Democrats & Liberals Archives

A Conservative Revolt?

Lately, “intellectual conservatives,” “movement conservatives” and many conservatives of different stripes have been complaining, criticizing and distanciing themselves from the Bush administration. Some in the media are calling this a revolt. It is no such thing. When Bush was popular, these “conservatives” said nothing and enjoyed their fame. Now that Bush is way down in the polls, all of a sudden these “conservatives” are so filled with “integrity” that they are bashing Bush for not adhereing to conservative principles.

The latest conservative that is so upset with Bush is Bruce Bartlett, author of the new book "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy."

Both Bartlett and conservative Andrew Sullivan appeared at a conservative forum. As the Washington Post tells us, it turned into a full-blown Bush-bashing party. Bartlett threw out words like "unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept." Andrew Sullivan, also the author of a conservative-complaint-book that is forthcoming, "The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It; How to Get It Back," said that Bush is "reckless" and "a socialist." He said Bush betrayed "almost every principle conservatism has ever stood for."

These 2 are but the latest in a long series of "conservatives" that are criticizing the administration. Even William Buckley and William Kristol, men in the upper reaches of conservatism, are whining. It sure sounds like a revolt. But, don't you believe it. It's the sound of opportunists unloading on their unfortunate bretheren in order to save themselves.

Where was Bartlett during the 5 years Bush has performed? All this time when Bush was being "unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept," what did Bartlett do? At the forum Bartlett said:

"If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Clinton."

Nonsense. This a pure hypothetical and thus meaningless. Bartlett is the "imposter." Where was he in 2004? Why did he not speak up when something could be done? He was probably writing some of the stuff being published now. Now he can call himself a "conservative." If he had said the same things in 2004, the Republicans would have kicked him out of the party. As someone who worked for Reagan, he likes the Republican Party.

Where was Sullivan during those 5 years? He was very much gung-ho about the Iraq War. He did, however, express reservations about government spending for some time.

Where were all the "conservatives" when war was declared against Iraq in order to do some nation building?

Where were all the "conservatives" when Bush declared some unfortunate people "enemy combatants" and stored them away in Guantanamo Bay?

Where were all the "conservatives" - Sullivan is an exeption here - when Bush made torture legal?

Where were all the "conservatives" when the lobbyists on K Street became another appendage to the Republican Party?

Where were all the "conservatives" when Bush declared he is above the law?

Where were all the "conservatives" when Congress passed the energy pork-barrel bill with millions of dollars in "earmarks"?

Where were they? I have no idea. They were enjoying success. Now they are scared. There's an election coming up. They need to show the public that their only concern is for the good of the Republic.

You call this a "conservative" revolt? It's a cave-in by scared people who do not want to lose their influence.

Who do you think these "conservatives" will vote for in 2006? The same corrupt Republicans. Who do you think they will vote for in 2008? Another "imposter," John McCain, no doubt.

We don't need a conservative revolt. We need a revolt against a Republican Party instigated by a revived Democratic Party.

Posted by Paul Siegel at March 20, 2006 7:41 PM
Comments
Comment #134868

I can tell you this because I know you can’t stop yourselves.

The radical Dems hate Bush so much it makes them irrational. If they get in congress they will try to impeach him.

So Bush takes all the blame for everything bad. Republicans can take credit for the parts that worked well. Bush can’t run again in 2008. He is like a sin eater. Cheney won’t run. Nobody in the Bush government is planning a run. So keep up the Bush hatred. He doesn’t mind.

Posted by: Jack at March 20, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #134878

Aldous:
“btw… I liked seeing Katherine Harris’ boobs in TV. Sure will make her popular in prison.”

LOL! Glad to see you’re still here, Aldous.
Did you hear how Katherine Harris told the Christian group she believes that God wants her to be a Senator? I find it downright nutty, yet amazing how all these GOP crooks think that God has chosen them personally.
Oh, and she also finds great inspiration from ‘The Last of the Mohicans’ and ‘The Lord of the Rings’, and claims that she’s “a work in progress”.
Well, she’s definitely a piece of work anyway…

Posted by: Adrienne at March 20, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #134880

///
Paul, conservatives are just posturing, now that GWBush is a lame duck. It would happen anyway, since he has no obvious successor. Neither did his father, who never had a second term. There has to be some kind of Rpblcn strategy involved in picking vice presidents who will never be popular.

Agnew, Quayle, and Cheney were all strange choices. Reagan, recognizing his own lack of experience, supposedly offered the vice presidency to Ford, who refused, so we got GHWB.

McCain is an enigma. We like him. They do not. Is there another Reaganlike candidate in the wings, waiting until after 2006, for Buckley/Christol/Will/etc to annoint?

Posted by: ohrealy at March 20, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #134893

Ironically, Aldous, it’s the rudderless part which make the Democrats so ineffective at getting messages across and winning votes.

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 9:57 PM
Comment #134896

jack,
glad to hear you finally making sense! happy to have your support in our efforts to take this bastard out of office! direct your donations here!

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 20, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #134902

Paul:

I do think it is time to start looking at what the republican party will stand for after Bush is gone.

Bush’s presidency has been defined by the war. The war is going to end one way or the other.

My assumption is that pre 9/11 Republican values will start to reemerge, and baring not having another pivital event like 9/11, I think both parties will enter into some sort of period resembling the cold war, where historical core values of each side begin to emerge.

I think your columns and others here will be less and less an attack on Bush and more and more a debate about the future. After the November elections, the political world and tone should really change.

Personally, I am not too worried about the impeach Bush thing. I would like to see a list of priorities of the American people at that time. My assumption now would be that impeachment would be a low priority, even if it ranks reasonably in the polls. For instance if the question were asked “Are you for or against impeaching George Bush”, you might get a reasonable yes answer. On the other hand, if you asked “Please rank the following issues, in terms of what you would like Congress to accomplish in the next two years”. I would think Impeachment would be low. If Democrats win the House, *unless they have run on Impeachment*, then I think it would be for personal vendeta. I think that would diminish their leadership character, just as it did the Repubicans in the 90’s.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 20, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #134903

Diogenes

Bush is my man and I won’t abandon him. But there will come a time when he will no longer require defense. There is no continuation of this presidency. For he first time since 1952 there is no candidate associated with the a sitting administration. Few of us have ever seen a situation like this.

I supported McCain in 2000. I will support him again in 2008. It will be here sooner than you think, so you all better figure out how to trash McCain. We already know how to smack Hilary and Feingold is almost too easy.

Posted by: Jack at March 20, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #134904

Paul,
I think that most liberals know that any GOP revolt will all be on the surface, and that below that micro-thin layer there will always be nothing but the same old corruption.
For instance:
McCain Hires DeLay Accomplice

Posted by: Adrienne at March 20, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #134908

Adrienne, let’s not pretend the DFL is corruption free or that it is any better than the GOP in that regard. I could easily think of many examples of corrupt Democrats as you could Republicans.

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #134914

typical neocon spin, jack. typical.

“I supported McCain in 2000. I will support him again in 2008.”

already making justifications? so you didn’t support bush? just goes to show the neocon mentality…

“Bush is my man and I won’t abandon him.”

…sounds like you already have.

“so you all better figure out how to trash McCain.”

mccain is currently my candidate of choice. please don’t throw him your support; the neocons are going down, no need for unnecessary collateral damage.

here’s an idea - go form your own party! - ‘cuz you’re no conservative, and from what i gather, the liberals don’t want you either.

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 20, 2006 10:55 PM
Comment #134922

In Andrew Sullivan’s defense he never supported Bush. He supported the war effort, but not the way it was handled. I give him his due as a conservative who was both right and stayed true to his course. Also, he has relentlessly campaigned against Bush’s torture policies. Don’t get me wrong, anyone who is gay and Republican must be at least mildly um, confused, but he’s fought the good fight the last six years.

I don’t like Republicans, but these Neocons in office are not Republicans; they’re worse. They are a totally radical faction looking to undermine basic constitutional rights and freedoms like seperation of church and state and the right to privacy and to congregate peacefully. Hint: If you are still supporting Bush at this point you are probably one of them. I honestly believe Reagan would denounce these guys.

Posted by: Max at March 20, 2006 11:10 PM
Comment #134923

Zeek:
“Adrienne, let’s not pretend the DFL is corruption free or that it is any better than the GOP in that regard.”

I’m not pretending the Dems are, or always have been, corruption free, but I think its safe to say that never before in our history have we seen as much corruption as this administration and this Republican majority has shown us over the past six years.

“I could easily think of many examples of corrupt Democrats as you could Republicans.”

No doubt you could think of just as many examples, but they wouldn’t be nearly as heinous or as widespread as those belonging to the gathering of gansters and thieves who are currently controlling American govt.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 20, 2006 11:11 PM
Comment #134926

Adrienne, I completely disagree with that perception.

In just the last 2 decades I could probably prove your first assertion wrong. I’m not saying we’re headed in a good direction, but your statements are driven by opinion and not fact. If you want to go toe-to-toe I can easily find Democratic corruption of the worst kind just as easily as you could for the Republicans.

This is sort of like the situation where when asked the question, “when has Bush lied,” many Democrats draw a blank simply because they have been operating under the perception that he is a liar rather than refering to factual evidence.

Not that you couldn’t find examples of Republican corruption, it’s just that to the degree you’re claiming it happens is unsubstantiated.

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #134927

Adrienne:

I’m not pretending the Dems are, or always have been, corruption free, but I think its safe to say that never before in our history have we seen as much corruption as this administration and this Republican majority has shown us over the past six years.

I think your comments speak more of how far to the left you are than reality. Liberals are a pretty small percentage of the population, which brings about lots of consiracy theorists and extreme charges.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 20, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #134929

You vote in a guy, give him space and see how things work out. In some areas conservatives are disappointed in others they are elated. These book writers and critics are just pandering to you guys. You are right to be suspicious. Maybe their districts have more of you.
Conservatives throw away the garbage and keep the good just as you did with the last guy

Posted by: kruser at March 20, 2006 11:22 PM
Comment #134931

kruser, giving the president space only refers to legal grounds. Once things wander to “illegal” is where the line is drawn. Adrienne and I were speaking of corruption which explicitly means illegal.

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #134935

“I don’t like Republicans, but these Neocons in office are not Republicans; they’re worse.”

you are right about neocons; however, there is nothing to dislike about honest republicans. we have seen quite a large number of corrupt republicans recently, but that is mainly due to corporate influence (and the negative influence of this administration, i would wager) - democrats have this same problem, but i would note that there are currently fewer democrats to corrupt.

true conservatives support just about everything that bush does not (which is currently the position of the democrats). small government, fiscal responsibility, states’ rights… these are all (true) republican ideals, as well as a large part of our nations current problem. ‘big brother’ was supposed to be the end culmination of the democrat ideal (big, centralized government)… the neocons beat them to it, and with far more insidious intentions.

don’t get me wrong, i have nothing in particular against democrats - i just think they’re wrong. as far as progressives go, i suggest you check out the 3rd Way Movement. if only such a movement existed in america… (clinton was supposed to be a 3rd way-er, but failed in many significant regards).

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 20, 2006 11:35 PM
Comment #134941

Zeek:
“I’m not saying we’re headed in a good direction, but your statements are driven by opinion and not fact. If you want to go toe-to-toe I can easily find Democratic corruption of the worst kind just as easily as you could for the Republicans.”

Sorry, but it’s a fact, not an opinion, that there is simply nothing in American history that compares to the Abramoff scandal which has involved so many members of the administration and so very many lawmakers at one time.

“This is sort of like the situation where when asked the question, “when has Bush lied,” many Democrats draw a blank simply because they have been operating under the perception that he is a liar rather than refering to factual evidence.”

What are you talking about? The Downing St. Memos are physical evidence that the administration lied about the war — and Blair actually claimed they are authentic when asked. Actually it’s very clear that Bush lies all the time — for instance, of late he’s been denying that a civil war has begun in Iraq. That is a LIE. But oh, he’s told so many!!! Really, the man is a chronic bull-sh*tter and liar of the worst sort.
The whole lot of them are liars. Dick Cheney says “the insurgency is in it’s last throes” — LIE. Condi’s “mushroom cloud”, and “no extraordinary renditions” - LIES. Rummy has lied at least once at every single press briefing on the war. Powell has now admitted he lied before the UN.
Much of the problem surrounding uncovering and making them accountable for their lies has been the insane amount of secrecy of this administration. And of course the GOP majority who has been covering for them by not demanding any formal investigations into their many lies. But if the Democrats can manage to win in Nov. perhaps we may yet find a way to hold them accountable for at least some of them.

Craig:
“I think your comments speak more of how far to the left you are than reality.”

I think that Republicans who say things like this have divorced themselves from reality long ago. Hate to break it to you, but all of the polls are reflecting that more people are currently thinking like me than are thinking like you.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 20, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #134946

That’s news? The conservatives have always been revolting.

Posted by: Ray Palmitier at March 21, 2006 12:15 AM
Comment #134947

aldous,

calm yourself. i said there is nothing to dislike about an honest republican. i am not defending this batch of corrupt republicans. they have either been tainted by the neocons, or are neocons themselves (by and large)… and yes, i’m quite sure some of them are just plain greedy bastards.

in my estimation, the fact that they have racked up this debt is certainly due in large part to bush (iraq? medicare reform?)- however, that said, any republican who allows such fiscal irresponsibility does not meet my definition of conservative.

“Republicans control Congress and the Senate and yet here you are screaming that they are Conservatives.”

? if you say so ?… ‘cuz i didn’t. sometimes i get the feeling that anger is the sole motivation of your posts. which is a shame - ‘cuz sometimes you make some good points.

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 21, 2006 12:15 AM
Comment #134948

“That’s news? The conservatives have always been revolting.”

funny, generally i enjoy posting in the blue because it was my perception that liberals tend to be more open-minded than neocons. maybe i was wrong?

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 21, 2006 12:19 AM
Comment #134952

Zeek,

The idea that Bush is just as bad as any other president, but that Democrats “spin” Bush as worse is laughable. Travelgate? Whitewater? Lewinsky? I wish those were the kinds of crises we were facing, and that’s just in terms of the scandals he’s been involved in. More importantly, Bush’s record has been terrible on every single thing he’s done. He’s maybe the worst-ever president.

If Democrats are slack-jawed when you ask them to name a time Bush has lied it’s because it’s astounding to think anyone believes Bush has ever been honest about anything at this point. My mind is racing through statements: no WMDs, uniter not a divider, no nation-building, Iraq’s not in a civil war, who knew the levees could break, I’ll fire whoever leaked Plame, the air is safe in nyc after 9/11, let’s put more money into alternative energy resources and reduce oil dependency 75% in a generation, deficits don’t matter… I can’t think of anytime this guy has said anything that hasn’t been a flat out lie.

There isn’t going to be a Republican president next election because this country can’t risk having a screw up in office pandering to a “base” bunch of looneys whose concerns are not in the best interest of this country.

Republicans should have worried less about whether or not gays should marry (which ANY true Republican would say is a state decision - less federal intrusion into individual lives?) and instead made a lockbox and fixed social security. Oh yeah, and actually going after Bin Laden and his crew would have been good too. Thanks for the miserable 6 years. You did more damage than anyone would have thought possible. Congrats.

Posted by: Max at March 21, 2006 12:27 AM
Comment #134955

“Republicans should have worried less about whether or not gays should marry (which ANY true Republican would say is a state decision - less federal intrusion into individual lives?)”

a-freaking-men. are you sure you aren’t a closet conservative?

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 21, 2006 12:38 AM
Comment #134980

Zeek
EXCELLENT posts.
The points you make are the same ones I have been harping about for the past 2 or 3 years here on WatchBlog.
As long as both sides keep the “its not as bad as what the other side does” way of thinking, we will never get positive results that favor the people.
Both sides are equally corrupt and both sides are equally guilty of chipping away at what used to the Constitution. They just come from different angles which keeps us divided.

Posted by: kctim at March 21, 2006 10:00 AM
Comment #134984

I believe the revolt, even if not completely genuine, represents something real: the gradual realization and admission that the Left has things right, at least about Bush. It’s a hard thing to admit. After all, you invested so much effort in facing down his critics.

This is not something we should reject. This is something we should embrace. We should make this next race about what people want it to be: not politics, but practical matters and getting things done. If we succeed on any other basis, we sow the seeds of our future failure.

This is about getting things done right. Let’s embrace those who find themselves disillusioned by the leaders on the right.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 21, 2006 10:12 AM
Comment #134985
So Bush takes all the blame for everything bad. Republicans can take credit for the parts that worked well. Bush can�t run again in 2008. He is like a sin eater.

Jack,

Damn, you’re right! If only Bush were just a little more popular, then the Democrats might have a chance in 2008! It’s hopeless, though. I’m sure that if I Bush gets out of his current “safe zone”, Karl Rove has some devious plans to return him to unpopularity. You brilliant, unstoppable Republicans! ;)

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 21, 2006 10:16 AM
Comment #135000

Rove is beginning to remind me more and more of Roman empire’s Nero with his fiddle. While chaos reigns all about, Rove meanders down the path singing his happy song…all is well…all is well and his parrot, Cheney/Bush sings his tune along with him.

But many of you, I think, have it wrong about the fundimentalist right wing. They will prosper into the future, as we become a theocracy the likes of Taliban. Their happy spokesman in the Whitehouse has degraded our education system and dumbed down young citizens to the point that they can’t think for themselves. They have to be told how to live. That makes it easy for the wingers. They LIKE to tell people haw to live. Us Demos would rather leave most folks to their own devices. I’m afraid we lose the next five generations and perhaps more. America is a gonner, no matter what we do now. We’ve let the fox into the hen house…pessemistic (hysterical to some) I know,but…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 21, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #135003

You “demos” are just as bad, if not worse, than the “wingers” when it comes to telling others how to live their own lives.
You are right though, The United States of America is a gonner, has been for a while now. Welcome to the Socialist States of America.

Posted by: kctim at March 21, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #135005

I am not sure which is more scary,Bush lying or Bush actually believing things in Iraq are going fine. He is out of touch with reality and has eliminated advisors willing to disagree with him. If Rummy wants WW2 comparisons how about Hitler in his bunker being told by Goebals that Germany will win the war.
Yes the conservatives are bolting.Thank God for it and I do not care why or care to chastize them for their past support for the fool in chief. What is important now is to stop Bush. He is too dangerious to be allowed to remain in power.

Posted by: BillS at March 21, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #135008
This is about getting things done right. Let’s embrace those who find themselves disillusioned by the leaders on the right.

The conservative public faces that are disillusioned are largely upset at runaway domestic spending. As Krugmen explained recently, it is a conjured fallacy that domestic spending has mushroomed.

The “revolters” dont so much critique tax cuts coincident with an elective war as they were cheerleading the whole way.

This “revolting” crowd is not so embraceable.

Posted by: Schwamp at March 21, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #135015

Adrienne,

“Sorry, but it’s a fact, not an opinion, that there is simply nothing in American history that compares to the Abramoff scandal which has involved so many members of the administration and so very many lawmakers at one time.”

In what way is “compares” significant here?

“What are you talking about? The Downing St. Memos are physical evidence that the administration lied about the war”

And what lie would that be? A quote is far more relevant here than a few, possibly forged, documents which don’t directly relate to the Bush administration.

“The whole lot of them are liars. Dick Cheney says “the insurgency is in it’s last throes” — LIE. Condi’s “mushroom cloud”, and “no extraordinary renditions” - LIES. Rummy has lied at least once at every single press briefing on the war. Powell has now admitted he lied before the UN.”

“Last throes,” could mean anything and is therefore not a lie. “Mushroom cloud,” was never actually said to mean WMDs would be dropped on us. These are all misleading statements which do not fall under the category of “lies.” Powell is a good man for admitting his dishonesty by the way.

Max,

“My mind is racing through statements: no WMDs, uniter not a divider, no nation-building, Iraq’s not in a civil war, who knew the levees could break, I’ll fire whoever leaked Plame, the air is safe in nyc after 9/11, let’s put more money into alternative energy resources and reduce oil dependency 75% in a generation, deficits don’t matter… I can’t think of anytime this guy has said anything that hasn’t been a flat out lie.”

Again, if you can’t categorically say it is a false statement it isn’t a lie. Most of the statements Bush makes are too vague or are merely opinions. I wouldn’t call him an honest guy, but a liar? No more than you or I my friend.

Posted by: Zeek at March 21, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #135017

Zeek,

With all the circumstantial evidence of Cheney/Bush lies that has been gathered over the last six long years (his campaign against McCain and election box/machine shenanigans and Swiftboating, his use of guliani’s gallant deeds for his own political purposes after 9/11, etc.), his notoriously dishonest words getting us into this mess in Iraq, and the other things mentioned by Max and others, it’s safe to say this President is a LIAR.

If that much circumstantial evidence were accumulated on a murderer the perp would get the death penalty.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 21, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #135027

Marysdude, have you ever lied?
You probably have.
I guess it’s ok for me to call you a liar then.

My point is that being a liar is not as bad as being deceitful. Bush is not any more of a liar than any politician, and to attack him based on the premise that he’s a liar is empty of meaning and substance.

Posted by: Zeek at March 21, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #135029

Zeek you’re talking nonsense and I’m fed up with talking to people who try to defend Bush. He’s an idiot, a puppet for the Neocons and a total liar — and most people have come to realize this. I’m sorry you don’t.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 21, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #135031

Told you Zeek.
You either agree or your wrong and not worth debating. And if you ask TOO hard of questions, then you will be ignored.
This is not the WatchBlog of old where differing opinions were welcomed.
Good luck my friend.

Posted by: kctim at March 21, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #135036

“This is not the WatchBlog of old where differing opinions were welcomed.”

That’s BS, Tim. Everybody is welcome to their opinion, but it’s wise not to forget you’re visiting the blue column. Liberals are tired of debating over Bush’s many failings — they’re more than clear to us. Trying to debate with those defending this president has become a pointless exercise that only increases nastiness and hard words and feelings between us. We’ve all made up our minds by now, haven’t we? So think whatever you like, but I’m done debating on the topic of Bush’s level of “honesty”.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 21, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #135039

Diogenese

Your label probably doesn’t fit as well as you think. You can try that Straussian thing again if you want.

I gave McCain $1000 in 2000 (might have even been in 1999) and canvassed for him. After the primaries, I supported Bush and continue to support him because he is/was the best among the alternatives. The last politician who I thought was really exciting was Ronald Reagan. I am not sure you get to have more than one of those in a lifetime, but I hope McCain can do.

The elections are still a long way away, but I think it will be hard for the Dems to win unless they choose a moderate governor. Richardson, Vilsack and Warner are probably the best bets. Those guys would be acceptable. (I kind of liked Clinton). You can go down with Hilary or (latest daring) Feingold if you want.

Posted by: Jack at March 21, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #135043

Not BS Adrienne. There is an election coming up and people will be shouted down or ignored for their differing opinions.
Wise to not forget which column? Why is that? Because over here, if you dont jump on the hate Bush bandwagon, you are not worth debating. The hell with lack of proof or anything else.

The funny thing about it all is that Zeek wasn’t defending Bush. He was talking about being truthful, honest and fair.
Words that have double meanings to most over here.

Posted by: kctim at March 21, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #135049

kctim,

This is not the WatchBlog of old where differing opinions were welcomed…
The funny thing about it all is that Zeek wasn’t defending Bush. He was talking about being truthful, honest and fair.

All you need to do to be ostracized around here is look like you support Bush on something. Even if, like Zeek, you’re on their side on most issues.
That’s the difference between people who dislike Bush (like Zeek) and people who hate Bush (like Adrienne). Among the people who hate Bush, open-mindedness is not welcome.

Posted by: TheTraveler at March 21, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #135052

degraded our education system and dumbed down young citizens to the point that they can’t think for themselves Posted by: Marysdude at March 21, 2006 11:54 AM

Rock on, dude!
Ignorance is being encouraged as long as it is politically useful.

Nobody here is objecting to intellegent discourse, just trolling, repeating the same defenses of a worthless crooked individual who never did an honest days work in his life, who had the presidency handed to him by his even more rotten and crooked brother, and Rplcn appointees to the SCOTUS. If you think we are bad, you should read about GWBush in the foreign press. Our elections are considered suspect everywhere now, thanks to this family.

There is a difference between these lying liars of larceny, and a person who thinks his sex life is his own business.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 21, 2006 3:50 PM
Comment #135097

I’ll be honest, it’s hard for me to hate people so I can’t speak out against Bush so strongly. However, I am shocked that Adrienne would so wrongly accuse me of coming to Bush’s “defense” when I’m hardly showing him in a good light.

If I’m defending him of anything it’s that he is not any more of a liar than every single politician in Washington. If that counts as being a Bush supporter then things sure have changed since I last came here.


Posted by: Zeek at March 21, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #135127

Adrienne:

I think that Republicans who say things like this have divorced themselves from reality long ago. Hate to break it to you, but all of the polls are reflecting that more people are currently thinking like me than are thinking like you.

Hardly. I’m a moderate and you are a liberal. Have you looked at McCain’s numbers lately??

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 21, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #135136

Adrienne:

Not to pile on, but here is polling data concerning coruption in government. Remember, you believe the current government is the most corrupt in history, and I believe that that is because you are on the far left.

Here is some data from Pew Research:

“Do you think bribery and corruption in Congress is more common now than it used to be, or no different from the past?”

From 2/1-5/06

More Common Now 36%

No different: 60%

Unsure: 4%


ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Jan. 23-26, 2006. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.

“Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling ethics in government?”

Approve: 42%

Disapprove 56%

Unsure: 2%


If 42% of Americans approve of Bush’s handling of ethics in government, this is very very far from the most corrupt government in history as you claim.

What I would offer is that “where we stand, depends on where we sit”, meaning that your claim of this being the most corrupt administation is not based on fact but on your political pursuasion.

I would further state that more Americans think like I do. I think that both political parties have too much corruption. Changing to the Democrats would not help the corruption quota one bit. What does help in corruption is newer blood. The anti incombant thing does reduce corruption as new crooks are not as good as experienced ones.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 21, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #135142

Zeek:
“I’ll be honest, it’s hard for me to hate people so I can’t speak out against Bush so strongly.”

I do hate the Bush Administration and feel I must speak out strongly about them. But it is not an unreasoned hatred I feel for the man himself. No, instead, I hate his actions. I hate that he is unwilling to take responsibility for any of them, and I hate the fact that the Republican majority wants to let him do whatever he feels like with no oversight, and no checks and balances upon his power.
I hate that Bush and his goons pre-emptively invaded a country, started a war and an occupation simply because they wanted to. I hate that the way they were able to get others to go along with this was by cherry-picking facts, spinning intelligence, and lying to Congress, the American people, and the entire World. I hate the fact that they had no plan to fight that war beyond the invasion, and that three full years later, they still don’t.
I hate that so many people — both American soldiers and Iraqi civilians have died or been maimed or disfigured for life because of their lack of a war plan, and because of their many, many mistakes due to the fact that Rummy is a moron.
I hate the fact that the Republicans don’t want to look into how they took us into this war, for it is more than obvious what he has done is a complete betrayal of honor and trust toward our troops, and is an impeachable offense which ranks as a high crime/misdemeanor.
I hate that this president has broke with the Geneva Conventions and disgraced America by ordering torture, set up gulags, used extraordinary rendition to foreign gulags, and used an incendiary like white phosphorus on a civilian population during a war. I hate that this makes him and his administration guilty of war crimes.
I hate that he has abridged our Constitutional rights with the Patriot Acts and used fear to get a large portion of our population eager and willing to go along with that.
I hate that he broke the law and violated the Constitution by ordering law abiding American citizens to be spied upon for doing nothing more but disagree with him and his party’s stances.
I hate the fact that the Republicans don’t want to look into this impeachable offense either, but instead want to change the law to suit the illegality of what he did.
I hate that by his incompetence he has spent this nation into ruin with his unnecessary war, through his sheer fiscal incompetence, and by giving tax cuts that truly only benefit the richest Americans.
I hate that the Republicans who have always accused Democrats of being such out-of-control spenders are the ones who helped him do all of that.

“If I’m defending him of anything it’s that he is not any more of a liar than every single politician in Washington. If that counts as being a Bush supporter then things sure have changed since I last came here.”

His lies and his actions are far, far worse and have had much greater consequences to this nation than any average politician in Washington. And it is true that since you were last here, many of these things have come to light, and that I have run out of patience with people who say that Bushco is just like any other political administration, and that they haven’t really been all that bad.
They are that bad. Indeed, I consider them the worst leaders this country has ever had.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 21, 2006 9:05 PM
Comment #135154

Adrienne, I just wanted to give you this link to Gore Vidals article on Truthdig last week. I do not know if you have seen it. Huffingtonpost generally reprints part of these after a few days, with a link:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060308_vidal_terrorism_propaganda_war/

Posts are being edited now. I am glad I keep track of mine, so I know what I wrote.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 21, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #135157

Adrienne, hating the situation does nothing to improve it.

Additionally, you brought up many things, none of which show how Bush is more corrupt than other politicians. You only explained why you hate his administration. I cannot refute a feeling. I understand where you’re coming from, but you being angry with Bush shows me nothing.

Posted by: Zeek at March 21, 2006 10:06 PM
Comment #135162

Craig Holmes,

You have confused what American believe with what is real. Claiming that most Americans believe that corruption is about the same as always doesn’t make it true. Remember, for months and months and months after 9/11 a majority of Americans believed that Saddam was behind 9/11. Did that make it true? Nope.

What I find especially apalling about the many Republican scandals are two things:

1. This is the party that ran on “family values” and “morals”, and claimed that they won the last election because they reflected those values. When in factg they were no more moral than anyone else. That is perhaps one of the most cynical, hypocritical things I can think of.

2. This is also the party that claims that people should take responsibility for their actions. But when they get caught with their own hands in the cookie jar, do the Republicans practice what they preach? Nope, the excuses come flying out. “The Dems are just as bad”, “It wasn’t REALLY my fault”, “it’s just politics as usual”, etc. Again, this is so hypocritical it makes me want to puke.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 21, 2006 10:17 PM
Comment #135163

Adrienne, I would describe Rummy as more of a sarcastic jerk than a moron. I know people who went to church with him, and think well of him, who have opposite political views.

I really do not understand why anyone would object to a Democrat having such a low opinion of Bush/Cheney. Were these people alive during the presidency of William Jefferson Clinton? The Rpblcns not only hated the president, but the Government of The United States of America. When they were not getting their own way, they shut it down.

I even get enraged when I watch 5th season West Wing episodes, and can not stand Steven Culp to this day, and he is just an actor.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 21, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #135168

Zeek,

Frustrating, isn’t it?
For some people, hatred of bush must come before anything, even political issues. If you don’t agree with their view of Bush, they will automatically consider you a flaming NeoCon and reject you even if you agree with them on the issues! This lack of inclusiveness is one of the reasons the Democrats can’t get through to the average American.

ElliottBay,

Remember, for months and months and months after 9/11 a majority of Americans believed that Saddam was behind 9/11.

No one ever believed that. Not in this country anyway. Not one person! This has to be the most blatant piece of (attempted) revisionism I’ve ever seen!

Posted by: The Traveler at March 21, 2006 10:35 PM
Comment #135171

Elliotbay:

The same thing is true from the right. What the Left AND Right must do is impune motive. Read through Adriennes post again. Everything Bush does comes from evil from her persective. That is because she is far left. The far right does exactly the same thing. (The nineties).

The current Republicans are not the most corrupt of all time. That would be an earlier generation when one could get away with more.

President Bush is not the “worst President” of all time. My own evaluation is that he is average to below average, and was faced with a terrible crisis, that the world had never dealt with before.

Whoever the next president is, from either party, should improve the situation for a couple of reasons. One is that they have the luxury of thinking trough their actions before they are in power so they can respond. In addition they are will not be tied to Bush’s mistakes in lock step.

This may sound aweful to some ears but just as Truman was the first to have to deal with the Communist threat and had poll numbers very much like Bush’s, Eisenhower took the reins finished Truman’s war and we had eight pretty good years.

In Truman’s defense, he was caught “flat footed” by being the first Cold War president. (I can hear democrats say it so I will “Bush is no Truman”. My response is to look at Truman’s poll numbers). Ike had the luxury like our next president to watch the events unfold and have some thoughts about how they will lead.

What I disagree with Liberals like Adrienne about is tone. Liberals are in a peeing war with the right, and both poll numbers are in decline. Democratic leadership numbers are right down there in the mud with Bush’s.

The Democratic party leadership has proven themselves unfit to take over the leadership of the country, right when we need them the most. The country wants to know what the Democrats will do different if given a chance.

In terms of your comments about the repubican congress, this has to be the worst republican congress I can ever remember. They have thrown out just about every conservative value I can think of except right to life.

If ever I would vote democratic this would be the year, but so far the democrats appear to be just as shallow and corrupt as the Republicans. Guess i will just go eat worms!!.

What I am going to do is not vote all the incumbants out as David suggests, but rather reaffirm my own political values and vote for them, where ever it leads.

Craig


Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 21, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #135202

Zeek:
“Adrienne, hating the situation does nothing to improve it.”

True. That’s why it’s so frustrating. Because nothing can be done to fix anything until the Republicans no longer have a stranglehold on all of the power.
But you’re the one who brought up how you couldn’t hate or speak out strongly against Bush, so I was just telling you why I don’t have such trouble. Furthermore, I read a lot of news articles everyday, and absorbing a great deal of info is where all my hatred for what they are doing to this country has come from. If I was ignorant, maybe you’d have a better reason to argue that I have no right to hold this viewpoint, but since that isn’t the case, I don’t feel any need to apologize for any of my positions on the Bush Administration.

“Additionally, you brought up many things, none of which show how Bush is more corrupt than other politicians. You only explained why you hate his administration. I cannot refute a feeling. I understand where you’re coming from, but you being angry with Bush shows me nothing.”

Sorry, I’m not about going to go websurfing in order to concisely lay all the corruption out for you in a bunch of links, only to have you take a quick look and continue to play devils advocate for the Bushies. I’ve got a better idea. Rather than you criticizing me for my positions and negative feelings against this administration, why don’t you give me your take on exactly how honest you feel they are and tell me about what things that you like or dislike about them? Not that I’ll agree with anything, or even wish to debate those things with you, but at least it won’t seem so very one sided. M’kay?

ohrealy:
“Adrienne, I would describe Rummy as more of a sarcastic jerk than a moron.”

Well, I believe that when it comes to trying to wage war, Rummy can definitely be slotted into the clueless moron category.

Craig:
“Read through Adriennes post again. Everything Bush does comes from evil from her persective. That is because she is far left.”

That’s not true. I think only some of what he does is from evil. The rest comes variously from incompetence, greed, narrowmindedness, cronyism, shortsightedness or stupidity.
Btw, I live in the SF Bay Area, and clearly you don’t know from far-left. I think you just say that in order to try discredit me in this blog because you’ve always been such a great defender of the president. Maybe I should start saying you’re a far-right extremist everytime I respond to one of your posts just to see how much you enjoy wearing the wingnut label.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 22, 2006 1:10 AM
Comment #135204
All you need to do to be ostracized around here is look like you support Bush on something. Even if, like Zeek, you’re on their side on most issues.

Ain’t that the truth. I had to take a break for a while.

On the other hand, I think Zeek is wrong. The Bush administration really is more corrupt than any previous administration in my lifetime.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 22, 2006 1:16 AM
Comment #135255

Adrienne,
“why don’t you give me your take on exactly how honest you feel they are and tell me about what things that you like or dislike about them?”

I don’t think they’re honest at all; they’re politicians.

What do I dislike about them? Well, the fact that they treat me like an idiot rather annoys me, but I realize that the Bush administration is attempting to pander to the masses and someone like myself hardly matters to them.

The NSA spying was pretty bad too. I can’t really think of any reason why that should be happening.

What do I like about them? Nothing really.

Posted by: Zeek at March 22, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #135293

Adrienne:


That’s not true. I think only some of what he does is from evil. The rest comes variously from incompetence, greed, narrowmindedness, cronyism, shortsightedness or stupidity.
Btw, I live in the SF Bay Area, and clearly you don’t know from far-left. I think you just say that in order to try discredit me in this blog because you’ve always been such a great defender of the president. Maybe I should start saying you’re a far-right extremist everytime I respond to one of your posts just to see how much you enjoy wearing the wingnut label.

One of the problems in politics right now is that your voice, the voice of the left, is leading the Democratic party. The problem is that there are not enough people on the left to lead. The left’s only hope is to share power with moderates. I am a right leaning moderate. You figure out how you and I can be on the same team and you get to be a part of a majority party.

Right now the only hope the Dems have is the Republicans messing up. Democrats haven’t done anything to prove any sort of national leadership. You and I are far apart. Do a formula to get us under the same tent and Dems take over control of the country.

What I think is going to happen however is that the far left is going to hang on. I think Dems will win the House this election, but, since the “voice” of the democratic party is from the left, (Pelosi?) I don’t see much hope for it to hang on. When Bush is gone in 08, Voters will vote their natural bent which is right center.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 22, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #135326

Jack,

Bush is guilty of treason. It’s that simple. Your right, though. If hte dems get in, Bush will be impeached. …and thank god for that. I just wish their were more responsible conservatives out there who would see the forset for the trees and do the right thing. But this traitor will not get impeached by republicans, unfortuneately.

Posted by: RGF at March 22, 2006 5:44 PM
Comment #135337

ohrealy,
I finally just had the time to sit down and read that Gore Vidal link you put up for me yesterday. Thanks! I really enjoyed it — just as I usually do his articles or interviews. Vidal is brilliant, never boring and usually funny — a real gem. To me, he ranks right alongside of Vonnegut as an author whose political pontificating is just as interesting as their writing.

Gee Zeek, that was (yawn) really informative. Thanks for sharing.

Craig:
“I am a right leaning moderate.”

No, I don’t think so. I can’t consider anyone a moderate who actually still defends this administration after all they’ve done.

“You figure out how you and I can be on the same team and you get to be a part of a majority party.”

I don’t want to be on any team with those who still defend Bush. Because they think it’s okay for the president to hold unlimited power, and ignore the Constitution and the law whenever he feels like it. Those things don’t seem at all American to me. Instead they seem like the actions of far-right totalitarians.
I certainly don’t want any part of that team!
So Craig, since I can’t and won’t approve of what your party has been doing with all their unlimited power, I guess that means I won’t “get” the great prize of being branded a Moderate by you personally. (Oh, what a bummer!)

Btw, has it ever occurred to you that maybe I only seem like a far left extremist because you yourself are a rightwing extremist? What if I’m only a pretty average and typical liberal and you’re the one with a serious perception problem?
Food for thought.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 22, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #135338

RGF:

Bush is guilty of treason. It’s that simple. Your right, though. If hte dems get in, Bush will be impeached. …and thank god for that. I just wish their were more responsible conservatives out there who would see the forset for the trees and do the right thing. But this traitor will not get impeached by republicans, unfortuneately.


In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one’s nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran’s Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: “…[a]…citizen’s actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation].”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

This is what you think Bush is guilty of? I think you are a bit out of the mainstream. 40% of americans still think Bush is ethical.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 22, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #135342

Adrienne:

Btw, has it ever occurred to you that maybe I only seem like a far left extremist because you yourself are a rightwing extremist? What if I’m only a pretty average and typical liberal and you’re the one with a serious perception problem? Food for thought.

There are so few Liberals, that a liberal is pretty far out there from right center.

Here are some moderate views I hold:

1. Pro gay rights. I am opposed to gay marriage but for civil unions. But I am for increasing the rights of gays. If you are a liberal then I would “assume” you would be for gay marriage.

2. Pro public education. I have consistently voted against vouchures although I am tempted to vote for them.

3. Believe in separation of church and state. I sat on a public school board for 10 years and not once, not even once did I bring faith into discussions as a matter of principal.

4. Can be persuaded to increase taxes. (Argument needs to be good). I would have voted FOR Bush’s tax cuts because we were in a recession, but would probably vote to let them expire.

5. Angry at Republican congress because of their spending.

6. Support Bush because I couldn’t stand Kerry. He looked stupid hunting in Ohio.

7. Supported going to war, but think it is long past time to end it. It’s time. Have a son who is a military officer. (Navy, will be deployed to middle east this fall).

8. Believe in helping the poor, but detest waste. I want the “help” to be real help that changes lives, and does not create dependency. Real help.

9. I think we need to do something about Medicine. I am open to new thoughts.

10. I am a former Baptist minister. Seminary Graduate.

So you are a liberal, and I am right center.

In school politics, I worked beside liberals all the time. As a matter of fact, many want me to run for the state legislature, and have even offered money!!! Actually more democrats have encouraged me to run than republicans!!!

I really don’t give a rip if you are a left wing extremist, or just a liberal. What is important to me is the next step for our country, and real ideas that impact our future.

It surprizes me when you say I am defending Bush. It think what I am really doing is disagreeing with your interpretation of Bush. I disagree with you on Bush, but it wont bother me if he is gone. Actually, it wont both me if he is impeached. I think it would be foolish of the dems to do that unless the party made it a national vote and one. I believe that if the Dems said “vote for us, we are going to Impeach President Bush” you would loose. I think mainstram America wants other things done. Just like Mainstream america wanted other things done of congress in the 90’s with Clinton.

Craig


Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 22, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #135348

I don’t give a rat’s ass what 40% of ANYBODY thinks. Mainstream means absolutely NOTHING to me whatsoever. I will follow my own moral compass in the knowledge that there is a REAL right and wrong and it is NOT relative to any polls or opinions.

Bush has declared a war that is contrary to both American and International law, he has violated the constitution, manipulated inteligence, actively pushed for actions by our inteligence men and women that is also violative our constituion and its protections, he has either actively or at least passively allowed for the outing of Plame and stood by and done nothing about it even AFTER Cheney admitted it to the press and that constitues accessory after the fact at the VERY LEAST.

I don’t care one wit about the mainstream. Bush is guilty of treason.

Posted by: RGF at March 22, 2006 7:38 PM
Comment #135361

Traveller,

No one ever believed that [Saddam was linked to 9/11]. Not in this country anyway. Not one person! This has to be the most blatant piece of (attempted) revisionism I’ve ever seen!
Really? I hate to confuse you with the facts, but you are completely mistaken. Just who is being the revisionist here?

Craig,
I don’t think Bush is evil. I think he’s cynical and inept. And I think history will record him as one of the worst mistakes the American electorate ever made.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 22, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #135365

RGF

I don’t give a rat’s ass what 40% of ANYBODY thinks. Mainstream means absolutely NOTHING to me whatsoever. I will follow my own moral compass in the knowledge that there is a REAL right and wrong and it is NOT relative to any polls or opinions.

This sounds almost exactly what the left says about George Bush.

Bush has declared a war

Bush doesn’t have the power to declare war.

I don’t care one wit about the mainstream. Bush is guilty of treason.


You know this and are the judge. Wow. And you don’t need anyone else to help you.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 22, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #135368

Adrienne,

“Gee Zeek, that was (yawn) really informative. Thanks for sharing.”

This is sad. You attack me for being a Bush sympathizer and then ridicule me when I explain why I am not…

Posted by: Zeek at March 22, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #135383

///
40 percent of Americans still thinking Bush is ethical, is why we talk so much about red states and blue states. I look at Bush and see a former obnoxious drunk, who is now only obnoxious, since someone told him that he had to stop drinking and pretend to be religious, so he could become governor and president.

Reagan had better advisors, and a wife concerned about his legacy. Bush makes Reagan look great by comparison.
///

Posted by: ohrealy at March 22, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #135385

Craig,

I know this. It is not a matter of judgement. It is a matter of fact. I am a lawyer, and every element of the crimes committed by Bush are now a mater of public record. I’m not even talking about things where there is room for stilting or bias or interpretation. EVERY ELEMENT IS MET. Bush is guilty of treason. It’s just that simple. It is only because their is such an astonishing level of BLIND loyalty on the part of the GOP politicians and voters that he is getting away with it. I’ve met lawyers in other parts of the world who are somewhat versed in American law and are shocked to see this in our country. It’s profoundly embarrassing. The fact that nothing is being done is also indicative I fear, of the low level to which the knowledge of law and basic civics has sunk to among voting Americans. That’s not embarrassing, it’s tragic.
Our nation is dying from within and it’s the new breed of blindly loyal conservatives who are digging the grave.

Posted by: RGF at March 22, 2006 10:34 PM
Comment #135389


ElliottBay

I don’t think Bush is evil. I think he’s cynical and inept. And I think history will record him as one of the worst mistakes the American electorate ever made.

I am glad you don’t think he is evil. Of course part of the problem from the left is division. (Check other recent posts).

I still like to Truman model. I really do. Not that Someday we will think Bush is a great president.

For instance, in the woods when a person gets hurt, the most dangerous part is manytimes not the injury, but the reaction to the injury. In the same logic, 9/11 was not the greatest danger. The greatest danger was our reaction to 9/11.

If you look at Truman being the first Cold War president, and getting us into a war in Korea, that the next President had to get us out of, I think bares some investigation. What Ike had that Truman did not, is at least some ability to observe from a bit of distance before taking the helm.

The conclusion I draw from this is that brighter days may be ahead, no matter who is elected. Bush was the first President in the war on terror. I think our next president will have a much greater platform to build from.

I also think Democrats are about to make a mistake. I think they are going to build a platform (which is probably pretty good) to run on. However, I think when elected they will disregard that platform and instead go after Bush for Impeachment. I think this is dumb politically for two reasons. First, if democrats are not elected on this issue, it would violate their mandate. Second, Americans move on so fast, that they could look like sour grapes. (Republicans of the 90’s).

I also think the democratic party could do a great service to this country by reducing corruption, infusing some spending discipline, and generally acting as a counterbalance until the new president arrives. It would be a mistake to over reach on mandate the way Bush has done.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 22, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #135398

Craig,

You said:


I also think Democrats are about to make a mistake. I think they are going to build a platform (which is probably pretty good) to run on. However, I think when elected they will disregard that platform and instead go after Bush for Impeachment. I think this is dumb politically for two reasons. First, if democrats are not elected on this issue, it would violate their mandate. Second, Americans move on so fast, that they could look like sour grapes. (Republicans of the 90’s).

This view of yours bothers me for the following reason: The republicans you alude to were on a rather obvious witch hunt in the 90’s. Ken star was not appointed to look into Clinton’s life at all. The only relevance of Monica Lewinski was as a character witness to show that Clinton MIGHT have been dishonest about what he said with regard to White Water. Star was supposed to looking into White Water…he just never found anything there as meaty as Lewinski (pardon the pun). Because of that, it was obvious to EVERY REASONABLE AMERICAN that it was nothing more than a politically motivated witch hunt.

Now comes Bush -
This is RADICALLY different, craig. Our economy is being risked, future health of our country is destabilized and getting more precarious as time goes by, law enforcement and inteligence personnel are being asked to violate American law, Acts that are defined as a matter of law as treason are being committed by senior members of this administartion and then the acts are swept under the rug as meaningless. And worst yet…American lives are being lost on a war that IS NOT LEGAL.

Impeaching Bush is matter of National Security. It needs to happen. We need to show ourselves and the world that we are truely a nation of laws.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at March 22, 2006 11:31 PM
Comment #135409

RGF, well said.

Craig:
“I really don’t give a rip if you are a left wing extremist, or just a liberal.”

If you don’t give a rip, then why do you seem so interested in labeling me as an extremist in all of your postings? Just curious.

“What is important to me is the next step for our country, and real ideas that impact our future.”

I think it is should be clear to all of us that the next step for our country is for Congress to put a check upon this president’s power. To demand accountability, and transparency where there has only been secrecy. Because it should be clear to all Americans that Bush is out of control, and has been acting more like a dictator in many ways than he has an American president.

Unfortunately, there has been no one willing to make an attempt at this, accept for Senators Feingold, Harkin and Boxer, and a small group of Representatives in the House, notably Conyers and Murtha. The rest of them, Republicans and Democrats alike, are quite obviously all too afraid to stand up to do a very important part of the job they were elected to do — be a check upon the power of the executive branch.
If nothing is done, then they (and we as their constituents) have allowed American government and our Constitutional rights to be changed forever.
I suspect that because I am not afraid to say things like this, that is the reason you believe I’m someone who should be classified as being far-left. But if you would, take a look at some of the things that Bill Kristol (influential Neocon opinion maker and editor of the Weekly Standard) said about Feingold’s censure:
“Feingold is smarter than the Democratic Congressional leadership”
“[He] deserves credit for taking a principled stand.”
“I think he’s winning this debate …. As long as the charge is out there [that President Bush has broken the law] and is unrebutted, it helps.”
“[He]is making his case coherently. He’s an impressive politician.”

Obviously Feingold IS smarter than the Democratic AND Republican leadership — because at the moment, he’s the only one of them actually trying to do his job. But of course Kristol is correct in the other sense, as it’s probably always better to stand up than it is to cower and do absolutely nothing the way the Democrats are in reaction to Feingold’s motion.
And yes, he is taking a principled stand (as usual) — in this case, for the rule of law, and for our Constitutional rights.
I don’t think he’s winning the debate — after all he’s the only one making the case. It can’t really be a debate if the GOP is claiming that nothing wrong occurred (nonsense) and the rest of the Dems are being cowards about a confrontation with the opposition.
As for the last comment, Feingold has always been coherent and impressive. Unlike this president and his administration, who are totally incoherent, and who with their incompetence and arrogance have turned the executive office into a joke, rather than treating it like the high honor and priviledge it was meant to be.

“It surprizes me when you say I am defending Bush.”

Maybe at last you’ve realized they aren’t worth your loyalty and esteem, Craig. But you’ve been here for a long while. I’ve read your posts, and you have defended them.

“It think what I am really doing is disagreeing with your interpretation of Bush.”

As I also asked Zeek, why don’t you give me your interpretation of this presidency, your opinion of their trustworthiness, and how you feel their leadership has actually benefitted this country.

“I disagree with you on Bush, but it wont bother me if he is gone. Actually, it wont both me if he is impeached. I think it would be foolish of the dems to do that unless the party made it a national vote and one.”

And I think it is foolish to let any president belonging to any party who behaves as this one does to get away with being so horribly poor in his judgement, so very confused in his policies, so terribly wrong about so very, very much, without a word or an action from our Congress. This is especially true when that president violates our Constitution which he swore he’d uphold.

“I believe that if the Dems said “vote for us, we are going to Impeach President Bush” you would loose. I think mainstram America wants other things done.

I think you’re failing to see that this is not only about Bush. It’s about whether the law don’t apply because the president (ANY president) decided he didn’t agree with that law, so he could break it at will. It’s about whether Congress will now be expected to make what is blatantly illegal, legal on behalf of any president. It’s about whether or not our Constitutional rights will be upheld after 9/11, or whether that document no longer actually applies.
You can give me individual poll questions and their results all you want to try to make your case, but overall the polls are telling us that America is fed up with this administration and their style of leadership. And I think that whenever the law is ignored, and the Constitution is trashed, and our rights are violated, Congress and We the People must demand accountability.

“Just like Mainstream america wanted other things done of congress in the 90’s with Clinton.”

As you may remember, the idea of censuring the president was floated with Clinton, but was turned down in order to go ahead with those impeachment proceedings. Now, if Clinton’s crime actually called for accountability, for the idea of censure, and for impeachment to actually proceed, why is what this president has done being viewed any differently? Indeed, his crimes seem much more serious than lying about having sex outside of marriage.
Why aren’t you Republicans who screamed about Clinton’s transgressions doing the same now? Why aren’t you demanding at least some measure of scrutiny from your leaders for what are clearly at least two cases (the way they took us to war and illegal wiretapping of American citizens) where the president’s actions deserve the same kind of treatment?
You say that the public wants other things done, but in these cases presidential power, and our rights in the future could be forever altered.
And btw, after what happened with Clinton the Democrat, this country voted for Bush the Republican, so I really don’t understand why you all keep saying that demanding accountablity is such a losing proposition.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 23, 2006 12:52 AM
Comment #135440

///
Mainstream America is completely divided on almost all issues. This is a race-baiting terminology that is meant to describe a country that does not exist.
///

Posted by: ohrealy at March 23, 2006 9:13 AM
Comment #135441

ElliottBay,

I hate to confuse you with the facts, but you are completely mistaken. Just who is being the revisionist here?

You are, of course! Go back and look ar our posts.

First you said, “a majority of Americans believed that Saddam was behind 9/11.”

This was, of course, a lie. When called on it, you inserted “[Saddam was linked to 9/11]” into your quote of my response. So now you’re trying to lie about what I was responding to!
There’s a big differnce between being linked to something and being behind it.

Many people believed that Sadam was linked to 911 and many still do. But I have yet to hear of even one person who believed Sadam was “Behind 911.”

Posted by: TheTraveler at March 23, 2006 9:23 AM
Comment #135458

“This is a race-baiting terminology that is meant to describe a country that does not exist”

Does that mean liberals will now adopt this as their new slogan in order to scare up more votes?

Posted by: kctim at March 23, 2006 11:14 AM
Comment #135476

president bush made it plain in his last three speaches the liberal media and the dem. leadership do not deserve a voice in the serious matters that this country is facing today.thats a good thing.so find another hobby.

Posted by: john counts at March 23, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #135540

Adrienne,

“As I also asked Zeek, why don’t you give me your interpretation of this presidency, your opinion of their trustworthiness, and how you feel their leadership has actually benefitted this country.”

Yes, and then you derided me. I have no idea why anyone would respond to your question now.

“Why aren’t [Republicans] demanding at least some measure of scrutiny from [their] leaders for what are clearly at least two cases (the way they took us to war and illegal wiretapping of American citizens) where the president’s actions deserve the same kind of treatment?”

For the same reasons the Democrats by-and-large defended Clinton even after the Lewinsky scandal broke out.

Posted by: Zeek at March 23, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #135567

Zeek:
“Yes, and then you derided me. I have no idea why anyone would respond to your question now.”

I wouldn’t say I derided you, Zeek. But your answers were so lukewarm — like you really didn’t care enough to put much thought into fully answering my question. But I did thank you for sharing, so I don’t understand why you’re getting so huffy.

“For the same reasons the Democrats by-and-large defended Clinton even after the Lewinsky scandal broke out.”

No, I don’t agree. Democrats didn’t react to the Clinton scandal because it was only about sex, rather than something of import to the nation. If you must make a comparison to a similar situation, all you need to think about is how the Democrats protested against LBJ back in the 1960’s. That’s what it looks like when Liberals are angry and disgusted with their own leaders.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 23, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #135577

///
Lewinsky scandal?

You mean the scandal about ken starr wasting millions investigating whitewater, and not finding anything except that an intern got to the president while the rpblcn congress had the government shut down?

Or the scandal that this nonsense proceeding to impeachment, giving a forum to a former rpblcn rep to bloviate about how William Jefferson Clinton, 42nd President of The United States, should have to wear a scarlet letter?
///

Posted by: ohrealy at March 23, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #135603

Traveller,

A majority of Americans DID believe that Saddam was linked to 9/11. I stand behind what I said.

How dare you accuse me of lying.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 23, 2006 11:13 PM
Comment #135734

Adrienne,

“But I did thank you for sharing, so I don’t understand why you’re getting so huffy.”

Apology accepted. :)
(That’s a joke to lighten the mood by the way)

“Democrats didn’t react to the Clinton scandal because it was only about sex, rather than something of import to the nation. If you must make a comparison to a similar situation, all you need to think about is how the Democrats protested against LBJ back in the 1960’s.”

It’s rather hypocritical of you to say I’m using things of a different scale when you compare illegal wire-tapping to the Vietnam war.

However, I have a more important point that I would like to mention. Even if Bush is censured, it really means little for the Democratic party. Bush’s approval ratings are already low and beating a dead horse will waste energy.

Posted by: Zeek at March 24, 2006 7:55 PM
Post a comment