't stop the program. Thanks to people like William Jefferson Clinton we moved away from early furlough to 3 strikes and you're out and a rapid prison expansion. Rudi get some credit as well.

BTW: I agree running the video was fair game. I was stunned to hear Biden was even thinking of running for Pres in 2004 and is STILL thinking of it in 2008. The man is a buffoon. If he does we'll be seeing that video again. I am thankful he's on the Senate Judicial Commmittee.
Sam Alito's best friends will be Teddy Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden. These guys are fingers on the blackboard for 90% of Americans

That article is nothing more than a whisper campaign and not a very good one. It's dead. Karl has been dealing with this crap his entire career. It's the price of success.

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 8:48 AM | PERMALINK

One thing fer sure, rdw has plenty of time to kill.

Posted by: Joey Giraud on January 9, 2006 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

Here's something off-thread and nothing you'll see in the NYTs or on ABC. This will however make the rounds in the conservtive media. If you want to understand why the rift with Old Europe or permanent. Why the USA will never again provide them protection read this. Conservatives will never again allow US soldiers to be placed in harms way to defend Germany or France. Conservatives don't forget our heroes and we don't forget those who stab us in the back.


Justice Will Be Done
Remembering Robert Dean Stethem.

This is a letter from Kenneth Stethem to President George W. Bush. Ken is a former U.S. special-forces operator and the brother of Robert Dean Stethem, the Navy diver who was brutally tortured and murdered by Hezbollah 20 years ago. Robert's murderer was just released by the German government (and fled to Lebanon) in an apparent exchange for a German hostage in Iraq.


The administration has claimed that we did not know in advance about the release and the administration has not acted to compel the Lebanese government to arrest Stethem's killer, Muhammad Ali Hammadi, and turn him over to face American justice. That is why Ken Stethem, on behalf of the rest of his family (including his and Robert's parents), has written this powerful letter. Let's hope the president is as moved by the letter as I am.


Date: January 8, 2006 4:15:57 PM PST

To: president@whitehouse.gov

Cc: vicepresident@whitehouse.gov

Subject: ROBERT DEAN STETHEM

Mr. President,

I would like to provide you with an explanation as to why Muhammed Ali Hammadi's recent release by Germany, and your Administration's lack of any attempt to prevent it, is so upsetting to our family and to Americans everywhere. I am not writing you out of grief or anger but out of a hope that his example will inspire you to follow act on your own words and the dictates of your conscious in this War on Terror.

Robert Dean Stethem was singled out, beaten beyond recognition and tortured in order to make him scream into a transmitter (so that the tower would send a fuel truck). Not a cry was heard to come from him, despite the brutal beating he endured. Instead he chose to remain silent and endure the beatings because he knew that the only way a rescue attempt could be conducted by U.S. forces was if the aircraft remained on the ground.

After Robert was beaten and tortured and bleeding from puncture wounds all over his body, he was placed next to a 16-year old Australian girl. As bad as Robert was beaten, he had the courage and strength to comfort and console her. He told her that, "She would be okay and that she would get out of here alive." When she tried to return the comfort, he said, "No, I don't think so. I am the only one in my group that is not married and some of the guys have children, too." Some time later, Robert was again taken up to the cockpit and tortured in order to get the fuel. But it didn't work, he would not give in to them.

One of the hijackers, Muhammed Ali Hammadi, was so enraged that he dragged Robert to the door, pulled a trigger and shot Robert in the head. Then he dumped Robert's body onto the tarmac. While Robert was being dragged to the door, he knew that all he had to do in order to live was to cry into that transmitter, but he wouldn't do it. He would not give in to the demands of the terrorists. He would not allow the honor and dignity of America to be intimidated by the fear and pain that Hammadi and terrorists everywhere represent. Robert sacrificed his life in order to protect our liberty and defend our way of life.

You have rightly said, "Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done." You have truly said that "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Robert lived by them. Robert also died by them. The motto of the USS SSTETHEM (DDG-63), named in Robert's honor, is "Steadfast and Courageous." I hope that his example, and the example of other heroes like him can inspire you to understand why allowing Germany to release Hammadi was a wrong. Justice was not done, Robert was not honored and Americans are not safer by allowing Hammadi to return to Lebanon and Hezbollah.

You know this, we know this and the American people know this.

The Stethem family

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 9:34 AM | PERMALINK

rdw:

> I'm sorry but there's remotely
> nothing special about the Monthly.

It hasn't been called The Atlantic Monthly for quite some time.

> They're Vanity Fair without the pictures.

Your aesthetic appreciation of the magazine is totally irrelevant.

> They come at it with an extreme leftst
> point of view and an axe to grind.

Will you kindly pull your head out of your ass, Wooten?
"Extreme left"? Grow some perspective. Even if a comment
like that identifies you as an extreme rightist (which it
does), try to have a modicum of appreciation for the generally
accepted categories. Otherwise, you're just off in your
own private Idaho and thus completely useless to talk to.

The American Prospect, The Nation, Mother Jones, Z, The
Progressive, Washington Monthly, etc. are leftist magazines.

The Atlantic is centrist or at most, center-left.
"Extreme" is just trash-talk hyperbole. It's bourgeoise.
Ever look at the ads? Real Commie smash-the-state, alright.

This is what I mean by your continual use of invective, Wooten.

> If this story had ANY credibility it would have been picked
> up by everyone. The networks are under to much pressure
> to risk running stories based on rumor and innuendo.

Right. That fits in real well with your reading of
the CBS fiasco (hint: note the timing), doesn't it.

First of all, the story *was* picked up, you just didn't see it.
It's not a "scandal," Wooten. It's just part of an ethically
questionable (to say the least) MO that Rove is quite proud of.

> Another reason these things don't have much effect is because
> you have plenty of your John Sasso's. Who is still a big
> time Democratic party strategist. You can pretend to be
> as pure as the driven snow but the public knows better.

We never said (nor need we say) that we're as pure as the
driven snow, only that we have a *looooog* way to sink
before we get to the ethical level of Mr. Pedophile Smear.

> I am not going to waste 5 minutes if my life on a
> hatchet job. I will never read the article. It's GOSSIP.

Oh, but you want us to visit PowerLine and InstaWhacko.
None of the commentators there *ever* have an axe to grind.

Here's the thing, Wooten. It's just not logically,
morally or factually possible to dismiss that article,
certainly not by by sticking your fingers in your ears.
You're going to have to provide an argument more substantial
than your egregiously biased opinion of The Atlantic.
Who *cares* what your opinion of The Atlantic is?

If you wan't even look at that Atlantic article, then
I'm forced to conclude you're just not a serious debater.

I mean, what harm can it do to have a look at it, right?

> The only revulsion about the Willie Horton ads were
> from the Dukakis camp. It's called losers lament.

Once again, I have to repeat myself, and this is getting tiring.

The lament came from LEE ATWATER HIMESELF, at the end of his
life, when he was dying of brain cancer. It's a famous story.

The rest of your post is more "look ... a puppy!" bullshit.

Deal with the Atlantic piece.

Calling it gossip doesn't make it gossip.

And you frickin' well know this.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 9, 2006 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

This is a letter from Kenneth Stethem to President George W. Bush. Ken is a former U.S. special-forces operator and the brother of Robert Dean Stethem, the Navy diver who was brutally tortured and murdered by Hezbollah 20 years ago.

Hezbollah, Iran--remember the wingnuts who claimed that the Shiites have never committed terrorist acts against the United States?

Really, Wooten--every time you post, the crap gets so deep that few can even see where it will crest. You destroy your own side with ever inane paragraph.

Keep posting--you are the posterchild for the Republicans on the Washington Monthly.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 9, 2006 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

rdw, it's really laughable that you refuse to read the article in The Atlantic. I actually read the article when it came out back in 2004. It's actually pretty good and I really think you would get a kick out of it. Most of what they say about Karl Rove would likely please you to no end.

BTW, if you have a link to an article about Rove published in a favored conservative magazine I'd love to read their perspectives on the man.

Posted by: WhoSays on January 9, 2006 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider:

Well, that "wingnut" was me, PR, and I still stand by what I said. I didn't claim that Hezbollah hasn't killed American soldiers (how could I do that after 260 Marines lost their lives in a suicide attack?), only that Shi'ites aren't part of al Qaeda, and that this new form of globalist Islamic terror is a substantially different phenomenon than the terrorism that's been directed for years against Israel, Israelis and their supporters.

The difference is between a global, pan-Islamic vision of a Universal Caliphate and a localized, anti-Israeli vision that wants the Palestinian homeland returned.

I'd never in a million years try to assert that Iran or Shi'ites aren't anti-Israel.

Only that Salafi fundamentalism of an al Q stripe isn't much fond of either Iran, Shi'ites or Hezbollah.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 9, 2006 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

BTW, another pretty good article about Karl Rove from the New Yorker (2003) is here http://bnfp.org/neighborhood/Lemann_Rove_NYM.htm

The author actually interviewed Rove for parts of the article.

Posted by: WhoSays on January 9, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

No, Bob--not just you. You have the informed and specific view while the wingnuts have been screaming about the issue from the neocon view that the Shia are our pals.

Wooten espouses that truly delightful strain that runs through American politics--which is, 'my guy won an election once and now he cannot commit a crime and we're number one.'

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 9, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

Bob is doing yeoman's work counter attacking The Drexel Hill Dummy.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 9, 2006 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

whosays,

I don't know much about Rove. I've heard parts of a few speeches he's made and a few interviews and he strikes me as extremely intelligent. He doesn't interest me at all as a person. I've always felt the role these hired guns play is vastly over-rated. It's also clear they're a dime a dozen.

The 1st political person I really followed was Reagan and that's the basis for my education. Every liberal in the world in the 1980's was sayng the exact same stuff about Reagan you are saying about Bush. It took only a little research to find out how well developed his thinking was based on his life's journey. He had an 8-yr record as Governor and a 20+ year record before that of political activism. Those who claimed he was a front made for Karl Rove types have been made fools. Few Presidents has as detailed a record of their intellectual development.

I've not arguing about Reagan but pointing out I NEVER listen to the MSM when they define ANYONE and I've found these people don't run for President to get ordered around by political aides and they make the key decisions during campaigns and as President.

My understanding is that Rove's value to GWB is as a retail level, on the ground strategist especially good at recognizing what average people, aka rubes, really care about and then driving an organization toward 'selling' to these groups the shared values they have with the GOP. In 2000 the GOP got their ass kicked getting the vote out. It was Rove's job to find out what why more conservatives didn't vote and change that. He was very successful but it was far from all Rove, very far.

My interest is in the Presidents, not their associates and definitely not their hired guns. Reagan was Reagan, Clinton was Clinton, Bush is Bush and Kerry is Kerry. It's never been about Rove or Sasso or Strum or Carville or anyone else.

Rove is a much bigger figure than most because liberal elitism will not allow them to accept they're been beaten by Bush. There has to be another explanation.

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, but you want us to visit PowerLine and InstaWhacko. None of the commentators there *ever* have an axe to grind.

I suggest powerline because it's both a terrific representative for conservative thought and a great example of how/why good blogs are so effective. It was there I read Jamie Gorelick had defended GWBs constitutional rights to Congress within a few hours of her saying the exact opposite as a private citizen. If I remember correctly the echo chamber was certain GWB was obviously committing illegal and impeachable offenses. If you went to Powerline you would have seen several different credible sources make the opposite claim and why.

I don't much care if you read powerline. If you want to see the other side of the argument it's a good start.

Here's the thing, Wooten. It's just not logically, morally or factually possible to dismiss that article, certainly not by by sticking your fingers in your ears. You're going to have to provide an argument more substantial
than your egregiously biased opinion of The Atlantic. Who *cares* what your opinion of The Atlantic is?

If you wan't even look at that Atlantic article, then I'm forced to conclude you're just not a serious debater.

I mean, what harm can it do to have a look at it, right?

Conclude away. I'm just not interested in Rove and even if I was I am not reading gossip. It's all he said / she said stuff without any way of judging the honesty of the accusers. Bring me facts. An interview with someone who worked with Rove in the past and may or may not hate his guts isn't evidence and may be a smear.

I'm also not interested because I find the entire premise of whisper campaigns silly beyond belief. I'm one of those 79%. Being a Conservative or a Democrat doesn't make one morally superior. Dirty tricks have been around a long as the cows. These guys never invent anything new. They are endlessly copying off one another. John Sasso appears to be a confirmed thief and diry trickster. He's also actively employed in the same business by the same party.

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

No, Bob--not just you. You have the informed and specific view while the wingnuts have been screaming about the issue from the neocon view that the Shia are our pals.

Pale Rider, again getting caught being not too bright. I've never argued the Shia are our pals nor are any neocons. We may be temporary allies in Iraq for now but if we have 'pals' they're the Kurds.


Wooten espouses that truly delightful strain that runs through American politics--which is, 'my guy won an election once and now he cannot commit a crime and we're number one.'

This is just plain silly. My guy could commmitt a crime as easily as you and being #1 has nothing to do with it. The fun part of being #1 is listening to you discuss how stupid GWB and Conservatives are. He's a dumb as a post but he still kicks your ass. What's that make you?

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

3rd Paul,

Bob is doing yeoman work countering Pale Rider.

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

The 1st political person I really followed was Reagan and that's the basis for my education.

Given that you view the 'elites' as people who read books, that really indicates that you have a child-like grasp of issues that are way above your comprehension.

I've never argued the Shia are our pals nor are any neocons.

Huh? So now we're at war with the majority of the population of Iraq? Good one--keep defending a war where the majority of the population are not our friends.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 9, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

rdw:

> My interest is in the Presidents, not their associates and
> definitely not their hired guns. Reagan was Reagan, Clinton
> was Clinton, Bush is Bush and Kerry is Kerry. It's never
> been about Rove or Sasso or Strum or Carville or anyone else.

Thanks for the preview of the talking
points you'll use when Rove gets indicted :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 9, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Bob,

This is why 79% of people think each party is equally guilty. This is why a campaign to smear the GOP will backfire and hurt both parties. They have more than enough material for commercials. While ABC and the NYT's won't report on this Rush will and he reaches 5x's as many people. You simly cannot win here.

The Democrat tire-slashing conspiracy goes to trial in Milwaukee:

Fourteen months after President George W. Bush was re-elected without carrying Wisconsin, five men who worked for the Kerry-Edwards campaign, including the sons of two prominent Milwaukee politicians, go on trial today on felony counts of vandalism in the tire-slashing of more than 20 vehicles rented by Republican campaigners.

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the preview of the talking
points you'll use when Rove gets indicted :)

I've been waiting for this for a few years now. When is it finally going to happen?

So fair you've nailed Scooter. And if he's been as stupid as the initial news suggest he deserves a cell. If however, Patrick went too far, as some credible insiders have suggested, Scooter will make the NYT's regret even more the turn of events. If you remember correctly the Times lost for the press any pretensions of a shield law. This entire episode has been a major expense and an embarrasment. Scooter will of course be calling 75 members of the press in to testify, including Andrea Mitchell. All 75 thoght they had immunity until last year. We're going to find out a lot more about the ethics of these people than of Scooter Libby. Word is it's going to be an extremely complex case and very hard to get a conviction.

On top of that Scooter is already comfortably employed and his defense fund has been filled. At the end of it all there's the book deal, TV circuit, speaker fee's etc. Scooter will do even better than Judy Wilson.

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

OMG! A tire slashing conspiracy! We should immediately hold congressional hearings to find out what Democratic congressmen and staffers were involved in this fiendish plot! The security of the country is at risk!

Posted by: WhoSays on January 9, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

明星,歌曲,流行,图片,下载

map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map

Posted by: 明星,歌曲,流行,图片, on January 9, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

We've just spent the past several days reflecting on the political career of Ariel Sharon. Sharon staged a comeback from the total disgrace in which he fell in the mid-1980s.

No, he di-in't? John Podhoretz did not just compare Tom Delay to Ariel Sharon! (Yes, he did.)

I mean, Sharon did some ill things and then lately had seemingly begun to atone for his misdeeds. Maybe that's what Pod means? (I don't think so.)

Very elegantly done.

Huh. Elegance, I don't associate with Mr. Delay. can't you just look at him and tell he's a thug? (Apparently not, if your name if John Podhoretz.)

(Unless, of course, he knows there's a big shoe to drop against him and he's just trying to clear the decks.)

Hedges his bets, despite all the hero worship.

Posted by: Robert S. on January 9, 2006 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

Given that you view the 'elites' as people who read books, that really indicates that you have a child-like grasp of issues that are way above your comprehension.

Not quite. My view of elite are those who consider themselves smarter than everyone else. I also put into that group those who think education makes one smart and then suggests because someone has a degree they are smarter than someone who does not. These are the fools who think if you want to find a really smart person look at a college faculty. I'd argue you'd do better to find a Carpenters Union meeting.

I read books. I've got a masters. A dipshit with a doctorate is still a dipshit. A dipshit writer is still a dipshit. Stupid is as stupid does. Dan Rather has a Phd in stupid.

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

whosays,

The republic is safe. The Democratic party is another matter!

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

I read books What you reading right now Mr. Masters degree?

Posted by: WhoSays on January 9, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

Robert s.

He was not comparing Delay to Sharon. He was suggesting it's not smart to write Delay off.

It's comical hearing liberals lament Sharons exit as a political figure. They've hated his guts forever. It's Reagan redux. RR was correct about everything. The liberals wrong about everything. Ditto for Ariel.

Tom was smart in writting such a classy letter and leaving his position before they kicked him out. Which was going to happen. He can now concentrate on any potential legal issues and bid his time. He's young and very, very well respected as a majority leader. If he's guilty of a crime it's all over. If not he'll be back.

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

I read books What you reading right now Mr. Masters degree?

Duh! Ann Coulter! Is there anyone else worth reading?

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

rdw, there's so much puerile presumption about me and liberals in general folded into that second paragraph of yours, I'm not even going to bother to respond.

Let's just say whether he was comparing Sharon to Delay or not: delay ain't no Sharon.

And you have ot laugh that even a kneejerk cheerleader like Pod is hedging his bets. (It's one area he exhibits wisdom in at least.)

Posted by: Robert S. on January 9, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Robert,

Quite right Delay is no Sharon. Ariel is a towering historic figure. But you absolutely were not saying that 5 years ago. At that time you were lamenting the fact this thug took over for the esteemed, nuanced, sophisticated Ehud Barak, aka the jewish Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

"Nope, two votes. One in September under the bill number I repeated earlier and then AFTER Max lost. Max voted against it before he voted for it."

Right Wing DickWad, you are completely clueless as to how American government works (in addition to being a slobbering, drooling liar). There is only one (count them one) vote each in the Senate and the House for a law. All other votes (Senate or House versions, amendments, procedural votes, preceding bills) are not, in fact, votes for the laws as passed. You are still a fucking cretin, and, of course, a pathological liar.

"The 1st political person I really followed was Reagan and that's the basis for my education."

Which explains why you are so uneducated.

Posted by: solar on January 9, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

But you absolutely were not saying that 5 years ago. At that time you were lamenting the fact this thug took over for the esteemed, nuanced, sophisticated Ehud Barak, aka the jewish Jimmy Carter.

Thank you for your attempt at reading my mind, rdw.

You should also note that if Sharon goes down in history as a great man, it'll seemingly be because he shifted his way of thinking from a ore brutal bent to a more nuanced and humanistic one.

Posted by: Robert S. on January 9, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

Robert S,

Yes, just after he wiped out the entire Hamas leadership and 5,000 of their best friends. My favorite example of his nuance however was when he forced Arafat to ask permission to flush the toilet. My guess is when the NOBEL PRIZE winner was trapped in his headquarters with a few hundred of his close friends and no running water you suffered right along with the good chairman.

There's a lot if things you can call Sharon. Nuanced is not one of them. Even when he decided to pull out Gaza the kooks on the left were pleading with him to show some nuance and 'negotiate' with the Palestinians. Ariel Sharon has ignored the advice of the left every day of his life.

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Solar,

So then how did John Kerry vote FOR it before he voted AGAINST it?

RR's life is perfect to map the journey of America the last 70 years of the 20th Century. Born to an alcoholic father and coming of age att he beginning of the depression, Hollywood WWII, Hollywood/Unions/Communism, Early TV, Corp spokesman, Governor during the 60's in CA, President, the birth of conservatism, the defeat of Communism, the dominance of the GOP, etc.

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Robert S,

Sharon will be listed as one of the dominate figures of the L/H of the 20th Century thru '05. There's little question of his greatness. If there is a top 10 list of important, transformational figures he'll be there along with Reagan, Thatcher, Truman, and Eisenhower.

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

Not even a little bit good for the libs.

JOE KLEIN ON NSA [Rich Lowry ]
Pretty spot on (HT: RCPFor too many liberals,

all secret intelligence activities are "fruit," and bitter fruit at that. The government is presumed guilty of illegal electronic eavesdropping until proven innocent. This sort of civil-liberties fetishism is a hangover from the Vietnam era, when the Nixon Administration wildly exceeded all bounds of legalityspying on antiwar protesters and civil rights leaders

At the very least, the Administration should have acted, with alacrity, to update the federal intelligence laws to include the powerful new technologies developed by the NSA.

But these concerns pale before the importance of the program. It would have been a scandal if the NSA had not been using these tools to track down the bad guys. There is evidence that the information harvested helped foil several plots and disrupt al-Qaeda operations.

There is also evidence, according to U.S. intelligence officials, that since the New York Times broke the story, the terrorists have modified their behavior, hampering our efforts to keep track of thembut also, on the plus side, hampering their ability to communicate with one another.

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, you don't have to convince me, rdw. I do find it telling how selective you are in choosing his historical counterparts, however, and will also happily point out how he's angered the far right by withdrawing from the Bank and forming a new, more moderate party. Pat Robertson isn't alone in his POV on the right, even if other conservatives have found more palatable ways of expressing themselves.

Aside: you'd do well to quit pretending you know the thoughts and opinions of people you aren't remotely acquainted with.

Posted by: Robert S. on January 9, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Robert S

Tim Hames, writing in the Times of London, points out similarities between Ariel Sharon and Charles De Gaulle.

The main differences between the two, he adds, are that the Israeli Prime Minister was considerably more successful as a commander on the battlefield (then again, he did not have to lead the French) and that he is consistently more modest.

When I wrote the bit above I was trying to think of other names. Begin and Sadat came to mind. Kohl came to mind. I thought of DeGaulle but I didn't want to do pre-1950 and I thought even then he's not deserving.

BTW: I do consider the thing about leading the French a cheap shot. Acceptable because they are French but the problems of French cowardice are overstated. Their soldiers were quite brave and able. They had the worst leaderhip imaginable in both WWI and WWII.

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

First rule of information gathering: consider the source.

[Rich Lowry ]

Sorry, no deal.

Posted by: Robert S. on January 9, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Robert S.

Those are not Lowry's words. They are Kleins. They're published in Time Magazine. Joe is as far left as it gets and even he knows this isn't a good political issue for the left.

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Robert S,

I am not sure who you mean by far right but conservatives consider Sharon a star. One of the reasons they don't go after GWB harder on spending is he's been so stellar on foreign policy. Sharon was only able to do what needed to be done because GWB supported it.

Clinton would have cried a river about the circle of violence everytime Sharon shoved a missle up a Hamas ass.

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK


Robert S.

DEMOCRATS AND THE NSA....Joe Klein thinks Democrats are heading off a cliff by making too big a deal out of the NSA's domestic spying program. Conservative James Joyner has a reasonable reaction:

Klein

Kevin Drum 12:32 PM Permalink |

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Joe is as far left as it gets and even he knows this isn't a good political issue for the left.

ROTFL

You're right tho, I did think Lowry had said it based upoin the way you pasted it - looked like Lowry's paraphrase.

Of course, you should also paste in Kevin's reaction, if you're going to be honest: As for Klein's assertion that "the terrorists have modified their behavior" in response to disclosure of this program, that barely even deserves a response. Like many another liberal, I'm still waiting for even a colorable argument that al-Qaeda knows something today that they didn't know two months ago.

Amen.

The rest of Kevin's even-handed post does little to support Klein's (or Lowry's) themes.

Posted by: Robert S. on January 9, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

robert s,

i copied exactly what was no nationalreview.com 'the corner' as they had it. I did not link to the story. I think Klein is an ass.

Posted by: rdw on January 9, 2006 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

robert s.

Then kevin is in denial. There's no question the Democratic party has been viewed as weak on security/defense since 1968 and it's cost you severely. You haven't won a najority of the vote since 1976. That was thanks to watergate. It was less than 51% and Carter did not run as a liberal. Essentially it's been 40 years since a liberal President has been elected.

In 1992 the Dems were 57/267 in Congress and today 44/202. You have significant demographic issues highly visible each census and the trends mught be accelerating. Abortions have been common for 35 year. Over 95% are for convenience and a large percentage secular liberals. The kids you did not have can't vote and they're not having kids. The 3 kids conservative had are now voting and they have 3 kids. US liberals are ideologically identical to secular Europeans. They are into the 2nd generation of a demographic disaster when the compounding starts. Soon their population will start to shrink never to expand again.

Posted by: rdw on January 10, 2006 at 8:31 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly