I love the smell of snark in the afternoon.....

They'll say the Majority Leader should support a wartime president, anything less is treason, therefore she should be hanged.

And Bush won't veto, either.

Would that it were so, but there is a qualitative difference between the executive and legislative departments of our government. The conservatives will argue that there is a difference between supporting your President, whom everyone has a chance to vote for and supporting your Congress, where we each get to vote for 2% of the Senate and about .2% of the House. And they would be right. Fair is fair. Save the "but you said..." recriminations for 2009 when they will be apt.

No, because it would be wrong to support baby-slaughterers and corpse-muggers!

Pelosi and Reid should just resign, because that is the only way for their kind to Support President Bush!

I expect we'll see plenty of sober, thoughtful support for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid from conservatives, right?

HA!

Good one, Kevin.

you're doing drugs, right kevin?

Reps have been saying we all should support Bush's foreign policy. The old rule was politics ends at the water's edge. Nobody ever claimed that Dems were morally obligated to support Bush domestic policy.

Unfortunately, Dems have often interfered with foreign policy, e.g., by filibustering a well-qualified UN Ambasdsador, thus weakening US influence at the UN. I worry that with the coming Democratic control of Congress, the interference will get worse. Bush foreign policy has not been perfect, but having two groups pulling in opposite directions is likely to make America's foreign policy less effective.

I'm as partisan (left) as they come, but how is support for president = support for fellow congressmen?

Counting your chickens before they hatch, Kevin.

One can only expect the immediate attack of those who cried "support" when it was their branch of government. Like it will immediately take *two* Senatorial downchecks to eliminate a judicial candidate instead of the one the republicans snuck in. And it will be possible to amend bills from the floor once more -- and all bills will either eliminate Social Security of abortion.

Cynical? Moi? Pas non!

And you KNOW that the legislature and judiciary are totally subordinate to President Bush and His Sacred Signing Statements!

, I expect we'll see plenty of sober, thoughtful support for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid from conservatives, right?

yes. of course. there's a war on, and conservatives clearly know more than anybody that internal bickering at such times only pprojects weakness in the face of the enemy.

i predict they'll worship Speaker Pelosi 100x more than they did Speakers DeLay and Hastert, just to show The Enemy how united and tough they are.

"Stefan, I will concede that you have won the debate if you can find cites of news reports showing anywhere near 60+ Iraqis killed every day for the last month or so. That would be around 1800 deaths. I bet you can't."

- ex-liberal

likely to make America's foreign policy less effective.

How could it be any less effective?

I always worry Democrats are not prepared for personal attacks. The Republicans dont have any limits. They will accuse a President of murder and rape and never back down.

The only good sign is that there seems to be message fatigue at last. America is just tired of talking about gays and treason.

Of course. Conservatives would hope for the best, and point out the mistakes that such a hypothetical congress would make. Expecting otherwise, Kevin, says more about you than it does about patriotic republicans.

If the Dems can win both houses and then cook up legislation Re: Signing statements it will be a good chance to force Bush and the GOP to stand up for their principles in front of everyone. None of this backroom, hidden crap. That would be interesting to watch.

Kevin, we already know that the phrase "Republican hypocrite" is a redundancy.

You will see an orgy of hate.

The politics of most so-called "conservatives" has no content other than hatred of "liberals" -- hatred of the powerful "liberal elites" who control everything and oppress the poor victimized "conservatives", i.e. the gospel of Rush Limbaugh (plagiarized in its entirety from the gospel of Goebbels).

So-called "conservatives" will absolutely love it when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are in charge of the Congress, because "conservatives" love to hate. Sure, they love worshipping their Fuehrer, George W. Bush, but they love hating "liberals" much more. If the Democrats take control of the Congress, "conservatives" will have it all for the remainder of Bush's term: they can slavishly worship Bush and slavishly hate the Democratic Congress at the same time.

I was just thinking about poor Jim Talent who is in the fight of his political life. He has tied himself tight as a tick to George Bush. Claire McCaskill is beating him bloody with his unequivocal "stay the course" position on Iraq. She has an ad up right now pointing out that he has supported George Bush 94% of the time. Staying the course in Iraq is one of the issues that has defined Talent's candidacy. Now Bush is saying that he never was "stay the course" and it was announced today that the "Iraqis" are setting up a time table for our withdrawl.

All of it sounds like Bush has left Jim Talent and stay the course in the dust as he is embracing a pretty standard Democratic policy. How are poor old Jim Talent and his fellow "stay the course" Republicans supposed to react to having his legs cut out from under him by his commander in chief?

Ah example of a Republican supporting the President for the "good of the country:"

“Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult speech for me to give, because I normally, and I still do, support our military and the fine work that they are doing. But I cannot support a failed foreign policy. … But before we get deeper embroiled into this Balkan quagmire, I think that an assessment has to be made of the Kosovo policy so far. President Clinton has never explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S. military in a civil war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian reasons, a new military/foreign policy precedent. … Was it worth it to stay in Vietnam to save face? What good has been accomplished so far? Absolutely nothing.”

House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX)

[Congressional Record, “Removal of United States Armed Forces from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,” 4/28/99]

Water's edge indeed.

I will concede that you have won the debate if you can find cites of news reports showing anywhere near 60+ Iraqis killed every day for the last month or so. That would be around 1800 deaths. I bet you can't.

More than 2,660 Iraqi civilians were killed in the capital in September amid a wave of sectarian killings and insurgent attacks, an increase of 400 over the month before, according to figures from the Iraqi Health Ministry.

that was easy

"ex-liberal" wrote: Nobody ever claimed that Dems were morally obligated to support Bush domestic policy.

This statement just cries out for another Stefan-style smackdown like he laid on "ex-liberal" earlier, as waiting alluded to. I wish I had the time right now. Stefan? Anyone?

More importantly, isn't it amazing that after making yet another dishonest argument, and having his/her/its cluelessness and/or dishonest exposed yet again, "ex-liberal" is here again, shamelessly pretending he/she/it is a serious poster not utterly bereft of credibility.

Sheesh...he/she/it is worse than tbrosz...at least he was capable of honest debate.

Oh, good Ford! I do have time for this:

Unfortunately, Dems have often interfered with foreign policy, e.g., by filibustering a well-qualified UN Ambasdsador, thus weakening US influence at the UN.

"ex-liberal," please provide a citation of when this filibuster occurred. We'll wait.

Conservatives have been lecturing liberals for the past few years about the fact that George Bush will be our president for the next few years whether we like it or not, so for the good of the country we ought to be supporting him instead of gleefully hoping for a failure that just hurts all of us.

Conservatives? I thought that was LIEberman? Oh, no difference.

Hey, ex-liberal, I never got my concession from you that you promised me after I, by the terms you yourself set, won the debate on the "Lancet Revisited" thread below. You seem to have mysteriously disappeared from there. Can I get that concession now?

I expect we'll see plenty of sober, thoughtful support for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid from conservatives, right?

You owe me a new keyboard. And monitor.

This statement just cries out for another Stefan-style smackdown like he laid on "ex-liberal" earlier, as waiting alluded to. I wish I had the time right now. Stefan? Anyone?

I did already, along with help from others, including Windhorse, at the end of the "Lancet Revisited" thread below.

Stefan Hey, ex-liberal, I never got my concession from you that you promised me after I, by the terms you yourself set, won the debate on the "Lancet Revisited" thread below. You seem to have mysteriously disappeared from there. Can I get that concession now?

Yes. I concede.

Hey, Ron Byers - check this out, you Jackson county Dem, you. A Blue Senate, Too?

"Yes. I concede.
Posted by: ex-liberal on October 24, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK"

Loser.

"ex-liberal" - Nobody ever claimed that Dems were morally obligated to support Bush domestic policy.

Puh-lease.

If I were Greenwald, instead of lazy old me, I could ram that statement down your throat for 1000 words at least. It would be a festival of links.

Try again.

I think that even before the new congress is sworn in the Dems will be blamed for the collapse of the economy, Iraq, and the dollar. All of these things are well underway now, resulting from 6 years of Repub mishandling, but the true extent has been disguised behind lies. The blame will fly as soon as it becomes clear that the house and maybe senate are loss. Already there are stories in the financial press talking about a collapse of the dollar and dire effects on the economy of Dems taking control of part of the government. Blame shifting will occur within days after the election. In fact, as bad as it would be, there is an argument to be made for letting the Repubs fall into a complete discrediting of their policies by letting them remain in power for two more years. Unfortunately, given their unconstitutional trends, there might not be an election to win. I think that by winning part of the goverment, Dems will get tarred with the impending problems. Maybe the independent parties will be the big winners in 2008 because I think that few if any current politicians realize how big a shit storm the next few years will be.

More stalwart Republican support for America's "Unitary Executive" in a time of war:

"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."

-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

I just want to see the heads of the uber-mensches lik Kate OBierne at the Corner explodng into smithereens.

If Bush gets bogged down with a Dem Congress, it will just be a slight delay for the GOP in doing God's work of turning this country into a banana republic.

Never mind the filibustering

Who's this well-qualified UN Ambasdsador[sic]?
Nominated by Bush?

Koo-koo-ka-choo

gregor I just want to see the heads of the uber-mensches lik Kate OBierne at the Corner explodng into smithereens.

Yet another demonstration that the liberals' main enemy is conservatives, while the conservatives' main enemy is al Qaeda.

It would be refresing to read a post taking joy in the expectation that a Democratic Congress would change policy is some specific ways that would help to defeat the terrorists in Iraq and al Qaeda.

If Bush gets bogged down with a Dem Congress

pshaw. he'll just get his retarded supporters to start moaning about how Congress is "subverting the will of the people".

Nobody ever claimed that Dems were morally obligated to support Bush domestic policy.

Oh yes, they did. Both DeLay and Cheney said Democrats had to support Bush's tax cuts because there was a war on and they had to do what the Commander in Chief wanted.

Seriously. And I'm sure there are other examples.

I did already, along with help from others, including Windhorse, at the end of the "Lancet Revisited" thread below.

I know, Stefan, and it was brilliant. I meant, as craigie also alluded to, "ex-liberal"'s ridiculous statement that "Nobody ever claimed that Dems were morally obligated to support Bush domestic policy." Talk about low-hanging fruit.

As for "ex-liberal," his/her/its concession in the face of such an overwhelming smackdown hardly brings his/her/its credibility into the positive, or even negative single digits. That he/she/it blithely continues to spew bullshit and, what's worse, seems to expect that said bullshit be taken seriously is truly shameless.

Gosh, thanks for proving me right, "ex-liberal":

Yet another demonstration that the liberals' main enemy is conservatives, while the conservatives' main enemy is al Qaeda.

Um, if conservatives' main enemy weren't democrats as opposed to al Qaeda, there'd be no risk of their heads exploding. QED.

It would be refresing to read a post taking joy in the expectation that a Democratic Congress would change policy is some specific ways that would help to defeat the terrorists in Iraq and al Qaeda.

No need. It goes without saying.

Yet another demonstration that the liberals' main enemy is conservatives, while the conservatives' main enemy is al Qaeda.

That is a scurilous accusation, and a damned dirty lie at that. i am so fucking sick of beign painted as soft on terror because I have a Constitution fetish, and because I refuse to be a slave to fear.

That is realy rich, considering that the religious fundamentalists are being helped by the mess in Iraq, not hindered by it - 16 intel agencies said so - and Osama is still on the lose, ion spite of Republicans holding all the levers of power.

Those 5000 fanatics who want to kill us all better get busy. I'm not going to behead myself you know.

If the Dems can win both houses and then cook up legislation Re: Signing statements it will be a good chance to force Bush and the GOP to stand up for their principles in front of everyone. None of this backroom, hidden crap. That would be interesting to watch.
_______________

It would, indeed, be interesting to watch. Passed bills are statements of principle, as well as acts of governance. Bills reveal principle through both objectives and methods. It's been a while since the Democratic objectives and methods have had center stage.

he'll just get his retarded supporters to start moaning about how Congress is "subverting the will of the people".

And that is ironic, seeing as how the House is literally the People's House, huh?

I'm not going to behead myself you know.

Well, not more than once. But think of the ratings!

Gregory It goes without saying [that a Democratic Congress would change policy is some specific ways that would help to defeat the terrorists in Iraq and al Qaeda]

So, what are the specific ways in which the Dems would change our policy?

(Or is "it goes without saying" one of those phrases designed to cover up a lack of argument or evidence? Like "Even a freshman would know..." or "You must be a racist if you dispute the fact that..." or "Anything that appears in Free Republic needs no refutation.")

It's a sensation you can only experience once, that rush of air across the brain...

I'm not going to behead myself you know.

I tried that, a long time ago. I just got a strained back.

Oh wait, you said behead.

Nevermind.

I'm almost certain 'ex-liberal' is Tbrosz under another name.
Any takers?

Because Olberman says it so much better than I -

Keith Olbermann: "Mr. President, you, and that advertisement of terror, are full of sound and fury - signifying (and competent at) nothing. Setting aside the fact that your government has done nothing else for these five years but pat yourselves on the back about terror, while waging pointless war on the wrong enemy in Iraq, and waging war on the cherished freedoms in America; just on this subject of counter-terrorism, sir, yours is the least competent government, in time of crisis, in this country's history! "These are the stakes," indeed, Mr. President."

Global Citizen wrote:

"(Quoting somebody) 'Yet another demonstration that the liberals' main enemy is conservatives, while the conservatives' main enemy is al Qaeda.'

That is a scurilous accusation, and a damned dirty lie at that. i am so fucking sick of being painted as soft on terror because I have a Constitution fetish, and because I refuse to be a slave to fear.
_____________________

More conservatives should be willing to concede your point, GC. Trouble is, the conversation all too quickly devolves into the self-licking ice cream cone of "Okay, so what's your plan?" "Anything will be better than this." "Oh, yeah?" "Yeah!"

So, what are the specific ways in which the Dems would change our policy?

I'll decline your invitation to change the subject, once again, from the Republicans' mendacity, incompetence, and corruption. I'll simply note with pleasure your evident desire to change the subject from the Republicans to the Democrats.

(As for specifics, "ex-liberal," try here, as you've been told before.)

Or is "it goes without saying" one of those phrases designed to cover up a lack of argument or evidence?

No, it's designed to rebut your dishonest criticism by noting that Democrats (rightly, of course) presume that would change policy is some specific ways that Democrats would help to defeat the terrorists in Iraq and al Qaeda. They certainly can't fail as spectacularly as the Republicans have.

Anything that appears in Free Republic needs no refutation

Objection: Assertion not in evidence. You imply that the statement isn't true. You need to provide some evidence, bucko.

I would agree, though, that your long record of mendacity and cluelessness means that anything posted by "ex-liberal" needs no refutation. If you have a problem with that, it's your own fault for blowing your credibility so thoroughly and shamelessly.

The transparent fraud and pathetic phony "ex-liberal" wrote: "Yet another demonstration that the liberals' main enemy is conservatives, while the conservatives' main enemy is al Qaeda."

Drivel. The only content of so-called "conservative" politics is hatred of "liberals" -- the cult of liberal-hatred nurtured by bought and paid for corporate shills like Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter.

And you are a perfect example. The comments you post here have ZERO content other than your hatred of "liberals". Indeed the only reason that you post here at all is to gratify your hatred of "liberals".

You are nothing but an ignorant dumbass mental slave of right-wing extremist propaganda who is incapable of independent thought, and can only regurgitate the scripted talking points that are spoon-fed to you by the right-wing extremist propaganda machine.

Trashhauler wrote: Trouble is, the conversation all too quickly devolves into the self-licking ice cream cone of "Okay, so what's your plan?" "Anything will be better than this." "Oh, yeah?" "Yeah!"

Indeed, pretty much anything would be better than the blatant corruption and naked criminality of the Bush administration.

Even a genuinely and honestly conservative or right-wing approach to foreign policy, though one that I would not support and which I don't believe would prove to be in the best interests of the people of America and the world, would be better than the scurrilous and despicable maneuvers of the gang of career corporate criminals and war profiteers masquerading as "conservative" politicians who comprise the Bush administration.

The next reich-winger who calls Democrats grave-robbers - I am going to point out that the GOP is a party of cradle-robbers - in every sense of the word.

"Even a genuinely and honestly conservative or right-wing approach to foreign policy, though one that I would not support and which I don't believe would prove to be in the best interests of the people of America and the world, would be better than the scurrilous and despicable maneuvers of the gang of career corporate criminals and war profiteers masquerading as 'conservative' politicians who comprise the Bush administration."
___________________

Yep. No hate here. This is a hate-free zone.

Resources getting low one troll per blog,I guess they had to cut back somewhere.

Yep. No hate here. This is a hate-free zone.

there wasn't a single hateful thing in what you stupidly quoted.

Dang, Waste Management guy, for once you are so correct.

I didn't see any hate either. Only a very lucid, accurate statement of fact. She really knows how to cut to the chase.

Resources getting low one troll per blog,I guess they had to cut back somewhere.

If the Republicans lose in the coming elections, they'll will have to institute odd-even troll rationing.

Schaife has had to commit additional resources to Sanctimonious - However, trolls will still be able to keep their bunks in the basement and Wendy's as a very Red joint will still deliver day-old burgers.

Yep. No hate here. This is a hate-free zone.

Harry Truman, when accused by Republicans of being intemperate in his attacks on them, answered their charges with "I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell."

ex-liberal writes:

It would be refresing to read a post taking joy in the expectation that a Democratic Congress would change policy is some specific ways that would help to defeat the terrorists in Iraq and al Qaeda.

That would be difficult, because leading the war on terror is the job of the executive branch. If a Democratic President came into power, however, I am hopeful that he/she would set a timetable to withdraw from Iraq, thereby creating less terrorists, and start focusing on securing Afghanistan and capturing OBL, which this President has failed to do. At best, I'm hopeful that a Democratic Congress will start challenging the President on his inane and self-defeating foreign policy and his refusal to fire incompetent members of his administration.

Resources getting low one troll per blog,I guess they had to cut back somewhere.

I've really noticed a certain lessening of troll resources too. My theory is simple embarrassment -- they sniff defeat in the air and, knowing that everything they've bleated for the past five years has come crashing down, fearing humiliation, and not being men enough to acknowledge they were wrong, they have simply ceded the field -- or, as I prefer to call it, they've cut and run.....

Trouble is, the conversation all too quickly devolves into the self-licking ice cream cone of "Okay, so what's your plan?" "Anything will be better than this." "Oh, yeah?" "Yeah!"

The trouble is that reasonable people have been offering alternatives to the Bush admin's "plan" for years, indeed well before the Iraq War started, but all we hear back from the echo chamber is "traitor!," "terrorist-appeasers!," "stay the course!," "you're cut and runners!"

Now that Bush himself has decided to cut and run, perhaps we can get a word in edgewise.

Oh, please Kevin, the public doesn't much support the Republican congress right now, at least not in the polls numbers, its only the Murdock or GE owned TV media that does that.

Anyway, as it looks now, with all these toss-ups, Diebold will be able to make the call for Republicans since nobody can see the result of votes except the Diebold company.

Until the day we get new Dems or Dems that can find a spine - I wouldn't bother to hypotheses at these stage of coming elections.

Dems would have to make a few more gains in last two weeks to merit any speculations.

WOW did you see the polls today,Things really are getting bad for the R's I wpould almost feel sorry for them exept,They are the ones that got into bed with the Neo-cons.Thats one thing they could do to save the House or Senate,Say they where sorry for sleeping with the Cons.Hopefully the Republicans,Moderate ones anyway will turn there backs on Bush and there Neo-cons and start working with the Dems and get serious about terrorism and Al-queda.oh yea and get OBL!!!!!

So if Democrats win control of Congress this year, I expect we'll see plenty of sober, thoughtful support for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid from conservatives, right?

Nah, they will do what they have been doing, i.e., continue to imply, and sometimes accuse outright, democrats of being traitors.

Remember what Tom DeLay said about Clinton? I really can’t remember any Democratic leaders stooping to call their political opponents traitors. Can it really be true that there actually is a difference between our two major parties?

Not to worry. According to the right wing talk shows, Pelosi and Howard Dean will be running things. I think they mean that Bush will abdicate in their favor.

Marc

Unfortunately, Dems have often interfered with foreign policy, e.g., by filibustering a well-qualified UN Ambasdsador
Sorry to be late to the party; but that's one of the most hilarious straight lines I've read in weeks!

I saw a show on CNN last night about how the Republicans have governed since Gingrich. They refuse to talk to Democrats. Apparently Gepphart said that he went nearly a year without saying hello to the Speaker.

A lot of those same Republican asshats will still be in congress. How the heck do you think they will act. Think maybe they will ring Nancy up and say "lets do lunch?" I doubt it. Those guys don't recognize Democrats as human beings let alone as people they might want to work with for the benefit of the country.

The entire Republican leadership generation will have to fall away before people can even hope to deal with the mess in congress.

They refuse to talk to Democrats. Apparently Gepphart said that he went nearly a year without saying hello to the Speaker.

Ideologue conservatives like Gingrich actually have a fear of interacting with intelligent people like Gephardt. Once you get past the slogans and actually talk about trying to implement a plan, they don’t do to well.

Gingrich didn’t like to go toe to toe with Clinton either. He once admitted that he tended to back down.

Yet another demonstration that the liberals' main enemy is conservatives, while the conservatives' main enemy is al Qaeda.

If there were no conservatives here and in Saudi Arabia, there would be no Al Queda. If the shoe fits and all that.

In 1992, all my Republican friends told me solemnly that they had to vote for Bush Sr. because we couldn't have the White House and Congress controlled by the same party. When I reminded them of that rule in 2000, they stared off in another direction.

Another comment on Republican support for the president: If you can find me a quote from an elected Republican, or a prominent conservative pundit, in the month following Clinton's cruise missile attempt on Osama bin Laden, saying that Clinton was doing the right thing and should be doing more of it - I will paint your house.

ex-liberal >"...It would be refresing to read a post taking joy in the expectation that a Democratic Congress would change policy is some specific ways that would help to defeat the terrorists in Iraq and al Qaeda."

Time to take joy there m`boy cause that is EXACTLY what you ARE seeing `round here but apparently you don`t have the brain power to put 2 & 2 together on your own so let me be of assistance in this matter

"We the people..." have to defeat the terrorists (hello "Shock & Awe", hello "rendition" & "waterboarding", hello Field Marshall Rumsfeld !) in the Executive and Legislative branches of OUR government BEFORE "We the people..." can defeat all those shadowy supposed Islamist terrorists "over there"

GET IT NOW ?

"As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities." - Voltaire

I'm sure Pelosi and Reid will fully support a legitimate US government. Both of them are needed to begin and push through the impeachment proceedings against Cheney and his puppet Bush for their CRIMINAL activities of the past 6 years.

The Republican leadership -- especially the Bush White House -- is an organized crime organization, not really a political party.

And their followers -- like the so-called "trolls" who post comments here -- are a bunch of brainwashed idiots who have been indoctrinated into a carefully manufactured cult of hatred by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.

The Republican leadership only cares about stealing as much as they can get their hands on for as long as they can stay in power, and their followers only care about hating "liberals".

That's what a degenerate mess the Republican Party of today is.

In my opinion the Democratic Party of today is largely dominated by militaristic corporate bootlickers, but even that is an improvement over the career corporate criminals, war profiteers, and cultist wackos of the Republican Party.

Stefan >"...Harry Truman..."I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.""

And then there is ole Adlai

"I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends...that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." - Adlai Stevenson (1952 campaign)

Hahahahahaha. . .

Of course we got our answer during the Clinton years, when so many conservatives buckled down and supported the President despite their personal feelings when he won the 96 elections.

Heh.

--Rick Taylor

Another comment on Republican support for the president: If you can find me a quote from an elected Republican, or a prominent conservative pundit, in the month following Clinton's cruise missile attempt on Osama bin Laden, saying that Clinton was doing the right thing and should be doing more of it - I will paint your house.

Hell, find me a quote from a Democratic Senator threatening Bush with murder if he came to their state, as then Republican Senator Jesse Helms did to President Clinton, and I'll pay for the paint.

"No, I do not. And neither do the people in the armed forces. Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He'd better have a bodyguard." -- Helms, when asked in 1994 on CNN if he thought President Clinton was "up to the job" of serving as Commander-in-Chief.

Anybody eles see Mehlmen, That boy hasn't slept in a week I bet, He looks pretty rough.I imagine not too many R's have been getting much sleeo lately.

Not to mention Trent Lott wondering if maybe Hillary would be "hit by lightning" before she made it into the Senate.

Jeebus, if Ward Churchill had said that about John McCain, they'd be deporting all the registered Democrats to Gitmo already. But a US Senator says it about a Democrat, and... whatever.

Andy wrote: That [a Democratic Congress would change policy is some specific ways that would help to defeat the terrorists in Iraq and al Qaeda] would be difficult, because leading the war on terror is the job of the executive branch.

I agree.

At best, I'm hopeful that a Democratic Congress will start challenging the President on his inane and self-defeating foreign policy and his refusal to fire incompetent members of his administration.

Congress has no legal means to force Bush to fire anyone in his administration. Having a majority won't help the Dems get rid of Rumsfeld.

In short, if the Dems control both houses of Congress, there's nothing they can or will do to make our war policy more effective.

The only thing Bush is at war with is the Bill of Rights.

The worst thing Nancy Pelosi has ever done in her political career is saying that she would never bring Articles of Impeachment against Bush, while she was Speaker of the House. How foolish is that? What if Bush killed someone while in office? What if he robbed the Federal Reserve Bank of New York? What if he started an illegal war under false pretenses and then lied to cover his trail? Oh shit, he did.

See my point???

Having a majority won't help the Dems get rid of Rumsfeld.

Can't cabinet officers be impeached?

Global Citizen >"Can't cabinet officers be impeached?"

Good question which I would think the answer to is "Yes" since Congress can impeach judges etc

What say the lawyers ?

"...it's the ideas that count, not the number of trees you kill to print them." - Phil Carter@Info-dump.com

The only thing Bush is at war with is the Bill of Rights.

Great line, but a little unfair.

He's also at war with truth and competency.

I presume the Sec Def is a federal official subject to impeachment. Even members of Congress are theoretically subject to impeachment. But, what impeachable offense has Rumsfeld committed? Feloniously pissing off Democrats?

Under this two-part procedure, the House of Representatives is charged with initiating the process by bringing articles of impeachment against an accused official. The Senate, in turn, tries the accused on the charges provided by the House. Few guidelines exist for these Senate trials. If the President has been impeached, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is designated to preside; the Vice-President has presided in all other instances.

A two-thirds vote of the Senate is necessary to convict and remove the official from office. Those so convicted are barred from holding federal office in the future.

No rule prevents the impeachment of members of the House or Senate, but that action has never been successfully taken.

The Constitution also makes reference to those offenses deemed to be impeachable:

Article II, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Treason and bribery are usually clearly understood concepts, but "high crimes and misdemeanors" are open to a wide latitude of interpretation. Some constitutional scholars have argued that only criminal offenses meet that standard, but others have maintained that a simple breach of the public trust is sufficient.

daCascadian - a minor correction - Phil Carter's site is Intel-Dump rather than info-dump.

免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 两性生活 性教育片 两性健康 性爱图片 免费激情电影 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 免费电影在线看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸图片 美女祼体图片 性爱文学 偷拍走光 漂亮美眉 泳装写真 乳罩内裤 成人贴图 情趣内衣 性生活电影 作爱自拍 艳情图片性交电影 做爱视频 性福电影 人体艺术 明星合成裸照 裸女贴图 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦故事 强暴图片 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 强奸小电影 自拍裸体 美女床上自拍 黄色电影下载 在线色情电影 裸露美少女 av美女贴图 色情电影下载 同志图片 性爱视频 明星露点 激情写真 女性阴部 美女乳房 美女裸照 性激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 妹妹贴图 美女做爱图片 汤加丽写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 舒淇写真 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人图片 人体写真 美女手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道阴毛屁股 美女图库 口交肛交图片 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情 搞笑手机铃声 个性铃声 dj铃声 唱得响亮铃声 手机铃声图片 高频铃声下载 手机铃声格式 搞怪铃声 比特铃声 自编铃声 adp铃声 七彩铃声 经典手机铃声 最新手机铃声 手机铃声制作 诺基亚手机铃声 小灵通铃声 移动手机铃声 手机动画 手机彩图 手机铃音 手机铃声论坛 短信铃声 来电铃声 音乐铃声 歌曲铃声 铃声试听 手机壁纸 彩色铃声 v3铃声下载 手机待机图片 免费手机图片 三星手机图片 手机mp3下载 手机主题 如何制作手机铃声 真人原唱和弦铃声 qd铃声下载 经典铃声 联通手机彩铃 神奇铃声 最新铃声 另类铃声 联通铃声下载联通手机铃声 联通炫铃 中国联通炫铃 联通彩铃 联通彩铃下载 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃

This concept that Democrats must make nice to the GOP after kicking their asses in this upcoming election, is unique to the smarmy wing of the Democratic Party that I do not subscribe to. I would place someone like Mr. Kevin Drum there.

Let me take you back to November 1992, when Bill Clinton had just defeated the elder George Bush. Clinton and other moderate Democrats argued they should not pursue the Iran-Contra case, even though there was clear evidence Bush himself was involved in the cover-up. Lawrence Walsh, a lifelong Republican, argued strenuously that the prosecution should be continued, despite Bush's preemptive pardons of Caspar Weinberger and others. George Schultz, former Secretary of State, was also in danger of indictment. Iraqgate, which alleged the elder Bush conspired to illegally arm Saddam Hussein, was also bubbling on the stove, as Rep. Henry Gonzalez from Texas wanted to see Bush's ass hung out to dry.

What happened? Clinton and the Democratic Schmaltz Squad went all swarmy and let Bush go free and dropped both investigations. Had Clinton given the green light to reaming Bush's asshole royally and either sent him to prison or the gallows for his crimes, think of how different this country would be now.... His idiot son would never have won the election in 2000 (although "won" is used very loosely here). The whole rotten cabal, including Jim Baker, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al. would either be in prison or publicly disgraced and never have served in government again.

How was Clinton rewarded for his kindness? With an eight-year, $100 million taxpayer-financed smear campaign that ended up criminalizing his sex life, since they couldn't really find any criminal wrongdoing.

Learn from your mistakes, Democrats!!! If we win this election and take back both houses of Congress, I would investigate every aspect of George W. Bush's life from his first parking ticket to his cocaine arrest in 1972. Don't be chumps, making nice to Bush and his ilk will just end up fucking our party over once again....

The Democrats should have made Gerald Ford's life a living hell for pardoning Nixon and then pursued a scorched earth policy regarding every one of the criminals who infested the Nixon regime. By doing a thorough house cleaning we might have been spared the horrors of Reagan and Bush entirely. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the corrupt thugs would have spent their days in a better place (prison) and we wouldn’t be guilty of having murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

What we need now is to eliminate the corruption that appears to be the entirety of the Republican leadership. Once we have restored integrity and put the “public” back in the public sector we can have honest debates about the direction of our nation. But it cannot include the notion that we need welfare for the arms manufacturers.

functional and Conservative Deflator - In the past few years, the Dems have driven a number of key Republican out of office: John Tower -- Newt Gingrich -- Bob Livingston, the guy from Louisiana who replaced Newt for a week -- Tom DeLay -- Mark Foley. Yet, during this period the Republicans have continued to gain strength. I'd say the Dems are winning the battles and losing the war. Investigating and attacking individual Republicans doesn't convince the public to vote Democratic.

The same thing happened to the Reps when they went after Bill Clinton on his perjury. He eventually admitted his perjury, when he gave up his law license to avoid prosecution. But, the public didn't like the attacks on Clinton. The Dems gained seats in Congress.

The conservative deflator and functional think the Dems can gain power by investigating and prosecuting Reps. History says that approach has backfired.

Actually, I read that as a lot of this bullshit could have been avoided if these wastrels had been rooted out, exposed, tried and imprisoned thirty fucking years ago, and we shouldn't make that mistake again.

one surely remembers the generous support the Republicans gave Clinton and other Dem presidents. We ARE all Americans after all.

Global Citizen, as I recall a bunch of top Republicans were driven out, jailed, etc. in the Nixon administration. For a short time, the Dems ruled. Then the Republicans came back stronger than ever.

They're like Frankenstein! Like vampires! They can't be killed! They're Undead!

Happy Halloween.

The laughably named “ex-liberal” claims that the Democrats have driven people from office. This is quite simply not the case. In none of his examples do we see the hands of the Democrats, only those of law enforcement and (in at least one case) private sector embarrassment.

No, what I’m talking about is using the power of the subpoena to expose the massive corruption that is the heart and soul of Republican power. You know, the way the Republicans did with Clinton. Except that we don’t have to search the panty drawers of Republicans, just the illegal acts that are the trademark of Republican governance.

Oh, and there’s little evidence that the Republicans have gained power as their shenanigans have been exposed. Let’s talk about this again in two weeks and a day. If the Republicans gain seats in both houses then your comment has merit. I wouldn’t hold out much hope if I were you.

I was all prepared to smash law enforcement and subpoena power back over the net, but 'functional' did it very well, so I won't repeat what was already said very succinctly.

Ford's Pardon of Nixon was the ultimate example of the Republican dedication to the Rule of Law.

The Republicans came back because plutocracy is hard to kill. Like all Republican ideas, it is undemocratic and bad for our nation, but when your party hasn't had any new ideas since Dewey beat Truman you have to run on what works – your money.

But I agree “ex-liberal,” like the undead the Republicans are evil and must be stopped. Perhaps with your help we can increase the similarity by making Republicans just as mythical as the undead.

The old rule was politics ends at the water's edge. Nobody ever claimed that Dems were morally obligated to support Bush domestic policy.

That rule is generally taken to mean that you don't do partisan politics when you're abroad on congressional business. But since you're full of shit, I wouldn't expect you to understand it, 'ex'.

Mistake noted & corrected GC, I should have caught that

thanks

"...Democrats are for people, Republicans are for things..." - Oilfieldguy-firedoglake.com

What're friends for?

wally: In 1992, all my Republican friends told me solemnly that they had to vote for Bush Sr. because we couldn't have the White House and Congress controlled by the same party. When I reminded them of that rule in 2000, they stared off in another direction.

"The concentration [of the legislative, executive and judicial powers] in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government." - Jefferson

here's a chuckle...

"This is what the tyranny of a one-party state is like, people!" - Rush Limbaugh 1993

"Ford's Pardon of Nixon was the ultimate example of the Republican dedication to the Rule of Law."

In 1974-76, after Nixon's resignation and Ford's pardon, there were a number of political columns suggesting that we were witnessing the death of the Republican party.

ahem wrote: That rule [politics ends at the water's edge] is generally taken to mean that you don't do partisan politics when you're abroad on congressional business. But since you're full of shit, I wouldn't expect you to understand it, 'ex'.

Not so, ahem. From a university seminar: "Traditionally Americans have accepted that politics ends at the water's edge, with