Slapping Down "The Entire GOP Establishment"

There is no question that Americans are frustrated with the current Congress. Polls suggest that approval ratings for the U.S. House and Senate are even more dismal than those for President Bush -- although not quite so bad as for Vice President Cheney.

But are Americans merely frustrated with the current Democratic leadership of the House and Senate, or are they disenchanted, as well, with the leaders of the Republican caucuses?

An indication of the indignation with Republican leaders came from a unique Georgia special election Tuesday, in which two Republicans ran against one another. Under Georgia law, candidates of all parties run together in primaries to fill open House seats. Then the top two finishers -- no matter what their partisan affiliation -- face each other in a runoff.

In the overwhelmingly Republican district of the late Congressman Charlie Norwood, primary voting last month produced a run-off featuring two conservative Republicans.

That's where things got interesting -- and instructive. The frontrunner in the primary voting in north Georgia's 10th district, former state Sen. Jim Whitehead, was the consensus choice of the Republican establishment. Whitehead essentially promised to be a rubberstamp for the Bush White House and Republican leaders in Congress.

His opponent, Paul Broun, was a quirky physician who claims to be "the only doctor in Georgia whose practice is almost exclusively house calls." A frequent candidate who was very much on the outs with party insiders, Broun barely squeaked into the run-off and most pundits stopped paying attention to a race it was assumed Whitehead would win with ease.

After all, Whitehead had represented much of the district in the legislature, he had a huge money advantage, and he enjoyed strong support from sitting Republican members of Congress and groups closely associated with the D.C. leadership of the party, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Broun had little going for him, except his outsider status. His campaign appealed to disenchanted Republican, Democratic and independent voters with the message: "Dr. Broun is their only hope for an independent-thinking candidate."

As Broun put it, he was "fighting the entire GOP establishment."

That proved to be an appealing message. On Tuesday, Broun came from far behind to lead Whitehead by 394 after Tuesday night's count. The win came thanks to a remarkable coalition of very conservative voters in the rural counties of north Georgia, more liberal voters in Athens -- the home of the University of Georgia -- and African Americans.

With such a close result, a recount is likely. But Broun's come-from-behind win is likely to hold, and it is already being described by Georgia media as a "stunning upset."

What message can be taken away from this result?

Given a choice between two conservative candidates, Georgia voters were asked: Do you want a candidate of the GOP establishment who promises to work with Republican leaders in Congress, or do you want an outsider who promises to go to Washington without strings attached?

As evidence of his independence, Broun emphasized a Ron Paul-like committed to "work to restore government according to the Constitution as our Founders intended." While the Georgia appears to be a more cautious constitutionalist than the maverick Texas congressman who is making a longshot bid for the party's presidential nomination in 2008, Broun borrowed one of the most popular of Paul's principles, promising that if elected he would assess any new legislation by first asking: "Is it constitutional and a proper function of government?"

No one was going to confuse Broun with a liberal, but he did display a Paul-like libertarian streak, suggesting that the federal government ought to stay away away from issues gay marriage and legalizing marijuana -- matters that the candidate suggested are best handled at the state level.

"I believe in the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which clearly says that all powers not specifically given to the federal government, or prohibited by the Constitution to the states, are reserved to the states and the people," Broun said. "I am not a person who believes that our lives should be controlled by politicians in Washington. I do not believe that the states are merely administrative units of the federal government, to do its bidding."

Whitehead responded by attacking Broun, using the standard anti-gay, anti-crime rhetoric of the party's congressional leadership.

It didn't work. And there is a lesson here for those who suggest that the dip in the popularity of Congress is merely a problem for Democrats. The disdain for Washington's way of doing things appears to be bipartisan.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (55)

1. "Do you want a candidate of the GOP establishment who promises to work with Republican leaders in Congress, or do you want an outsider who promises to go to Washington without strings attached? "

   Sounds like an anti Washington pro constitution candidate...a real conservative and not a RINO...

   Also sounds like the dems in Washington might be in for a stunning upset, too...

   Posted by john maasch at 07/18/2007 @ 11:24am

2. NICHOLS: The disdain for Washington's way of doing things appears to be bipartisan.

   No shit, Mr. Nichols! You are just now--rather slow like Get-Rich-Quick-Land-Deal Harry--realizing that a bunch of GOPs want the party to move back toward the Libertarian model for the ever-Fatter Uncle Sam!

   Posted by Happy at 07/18/2007 @ 11:46am

3. MAASCH, HAPPY, NOW you are getting it? NOW you realize your party has been highjacked by the fundies?

   rather slow like Get-Rich-Quick-Land-Deal Harry

   Looks to me like we need more "third parties", cuz ain't no one happy wit the 2 we got.

   Posted by crabwalk at 07/18/2007 @ 12:24pm

4. ZERO, do you mean that the repubs are obstructionist? Say it ain't so.

   Posted by crabwalk at 07/18/2007 @ 12:25pm

5. I'd be all for a new conservative party. I tend to be more of a liberal in the sense that I don't believe the government should dictate my lifestlye choices the republicans seem to want to force on me. Then agian I think it has less to do with conservatives than ti does with the republican party who has sold it's traditional hands off values for the votes of special interest groups like the radical christians and corporate America. Neither of which is interested in smaller government just on that favors them more.

   Posted by zakquiet at 07/18/2007 @ 12:28pm

6. >Also sounds like the dems in Washington might be in for a stunning upset, too<

   Not when their only competition is the ones they replaced. If this was a legitimate democracy with all voices being heard you would be right. The dems won't lose because the only ones the could lose to are the repubs. people won't vote for them because they screwed up so badly and worse yet proved to be incompetent at running the country. One thing I wonder about is if some of the poor ratings isn't a lagging effect from how poorly things were run in congress under the republicna leadership. I t left a bad taste in everyones mounth tha tthey won't soon forget. It takes more than a couple years to overcome such a bad percetion regardless of who is currently running it.

   Posted by zakquiet at 07/18/2007 @ 12:34pm

7. Like most of the other posters here, I have to agree....

   to find John Nichols CELEBRATING the potential victory of someone who said...

   ""I believe in the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which clearly says that all powers not specifically given to the federal government, or prohibited by the Constitution to the states, are reserved to the states and the people," Broun said. "I am not a person who believes that our lives should be controlled by politicians in Washington. I do not believe that the states are merely administrative units of the federal government, to do its bidding."

   is odd, if refreshing!

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 07/18/2007 @ 12:35pm

8. And how is this proof of the so-called liberal tide in America?

   Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/18/2007 @ 12:29pm

   Miss this, did you?

   "In the overwhelmingly Republican district of the late Congressman Charlie Norwood,

   And where did Nichols propose this tide you speak of? I think the voters of Georgia sloughed off one of yours, LUVVY.

   Posted by crabwalk at 07/18/2007 @ 12:35pm

9. As far as I am concerned, the GOP is a party of scam artists and criminals. It is by necessity since the party has nothing else to offer to the American public.

   Posted by kevin99999 at 07/18/2007 @ 12:41pm

10. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/18/2007 @ 12:39pm

    then why have you supported Chimpy without reservation these 6 years? Not only have you supported His Holiness, you have discounted any criticism of him and his policies. All of a sudden you want to not "stay the course"?

    Flip, flop.

    Rats from their own sinking ship.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/18/2007 @ 12:45pm

11. All Kevin is doing is reading the growing list of republican felons. The ones Ya'll supported so whole heartedly till yesterday.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/18/2007 @ 12:47pm

12. This is off topic, but I had to share: There is a report that a guy in Belair hre in Md tried to rob a bank dressed as a tree. He had carved out some kind of bark costume and had branches fucking duct taped to his head. Was going to run out into the woods after the robbery and hide. Trouble is, he robbed his own bank so they recognized him. What a dickhead! I laughed my ass off. Just think, if the criminals are getting that stupid we may begin to witness the bright new dawn of a crime free renaissance!

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/18/2007 @ 1:11pm

13. By the way, where's MT been lately? :)

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/18/2007 @ 1:13pm

14. Sorry, story came fron NH under the title Great Moments in Human Progress

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/18/2007 @ 1:21pm

15. As far as I am concerned, the GOP is a party of scam artists and criminals. It is by necessity since the party has nothing else to offer to the American public.

    Posted by KEVIN99999 07/18/2007 @ 12:41pm

    Spot on.

    LUVVY, you are, as always, a partisan moron. Shouldn't you be off fleecing a congregation somwhere? Picking the pockets of your "flock" as you say?

    Who would Jesus mock?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/18/2007 @ 2:13pm

16. "MAASCH, HAPPY, NOW you are getting it? NOW you realize your party has been highjacked by the fundies?

    rather slow like Get-Rich-Quick-Land-Deal Harry

    Posted by CRABWALK 07/18/2007 @ 12:24pm we have been saying this to you libs all along...there are no conservatives in Washington govt, except this new guy from Georgia, that have been elected..they are al Rinos....and most of you here at the left fringe of the known universe keep harping on neo cons...and we have no conservatives since reagan...I for one, am glad to see the new guy elected in Georgia for being a CONSERVATIVE....

    As for scam artists and schemers..check out the "Poverty Tour"(did he check out his own neighbor who can no longer afford the property taxes since Fast Eddie moved in?...or maybe the guy who mows Eddies Estate lawns?)

    Or honest people like Hillary the "I can't recall the billing records or cattle futures"...please...now who is being duped?

    Posted by john maasch at 07/18/2007 @ 2:51pm

17. By the way, where's MT been lately? :)

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 07/18/2007 @ 1:13pm

    In the forrest looking for the trees....

    Posted by john maasch at 07/18/2007 @ 2:53pm

18. Both parties are in trouble. Between Immigration Reform and Iraq both parties are in trouble.When callers against Immigration Reform shutdown the Senate switchboard, you are not dealing with popular legislation. The American People Know that you have to shut down the funding for Iraq in order to bring our troops home, and the Democrats are too gutless to take the leap. The Dog and Pony show last night in the Senate does not prove a thing.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/18/2007 @ 3:04pm

19. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/18/2007 @ 2:51pm

    How dare those Democrats engage in behaviors God herself ordained as the exclusive obligatory right of Republicans!

    Posted by canaar at 07/18/2007 @ 3:37pm

20. Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/18/2007 @ 3:56pm

    Always one of my favorites, since it says in Exodus 20:12....

    "Honour your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you."

    So, OT tells us to honor our mothers and fathers....NT tells us we have to HATE them to be a disciple of Jesus.

    Jeez (heheh), we sure better not put the 10 Commandments in our courthouses....they contradict St. Luke!!!!

    Posted by Mask at 07/18/2007 @ 4:29pm

21. Posted by MASK 07/18/2007 @ 4:29pm

    Dang, Time Warped back to before CANAAR 3:37pm post!?!??!

    Mysterious are the ways of the Lord, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 07/18/2007 @ 4:30pm

22. we are far more pleased than displeased.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/18/2007 @ 1:13pm | ignore this person

    and there's fewer of you every day.

    I'm far more pleased than displeased with that.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/18/2007 @ 4:49pm

23. The Dog and Pony show last night in the Senate does not prove a thing.

    Posted by P. J. CASEY 07/18/2007 @ 3:04pm | ignore this person

    this is just not true. the dems showed that they have the majority when they vote their conscience. the super majority of 60 votes will come, mark my words, it will come.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/18/2007 @ 4:53pm

24. LUVVY, you are, as always, a partisan moron. Shouldn't you be off fleecing a congregation somwhere? Picking the pockets of your "flock" as you say?

    his ilk pray with the congregation on sunday, and prey on them the rest of the week.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/18/2007 @ 6:20pm

25. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/18/2007 @ 7:03pm |

    LL, one of the few things we can agree on...

    JOHANNES is an asshole, self-righteous and hypocritical (watch and see how he'll leap to the defense of an Edwards or any Dem or lib who talks big on "taxes", but uses loopholes....or Gore talks big on the environment, then "buys carbon credits" from HIS OWN COMPANY or eats endangered fish at his daughter's wedding.)

    Posted by Mask at 07/18/2007 @ 7:43pm

26. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/18/2007 @ 7:03pm | ignore this person

    I actually said nothing about you. but if the shoe fits. I know you are a saint, a saint I tell you.verreck.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/18/2007 @ 7:51pm

27. I actually think that heroin addiction is far preferable to staying with your sanctimonious ass.Liverty.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/18/2007 @ 7:53pm

28. Posted by ZERO 07/18/2007 @ 11:57am | ignore this person

    One of these days there is going to be hell to pay? America is already paying for this nonsense. Examine the following:

    1. Wars of aggression are bankrupting the nation and destroying its military capability

    2. Illegal immigration out of control. Border security, please. Americans might as well sleep with their front doors open at night.

    3. Loss of jobs that pay livable wages which leads people to government assistance, and crime, such as bank robbing, and drug dealing, etc.......

    4. The complete collapse of civil society as we know it, break up of familes, destruction of whole communities due to gang violence, drug activity, and the loss of civic responsibility

    5. The resulting hatred has made Americans prisoners in their own country because TOM, DICK, HARRY, SUE, PEGGY, and JANE COULD NEVER TRAVEL OUTSIDE THIS COUNTRY FOR FEAR OF BEING ATTACKED AND/OR KILLED.

    When you are the resident bully of the world, which the American government has become, DUES have to be paid. And unfortunately, as Sept 11 2001 clearly showed, those dues will be paid by John Q. Citizen and not the powerful elite who cause the problems to begin with.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 07/18/2007 @ 11:12pm

29. Posted by MASK 07/18/2007 @ 7:43pm | ignore this person

    You seem to be one of those rightwingers who left his mind back at the train station.

    TEST: WE KNOW WHAT YOU ARE AGAINST. NOW TELL US WHAT YOU ARE FOR:

    Posted by POSEIDON at 07/18/2007 @ 11:14pm

30. Posted by P. J. CASEY 07/18/2007 @ 3:04pm | ignore this person

    Agreed. But the bottom line is this:

    Do We, as a nation, in Nov 2008 have the guts and the courage to pull the lever for someone out of principle and not due to the "lesser of two evils" mantra?

    If so, then 2008 should be the year of the independent candidates.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 07/18/2007 @ 11:17pm

31. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/18/2007 @ 7:03pm | ignore this person

    And I personally applaud your efforts and the work you do. What I don't applaud are the Falwells, the Pat Robertsons, the James Dobsons, the Al Sharptons, and the Jesse Jacksons of the world who would use religion and the ministry for their own selfish private gain. Have you seen the FINANCIAL EMPIRES OF THESE MEN?

    Posted by POSEIDON at 07/18/2007 @ 11:20pm

32. Posted by POSEIDON 07/18/2007 @ 11:14pm

    Maximum personal freedom and the defense of the United States.

    Posted by Mask at 07/19/2007 @ 07:02am

33. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

    While I don't begrudge anyone who achieves success honestly, I find too many in my line of work (on the right and left) are more concerned about their personal prosperity than helping others spiritually, emotionally, physically, and materially.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/18/2007 @ 11:50pm | ignore this person

    this is not a prescription you have been following religiously, pun intended.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/19/2007 @ 09:32am

34. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/18/2007 @ 3:56pm

    My pastor can kick your pastors ass, LUVVY my boy.

    Why are you such a whiney coward?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/19/2007 @ 2:59pm

35. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/19/2007 @ 3:59pm

    I put my money on the one who's not dead yet.

    Posted by Malcontent at 07/19/2007 @ 6:06pm

36. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/19/2007 @ 3:59pm

    Since Jesus taught his disciples to turn the other cheek, his pastor could probably whip Jesus. Maybe even crucify him too.

    When you think to yourself, what would Jesus do? The answer is probably something you haven't thought of and is unexpected - that is what you should expect from The Creator.

    Posted by srjenkins at 07/19/2007 @ 9:37pm

37. Posted by MASK 07/19/2007 @ 07:02am

    Maximum personal freedom and the defense of the United States.

    Wasn't Iraq framed as defense of the United States? Maybe you ought to qualify or drop that second part.

    Posted by srjenkins at 07/19/2007 @ 9:41pm

38. Posted by ZAKQUIET 07/18/2007 @ 12:28pm

    I'd be all for a new conservative party. I tend to be more of a liberal in the sense that I don't believe the government should dictate my lifestlye choices the republicans seem to want to force on me.

    Wow. You think only fundamentalist religious Republicans want to force their lifestyle choices on others? What about liberals who vote to ban smoking OUTDOORS, where it affects no-one but one's self? What about liberals who favor speech codes, campaign finance rules, 'fairness' doctrine, burning of publications, and outright assault (on college campuses), only to silence the speech of those they disagreem with? Boy have you got a lot to learn!

    Then agian I think it has less to do with conservatives than ti does with the republican party who has sold it's traditional hands off values for the votes of special interest groups like the radical christians and corporate America. Neither of which is interested in smaller government just on that favors them more.

    Again, the Democrats feed at the trough of just as many special interest groups as the Republicans. In fact, if you bother to look, you'll find that many corporations contribute to both parties, just to have a bet down on the winning side.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/20/2007 @ 07:55am

39. Maybe you ought to qualify or drop that second part.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 07/19/2007 @ 9:41pm

    Always the tricky part, SRJ....as is qualifying "maximum personal freedom".

    Obviously lots of mitigating factors. Going after Al Queda, the guys who actually attacked us, I think qualifies. Invading Iraq did not. Good solid, but CONSTITUTIONAL security measures would....spying on American citizens with no court supervision does not. Attacking Iran does not....figuring out how to VERIFIBLY reduce their nuke program through TOUGH diplomacy would.

    Posted by Mask at 07/20/2007 @ 09:52am

40. Wasn't Iraq framed as defense of the United States? Maybe you ought to qualify or drop that second part.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 07/19/2007 @ 9:41pm | ignore this person

    Bush still does that. we stay in Iraq for our children is what he said.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/20/2007 @ 2:18pm

41. the super majority of 60 votes will come, mark my words, it will come.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/18/2007 @ 4:53pm

    I agree. My hope is that it comes this Fall.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/20/2007 @ 2:19pm

42. Does anyone else find it odd that David Corn has posted nothing about the Plame lawsuit being thrown out of the courts? And that the judge who threw out the lawsuit basically rejected every argument that Corn and the Nation have been repeating ad nauseum for the last three years? Now we get now comment at all? No one finds that odd at all?

    Posted by pontificus at 07/20/2007 @ 3:44pm

43. Does anyone else find it odd that David Corn has posted nothing about the Plame lawsuit being thrown out of the courts?...

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/20/2007 @ 3:44pm

    I sure do....but the day is NOT over....besides, this turn of event may take a bit more thought to come up w/something that can be spinned `their' way....

    Posted by Happy at 07/20/2007 @ 4:38pm

44. the judge who threw out the lawsuit basically rejected every argument that Corn and the Nation have been repeating ad nauseum for the last three years? Now we get now comment at all? No one finds that odd at all?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/20/2007 @ 3:44pm

    I'll comment that your conslusion about the judge's "rejection" of "every argument" reveals quite obviously that you have not read the dismissal. If you had, you might understand that the judge dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, true, but he expressed no ruling on the merits of Plame's suit or on the broader allegations involving her outing.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/20/2007 @ 5:20pm

45. The civil suit was always a long shot and I, for one, am not surprised.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/20/2007 @ 5:21pm

46. Posted by HMAN23 07/20/2007 @ 5:20pm

    I'll comment that your conslusion about the judge's "rejection" of "every argument" reveals quite obviously that you have not read the dismissal. If you had, you might understand that the judge dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, true, but he expressed no ruling on the merits of Plame's suit or on the broader allegations involving her outing.

    Well, I read the part put forth below, which substantiates my claim. It's a piece from an AP article. Note how the AP autnor does the left's bidding and includes the 'relevant' note that Bush appointed the judge who threw it out. The MSM in this country, finding itself in a hole due to its obvious bias (people trust the MSM less than any other institution), continues to dig furiously.

    Bates also sided with administration officials who said they were acting within their job duties. Plame had argued that what they did was illegal and outside the scope of their government jobs.

    "The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavoury," Bates wrote.

    "But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials," Bates said.

    Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said Rove was pleased to have the case behind him.

    "The risk of being liable for personal damages is not something anybody takes lightly," Luskin said.

    Bates, a former Whitewater prosecutor, was appointed to the bench in 2001 by Bush.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/20/2007 @ 5:43pm

47. The civil suit was always a long shot and I, for one, am not surprised.

    Posted by HMAN23 07/20/2007 @ 5:21pm

    Even Plame's lawyer's admitted as much (before ruling), so no surprise that you (surely as capable as any on legal `stuff' here :-), were NOT surprised as well.

    The layman's question I have is this: given long odds, and quite possibly on a fee rather than contingency basis, why did Plame & attorney filed the lawsuit in the first place?

    As a landlord, I have filed civil suits against tenants (unpaid $$ or damages to property) several times and have never lost! Translation: one doesn't file these suits without very high probability of winning! So, doesn't the `expected' ruling tell us that Plame (& wilson) are primarily interested in keeping their names in the news for personal whatever purposes? Consistent with Wilson going public w/less than a full-deck in the first instance? Consistent w/Plame's denying (lying) having anything to do w/Joe's Niger outing?

    Lastly, while the case was thrown out for jurisdictional reasons, why do you suppose the judge opined about the administration's responsibility to retaliate, however unsavory but likely not illegal? To perhaps tell the Wilsons' to drop any silly appeals? To get a live beyond milking this Plame-gate?

    Posted by Happy at 07/20/2007 @ 6:20pm

48. More on the Plame case and the judge's ruling that Plame/Wilson's claims have no merit. I really don't see how it could be plainer, although I'm sure the leftists here will say that it doesn't really mean what it seems to mean, and that moreover in fact, the sky really isn't blue, sometimes it's cloudy, and really, color perception is all in the eye of the beholder, and in fact, when held up against certain filters against the eye, it really isn't blue at all....

    Yahoo's posting of the AP story: news.yahoo.com

    Couric announced these back-to-back items deep into the July 19 CBS Evening News: "A federal judge today threw out Valerie Plame's lawsuit against members of the Bush administration in that CIA leak scandal. The former CIA operative accused, among others, Vice President Dick Cheney, his former aide Scooter Libby, and senior White House advisor Karl Rove of conspiring to leak her identity. But the judge ruled what the officials did was all part of their jobs. Plame's lawyer is planning to appeal.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/22/2007 @ 1:23pm

49. hey look... it's the GOP:

    soft on crime, weak on defense, weak on national security, can't fight a war they started, borrowing and spending us into the shitter and making the world safer for al qaeda.

    yep, elections do matter

    Posted by Will C. at 07/22/2007 @ 1:32pm

50. soft on crime, weak on defense, weak on national security, can't fight a war they started, borrowing and spending us into the shitter and making the world safer for al qaeda.

    yep, elections do matter

    Posted by WILL C. 07/22/2007 @ 1:32pm

    Will don't forget that the Faux Noise convinced the evolutionary challenged repubs that it was a good idea to elect an AWOL/draft dodging hsuB/cHeney... Anyone MSM repubs new cons supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy talking heads are for, will be the ones everyone with clear logical reasoning capabilities, will run as far away as possible from in droves.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2007 @ 2:08pm

51. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/22/2007 @ 2:08pm

    fake news, fake candidates, fake issues, fake values.

    if it weren't for all the noise they make we might not notice the republicans were here.

    Posted by Will C. at 07/22/2007 @ 2:55pm

52. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/22/2007 @ 2:08pm

    The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/22/2007 @ 7:50pm

53. now if only we could get the dogs to stop following our caravan.

    Posted by Will C. at 07/22/2007 @ 7:54pm

54. but you'll just follow along and bark, won't you scootificus

    Posted by Will C. at 07/22/2007 @ 7:55pm

55. ponti must be the assigned watchdog for this blog. watchblog dog? :)

    Posted by dlg at 07/22/2007 @ 8:41pm