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 22, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

AT ARMS LENGTH....I'm always amused at this annual ritual:

''Our challenge is to make sure that science serves the cause of humanity instead of the other way around,'' the president said in a telephone call piped over loudspeakers to a Washington rally of opponents of abortion rights.

....Bush calls the rally each year, usually from distant locations. This year, he extended his weekend stay at the Camp David presidential retreat in the Maryland mountains to phone the participants from there.

Reagan did the same thing, didn't he? These guys are so terrified of having their picture taken in the actual presence of people they supposedly support that they extend their vacations in order to generate some marginally plausible excuse for not showing up in person. Or is it something else they're terrified of? I've never been quite sure.

Kevin Drum 6:01 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (68)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

It's all about The Base.

Pander to 'em, take their money, make 'em think you love 'em. But don't get too close to them because they're kinda whacky and you don't want your picture to show up with them.

Posted by: ac on January 22, 2007 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

As a humble servant of the goddess Science, I am appalled that someone would denigrate my religious beliefs so blatantly.

Posted by: gregor on January 22, 2007 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

In every other year it's been a case of the president not wanting to damage his popularity by being seen with the nutcases.

This year it may be that the nutcases don't want to damage their own popularity by being seen with the president.

Posted by: Oregonian on January 22, 2007 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe he's afraid he'll have to explain why he hasn't offered up the legislation the anti-abortion crowd wants.

Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on January 22, 2007 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

You'd think if banning abortion was as popular as people said it was, he'd have no quams about showing his face with them.

In fact, he'd hitch his train to them.

Posted by: Karmakin on January 22, 2007 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

I never really understood this. On one hand, no one is going to mistake Bush for being pro-choice, on the other hand, Republican presidents always pull this move. I don't know, it's confusing.

Maybe Republicans know something that we don't.

Posted by: Tim on January 22, 2007 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

Um, The President isn't running for anything and his reputation (according to the all-knowing pollsters) has tanked. This just proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

Bush hatred will rot your brain.

Posted by: Orwell on January 22, 2007 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

This year it may be that the nutcases don't want to damage their own popularity by being seen with the president.
Posted by: Oregonian on January 22, 2007 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

Probably true. After Foley, Haggard, and now Dobson's rejection of McCain. It's going to be a while before the Republicans win back the end-timers.

By the time they forget how they were swindled by the Republicans, it'll be 2010, and nobody will buy into the "we're in the book of Revelations" crap anymore, because Jesus is supposed to be coming this year. Maybe then, the end-timers will crawl back into their bomb shelters, and let the more rational believers back into the churches.

Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on January 22, 2007 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin:

C'mon! You're not quite sure why they don't show up? What a disingenuous thing to write. You know full-well why they don't show up - media spin and bias.

Posted by: SunBeltJerry on January 22, 2007 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK

Orwell, all Kevin did was point out something that is kind of odd.

Posted by: Tim on January 22, 2007 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

It's all about The Base.

Or, as I prefer to call it, Al Qaeda.

Posted by: Stefan on January 22, 2007 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

This one's easy. What president would want to be caught in the same shot as a huge placard showing an aborted fetus?

Posted by: Steve on January 22, 2007 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

It is, of course, rather craven of Bush. But I have to say I remember being at the 1993 gay rights March on Washington, and despite it being one of the singular events in gay & lesbian rights, there weren't a hell of a lot of prominent Dems speaking to us either. Certainly, the Big Dog was nowhere to be seen.

Posted by: Glenn on January 22, 2007 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

Orwell, all Kevin did was point out something that is kind of odd.

In the Orwellian world, it's verboten to notice oddities in the behavior of the fearless leader. It's a capital offense to publicize them.

Posted by: gregor on January 22, 2007 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

Several anti-abortion protestors are terrorists. Bush does not want to be pictured with terrorists.

Posted by: reino on January 22, 2007 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK
The President isn't running for anything and his reputation (according to the all-knowing pollsters) has tanked.

So, his political capital is nearly spent, so if he wants any chance of any kind of legacy he needs to carefully guard what little he has left...

Which explains why he doesn't want to be seen with his own party's most reliable backers...

Posted by: cmdicely on January 22, 2007 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

im sure the politicians are afraid of the questions people ask in public forums. for 1 they dont have a writer their to respond. and when W responds to stuff without a writer well we have a new word anyways "strategary".hehe

Posted by: mr maki mmmkaayyy on January 22, 2007 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

The Republicans always come just this short of actually regulating or outlawing abortion; they never do anything that would actually lessen the amount of abortions that take place. It is really the one big issue that politically energizes the evangelical base; Dobson, et al, would lose too much political power without abortion as an issue.

Posted by: coldhotel on January 22, 2007 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

President Bush has a full-time job - being president and commander-in-chief in a time of war. That he takes time out of his busy schedule to address a cause he feels strongly about speaks volumes abou his character. If he had taken the time physically attend the rally, liberals would have complained that he was neglecting his duties.

Posted by: Al on January 22, 2007 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

by the way the politicians dont care about anybody unless you have dollars. if you do not have money you dont exist in their eyes. ask the people who cleaned up after 9/11. all the workers are getting sick. they are sick from asbestos poisoning. witch any contractor will tell you anything built before 1979 has asbestos in it.
they put that crap in everytthing back then. why doesnt the govt help these people. a guy said "there waiting for us to die so we will go away". any company that did this without providing ample hazmat suits for the crews doing work should be prosicuted for neglagent homicide.
weather it be are govt or a private contractor. the best thing are country does any more is push blame on someone else. just like osama W blamed his existance on clinton. when katrina hit the blamed new orlean politicians for not calling for aid. cmon worst ever hurricane and we cant line something up with all the technolgy we have today.
what the "sheeple"(southpark quote) in this country dont realize is unless you have multi millions of dollars you dont exsist. and if the repugs get there way middle class folks wont exsist either.

Posted by: mr maki mmmkaayyy on January 22, 2007 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

President Bush has a full-time job - being president and commander-in-chief in a time of war. That he takes time out of his busy schedule to address a cause he feels strongly about speaks volumes abou his character. If he had taken the time physically attend the rally, liberals would have complained that he was neglecting his duties.
Posted by: Al

You mean like we complain about the fact that the worst president ever takes the longest vacations ever?

I'm torn-- would Bush have done a better job if he'd been around more?

Hard to imagine him doing worse, but I've learned one thing under this president it's to never say things couldn't be worse...

Posted by: cyntax on January 22, 2007 at 8:03 PM | PERMALINK

cyntax well put lol

Posted by: mr maki mmmkaayyy on January 22, 2007 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

There was a poll result tonight on CNN.........Oppose banning abortion 62%...For 29%.Leslie Blitzer said that was in line with other current polls.

Posted by: R.L. on January 22, 2007 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

Anytime mr m, and thanks for illustrating the you-gotta-laugh-or-you-gotta-cry principle of this presidency so well:
and when W responds to stuff without a writer well we have a new word anyways "strategary".hehe

Posted by: cyntax on January 22, 2007 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

Two things here: From the 80's song "Vacation's all I ever wanted..." to Hunter S. Thompson protesting "Even maniacs need time to reload--but it is a rare quirk in history when they all run out at the same time, and anyone who has spent any time around wars will tell you that a sudden calm, for no reason, is almost always a time to get braced."
Get braced, citizens--who knows what bullshit is on the horizon. As casualties mount in Iraq, as Congress registers alarm at his troubling lack of transparency in all areas--domestic and abroad.
Escapist that he is-- vacationing yet again. And his weakest area is the environment--
clearly Al Gore showed him up on climate change. So obvious, it cannot be disputed. George is late to the dance. I'd leave for vacation too.
Plus the bucking of Republicans today, with much support for stopping the Iraq plan-- John Warner wants him to LISTEN.
Plus, and big time, I think there is a big worry about Patrick Fitzgerald's "explorations"--and some of the administration will be testifying. State of the union??????????

Posted by: consider wisely always on January 22, 2007 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

No Bush State of the Union address would be complete without the requisite laundry list of the American Taliban's supposed "culture of life." Coming just three days after the President proclaimed National Sanctity of Life Day, look for Bush to go on a jihad about stem cell research, fetal pain and perhaps even the mythical "post-abortion syndrome."

To see why "Culture of Life" is #5 on the 10 Thing to Watch For, see:
"SOTU Preview: 10 Things to Watch."

Posted by: AngryOne on January 22, 2007 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINK

Can you say hypocrisy children?

Posted by: angryspittle on January 22, 2007 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINK

angryone- i just had read that, that is funny most likly accurate too

Posted by: mr maki mmmkaayyy on January 22, 2007 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINK

President Bush has a full-time job - being president and commander-in-chief in a time of war. That he takes time out of his busy schedule to address a cause he feels strongly about speaks volumes abou his character. If he had taken the time physically attend the rally, liberals would have complained that he was neglecting his duties.

Posted by: Al

He works nine-to-five, not including lunch and two-hour workout. He is tucked in to his little bed by ten o'clock every night. They brag about these things.

What would interest me is knowing if any of the '08 candidates were there? PanderBear McCain? Or is he saving this desperate grovel to save his tanking poll numbers next January? Brownback came right out and said he wants to appoint anti-Roe judges to the USSC. Should be a big turd in the punch bowl of phony moderation for McCave, Giuliani and the rest. Get yer popcorn, boys and girls.

Posted by: Jim on January 22, 2007 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

Bush, over the speaker phones today, also said something about "how we all respect human life."

What about the human lives lost in Iraq?

Posted by: TruthProbe on January 22, 2007 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

coldhotel: The Republicans always come just this short of actually regulating or outlawing abortion; they never do anything that would actually lessen the amount of abortions that take place. It is really the one big issue that politically energizes the evangelical base; Dobson, et al, would lose too much political power without abortion as an issue.

This is EXACTLY so! Say all forms of abortion were outlawed tomorrow. Where would those hypocritcal, "christian" leaders find more sheep to fleece? Between abortion and gay marriage, those issues are the life blood of the evangelical right. Without them contribution drives dry up, and with it the solid gold Rolexes of the prophets.

Posted by: bigcat on January 22, 2007 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINK

truthprobe-it was only 650,000 plus cmon

Posted by: mr maki mmmkaayyy on January 22, 2007 at 8:46 PM | PERMALINK

I got distracted by Al's self-parody and forgot one of my questions?

Or is it something else they're terrified of? I've never been quite sure.

Kevin: Is that snark, or are you alluding to something specific?

Posted by: Jim on January 22, 2007 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

oh im sorry W said those #s are off abit

Posted by: mr maki mmmkaayyy on January 22, 2007 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

Trying to remember that time Bill Clinton addressed a protest march in person while he was president. I'm sure he did...but nothing comes to mind.

Or any other recent president for that matter.

This seems to be a lot like the "president not attending funerals" issue.

Posted by: harry on January 22, 2007 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

Al--you are such a goof ball. All presidents have state of the union addresses in January.
Don't be so misled. It is not a favor from your main guy.
You are such a minion of rove--oh, that is someone else. sorry...

Posted by: consider wisely always on January 22, 2007 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK

Say all forms of abortion were outlawed tomorrow. Where would those hypocritcal, "christian" leaders find more sheep to fleece? Between abortion and gay marriage, those issues are the life blood of the evangelical right. Without them contribution drives dry up, and with it the solid gold Rolexes of the prophets.

They'd just move on to bigfoot and aliens.

Posted by: Disputo on January 22, 2007 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK

bigcat-mmm sheeple

Posted by: mr maki mmmkaayyy on January 22, 2007 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK

Al-anon: "That [Bush] takes time out of his busy schedule to address a cause he feels strongly about speaks volumes about his character. "

Yea, I think we already know all we'll ever need to find out about this guy's "character".

Posted by: Kenji on January 22, 2007 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

"What about the human lives lost in Iraq?"

As a human is born, they acquire original sin as they pass through the 'portal of pleasure'.

So you can kill 'em after they are born without feeling guilt.

Ok, so I made the first part up... the second part seems to be pretty much 'facts on the ground' for those in positions of power.

Posted by: Buford on January 22, 2007 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINK

Say all forms of abortion were outlawed tomorrow. Where would those hypocritcal, "christian" leaders find more sheep to fleece? Between abortion and gay marriage, those issues are the life blood of the evangelical right. Without them contribution drives dry up, and with it the solid gold Rolexes of the prophets.
Posted by: bigcat

Racism and homophobia.

Posted by: Nads on January 22, 2007 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINK

Say all forms of abortion were outlawed tomorrow. Where would those hypocritcal, "christian" leaders find more sheep to fleece? Between abortion and gay marriage, those issues are the life blood of the evangelical right. Without them contribution drives dry up, and with it the solid gold Rolexes of the prophets.

Duh, we've seen the preview. It's the Mexican immigrants. There's always someone to attack.

Posted by: gex on January 22, 2007 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

The good news: Nigeria, Kenya and the Philippines are pro-America.
The bad news: the rest of the planet is pretty pissed off.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.stm

Posted by: billy on January 22, 2007 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: "Or is it something else they're terrified of? I've never been quite sure."

They're terrified of the well-organized base of right-wing Christian fundamentalists / kulturkampf evangelicals, who may well constitute a slim majority of the overall GOP membership, yet are also a very decided minority of the overall electorate.

In other words, GOP presidential candidates are constantly in imminent danger of being caught in their own Catch 22. A candidate like John McCain realizes that he probably can't win the nomination by thumbing his nose at the far-right, but he knows that he also can't win the election by appearing to be too close and chummy with them.

I see it this way: "Christian Mommy" -- that 150-decibel religioys harridan who recently used up her Andy Warhol-alloted 15 minutes of fame (and then some) on the reality show Trading Spouses -- is without a doubt her own best parody.

However, is there truly any difference between her prime-time fundamentalist farce, and the cheap and sorry spectacle that the GOP's elected officials collectively presented to mainstream America during the Terry Schiavo tragedy?

A resounding majority of Americans are clearly not amused by this latest intrusion of religious intolerance and cultural bigotry into public affairs -- and that's what truly scares these guys.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 22, 2007 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

bigcat >"...Without them contribution drives dry up, and with it the solid gold Rolexes of the prophets."

And we know they need those so Jeebus can find them during "Rapture Time"™

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

Posted by: daCascadian on January 22, 2007 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

Bush didn't come down from Camp David to attend the anti-abortion rally in DC because:

1) The roads are always icy in Thurmont this time of year;
2) He doesn't want to be perceived as promising something politically that he has no intention of delivering;
3) Why attempt in person what he can appoint others to accomplish through the courts with fewer election negatives?

Posted by: pj in jesusland on January 22, 2007 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

And everyone wonders why the whole world trusts America less and less every year. Including Americans...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.stm

Posted by: Bad Rabbit on January 22, 2007 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

The good news: Nigeria, Kenya and the Philippines are pro-America. The bad news: the rest of the planet is pretty pissed off.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.stm
Posted by: billy on January 22, 2007 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINK

Well, thank God for Kenya.

Posted by: E. Henry Thripshaw on January 22, 2007 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

"Our challenge is to make sure that science serves the cause of humanity instead of the other way around"

OK, I've only been to Jr. College but I think your saying...

"Our goal is to make sure that humanity doesn't serve the cause of science."

I don't get it?

Posted by: elmo on January 22, 2007 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

So, today I got home and was surfing channels and came across EWTN coverage of the March for LIfe.

The channel was running a banner along the bottom with contact numbers for organizations if you have issues after an abortion, among others.

Long story short, I called one of these groups. I spoke with a woman from Rachel's Vineyard who hung up on me while I was telling her about a stillbirth I had less than a year ago, and how the emotional reverberations in my life were so much greater than if I had had an abortion, which I had considered and rejected. She said that she had other calls and hung up.

I called all the other numbers listed on the banner -- and EWTN -- and complained about the unChristian behavior of the woman from Rachel's Vineyard -- which is a retreat center for women having emotional problems after an abortion.

Over the course of the phone calls I was told by one volunteer at a pregnancy counseling hotline (800-848 LOVE) that Oral Contraception does not suppress ovulation. She said to call Pharmacists for Life International to verify that information.

So, I did. And was told by 28-year pharmacist Bo Kohum (of the Kohum Konsultants, Inc.) that OC works on three levels: it's an abortifacient, sometimes it prevents ovulation and it reduces sperm motility. (Seemed an odd ordering and wording.)

I called the woman back and told her she was incorrect. She said it didn't matter because she wasn't giving OC information; she was dealing with women who were already pregnant. I disagreed and told her so.

She did however oppose the Iraq war and supported universal health care, so there was some internal consistency in her position.

She also said that it was a human from the moment the egg and sperm came together... that if you plant an apple you don't get a banana... when you join an egg and a sperm, you get a baby.

(I told her that my experience proved that wrong...but that's another story.)

I said to her that when you have an apple seed, you don't have an apple. You have a seed. And when you plant that seed you have a seedling (if you are lucky), and if it grows you have a tree (if you feed it and care for it), and if you graft the tree, you get an apple. But that the seed isn't an apple.

She then said that I was not going to change her mind and she wasn't going to change mine. So, I asked her how we were both going to live with that. She answered, "We don't have to talk to each other." I replied that wasn't very Christian, to which she said that I should evaluate my relationship to God.

Amazing.

So I then called the American Life League and talked with a volunteer, who, when I asked if ALL had positions on Iraq and Universal Health Care, replied she didn't know, that I should call later in the week. Everyone was at the March for Life demonstration.

I then asked her what she thought of the war in Iraq. She said, "It isn't [my] business. I am not going to tell you. But we have a president and we should follow him."

I said, "How soviet of you."

She laughed and said to call back later. I don't know if she really heard what I said or not. But I hope that when she was driving home that what I said seeps in to her consciousness.

I am not sure where to go with all this. But I do think there needs to be study and comparison of so-called prolife organizations: to answer the query: are they for real change to save lives, like ending the war in Iraq, ensuring access to compassionate medical care, assisting parents with safe, nurturing day care.... or is it really just Christ before you are born, and Darwin once you draw breath?

It was an interesting series of conversations to say the least. And if you want to continue it... look up the organizations and call them yourself. That's what I did.

Looking forward,
Stephanie

Posted by: Stephanie on January 23, 2007 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you meant "arm's length", right? Not some kind of play on bearing weapons or something?

Posted by: Kenji on January 23, 2007 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

Wow, Stephanie, that's quite a story.

I'm afraid the true believers have a hard time questioning their own motives. Your experience certainly lends credence to the observation that faith is a powerful thing--for both good and bad.

Posted by: bigcat on January 23, 2007 at 1:39 AM | PERMALINK

Stephanie thinks pro-life groups should adopt left-wing positions. (End the Iraq War, support universal health care, raise taxes, oppose drilling in ANWAR.)

That is absurd, Stephanie.

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on January 23, 2007 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK

BIGCAT said
"Say all forms of abortion were outlawed tomorrow. Where would those hypocritcal, "christian" leaders find more sheep to fleece? Between abortion and gay marriage, those issues are the life blood of the evangelical right. Without them contribution drives dry up, and with it the solid gold Rolexes of the prophets."
I agree completely. And the well-off and the well-connected would still fly off to Europe when little Susie or country club Mom had the misfortune of a "little problem", er, needed a "restful vacation". And the poor schlubs that supported these nuts would, you know, just make do with God's will...
DK2

Posted by: DK2 on January 23, 2007 at 2:45 AM | PERMALINK

Bedwetter: "That is absurd, Stephanie."

Now you are in territory you so well understand.

Posted by: Kenji on January 23, 2007 at 2:54 AM | PERMALINK

That is absurd, Stephanie.

No, FuhQ, what's absurd is the fact that most people who are "pro-life" when it comes to embryos and blastocysts, are objectively pro-death on almost every other issue.

Posted by: Wilbur on January 23, 2007 at 5:35 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, a few years ago, Bush didn't even bother with the fig leaf of a vaca, he just phoned them from the White House—a block away!

Posted by: hamletta on January 23, 2007 at 6:13 AM | PERMALINK

No FreqKen:

What I want is to have children valued more than blastocytes.

I want Iraqi fetuses to be valued as much as American fetuses.

I want all children to be wanted, safe and loved.

I want us to act like responsible adults and not decimate our children's future through our flawed econcomic priorities and ill-considered actions today.

And about taxes: we should pay for what we spend... Not borrow so much that our fetuses come out of the womb already thousands of dollars in debt.

These issues are neither left nor right wing.

The solutions are either compassionate or they are shortsighted.

So, which is it, Ken, do you know how to share or are you selfish?

Because, frankly, if all you can say to my post is that I want to raise taxes, then you are sorely missing my point.

What I wonder is that it may be impossible for you -- and all those people I called -- to ever understand what I mean.

Walk in my shoes for a minute:

I can tell you for an absolute fact that an abortion, a stillbirth or the death of a child are utterly different things.

If one of my daughters died, I guarantee it that no one -- let me repeat that NO ONE -- would ever say "you can try again." or that it was "All for the best." Both of these things were said to me, and more which elucidate my point.

And between an abortion and birthing an already deceased baby at fullterm... well, which would you choose?

Just know, more than anything else, that no matter what we wish, children, babies, embryos and fetuses die. And nothing we do will ever change that.

Stephanie

Posted by: Stephanie on January 23, 2007 at 8:19 AM | PERMALINK

Say all forms of abortion were outlawed tomorrow. Where would those hypocritcal, "christian" leaders find more sheep to fleece? Between abortion and gay marriage, those issues are the life blood of the evangelical right. Without them contribution drives dry up, and with it the solid gold Rolexes of the prophets.
They could always go after the pseudointellectual lightweights that infest the blogosphere -- there's a million of 'em!

Posted by: Frank DiSalle on January 23, 2007 at 9:38 AM | PERMALINK

"These guys are so terrified of having their picture taken in the actual presence of people they supposedly support that they extend their vacations in order to generate some marginally plausible excuse for not showing up in person. Or is it something else they're terrified of? I've never been quite sure."

No, you can be sure....this fraud has gone on for years and I've not seen it commented on in the media. The "pro-life" position is supposedly a deeply-held, sacred, bedrock view of all Republicans (especially Shrub) and YET, they have never appeared in person at this rally, held across the street from the White House.

Just more phony hypocrisy.

Posted by: marty on January 23, 2007 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

I believe that G.H.W. Bush did address the antiarbortion crowd from the white house -- perhaps from a balcony. Can someone correct me if I am wrong?

Posted by: carolyn on January 23, 2007 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

W called from Camp David.

He was working on the State of the Union address.

Posted by: stephanie on January 23, 2007 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

The real question that needs to be asked is why these demonstrators even took the call. Don't they know by now the GOP has a vested interest in keeping Roe v. Wade? And why after 30 years of broken promises do they continue to see the GOP as their friend?

Posted by: Sean Scallon on January 23, 2007 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

As any good telemarketer, Shrub only calls the pro-life folk during the dinner hour.

And he is working on his State of the Empire speech.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 23, 2007 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

This time it's his decay-of-the-empire speech.

Posted by: Kenji on January 23, 2007 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

bad rabbit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.stm


they forgot poland!!!

Posted by: mr. irony on January 23, 2007 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

they didn't forget poland!!


...Some of the sharpest drops in positive ratings over the last year came from four countries that have tended to be quite positive about the United States. Poland’s positive ratings dropped 24 points from 62 percent a year ago to 38 percent.

that's our bush!

Posted by: mr. irony on January 23, 2007 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

As the late Lord Jesse Unruh, of California, once said: If you can't drink their booze, take their money and fuck their women and vote against them, then you don't belong in politics.

Posted by: DILBERT DOGBERT on January 23, 2007 at 6:48 PM | 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