GOP to Bush: Don't Let the Door Hit You on the Way Out

Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate was, for the most part, a polite affair. Candidates frequently spoke of how much they agreed with their opponents. They acknowledged that, despite differences on issues as fundamental as abortion rights, they would back one another against any Democrat in November, 2OO8. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney took the wind out of his mild criticisms of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Senator John McCain when he kept referring to his fellow front runners as "my friend."

But the candidates did not go entirely soft when it came to taking partisan potshots.

There was one Republican who suffered a trashing: George W. Bush.

When the candidates were asked how they would "use" the outgoing president in their administrations, the responses were breathtaking.

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, an outspoken foe of the Bush administration's immigration policies, told the story of a call he got from White House political czar Karl Rove during a dust-up on the issue several years ago. Tancredo said an angry Rove told him to "never darken the door of the White House."

"I've been so disappointed in the president in so many ways," said Trancredo, who complained about the administration's immigration, education and prescription-drug policies before asserting that, "As president, I would have to tell George Bush exactly the same thing that Karl Rove told me"

Yikes.

That's not a policy difference. That's hate.

But even the Republicans who supposedly like Bush played the president's failures for laughs.

What may have been the best line of the night came when first-term Bush Cabinet member Tommy Thompson referenced his former boss's lack of diplomatic skills in his reply to the what-do-you-do-with-Bush question.

"I would certainly not send him to the United Nations," said Thompson.

Speaking of the Bush administration, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services told the Republican-leaning crowd at the debate in the first primary state of New Hampshire: "We went to Washington to change Washington. Washington changed us."

At least Thompson said "we."

The other candidates were less generous.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said Bush "bungled Katrina," suggesting that not just the president but the Republican Party "lost credibility" when White House failed to respond quickly or effectively when a deadly hurricane struck New Orleans in 2005.

Running down a long list of Bush administration failures, Huckabee said of the mid-term election thumping the party took in 2006: "We didn't do what we were hired to do and the people fired us. The Republican Party as a whole deserved to get beat."

McCain agreed. "We let spending get out of control," he said of the Bush years. "We presided over the largest increase in the size of government since [Democratic President Lyndon Johnson's] Great Society. And our constituents and our Republican [backers] became dispirited and disenchanted."

What of Bush's signature issue: the Iraq invasion and occupation?

Both McCain and Romney said the commander-in-chief blew it early on.

"I think we were under-prepared and under-planned for what came after we knocked down Saddam Hussein," explained Romney.

McCain, who made the amazing admission that he voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq without reading the National Intelligence Estimate of risks associated with the invasion, said, "This war was very badly mismanaged for a long time."

The crowd at New Hampshire's St. Anselm College, which was made up of Republicans and independents who said they expected to vote Republican in next January's presidential primary, repeatedly applauded the banging on Bush.

Even Texas Congressman Ron Paul, a favorite target of the other candidates at the last GOP debate, received a remarkably warm response when he scored the current administration for adopting a policy of preemptive war making.

"We in the past have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or go to aid of somebody," he said. "But now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war -- we have rejected the just war theory of Christianity," the anti-war congressman said of a president who regularly references his Christianity.

"We have to come to our senses about this issue of war and preemption and go back to traditions and our constitution and defend our liberties and defend our rights."

The audience burst into applause for the Republican who was bashing Bush before Bush bashing was cool.

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

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 (129)

1. Mention "Bush bashing" and John Nichols can't contain himself....

   Posted by ACook at 06/06/2007 @ 12:16am

2. the only reason they're ripping him now is because they want votes.

   but take a closer look at giuliani: he's actually further to the right than bush on all of the most important issues (constitutional law, foreign policy, militarism, torture, imperialism, cultural imperialism, etc). on social issues, indeed, he is to the left---but these issues cannot be overcome by the president himself. it is the previous issues i mentioned which can---just look at bush's go-it-alone approach to everything.

   giulani, if elected, would almost certainly push me to leave the country. the man is, simply put, absolutely insane.

   Posted by darladoon at 06/06/2007 @ 01:40am

3. simply put: giuliani is a fascist.

   Posted by darladoon at 06/06/2007 @ 01:41am

4. this is just another in a long line of republican frauds upon the american public. NOW the republicans are trashing bush, after 6 years of relentless destruction? come on! and you know what? millions of stupid americans are going to buy into it.......because they worship these fools.

   Posted by darladoon at 06/06/2007 @ 01:46am

5. ALGORE ran away from Clinton and the bath tub ring he left in the WH..

   ...so, the current crop of repubs shouldn't do..what? .....see any Dems running TOWARDS BILL? CARTER?

   Come on..no common sense here?

   Posted by john maasch at 06/06/2007 @ 04:21am

6. Whoa? This's going to be a three-way (could be 4-way) prez race. Of course, either Giuliani or McCain wants to be vice of anything and because this is their last run, one of them would win gop nomination and the other would be left running as independent. And of course, Obama wouldn't want to be vice of anything, either, he will go it alone as well. Who would benefit from a tree-way race. Bill did it twice, or you would say one and a half. What a race to watch!

   Posted by Helen DAO at 06/06/2007 @ 04:44am

7. Is this some surprise? Nobody is going to run WITH a Prez who has a 28% approval.

   Bobby Kennedy ran against Johnson, he probably would have won. Humphrey couldn't distance himself (as Vice-Prez) and he lost. Just common sense.

   So why did Mr Nichols go after THIS point? Wasn't there SOMETHING else in the debates he could go after the Repubs on???

   Posted by Mask at 06/06/2007 @ 07:14am

8. Come on, RESE. Nobody's reading your long posts.

   Posted by barnesgene at 06/06/2007 @ 08:46am

9. At the end of this article, Ron Paul gets applause by demanding that the government get back to following the Constitution. Has anyone tried finding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights on the governments's website (usa.gov)? It's very cumbersome. And the Bill of Rights is reduced to a bunch of slow-loading pdf's from an old text book (i.e. not written as text on a website); it reminded me of reading a book that was out of print. If you want to find out about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights on usa.gov, you'll find that that info is buried, hidden, and made difficult to use...how perfect. That might be part of the problem: bad web design.

   Posted by birdchirp at 06/06/2007 @ 09:03am

10. Posted by BARNESGENE 06/06/2007 @ 08:46am

    He's a street preacher, BARNES, trying to hand out his tracts on how "The End Is Nigh!"

    Just use Ignore...everybody does. (But look every now and then, and you'll see a nugget of truly HILARIOUS lunacy!)

    Posted by Mask at 06/06/2007 @ 09:16am

11. See, BARNES, for example....he even contradicts himself on his "Doomsday" scenarios...

    "The only way out of the fascist takeover in America is to call for an Amendement to the Constitution, to repeal the Electoral College System of election of the President and replace it with Direct Election of the president." ---Posted by RESE 06/06/2007 @ 09:36am

    Yet earlier this year, he left NO way for us to save ourselves from the "fascist takeover"....

    When, say, March-ish, maybe April 2008 rolls around and it becomes legislatively, much less politically, IMPOSSIBLE to impeach Bush and Cheney and they are inevitably going to finish out their 2nd terms and leave on Inauguration Day January 2009.....

    what are you going to say about them and why will it matter? ----Posted by MASK 01/26/2007 @ 08:44am

    "By then then will have Nuked and invaded Iran. The Draft will be in operation, probably Martial law too and no body will be able to say anthing against them, because all openents will be classified enemy combatants and shipped to work in the New Reich concentration camps" ----Posted by RESE 01/26/2007 @ 1:18pm

    I'll shut up if it doesn't happen!----Posted by RESE 05/22/2007 @ 09:58am

    Posted by Mask at 06/06/2007 @ 09:40am

12. Uh, RESE...how are you going to get your "Direct Election" Amendment passed...

    when we'll be under martial law and "no body will be able to say anthing against them, because all openents will be classified enemy combatants and shipped to work in the New Reich concentration camps" by March 2008???

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 06/06/2007 @ 10:31am

13. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/06/2007 @ 04:21am

    You can't run anymore towards someone than being married to them and when they are the strategic planner for your campaign. There's a little problem in your analysis, John.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/06/2007 @ 11:48am

14. Posted by BIRDCHIRP 06/06/2007 @ 09:03am

    There's lots of reasons to critique the government, and yes, government web design can be bad. However, usa.gov seems to have be designed as a kind of U.S. government yellow pages; and it may in fact be poorly designed for that purpose. However, finding historical documents is not really its function and shouldn't be a criteria for evaluating it.

    Now, try archives.gov. America's Historical Documents is right there, prominently displayed. You can get high-resolution images, transcripts, research links, etc. They have all of this because that is part of the purpose of the site. So, it is an appropriate criteria for evaluation.

    When evaluating web sites, two of the first questions to ask is who is using it and what is it used for? We need to be careful when we make judgments about a site when we are not the target audience and we want to find something the target audience wouldn't need.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/06/2007 @ 12:06pm

15. Yeah this is a good one:

    Kristol turns on Bush: Weekly Standard editor says Bush's loyalty is a "one-way street" after Libby sentencing - Bill Kristol, the founder of the Weekly Standard, decried the injustice of Libby's prosecution and sentence, going as far as harshly chastising President Bush for not having pardoned Libby already: "So much for loyalty, or decency, or courage. For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one-way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take any risks in its behalf; and courage--well, that's nowhere to be seen. Many of us used to respect President Bush. Can one respect him still?" Good lord. After everything that Bush has done over the years, after his complete trainwreck of a presidency, it's Bush's reluctance to immediately pardon a convicted felon that causes Kristol to lose his respect for the man?

    http://blogreport.salon.com/default.aspx

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/06/2007 @ 12:14pm

16. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/06/2007 @ 12:14pm | ignore this person

    look on the bright side. we are in for a year of Bush bashing from the repubs. whattatreat. remember you heard it here a long time ago. the most vicious attacks will come from his party. remember that Cheney statement, where he claimed not to be responsible for the continued survival of the repub party.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2007 @ 12:29pm

17. .see any Dems running TOWARDS BILL?

    because no democrats are running towards bill clinton does not, in any way, negate the claim that the entire republican field is running away from bush (who is currently in office). that is simple logic, which evidently maasch has in short supply.

    second, there have numerous references to the 'peace and prosperity' of the 90s throughout the campaign thus far, which most certainly points to clinton's reign in office.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/06/2007 @ 12:34pm

18. John McCain is right - Conservative Republicans spend and spend and spend, tax money, just burn it by the crate. If you haven't noticed, after 6 years of Conservative Republican philosophy in government, YOUR taxes are about the same or higher than they were.

    Given another 6 years of Conservative Republican government, taxes would, again, again, be about the same or higher than they are now. More tax money would be lost or burned by the crate, deficits would be higher, and YOUR taxes would be about the same or higher. What else would you ever expect?

    Posted by LiberalPride at 06/06/2007 @ 12:45pm

19. Yup. The American Public places one party in "time-out" for while, and then replaces them with the other when it misbehaves. Like children, both parties are repentent for a while, then act up and have to be reprimanded.

    Posted by Balrog at 06/06/2007 @ 12:45pm

20. Conservative = Loot the taxpayer

    Republican = Loot the taxpayer

    Conservative Republicans had their moment, they did not lead, we will.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 06/06/2007 @ 12:46pm

21. Yeah, sorry MAASCH, have to agree...

    the whole Hillary campaign is based upon "returning to the good ol' Clinton days" (which would be great!)

    Posted by Mask at 06/06/2007 @ 12:48pm

22. Hey Balrog, George Bush doesnt run with both parties, George Bush campaigns with Conservative Republicans. George Bush, the worst president in American history, was not voted in by both parties, I mean come on Balrg.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 06/06/2007 @ 12:49pm

23. You know what I really hate about Conservative Republicans, THEY BELIEVE IN JESUS!

    WHY DONT YOU CHRISTIAN REPUBLICANS PRAY for God to fix problems. Such as, the Disaster in Iraq, and Bushs stupidity.

    If it works then do it, I am holding a stopwatch, PRAY NOW.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 06/06/2007 @ 12:59pm

24. Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 06/06/2007 @ 12:59pm

    I believe in Jesus. I'm also about as liberal as they come. Does that mean you hate me too?

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/06/2007 @ 2:13pm

25. Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 06/06/2007 @ 12:59pm

    As an agnostic, always find it amusing the liberal atheists/agnostics who conflate conservative politics with religion...

    EXACTLY the same way the Religious Right does!

    Hope LP has greased the spokes and chains on the bike...cuz I have a feeling he's going to be doing some back-pedalling soon!

    Posted by Mask at 06/06/2007 @ 2:32pm

26. SR, one suspects Jesus was a liberal, if not a radical. I for one will never impugn your belief, as it informs your rational and thoughtful posts.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2007 @ 2:50pm

27. SR,

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/06/2007 @ 04:21am

    You can't run anymore towards someone than being married to them and when they are the strategic planner for your campaign. There's a little problem in your analysis, John.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 06/06/2007 @ 11:48am

    I was refering to ALGOREs campaign running away from Clointon, not Hillarys..sorry for the confusion.

    Posted by john maasch at 06/06/2007 @ 3:02pm

28. I believe in Jesus. I'm also about as liberal as they come. Does that mean you hate me too?

    Posted by SRJENKINS 06/06/2007 @ 2:13pm

    I believe in Jesus, too, and I am sure Liberalpride thinks I am worthy of hate,....

    I hate discussing religon here and mostly refuse..

    Posted by john maasch at 06/06/2007 @ 3:03pm

29. I hate discussing religon here and mostly refuse..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/06/2007 @ 3:03pm | ignore this person

    thank god. one liberty was enough.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2007 @ 3:48pm

30. look on the bright side. we are in for a year of Bush bashing from the repubs. whattatreat. remember you heard it here a long time ago. the most vicious attacks will come from his party. remember that Cheney statement, where he claimed not to be responsible for the continued survival of the repub party.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/06/2007 @ 12:29pm

    So what do the repubs running from hsuB/cHeney admin at max speed do when the dems want to impeach hsuB/cHeney? Start parsing hate into 'not so bad a criminal, not quite enough to impeach this lousy president', like Libby? 'hsuB's a joke, an idiot, lousy for our country, committed crimes, but let's keeps him?' Talk about setting themselves up for lacking any credibility, most obviously speaking out of both sides of their face,... Bet one repub cracks and says sure hsuB needs to be impeached and then they all do.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/06/2007 @ 3:52pm

31. Bet one repub cracks and says sure hsuB needs to be impeached and then they all do.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/06/2007 @ 3:52pm | ignore this person

    I agree. the dems have nothing to lose with Bush staying in office. the repubs have everything to lose, and they will.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2007 @ 4:22pm

32. Another good point:

    President Harshly Criticized While Overseas - by GOP Presidential Candidates

    Posted by Jon Ponder | Jun. 6, 2007, 7:48 am

    Republicans have been quick to attack Democrats who criticize Pres. George Bush when he is overseas as being unpatriotic. Politics should end at the border, they say. But at the GOP presidential debate last night in New Hampshire, many of the candidates lambasted Bush who was in Europe on his way to the G8 conference:

    http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/06/06/president-harshly-criticized -while-overseas-by-gop-presidential-candidates/

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/06/2007 @ 4:22pm

33. The " Bush Derangement Syndrome " is a powerful thing! Get help ASAP!!!!!!!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 4:33pm

34. Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/06/2007 @ 4:49pm | ignore this person

    actually muslims believe in Jesus as well. they consider him a great prophet if not the messias. I would leave the subject of religion alone.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2007 @ 4:57pm

35. Franktits, although you're a seditious moron, you do have a point concerning religion. Coming from a devout Christian mother and Catholic ( the church of pedophilia) Grandmother. I'd argue all the time with them. They believed that if you didn't practice Christianity/Catholicism in the exact manner thier church practiced it ( speaking in tongues etc. ) you were damned to hell. I'd always argue that how could a just god send some poor muslim kid, or buddhist to hell when they didn't even get a chance to experience christianity. I'd tell them that if their god would do that, he was no god of mine and I would not follow him ( much to their shagrin ). I agrre that we should all respect and be tolerant of all religion, except any religion that terrorizes, demands conversion to their religion or death, or one that is complicit with it's members who are targeting and killing innocent civilians. There is one religion that is doing what I described and that rel9igion is ISLAM! Peaceful Muslims are complicit in the actions after radical islam when they don't help the rest of the world root out and destroy the supposed hijacker's of " the religion of peace"! It not politically correct, but it's true!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 5:07pm

36. Crusades? Still living in the past are we? What a bonafide MORON!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 5:08pm

37. Maybe some Muslims but a little thing called the Crusades may have altered the rest.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/06/2007 @ 4:59pm | ignore this person

    That's all I have to say on the subject. I think all organized religion is plain foolishness.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/06/2007 @ 4:59pm | ignore this person

    you would do well to heed my advice. what I said about muslims and jesus is a part of the Koran. this did not change because of the crusades. the crusades was a 200 year long war, which the west lost.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2007 @ 5:09pm

38. You like it when the west loses, don't you Benedict?

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 5:28pm

39. Does anyone think this is a telling sign of the repub candidates possibly signalling they could care less if the hsuB'cHeney admin is impeached... They might fare better next year and possibly save lives and funds in the process. Achieving a lot more than would be expected, considering the previous attempt. Nixon will always be a better model for a hsuB impeachment, considering the circumstances.

    Another good point:

    President Harshly Criticized While Overseas - by GOP Presidential Candidates

    Posted by Jon Ponder | Jun. 6, 2007, 7:48 am

    Republicans have been quick to attack Democrats who criticize Pres. George Bush when he is overseas as being unpatriotic. Politics should end at the border, they say. But at the GOP presidential debate last night in New Hampshire, many of the candidates lambasted Bush who was in Europe on his way to the G8 conference:

    http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/06/06/president-harshly-criticized -while-overseas-by-gop-presidential-candidates/

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/06/2007 @ 5:32pm

40. People attack Dem's for traitorous behavior!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 5:36pm

41. Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/06/2007 @ 4:49pm

    My wife is Hindu, and I was married in a Hindu temple. When I talk about the Christian religion with my Hindu relatives, the remark I almost always hear is, "We believe that too!"

    Read Thomas Merton's The Asian Journal and tell me a committed Christian cannot also be ecumenical - appreciating all faith traditions in the world. In fact, I think the majority of people that are religious - whatever their faith tradition - are very tolerant of other faith traditions.

    I only come across intolerance when I come across some variety of fundamentalism. Of them all, one of the most intolerant varieties of fundamentalism is the fundamentalist secularism that seems to be the religion of many people on the "left". Most ironic, don't you think?

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/06/2007 @ 6:01pm

42. Absolutely! Secularism is every bit the same as any other religion and every bit as dangerous, it's just not "politically correct " to say so since the "deciders" of what "is" and "is not" politically correct are the secular progressives mainly in the MSM!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 6:11pm

43. fundamental secularism? if you say so. fundamentalists are by definition intolerant, else they would be ecumenical.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2007 @ 6:29pm

44. John Maasch, you are aware, are you not, that Jesus Said, "If you have the faith of a mustard seed", you can pray to him, right? You have studied the Bible, correct? So you understand that if you have faith, you're supposed to be able to pray, right?

    John Maasch, why havent you prayed? For the Success in Iraq? Didnt it ever occur to you authoritarian fundamentalists, to pray.

    "Oh Lord Jesus, we pray in your name that Iraq be a success".

    Why havent you prayed this prayer, Christians?

    Is Jesus a liar? When he said if you have faith you can pray? Or maybe you don't have any faith? How could you be a Christian if you don't have any faith.

    Or are you a real christian, with faith, and you're just so callous and sour, that you don't entertain the compassion, to simply ask your God, "God please make Iraq a success".

    You christian nuts pray over your sound systems, you pray over your pews, you pray over the nuts and bolts in the roof at your church, "Jesus please bless these nuts and bolts". You are a nothing but bunch of nuts and bolts. So WHY THE HELL dont you ever ever pray, after 5 years, Christians, for Jesus to make Iraq a success?

    Dont you Christians ever utilize the power of prayer? Just for the PA System in your church? (I know how you operate, you do, you actually pray over the PA System in your church, and it never fails does it).

    Wouldnt you pray for a man who you admire, a man with serious mental stupidity - George Bush? Why are you Christians so unkind, that with all this faith you tout, you never pray for George Bush -who suffers from Acute Stupidity, in the White House.

    Posted by conshame at 06/06/2007 @ 6:34pm

45. Conshameful, I pray! I pray for you! I pray that you find help, get clean/sober, stop supporting pedophile/terrorist/murderer defending liberals and come back to REALITY! What are the chances of my sympathetic prayer being answered? Not good!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 6:39pm

46. George Bush, surrounded by Christian fanatics, and not one of them has ever prayed in Jesus's name , to cure George Bush of low intelligence. Not one.

    Posted by conshame at 06/06/2007 @ 6:40pm

47. By the way, I constantly pray for Iraq to be a success, not only for America, but for the Iraqi people and the world as a whole. Problem is, if this prayer were answered, it would be a very bad outcome for radical islam and their partners in crime, the Demoncats/liberals!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 6:41pm

48. I aslo, pray for a cure to " Bush derangement syndrome", and that prayer has yet to be answered, but the lord works in mysterious ways!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 6:42pm

49. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/06/2007 @ 6:29pm

    [F]undamentalists are by definition intolerant, else they would be ecumenical.

    Fundamentalist has two meanings. I'm using it in the broader sense that extents beyond Christianity.

    I think you can be a fundamentalist but also be ecumenical. Veganism might be a good example. You can live a lifestyle guided by vegan principles without necessarily thinking everyone should do so - although there are certainly some vegans that do, in fact, think everyone should be vegan.

    I think of fundamentalist secularism as taking the idea like "the seperation of church and state" to its logical conclusion. Everything should be seperated from religion. Religion is bad. Religion is hypocritical, self-centered, increases suffering in the world, etc. Religion needs to be eliminated. Take a look at CONSHAME's recent post here for an example.

    It's the flip side of the coin where religious fundamentalists want every aspect of society dominated by religion. Secular fundamentalists want the inverse - a society without religion. I don't want to live in that society, and a secular fundamentalist cannot abide that.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/06/2007 @ 7:14pm

50. Posted by CONSHAME 06/06/2007 @ 6:34pm

    Perhaps you can recall that Christ prayed at the Garden of Gethsemane: "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." (Matthew 26:39)

    Perhaps God is a little more complicated and prayer isn't an ATM card. Even Christ didn't have all his prayers answered. God isn't a tool, and as Mick Jagger put it, "You don't always get what you want..."

    If you want a good discussion on judging God, try Job. It's most fascinating, perhaps even more so for non-Christians.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/06/2007 @ 7:26pm

51. It's the flip side of the coin where religious fundamentalists want every aspect of society dominated by religion. Secular fundamentalists want the inverse - a society without religion. I don't want to live in that society, and a secular fundamentalist cannot abide that.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 06/06/2007 @ 7:14pm | ignore this person

    this must be seen in the context of religion being so dominant until the enlightenment. this domination still exists. take blue laws for instance. in my state I am not allowed to buy beer before 1pm on sunday. I mean really. until recently liquor stores were shut on sunday. there are of course far more pernicious instances. the catholic bishops getting involved in the last pres election. that turned me off to religion, well it would have had I not been turned off by my proximity to religion.

    any accommodation made to religion must also be made to agnostics and atheists and yes secularists. I despise religious proseletizing (sp).

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2007 @ 7:36pm

52. It's all relative isn't it? You beleive in Jesus because as a youngster, you were indoctrinated to beleive in Jesus. If you were born elsewhere, you would beleive in Bhudda or Mohammad or some other imaginary God. Why don't we all just admit that we were created by some superior force, be it a God or an Idol or some force of energy and stop wasting valuable energy playing the my God is better than your's game. Such nonsense.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/06/2007 @ 4:49pm

    Frankgrits the lover of the antichrist called Jesus a liar...I wish I could be present at that meeting at the Judgment Seat when Frank tries to say he was just kidding; right before he's sent to hell

    Posted by antiliberal at 06/06/2007 @ 7:45pm

53. The ACLU defending NAMBLA turned me off to secular progressives! Secular progressives letting CHILD RAPISTS off scot-free only to see them go out and murder someone else's child turned me off to progressives! The ACLU, Democrats' and Liberals' constant denfense and enabling of terrorists all the while attacking each and every move of our military has not only turned me off to secular progressives, it makes me desire their demise!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 7:47pm

54. How you think BARRY and the 28% Club are holding it together with Bush ...

    A. talking to the Iranians?

    B. pushing the McCain-TED KENNEDY immigration bill?

    C. waffling on pardoning Scooter?

    Posted by Mask at 06/06/2007 @ 7:49pm

55. Concerning my child rapist charge against progressives, I'm talking about the lunatic liberal judges who legislate from the bench and act out their hatred for this country ( see: the state of Vermont ) by letting convicted child rapists go free to kill more innocent children when the FACTS state that the recitivism rate of pedophiles is EXTREMELY high! Meaning, to all idiotic liberals that still don't get it, that pedophilia is not curable! Despicable scum that should not only be taken off the bench, but should be set on fire and dragged behind a car to pay for all the bllod of innocent children that is directly on thier hands, and the hands of all liberal scum who support them. All I can say is...one of these days....!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 7:52pm

56. As part of the 28% I must say that Bush has betrayed us all on immigration, and the only R that can get my vote is Romney or "No-chance" Tancredo! That's good news for lib's. As far as talking to the Iranians: Big Mistake/will do no good!! Scooter Libby? Pardon him immediately!!! McCain can suck my d...! Ne's an elitist, sellout, panderer, and Kennedy is an oxygen-theiving murderer,alcoholic, elitist who was born into absolute power!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 7:57pm

57. I think it's funny that lefties like Nichols relish in the GOP candidates ripping Bush. Here's why. The left generally has to hide its agenda from voters, or at least cloak it in euphemisms.

    higher taxes = "rolling back tax cuts"; protectionism = "fair trade"; socialized medicine = [take your pick]

    This is because everyone knows that you can't call these things by their real names and get elected. If you keep making up new names for them, maybe people will be confused and not realize what you're doing. My point: the real agenda of the left is unelectable. The only thing they had going for them is Bush-bashing over "incompetence" -- without revealing an agenda of their own -- but now that the GOP seems to agree with them on that point, they're in serious trouble. Their platform must now become, well, their real platform. Good luck getting elected on higher taxes, on Edwards' "bumper sticker" idea, etc. Therefore, I think by giving a little, the GOP candidates are gaining much more.

    Posted by utcareful at 06/06/2007 @ 7:58pm

58. Question: Liberals can forgiveany action in a heartbeat, so why can't they forgive Bush for his many mistakes? After all, the left can forgive a murderer ( Kennedy ), a Crackhead, tax-dodging, hooker-chasing adulterer ( Marion Barry ), Clinton ( lying, adulterous, corrupt, possible murderer and Narcicistic Sociopath ), William Jefferson ( bribe taking corrupt politician who took Nat. Guard vehicles away from Katrina victims in order to retrieve his loot from his fridge/ What's Kanye West got to say about that? ) How sick is that? Now, I laid out FACTS, which cannot be refuted, that show the pure/true sickness known as liberalism!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 8:05pm

59. UTCAREFUL, you forgot "Illegal Alien" : "undocumented immigrant", and now just " Immigrant ", ot " Terrorist ": "freedom fighter" or "insurgent"!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 8:07pm

60. A typical tactic of the left: " change the language to control the argument" when you can't rational debate any given subject!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 8:09pm

61. UT, oh yes, those repubs are so electable, like last election. face it Bub, you're done

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2007 @ 8:09pm

62. At least we don't have to hear the sore loser JohannesDORK whine about DIEBOLD and "voter dis-enfranchisement" anymore. Notice how quickly our electoral system get's cleaned up when Dem's win them!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 8:11pm

63. Posted by BARRY25 06/06/2007 @ 8:11pm

    yeah, ain't it funny how clean the elections got with the Dems retaking Congress last November?

    hypocrites and liars-that is liberalism

    Posted by antiliberal at 06/06/2007 @ 8:15pm

64. Antiliberal, I couldn't agree with you more! Spread the word and keep trying to expose this scum ( liberals ) for what they truly are: hypocritical, soulless liars!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 8:17pm

65. anti and Barfy25, you make quite a pair. half a brain betwixt the two.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2007 @ 8:22pm

66. Savage has it right. Liberalism is a mental disorder. Their core beliefs center around socialism and moral perversion.

    Posted by antiliberal at 06/06/2007 @ 8:22pm

67. anti and Barfy25, you make quite a pair. half a brain betwixt the two.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/06/2007 @ 8:22pm

    half a conservative brain still beats brainless liberals.

    Posted by antiliberal at 06/06/2007 @ 8:24pm

68. Ya, Savage is highly intelligent, very weel informed and has the background/degrees to prove it, yet way toooo high strung and a bit too angry, and that's coming from a pissed-off conservative! You're absolutely right about socialism and perversion, yet you'll find that the liberal lunatics on this blog will deny that liberalism and socialism are anywhere even close to being the same or even similar, which just lends more credibility to the FACT that " LIBERALISM IS TRULY A MENTAL DISORDER "! By the way, my wife's boss gave me the "T" shirt that states this fact and let's just say it's not very popular in the socialist state of California, especially in the coastal regions infected with drug-induced, gov't dependant, hippie losers and thier oofspring!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 8:41pm

69. Johannes: Republicans lose because of specific people's mistakes (intel on the Iraq War, specific corrupt Republicans). Republicans don't have a problem telling the country their ideas: lower taxes, freer markets, smaller government. Democrats lose because the American people don't like their ideas. I'd like to hear just one Dem candidate stand up and say "I want higher taxes to support a bigger welfare state." They can't do it. That's why the left been all about Bush's failures and the "culture of corruption." If they say what they want for the country, they'll lose. This is why Edwards' numbers has plummeted since he's taken his swing to the left -- and that's his numbers among democrats. The truth is, this is and has been a very conservative country on economic and social issues (look at the Gallup Poll's data on social issues and Tocqueville's Democracy in America). And with global markets freeing up more every day, the world is, economically, lurching to the right. Bush's mistakes on Iraq have nothing to do with laissez faire economics. And it's laissez faire economics that is slowly making the left irrelevant. Just ask Segolene Royal.

    Posted by utcareful at 06/06/2007 @ 8:42pm

70. Ya Franktits, I bet it was a very " looooong" day in that San. Fran. bath-house hangin' with Barney Frank while Gavin Newsome was do'in your wife behind your back!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 8:43pm

71. UTCAREFUL, that was a fantastic description of the deferences between the R's ( usually good ) and the D's ( evil ). Well put!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 8:46pm

72. FRANKGRITS: Do they really buy the bullshit that democrats are unpatriotic and want to lose this war.

    Our first clues were when we heard high-profile dems day unpatriotic things, and when we heard them take the other side in the war. Not saying they all do, but some certainly do.

    Unpatriotic: "Good-bye America ... you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can't make you be that country unless you want it." -- Cindy Sheehan

    Wanting us to lose: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win." -- Michael Moore

    Posted by utcareful at 06/06/2007 @ 10:39pm

73. oh poor Franktits, he's still suffering from BDS ( Bush derangement syndrome )! He's still convinced Bush lied about WMD by repeating wht the Clinton administration and their fellow dem's were warning us all about throughout the 90's, not to mention the ultra-liberal MSM, and intel from Germany, France, England etc. ( just google it, MORON )! No proof of any lies to date, yet Franktits keeps repeating the lie, and some morons still believe it! Despicable! Franktits, I thought you were part of the " innocent until proven guilty crowd"? Was there a charge, trial, or conviction of GW concerning these supposed lies? If so I missed it!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 11:02pm

74. No i wouldn't say! Hopefully when we get attacked here in the states, the victims will be those that empowered terrorists worldwide. Those people include Franktits, Fatman Michael Moore, Jane Fonda and the rest of the seditious left. I will have zero sympathy for them! as far as Cindy Sheehan, i just hope she get's the help she needs, and somehow finds happiness and solace, because I do feel sorry for her, even though her actions are traitorous. She was thrust into a situation by nutjobs who used her for political gain, and she's too fragile a being to even know better, or to see through the very scum she has been brainwashed by!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 11:07pm

75. Franktits, why in the world don't you just leave this horrible country? Don't you know that when the terrorists, that people like you empower, strike us again, this country is going to rise up and traitors like yourself are going to have targets on your chest? If the war comes here, I can promise you, that I'll be looking for your type as much as I'll be looking for the fanatical members of the religion of peace, because you're essentially one in the same! How's that, DICKLICK?

    Posted by barry25 at 06/06/2007 @ 11:11pm

76. Though some of this discussion is reasonably moderate, a lot is "your party is stupid." I think that a great example to follow in terms of inter-partisan disagreement and yet respect is the way in which George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton relate to one another. There are many significant ways in which they have disagreed about particular policy directions, but they still treat each other with a tremendous amount of respect. That's how I feel like inter-party discourse ought to be.

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/06/2007 @ 11:20pm

77. However your portrayal of Muslims holding Jesus up on some sort of pedestal is beyond my comprehension.

    you might try educating yourself on this subject. Islam accepts both Abraham AND christ, though they hold Mohammed as the greatest prophet.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2007 @ 11:42pm

78. FRANKGRITS: If only you guys could get your candidates talking this way, you'd hand us the election. Please get to work on that. On a side note, how is a guy like you content with Hillary? Her hands are just as bloody as the republicans' in the Iraq stuff. Do you read the venerable publication on which we are currently posting?

    Posted by utcareful at 06/06/2007 @ 11:48pm

79. Posted by BARRY25 06/06/2007 @ 8:43pm | ignore this person

    Posted by UTCAREFUL 06/06/2007 @ 8:42pm | ignore this person

    First, you guys are nuts.

    UT, you say "Republicans don't have a problem telling the country their ideas: lower taxes, freer markets, smaller government." But none of that has happened. So what gives?

    The Repubs say "Tax Relief", America knows it's more taxes for the working folks, less taxes for the 1%ers like Paris Hilton Party Girl, Bob J. Perry of "Swiftboat Liers", Steven Burd president and chief executive of Safeway, Charles M. Cawley, CEO of MBNA, George H. W. Bush and James Baker III, Ronald Dumbfield, Darth Cheney, Jay-Z and Eminem Rappers, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter Idiots and so on. They all need "Tax Relief" like need idiots like you two on The Nation.

    In the mean time, the shrub is spending money like a drunken sailor on on his stupid war for oil and borrowing the cash from Communist China and anyone else he can get money from. He'll walk away from this debacle of an war and leave all the rest of us with the bill.

    The Repubs Conservatives aren't conservative at all. They're just plain old "Borrow and Spend" Republicans. Thanks George!

    It's just like shrub to sit down for a meal at an expensive restaurant, order the most expensive meal and wine, then get up and walk out leaving YOU with the bill.

    His administration is a failure and it's no wonder that the Repub candidates are avoiding him like the plague.

    To borrow one of WILL C's lines, "They can feel the icy cold water coming up the stairwells" as the Repub ship is going down.

    "The first time I met Bush 43 … two things became clear. One, he didn't know very much. The other was that he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much." - Richard Perle

    itmfa

    Posted by COProgressive at 06/07/2007 @ 12:13am

80. Posted by THRAWN 06/06/2007 @ 11:20pm

    Thank you. You are of cause, right.

    "It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." - Benjamin Franklin

    Posted by COProgressive at 06/07/2007 @ 12:20am

81. barry, how has william jefferson been forgiven? and what is a "secular progressive"? please keep in mind that we live in a secular country.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2007 @ 12:35am

82. CORPOGRESSIVE:

    1)There's something wonderfully ironic about you making a typo in the same sentence where you call us idiots.

    2)More taxes for the working folk? I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The percentages of taxes paid went down across the board. Look it up.

    3)Never said they'd done all those things. The first two, yes (lowering taxes and supporting free trade agreements), but the third one (smaller government), no. They hold it up as an ideal though; whether or not it's reachable ... ya got me. Dishonest to talk about it and not do it? Yep. With government having grown so much under Bush you seem to agree with me that he's not really conservative. And you're ATTACKING him for that? Do you want a more conservative president?

    4)The first Gulf War was also a war "for oil," and WWI was "Wall Street's War," as was WWII. All wars are just for corporate profit. This is the progressive narrative. It goes way back, and it's as predictable as the sunrise. Glad you've fallen in line. War with Iran, if it were to happen, would also be "for oil."

    5)Too much spending? I agree. You're sounding more conservative with every sentence.

    Posted by utcareful at 06/07/2007 @ 01:45am

83. yep, saying there is too much spending does sound conservative.

    Posted by Will C. at 06/07/2007 @ 02:17am

84. follow that comment up with legislation to pile on more spending...

    now that's conservative

    Posted by Will C. at 06/07/2007 @ 02:18am

85. Another good piece, Mr. Nichols! And Jo, thanks for reminding me of ecumenicalism, Nature's Way!

    Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:05am

86. I love how Barry shows up on a thread that is about republcian hate for bush, then proceeds to show why the repubs are going down in flames. What a splendid display of ignorance and foolishness, wrapped up in pants shitting fear.

    Libby-guilty

    Griles- guilty

    Italia- guilty

    Bush- incompetent, just ask the ten republican Bush haters.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2007 @ 10:06am

87. Amy Goodman: Well, before we go further, "economic hit men" - for those who haven't heard you describe this, let alone describe yourself as this, what do you mean?

    John Perkins: Well, really, I think it's fair to say that since World War II, we economic hit men have managed to create the world's first truly global empire, and we've done it primarily without the military, unlike other empires in history. We've done it through economics very subtly.

    We work many different ways, but perhaps the most common one is that we will identify a third world country that has resources our corporations covet, such as oil, and then we arrange a huge loan to that country from the World Bank or one of its sister organizations. The money never actually goes to the country. It goes instead to US corporations, who build big infrastructure projects - power grids, industrial parks, harbors, highways - things that benefit a few very rich people but do not reach the poor at all. The poor aren't connected to the power grids. They don't have the skills to get jobs in industrial parks. But they and the whole country are left holding this huge debt, and it's such a big bet that the country can't possibly repay it. So at some point in time, we economic hit men go back to the country and say, "Look, you know, you owe us a lot of money. You can't pay your debt, so you've got to give us a pound of flesh."

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2007 @ 10:07am

88. And now to page three.

    Feels good to me.

    How about thee?

    Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:07am

89. Pontificus will show up soon and tell us that Tancredo LOVES Bush. Experts told him so.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2007 @ 10:09am

90. Page two has spare room.

    More space for Rese to croon.

    It's a truthful tune.

    Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:09am

91. Crab, your talk of unknowns reminds me of doggeral poems.

    The average speak of people; the better think/write of things; the best cogitate on and with IDEAS.

    Please support impeachment to facilitate the possibility of giving Peace a chance. It's NOT too late.

    Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:13am

92. Although, as usual, it's apparently too early for me to see my name atop page three.

    Of course, it's only MY screen's page three, having a different ignore list than ye, my friends of cyberspacic blog-o-sphere here.

    Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:15am

93. Posted by UTCAREFUL 06/06/2007 @ 8:42pm | ignore this person

    too bad it's not true. polls have repeatedly shown that americans back the social positions of the dems.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2007 @ 10:16am

94. Premature? Como se dice "again" en espanol?

    Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:17am

95. The Amazing Kreskin labeled me "too eager" in Blackwell Auditorium when I was a mere lad of 19. Prescient he was.

    Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:18am

96. Seriously, does LEW like everybody and everything?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 10:19am

97. Who is Tancredo?

    Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:19am

98. Jo! You're here! Yea! Wuz up? How's your weather? Let's chat!

    Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:20am

99. Y, yo atop paginas tres! Muy bien! Como se dice "atop" en espanol?

    Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:21am

100. I feel like James Cagney in "White Heat": "Look ma (impossible since she has no PC), I'm on top of the world!"

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:23am

101. I'm going to write until someone intercedes.

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:23am

102. Amigos?

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:23am

103. This is now in your ha...fingers and minds.

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:24am

104. Didn't Rese or Plunger get a whole screen page to themselves in some past plunder of posts?

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:25am

105. John Nichols! You are THE MAN!! How's HR 333 doing?

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:26am

106. Remember the great Emmy award winning comedy album of the early '70's by Richard Pryor? That album was as least as "mind expanding," or "consciousness raising" as any other intellectually stimulating endeavor of my youth. What got you off the beaten track amigos?

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:28am

107. Jo! Donde esta?

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:29am

108. On the "politically incorrect" Pryor album mentioned, he did a riff on Black paternalism. "Be home by eleven!" was the injunction laid down on him in his youth. But, he lamented, "nuthin' happens 'til eleven."

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:31am

109. Only 29 more minutes to go.

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:31am

110. To fill page three with moi, Welge, might serve to encourage some.

     To write until the very end will make scrolling fun for some, me.

     To strive for rhyme and merriment is a valid pursuit of "happyness," right Will?

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:35am

111. Rese recommended viewing the film "Extreme Measure," but I'm uncomfortable watching torture. The recent Cloony film's "manicure" scene had me departing the room. Funny how one never expects the Spanish Inquisition.

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:37am

112. MeasureS, methinks. Lo sciento, Rese.

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:38am

113. Twenty-two minutos. Ay caramba!

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:39am

114. Beinte uno minutos.

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:39am

115. Bastante! Es posible un persona puede relegadome a tus listo "ignore." Come se dice "ignore" en Espanol?

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:42am

116. Mi mama todos hable a mi: "you have more time than money." Usted tiene mas tiempo tan dinero?

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:43am

117. Jo, Frei, Crabby, Darla, Hsub, Rese, Plunger, Conshame, y mas mi amigos, donde esta?

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:45am

118. Bastante. Adios.

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 10:45am

119. Who is Tancredo?

     Posted by LEWWELGE 06/07/2007 @ 10:19am |

     Page uno...

     Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, an outspoken foe of the Bush administration's immigration policies, told the story of a call he got from White House political czar Karl Rove during a dust-up on the issue several years ago. Tancredo said an angry Rove told him to "never darken the door of the White House."

     "I've been so disappointed in the president in so many ways," said Trancredo, who complained about the administration's immigration, education and prescription-drug policies before asserting that, "As president, I would have to tell George Bush exactly the same thing that Karl Rove told me"

     He must really, really hate America, and love NAMBLA.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2007 @ 11:16am

120. Muchos gracias, Crabwalk. Hasta la vista.

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 11:22am

121. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/06/2007 @ 7:36pm

     ...any accommodation made to religion must also be made to agnostics and atheists and yes secularists...

     Exactly.

     Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2007 @ 11:34am

122. Posted by LEWWELGE 06/07/2007 @ 10:45am

     Sorry, LEW...PLUNGER rarely comes by since according to his sage analysis of world events...

     we're in MONTH THREE of "World War-III" and "martial law in the United States"!

     Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 12:21pm

123. So why did Mr Nichols go after THIS point? Wasn't there SOMETHING else in the debates he could go after the Repubs on???

     Posted by MASK 06/06/2007 @ 07:14am

     I THINK IT'S CALLED "RUBBING ONE'S HANDS WITH GLEE"...

     And honestly, who can blame Mr. Nichols? Surely not I.

     I also agree with Darladoon. Giuliani is certifiable. But so are the rest of the Republican candidates to a greater or lesser extent. McCain sane? C'mon! And, depressingly, even while disavowing Bush the man, they by and large seem to have bought into the whole cryptofascist mentality that is at the root of their general insanity, if only they could recognize.

     General Principle of Republicanism: No matter how bad a Republican president turns out to be, they will always find someone worse next time around. It's as though the Republican party seems to think there is some kind of contest for "Worst President in U.S. History" and they have to keep winning it!

     Posted by w_m_bear at 06/07/2007 @ 12:25pm

124. I think no matter what the repubs do to distance themselves from hsuB/cHeney admin, they still are repubs and repubs have corruption trailing them like the slimy silver excretions of the scum they hang with:

     But while Birnbaum mentioned former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA), who pleaded guilty to taking bribes from defense contractor Mitchell Wade, Birnbaum did not mention the other Republican members of Congress and Bush administration officials who have either pleaded guilty, been convicted, or been indicted:

     Former Rep. Bob Ney (OH) pleaded guilty in October 2006 to taking bribes from former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

     DeLay was indicted in October 2005 for money laundering and conspiracy to launder money. A former DeLay aide, Tony Rudy, pleaded guilty in connection with the Abramoff scandal, while another former aide, Michael Scanlon, pleaded guilty to conspiring with Abramoff to bribe public officials.

     Former White House procurement official David H. Safavian was convicted in June 2006 of lying and obstructing justice in the Abramoff investigation, as Media Matters for America has noted.

     Former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted in March 2006 of obstructing justice and making false statements. On June 5, he was sentenced to 30 months in prison and ordered to pay a $250,000 fine.

     Former Deputy Secretary of the Interior J. Steven Griles pleaded guilty in March 2007 to obstructing justice. As a March 23 Associated Press article reported, Griles "admitt[ed] in a plea agreement that he lied in testimony before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee on Nov. 2, 2005, and during an earlier deposition with the panel's investigators on October 20, 2005."

     Former CIA executive director Kyle "Dusty" Foggo was charged by federal prosecutors in San Diego with improperly trying to steer a $132 million contract to defense contractor Brent Wilkes.

     Former FDA commissioner Lester Crawford pleaded guilty to charges of "conflict of interest and false reporting of information about stocks he owned in food, beverage and medical device companies he was in charge of regulating," according to an October 17, 2006, Associated Press report. "Beginning in 2002," the AP report stated, "Crawford filed seven incorrect financial reports with a government ethics office and Congress, leading to the charges."

     Former Federal Housing Finance Board chairman John T. Korsmo "pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which oversees the Finance Board, and the Inspector General for the Finance Board," as Media Matters noted.

     Rep. John T. Doolittle (CA) is reportedly under investigation by the FBI in connection to his dealings with Abramoff.

     Rep. Jerry Lewis (CA) is reportedly under investigation in connection with the Cunningham scandal, and will reportedly not seek re-election. According to a January 31 article in The Hill, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said in an interview that "he believes Lewis is innocent until proven guilty, and that prevented him from toppling him from the top GOP spot on the [House Appropriations Committee]."

     Rep. Gary Miller (CA) is reportedly under investigation for two land deals and related taxes, although he says FBI agents have not contacted him.

     Rep. Rick Renzi (AZ) is reportedly the subject of a preliminary investigation into whether he pressured several landowners to buy land from a business partner.

     Former Sen. Conrad Burns (MT) is reportedly under investigation in the Abramoff investigation. Former Rep. Curt Weldon (PA) is being investigated over allegations that he "used his influence to secure lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter," according to an October 14, 2006, Associated Press article.

     In addition, as The Washington Post reported on March 8, Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) is the subject of a preliminary Senate ethics investigation into a phone call he made to then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias before the 2006 elections. According to an April 12 article in the Post, "[B]ecause the House ethics committee keeps its probes secret, it is unclear whether the lower chamber is looking into the similar allegations concerning Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.), a close ally of Domenici." Domenici and Wilson allegedly pressured Iglesias to indict a local Democratic official on corruption charges before the 2006 elections.

     ...which doesn't even include Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who appears to be of interest to FBI investigators right now.

     ...which doesn't even include some low-ranking Republicans, such as Claude Allen, who was busted for shoplifting, or Mark Foley, whose interest in congressional pages is well documented.

     Not to mention all the cronies that have been let go or resigned due to their incompetence.

     Not to mention big business, energy/oil, MIC, no bid, secret meetings/deals, highest profits from our pockets and lives.

     Not to mention the corruption of our DoJ into a kastapo and anyday now resigner/impeach articles reciever Frito.

     Not to mention violating our constitution by spying on citizens without a warrant and no habeas corpus.

     Not to mention chronic liar cHeney continuing to lie and lie and lie.

     Not to mention circular mathematician rOve.

     Not to mention Iraq and torture and carnage.

     Not to mention lousy health care, insurance going up, middle class squeese, poor numbers increase, on and on.

     No, the only way repub candidates will counter the stench of their hypocrisy following them everywhere, is to literally change sides. And even then...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 12:56pm

125. Not to mention the incompetence and lack of care and attention due the aftermath of the Katrina disaster.

     Not to mention the seven minutes hsuB waited while we were being attacked.

     Not to mention the decimation of our military's readiness due to the resider's continued incompetence.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 1:14pm

126. So did I leave something out?

     The Diabold story, Katrina, Abu Ghraib, Memogate-The Senate Computer Theft, The administration illicitly diverted $700 million from Afghanistan to Iraq, The Indian Gaming Scandal, Wiretapping the United Nations, Halliburton's Vanishing Iraq Money, The Medicare Bribe Scandal, Iraq/WMD lies/poor planning, Energy company executives/Cheney/U.S. energy policy, Prisoner renditions/continuing torture , Guantanamo , Theft of the 2000 election, Gannon, Pentagon's vanishing $billions, Insider trading before 9/11 , Plamegate , Lack of armor/untainted water & food for troops, Medicare anti-reform , Attempt to "privatize" Social Security , National debt , 700+ Presidential "signing statements" on legislation,Claude Allen, the chief domestic policy advisor, arrested for shoplifting; the three DHS officials arrested for child molestation and internet porn; Armstrong Williams and the paying-off-reporters scheme; Judy Miller "embedded" with various people; Bill Frist under investigation by the SEC for insider trading; Tom DeLay under indictment for money laundering; Bob Ney's connection to the Dukestir; Bernie Keric, the original nominee to replace Ridge, using cops to guard his visits to call girls; Katherine Harris' connection to Abramoff; Santorum in all kinds of sleaze (favorable home mortgage rates); the destruction of the entire House Ethics process; the manipulation of committee reports, the stonewalling on the cherry-picking investigation; Terri Schiavo...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 1:30pm

127. Hey, it's only politics, right?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2007 @ 1:32pm

128. And it's laissez faire economics that is slowly making the left irrelevant. Just ask Segolene Royal.

     Posted by UTCAREFUL 06/06/2007 @ 8:42pm | ignore this person

     not exactly. look at south and central america, going right? no. and your example of France is pitiful. one election tilting ever so slightly to the right in one of the most liberal countries? one swallow does not a summer make.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2007 @ 5:22pm

129. Good postings Hsub!

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/07/2007 @ 9:36pm