Democrat smear machine

The non-scandal scandal goes on… and on. Is there any real reason for John Conyers to be investigating a crime that isn’t a crime? No. Oh yeah, there is one: being in office while Republican.

Let's break this down for those who may not be following this very closely. A new scandal has erupted based on a partisan congressional investigation of a previous 'scandal' about a crime that isn't a crime that is being investigated as if everything about it is a crime and/or a scandal of epic proportions. (We all knew that Democrats would somehow find a way to link Karl Rove into their smear machine eventually.)

The real scandal is how Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media get away with lying so much and so often.

Absolutely no crime has been committed. Bush can call up the Justice department and fire any one (or a dozen, or all 93) U.S. attorneys-- just because it's Tuesday --it's not a crime. So what is John Conyers investigating?

In the end, political consideration in the appointment of federal prosecutors is not only common, it's practically a Washington tradition. ~time.com

So to put it another way, let's say you made a [insert any legal action here], about which John Conyers has suspicions and pretends to have a great deal of disgust about. He proceeds to fire up a congressional investigation. Subpoening all your phone records, all your mail, all your email, saying that he knows that there is evidence somewhere of something nefarious, "we just have to find it."

Basically, this is precisely the kind of political sleaziness that Democrats claim they are against. But in reality they revel in it.

The uproar over the removals has grown amid allegations that some Republican lawmakers improperly contacted prosecutors about investigations and repeated misstatements by Gonzales and other Bush administration officials about the scope and nature of the dismissals. Democrats have also seized on presidential senior adviser Karl Rove's connection to some of the firings, and on revelations last week that the White House and the Republican National Committee have lost e-mails that are supposed to be preserved under record-keeping laws. ~washingtonpost.com

So what is congress investigating exactly?
Thousands of pages of documents released by Justice have yet to explain the rationale for Iglesias's firing. In his testimony last month, Sampson could not recall why Iglesias was put on the list, which did not happen until Nov. 7, less than two weeks after Domenici's call to Iglesias. ~washingtonpost.com

And? Even if Bush called up Gonzales personally and told him to fire these prosecutors, it is perfectly within his perogative, just as it was within Bill Clinton's perogative to fire ALL 93 U.S. attorneys without any explanation or rationale for their firing.

Except that Democrats claim that this is entirely different. This was an overtly 'political act' in contrast to firing all 93 U.S. Attorneys.

Hmm... then firing all 93 prosecutors because of their political affiliation is... not political?

She conceded that should she win the presidency in 2008, she likely would replace all of the U.S. attorneys appointed by President Bush. She said that's merely following traditions in which presidents appoint prosecutors of their own party.

Clinton argued that the Bush administration's firing of the eight federal prosecutors has caused an uproar because it is seen as a conservative push to shift the balance of power in favor of the executive branch.

Democrats have accused the Justice Department and the White House of purging the prosecutors for political reasons. The Bush administration maintains the firings were not improper because U.S. attorneys are political appointees. ~msnbc.msn.com


I must be missing something here. How is that different again?

If Bush can fire all U.S. Attorneys he can fire eight of them if he wants to.


Lessons from the Clintons

In short, the Bush White House should tell Conyers and his committee that his partisan witchhunt and fishing expedition will recieve no more cooperation from the Executive Branch. Period.

Push back. (Think Ken Starr.)

The Bush administration has a real problem dealing with the Democrat smear machine. They should take a page from the Clinton Administration and up the ante. Unfortunately, Bush seems to think that because he did nothing wrong that there's no need to mount a real defense. How wrong he is.

Democrats talk a great deal about due process and how the patriot act is unconstitutional, and so on, but they don't seem to believe it applies to them.

John Conyers believes that he should be able to subpeona anything and everything he wants despite not having any proof of a crime or reason to investigate.

"Many of us have been saying that the potential for abuse of the Patriot Act's National Security Letter authority is almost without limit. This report demonstrates how that potential has now become a reality," the Judiciary chairman said. "The Justice Department's total lack of internal control and cavalier attitude toward the few legal restrictions that exist in the Act have possibly resulted in the illegal seizure of American citizens' private information." ~rawstory.com

If the, "potential for abuse is unlimited," for the Patriot Act, then what kind of standards are they using to 'investigate' the White House? Is there any limit on Conyers?

There is. It's called public opinion. But again, the Bush White House doesn't seem to care about public opinion. I wish they did.

Posted by Eric Simonson at April 16, 2007 10:50 AM
Comments
Comment #216782

Eric: You might want to read the Constitution. The Congress has the power and right to investigate essentially anything it want to investigate be it possibly criminal or not. Period. The WH has no choice under the Constitution but to cooperate. This is how the Framers’ intended things to work for the reason that they wisely did not trust executive power. In fact, the Framers so distrusted executive power that the Constitution does not the permit the President to act without the explicit authorization of the Congress. From time to time, the Congress has given the President general authorization for a specific category of actions as well as subsequently revoked that authorization. In addition, the President has frequently over-reached his authority and has been subsequently chastised by the Congress and the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Dr Poshek at April 16, 2007 11:17 AM
Comment #216783

As to the USA issue: “Executive prerogative” (as you call it) is not a defense to obstruction of justice (see U.S. v Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)) in criminal law. That being said, when it comes to the Congress investigating the Executive, it is not a matter of criminal vs non-criminal. It is a matter of Congress’ prerogative, as spelled out in the Constitution, to investigate.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at April 16, 2007 11:22 AM
Comment #216786

Eric, it’s pretty clear that this is a political “witch-hunt”; they did the same thing with the Libby trial. It’s a waste of time to argue about it b/c the left has proven (time and time again) that will go after the right ferociously; as opposed to the terrorist worldwide.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 16, 2007 11:38 AM
Comment #216788

Eric,

If John Conyers asked for my e-mails, I would tell him to get a search warrant. I can do that because they aren’t public records. When Karl Rove is conducting White House business, his e-mails are public records. If he doesn’t like that, he can resign or work to change the law.

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 16, 2007 12:01 PM
Comment #216801

Woody: Please read my postings above. Your e-mails can be obtained without a search warrant in a criminal investigation. In a Congressional investigation, they are obtained by a subpoena not issued to you but to your ISP. Anything on the WWW is essentially public under the law. So, please, please, please do not send an e-mail to an attorney confessing any crimes you might have committed. They can and will be used against you as you have no expectation of privacy in e-mail until such time as SCOTUS decides othewise. Heretofore, SCOTUS has refused to hear challenges to this. As things stand now, under the law, sending an e-mail is about as private as writing your phone number on a public bathroom stall.

As for WH employees, nothing they do has an expectation of privacy under the Constitution or by statute as you have correctly noted they are on the public dole.

Posted by: Dr Poshek at April 16, 2007 12:47 PM
Comment #216804

Dr. Poshek,

Rest assured, I will not confess any crimes by e-mail.

I am wondering if you could elaborate on your claim that e-mails could be obtained without a search warrant. I did some Googling and found a case of a spammer named Warshak which is before SCOTUS. Although the Feds didn’t need a search warrant, they did need a court order. Then there are those infamous national security letters, but I am not sure how they in fit with the ordinary criminal justice system.

Anyway, please clarify exactly what you are saying.

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 16, 2007 1:11 PM
Comment #216810

After having watched Clinton get investigated for just about everything under the sun I find laughable that you’re now complaining about Bush rightly being investigated.

If Bush wanted to fire a prosecutor, yes he could. But to replace them he would need Senate approval. To get around this Gonzales abused a Patriot act provision, meant to give the president emergency power to immediately replace appointments. It was meant to be used in cases where terrorists killed someone and the US needed someone else to immediately fill a position.

Worse, then they lied about it, and then lied about it some more, saying the firings were routine and not politically motivated and that Gonzales had nothing to do with the decision. And that’s what’s now being investigated, whether or not they lied to judges and federal investigators. Getting Gonzales this way feels a bit like putting Al Capone away for tax evasion, but, then again, if Gonzales really felt he hadn’t done anything wrong, he wouldn’t have lied.

Finally, stop trying to pin all of this on Democrats. Most Republicans and other Americans want him out just as bad. The Bush loyalists to the end are a very small minority.

Posted by: Max at April 16, 2007 1:52 PM
Comment #216813

Eric:

You made a basic mistake: The Republicans under Karl Rove are running a smear machine. We have seen it in operation for 6 years. Democrats have no such machine. We do not need a machine. The truth about this administration is so terrible all we have to do is tell things as they are.

The Justice Department has been taken over by incompetents and far right fanatics. Gonzalez is one of the incompetents. Goodling is one of the fanatics.

They fired attorneys because they were not following the party - Rove’s - line.

Yes, when a new administration gets into office, customarily they replace U.S. attorneys. Once they are in office, they are NOT replaced except for cause. Attorneys are there to uphold the law, not to satisfy politicians.

In plain language, the Bush administration is corrupting the Justice Department.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at April 16, 2007 2:15 PM
Comment #216814

Max,
“Finally, stop trying to pin all of this on Democrats. Most Republicans and other Americans want him out just as bad.”

Where many conservatives (including myself) don’t like AG and would like to see him resign or replaced; he shouldn’t be ousted for some trumped-up bullsh*t (partisan) charge like this. That’s just not going to happen.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 16, 2007 2:22 PM
Comment #216821

Rahdigly,

Perjury isn’t a trumped up charge, just kind of a lame one considering the circumstances. After all, if Gonzales had just said, “yes, I planned from before I had this position and was instrumental in firing those justices and replacing them with people loyal to this administration’s policies and perspectives” there would be no case. But instead he lied about it.

I would prefer Gonzales go for repealing Habeus Corpus and Miranda or even just for abusing the Patriot act. A responsible president would sack him right now for any of those reasons. However, I’ll take what I can get. You committ perjury and or obstruct justice, you go to jail. That’s the law.

Posted by: Max at April 16, 2007 3:11 PM
Comment #216823

Dr. Poshek, Woody, Max and Paul, many good points.

“Democrat smear machine”

HA! Don’t you just love it when the giganic, overflowing cauldron of boiling putrescence calls the wee kettle black? Too funny.
Oh, and btw, it’s Democratic, but of course you all know that. You just like using the “rat” on us. Hmmm, maybe it’s time the Dems start calling the GOP the “Republick” Party. That “lick” at the end sounds similarly disgusting, but in a moist and foully slobbering way.

Conservatives to Bush: Fire Gonzales

In what could prove an embarrassing new setback for embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on the eve of his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a group of influential conservatives and longtime Bush supporters has written a letter to the White House to call for his resignation.

The two-page letter, written on stationery of the American Freedom Agenda, a recently formed body designed to promote conservative legal principles, is blunt. Addressed to both Bush and Gonzales, it goes well beyond the U.S. attorneys controversy and details other alleged failings by Gonzales. “Mr. Gonzales has presided over an unprecedented crippling of the Constitution’s time-honored checks and balances,” it declares. “He has brought rule of law into disrepute, and debased honesty as the coin of the realm.” Alluding to ongoing scandal, it notes: “He has engendered the suspicion that partisan politics trumps evenhanded law enforcement in the Department of Justice.”

The letter concludes by saying, “Attorney General Gonzales has proven an unsuitable steward of the law and should resign for the good of the country… The President should accept the resignation, and set a standard to which the wise and honest might repair in nominating a successor…” It is the first public demand by a group of conservatives for Gonzales’ firing. Signatories to the letter include Bruce Fein, a former senior official in the Reagan Justice Department, who has worked frequently with current Administration and the Republican National Committee to promote Bush’s court nominees; David Keene, chairman of the influential American Conservative Union, one of the nation’s oldest and largest grassroots conservative groups, Richard Viguerie, a well-known GOP direct mail expert and fundraiser, Bob Barr, the former Republican congressman from Georgia and free speech advocate, as well as John Whitehead, head of the Rutherford Institute, a conservative non-forit active in fighting for what it calls religious freedoms.

Here’s the link to the letter: “An Unsuitable Steward of the Law”

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2007 3:17 PM
Comment #216826

Max,
“You committ perjury and or obstruct justice, you go to jail. That’s the law.”

(IMO) It’s about setting perjury traps for Bush Admin officals; that’s exactly what it is and nothing more elegant than that!!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 16, 2007 3:37 PM
Comment #216853

Congress’ approval ratings have gone from 19% to 40% since Democrats took control. One can look at that statistic and say 40% is terrible, or, the more of the people are encouraged.

But, the fact is, firing a person, let alone 8, because of their political beliefs, actions, or inaction, is at the least, unethical in America where political freedom without retribution is a cornerstone of our Constitutional government.

If one then lies about their firings, another breach has taken place. And as this Administration has shown, thanks to the Congressional hearings, the unethical and illegal cover-up attempts snowball from there. This has all the appearance of being a Republican trait. But, the truth is, it isn’t. This is a trait of many in both the major parties and an outgrowth of their defensive nature in a competitive arena.

Why has Jefferson never explained the $90,000 cash in his freezer purportedly handed to him by a bribery sting operation? Perhaps because it was Republicans who set up the sting in the first place? It would explain why this Justice Dep’t. has not held Jefferson to account. They don’t want to expose their own abuse of power in setting up Jefferson for a bribe. I will say this for Republicans, more than Democrats, they are masters of unintended consequences.

They set up a sting for Democrat Congressman, and then can’t prosecute because their political targeting and framing of a Democrat would become exposed. Laughable, in a sad way.

Republicans mantra has been cover each other’s political back in exchange for loyalty. But, when Bush began firing folks to remove links back to the White House, that fidelity to covering each other’s backs fell apart. The only surprise is that Republicans were surprised when the U.S. Attorneys raised a stink over being fired on false and defamatory grounds.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 16, 2007 4:59 PM
Comment #216859

Oh, and by the way Eric, if your argument were a ship, it would reside permanently on the bottom of the sea. Cause it’s like, you know, so full of holes?

Posted by: Steve Miller at April 16, 2007 5:08 PM
Comment #216864

rahdigly, Republicans set their own traps by actions for which they do not want to answer for or have exposed. It was Republicans who called Republicans on the carpet for this and many other actions along with Democrats. Some Republicans do still have integrity, but they tend to get fired for it. In America, government is answerable for its actions. Avoiding the traps is easy, don’t do things you will have to lie about.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 16, 2007 5:32 PM
Comment #216869

rahdigly said

“It’s about setting perjury traps for Bush Admin officals”

How do you get caught in a perjury trap if you don’t lie?

Posted by: 037 at April 16, 2007 5:55 PM
Comment #216872

“Obstruction of justice” is a category of criminal behaivior that was codified for the very purpose of bringing office holders and their lackies before the bar inspite of their poltical power connections. Any and all misrepresentations to investigative authorities, be they the Congress or any other law enforcement agency, is an obstruction of justice. In simple English, if you do not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, you are guilty of obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice charges are not limited to criminal investigations. When Alberto, in private meetings with members of Congress failed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, he committed the crime of obstruction of justice for the reason that the law requires everyone to tell the truth to the Congress. This also applies to his press conferences.

I am baffled by the posts here that defend lying. There is no such thing as a so-called perjury trap. If you tell the truth, there is no danger of being charged with perjury. In other words, do not attempt to protect your boss when your give testimony to Congress or the FBI. What the Scooter Libby case demonstrated is that lying is a crime when you are caught, plain & simple. Tell the truth, even when it incriminates your bosses, and you will not be charges with perjury or obstruction of justice. In folklore, liars taking the bullet for their bosses are lauded. Fortunately, under the law, these liars are criminally culpable as they should be. Any and every government employee, be they a political, military, or civil service employee has one alligience: the Constituion of the the United States. The law does not give a pass to political appointees to screw the American people whether they by President or some underling. The purpose of perjury and obstruction of justice statutes is to counter political power. Lie for your superior, and you will go to jail. When you are politically appointes, your loyalty is to the people, the Constitution of the Unite States and not to small-time Texas political hacks.

For brainless children like Monica Goodling who attended a 4th rate law schools, do not fail to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth…. any violation of the basic oath means you will be regarded as uncreditable for rest of your life before the courts of this country. More importantly, such behavior is the basis of disbarrment. God is not going to protect you when you lie even if you graduate from Pat Robertson’s university and act in loyalty to Dubya.

In America, the highest authority is the law and not some Pat Robertson plastic god (see the 1st amendement). Monica Goodling is probably due a full refund of her tuition as Regent made a promise they could not keep.

For ideologically brainless children like Monica Goodling who attend 4th rate schools, the 5th amendement privilege is limited to post-spective behavior. You cannot claim a 5th amendment privelege for lying in the future. The lesson: if you want to be a lawyer, you need to spend your time reading the law and not the 3 mythological stories of Genesis 1 & 2…. it’s called separation of church & state.

Finally, if your paycheck comes from the Federal government, you loyalty is to the Constitutiion, the people of the United States and not to a party or king-pretender.

Posted by: Dr Poshek at April 16, 2007 5:59 PM
Comment #216874

Well, I’m not at home, and soon on my way there, so let me start from what would be wrong regardless of whether a law was broken.

First, lets start with a provision that was slipped into the patriot act to make permanent replacements for US Attorneys without Senate Approval. This means Bush being able to bypass Congress on who he choses to put in these very important posts.

Second, lets go with the justifications: those given were performance problems. Almost all of them have proven false. Why are we badmouthing US Attorneys for their performance when they were doing good, even excellent jobs?

Third, let’s go with the circumstances. Domenici was calling Iglesias, asking whether he could speed up an investigation that was supposed to affect an opponent. That is an outright ethics violation, right there. For good reason, too. It’s highly unsavory for a Senator to be putting political pressure on the top law enforcement official for part of a state in order to shape prosecutions that could help his campaign. Instant conflict of interest.

With the Carol Lam firing, it could even end up bringing obstruction of justice into the picture, because she was working on cases that were directly harming political fortunes for the GOP. US Attorneys are supposed to do this, it’s their duty, regardless of what party the President hails from. By firing Carol Lam, the President sent a message that similar prosecutions would have consequences. Not good. Not good at all.

And what about all the different versions of the stories given to Congress? If it can be proven that these stories were deliberately false, that’s a crime right there.

Before we pile this all on Al Gonzales, let’s remember two things:

1)Who hired him.

and

2) Who makes the final decisions on hiring and firing the US Attorneys.

Or rather remember that the answer to both questions is George W. Bush, president of the United States.

According to many in the legal community, this has had an adverse effect on the credibility of the US Attorneys, and on the Justice Department as a whole. Was all this mess worth the political benefit Bush and the Republicans have gained from it? No. There are more important things than winning elections.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 16, 2007 6:05 PM
Comment #216875

rahdigly: You cannot be charged with perjury if you tell the truth. The rules are simple: tell the truth and the truth will set you free. Lie, and you will go to jail where you belong…. hello, bubba!

Posted by: Dr Poshek at April 16, 2007 6:06 PM
Comment #216878

Stephen: Your previous post further supports my contention that Gonzo’s successor needs to be person of integrity like John Danforth. It’s the one chance Dubya & Co have to assert credibility. Unfortunately, I am a beginning to doubt whether Dubya & Co have any desire for credibility.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at April 16, 2007 6:10 PM
Comment #216902

Why should we be interested in this non-scandal? Well, for one they blatantly used the Patriot act for partisan political purposes. Then, they lie about (A) When it was planned, (B) Who was involved, (C) Why they did it. It comes to light that they were using their personal email systems to discuss business. Instead of fessing up that this was a way of circumventing accountability, they claim they simply didn’t think about it. On top of that they delete all records of the conversations, which is also illegal. They claim they didn’t realize that either.

To add insult to injury, none of this was necessary. The Bush administration seems a perfect example of absolute power corrupting absolutely. They establish an emergency powers Patriot act, and immediately take advantage of it for small potato political advantage. They have shown over and over again that there’s nothing they won’t do, no loophole they won’t take advantage of, if given the chance. This wasn’t a Democrat setup, it was yet another example of this administration’s blatant abuse of power while providing a “the dog ate my homework” type excuse.

Posted by: Max at April 16, 2007 7:45 PM
Comment #216904

Dr. Poshek,
“You cannot be charged with perjury if you tell the truth. The rules are simple: tell the truth and the truth will set you free. Lie, and you will go to jail where you belong… hello, bubba!”


You can if you’re subpoenaed and go in front of a grand jury (ala Scooter Libby). This really isn’t an issue. It’s something for the democrats to do while in power b/c they refuse to go after the terrorists (the real enemy); unless, of course, they’re are talking (diplomatically) to them (ala Speaker of State Pelosi).***

By the way, that was a good pun, regardless whether you meant it or not, when you talk about perjury and ended the sentence with “hello Bubba”. :-)

Posted by: rahdigly at April 16, 2007 8:00 PM
Comment #216916

If all the politicions republican or democrate were put under oath tomorrow and questioned they would all have new room mates named Bubba.

Posted by: dolan at April 16, 2007 9:17 PM
Comment #216918

Dolan
Ain’t that the truth

Posted by: KAP at April 16, 2007 9:27 PM
Comment #216919

Not only do 58% of Americans trust the Congress to do a better job dealing with Iraq policy, 57% believe we can win the war on terrorism without winning Iraq.

The al-Qaeda presence in Iraq nearly nonexistent when we got there. By that token, Iraq had nothing objective to do with the War on Terrorism. If the Bush White House had done it’s homework instead of going all out on a crusade to vindicate a conspiracy theory about Saddam being the sponsor of al-Qaeda, we might have made a great deal more progress making America safer.

If you want to find who’s gone after the wrong enemy, both here at home, and abroad, look in the mirror. Most Democrats have insisted on making Bin Laden and his terrorists the target of our fight from the start. Myself included.

Regarding perjury traps, that’s a fine bit of political paranoia that doesn’t add up to much.

Ignorance or malice. That’s what it comes down to. If you show up at Congressional hearing ignorant, you’re a fool. If you show up intending not to tell the truth, you’re a foolish liar. The folks at the White House have to get it through their thick skulls that the days of being able to lie to congress and have folks cheerfully accept the BS are at an end, rather than try to remain untouchable after America has revoked the impunity of a sympathetic congress.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 16, 2007 9:28 PM
Comment #216938

The problem with the argument of “Congress can investigate anything at anytime” completely ignores the fact that there is nothing to investigate and that this is a partisan which hunt. The hypocrisy is palpable. I hope that when the Republicans get back in power they seek to impeach Pelosi, reid and Durbin (turbin) and Check for treason. Then execute them for treason. Hey lefties its the law, treason is an executable offense. Still have the same tripe about law and order when it means your criminals are prosecuted for actual crimes rather than imagined crimes?

Posted by: Adam at April 16, 2007 11:26 PM
Comment #216940

Wow

Adam is so mad that the political process works and that his allies don’t get immunity from the law that he wants to kill the people with whom he disagrees.

Wow

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 16, 2007 11:41 PM
Comment #216944

Adam,

Imagined crimes?!!!! That’s such B.S!!! It’s time you bought a mirror.

How about the republickers investigating Clinton for 3 years for “imagined crimes”? In the end coming up with NOTHING until Clinton’s own arrogance trapped himself for committing the high crime of…uh…..adultry?

Clinton’s staff testified to Congress on plenty of occations without empty calls for ‘priviledge’ when the righties carried out their imagined crimes.

Yet in the span of 2 MONTHS the Dems have already got the Bush adminstration crying for presidential priviledge regarding the testimony of their staffers for you would call “witch hunts”. Get a clue!

Posted by: Matthew at April 17, 2007 12:06 AM
Comment #216945

**TAKE 2**

Adam,

Imagined crimes?!!!! That’s such B.S!!! It’s time you bought a mirror.

How about the republickers investigating Clinton for 6 YEARS for “imagined crimes”? In the end coming up with NOTHING until Clinton’s own arrogance trapped himself for committing the high crime of…uh…..adultry?

Clinton’s staff testified to Congress on plenty of occations without empty calls for ‘priviledge’ when the righties carried out their imagined crimes investigations.

Yet in the span of 2 MONTHS the Dems have already got the Bush adminstration crying for presidential priviledge regarding the testimony of their staffers for you would call “witch hunts”. Get a clue!

Posted by: Matthew at April 17, 2007 12:18 AM
Comment #216946

This was the best thread title yet. Hilarious! Who knew the eric had any humor left???

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 17, 2007 12:19 AM
Comment #216973

Here’s my long and short on this issue.

The number of subpoenas that were issued by congress to the White House from 1995 to 2000 was 1,050.

Between 2000 - 2005 there were zero.


Congressional oversight…its a bitch get used to it because it’s back in town.

Also was looking all over for a Christopher Shays ( I think it was him) quote made during Senate testimony on the issue.

To paraphrase, [ The US Attorneys serve at the leisure of the president but the United States Justice system DOES NOT serve at the leisure of the President.]

Eric stop putting your party ahead of your country. I want more oversight not less no matter who is in charge.

Posted by: muirgeo at April 17, 2007 7:30 AM
Comment #216974

One other bit for consideration;

WASHINGTON — Back in the mid-1990s, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, aggressively delving into alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration, logged 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether former president Bill Clinton had used the White House Christmas card list to identify potential Democratic donors.

In the past two years, a House committee has managed to take only 12 hours of sworn testimony about the abuse of prisoners at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison.

humm?….huh?…humm?…..anything Eric?

Posted by: muirgeo at April 17, 2007 7:33 AM
Comment #216979

Adam said

“Then execute them for treason. Hey lefties its the law, treason is an executable offense. Still have the same tripe about law and order when it means your criminals are prosecuted for actual crimes rather than imagined crimes?”

Hey Adam I can think of two people who sold 2000 missles to Iran in exchange for 1 prisoner. Is this considered giving aid to the enemy? How do you the conservatives feel about Oli North? Traitor? How about John Poindexter? Convicted felon, yes! Traitor? Bush didn’t seem to care when he hired him.

You seem to throw that word traitor around a bit too freely.

Posted by: 037 at April 17, 2007 8:26 AM
Comment #217016

Adam-

The problem with the argument of “Congress can investigate anything at anytime” completely ignores the fact that there is nothing to investigate and that this is a partisan which hunt.

You know something the rest of us don’t? From the sound of it, you should be up on capitol hill, explaining everything. Go! Your fellow party members are in need!

Seriously, unless you can debunk the issues at stake in this investigation, yours is a circular argument, essentially saying that the investigation should not go on because you think it should not go on.

The hypocrisy is palpable. I hope that when the Republicans get back in power they seek to impeach Pelosi, reid and Durbin (turbin) and Check for treason. Then execute them for treason. Hey lefties its the law, treason is an executable offense.

And you folks complain about Bush hatred. Have you ever considered that this conviction that you folks are the only loyal Americans, your representatives the only ones not selling out the country, is the big reason your party’s been reduced to minority status?

I think the real problem is that you don’t like the fact that you don’t have all the power you need to run things your way. The founding fathers put restrictions and mechanisms in place to prevent the true believers from taking over and cutting everybody else out permanently.

Your party would be a lot better off now if it had learned to live with this aspect of our nation’s Democracy. Instead, they tried to push things past that, and the system punished them just as it’s supposed to.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 17, 2007 10:42 AM
Comment #217019

Nothing like some more of the incessant, never-ending partisan warfare.

The firings were wrong, but not illegal.

But the subsequent lies, cover-ups, and obstructionism may be. Someone deleted information that may even violate the law with regard to maintaining presidential records. Violators should be held accountable, but they’ll weasel out of somehow, as usual.

But, this is yet another good example of how the nation’s more pressing problems take a back seat to the incessant, circular, petty, time-wasting, distracting partisan warfare; wasting precious time and tax payers money.

Democrat Smear Machine?
Thanks for a good laugh.
BOTH are experts at it.

So, what has Congress accomplished since 7-Nov-2007 ?

Posted by: d.a.n at April 17, 2007 10:49 AM
Comment #217022

07-NOV-2006 ? 07-NOV-2006 ?

Posted by: d.a.n at April 17, 2007 10:55 AM
Comment #217034

I get it now, (had my coffee late) this should be about the:
Republican Snear machine

And for those “people” who keep talking about “teason,” as if they had a clue:

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president.
Theodore Roosevelt
26th president of US (1858 - 1919)

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 17, 2007 11:54 AM
Comment #217046

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1260741,00.html

Posted by: Max at April 17, 2007 12:39 PM
Comment #217052

Dan-
By what evidence have you determined that this is the only matter that Congress is attending to?

Additionally, given your zero tolerance position on Voter Fraud, I would like to understand what you find frivolous about going after a Bush White House operation that was intended to punish those who didn’t make their quota of Democrat-damaging charges of voter fraud and misconduct.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 17, 2007 12:54 PM
Comment #217062
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I would like to understand what you find frivolous about going after a Bush White House operation …
Stephen Daugherty,

Where do you get these non-sequiturs?
I just wrote above:

But the subsequent lies, cover-ups, and obstructionism may be. Someone deleted information that may even violate the law with regard to maintaining presidential records. Violators should be held accountable, but they’ll weasel out of somehow, as usual.

So, how does my statement: Violators should be held accountable = E_Q_U_A_T_E = to your statement: “find[ing] it frivolous”? ! ?

I just wrote above that the firings are not illegal, but the cover-ups, obstructionism, and lies that followed may be, and the Violators should be held accountable.

And where did I write it was “the ONLY matter Congress is attending to”?

I seriously question its priorities.

Still, is it not true that the nation’s most serious issues are losing attention to yet another issue like these firings that weren’t even illegal in the first place (even if unethical)? The point is, where are Congress’ priorities?
And what are the chances anyone will EVER be convicted of a crime? Heck, look at Representitive William Jefferson (D-LA,2). What he did is more egregious, but he’s still in office and Pelosi even recommended him to the Homeland Security committee.

I asked what has Do-Nothing Congress accomplished since 7-Nov-2006 ?
Feel free to answer it if you like.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 17, 2007 1:31 PM
Comment #217099

Woody: SCOTUS has accepted the Warshak case (as it does in all cases) to hear arguments on specific legal questions. In Warshak, the key legal question is one of statutory construction. Hence, it is not likely the Court will rule on the fundamental 1st, 4th, & 5th amendment issues of the case. But, hope springs eternal (assuming the Court would rule in favor of strengthening those constitution liberties).

Now, a few words about the Warshak case. The court order (as opposed to search warrant) of which you speak was not issued against Warshak; rather, it was issued against the ISP. Further, there is essentially no burden of proof required for acquiring a court order in this type of case. Unless there was a contractual provision between the ISP & Warshak to the contrary, the ISP would have no basis for non-compliance with the court order. Had a search warrant (which requires probable cause) been issued, it would have been issued against Warshak and he would have had the opportunity to challange the warrant and could have obtained an injunction against the ISP for the purpose of preventing the ISP from turning over the e-mails until such time as the validity of the warrant had been determined by a competent court (in the case, the Federal court).

In short, SCOTUS will not be directly addressing the question of e-mail privilege in Warshak. And until such time as it does, e-mail has no privilege as the Enron folks found out. The law has not caught up with the technology. A little historical perspective: It took 60 years for the law to catch up with the telephone and when it did, it was largely a result of statutory law & not constitutional law.

Posted by: Dr Poshek at April 17, 2007 4:21 PM
Comment #217101

d.a.n.: Under the Constitution, the Congress has no greater priority than the oversight of the Executive. The Constitution does not command the Congress to pass any legislation. The Constitution does command the Congress to oversee the Executive. It was not until the latter part of the 19th century that Congress has often made legislating the bigger part of its activities as the Federal government & the country developed into the modern nation we now know.

Posted by: Dr Poshek at April 17, 2007 4:28 PM
Comment #217115
Dr Poshek wrote: d.a.n.: Under the Constitution, the Congress has no greater priority than the oversight of the Executive.
The Constitution does not command the Congress to pass any legislation. The Constitution does command the Congress to oversee the Executive. Yes, to make sure it follows it.

You’ll get no argument from me on that.
However, there are some powers that the Executive Branch has that Congress may not be able to control.
Such as escalating a war in Iraq while a majority in Congress oppose it.
Such as starting a war without sharing all secret information to support the reasons.
The Constitution may need some amendments.
But Congress is standing in the way of the too (ignoring 568 applications by all 50 state legislatures for an Article V Convetion to address amendments).

Dr Poshek wrote: It was not until the latter part of the 19th century that Congress has often made legislating the bigger part of its activities as the Federal government & the country developed into the modern nation we now know.
And, boy do they.

Many that duplicate and overlap each other, and some that contradict each other.
And then Congress refuses to enforce those laws or chooses to enforce the laws selectively (i.e. illegal immigration).

So, were the firings illegal?
As usual, it appears that the subsequent cover-up, obstructionism, and lying is where the real law breaking occurs.
Hopefully the guilty will get indicted.

However, if Dems and Repubs spend all their time wallowing in the partisan warfare, when will they finally get around to doing the business of the people, and finally looking at these pressing problems, growing in number and severity, and threatening the future and security of the nation?

What has Congress accomplished since 07-Nov-2006?
Immigration (for Samoa too)?
What good is that when millions of illegal aliens are still undermining the minimum wage, still flooding across the borders by the millions, displacing 2.3 million American workers, and costing American tax payers over $70 billion in net losses annually?

The bottom line is this.
(1) too many politicians in the federal government are too irresponsible and unaccountable.
(2) and too many slumbering voters allow it; even empower it by rewarding politicians by repeatedly re-electing them.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 17, 2007 5:38 PM
Comment #217118
What has Congress accomplished since 07-Nov-2006?

I think that it’s really funny how many times you’ve asked this question over and over on several different threads on WatchBlog.

And yet, it’s not even a question that makes a bit of sense. You are asking what the current Congress has done using a dates that’s two months before they took office.

But hey, if you ask the same meaningless question over and over and over, I’ll bet it starts to seem like you’re asking an intelligent question.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 17, 2007 5:42 PM
Comment #217122

What’s funny is the inability of anyone to answer it.
What happened to the first 100 hours?
What happened to the 5 day work weeks?
What happened to the ban on earmarks?
What happened to campaign finance reform?
What happened to ethics reform?
How long does it take?
Here it is mid Arpil.
It’s a fair question.
What has Congress accomplished this year?

There’s a reason the MSM calls it the Do-Nothing Congress

Posted by: d.a.n at April 17, 2007 5:55 PM
Comment #217125
What’s funny is the inability of anyone to answer it.

It’s not inability. It’s lack of interest in banging a head against a wall.

You’re the only one I’ve seen calling this a Do-Nothing Congress, and thankfully you’re not MSM.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 17, 2007 5:58 PM
Comment #217127

Jack Cafferty on CNN calls it a Do-Nothing Congress.
ABC News calls it the Do-Nothing Congress.
CBS News calls it the Do-Nothing Congress.
Lots of people question why Congress can’t ever pass a large number of badly-needed, no-brainer, common-sense reforms.
If you haven’t noticed, then you need to get out more.
Perhaps your defense is partisan biased?
I’ve noticed a lot of that going about since 90% of the 109th Congress became the 110th Congress.
So you’re happy with Congress?
You’re happy with all this?
And you think Dems had nothing to do with it?

Here’s some more links calling Congress the Do-Nothing Congress.

  • giveemhellharry.com/blog/99/exceeding-the-do-nothing-congress

  • www.cqpolitics.com/2006/07/the_cqpolitics_forum_a_donothi_1.html

  • www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/01/dobbs.August2/index.html

  • www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-sklar/donothing-congress-don_b_30128.html

  • http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/07/congress-budget-recess/

  • www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/27/eveningnews/main2046610.shtml

  • www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/25/opinion/schieffer/main1749425.shtml
If you want to see a few hundred more examples?, just google “Do Nothing Congress”.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 17, 2007 6:12 PM
Comment #217128

Jack Cafferty on CNN calls it a Do-Nothing Congress.
ABC News calls it the Do-Nothing Congress.
CBS News calls it the Do-Nothing Congress.
Lots of people question why Congress can’t ever pass a large number of badly-needed, no-brainer, common-sense reforms.
If you haven’t noticed, then you need to get out more.
Perhaps your defense is partisan biased?
I’ve noticed a lot of that going about since 90% of the 109th Congress became the 110th Congress.
So you’re happy with Congress?
You’re happy with all this?
And you think Dems had nothing to do with it?

Here’s some more links calling Congress the Do-Nothing Congress.

  • giveemhellharry.com/blog/99/exceeding-the-do-nothing-congress

  • www.cqpolitics.com/2006/07/the_cqpolitics_forum_a_donothi_1.html

  • www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/01/dobbs.August2/index.html

  • www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-sklar/donothing-congress-don_b_30128.html

  • thinkprogress.org/2006/04/07/congress-budget-recess/

  • www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/27/eveningnews/main2046610.shtml

  • www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/25/opinion/schieffer/main1749425.shtml
If you want to see a few hundred more examples?, just google “Do Nothing Congress”.
Anything else?

Posted by: d at April 17, 2007 6:13 PM
Comment #217129

:)

d.a.n, the ABC link is from May 2006. In fact, all of the links are from before this Congress took office, to say nothing of the invalid date you use. You say the MSM calls the 110th Congress “Do-Nothing” when all the examples you give refer to the 109th Congress.

This must be so embarrassing for you.

Before you accuse me of partisan bias, you might want to have at least some relevant evidence to back up your claims.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 17, 2007 6:19 PM
Comment #217136

lawnBOY,
So?
You think things are that much better now?
I never said when they said it, and don’t care.
There’s no difference.
I’m not at all embarrassed.
What I said is factual.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 17, 2007 6:41 PM
Comment #217140
I never said when they said it, and don’t care.

Yes, you did:

What has Congress accomplished this year?
There’s a reason the MSM calls it the Do-Nothing Congress

You explicitly claimed that the MSM calls this year’s Congress the “Do-Nothing Congress”, and they do no such thing.

You lied. Now you’re weaseling ineffectively. That you’re not embarrassed is all the more embarrassing.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 17, 2007 6:47 PM
Comment #217144

lawnBOY,
I never said when it occurred.
Prove it.
Otherwise, you are clearly the liar.
For your information, many are still calling it the Do-Nothing Congress.
So how is it I lied?

Do-Nothing Congress 2007-03-04
Do-Nothing Congress 02/06/2007
Do-Nothing Congress 03/04/2007
More …

  • hangrightpolitics.com/2007/03/21/the-do-nothing-democrat-congress/

  • politics.netscape.com/story/2007/01/08/opedmany-more-sons-will-die-while-the-democrats-do-nothing-to-stop-the-war
  • Want to see more … just gooogle “Do Nothing Congress 2007”.

    So how did I lie, lawnBOY ?
    Since people are STILL calling it the Do-Nothing Congress?
    Perhaps you ought to do a little research before you call other people liars.
    The only person embarrassing themselves is you calling other people liars without a shred of evidence to support it.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 17, 2007 7:00 PM
    Comment #217155
    I never said when it occurred.
    Prove it.

    You implied that the MSM was talking about this year’s Congress, and I already proved it by looking at your own words.

    Since people are STILL calling it the Do-Nothing Congress

    When your misuse of MSM quotes is pointed out, you respond with references to blogs.

    Blogs.

    You said the MSM. Blogs are not MSM.

    It would be so much easier for you just to admit that you attempted to misled everyone here by misapplying quotes. Go ahead. We won’t lose any respect for you.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at April 17, 2007 7:36 PM
    Comment #217164

    lawnBOY,
    You didn’t prove I have lied about anything.
    You now say “implied”.
    I never even implied.

    It would be easier if you admit you are wrong and quit calling people liars.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 17, 2007 7:51 PM
    Comment #217168

    d.a.n

    You said that MSM calls this year’s Congress a “Do-Nothing Congress”. Nothing of the sort exists.

    That’s proof by the reasonable standards of logic. What standard do you propose we use?

    I didn’t realize how upset you’d get when caught lying. It’s kinda scary.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at April 17, 2007 8:03 PM
    Comment #217186

    Dan-
    You start with these words:

    Nothing like some more of the incessant, never-ending partisan warfare.

    And then follow with all kinds of goodies, including a reiteration of the notion that it’s just partisan warfare.

    You know, the problem is, “partisan warfare” is a pretty content-free way of looking at things. This system was meant to be adversarial, to a certain extent. That’s what checks and balances are about.

    The real issue is that we’re dealing with an administration that is so political and partisan, that you have to fight it every inch of the way, or give in to the worst kinds of precedents. This is the Administration that believes it can override acts of congress with signing statements, that the President can interpret laws the way the courts can. This is a president who when given the message that America wants out in Iraq, decided to put even more troops in.

    If you follow the case, you’ll find endless revisions of their story, endless excuses, but ultimately plenty of proof that just about everything said about them was right. They said it wasn’t political, that it was performance. They say this guy knew, this guy didn’t.

    You want people to simply cooperate, but it takes two to tango, and the Bush administration is not a very nice dance partner.

    Additionally, you never answer my question: What makes you think that Congress is incapable of focusing of more than just this at once? We are talking about a pretty big organization with a great number of staff members.

    This is what oversight looks like, when you have an administration that’s gone without it for three quarters of the time it’s been running. If you’re content simply with symbolic resistance, start griping. Otherwise, support holding this administration accountable. This is the mechanism the founding fathers put in place to make sure that one faction didn’t rule supreme with impunity. There’s a place and a need for partisan warfare: the parties should be competing to keep out of each other’s sights by not giving the opportunity for that with screw-ups and violations of the law.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 17, 2007 9:19 PM
    Comment #217188

    lawnBOY
    I wrote MSM calls Congress a “Do-Nothing Congress”.
    That is a fact.
    I never wrote “this year”.
    You made that up.
    I wrote others say that Congress is still a “Do-Nothing Congress”.
    That’s a fact.
    Yet, you blatantly call me a liar.
    You say “Scary?
    What kind of drama queen nonsense is that?
    So naturally, you resort to name-calling.
    You called me a liar several times, when the only lies I see are your own comments.
    You called me a liar, but haven’t any proof whatsoever.
    I’m not upset, because I’m not the one telling lies and calling everyone else a liar.
    That’s obviously your forte.
    I’m just waiting to see how deep your gonna dig that hole your in.
    And I think I’d better go put my boots on, ‘cause it’s gettin’ pretty deep.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: What makes you think that Congress is incapable of focusing of more than just this at once? We are talking about a pretty big organization with a great number of staff members.
    Yep. So, what has Congress accomplished this year? It’s a simple question. What’s the problem?
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Otherwise, support holding this administration accountable.
    That’s what I’m doing.

    Not just the White House.
    The Congress too.
    So how long does this Congress need before it does ANYTHING?

    What has it done so far?
    Minimum wage?
    Is that it?

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 17, 2007 9:29 PM
    Comment #217193
    I never wrote “this year”. You made that up.

    Sigh.

    Here’s your quote:

    What has Congress accomplished this year?

    There’s a reason the MSM calls it the Do-Nothing Congress

    To what do you claim “it” refers in the second sentence? The only possible antecedent for this pronoun comes from the preceding sentence, in which you talk about this year’s Congress.

    You claim that you didn’t use the words “this year”, but I have underlined them in the quote above. I hope that helps.

    So naturally, you resort to name-calling.

    Name calling? I haven’t called you any names at all. I said that you lied. That’s not a name - that’s a factual description of one of your actions. In contrast, you increasingly excessively distort my name. Please stop.

    You called me a liar several times, when the only lies I see are your own comments. You called me a liar, but haven’t any proof whatsoever.

    No. I said you lied, not that you were a liar. In fact, you were the first to use that term, in reference to me.

    You made a claim that you cannot support. If it was a mistake, it would have been fine and easily explainable. Instead, you ratchet up rhetoric and make fun of my name. Please stop.

    If you don’t like “lied”, I’ll happily let you cop instead to “intentionally used deceptive tactics to mislead readers of my words as to the meanings of quotes by others.” It’s more descriptive, but no less accurate.

    I’m not the one telling lies and calling everyone else a liar.

    Well, actually… Oh, never mind.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at April 17, 2007 9:44 PM
    Comment #217197

    lawnB_O_Y
    I wrote MSM calls Congress a “Do-Nothing Congress”.
    That is a fact and I provided proof of it (by CBS, ABC, CNN, etc.)
    I never wrote “this year” (even though it’s still true).
    You made that up completely and have zero proof.
    I wrote others say that Congress is still a “Do-Nothing Congress”.
    That’s a fact.
    These are facts you can not disprove.
    Yet, you blatantly call me a liar?

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 17, 2007 10:05 PM
    Comment #217199
    I never wrote “this year” (even though it’s still true). You made that up completely and have zero proof.

    I quoted those words back to you. They are from this comment. What more do you want?

    And while it might still be your opinion that the 110th Congress is “Do-Nothing”, it is not something that the MSM has called it, contrary to your claim.

    These are facts you can not disprove.

    Like your use of “this year” that I quoted, underlined, and linked to?

    Please stop misusing and distorting my name.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at April 17, 2007 10:11 PM
    Comment #217201

    lawnB_O_Y,

    I wrote MSM calls Congress a “Do-Nothing Congress”.
    Again, that is a fact and I provided proof of it (by CBS, ABC, CNN, etc.).
    Please provide proof otherwise if you can.
    Just google and you’ll see hundreds of hits.
    I never wrote “this year” (even though it’s still true).
    You made that up completely and have zero proof that I attributed a time-period with that statement.
    I wrote others say that Congress is still a “Do-Nothing Congress”.
    That’s a fact.
    These are facts you can not disprove.
    Yet, you blatantly call me a liar?
    Why?
    Your facts are wrong.
    You keep calling people liars.
    Why?

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 17, 2007 10:16 PM
    Comment #217207

    d.a.n,

    Until you start accepting grammar, logic, facts, politeness, and the possibility that you’re wrong, there’s really nothing more to say here. I hope that you give this a second read and realize that you said everything that I’ve quoted back to you. You don’t even deny or attempt to re-interpret the quotation of your own words; you amazingly just ignore it.

    So, until you either start being reasonable here, or until we meet up on another thread, goodbye.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at April 17, 2007 10:25 PM
    Comment #217209
    lawnB_O_Y wrote: Until you start accepting grammar, logic, facts, politeness, and the possibility that you’re wrong, there’s really nothing more to say here.
    If only you followed your own advice. You have the gall to talk about politelness when it was you that called others liars when the facts clear proved you were wrong?
    lawnB_O_Y wrote: I hope that you give this a second read and realize that you said everything that I’ve quoted back to you. You don’t even deny or attempt to re-interpret the quotation of your own words; you amazingly just ignore it.
    Nonsense,

    You call people liars and offer no facts to back it up.

    lawnB_O_Y wrote: So, until you either start being reasonable here, or until we meet up on another thread, goodbye.
    Good. If you can’t back up your rude accusations with facts and evidence for calling other people liars, then good riddance.
  • Posted by: d.a.n at April 17, 2007 10:31 PM
    Comment #217243

    d.a.n and Lawnboy, your dialogue is now treading into critiquing the Messenger and NOT the Message. Observe our rules or lose the privilege to comment here.

    Posted by: WatchBlog Manager at April 18, 2007 1:37 AM
    Comment #217249

    LawnBoy,

    Isn’t it possible he made a mistake rather than lied?

    d.a.n.,

    Is it possible you conveyed a meaning that perhaps you didn’t intend?

    Intransigence proves little, except stubborness.

    Posted by: gergle at April 18, 2007 4:33 AM
    Comment #217254

    Weary Willie: You might want to read your American history before you speak. The “Democratic Party” has been the “Democratic Party” since is incorporation in the early 1800s. The “Democrat Party” aspersion/slur is a 20th century phenomenon created by the ANTI-democratic GOP. And this aspersion/slur first came to its heights through the mouth of Senator Joe McCarthy. It recieved a new life via the new GOP when it crawled in bed with the fundatmentalist religious right.

    Also, had you consulted any basic English grammar book, you would understand that “Democrat Party” is grammatically incorrect not unlike GWB’s every sentence. Obviously, your “as long as I can remember” is an extraordinarily short period of time and ill-informed.

    Posted by: Dr Poshek at April 18, 2007 5:42 AM
    Comment #217255

    My dear d.a.n.: Your accusations against the Congress of now 4 months is simply unfair and lacking in substance. The current Congress has done more to bring an out-of-control, imperial presidency under control than any other Congress since the founding of this nation. THAT is the Congress’ job.

    You seem to have the rather misguieded idea that the preservation of our Constitution is of a lesser importance than addressing passing issues. You seem to not understand that the most pressing issue in the history of our country is is the preservation of our constitutional democracy in the face of an anti-democratic president and party. You apparently have do not understand that the long-term viability of this country depends upon a Congress that holds the Executive in check. The GOP declared war on our constitution democracy over 40 years ago. It is the Constitutional responsibility of Congress to counter these efforts. While your independence of party is to be lauded, the reality demands something much different. Your immediate gratification is contrary to the long-term well-being of our country.

    Posted by: Dr Poshek at April 18, 2007 5:53 AM
    Comment #217261
    Isn’t it possible he made a mistake rather than lied?

    At this risk of violating the policy further, I’ll respond to this from gergle.

    It’s quite possible that d.a.n made a simple mistake, and I even tried to give him that out. All he had to say was that he misspoke - that’s actually all I expected when I pointed out his error. Instead, he has taken the approach of digging in his heels and denying his own words, even when they are quoted back to him.

    Back when I first used the word “lied”, I probably made a mistake myself. The mistake was not in being inaccurate, but in using a word that was a trigger. If I had just said “You were wrong. Now you’re weaseling ineffectively,” then perhaps the focus would have stayed on the content instead of devolving into making fun of someone’s name, ignoring contrary evidence, etc.

    But I hope we’re done with this now.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at April 18, 2007 8:17 AM
    Comment #217273

    Lawnboy, Thanks for your response.

    The thing I wanted to point out, without inflaming this, was that d.a.n. probably felt that his statement that MSM had called the 109th Congress, and others do-nothing, but not the 110th was insignificant. That doesn’t mean he lied. It may make him inaccurate. There is a difference. It seemed to me that you were talking past each other.

    Personally, I don’t think we can measure Congress like a sausage factory, meaning the number of bills is not a measure of the work product, and it is premature to call this Congress do nothing.

    d.a.n. does have a valid point that Congress is often ineffective.

    Posted by: gergle at April 18, 2007 10:01 AM
    Comment #217279

    gergle,

    I think it’s quite apparent that d.a.n wants us to think that he doesn’t see a difference between the 109th Congress and the 110th Congress (although he strangely keeps asking about Nov 7, 2006). However, the people in the MSM whose quotes he is misusing see a difference.

    By misappropriating statements about the 109th Congress and applying them to the 110th Congress, he is putting words in other people’s mouths and being deceptive. I think it’s more than just inaccuracy, because he holds to his comments after the distinction is made clear.

    d.a.n. does have a valid point that Congress is often ineffective.

    Oh, sure. That’s very true. d.a.n often makes good points, and this is one of them, that Congress often disappoints. I won’t deny that. However, it doesn’t mean that it’s acceptable to misuse other people’s quotes to say something that they never intended to say.

    As I said, I apparently shouldn’t have used the word “lied” because it caused a tantrum. I’ll be more careful in the future.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at April 18, 2007 10:52 AM
    Comment #217293

    Eric

    The point you are missing (or leaving out) is that Gonzales said the firings ware not for political reasons. Under oath when everybody new these positions are by definition political appointments.

    This raised the question as to why Gonzales would say this. Gonzales created the impression that there was more, like obstruction of justice. The Democrats kept feeding him rope as he hung himself with multiple stories about how this all happened.

    Now as one who is more in the middle than most Democrats, I see a real danger that this is beginning to look like a fishing expedition. For all the talk of a smoking gun among the left blogs, all I see is incompetence and firings for political reasons. Both of which Bush is entitled to. Not that it is desirable, but I don’t see a crime other than the original perjury. It is just a case of another stupid lie by an incompetent Administration. Or so it seems so far.

    Hopefully the Democrats will soon see they have made as much political hay out of this as they can and move on to more important issues. I have my doubts that any case was actually effected. On the other hand if they show that much of the work of the Justice Department is nothing more than political harassment, people will have a dim view of Republicans for allowing it.

    Call it smear if you must. The Democrats are certainly scoring political points. But even I think it is reaching a point of diminished returns.


    Posted by: JohnBoy at April 18, 2007 11:46 AM
    Comment #217394

    Weary Willie,

    Great points. Maybe you’re not completely nuts.

    Posted by: gergle at April 18, 2007 9:02 PM
    Comment #217400

    Do you think the democrats have America’s best interests at heart?? If you do you’re delusional. I told all my democrat friends that as soon as the hoopla over the 2006 mid-term elections wore off that the old left wing would retake the reins of control and their sole agenda would be to:
    1. Undermine the War against terrorism

    2. Investigate the Bush Administration and everything the President had done the past 6 years.

    3. Raise everyone’s taxes.

    4. Negotiate with Terrorists.

    5. Blame everything that is bad on the Bush Administration.

    And unless you’ve had your head stuck in the sand somewhere, everything I stated has happened.

    And have the Democrats forgotten that President clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys when he took office?? But that’s ok..Bill was a Dem…everything a Dem does is ok. Remember he didn’t have sex with that woman.
    And to think there’s a chance we might have 8 more years of the Clintons. God help us if that happens.

    Posted by: xx_PIG_xx at April 18, 2007 9:23 PM
    Comment #217404
    And have the Democrats forgotten that President clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys when he took office??

    No, because the important part is the last part: “when he took office”. All Presidents change the US Attorneys when they take office.

    That’s not what this issue is about.

    In this case, it appears that this corrupt administration fired fired effective attorneys in order to stop ongoing investigations into their political allies. That’s obstruction of justice.

    It’s a completely different thing.

    everything I stated has happened.

    No, not really. Despite the right-wing rhetoric, none of your little list has happened. Oh wait, did you miss the memo that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11? And while there are some investigations into the Bush administration (finally!), it’s far from everything that should have been investigated about that group over the last 6 years.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at April 18, 2007 9:37 PM
    Comment #217411

    xx_pig_xx,

    1. Undermine the War against terrorism.

    Personally I think Bush did this when he diverted troops and resources from Afghanistan and the pursuit of Bin Laden.

    2. Investigate the Bush Administration and everything the President had done the past 6 years.

    OOps…Did you mean Clinton and the last 30 years? They haven’t investigated everything yet, so that’s just stupid.

    3. Raise everyone’s taxes.

    Which taxes have been raised? More stupidity.

    4. Negotiate with Terrorists.

    Did you mean Don Rumsfeld?

    Or did you mean Pakistan?

    5. Blame everything that is bad on the Bush Administration.

    But isn’t it you blaming everything (erroneously) on Democrats?

    Posted by: gergle at April 18, 2007 10:03 PM
    Comment #217415

    Lawnboy

    Be specific. Which investigations?

    Posted by: tomh at April 18, 2007 10:15 PM
    Comment #217416

    I don’t understand the question.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at April 18, 2007 10:16 PM
    Comment #217435
    Poshek wrote: My dear d.a.n.: Your accusations against the Congress of now 4 months is simply unfair and lacking in substance.
    Yeah?

    Never mind that over 90% of the 109th Congress in in the 110th Congress.
    Time will tell.
    Congress just gave itself another raise (the 9th in 10 years).
    Congress just passed a BILL loaded with pork-barrel.
    What happened to the ban on earmarks?
    Congress increased the miniumum wage, but still ignores illegal immigration (selective enforcement of the laws).
    What happened to the first 100 hours, when we’re now at the first 100 days?
    What happened to ethics and campaign finance reform?
    What about all of the many badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms?

    Poshek wrote: The current Congress has done more to bring an out-of-control, imperial presidency under control than any other Congress since the founding of this nation. THAT is the Congress’ job.
    What has Congress stopped?

    You over-estimate Congress’ power and resolve.
    What is clear is that Congress doesn’t have that much control.
    Bush has sent more troops to Iraq, regardless of the majority of Americans opposed to it.
    That is what should be of great concern.

    Poshek wrote: You seem to have the rather misguieded idea that the preservation of our Constitution is of a lesser importance than addressing passing issues.
    Based on what, exactly. Please be specific.

    Please site exact sentences by me that support that broad conclusion.
    Of course not.
    Because it is total nonsense.
    That statement is a complete fabrication.
    I respect the Constitution until it is changed lawfully, have never condoned Bush’s violations of the constitution, and have stated many times in other threads that the power of the Executive Branch to wage war, and escalate war, as Bush is now doing, without the approval of the vast majority of America, reveals a potential flaw in the Constitution.
    I’ve also noted that all 50 states’ legislatures have made 568 requests for an Article V Convention, our constitutional right, yet Congress ignores it. Article V does not place a time limit on that.

    Poshek wrote: You seem to not understand that the most pressing issue in the history of our country is is the preservation of our constitutional democracy in the face of an anti-democratic president and party.
    Such a conclusion is not supported by anything I’ve written.

    Where have my comments ever diminished the importance of the Constitution, or supported Bush’s violations of it?

    Poshek wrote: You apparently have do not understand that the long-term viability of this country depends upon a Congress that holds the Executive in check.
    Again, such a conclusion is completely unsupported by anything I’ve written.

    I’ve written against Bush’s wire-tapping without civil-oversight.
    I’ve written against Bush’s blunders and his co-blunderer’s blunders many times.

    Poshek wrote: The GOP declared war on our constitution democracy over 40 years ago.
    That’s not supported by the facts either.

    I’m not defending ANY party for ANY of their deeds.
    In the last 40+ years, Democrats controlled Congress most of that time.
    The GOP had it the last decade, they screwed the pooch big time, and they lost the majority in Congress, and that is a good thing for which I’m very happy about.

    Poshek wrote: It is the Constitutional responsibility of Congress to counter these efforts.
    I agree completely.

    So why do you say “You apparently have do not understand” this and that?
    Are you really sure you know what my positions are?
    Or is is just some more piling on … an interesting phenomenon that can be observed here from time to time?
    Perhaps there is something to the “Democratic Smear Machine”?

    Poshek wrote: While your independence of party is to be lauded, the reality demands something much different. Your immediate gratification is contrary to the long-term well-being of our country.
    Immediate gratification to what?

    A Congress that is responsible and accountable?
    That’s a fair question.
    It’s mid April and there still haven’t been much done.
    Of course, the current Congress may be a little better than the previous IN-PARTY.
    But what has Congress been accomplished this year?

    • Another pork-laden BILL? (visit cagw.org for details).

    • Illegal immigration is still being ignored, as politicians essentially pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other by refusing to enforce existing laws? (costing Americans over $70 billion in net losses)?

    • Voting minimum wage, but refusing to stop the massive influx of millions of illegal aliens, depressing wages, and displacing 2.3 million American workers, burdening our schools, hospitals, ERs, welfare, prisons, healthcare, and even voting in our elections? Also, a minimum wage now is a bit stange when Congress just gave itself its 9th raise in 10 years.

    • So, Congress gave themselves another raise, despite Pelosi’s talk of voting against it?

    • Especially while our troops risk life and limb, some go with out body armor, humvee armor, adequate medical care, or promised benefits?

    • Ignoring campaign finances reform and government FOR-SALE?

    • Ignroing the $8.9 trillion National Debt?

    • Ignoring the massive unfunded Medicare liabilites?

    • Ignoring the excessive money printing and the falling dollar?

    • Ignoring election reform and barriers for 3rd party and independent voters for access to ballots and debates?

    • Ignoring Gerrymandering?

    • Ignoring ethics reform, more transparency and accountability?

    lawnBOY,
    I never said MSM since 7-Nov-2006 called it the Do-nothing Congress.
    My statements were factual.
    Especially prior to 7-Nov-2006.
    However, if the blogosphere is part of the MSM, then my statement is still factual even after 7-Nov-2006 also.
    It depends on the definition of MSM.
    If you go to wikipedia, you’ll see the internet is considered by some as a mass media too.
    Especially considering the amount of time people spend on the internet these days.
    Mass media is related to the masses reached.
    However, if the blogosphere is not part of the MSM, then the MSM has not yet (to my knowledge) called the 110th Congress the Do-Nothing Congress. But again, I never stated that. So calling me a liar is unjustified.

    Still, my statements were completely factual and I do not deserve to be called a liar as some have done here:
    (1) What has Congress accomplished this year?
    (2) There’s a reason the MSM calls it the Do-Nothing Congress.
    Sentence (1) does NOT set a time limit or period for sentence (2).
    It does not mean the MSM (excluding the blogosphere for this argument) have said it yet this year.
    There was no lie, despite some calling me a liar.

    However, in my opinion, it STILL is a Do-Nothing Congress, and others in the blogosphere agree.
    Thus, the question, “What has Congress accomplished this year?” is a valid question which is still being avoided by many.

    While this 110th Congress may not quite as corrupt as the 109th (let’s not forget about William Jefferson and Pelosi recommending him for the Homeland Security committee, or the attempt leave out Samoa for a minimum wage, or the failed attempt to nominate Murtha, or the pork-barrel in the last BILL), I don’t see much difference in deeds or behavior.
    I still see pork-barrel, massive growing debt, borrowing, excessive money printing, pork-barrel, waste, and many of the nation’s most pressing problems STILL going ignored.

    And why should we expect the 110th Congress to be so different when over 90% of the 109th Congress are within the 110th Congress?

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 18, 2007 11:40 PM
    Comment #217439

    d.a.n,

    I’ve politely asked you many times to stop distorting my name. This behavior (of which I am not your only target) is not acceptable in this forum.

    Please stop.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at April 18, 2007 11:54 PM
    Comment #217491

    d.a.n. wrote :

    (1) What has Congress accomplished this year?
    (2) There’s a reason the MSM calls it the Do-Nothing Congress.
    Sentence (1) does NOT set a time limit or period for sentence (2).

    _______
    For clarification, what is the ‘it’ in sentence (2)? Is “it” not “what the congress accomplished this year”?

    Posted by: bandman at April 19, 2007 8:04 AM
    Comment #217492

    Bsndman, I think we’ve beat that subject to death.

    Posted by: gergle at April 19, 2007 8:06 AM
    Comment #217497

    d.a.n,

    I’ve asked you not to distort my name. That should be a sufficient request between adults.

    Heck, I certainly don’t think italicizing or bolding certain characters is a bannable offense, as long as it is spelled EXACTLY the same way

    Does this mean you think you should be banned for the way you make fun of American Pundit?

    gergle,

    Good luck with cleaning out those viruses. Thanks for the chuckle.

    bandman,

    Thanks for trying as well to point out how grammar works.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at April 19, 2007 8:44 AM
    Comment #217514
    So technically, my statement, even if miscontrued, is technically correct.

    No. Blogs are by definition not the MSM. The term MSM was appropriated by the blogoshpere specifically to differentiate between the large media outlets and non-mainstream media like blogs. That the internet is a form of mass media does not imply that a particular subset of the internet meets a definition that was created explicitly to exclude it.

    It’s amazing to me the hoops you’ve jumped through, the logic you’ve twisted, the quotes you’ve misappropriated, the definitions you’ve faked, and the grammar you’ve ignored instead of simply just admitting that what you said was incorrect.

    It would have been so much easier.

    Then again, you’ve spent a lot of unnecessary time and energy coming up with new ways to distort my name despite my polite requests for you to stop and the warning from the site manager for you to stop. Perhaps doing things the easy way doesn’t appeal to you.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at April 19, 2007 10:09 AM
    Comment #217516
    American Pudfit American Pudnit American Puntit

    All from a post by d.a.n. yesterday.

    I enjoy reading the discourse on this website, but d.a.n. has made it less enjoyable as of late.

    Posted by: bandman at April 19, 2007 10:16 AM
    Comment #217535
    MSM
    The concept of mass media is complicated in some internet media as now individuals have a means of potential exposure on a scale comparable to what was previously restricted to select group of mass media producers. These internet media can include personal web pages, podcasts and blogs.
    Posted by: d.a.n at April 19, 2007 11:13 AM
    Comment #217537

    Some, including myself would agree that the term MSM and Mass media are not interchangeable. Mass media is much more inclusive and far reaching than what people generally consider the “MSM”.

    Posted by: bandman at April 19, 2007 11:28 AM
    Comment #217538
    So, how is condoning putting a person’s name on a picture of a mass murder respecting others?

    No one claimed it was. Please move on.

    So, technically, MSM includes the internet according to the wikipedia definition.

    Yes, but not bloggers. Otherwise, MSM has no meaning whatsoever. cnn.com is MSM. You and I are not.

    I’ve accepted your admission of error. Please cut your losses and move on.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at April 19, 2007 11:28 AM
    Comment #217540

    From the same wikipedia entry:

    Technically, “mainstream media” includes outlets that are in harmony with the prevailing direction of influence in the culture at large.

    Read the link all the way through and you may understand, not necessarily agree, that many consider MSM and Mass Media as different terms.

    Posted by: bandman at April 19, 2007 11:33 AM
    Comment #217543

    Then why does it say:
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    (Redirected from Mainstream Media) ?

    What does it say: These internet media can include personal web pages, podcasts and blogs ?

    Seems pretty clear.

    lawnBOY wrote: I’ve accepted your admission of error. Please cut your losses and move on.
    What error? So lie is now error?

    Move on?
    You may do that at anytime.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 19, 2007 11:50 AM
    Comment #217545

    d.a.n.

    The way wikipedia works is if there isn’t a page for the particular term or phrase, it redirects you to the closest choice(es). There is no topic for MSM, HOWEVER, MSM is covered within the Mass Media citation. I’m suprised you didn’t know that and I hope this information is helpful.

    Posted by: bandman at April 19, 2007 11:55 AM
    Comment #217551

    bandman,

    That’s a nice theory.
    Unfortunately, it is wrong.
    The two terms are similar is why they redirect to a similar, or analogous term.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 19, 2007 12:00 PM
    Comment #217557
    Mass media is a term used to denote, as a class, that section of the media specifically conceived and designed to reach a very large audience (typically at least as large as the whole population of a nation state). It was coined in the 1920s with the advent of nationwide radio networks and of mass-circulation newspapers and magazines. The mass-media audience has been viewed by some commentators as forming a mass society with special characteristics, notably atomization or lack of social connections, which render it especially susceptible to the influence of modern mass-media techniques such as advertising and propaganda. It is also gaining popularity in the BLOGOSPHERE when referring to the MainStream Media (MSM).

    From the Urban Dictionary:MSM (“mainstream media”), major TV networks and large newspapers. Blogs are eating into MSM eyeball share.

    If Daily Kos was a newspaper, it would rank #5 in circulation (it would’ve been #3 last October, in the runup to the election). The top blogs have more readers than most cable news channel shows have viewers. And while their circulation numbers and ratings fall, our numbers continue to grow.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 19, 2007 12:15 PM
    Comment #217558

    I’ll let you do your own research and clarification on the word “similar”.

    WOW!

    Posted by: bandman at April 19, 2007 12:15 PM
    Comment #217563
    It is also gaining popularity in the BLOGOSPHERE when referring to the MainStream Media (MSM).

    Which means that blogs refer to the MSM as “Mass Media”, not that blogs are MSM.

    Blogs are eating into MSM eyeball share.

    This sentence explicity uses the terms MSM and Blogs as being in opposition to each other, not as being similar or analogous. Thank you for providing more evidence against your desperation.

    The top blogs have more readers than most cable news channel shows have viewers.
    True, but irrelevant on two levels.
    • The examples you gave were not “top blogs” like Daily Kos.
    • Popularity does not equate to mainstream (I know you provided a contrary opinion by Kos, but that doesn’t mean that his opinion is common or correct).
    Posted by: LawnBoy at April 19, 2007 12:26 PM
    Comment #217598

    Oh, so now I’m a racist too?

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 19, 2007 1:45 PM
    Comment #217600

    People like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter (among many others on either extreme) cringe at being called a part of the MSM, even though they full well understand that they are in the Mass Media business. Get it yet?

    Posted by: bandman at April 19, 2007 1:53 PM
    Comment #217601

    No. Could you be more specific?

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 19, 2007 1:57 PM
    Comment #217631

    http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/25836
    “Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years.”

    http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/03/15/a-dishonest-republican-talking-point-on-the-prosecutor-scandal/
    “For policy reasons every president replaces all of the prosecutors at the Justice Department in the beginning of their term. George H. W. Bush did, Bill Clinton did and so did George W. Bush. And when George Bush did this in 2001 it was not a scandal or a problem. It was completely normal.”

    http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/46916/
    “It is unusual to fire U.S. attorneys in mid-term except in cases of gross misconduct, which doesn’t appear to be the case for the forced resignations under discussion. I don’t yet know how often that’s been done. But the larger issue here is not so much the firing (although the firing is an issue) as it is the replacing. The Bush White House appears to have found another way to gut the Constitution and usurp powers that belong to another branch of government.”

    http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002853.php
    “Clinton Did It Too! Talking Point Came from Justice Dept”

    If the Bush administration did nothing wrong and they have a good defense for the firings, why would they foist this false defense on the American public? Looks like they must have done something wrong. Looks like they counted on being able to deceive their own supporters into endlessly repeating their blatant attempt at misdirection. When will conservatives get tired of being played for fools by the party they support?

    Posted by: Pat Penobscott at April 19, 2007 3:34 PM
    Comment #217633

    Well, apparently one of the editors is busy cleaning up this conversation. Will there be anything left when he is done?

    Posted by: LawnBoy at April 19, 2007 3:38 PM
    Comment #217679

    If I knew any other way that I thought would help d.a.n. understand the point a few of us are trying to make, I would post it. Sadly, I don’t think that’s the case.

    I’ll be reading every day as usual, but I an normally not a poster. Keep up the dialogue.

    Posted by: bandman at April 19, 2007 6:46 PM
    Comment #217686

    bandman,

    Sadly, you’re far from the first to come to that realization.

    Thanks for trying.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at April 19, 2007 7:28 PM
    Comment #217707

    Weary Willie-
    You know, the truth is, all politicians are dogs. If our dogs are getting scratched behind the ear, and are being let up on the expensive real estate, it’s because they’ve been good dogs.

    My brother reimagined Bush as a disobedient canine in an episode of The Dog Whisperer. Funniest damn thing I ever read. If anybody ever needed obedience training, it’s him. The American people keep on calling him a bad dog, but he never listens.

    You seem in denial about why your people are in the doghouse. Could it be that people are repeating these things to your party because one repeats unacknowledged complaints to folks who haven’t taken real responsibility?

    The trick is, while your people repeat the same talking points with little to back you up, we’re out there digging up the facts, and they’re backing us up. So we’ll keep on barking at you guys about this until your people acknowledge the problem. Believe me, you fellows are digging yourself deeper all the time, and burying your chances for coming back to prominence out in the yard.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 19, 2007 9:29 PM
    Comment #217756

    LawnBoy,

    Well, apparently one of the editors is busy cleaning up this conversation. Will there be anything left when he is done?

    I don’t know, but I’ve noticed several of my reasoned comments have disappeared from other posts as well. I guess I’m personna non gratis.

    So much for free speech. I realize perhaps I violated some policies as d.a.n. did, but it seemed to me that watchblog was unresponsive and continued to allow rather abusive behavior to continue for a long period.

    It could be my IP is banned as well. I couldn’t post earlier and have only been able to through a “trick”

    Posted by: gergle at April 20, 2007 1:43 AM
    Comment #217813

    Yeah, I suspect your virus was considered over the line.

    Sorry.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at April 20, 2007 11:16 AM
    Comment #218011

    Weary Willie-
    You insulted Democrats as being disobedient dogs. The Readers of this page are lucky that I’m the sort of person who would rather parody such extended personal provocations than respond in kind.

    The Republicans can be content to insult and alienate themselves into isolation in this country, or they can wake up from the dark spell of the last few decades and realize that their relentless disrespect for those on the other side of their debates has cost them much of their support.

    It’s one thing to smile when you’re on the giving end of one of those insults, easy enough to grin. It’s another thing altogether to be on the receiving end.

    Unfortunately for many Republicans, they’ve underestimated the results of flinging that kind of rhetoric at people who were otherwise largely in agreement beforehand. It’s the kind of thing that causes people to re-examine what they believe, just like seeing people screw up policy they ought to be good at.

    At this point, Republicans and Right-Wingers are better off mending fences than retreating further into their angry dismissals of their dissenters.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 21, 2007 5:40 PM
    Comment #218338

    Weary Willie-
    The Income Tax was approved by the 61st Congress, with a Republican Majority in Both Houses.

    The several decades of Democratic majority in the legislature encompass America’s emergence as a world power, as the leading economic power, the beginnings of our current technological revolution, and the last clean victory that this country ever got in a war. The Cold War was both begun and won on our watch, with America succeeding.

    Bill Clinton, had to clean up the fiscal mess of his predecessors, as will the new Congress and the next president, likely a Democrat, will have to clean up this one. We will have to clean up the Iraq mess, the mess Bush has made of the intelligence community, the army, the Justice department, FEMA… The list goes on.

    I won’t claim my party is a panacea for all America’s problems. We’ve caused our share, as well as solved our share. Excellence in Government is not a default characteristic of any party, but something that arises in the character of those who govern.

    It’s easy to blame the Democrats for everything. It’s easy to blame anything anybody for everything, to make a scapegoat out of it. The Price of scapegoating is the lack of personal responsiblity. You blame us for everything, why reform your own behavior? Thing would be perfect if only we weren’t allowed to interfere!

    But that’s never the case with anybody, and those who dodge responsiblity pretty soon find it boomeranging back at the least convenient time.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 24, 2007 10:52 PM
    Comment #218673

    In response to the claim that the 110th Congress is still a Do-Nothing Congress, this Op-Chart in today’s New York Times is instructive (particularly the linked multimedia).

    Congress is certainly working harder. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, have set five-day work weeks as the norm, not the exception, and both chambers have been in session much more frequently in the first quarter than they were in the comparable period of the previous Congress. All measures of activity have increased: committee markups, roll call votes, measures passed, and laws enacted and signed by the president. Of course, because most bills are still in process, just how bountiful or meager the legislative harvest will be remains uncertain.

    They’re doing something.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at April 28, 2007 2:03 PM
    Post a comment