Bill Moyers for President? Absolutely!

posted by John Nichols on 07/25/2006 @ 3:54pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (101)

Subscribe Now

Molly Ivins is trying to get Democrats excited about the prospect of running Bill Moyers for president.

"Dear desperate Democrats," the nation's most widely-read liberal newspaper columnist begins her latest missive. "Here's what we do: We run Bill Moyers for president. I am serious as a stroke about this. It's simple, cheap, and effective, and it will move the entire spectrum of political discussion in this country. Moyers is the only public figure who can take the entire discussion and shove it toward moral clarity just by being there."

Ivins makes a great case for why her fellow Texan ought to be on the ballot in 2008.

"Bill Moyers has been grappling with how to fit moral issues to political issues ever since he left Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and went to work for Lyndon Johnson in the teeth of the Vietnam War," she writes. "Moyers worked for years in television, seriously addressing the most difficult issues of our day. He has studied all different kinds of religions and different approaches to spirituality. He's no Holy Joe, but he is a serious man. He opens minds--he doesn't scare people. He includes people in, not out. And he sees through the dark search for a temporary political advantage to the clear ground of the Founders. He listens and he respects others."

After making her case, however, Ivins adds what appears to be the "reality" section:

"Do I think Bill Moyers can win the presidency? No, that seems like a very long shot to me. The nomination? No, that seems like a very long shot to me."

Ivins wants Moyers to make a sympbolic run, with the purpose of shaking up the Democratic party, and perhaps the nation.

"It won't take much money -- file for him in a couple of early primaries and just get him into the debates," the columnist explains. "Think about the potential Democratic candidates. Every single one of them needs spine, needs political courage. What Moyers can do is not only show them what it looks like and indeed what it is, but also how people respond to it. I'm damned if I want to go through another presidential primary with everyone trying to figure out who has the best chance to win instead of who's right. I want to vote for somebody who's good and brave and who should win."

But why limit this quest?

Why ask Democratic primary voters to send a message when they can send the best man into the November competition and, if the stars align correctly, perhaps even to the White House?

With all due regard to one of the finest journalists and finest Americans I know, I respectfully disagree with Molly Ivins -- not on the merits of a Moyers candidacy, but on the potential.

I'm not suggesting that Bill Moyers -- with whom I've had the pleasure of working in recent years on media reform issues -- is a sure bet to win the Democratic nomination or the presidency in 2008. I'm not even suggesting that he would be a good bet. But the politics of 2008 are already so muddled, so quirky and so potentially volatile that I believe -- as someone who has covered my share of presidential campaigns -- that Moyers could be a contender.

Moyers would enter the 2008 race with far more Washington political experience than Dwight Eisenhower had in 1952, far more national name recognition than Jimmy Carter had in 1976 and far more to offer the country than most of our recent chief executives.

Against the candidates who are lining up for the 2008 contest, Bill Moyers and his supporters would not need to make any excuses.

After all, the supposed Democratic frontrunner is a former First Lady who ran her first election campaign just six years ago. One of the leading Republican contenders is a guy whose main claim to fame is that he did a good job of running the Olympics in Salt Lake City, while another is still best known as the son of a famous football coach. And the strongest Republican prospect, John McCain, is actually more popular with Democrats than with his own partisans.

Consider the fact that a professional body builder is the governor of the largest state in the union, and that the list of serious contenders for seats in Congress and for governorships this year is packed with retired athletes, former television anchorpersons and bored millionaires, and it simply is not that big a stretch to suggest that someone with the government and private-sector experience, the national recognition and the broad respect that Bill Moyers has attained across five decades of public life could not make a serious run for the presidency.

So, Molly, I'll see your suggestion of Bill Moyers, and up the ante to suggest that Moyers really could be a contender.

Comments (101)

While I believe this is an outstanding idea (imagine, a candidate with clear and concise progressive ideals who is capable of actually carrying on a truthful conversation), I doubt Mr. Moyers would be interested in associating himself with this party. Man, it would be nice though.

Posted by festus at 07/25/2006 @ 4:15pm
YES!!!!!!

Posted by woodyee at 07/25/2006 @ 4:15pm
Before anyone tries to claim the focus of this article is on "Ivins wants Moyers to make a sympbolic run" let's just reiterate that Molly's ACTUAL main thrust is that she wants him to do so "with the purpose of shaking up the Democratic party, and perhaps the nation.

When Ivins says she wants to "...take the entire discussion and shove it toward moral clarity..." I couldn't agree more. Moral clarity is sorely lacking from our political discourse. While many posters on this board love to pontificate on the political process, the political ramifactions of every move, the perceived (or manufactured) hypocrisies or contradictions of specific political writers, etc. it would be truly refreshing if we could have some serious refocusing on the morality of some of our political issues.

Like, which position contains the higher moral standard:

spending a $Trillion on killing people in Iraq or spend the same amount to provide health care for every American?

spending money on government subsidies to oil companies or spending the same amount on researching energy lternatives to oil?

creating incentives for increased fuel efficiency for vehicles or giving tax rebates to Hummer buyers?

etc.

that

Posted by Lillian at 07/25/2006 @ 4:17pm
Well, the GOP has run an actor (so at least he could "act" like a President (Ronnie Raygun) and we have Duh-Duh-Dubya, who shoots first and can't talk worth a crap. (Not to metnion inappropriate fondling of the German Chancellor)

Sure, we run a political journalist. Knows how to talk and cuts thru the BS. Would be sheer pleasure to watch the debate!

Posted by leftofcenter at 07/25/2006 @ 4:35pm
I support Moyers, not as a symbolic President but as smart, verbally fluent, logical and basic fine person who could help heal our factured nation. I expect it will shock all our youths that not all leaders are foolish, illiterate and mean-spirited with bad manners like Bush. And it will lift the spirits and aspirations of those who have been betrayed by Bush's actions.

Posted by Mgardner at 07/25/2006 @ 4:39pm
Uh, Mr Nichols.....

Are you supporting a candidate for President in 2008, that's a "pure progressive"...

and it's NOT Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI)?!??!?!

Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 4:51pm
Well, since it's Molly Ivins' idea, it is probably a bad one...

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/25/2006 @ 4:53pm
Moyers/Carter in 08!

Posted by woodyee at 07/25/2006 @ 4:57pm
Well, since it's Molly Ivins' idea, it is probably a bad one...

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 07/25/2006 @ 4:53pm | ignore this person

Maybe she "borrowed" the idea from Florence King?

Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 4:58pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/25/2006 @ 4:53pm

Uh...Rio Loco. Newsflash buckwheat....Iraq wasn't behind the 9/11 WTC. Typical nut job who still believes that crap I suppose.

as to who for POTUS...it could be worse thatn Moyers...we could have GW Bush. Ooops, my bad, we do already huh?

Posted by leftofcenter at 07/25/2006 @ 5:36pm
Moyers with Mollys support??

the gop just coughed up its drink, this combo is a wet dream foir them...this news, if it were true, ...even the repubs today couldn't lose...

Posted by john maasch at 07/25/2006 @ 5:48pm
RIO BRAVO: We already are in the crosshairs of jihadists.

By the way, I don't think al-Qaeda and their allies really give a crap about who's President. They'll continue to launch attacks against their enemies no matter who's in office.

Posted by IAMIRONMAN at 07/25/2006 @ 5:48pm
Even Bush could beat this guy!!

Posted by john maasch at 07/25/2006 @ 5:49pm
Again, I'm guessing Mr Nichols is laughing just as hard at the idea as the Repubs and conservatives here...

I seriously doubt John Nichols would support any move that split the "Feingold vote" in 2008.

Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 6:27pm
Um, the man is 72. Does he really want to be President?

Posted by aaronrp at 07/25/2006 @ 6:46pm
I like it. I like it a lot. Just imagine having a president with a brilliant mind again. With a no-nonsense, call-it-like-it-is, straight talking human being in the oval office. (Unless the funny bone is engaged.) Come on, Mr. Moyers, talk to us!

Posted by terryolson at 07/25/2006 @ 7:02pm
I've been thinking for a long time that Bill Moyers would make a great candidate. What about a Moyers/Gore ticket? In either order.

Posted by evesegal at 07/25/2006 @ 7:23pm
I like the Moyers idea. I believe all Americans want a person of integrity. I think it could win in a landslide -- even the primaries. Let's go for it.

Posted by Cat18Bur at 07/25/2006 @ 7:25pm
I would suggest Molly as the VP candidate. We can still dream, can't we??

Posted by zaktrak at 07/25/2006 @ 7:35pm
I believe Molly Ivins to be one of the most inteligent comintators on the American social/political scene and think her idea is wonderful. Mr. Nichols raising the ante is perfect. Bill Moyers not wanting the job is absolute qualification. All we need is Barack Obama as VP. Wesley Clark as Secretary of State? Yes please.

Posted by oldschool at 07/25/2006 @ 7:37pm
If you could get behind Bill Moyers to run, I'd be behind him 100%! And I agree with OLDSCHOOL that Barack Obama would be a fine VP.

Posted by JStenberg at 07/25/2006 @ 7:44pm
the worst that could happen is we lose, or florida again; moyers is no more moral than little al so be real about winning and getting around the hillary disaster and the "new" democrats (republicans in better clothes).

Posted by joebear9 at 07/25/2006 @ 7:44pm
Years ago I fantasized about about Moyers running for office. The thought of an open minded, intelligent and truly spiritual person as president was then, and probably always will be just that, a fantasy. BTW, can you imagine Bush trying to carry on a conversation with Joseph Campbell?

Posted by gbgary at 07/25/2006 @ 7:46pm
Years ago and to this day I still fantasize about someone like Bill Moyers running for the office of the presidency. It sure would be nice to have a president that could carry on a conversation with Joseph Campbell....

Posted by zaktrak at 07/25/2006 @ 7:56pm
there's a reason we like Molly so much............Moyers.........beautiful! Just remember back a few years to '92, Perot, the squirrely little guy with all the common sense, who before implosion and "you people" captivated large percentages of the electorate. Just imagine what Moyers could do. Do it Bill, the world needs someone like you......and fast!

Posted by jake4ben at 07/25/2006 @ 8:11pm
Yeah, and how about Paul Krugman for VP? We can dream anyway.

Posted by fcacchione at 07/25/2006 @ 8:19pm
Lovely, Paul Krugman would make a great Secretary of the Treasury.

Posted by zaktrak at 07/25/2006 @ 8:23pm
btw, here's Molly's article. http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=21137

Posted by zaktrak at 07/25/2006 @ 8:34pm
Said Festus: "[...] I doubt Mr. Moyers would be interested in associating himself with this party."

Would he do it for the Dem. party? Maybe not.

Would he do it for the people? Maybe so.

Would it hurt the Feingold vote? I don't care. It's time to chose statesmanship over politics. If the choice for the nomination is between those two, nobody loses. Any supporter of the one, who wouldn't support the other, I'd have little use for. Anyone who opts for political "electability" over substance deserves what they get.

Times are too parlous for the political game-playing that got us here. I want the opportunity to follow my conscience and vote my beliefs. Kucinich and Sharpton did what they could, bless 'em. Maybe Moyers and Feingold can advance the cause.

Posted by bomfog at 07/25/2006 @ 8:44pm
I'm so glad to see that the bandwagon is growing. Sasha [sashaundercover.blogspot.com] came out for Mr. Moyers back in February. I can't think of a more worthy candidate.

Posted by technoir at 07/25/2006 @ 9:19pm
Um, the man is 72. Does he really want to be President?

Posted by AARONRP 07/25/2006 @ 6:46pm

Well, he retired from his one-hour-per-week Now program on PBS. If he doesn't have the energy for that, he'll break Bush's record for being the president who sleeps the most...

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/25/2006 @ 9:29pm
I believe Molly Ivins to be one of the most inteligent comintators on the American social/political scene ...

Posted by OLDSCHOOL 07/25/2006 @ 7:37pm | ignore this person

there's a reason we like Molly so much.........beautiful! ......

Posted by JAKE4BEN 07/25/2006 @ 8:11pm

That's the thing about us leftists/liberals - we don't agree in lockstep like the republicans do. I think Ivins is an idiot.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/25/2006 @ 9:33pm
By the way, I don't think al-Qaeda and their allies really give a crap about who's President. They'll continue to launch attacks against their enemies no matter who's in office.

Posted by IAMIRONMAN 07/25/2006 @ 5:48pm

An excellent point!

All the more reason to hold Bush accountable for his screwup at Tora Bora. But I am sure the conservatives will find a way to excuse "dear leader" for that and blame it on....Clinton!

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/25/2006 @ 9:36pm
I thought this was a good idea about the time of the last election; among other reasons, he is not beholden to anybody.

Posted by harry8 at 07/25/2006 @ 10:17pm
I wonder if we'd find out the REAL reason for Moyers split with Johnson in 1967???

Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 10:21pm
Three cheers for Bill Moyers! This is a man who has made such a positive impact on American culture that I relish even the thought of him as president. While I certainly don't expect this to happen, I am enjoying the glow of thinking about it. Thank you Molly Ivins amd John Nichols!

Posted by hhemwm at 07/25/2006 @ 11:04pm
Moyers for president, Jim Hightower for V.P. an unstoppable combo. And the best 2 men this country has right now.

Posted by minnesotalib at 07/25/2006 @ 11:04pm
"Awesome WOODYEE! Just think of the top cabinet opportunities with Hillary , Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Kennedy, and Kerry then available! By the way, I guess then we would have to all move to Australia to get off the bullseye that would be painted on the nation by Jihadist!

Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/25/2006 @ 5:03pm |

??? Are you out of your mind, man?

Posted by hhemwm at 07/25/2006 @ 11:05pm
See help.

Posted by hhemwm at 07/25/2006 @ 11:05pm
Seek help.

Posted by hhemwm at 07/25/2006 @ 11:05pm
By the way, I don't think al-Qaeda and their allies really give a crap about who's President.

Why wouldn't they? A different President alters their playing field a great deal based on the kind of policies that (s)he carries out, so it would probably be something they'd pay a great deal of attention to and might alter their strategies.

That's the thing about us leftists/liberals - we don't agree in lockstep like the republicans do.

Um, really? The Republicans, in lockstep? Just to cite a couple of examples, Frist pushed hard for a bill that Bush vetoed, and Specter is making moves to potentially sue Bush. Ironically, many posters have gotten after Democratic Congressmen who wouldn't stay in lockstep with the Democratic Party. Any of those posters who criticize the Republican Party for "following in lockstep" seems to endorsing an inconsistent position.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/25/2006 @ 11:15pm
The last time a great American and serious intellectual ran for president he was derideded and ridiculed by the "left", in fact, the last three times. It is nice some of you are now ready to vote your consciences. There is hope. Moyers/Nader 2008! Kucinich at Peace, Spitzer Attorney General,Finegold,Dean,Edwards,Gore,Lahee,Sanders,Jackson-Lee,Spitzer!

Posted by FUGWB at 07/25/2006 @ 11:32pm
What I really meant was:

The last time a great American and serious intellectual ran for president he was derided and ridiculed by the "left", in fact, the last three times. Commonly referred to as the greatest living American, Ralph Nader. It is nice some of you are now ready to vote your consciences. There is hope. Moyers/Nader 2008! Kucinich at Peace, Spitzer Attorney General,Feingold,Dean at HHS,Locke at EPA,Edwards,Gore,Leahy,Sanders,Jackson-Lee, Barbara Boxer. An All-Star team, unbeatable, running as a team, together, to take back our country. What a concept?

Posted by FUGWB at 07/25/2006 @ 11:44pm
July 25th, '06

It was really frustrating trying to find a COMMENT section to reply to John Nichols' story of "Jefferson's 4th of July." Gee, I know this is late but, please let me make a few statements. Thanks.

It's never too late to speak on behalf of liberty. This is what Thomas Jefferson struggled for most of his adult life.

The King George of the moment of the current tyranny I agree defines the essence of why we all must continue to be vigilent about our precious rights and liberty that Thomas Jefferson and our other Founding Fathers--courageously and with the soul-deep conviction in the right to self-government--fought to secure for us. Just because it was a long time ago does not mean we can become lazy about protecting our individual liberty and collective self-government.

Neither Thomas Jefferson nor any of our other Founding Fathers were conservative religious zealots with a "mere disagreement" with King George. Nor was Thomas Jefferson, as our history clearly shows, an imperialist who would want the United States to take over the public business of other countries.

My impression from what I've studied of him is that in foreign policy matters Thomas Jefferson had no use for other governments. He was always frustrated trying to negotiate treaties with monarchs and kings who always were fighting with each other. Consequently, I don't think Thomas Jefferson had much use for other governments much less always be involving the United States in the affairs of other sovereigns.

Though he didn't use the word much, not many times even in his writing, Thomas Jefferson knew he and his fellow revolutionaries were oppressed subjects of the British Empire. He knew King George was an oppressive king whose absolute rule amounted to tyranny. Such is why he did often apply this particular word when he wrote his papers leading up to the Revolutionary War. Specifically I'm referring to his composition of "A Summary View of the Rights of British America."

Individually, Thomas Jefferson (and his associates) was/were very limited in the level to which he and they could rise in his and their occupational discipline which was the law because the higher positions such as that of a magistrate were appointments made by the king. Publically, Thomas Jefferson along with everyone else including our other Founding Fathers suffered the powerlessness of the tyrannical king dissolving the governments of the colonies then not letting others be elected in their place and worsening his mis-rule the king also abandoned his governance responsibilities to the colonists in their colonies.

These are complaints Thomas Jefferson clearly articulated when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Even today these would be gravely serious abuses and usarpations of power if they were committed by any government leader.

Brutally burdensome taxation compounded by restrictive trade forced Thomas Jefferson and other planters or farmers to pay exhorbitant taxes for importing goods to the king but then was prevented by the king from exporting his and their crops (which initially was tobacco and later fruits and vegetables) and thus earn income. The king got money from import taxes paid by him and others but then prohibited Thomas Jefferson et al from earning money from the export of his and their goods, in other words. This one-sided taxation and trade of 'everything to the king' and nothing to the colonists not only plunged Thomas Jefferson and his compatriots deeper into indebtedness but overall kept Thomas Jefferson along with everyone else subserviant to and oppressed by the king.

Ultimately, as we all know, Thomas Jefferson and many of his counterparts most notably John Adams recognized the tyranny of the king and his abusive rule. They knew they could not keep suffering the kings's unjust domination of them and the only way forward was to gain independence for their, and our, self-government.

We Americans occasionally should re-fresh our knowledge of the Declaration of Independence. Every so often we should take another look at this defining document--for we must always remember that our self-government was born from the British king's oppression of and tyranny over not only Thomas Jefferson but all the others of his time who sacrificed and struggled most of their lives to ensure our liberty--and we never should forget our freedom from undue government restraint the same as his freedom from arbitrary rule came at a price because by the time he wrote the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson's name had been added to the list of other names as an enemy of the king.

Thanks.

Kathy Caudle Salt Lake City, Utah

Posted by janelee at 07/25/2006 @ 11:56pm
Amen I say! Amen!

Posted by BillyBob at 07/26/2006 @ 12:11am
It's going to be Hillary Clinton, period, and that's really not all that bad. To hear some liberals talk, you'd think she's the Ann Coulter of the Democrats, and they couldn't be more wrong. She's experienced, intelligent, articulate and knows how to reach Republicans better than I'd ever even want to try. I don't understand why the far left hates her so much. Don't tell me, please, that she thinks the war in Iraq was a "good idea". Suggesting that not supporting an immediate pullout of troops, after the disaster that the Bush Republicans created, does not mean she supports THEM. She supports our troops and understands the Middle East and it's problems better than most.

In actual reality, I can't see a better candidate out there. Since she happens to be an intelligent woman who can see both side of an issue and can make intelligent choices, I don't understand the extreme dislike that the people who should be supporting her seem to feel.

Yes she has a history and it's not ALL pretty. Is yours?

She also has a history of learning from her mistakes. I find that extremely refreshing and, from what I understand, people who've actually met her really like her.

Sincerely, Laura J. Turner Canton, Michigan

Posted by boladi at 07/26/2006 @ 12:22am
I hate to go all negative, but I think that Mask's point about hyperbole applies very nicely here.

The King George of the moment of the current tyranny I agree defines the essence of why we all must continue to be vigilent about our precious rights and liberty that Thomas Jefferson and our other Founding Fathers--courageously and with the soul-deep conviction in the right to self-government--fought to secure for us.

King? Maybe it's just me, but I thought that a King was a dictator who ruled by unchecked divine right instead of democratic election and had no substantive check on his power. It's not clear how that applies to a President who was elected to office and whose power is limited by Congress and the Supreme Court in a number of different ways. Even though it can legitimately be argued that he's assumed more power than the Founders intended the President to have, he's still far from being a "king" or "dictator."

The two situations aren't really analogous at all.

Neither Thomas Jefferson nor any of our other Founding Fathers were conservative religious zealots with a "mere disagreement" with King George.

The conservative-liberal clash in the status quo isn't anything like the clash between Jefferson and King George. There's a great deal of agreement on many policy goals; much of the disagreement (thought certainly not all of it) is on the best means of achieving those goals. Conservatives and liberals tend to think that life has value, but may disagree on what policies actually promote it best. Conservatives and liberals both want to promote prosperity and help out the poorest in society, but often disagree on what kind of policy will actually do that. Although Bush hasn't been terribly receptive to alternative viewpoints, many of his disagreements with Democrats are legitimate, even if you ultimately believe that they're incorrect.

Nor was Thomas Jefferson, as our history clearly shows, an imperialist who would want the United States to take over the public business of other countries.

My impression from what I've studied of him is that in foreign policy matters Thomas Jefferson had no use for other governments. He was always frustrated trying to negotiate treaties with monarchs and kings who always were fighting with each other. Consequently, I don't think Thomas Jefferson had much use for other governments much less always be involving the United States in the affairs of other sovereigns.

I think this reveals another underlying flaw with the argument; it assumes that Jefferson's position on issues is correct, and thus assumes that a contrast with Bush's means that Bush loses. If I understand the above quote correctly, Jefferson would prefer not to get involved in the affairs of other countries at all. That may have been a luxury that a much weaker United States had in the 17 and 1800s, but it's certainly not one that we have now. World War II in particularly exposed the deeply flawed nature of this kind of isolationist position; I hate to use a cliche, but with great power comes great responsibility.

We Americans occasionally should re-fresh our knowledge of the Declaration of Independence. Every so often we should take another look at this defining document--for we must always remember that our self-government was born from the British king's oppression of and tyranny over not only Thomas Jefferson but all the others of his time who sacrificed and struggled most of their lives to ensure our liberty--and we never should forget our freedom from undue government restraint the same as his freedom from arbitrary rule came at a price because by the time he wrote the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson's name had been added to the list of other names as an enemy of the king.

In this, I think she's absolutely right. We should certainly study the Declaration of Independence and the history behind it; maybe that would help us to understand what tyranny really means. As genuine as the sentiments in the above article are, they don't really apply to the current political reality.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/26/2006 @ 12:22am
Just to be clear, by "the above article," I mean the one that I quoted from.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/26/2006 @ 12:24am
BOLADI, Seriously,"I can't see a better candidate out there", please take a closer look. You are out of touch with, as they say, the base. Will Democrats again settle for a lesser of two evils over 2 years out from the next presidential election. With any luck Tasini will Lamont Clinton back to Little Rock in September. OK, perhaps lots of luck.

Posted by FUGWB at 07/26/2006 @ 12:41am
OK, I'll bite on this one. The recent suggestion of Bill Moyers as a Presidential Candidate brings my political life full circle. I believe my first Presidential campaign in memory ended with my father, a very engaged political advocate to state, "Adlai Stevenson was too good a man for this country." I would not wish to find myself repeating that phrase after this next election about Bill Moyers. Molly Ivins did not make this jab at all of our hopes and dreams idly. She knew full well, I suspect, just how many millions of registered Democrats would look at that name, that person, those embodied and media tempered values and not sound a huge sigh of ,"wouldn't that just be fabulous." This person would challenge the culture of victimization of the entire Party. The excitement of integrity, the skill at utilizing the media as a great educational platform for the issues we have been in denial of for far, far too long; the chance to enter truly sincere, values and honest dialogue to he public forum would be such a breath of fresh air. One almost is afraid of the let down if such a candidate were to run and not win. Probably not since Robert Kennedy has the potential for some penetrating truth to pierce the political arena as would be the valiant generational opportunity of a Moyers Candidacy. Moyers/Obama... Moyers/Richardson...let's get real interesting: Moyers/McCain. This country desperately needs out of the box solutions to the mess of a world this administration will be handing off. It betteer be an administration that can truly turn the page and begin again ... on all fronts: energy, economics, international reputation and trust-building. We better think long and hard as to why we wouldn't stretch for something as creative and hopeful as this would put into action... then, again, what in the world would make Moyers even consider doing this, really?

Posted by anonation at 07/26/2006 @ 01:24am
This guy would be an excellent Presidential candidate but he is, unfortunately, British.

Tory MP: Lebanon raid reminiscent of Nazi atrocity on Warsaw ghetto

Sir Peter Tapsell, a Tory MP, said Tuesday that British Prime Minister Tony Blair was "colluding" with U.S. President George W. Bush in giving Israel the okay to wage "unlimited war" in Lebanon - a war crime he claimed was "gravely reminiscent of the Nazi atrocity on the Jewish quarter of Warsaw."

http://tinyurl.com/pmc3n

Posted by fromredbird at 07/26/2006 @ 02:54am
She also has a history of learning from her mistakes. I find that extremely refreshing and, from what I understand, people who've actually met her really like her.

Posted by BOLADI 07/26/2006 @ 12:22am

Not sure what you mean by "learning from her mistakes". But what scares me is the second part, which sounds an awful lot like a certain someone I know in a certain position that Hillary might just want to try on for size. Since I don't regularly dine with the President, I don't give a rats ass if he/she is good at smalltalk. Although proper table manners would be "refreshing".

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/26/2006 @ 07:45am
Posted by FREIHEIT 07/26/2006 @ 04:53am

I think this is harsh, but I also think that most people forget that he was the one asking Joseph Campbell questions rather than the one with the answers.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/26/2006 @ 07:48am
I think Moyers would be a GREAT choice! He has enough experience having researched and walked in the halls of government to be able to stand up to the Neocon spin-machine. He has a very articulate and clear message and knows and is known by most everyone. I also think Edwards, Kucinich, or Feingold would be a good VP choice to run with Moyers.

Posted by Uneeke1 at 07/26/2006 @ 07:55am
Why would anyone want Moyers to run as a Demopublican? Run as a independent. It would give whatever party calls itself the "Independent" Party street creed. The Demopublican Party is bankrupt of ideas and too corruptable to govern effectively. If we can't get enough pissed-off Americans together now to support a third party, what will it take? Tea party anyone?

Posted by illumineer at 07/26/2006 @ 08:17am
RIO BRAVO: "Iran would supply them with nuclear capability possiably!"

Iran would never supply al-Qaeda and its allies with nuclear weapons; Iran is primarily Shiite, while al-Qaeda is Sunni.

"The Demoncrats had 8yrs to deal with the threat in the 90's and only looked on while escalation increased all around the globe strategically against our citizens and military! "

The Republicans have had six years, yet there have been more terrorist attacks launched by Islamists since September 11th than there ever had been before. In fact, there were more suicide bombings in one month alone in Iraq then there had been in the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Look, I'm not trying to say that Clinton was spectacular on terrorism; he wasn't. But George W. Bush hasn't done the greatest job in the world, either.

Posted by IAMIRONMAN at 07/26/2006 @ 08:52am
If we can't get enough pissed-off Americans together now to support a third party, what will it take? Tea party anyone?

Posted by ILLUMINEER 07/26/2006 @ 08:17am | ignore this person

Yeah, that worked out SO well, last time, didn't it?

Mr Nader and 2000?

Posted by Mask at 07/26/2006 @ 08:56am
Um, really? The Republicans, in lockstep? Just to cite a couple of examples, Frist pushed hard for a bill that Bush vetoed...

Posted by THRAWN 07/25/2006 @ 11:15pm

Wow, one veto in 5 and a half years. I am really impressed with the divergence of opinion the GOP is showing.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/26/2006 @ 08:57am
This guy would be an excellent Presidential candidate but he is, unfortunately, an idiot.

Posted by FREIHEIT 07/26/2006 @ 04:53am

Come on, FREI! An ad hominem attack on Moyers with no supporting examples? Not your best post...

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/26/2006 @ 08:59am
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 07/26/2006 @ 08:57am

:-)

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/26/2006 @ 09:33am
RIO BRAVO: "Iran would supply them with nuclear capability possiably!"

A little radiation might improve your spelling.

Posted by fromredbird at 07/26/2006 @ 10:00am
This guy would be an excellent Presidential candidate but he is, unfortunately, an idiot.

Posted by FREIHEIT 07/26/2006 @ 04:53am

Even if he were that's now a proven non-factor in American politics, at least for Americans like you, so his British nationality would be one of the main impediments. That and the israel lobby.

Posted by fromredbird at 07/26/2006 @ 10:06am
Again, I ask...

Is John Nichols serious?

If so, why is he abandoning long-time idol, Russ Feingold, to support a "true progressive spoiler", that would take away votes from Feingold?

If not, why post this?

Posted by Mask at 07/26/2006 @ 10:31am
Whether it is done with Molly's limited hopes or a full out get behind the man, fullsteamahead cascade, it is the most uplifting political idea I've heard in a long time. Moyers in 08! Where are the bumper stickers? Must encourage him as Molly suggested.

Posted by evergreen at 07/26/2006 @ 10:45am
This guy would be an excellent Presidential candidate but he is, unfortunately, an idiot.

Posted by FREIHEIT 07/26/2006 @ 04:53am

Oh...so only the GOP is allowed to run an idiot then? Its our turn, after all, it worked for you guys, right?

Posted by leftofcenter at 07/26/2006 @ 11:01am
You know what would be nice? How about a candidate that is honest, rational, and thoughtful? How about a candidate who has clear convictions and is dedicated to ideas that transcend partisan hackery and current events, yet who at the same time is willing to take into consideration the arguments of those who are in disagreement with him or her?

Now, I don't care if this candidate is a Republican or a Democrat, a man or a woman, black or white, etc.; all I want is someone who is willing to detach him or herself from the current American political culture and instead concentrate on the problems that confront this nation and this world with an open mind and little bit of ballsiness, if you know what I mean.

Posted by IAMIRONMAN at 07/26/2006 @ 11:28am
In other words: how about a candidate who isn't a total asshole (like the Republicans/conservatives) or a total ninny (like the Democrats/liberals/progressives)?

Posted by IAMIRONMAN at 07/26/2006 @ 11:33am
In post Shrub Amerika whoever has the responsibility to mop-up the mess that this dolt 45 has wrought will require a thoughtful statesman/womyn: Why not Moyers as the third party candidate? As a lifelong Liberal Democratic voter, hed have a better chance with Gen x and y as an independent since theyre apolitical.

Posted by oy vey at 07/26/2006 @ 11:46am
In other words: how about a candidate who isn't a total asshole (like the Republicans/conservatives) or a total ninny (like the Democrats/liberals/progressives)?

Posted by IAMIRONMAN 07/26/2006 @ 11:33am

I like that! Assholes and Ninnies. As accurate as a generalization can be.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/26/2006 @ 11:47am
In post Shrub Amerika whoever has the responsibility to mop-up the mess that this dolt 45 has wrought will require a thoughtful statesman/womyn: Why not Moyers as the third party candidate? As a lifelong Liberal Democratic voter, hed have a better chance with Gen x and y as an independent since theyre apolitical.

Posted by oy vey at 07/26/2006 @ 11:51am
I don't care for Ivins, other than as a humorist. Moyers, on the other hand, would get my vote. Smart, curious, understanding, thoughtful,compassionate, religious but not sanctimonious, perhaps uncorruptable. All of the things chimpie isn't.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/26/2006 @ 12:08pm
Of all those attributes, I'll settle for smart and uncorruptable. Thoughtful and compassionate, in combo with smart and uncorruptable, would put any candidate in line for political sainthood status.

It's going to be interesting. Part of me feels like its time that I had the opportunity for my ideal candidate. Part of me will settle for a non-mouth breather, who isn't looking at the White House as a good avenue for padding his portfolio or realizing his most fervent religious views.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/26/2006 @ 12:22pm
Rio Bravo writes: "So, your position is we would be better off to forget about the 3,000 WTC DEAD and Islamic terrorist's very real threats along with their enablers?" No, this person at least believes that we should be fighting the terrorists who attacked us and killed the 3,000 WTC and Pentagon people and destroyed a symbol of our country's greatness. I believe that we should not be spending American lives and hundreds of billions overthrowing a dictatorship and trying to run a country that the administration in place today supported with weapons, nerve gas and funds when they were members of the first Bush administration. Imagine, if you can Rio Bravo, what $300 -- $400 billion spent in Afghanistan and around the world to ferret out terrorists and to build an infrastructure would have gotten us in a real war on terrorism.

Rio Bravo adds: Is your incentive to "live" or go on todays highways with smaller lighter more fuel efficient crackerboxes, all alone, as taking a family would not be feasible? First, the fuel efficient automobiles are not single passenger cars -- for that I would use a Vespa, gets better mileage and costs less. What would you drive -- a big SUV built on a light truck body with more potential for damage and for roll-over with your family than a mid-sized automobile getting 40 plus miles per gallon. I'll take the safety and the mileage.

Rio Bravo concludes: This is all beside the point anyway and bears no real relationship to "morality" just current new age political correctness insanity! What is moral? Is it moral to send thousands to die in Iraq and thousands more to be so injured so that they will be handicapped for the rest of their lives? Is it moral to allow millions to die in pain, others without knowledge of their own existence (Alzheimers) in order to save 400,000 eggs? I'll take my morality over the deceit, the lies, the deaths and the hypocrisy of this administration and supporters like you.

Posted by powerbrokr at 07/26/2006 @ 12:25pm
If Karl is the brain W never had, then

Molly is the conscience he never wanted.

Posted by drhammer at 07/26/2006 @ 12:28pm
Lovely quote from the always peckish if insubstantial Maureen Dowd about our Prez's intellectual capacity to adjust to everchanging events in the Middle East:

The more things get complicated, the more W. feels vindicated in his own simplified vision. The more people try to tell him that it's not easy, that this is a region of shifting alliances and interests, the less he seems inclined to develop an adroit policy to win people over to our side instead of trying to annihilate them.

That's what's so frustrating about watching him deal -- or not deal -- with Iraq and Lebanon. There's almost nothing to watch.

It's not even like watching paint dry, since that, too, is a passage from one state to another. It's like watching dry paint.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/26/2006 @ 12:47pm
Why not Moyers as the third party candidate?

Posted by OY VEY 07/26/2006 @ 11:51am | ignore this person

*(Paid for by the Republican National Committee)

Posted by Mask at 07/26/2006 @ 1:25pm
I like the Moyers idea, but only insofar as it would serve to promulgate the idea of having a president who can think substantively and soberly as president, rather than merely (and this coming after a lifetime of depravity) soberly.

Posted by nathanhale at 07/26/2006 @ 2:16pm
Posted by POWERBROKR 07/26/2006 @ 12:25am

Give Rio Blotto some slack. He has issues. Too much blotter acid back in the 70's.

Posted by fromredbird at 07/26/2006 @ 2:24pm
Moyers/Keillor for '08!

Posted by krazed at 07/26/2006 @ 2:31pm
Needing to support this idea immediately, and since there is no "Moyers for President" campign fund to contribute to (yet), I am re-upping my Nation subscription.

Posted by poetom at 07/26/2006 @ 2:51pm
Mr Nichols mentioned the "broad respect" for Mr Moyers at the end of his piece....so I'm curious-

What evidence does he have that Moyers' "respect" or even recognition is anything beyond the liberal base of the Democratic Party and PBS viewership?

Posted by Mask at 07/26/2006 @ 3:00pm
Molly is right on target. Bill Moyers would present an outstanding example to the American people of what true character is. Most of our current politicians are characters but few of them have character. His presence alone would elevate the debate. By the way, if you ever have the chance to hear his speech on the progressive movement (given about a year ago and played on NPR), it is well worth listening to.

Posted by myronduell at 07/26/2006 @ 3:51pm
Bravo! As an independent Democract who is disheartened at what has become of the party, and disillusioned at the array of candidates "thinking" about running for president in 2008, I couldn't agree more with Molly Ivins and John Nichols.

In fact, after reading Ms. Ivins' column yesterday, I sent the following letter to Mr. Moyers at the address she thoughtfully provided at the end of her column:

July 25, 2006

Mr. Bill Moyers P.O. Box 309 Bernardsville, New Jersey 07924

Dear Mr. Moyers:

No doubt you have either read or been told about Molly Ivins column in which she urged those of us who are "desperate Democrats" to urge you to run for the party's presidential nomination. As an ex-pat American who lives in Toronto but who is registered to vote in Minnesota (Hubert Humphrey was our neighbour when I was growing up), I urge you to take Ms. Ivins seriously.

Granted, it is a long shot and running for president has become a truly hideous process. But your presence in a few early primary campaigns may well turn the entire election into an actual discussion of serious issues as opposed to market researched talking points. And despite the odds, you might actually win.

I have admired your intellect, integrity, forthrightness, intellectual honesty and curiosity about the world since the days when you worked for LBJ. I remember warm summer afternoons when I was a teen-ager, sitting listening as Hubert talked about you, LBJ and Washington as Muriel grilled hot dogs in the Humphrey's yard at Lake Waverly when he would come home for a weekend or a vacation. Hubert spoke of you in glowing terms, once telling my father that you were one of the smartest, savviest people in Washington at the time and one of the few people who had the guts to tell Lyndon he was wrong. Even more remarkable, according to Humphrey, not only did LBJ not throw you out of the Oval Office, he often listened to you and there weren't many people Johnson listened to when he was president.

Your work on PBS and NOW over the decades only strengthened my respect for you.

I'm sure you feel very much more comfortable on the journalist's side of the microphone rather than on the candidate's side. But America – not just the party but the country – needs your voice of reason, calmness and clarity. I strongly urge you to seriously consider Ms. Ivins' clarion call.

If you do decide to explore the possibility, I would willingly move back to the States (despite my vow not to step foot across the border as long as Bush & Co. are in power) to help you.

Sincerely,

Posted by TheCurmudgeon at 07/26/2006 @ 4:59pm
If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008, (s)he will inherit all of the problems created by this administration; and as inept as the Democrats have shown themselves to be in these matters, they will permit the Republicans to blame them for all the pigeons that will come home to roost on the Democrat's watch. Sad to relate but most of our stupid, stupid electorate will believe it, and vote Republican again in the following election. How about the Democrats not running anyone for the next election? By 2012, the country will be in or near bankruptcy, inflation/stagflation will be rampant, the Republican Congress will have to meet in Leavenworth to reach a quorum and, after 18 years of Republican Congresses and 12 years of Republican Presidents even the most rabid Bush, Rush and Coulter fans will find it difficult to blame the disaster on Bill and Monica. Then perhaps we will get another half-century of an at least half-way tolerable government. -MvP

Posted by mvonplato at 07/26/2006 @ 6:22pm
Isn't it more about changing the nature of our pathetic political discourse in elections? What about a real progressive platform that may highlight - national healthcare, public financed elections - get the corporate pigs out of it, reduction of what has amounted to corporate welfare and restructure the tax codes so that 60% of corporations won't get away with not paying into the federal coffers, reasonable defense spending, new investments in infrastructure and in good paying jobs for underpaid workers in America, addressing issues of concentrated poverty in our urban centers (primarily people of color), and on and on and in any order that underscores the issues of rightness. Certainly, Bill Moyers could challenge the dems to build a platform in ways that they have not. At issue is the dems don't wish to change the status quo. The dems roll in the same pig shit as reps. Moyers alone would not have a chance in the democratic party.

How about the progressive and black caucuses leaving the democratic party? Let them build a platform - however imperfect - and field their own candidates. It is bound to be exceedingly more substantive in beginning to build much needed systemic change in our decaying society where private individual interests of the few (and the ubiquitous "shareholder value" mantra) devour public and community needs demonstrated by the many. By burning down the old termite-infested party, a new democratic party could be built that has true relevance to what is right for the majority of American people.

I don't go along with this best of two evils bullshit - a dem is better than any rep as a necessity. Mr. Clinton was a neo-liberal economist pushing NAFTA, extending GATT, pro-business policies that help suppress American wages-throw in your own adjectives on how he was far more in tune with Reagan than with a progressive agenda (with a couple of exceptions that would include universal health care; problem was with his business allegiance that made his healthcare thinking just thinking). Hilary Rodman "Wal-mart" Clinton is likely to be the similar.

So what if 2008 does not bring in a democratic president. Change will not happen overnight. It will never happen if the whole framework of mainstream political discourse is not torched and framed anew so we might have a public who has heard and potentially been stirred to act. This may even disrupt the "in-step" positions of the reps. They will have to dance to the public tune also.

The public has been sleeping. Let's get some political discussion from leaders that will wake enough of us up.

Posted by steve3 at 07/26/2006 @ 7:07pm
"Shake up the Democrats"? At this point who needs them. Moyers is a terrific candidate & could be matched with RFK, Jr. who accurately portrays both parties as "The Republicans are 100% corrupt, the Democrats 75% corrupt".

Posted by Domer '77 at 07/26/2006 @ 10:22pm
July 26, 2006

Your malicious attempted intimidation of me--repeating what I said which wasn't necessary especially since one only need look up at my post to see what I wrote--trying to ridicule and jeer me in front of everybody proves your hatefulness. Undaunted by your crusty jibes let me again make the point that Thomas Jefferson's words very much do still apply today.

Liberty and tyranny have definite meaning. Today's tyrannical King George is President GEORGE BUSH who STOLE the PRESIDENCY from Al Gore. Neither is his vice president any respector of the U.S. Constitution. Dick Cheney almost single-handedly crusaded to invade Iraq with his little faction within the executive branch which consisted of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfawitz and one or two others from the intelligence community.

Vice President Cheney thinks the executive should have more power than the legislative branch of government. This is self-evident because of the fact that he led President Bush to act in accord with his wishes.

Too many in today's tyrannical administration try to oppress the individual liberty of Americans. Most of the extremist right-wing zealots are those like the loud-mouth and boisterous Newt Gingrich and Mississippi Senator Trent Lott who because of his past racist remarks never again will be able to hold a senate leadership position. And then of course there's Orrin Hatch one of the two Republican senators from Utah who rubber-stamps everything of President Bush's right-wing agenda and has his nose so far up he can't see the forest for the trees.

Re-writing everything I said, like you were trying to embarrass me, certainly wasn't necessary especially when one only had to look up at my post to see what I wrote. Of course, I stand by my remarks.

My studies of Thomas Jefferson have been and will continue to be as they should which is thorough. Don't reprimand me because I said things you don't like. He was among the best of our Founding Fathers because he had the vision to see that the future not always would be smooth. As he said "The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave." Even today 230 years later Thomas Jefferson is proven correct.

"JaneLee" Kathy Caudle

Posted by janelee at 07/27/2006 @ 12:01am
Let me say my comments are for "Thrawn" which I almost forgot to clarify. My mistake, so no one else takes offense.

Thanks, Kathy

Posted by janelee at 07/27/2006 @ 12:03am
Some time between 1978 and 1982 Moyers did an "American Experience" program about my aunt, Peggy Dennis, wife of the late General Secretary of the Communist Party, Eugene Dennis. At one time I had a copy of that program. ... Anyway, Aunt Peg was one of the original Zionist/Neocons, and what I wonder is whether Moyers identified the fact that Communists were "turning coat" and joining the Republicans in order to wrest power from US Conservatives and turn "consent of the governed" into "the power of the State." My issue is whether Moyers realized what was going on at that time, and whether he has, since. If he has figured out the ruse, yes, indeed, he could be a very valuable candidate. If not, he's just as naive as Clinton. ... And that's my point. M. Emily Cragg, San Jose, California

Posted by chaiyah at 07/27/2006 @ 12:06am
Bill Moyers? I don't want to be harsh but do we really want a "Democrat Version" of Bob Dole? There has to be a better, young progressive out there.

As for the "strongest Republican prospect", it has to be Rudy Giuliani. My prediction is Bush's popularity will sink further. Republicans will be looking for someone who hasn't taken a hit for supporting Bush. Only Giuliani could fill that spot. In 2007, Giuliani will suddenly become pro-life to pander to the christian-right.

If the left were smart we'd be attacking Giuliani right now. The right doesn't wait to start attacking potential Democrats, Hillary has been taking hits since 2000. Actually I enjoy their attacks. Anyway, Guiliani is a scary prospect because most Americans believe he was a hero on 9/11. The truth is he hid evidence so the 9/11 commission couldn't analyse the collapsed buildings, subjected New Yorkers to health risks after 9/11 and helped obstruct the investigation of what really happened.

That actually brings up another issue. When are progressives going to start bringing the hard issues to the front of the debate? Fraudulent electronic voting mahcines, 9/11 truth and how corporate power is destroying America have to be addressed sometime.

Posted by mjk555 at 07/27/2006 @ 12:29am
"When are progressives going to start bringing the hard issues to the front of the debate? Fraudulent electronic voting mahcines, 9/11 truth and how corporate power is destroying America have to be addressed sometime."

Posted by MJK555 07/27/2006 @ 12:29am | ignore this person

Well, here's why the Democratic politicians aren't...

1. "Fraudulent electronic voting mahcines"---Barbara Boxer tried after November 2004, and she got (0) ZERO fellow Senators to join her. In the House the "Usual 35 Suspects" (Reps. Conyers, Hinchey, Waters, etc) held a basement hearing on it and it fizzled out as the leadership (Pelosi, Hoyer) saw no promise in it.

2. "9/11 truth"---"Truth" as in what? The conspiracy theories involving the Mossad, "demolition charges", and the "impossibility of the Towers collapsing on their own" theories of ONE metallurgy professor from BYU? Sorry, relegated to the RESE/PLUNGER websites where they discuss Roswell and how Richard Nixon was on the Grassy Knoll.

3. "how corporate power is destroying America"---Haven't they been saying that for, like, the last 50 years or so?

Posted by Mask at 07/27/2006 @ 09:21am
But I want to just throw out a reiteration of my first post on Mr Nichols' article.

I don't think he's REALLY serious. He's a "Feingold Man" and I seriously doubt he'd want Russ to have to "share the progressive spotlight" with Bill Moyers, especially since Moyers would out-flank him on the Left (as Feingold would have to sound SOMEWHAT moderate, so as not to provide ammo for the GOP in the General Election).

I think this is simply a "red meat" article (likely from Ivins too) to get the base fired up for the midterms.

Posted by Mask at 07/27/2006 @ 09:24am
How wonderful to go to the polls and actually vote FOR someone like Bill Moyers and coming away with a good feeling! I have spent most of my voting years voting against the lesser evil and coming away with a "yukky" feeling.

Posted by J. Nessler at 07/27/2006 @ 10:56am
Janelee,

"...everything of President Bush's right-wing agenda and... "

If you think Bush is right wing and his policys are a right wing agenda, then , I suggest you go back to school or re read Jefferson, Adams, Paine, and many others...Bush is no conservative in any sense of the word....even the conservatives admit this with gritted teeth...you may be nsitting in a position that everything IS to the right of you, and therefore...

Posted by john maasch at 07/27/2006 @ 11:46am
It's interesting that whenever I mention Hillary to liberals (and I consider myself one) all I get is, "I hate her", "you're out of touch" and a bunch of one liners that really don't explain their opposition to her.

For a chuckle, here's my favorite new bumper sticker: WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE BUSH A BLOWJOB SO WE CAN IMPEACH HIM?

Posted by boladi at 07/27/2006 @ 6:18pm
If you think Bush is right wing and his policys are a right wing agenda, then , I suggest you go back to school or re read Jefferson, Adams, Paine, and many others...Bush is no conservative in any sense of the word....even the conservatives admit this with gritted teeth...you may be nsitting in a position that everything IS to the right of you, and therefore...

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/27/2006 @ 11:46am

Next maasch is going to calling ol gee dubya a liberal

Ha Ha Ha Ha

Sorry john boy, your boy gee is a conservative. Hard core conservative. Bible thumping evangelic conservative. Pro-business no bid contract conservative. Tax cutting smaller government conservative and... Corrupt conservative

All the big spending from him and his rubberstamp conservative republican congress amounts to nothing more than bribery

But then if you look at the K-Street project... you hamster boys are all about bribery.

and you're all conservative

To the bone

To the death

So don't you be trying to scamper out from underneath the title now

cause that'll make you a lying conservative

My favorite kind

Posted by Will C. at 07/27/2006 @ 10:23pm
If you think Bush is right wing and his policys are a right wing agenda, then , I suggest you go back to school or re read Jefferson, Adams, Paine, and many others...Bush is no conservative in any sense of the word....even the conservatives admit this with gritted teeth...you may be nsitting in a position that everything IS to the right of you, and therefore...

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/27/2006 @ 11:46am

He was elected as a conservative, by an arch conservative base, allied with icons of the conservative movement, promised to implement conservative policies.

If it walks like a monkey, talks like a monkey, thinks like a monkey, its a chimpiemcflightsuit. (with apologies to whoever thought that name up, pure genius)

Now even his own conservative friends run away from him. Maybe, just maybe , they consider him a failure. I remember a time when he was called by god herself to protect us from the evildoers, now they won't even let him in the conservative clubhouse. Poor chimpy. Nobudy wubs him anymore.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/27/2006 @ 11:05pm
Carbwalk, you may consider me an ignorant moron, but I don't get it. Are you trying to apologize for voting for the chimp, or what? I don't care, and I doubt anyone else does, whether he's conservative, indepedent, Christ, atheist, or whatever. He's blown it as a leader, he always did, always has, always will be, amen. Blessings, my son.

Posted by boladi at 07/28/2006 @ 01:39am
Crab,

.."Now even his own conservative friends run away from him. Maybe, just maybe , they consider him a failure."

He is only considered a failure due to not governing as a conservative..in that light, many of his supporters think he failed them...and that is a totally different reason than all here think he failed...for the measuring stick here is Iraq and Bush lied and all the rants posted here ad nauseum. Nonsense in my opinion and many others.

The congress, supposedly conservative, is in deep shit for not being conservative, especially the Senate..not one conservative in the place.

Actually Bush drew votes from across the political board...but could not have won without the hard right...and after they voted for him he screwed them(same as Clinton screwed the blacks, liberals and unions after safely in office)...my only point is if you think Bush is a conservative, then you are so far left that everything looks conservative to you...I am also saying the real conservatives and guys like me who don't consider themselves hard right(it matters not what those here think of me) find Bush anything but conservative...and in many cases more Liberal than Clinton sometimes..

Posted by john maasch at 07/28/2006 @ 02:48am
Boladi, had I ever voted for that moron I would be crabwalking the streets begging forgivness from all I pass.

Maasch, I know of more than one true conservative that has washed their hands of him, after voting for him twice. I think that if one were to ask chimpy he would claim the conservative mantle. Just because his policies have been failures does not mean that he is NOT a conservative. Just a failed one. I seem to remember a campaign line "compassionate conservative". Are you suggesting that he lied?!!!

Posted by crabwalk at 07/28/2006 @ 1:37pm
Bill Moyers for President!! Mr. Moyers would be a beacon of truth & light in a very dark world that the NEOCON have brought to this world. They will try to bring Mr. Moyers down but they will fail! In doing so, the world will see for themselves that the NEOCONs are doing the work of Satan.

Posted by Ralph1970 at 07/29/2006 @ 09:50am