The WH in Turmoil?

Dan Balz states that the WH is doing what they can to salvage what is left of the administration:

In a White House known for both defiance and optimism, yesterday’s senior staff changes represent a frank acknowledgment of the trouble in which President Bush now finds himself. They are also a signal of how starkly Bush’s second-term ambitions have shifted after a year of persistent problems at home and abroad.

Longtime Bush confidant Karl Rove — who had hoped to use his position of deputy chief of staff to usher in an expansive conservative agenda — was relieved of his policy portfolio to concentrate on long-term strategy and planning for a November midterm election that looks increasingly bleak for Republicans.

Rove probably will remain one of the most influential voices in the White House, but his shift in responsibilities suggests that new White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten intends to operate a different White House than his predecessor, Andrew H. Card Jr., who resigned after more than five years at the helm.

Meanwhile, Sidney Blumenthal (break out a boulder of salt) is reporting (via the pinko commies at the RawStory) that Rove has his own problems:

Last week, on April 12, Libby counter-filed to demand extensive documents in the possession of the prosecutor. His filing, written by his lawyers, reveals that he intends to put Karl Rove on the stand as a witness to question him about his leaking of Plame’s name to reporters and presumably his role in the “concerted action” against Wilson.
In his request for documents from Rove’s files, Libby dropped mention of Rove’s current legal status.

For months, Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, has assured the press that his client, who was believed to be vulnerable to indictment for perjury, is in the clear. But Libby insisted that he was entitled to “disclosure of such documents” in Rove’s files “even if Mr. Rove remains a subject of a continuing grand jury investigation”.

Karl Rove is a subject of Fitzgerald’s investigation – this is the headline buried in Libby’s filing.

In white-collar criminal investigations, individuals who fall under the gaze of a prosecutor fit into one of three categories: witness, subject or target. Rove’s attorney has suggested that Rove is simply a witness. But that is untrue. He is a subject. A subject is someone the prosecutor believes may have committed a crime and is under investigation. If the prosecutor decides he has accumulated sufficient evidence to prove guilt, he will change the designation of that person from subject to target and then indict him or her.

Regardless of Rove’s new legal troubles, from a policy standpoint, I think there is no salvation for this administration. They have no power in Congress as Republicans with a brain are running like hell from them, they have surrendered their moral authority (IMHO) on matters of privacy, individual liberty, and fiscal restraint, as well as on issues regarding torture and the like, and the next two years are simply going to be damage control for the GOP. I fully expect two years of contentious battles over nothing, demonization of everyone who dares disagree with the party line du jour, and then, after the 2008 election no matter what the outcome, a distancing from the previous 8 years.






212 replies
  1. 1
    Pb says:

    I’m sure you were just joshing, but ‘pinko commies’ is so 70’s, seditious traitors are all the rage now. Even slanderous liberal terrorist is fading out of style. Paging Ann Coulter, we need some new baseless smear words, like sleazen!

  2. 2
    Punchy says:

    They have no power in Congress as Republicans with a brain are running like hell from them

    Oh, please. They just had an ideal opp to hand them their death warrant by demanding a NSA investigation, and they folded under the Admin. pressure. Running like hell? Is this why Roberts won’t complete the Phase II of the Iraq investigation?

    Every Repub is a Admin crony to the core. They make speak otherwise, but their actions speak much louder than the crap that spews out of their top hole.

  3. 3
    KC says:

    You’re totally right John. Barring some real stupidity on the part of Dems (always a real possibility), it’s going to be damage control for this WH all the way. And, as you say, the folks who run for president, Rep or Dem, are going to foist the change-the-course mantle high up over their heads.

    What I’m wondering though, is what’s going to go down over the course of the next two years. I mean, if Rove is indicted and president’s credibility takes another big whack, is he going to be able to govern? I don’t see how we have any leverage in foreign affairs, etc. (not necessarily a bad thing in some ways). And bombing Iran as a panecea to the administration’s problems is a sick joke. I hope they understand that it would just put us them kneck deep in troubles that they can’t and handle.

    Don’t get me wrong, I welcome this president getting reigned in a bit. It’s just I’m a little worried about the desparate animal syndrom. Will the administration lash out in a way that makes us all pay? Or will they decide to soften their course a little?

  4. 4
    jg says:

    I fully expect two years of contentious battles over nothing, demonization of everyone who dares disagree with the party line du jour,

    Like this wouldn’t happen anyway.

  5. 5
    D. Mason says:

    Will the administration lash out in a way that makes us all pay?

    They insist that nuking Iran *must* be an option. I believe it is more posturing towards the American public than towards Iran. For just the reason you eluded to. Maybe they want us to think that if we back them too far into a corner they will gladly take us down with them, like they have been making congress think for years.

  6. 6
    Pb says:

    They don’t have much left to lose, really–the fake issues and phony anger is all that keeps their base going, and they’ve already lost the rest of America, more or less.

  7. 7
    gratefulcub says:

    the fake issues and phony anger is all that keeps their base going

    Can gay marriage and flag burning work? Is there a new wedge issue out there waiting to be exploited? Christian oppression?

  8. 8
    DougJ says:

    I’m not sure how well flag burning will work, since it is hard to make it into a ballot initiative. I expect Iran to be the big issue, along with the usual bogus “cultural issues”: gay marriage, flag burning, and the War on Christmas. I expect the War on Christmas to be the big sleeper issue this fall.

  9. 9
    DougJ says:

    It’s just I’m a little worried about the desparate animal syndrom. Will the administration lash out in a way that makes us all pay? Or will they decide to soften their course a little?

    Me too. That’s what worries me most, in a way.

  10. 10

    Actually, what I think is interesting is that the longer the oil, iraq, etc. big issues go on… the less people give a shit about wedge issues like abortion, gays, taxes, etc.

    If the GOP wants to redeem itself, they need to deal with Iraq.

    Everything else is off the table.

  11. 11

    I’m not even certain that Iran will work as an issue. Barring the Iranian government dropping a bomb somewhere, I think the administration has beat that drum to death so much that nobody is listening.

    Again, Bush has to solve Iraq. If he can pull troops out by October and have in place a stable government, the GOP will do ok.

  12. 12
    DougJ says:

    If he can pull troops out by October and have in place a stable government

    If I had wheels, I’d be a bus.

  13. 13
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    They have no power in Congress as Republicans with a brain are running like hell from them

    Oh, please. They just had an ideal opp to hand them their death warrant by demanding a NSA investigation, and they folded under the Admin. pressure. Running like hell?I don’t see these two as mutually exclusive. In fact, why would the GOP Congresscritters want to “hand them their death warrant?” That would only bring attention to how badly the folks on the Hill bungled their Constitutional duty of oversight.
    In this case, the best way to run like hell is to do absolutely nothing: don’t investigate, don’t embrace, just sit there and hope you still have the lead when the clock runs out.

  14. 14
    Mr Furious says:

    Rove’s reassignment means absolutely nothing in terms of substance or impact.

    On the one hand it insulates Bush if Rove gets indicted. Barely. But at least they can pretend they’ve distanced themselves somewhat. But Christ he still has his security clearance, and we all know that if Rove is in charge of the polics, he is still in charge of policy. That’s what order those two items are placed in this White House.

  15. 15
    Pb says:

    gratefulcub,

    The new target is illegal immigrants–looks like they’ve finally rolled it out today.

  16. 16
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Try that again:

    They have no power in Congress as Republicans with a brain are running like hell from them

    Oh, please. They just had an ideal opp to hand them their death warrant by demanding a NSA investigation, and they folded under the Admin. pressure. Running like hell?

    I don’t see these two as mutually exclusive. In fact, why would the GOP Congresscritters want to “hand them their death warrant?” That would only bring attention to how badly the folks on the Hill bungled their Constitutional duty of oversight.
    In this case, the best way to run like hell is to do absolutely nothing: don’t investigate, don’t embrace, just sit there and hope you still have the lead when the clock runs out.

  17. 17
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Much better.

  18. 18
    Mr Furious says:

    Um, politics.

    (Go easy on me, Brian…)

  19. 19
    farmgirl says:

    The Other Steve: If he can pull troops out by October and have in place a stable government

    DougJ: If I had wheels, I’d be a bus.

    If my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle.

  20. 20
    tBone says:

    I fully expect two years of contentious battles over nothing

    Absolutely.

    demonization of everyone who dares disagree with the party line du jour

    Of course.

    and then, after the 2008 election no matter what the outcome, a distancing from the previous 8 years.

    I wish I had your optimism.

  21. 21
    gratefulcub says:

    gratefulcub,

    The new target is illegal immigrants—looks like they’ve finally rolled it out today.

    Hasn’t that already been proven as a campaign loser. The GOP doesn’t have a position, and they don’t do the ‘big tent with different opinions’ thing. It seems to be splitting the GOP instead of growing and solidifying their base.

    As for the Rove move, the funniest thing I have read, and I forget where I read it was:

    Rove’s demotion is like Jack the Ripper giving up surgery to focus on his night job.

  22. 22
    gratefulcub says:

    and then, after the 2008 election no matter what the outcome, a distancing from the previous 8 years.

    Before the 08 election. We can only dream about a nominee that hasn’t rejected all things bush. If we get so lucky that we run against somone that is promising to ‘continue down the path that Bush blazed’, the map may be blue.

  23. 23
    Steve says:

    The GOP didn’t win all these elections by being clowns, friends. They may be completely hopeless when it comes to governing, but that doesn’t mean they have lost the ability to campaign.

  24. 24
    gratefulcub says:

    The GOP didn’t win all these elections by being clowns, friends. They may be completely hopeless when it comes to governing, but that doesn’t mean they have lost the ability to campaign

    I don’t think any of us are under the impression that the Dems are cruising to midterm gold. The GOP knows how to do one thing well: win elections.

    The line of conversation, I believe, is WHAT are they going to do. They will come up with a strategy, and it will be a useful strategy given the circumstances.

    My blue map comment was if they tried to run someone to carry on the Bush legacy, but they aren’t that dumb. Fox News, of all people, have him at 33% approval, and only 66% of Republicans approve. There are more hits to come in the next couple of years. Trials will begin (Safavian). The post ’06 message will be ‘I am going to restore the honor, integrity, and proud tradition of the Republican Party’, but it will sound much better when they say it.

  25. 25
    Pb says:

    gratefulcub,

    Hasn’t that already been proven as a campaign loser

    Well, they’re pushing the issue, and the ever malleable Republican public priorities are changing already:

    Democrats and Republicans disagree over the nation’s top problem. For Democrats, it is Iraq. Thirty percent say so, compared with 21% of independents and 15% of Republicans. Among Republicans, immigration is seen as the most pressing concern. Thirty percent of Republicans cite immigration as the most important problem, compared with 16% of independents and 11% of Democrats.

    And they weren’t even rounding up a thousand illegal immigrant across the country when that poll was taken.

  26. 26
    LITBMueller says:

    Is there a new wedge issue out there waiting to be exploited?

    Human-animal hybrids, of course! Behold! the War on Manimals!!!!!!! :)

  27. 27
    gratefulcub says:

    Among Republicans, immigration is seen as the most pressing concern.

    My apologies Pb. I was not aware that people could be this effing dumb.

    You can agree with the war in Iraq, or not. You can even believe it is going perfectly well. But there is no way that a sane person, much less 85% of persons, can answer anything other than ‘Iraq’ to that question. 100,000 + soldiers and 10 billion$s a month in the ME, the world’s most volatile region, has to be the most pressing concern.

    But no, it is immigration. Of that 30%, how many of them had not thought about immigration in years until Bush brought it up recently?

  28. 28
    canuckistani says:

    Is there a new wedge issue out there waiting to be exploited?

    I’ll bet my shoes it’s the War on Christianity.

  29. 29
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    New Fox News Poll is fresh out today, and it shows President George W. Bush (so-called) with a 33% approval number. A new low, but don’t we see one or two of those every week?

    GOP better put some ice on this albatross. It is clearly beginning to stink.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192468,00.html

  30. 30
    gratefulcub says:

    A new low, but don’t we see one or two of those every week?

    Yes, but this is FOX. And the trend is shocking.
    4 weeks ago: 39%
    2 weeks ago: 36%
    today: 33%

    That is a 6 point drop in a month that came almost exclusively from independents and republicans. GOP support down to 66%, which proves they are still idiots, but it is a marked improvement from the 80+% he has received from them recently.

  31. 31
    Steve says:

    Of that 30%, how many of them had not thought about immigration in years until Bush brought it up recently?

    The conservatives I know from the West/Southwest region never shut up about it.

  32. 32
    gratefulcub says:

    The conservatives I know from the West/Southwest region never shut up about it.

    I guess that is my point about it being a political loser for them. I doubt they are in favor of Bush’s plan, but Tancredo’s plan isn’t going to play well with a large majority either.

    The issue will split the GOP, and the dems care about the issue less than they should.

  33. 33
    scarshapedstar says:

    They have no power in Congress as Republicans with a brain are running like hell from them

    All two of them.

  34. 34
    Broken says:

    “I earned capital, political capital, and now I intend to spend it” — Bush

    He certainly did.

    Now he’s filing for Chapter 11.

  35. 35
    SeesThroughIt says:

    after the 2008 election no matter what the outcome, a distancing from the previous 8 years.

    Man, I really, really hope so.

  36. 36
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    The immigration issue is a sign of just how bad things have gotten for the Grand Old White Peoples’ Party. With the George Bush/cheap labor faction of the party effectively rendered impotent, the David Duke wing is now firmly in control and clearly gearing up to run a race-based campaign this fall.

  37. 37
    KC says:

    Do you guys think we’re finally at the point though, where issues like gay marriage, abortion, and all the other cultural garbage that gets thrown our way will not have any effect? I mean, I’m pretty much a ticket splitter when I vote. However, I cannot imagine another election centered on what gay people do. I just can’t. If the Republicans throw that stuff my way this election, I’m sorry, but it’s going to be a straight Dem ticket for me all the way down. I’m just so tired of elections centered on people’s private lives.

  38. 38
    tBone says:

    I’m just so tired of elections centered on people’s private lives.

    Why? What do you have to hide? Obviously you’re some kind of deviant and/or illegal immigrant or you wouldn’t hesitate to vote a straight Republican ticket.

    Seriously, I can’t imagine that the Republicans won’t fling the same kind of crap this year; after all, it’s gotten them this far . . .

  39. 39
    ppGaz says:

    I think your last paragraph is a pretty good summation of what they are faced with for next 2 and a half years.

    Sadly, it was predictable and preventable. Even more sadly, tremendous damage is being done to this country which will cost trillions to fix and which will impact our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren.

    This probably will go down in history as the worst presidency ever. In fact, I think that is certain.

    What is isn’t certain … yet … is whether the country will survive it.

  40. 40

    I’m just so tired of elections centered on people’s private lives.

    I was listening to MPR this morning and they had some idiot on briefly from Minnesotans United for Protecting the Family or something whining about how the Gay bashing amendment wasn’t going to get on the ballot.

    I’ve decided I’m going to start a group called Minnesotans United For Minding Your Own Business.

    We need a catchy name and domain name, and then maybe we’ll expand out to the other 50 states. Our membership list is small now(an Army of One), but I think we have true growth potential.

  41. 41
    ppGaz says:

    but I think we have true growth potential.

    All kidding aside, I think it does have potential.

    “Minding one’s own business” is a key driver in my political makeup, and I’m pretty typical of the Common Lefty in that regard, I think.

  42. 42
    Joel says:

    For what it’s worth, I’ve also decided to vote straight D this fall. I’ve never done that before.

    And before the D’s here start gloating, you need to know that I’m going to do this IN SPITE OF your leaders (and in spite of many of the things that D’s write in internet forums). But it has become clear to me that the R dominance of our government must not be allowed to continue.

  43. 43
    Remfin says:

    Ya know, as much as I want to see Rove going down, I’d just like to point out 2 things:

    1) This is not news. Rove was treated as a subject for at least one batch of testimony in front of the GJ. We actually heard that from the prosecutor’s office a LONG time ago

    2) AFAIK this is Libby(‘s lawyer’s) filing. Why are we treating Libby as an authoritative source on what Fitzgerald is thinking? Don’t fall into that trap when it sounds good to you, because then you’re stuck listening to him later when he’s spinning like crazy

    I’m not saying we shouldn’t care – I definately think we SHOULD care. I just don’t think this is new news. It just proves the point the American public has absolutely no political consciousness of any kind, and this extends to a lot of people who are interested in politics anyway. As soon as a piece of information is no longer staring them in the face, in their minds it ceases to exist, until it appears in front of them again. The idea information is out there that they aren’t thinking of at that very moment eludes them

    Not that this should surprise anyone, since the American public constantly fails the political mirror test whenever they are given one (like when 60% of the public agrees perfectly with the stated Democratic Party’s stance on abortion but identifies the Republicans as the party closest to their feelings)

  44. 44
    ppGaz says:

    And before the D’s here start gloating, you need to know that I’m going to do this IN SPITE OF your leaders

    Heh. Most blogging D’s are ready to jettison the Clintons, the Bidens, the Liebermans, and a bunch of so-called “leaders” of the party. And the entire DLC.

  45. 45
    Steve says:

    Most of us loyal Democrats are voting D in spite of the Democrats, as well. You’re mainstream and don’t even know it.

  46. 46
    Registered Independent Joel says:

    “You’re mainstream and don’t even know it.”

    Believe me, I do know it. I look at the power-grubbing vandals in the R party, and the befuddled idjits in the D party, and I thank God that I am mainstream.

  47. 47
    croatoan says:

    The post ’06 message will be ‘I am going to restore the honor, integrity, and proud tradition of the Republican Party’, but it will sound much better when they say it.

    Bush was all about restoring honor and integrity to the White House in 2000.

    Do you guys think we’re finally at the point though, where issues like gay marriage, abortion, and all the other cultural garbage that gets thrown our way will not have any effect?

    Do you think that at some point the people who vote for Republicans because of these issues will ever wake up to the fact that they’re getting played? The Republicans exploit people’s genuine views on these issues, but don’t ever actually deliver.

    Why isn’t there an amendment outlawing abortion, for example? Republicans control both houses of Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. If they don’t outlaw abortion now, when are they ever going to?

  48. 48
    ppGaz says:

    If they don’t outlaw abortion now, when are they ever going to?

    When Bush’s daughters are past childbearing age?

  49. 49
    fwiffo says:

    Most of us loyal Democrats are voting D in spite of the Democrats, as well.

    Isn’t that the definition of a liberal?

  50. 50
    Ryan S says:

    If they don’t outlaw abortion now, when are they ever going to?

    Why would they do that they’d lose their main election tool.

  51. 51
    Davebo says:

    If they don’t outlaw abortion now, when are they ever going to?

    Look, they may seem like idiots, but they aren’t about to cook the goose that lays the golden eggs for dinner.

  52. 52
    Ryan S says:

    Most of us loyal Democrats are voting D in spite of the Democrats, as well.

    It seems that the D leadership likes being punching bags. Unfortunatly the Repubs are hittign themselves. The bad thing is a punching bag without anyone hitting it is just a large dead weight.

  53. 53

    And before the D’s here start gloating, you need to know that I’m going to do this IN SPITE OF your leaders (and in spite of many of the things that D’s write in internet forums).

    Oh yeah. Well I’m voting for R’s across the board, just to piss you off!

    :-)

    I gave up on the Republicans in 1988, and they’ve only gotten worse since. It’s not that I love the Democrats, it’s just that they aren’t interested in causing me damage.

    This year though is pretty awesome. The Democrats are pulling in some good candidates such as Webb and Sestak and such. So it’s a big change.

  54. 54
    Eural says:

    Honest question – what exactly do you want in a political candidate/representative? I’m from the more liberal persuasion but have a handful of conservative minded friends and they have gone from extreme sanctimonious arrogance and bluster to crying like little children over this administration (ok, I exaggerate but not much!).

    They seem to want a fiscally responsible (low taxes, no deficit), semi-isolationist, and very limited federal government. But they also seem to want to have it the opposite if they can enforce their moral agenda on everyone else and brag about all the foreign ass they kicked at the same time. So, I get confused.

    What do you (if you are a conservative) want out of your party leadership?

  55. 55
    stickler says:

    Eural:

    Most liberarian-minded Republicans want the first part of your seem paragraph. Most of them end up holding their noses and voting even though they get the Fundagelical Born-Again campaign madness, spiced with overseas boondoggles.

    But — and everybody pay attention here — the current math looks terrible for the GOP. Imagine how much worse it’s going to look by November. No matter what Rove does, the President isn’t getting any more competent. The debt isn’t getting smaller. Hurricane season starts up again in a month or so.

    And Iraq is a tinderbox. One false move (bombing Iran, say) and the whole place could go up. We have 150,000 potential hostages in theater and a bumbling set of morons in charge of their future.

    The downside for Bush and the GOP (and, I’m afraid, the USA) is potentially huge.

  56. 56
    KC says:

    What do you (if you are a conservative) want out of your party leadership?

    I think I know: to stop liberals, whatever shape or form a liberal may come in–hippy, communist, pot-smoker, non-Republican college professor, moderate Republican college professor, non-RNC line pushing reporter, unfundamentalist Christian, conservative general who disagrees with Rumsfeld, conservative who no longer considers himself/herself Republican, conservative who does not have a beef with gay people, Democrat of any stripe, you know what I mean–at all costs.

  57. 57
    Pooh says:

    KC, I think that’s crap. I know it’s snark, but it’s crap. The average GoP politician or activist may want those things, but I’m highly skeptical that the average GoP voter believes much of that at all.

  58. 58
    ppGaz says:

    The average GoP politician or activist may want those things, but I’m highly skeptical that the average GoP voter

    Have you been to the South?

  59. 59

    KC, I think that’s crap. I know it’s snark, but it’s crap. The average GoP politician or activist may want those things, but I’m highly skeptical that the average GoP voter believes much of that at all.

    Actually I think that he has it right. You ever read Trevino over at tacitus? Guys like that flail around so badly on ideology, but their primary focus is to stop liberals… even if they agree with them, just because they don’t want them to get credit for anything.

  60. 60
    Pooh says:

    Trevino over at tacitus

    Like I said, politicians or activists, which I think safely includes Trevino, Powerline, and the rest of the Pajamans of the Right (though not the Pajamas of the John Coles, who I think is precisely the conservative Eural describes)

  61. 61
    Brian says:

    I think I know: to stop liberals, whatever shape or form a liberal may come in—hippy, communist, pot-smoker, non-Republican college professor, moderate Republican college professor, non-RNC line pushing reporter, unfundamentalist Christian, conservative general who disagrees with Rumsfeld, conservative who no longer considers himself/herself Republican, conservative who does not have a beef with gay people, Democrat of any stripe, you know what I mean—at all costs.

    Deep

  62. 62
    jg says:

    Brian Says:

    I think I know: to stop liberals, whatever shape or form a liberal may come in—hippy, communist, pot-smoker, non-Republican college professor, moderate Republican college professor, non-RNC line pushing reporter, unfundamentalist Christian, conservative general who disagrees with Rumsfeld, conservative who no longer considers himself/herself Republican, conservative who does not have a beef with gay people, Democrat of any stripe, you know what I mean—at all costs.

    Deep

    Would it surprise you to find out that republicans craft new bills in committee and not on the floor of the chamber so they can avoid democrat input? And that bills have gone back for re-vote if a democrat was involved in making the majority?

  63. 63
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    What do you (if you are a conservative) want out of your party leadership?

    I want what Barry Goldwater wanted:
    1. A strong, smart national defense.
    2. Fiscally responsible government, as in don’t just cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes.
    3. Social libertarianism
    4. Religion out of politics.
    Although I lean in what was once thought of as a “Republican” direction, I haven’t voted GOP in years. If given the choice of handing over my money or my liberties, it’s a no-brainer.

  64. 64
    Eural says:

    Thanks for the feedback everyone – gives me something to “chew on” for a while. Someone brought up the South and – coincidentally – I’m writing from Columbia, SC and my conservative friends are from rural parts in the state. And, until recently (last 6 months or so, very very pro-Bush.

  65. 65
    ppGaz says:

    I want what Barry Goldwater wanted:
    1. A strong, smart national defense.
    2. Fiscally responsible government, as in don’t just cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes.
    3. Social libertarianism
    4. Religion out of politics.
    Although I lean in what was once thought of as a “Republican” direction, I haven’t voted GOP in years. If given the choice of handing over my money or my liberties, it’s a no-brainer.

    Your friendly local Arizona Goldwater fan here … if you got the GOP to look like that, I’d vote GOP myself.

    Sadly, I don’t think that’s in the forseeable future. The GOP is too much in love with the easy votes of the Dobsonians and the Robertsonians. For those votes, they will sell the country to the devil.

  66. 66
    Pooh says:

    1. A strong, smart national defense.
    2. Fiscally responsible government, as in don’t just cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes.
    3. Social libertarianism
    4. Religion out of politics.

    Shit, I’d probably vote R if that was on the table…

  67. 67
    John S. says:

    Heh. Most blogging D’s are ready to jettison the Clintons, the Bidens, the Liebermans, and a bunch of so-called “leaders” of the party. And the entire DLC.

    Absolutely. The sad reality is that the majority of the entrenched politicos on the Hill – regardless of party affiliation – do not represent the people they claim to serve.

    The only difference is that unlike Republicans, the Democratic leadership haven’t taken this nation to hell in a handbasket. I’m not saying that given the opportunity they wouldn’t, but at this point I think Bush has set the bar for political incompetence and policy failure so incredibly high that just about anyone could limbo under it – on stilts.

  68. 68
    KC says:

    I want what Barry Goldwater wanted:
    1. A strong, smart national defense.
    2. Fiscally responsible government, as in don’t just cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes.
    3. Social libertarianism
    4. Religion out of politics.

    Sounds pretty liberal to me.

  69. 69
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    if you got the GOP to look like that, I’d vote GOP myself.

    Shit, I’d probably vote R if that was on the table…

    Question is, why hasn’t some clever politician run on this collective platform? It would seem to be a perfect bit of triangulation: A government that’s out of your wallet AND your bedroom AND your church/temple/mosque, but protecting your ports and borders.

  70. 70
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    2. Fiscally responsible government, as in don’t just cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes.

    Clarification: Fiscally responsible government, as in don’t just cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes and don’t just spend for the sake of spending.

  71. 71
    Krista says:

    1. A strong, smart national defense.
    2. Fiscally responsible government, as in don’t just cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes.
    3. Social libertarianism
    4. Religion out of politics.

    Isn’t it sad that right now, this sounds completely utopian?

  72. 72
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Sounds pretty liberal to me.

    Then so is the true grand old man of the Grand Old Party.

  73. 73
    Pooh says:

    A government that’s out of your wallet AND your bedroom AND your church/temple/mosque, but protecting your ports and borders.

    Well, therein lies the rub because protecting borders and ports costs money. Thus the wallet. Plus I don’t necesarily want the government out of my wallet completely: markets rely on information, and at somepoint, someone has to step in and be the guarantor of information. And to paraphrase someone or other, government is the worst candidate to do so, except for every other one I can think of.

  74. 74
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Well, therein lies the rub because protecting borders and ports costs money. Thus the wallet.

    Giveaways to Big Pharm also cost money. The trick is funding what’s important, and I’d put port security above dumping dollars on corporations.

    Plus I don’t necesarily want the government out of my wallet completely…

    Who said I wanted that? The government plays a crucial role in our lives, and ensuring proper funding is a necessity. I’m not one of those “Let’s drown government in the bathtub” types.

  75. 75
    ppGaz says:

    A government that’s out of your wallet AND your bedroom AND your church/temple/mosque, but protecting your ports and borders.

    What’s missing are the means of crass manipulation.

    Without that, the utopians can’t get elected over the crass manipulators.

    So far.

  76. 76
    Eural says:

    Man, how times have changed – wasn’t Goldwater some arch-conservative in his day? But I bet I could run this list:

    1. A strong, smart national defense.
    2. Fiscally responsible government, as in don’t just cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes.
    3. Social libertarianism
    4. Religion out of politics.

    past most of my liberal friends and they’d think it sounded great.

    Isn’t it sad that right now, this sounds completely utopian?

    Sad and kinda scarey…why doesn’t someone run on this platform? Back to the basics and nothing more! Responsible government doing a few things responsibly…and competently!

  77. 77
    KC says:

    Why doesn’t anyone run on this? Well, because it’s liberal. If you have a wingnut father, as I do, you would know this. Balanced budgets, after all, are just liberals’ way of raising taxes.

  78. 78
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Balanced budgets, after all, are just liberals’ way of raising taxes.

    The GOP took over Congress with a platform plank of balancing the budget.
    Where have you gone, Newt Gingrich? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you. Woo woo woo.

  79. 79
    tBone says:

    A government that’s out of your wallet AND your bedroom AND your church/temple/mosque, but protecting your ports and borders.

    Well, I want a pony, a billion dollars, and Jennifer Aniston’s phone number. (Not necessarily in that order.)

    It really pisses me off that my wish list seems more achievable than Gold Star’s.

  80. 80
    fwiffo says:

    1. A strong, smart national defense.
    2. Fiscally responsible government, as in don’t just cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes.
    3. Social libertarianism
    4. Religion out of politics.

    That’s basically the Democratic party platform. Or it would be if they could pull their fat wonky heads out of their ass long enough to state it that simply.

  81. 81

    I’m generally with GSfRB and his Goldwater-esque desires. I want the federal government to stay out of my hair at home and protect me from threats that are larger than I can take car of myself. For the domestic things that the feds feel like taking on (and I think there are a substantial number of tasks in our modern world) that are well-suited to federal goverment), I expect competence, and not the sort of dismal failure that we’ve seen out of the current administration.

    I do not want federal government setting social policy. I do not want deficit spending, especially when it needs to be financed by a Communist country. I do not want our military stretched thin by imperial desires. Basically, we can take just about everything about the current batch of Republicans, do the opposite, and I’d be much happier than I am with the current situation.

  82. 82
    jmaier says:

    Question is, why hasn’t some clever politician run on this collective platform? It would seem to be a perfect bit of triangulation: A government that’s out of your wallet AND your bedroom AND your church/temple/mosque, but protecting your ports and borders.

    A winning platform for the general election but it won’t win either Party’s primary race dominated by activists and purists.

  83. 83
    KC says:

    tBone,

    I’ll bet you want more than Aniston’s phone number.

  84. 84
    VidaLoca says:

    A winning platform for the general election but it won’t win either Party’s primary race dominated by activists and purists.

    …case in point

  85. 85
    CaseyL says:

    I hate to sound hopeful, but it’s possible that Bush and the GOP have killed the modern form of “conservatism” (i.e., conservatism’s polar opposite) for most of the country. Americans in general don’t pay a whole lot of attention to politics, and they’re anything but policy wonks, but they do notice what works and what doesn’t.

    The GOP has had four years of doing things exactly as it wants, in everything from introducing new government programs to waging war. The last four years have been a laboratory experiment in testing neo-theo-con governing philosophies, and what do they have to show for it? An enormous security/surveillance bureaucracy that can spy on us but can’t handle predictable emergencies. An enormous new drug benefit that can’t manage to fill prescriptions. A war that’s been described by military experts and historians as the worse strategic error in American history.

    The slow and steady erosion in support for Bush and the GOP isn’t over ideology, isn’t caused by a single straw that broke the camel’s back, and isn’t fixable by spin. It’s the result of seeing everything the GOP touches turn unequivocably to shit, over and over again.

    Americans in general might not care much about 4th Amendment niceties, or ballooning federal deficits, or letting anti-science theocrats set science and health policies, because such things don’t touch them directly or immediately. They might not even care that the war in Iraq was based on lies and deliberate misuse of intelligence.

    But they do expect the government to be able to do basic things, the big ticket items, right. Disaster relief and recovery is a basic thing – lots of people know what it’s like to worry about getting hit by a natural disaster. Social Security and Medicare are basic things – we’ve grown up with those programs, and we expect them to be there for us when we need them. War is a very big ticket item – people expect that a President who decides to go to war will have some idea of how to fight it effectively.

    That’s not what they’ve seen since Bush took office, and it sure as hell isn’t what they’ve seen since the GOP controlled two of the three branches of government.

  86. 86
    Richard Bottoms says:

    Would that be the same Barry Goldwater who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

    Fuck Goldwater.

  87. 87
    DecidedFenceSitter says:

    Richard, does it matter to you why he didn’t?

    From the wikipedia article on him:

    Goldwater had a controversial record on civil rights. Locally he was a supporter of the Arizona NAACP and was involved in desegregating the Arizona National Guard. As a senator, he was a supporter of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1960. However, he opposed the much more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that it was an unconstitutional extension of the federal commerce power to private citizens in order to “legislate morality” and restrict the rights of employers. Although conservative Southern Democrats were the main opponents to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and previous civil rights legislation, his opposition to the Act strongly boosted Goldwater’s standing among white southerners.

    Considering how much this particular flaming social liberal bitches about the overreach of the commerce clause to allow congress to do just about whatever it wants, I begin to wonder if he wasn’t more right.

  88. 88
    Faux News says:

    No one has mentioned the “Maverick” Senator from AZ! Will McCain claim the Goldwater legacy? Isn’t McCain or Rudy gonna be the (self annointed) saviors for the R’s in 2008?

    I have several friends/family members who are life long Republicans and they loathe McCain and will not vote for him even if Hillary is his opponent. What gives here? Ppgaz help me understand this.

  89. 89
    VidaLoca says:

    Casey,

    I hate to disagree with somebody who’s trying to sound hopeful but I can’t share your optimism: I have a hard time believing that neo-theo-conservatism is dead. After all, it’s not like this is all new material here — Nixon(Watergate) begat Reagan and Bush the Smarter(Iran-Contra) begat Bush the Dumber(too many to list…). One of the problems with fact that most people don’t pay too much attention to policy and politics is that they don’t pay too much attention to history either; thus they’re easily led. Because they don’t pay too much attention to analysis, they’re easily distracted by wedge issues. This doesn’t look like it will change any time soon. While the Republicans may lose the elections in 2006 or 2008 (or, may very well not lose them…) I don’t see what will keep them from crawling back under their think tanks, licking their wounds, and coming back with essentially the same program in another 4, 8, 12 years. It’s happened before.

    What would make me feel more hopeful about their long-term demise would be:

    1. Serious, thoroughgoing criminal prosecution, coupled with long jail terms, for felony sleaze. Two, three, many Duke Cunninghams.

    2. Complete investigation of the process leading up to the invasion of Iraq followed by (or concurrent with) impeachment and prosecution for war crimes of the Bush administration.

    3. Repudiation of the leadership of the DLC in the Democratic party. While they’re not prosecutable they’re criminally negligible in the larger sense, because their do-nothing policies enabled the Republicans’ power grab.

    4. Recapture of the Republican Party by “honest conservatives” running on positions like the one GSfRB just laid out above.

    In short, it’s not enough that they may lose an election or two.
    Nothing less than driving a stake through their hearts will do.

    Well, I want a pony, a billion dollars, and Jennifer Aniston’s phone number. (Not necessarily in that order.)

    Me too! Me too!

  90. 90

    Would that be the same Barry Goldwater who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

    Yeah.

    He also advocated nuking Vietnam. Basically saying Johnson was spewing Bullshit about how Vietnam was going to be a limited engagement which didn’t cost much.

    There were some good aspects to what Goldwater talked about, and there were some bad aspects.

    In his later years he apologized for the bad aspects, such as being against that civil rights bill and so forth.

  91. 91

    BTW… The theocon wing which now controls the Republican party, was the same theocon wing which controlled the Democratic party in the 1960s.. and the same theocon wing which controlled the Republican party in the 1920s which brought us prohibition.

    The theocon wing ebbs back and forth over time.

  92. 92
    Krista says:

    Well, I want a pony, a billion dollars, and Jennifer Aniston’s phone number. (Not necessarily in that order.)

    Although if you’ve got the second item, wouldn’t the first and last items become relatively attainable?

    No pony for me, thanks. My neighbour has miniature horses, and while they’re cute as buttons, evidently all they do is poop and eat, and they show not a whit of affection or loyalty to the person who cleans the poops and provides the eats.

  93. 93

    VidaLoca

    I agree with you on American’s lack of history as it relates to politics. Today we talk about Bork and we only think of his Supreme Court bid, but Bork is really best known for his involvement in the Nixon Watergate scandal.

    Point by point…

    1. I think this has been the goal of Pelosi in crippling the ethics committee. Rather than ethics being a partisan politic thing with hearings which can be spun, it’s now a criminal occasion with a prosecutor.

    2. That will never make much of a difference. It’s best if we liberals keep repeating the truth that we went to war for reasons which turned out to be false. This is how historical memes stay in place.

    People still think today that FDR caused Pearl Harbor to happen, even though there were hearings back then which showed that was false. All because the Republicans kept repeating the lie.

    As for War Crimes… I’ve long thought that such things were bullshit. All war is a crime of some sort. This business with holding Hussein and having a court is bullshit, they should just spike the guy’s head on the biggest bridge over the Euphrates.

    3. This is not fair. I think had we followed the DLC and their third way practice in 1993 and following, we’d now be in firm control of the government. Joe Lieberman is not the sole representation of that club, just the worst example.

    The primary achievement of the third way was to recognize that there were failings in some of the Democratic initiatives and then fix those failings before they became campaign issues for Republicans.

    It’s actually modeled after the way Franklin Roosevelt worked.

    4. This goes back to point 3. The reason why the Republicans are doing so well in campaigning these days is that they’ve become liberals. Not because the DLC pushed the Democratic party to the right.

    You listen to Bush in 2000 and 2004, and then compare that to the Goldwater of 1964. The reason why people couldn’t tell the difference between Bush and Gore in 2000 was because Bush was trying to be like Gore. Actually quite similarly in 2004. Kerry came out in October and said “Bush plans to gut Social Security”, and what was the Bush response? “That’s a lie. We don’t plan to do anything with Social Security”

    Then after being elected, what’d he do? He went off trying to gut social security.

    The Republicans today are simply not honest about who they are. They recognized if they were honest, people wouldn’t vote for them. So they pretend to be Democrats.

    I don’t think the answer is for Democrats to move further to the left just to differentiate themselves. Democrats need to start calling the REpublicans out on their bullshit instead.

  94. 94

    Well, I want a pony, a billion dollars, and Jennifer Aniston’s phone number. (Not necessarily in that order.)

    Am I the only man in this world who does not find Jennifer Aniston at all attractive?

    Now if we were to talk about say, Audrey Tautau, or Juliette Binoche… then maybe I would give up my pony. :-)

  95. 95
    Barry says:

    Remfin, about Libby’s filings in the Plame case:

    “2) AFAIK this is Libby(’s lawyer’s) filing. Why are we treating Libby as an authoritative source on what Fitzgerald is thinking? Don’t fall into that trap when it sounds good to you, because then you’re stuck listening to him later when he’s spinning like crazy”

    The significant thing here is that Libby should be stalling but *not* implicating the administration, if things were going well. The obvious tactic is to fight a delaying action (as in an ordinary white-collar case), using a mysteriously-lavishly-funded defence. The primary hope would be that that defense would cause charges to be dropped (esp. if evidence can be barred due to secrecy); secondarily is that things would be plea-bargained down to acceptable; tertiarily (?!?) to win at trial.

    But over all of these tactics, the *strategy* would be that Bush will write a thick sheaf of pardons in December, 2008, and that people who’ve kept their mouths shut would get one. And after that, a nice cushy ‘consulting’ position somewhere, as repayment for omerta.

    With these filings, Libby is, to some extent, aiding Fitzgerald in tying in the rest of the administration to this case.

  96. 96
    ppGaz says:

    Considering how much this particular flaming social liberal bitches about the overreach of the commerce clause to allow congress to do just about whatever it wants, I begin to wonder if he wasn’t more right.

    He was neither wrong, nor right, about the states rights issue. It depends on how the thing plays out, and what the unintended consequences turn out to be. Without the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you wouldn’t have had the Republican Southern Strategy, and you wouldn’t have George W. Bush as president, for example.

    Goldwater believed that limiting federal power was a principle that trumped the argument in favor of the Act. Was he right or wrong? Both, I’d say.

    Just keep in mind that one of the most powerful arguments against American liberalism has always been the one about federal power. No matter where you stand on the matter of federal power, you look at the situation we’re in now and ask whether Goldwater was right or wrong, and you could get more than one answer.

  97. 97
    ppGaz says:

    Am I the only man in this world who does not find Jennifer Aniston at all attractive?

    Which world is that, again?

  98. 98
    ppGaz says:

    I have several friends/family members who are life long Republicans and they loathe McCain and will not vote for him even if Hillary is his opponent. What gives here? Ppgaz help me understand this.

    McCain is by far the most ambitious, and therefore the most dangerous, of the top candidates. He will say and do anything to become president, AFAIC.

    When you consider how ambitious Lieberman is, and Biden is, and Clinton is, and others are, and then realize that McCain probably tops them all, then you can see the problem.

    McCain’s groveling for theocon votes is the most disgusting thing I have seen in American politics in a long time.

  99. 99
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    In his later years he apologized for the bad aspects, such as being against that civil rights bill and so forth.

    Goldwater also was one of the very few Repubs to back Clinton on allowing gays in the military. IIRC, the AZ GOP was so pissed it threatened to take his name off their HQ building.

  100. 100
    Krista says:

    Am I the only man in this world who does not find Jennifer Aniston at all attractive?

    Nope. She does nothing for my bf. A chacun son goût…

  101. 101
    ppGaz says:

    Nope. She does nothing for my bf.

    My reply to TOS was just smart-alec material, but the thing about JA is, she is a beautiful woman to me until she opens her mouth to speak, and then …. I dunno, it’s weird. She seems to be vapid in some way I can’t quite figure out. Yet she is intelligent, and she even seems to be one of those celebrities who has experienced enough “real” life to not be totally full of herself or celebritydom …. but there is something about her that puts me off.

    So Steve, no, you aren’t alone.

  102. 102
    VidaLoca says:

    TOS,

    Am I the only man in this world who does not find Jennifer Aniston at all attractive?

    Now if we were to talk about say, Audrey Tautau, or Juliette Binoche… then maybe I would give up my pony.

    You have a point — on the other hand, hey, if she were giving out her number…

  103. 103
    tBone says:

    No pony for me, thanks. My neighbour has miniature horses, and while they’re cute as buttons, evidently all they do is poop and eat, and they show not a whit of affection or loyalty to the person who cleans the poops and provides the eats.

    Are you sure they’re really ponies, and not just overgrown cats?

    Actually I had a pony when I was a kid and it was very affectionate. He ended up getting his halter tangled in a gate and strangled to death. Even as a farm kid who was used to seeing animals meet various grisly ends, that was a rough one for me.

    So when I get my new pony, at least a portion of the billion dollars will go to designing and building snagproof fences and gates. I wonder if Jennifer has any engineering experience?

  104. 104
    tBone says:

    McCain is by far the most ambitious, and therefore the most dangerous, of the top candidates. He will say and do anything to become president, AFAIC.

    Totally agree. I’ve lost all of the respect I used to have for McCain – watching him suck up to the theocons and the people who ran an incredibly ugly whispering campaign against him in South Carolina has been sickening.

  105. 105
    Krista says:

    tBone – I’m so sorry you had to go through that. That’s so incredibly sad to think of that poor, scared pony.

    Oh damn. I’ll be back. I’m going to go cry.

  106. 106
    Faux News says:

    McCain’s groveling for theocon votes is the most disgusting thing I have seen in American politics in a long time.

    Without a doubt! Although Rudy sucking up to Santorum was also stomach churning. Thanks for the input.

    tBone – I’m so sorry you had to go through that. That’s so incredibly sad to think of that poor, scared pony.

    Oh damn. I’ll be back. I’m going to go cry.

    PLEASE do not post this at Princess Sparkle Pony! She would be devestated and I don’t want to do that to her :-(

    http://sparklepony.blogspot.com/

  107. 107
    Krista says:

    No. We don’t want to make Princess Sparkle Pony cry. That’s just wrong. There are enough things wrong in the world right now. If Princess Sparkle Ponies start crying…well, that’s it — we’re fucked.

  108. 108
    tBone says:

    Oh damn. I’ll be back. I’m going to go cry.

    Great, I made Krista cry. Now I know how Seinfeld felt when he killed his nana with the “Pony Remark.”

  109. 109

    Goldwater believed that limiting federal power was a principle that trumped the argument in favor of the Act. Was he right or wrong? Both, I’d say.

    I don’t know on Civil Rights. The argument has been that public sentiment was changing anyhow. Maybe. I kind of doubt it.

    I don’t think it would have mattered much. I think we’d still have seen the southern strategy of hiding their true feelings behind coded language, etc.

  110. 110

    Oh my god, that princess sparkle pony site is funny!

  111. 111
    Ryan S says:

    Are you sure they’re really ponies, and not just overgrown cats?

    My cat hates you now.

  112. 112
    VidaLoca says:

    TOS,

    I don’t think the answer is for Democrats to move further to the left just to differentiate themselves.

    Right, I agree. Democrats don’t need to offer left-wing radicalism as an antidote to right-wing radicalism, all they need to be successful is to offer leadership, honesty, and competence. People are getting nostalgic for Nixon for God’s sake, how easy is it to beat that?

    The stuff I was saying about superficial thinking and historical amnesia concerns me though. Today we see peole like Elliot Abrams and John Poindexter, who were both heavily implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal, holding jobs in the Bush administration. How do they do that? Because the process was short-circuited when Pappy Bush handed out the pardons — the process of historical discovery and public discussion got swept under the rug; Abrams’ plea on a reduced charge cost him nada personally, but more importantly the pardons allowed them to come back and live another day. The Nixon administration, even Nixon himself (until recently!) never caught that break. In other words the process matters.

    War crimes? Yeah, Hussein’s trial looks like a farce. Even the Hague model shows mixed results; it’ll never be stronger, or more accepted in its legitimacy, than the UN is strong or accepted in its legitimacy. On the other hand, we’re talking about an unprovoked war of aggression initiated in bad faith based on spurious evidence. The consequences of the policy go beyond the national borders of the US. The tactics employed in pursuit of the policy were (are) heinous. If we don’t take the steps now to prevent it from happening again, it likely will.

    Which is again why the process matters. We can’t just repeat the truth that we went to war for reasons that turned out to be false. We need it demonstrated, in court, with convictions, beyond a reasonable doubt, and penalties, that we went to war for reasons that we knew to be false going in. Otherwise in another 10 or 15 or 20 years we’ll have a new generation of Josh Trevinos of the right coming here with arguments like “we could have won in Iraq if only the liberals had [blahblahblah]”. Not that they won’t be here anyhow, but at least they won’t get the hearing that they would if the proof of their mendacity was not in the record.

    Pelosi? Well, if you want to argue that the increase in prosecutions is a positive side effect of the fact that the “ethics process” in the House has been revealed as the oxymoron it is, I’d agree with you. I’m not as charitable toward her as you are though: I lean more to the thinking that the reason Pelosi has let the ethics committee go down the tubes is the fact that there are Democrats who would get caught in the net. But that’s just uncharitable speculation. Without an ethics committee, if the prosecutors decided one day to start looking the other way rather than prosecuting — a possibility that we know is all too realistic — what then? No enforcement on any front, that’s what. These people are supposed to be there partly for oversight for God’s sake; they’ve proven they can’t oversee the Executive branch, they won’t oversee themselves, WTF are we paying them for?

    My primary critique of the DLC is not their policies (although I’m critical enough of those); my critique is that they refuse to fight back even when they could make significant political gains by doing so. Look at the only counter-example: Feingold. My crit of the DLC is that they don’t stand for anything, and they won’t fight for anyone. Pure opportunists, and that includes Hillary, Biden, Schumer, as well as Lieberman. They’re responsible for refusing to make a decision to push back against the theocrats — not on some kind of leftist or radical line, just on simple constitutional law, separation-of-powers stuff. That’s why I call them enablers.

    Democrats need to start calling the Republicans out on their bullshit instead.

    It’ll take a whole new generation of Democrats to do that.
    It’ll take a whole new generation of Republicans to get back to the “honest conservative” model of GSfRB. It’ll be a multi-year process. I just hope we all live that long.

  113. 113
    Krista says:

    Ryan – that’s a delightful site. There’s something about a pissed-off cat that I find inherently amusing.

  114. 114
    Krista says:

    It’ll take a whole new generation of Democrats to do that.
    It’ll take a whole new generation of Republicans to get back to the “honest conservative” model of GSfRB. It’ll be a multi-year process. I just hope we all live that long.

    If it ever happens. I personally think that the bubble of unreality, entitlement and corruption in Washington (and in Ottawa) is so vast and impermeable that it would take something earth-shattering for any new politicians to be able to rise above it and restore actual, real honour and integrity to government.

  115. 115
    SeesThroughIt says:

    Am I the only man in this world who does not find Jennifer Aniston at all attractive?

    She was cute in the early seasons of Friends but she has since lost weight she had no reason to lose and thus lost most of her cuteness as well.

  116. 116
    Brian says:

    1. A strong, smart national defense.
    2. Fiscally responsible government, as in don’t just cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes.
    3. Social libertarianism
    4. Religion out of politics.

    I can see that these are very popular with the commenters, since they’re easily digested. How can anyone not like them as they’ve been presented? I don’t desire to debunk any of it, but I have some questions about each:

    1. Define “smart”. It seems like you’re making a nod to the military with the desire for a strong, yet smart defense. But expand on the meaning of this, especially the word “smart”. What does that mean to you? And, please don’t answer with “anything the opposite of Bush”, or “read up on Wes Clark”.
    2. If taxes are cut, whether for the sake of it or not, spending should be cut accordingly. Bush has not done this, and it exposes his irresponsibility with tax cuts. I can’t find disagreement with you here, but times occasionally call for deficit spending. Do you believe that this should never be an option?
    3. As in, “do as you wish, it’s a free country”? Can you define this more clearly? Are you for decriminalization of drugs? (I am, by the way, which is why I’ll never get elected.) Should we repeal smoking bans, so people can light up again? Should “anything goes” apply to all radio and tv programming? Should our President be able to dress as a goth during the SOTU address, if s/he wishes? Should the government extend legal rights and benefits to this libertarianism? Are social norms never acceptable?
    4) This is impossible. Religion colors our politics, and has done so since the country’s birth. But, I think I know what you mean: it shouldn’t be the Bush-Dobson-Robertson type of fundamentalist Christian stuff, right? Other expressions of religion, if done in the interest of causes you find acceptable, would be fine, I presume?

    Maybe we can create the platform for a third party. Seriously.

  117. 117
    Brian says:

    Oh, and Jennifer Aniston is pretty, but she has zero sex appeal.

  118. 118
    ppGaz says:

    Are you for decriminalization of drugs?

    Yes.

  119. 119
    ppGaz says:

    And, please don’t answer with “anything the opposite of Bush”,

    Why, are we playing the “Brian who only is interested in cogent dialogue” today? What happened to “Brian who thinks that all lefties are poopyheads?”

    Pick a theme, man. How is one supposed to know which one of your class project participants is writing your part from one day to the next?

  120. 120
    tBone says:

    4) This is impossible. Religion colors our politics, and has done so since the country’s birth. But, I think I know what you mean: it shouldn’t be the Bush-Dobson-Robertson type of fundamentalist Christian stuff, right? Other expressions of religion, if done in the interest of causes you find acceptable, would be fine, I presume?

    Religion has always colored our politics, but it shouldn’t be driving them the way it is now. I don’t care whether it’s Christians, Jews, Hindus, or Pastafarians – get religion out of politics, period.

  121. 121
    tBone says:

    Oh, and Jennifer Aniston is pretty, but she has zero sex appeal.

    You’re just saying that because you don’t have her phone number.

  122. 122
    Ryan S says:

    If it ever happens. I personally think that the bubble of unreality, entitlement and corruption in Washington (and in Ottawa) is so vast and impermeable that it would take something earth-shattering for any new politicians to be able to rise above it and restore actual, real honour and integrity to government.

    Of course! Thats why you should all vote for me in 08.

    If I get elected my first action will be to commision a national monument to be erected in front of the white house.
    It will be the representation of my middle finger. In front of it will be constructed two cages and inside each cage will be a chair. One in the shape of an elephant and the other a donkey. Each day of my term I will condemn one person from each party who displeases me to be stapped to the apropriate chair and the public will be invited to harrass them as they see fit.

    Next I will issue an executive order that will require the President( me ) to once a week on friday afternoons to issue a list of every single mistake I made through the course of that week no matter how trivial. Because NO HUMAN can go even a few hours with making some sort of mistake or error, and noone is fit for public office if they can’t admit their mistakes.

    Finally I would try to pass legislation that would prohibit the federal government from running a net loss. Furthermore, I will submit a budget thusly. The funds remaining after paying the national debt interest will be split like this: 30% will go the military, immigration and border control, and disaster relief. 30% will go to providing health care to poor, welfare, and other kinds of humanitarian assistance. 30% will go to funding scientific advancement, education, and technology. The remaining 10% will be divided equally between a principal payment toward the national debt and a emergency fund that can only be accessed by a 60% vote from congress for a specific purpose and amount.

    I will also implement a 15 to 20 percent flat tax, and make tax evasion punishable by exhile.

    Then of course, I’ll be impeached, and dragged off by a bunch of people in white scrubs, but it would be worth a try.

  123. 123
    Krista says:

    Those are really great questions, Brian.

    1. Define “smart”. It seems like you’re making a nod to the military with the desire for a strong, yet smart defense. But expand on the meaning of this, especially the word “smart”. What does that mean to you? And, please don’t answer with “anything the opposite of Bush”, or “read up on Wes Clark”.

    To me, ‘smart’ means that the money spent on the military is spent wisely. That we look at what kind of warfare we need to protect ourselves in the 21st century. That we don’t leave our ports and railways unprotected. And that the military works in harmony with the CIA, the FBI, and local police forces in order to keep each other in the loop regarding any potential threats.

    2. If taxes are cut, whether for the sake of it or not, spending should be cut accordingly. Bush has not done this, and it exposes his irresponsibility with tax cuts. I can’t find disagreement with you here, but times occasionally call for deficit spending. Do you believe that this should never be an option?

    It should be an option, but it should only be used in short-term, for unusual situations. I think that government should and could be much more responsible with its spending, and can avoid deficit spending most of the time by not being so damned wasteful.

    3. As in, “do as you wish, it’s a free country”? Can you define this more clearly? Are you for decriminalization of drugs? (I am, by the way, which is why I’ll never get elected.) Should we repeal smoking bans, so people can light up again? Should “anything goes” apply to all radio and tv programming? Should our President be able to dress as a goth during the SOTU address, if s/he wishes? Should the government extend legal rights and benefits to this libertarianism? Are social norms never acceptable?

    I’m for the decriminalization of drugs as well, and think that if the FCC has no problem showing bloated corpses on CSI, then they should have no problem with a nude breast. I think that government should err on the side of being hands-off. I don’t think that complete social libertarianism is possible, but I think that right now, government has gone way too far in the opposite direction.

    4) This is impossible. Religion colors our politics, and has done so since the country’s birth. But, I think I know what you mean: it shouldn’t be the Bush-Dobson-Robertson type of fundamentalist Christian stuff, right? Other expressions of religion, if done in the interest of causes you find acceptable, would be fine, I presume?

    Is it impossible? I do think that there needs to be government protection of religious expression, but I really don’t see why government has to be involved in religion any further than that.

  124. 124

    VidaLoca – Great points.

    Life of Brian wrote:

    If taxes are cut, whether for the sake of it or not, spending should be cut accordingly. Bush has not done this, and it exposes his irresponsibility with tax cuts. I can’t find disagreement with you here, but times occasionally call for deficit spending. Do you believe that this should never be an option?

    Spending should match revenues. That is, if taxes are cut, then spending needs to be cut accordingly. This allows for a DEBATE. The public will let you know if they want to tradeoff cuts in services to cuts in taxes.

    As to deficit spending… It was necessary during the Depression and during WW II. It has not been necessary since WWII.

    Regardless, it’s easily solved. Balanced budget amendment with a deficit override requiring 3/4ths majority of house and senate.

  125. 125

    Can you all please donate to the Katherine Harris Senate campaign?

    I’m concerned that she might drop out.

  126. 126
    DougJ says:

    Have you guys checked out Riehl World view? Another possible spoof, along with Confederate Yankee, Atlas, and the rest. Can the Republicans really be this dumb? Some of these places have got to be jokes. Right?

  127. 127
    VidaLoca says:

    I’m concerned that she might drop out.

    If I can’t have Jennifer’s phone number can I have this instead?

  128. 128
    jg says:

    Am I the only one here who thinks Jennifer Aniston is hot?

    4) This is impossible. Religion colors our politics, and has done so since the country’s birth. But, I think I know what you mean: it shouldn’t be the Bush-Dobson-Robertson type of fundamentalist Christian stuff, right? Other expressions of religion, if done in the interest of causes you find acceptable, would be fine, I presume?

    Its not impossible. Politicians being religious can’t be helped but we should not be making laws based on religious beliefs. Religion and gov’t should be separate and distinct entities. You turn to one for certain problems and the other for other problems. You should not be looking to gov’t to solve social problems that you believe are caused by people forgetting the teachings of Christ.

  129. 129
    Krista says:

    Am I the only one here who thinks Jennifer Aniston is hot?

    She’s cute as a button, seems like a sweetie, and dresses like a dream. But hot? I prefer Salma Hayek, thanks.

  130. 130
    Brian says:

    Politicians being religious can’t be helped but we should not be making laws based on religious beliefs.

    Thou shalt not kill.

  131. 131
    ppGaz says:

    The existence of the commandment does not translate into the idea that a law against killing is a religious law, or is linked to religion.

    To argue that, one would have to argue that people could not figure out, without the religion, that a law against killing was necessary.

  132. 132
    Krista says:

    Isn’t that pretty universal though, Brian? Being opposed to murder is not restricted to Christianity, or even to religion, per se.

  133. 133
    Brian says:

    You’re just saying that because you don’t have her phone number.

    Maybe so.

    But here are some very hot women:

    My wife
    Salma Hayek (h/t Krista)
    Angelina Jolie
    Diane Lane
    Catherine Keener

    Aniston can’t hold candle to these ladies.

  134. 134
    Faux News says:

    Thou shalt not kill.

    Yes, and please explain that to the Republicans who are anti-abortion, but PRO death penalty.

  135. 135
    jg says:

    Brian Says:

    Politicians being religious can’t be helped but we should not be making laws based on religious beliefs.

    Thou shalt not kill.

    You’re right Brian. If it wasn’t for that amendment society would still function quite well with us being allowed to kill each other legally. Idiot!

    Krista Says:

    Am I the only one here who thinks Jennifer Aniston is hot?

    She’s cute as a button, seems like a sweetie, and dresses like a dream. But hot? I prefer Salma Hayek, thanks.

    I certainly never said she was hotter than Salma! And just for making that comment you jumped ahead of Jennifer too. :)

  136. 136
    Krista says:

    Brian, your list looks great, but you’ve got a typo in there.

    But here are some very hot women:

    My wife
    Salma Hayek (h/t Krista)
    Krista
    Angelina Jolie
    Diane Lane
    Catherine Keener

    Much better…(LOL)

  137. 137
    Brian says:

    John Cole mentioned last Sunday that morning’s MTP show, whcih I saw. You had several very religious, very respectable intellectuals stating very effectively how religion can influence politics. They didn’t all agree as to HOW, but the theme was the same.

    I don’t believe you can completely remove relision from politics, nor would we really want to. And I feel I should repeat here: I am not religious. I simply believe that religion helps to provide a more consistent moral framework that society can benefit from. And if a politician is religious, I can’t expect him/her to leave their religion at the door when they go to work.

    This has only become an issue with the rise of the religious Right. This group will only lose, along with their candidates, when enough voters turn them away.

  138. 138
    Brian says:

    Salma Hayek (h/t Krista)
    Krista

    :)

  139. 139
    tBone says:

    Salma Hayek (h/t Krista)
    Angelina Jolie
    Diane Lane
    Catherine Keener

    Salma – hot. No question.
    Angelina – hot, if plastic does it for you.
    Diane Lane – attractive in a “Mom Jeans” kind of way. Catherine Keener – ditto.

  140. 140
    Krista says:

    And if a politician is religious, I can’t expect him/her to leave their religion at the door when they go to work.

    You do make an excellent point. If someone is religious, then of course it’s going to affect their values. And their values are going to affect their legislating. The problem occurs when a politician puts their values ahead of what is best for his or her constituents. And unfortunately, many politicians right now are not only putting their values ahead of their constituents’ needs, but they are berating those constituents who don’t share the same value system, and are acting like they do not deserve the same support as those constituents whose values do coincide with the politician’s.

    It’s one thing to be religious, it’s quite another thing for these people to forget their job. Their job is to represent their constituents — ALL of them.

  141. 141
    Krista says:

    My top 5:

    Salma Hayek
    Nigella Lawson
    Halle Berry
    Evangeline Lilly
    the chick who plays Anastasia “Dee” Dualla on Galactica.

  142. 142
    Brian says:

    the chick who plays Anastasia “Dee” Dualla on Galactica.

    Mmmmmmm……Kandyse McClure

  143. 143
    Brian says:

    Angelina – hot, if plastic does it for you.

    She just seems like she’d rock in the sack.

  144. 144
    tBone says:

    My top 5:

    Salma Hayek
    Nigella Lawson
    Halle Berry
    Evangeline Lilly
    the chick who plays Anastasia “Dee” Dualla on Galactica.

    {Edited for excessive drool and tasteless fantasy shower scenes.}

  145. 145
    tBone says:

    She just seems like she’d rock in the sack.

    From the looks of her, she’s got rocks in her sacks, all right.

  146. 146
    jg says:

    Salma Hayek
    Jessica Biel
    The aerobics instructor at my local Ballys
    Charlize Theron
    Just about every girl in my gf’s Victoria Secret catalog.

  147. 147
    Brian says:

    but they are berating those constituents who don’t share the same value system

    Agreed. I would like to see politicians show appreciation for religion’s place in democracy, but also for them to show great deference to the variety of ways people express their beliefs, even for people who live by what might be referred to as spiritual principles.

  148. 148
    jg says:

    I don’t believe you can completely remove relision from politics, nor would we really want to.

    I think we can and should. I think the founding fathers wanted to make sure we didn’t end up like every other gov’t in history with a national religion dictating moral values to the people. Religious people in elected office is far different from religious rule.

  149. 149
    Brian says:

    The aerobics instructor at my local Ballys

    You mean this one?

    Jessica Biel

    She is definitely stunning.

  150. 150
    Pb says:

    Politicians being religious can’t be helped but we should not be making laws based on religious beliefs.

    Don’t worry, they don’t.

    “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” — 1 Timothy 6:10

  151. 151
    ppGaz says:

    Agreed. I would like to see politicians show appreciation for religion’s place in democracy, but also for them to show great deference to the variety of ways people express their beliefs, even for people who live by what might be referred to as spiritual principles.

    The people in Hell would like ice water, too.

    Politicians won’t do that. They’ll either keep their distance from the subject, and show respect by minding their own business, and by not makeing patronizing suck up speeches and statements, or else they will be Bill Frist and John McCain, trying to outdo each other to see which one of them can smoke the religious bone the fastest and hardest.

  152. 152
    Krista says:

    Mmmmmmm……Kandyse McClure

    I figured one of you would have the name handy.

    I would like to see politicians show appreciation for religion’s place in democracy, but also for them to show great deference to the variety of ways people express their beliefs, even for people who live by what might be referred to as spiritual principles.

    For me, it isn’t necessarily about deference towards other peoples’ beliefs, as it is deference towards the realities of other peoples’ lives, and the necessities of those lives. I really don’t care if my rep or my prime minister respects my agnosticism, as long as their religious beliefs do not affect their legislation to the point where it interferes with my rights as a human being.

    tbone – in this context, I could say something unspeakably crude about your nickname, but I think that would not be wise. Go walk it off, buddy.

  153. 153
    Pooh says:

    Point: Female Jackalopes…

    Seriously for a moment: Brian, you are correct, there is no good reason why a bright line rule against deficit spending is wise. HOWEVER, going from there to actively seeking to create deficits (a neccesary condition to combining tax cuts with expanding foreign adventures) is quite a jump.

    (Incidentally, this is either point 1 or 1A when thoughtful Left-of-center types question GWB’s ‘seriousness’ on security issues.)

  154. 154
    Krista says:

    From the looks of her, she’s got rocks in her sacks, all right.

    Ow. Not a pleasant thought.

  155. 155
    tBone says:

    I really don’t care if my rep or my prime minister respects my agnosticism, as long as their religious beliefs do not affect their legislation to the point where it interferes with my rights as a human being.

    Exactly.

    Go walk it off, buddy.

    Trust me, walking’s not going to help. (BTW I’ve had the nickname since high school. I can’t help it if you smut-meisters have dirty minds. :) )

  156. 156

    I simply believe that religion helps to provide a more consistent moral framework that society can benefit from. And if a politician is religious, I can’t expect him/her to leave their religion at the door when they go to work.

    There are two things to be wary of.

    Those who use the cloak of Religion to hide stupidity and make it more palatable.

    Those who take a Religious argument too far to an extreme.

    Bush with his Dobson, Robertson, Falwell clique are an example of the first. The Great Society and Prohibition are examples of the second.

    The backlash against Religion you are seeing now, is largely because of this. It is not because Religion is bad, it is because Religion has been used by bad persons, or bad ideas with the best of intents.

  157. 157
    ppGaz says:

    And if a politician is religious, I can’t expect him/her to leave their religion at the door when they go to wo

    That’s exactly what they should do, and what I expect them to do. Anything else is abuse of government power to advance a religious agenda.

    That’s what you have now, in Washington DC.

  158. 158
    tBone says:

    Point: Female Jackalopes…

    C’mon, it’s Friday, we haven’t had an open thread for a while, and I think we can all agree that what this place desperately needs is more juvenile locker room talk.

    going from there to actively seeking to create deficits (a neccesary condition to combining tax cuts with expanding foreign adventures)

    Also a necessary condition for drowning government in the bathtub. All of their aims dovetail so nicely . . .

  159. 159
    Krista says:

    C’mon, it’s Friday, we haven’t had an open thread for a while, and I think we can all agree that what this place desperately needs is more juvenile locker room talk.

    Sounds good to me. Besides, it all ties together. We’re just talking about two completely different types of boobs.

  160. 160
    jg says:

    tBone Says: (BTW I’ve had the nickname since high school. I can’t help it if you smut-meisters have dirty minds. :) )

    A friend of mine was nicknamed T-Bone when I was a teen. But his was because he liked to smoke bones and his name was Tommy. BTW, ‘bones’ are a Boston slang term for jays, joints, marijuana cigarettes, REEFERS!.

  161. 161
    Brian says:

    Bush with his Dobson, Robertson, Falwell clique are an example of the first. The Great Society and Prohibition are examples of the second.

    The backlash against Religion you are seeing now, is largely because of this. It is not because Religion is bad, it is because Religion has been used by bad persons, or bad ideas with the best of intents.

    They’ve become one in a long line of interest groups, which both sides are constantly trying to appease (depending on which side the group is aligned to).

    I often wonder if Bush really wants the fundamentalists’ advice and influence. They’re a powerful enough bloc, so it would take a particularly talented politician to harness their power while at the same time not letting them have undue influence.

  162. 162
    ppGaz says:

    what this place desperately needs is more juvenile locker room talk.

    It makes me feel like a juvenile!

    Of course, hard to get a juvenile at our age!

    /milton berle

  163. 163
    Brian says:

    completely different types of boobs

    Is that a reference to me?

  164. 164
    Pooh says:

    we can all agree that what this place desperately needs is more juvenile locker room talk.

    Poop.

  165. 165
    tBone says:

    Another thread completely and hopelessly derailed. My work here is done.

  166. 166
    Krista says:

    Brian, LOL, no — it’s actually not a reference to you, but to politicians. We’re having a really good conversation, why would I want to call you a boob? I’ll save that for the next time we disagree…maybe it’ll make you laugh and lose your train of thought.

    It makes me feel like a juvenile!

    Of course, hard to get a juvenile at our age!

    Ba-DUM-bump! He’ll be here all week folks. Enjoy the buffet.

  167. 167
    Krista says:

    Pooh – LOL. So where’s this revenge you promised me, tough guy? Hmmm…?

  168. 168
    GOP4Me says:

    I think we can and should. I think the founding fathers wanted to make sure we didn’t end up like every other gov’t in history with a national religion dictating moral values to the people. Religious people in elected office is far different from religious rule.

    Nonsense. The Founding Fathers were religious men. They just wanted to make sure that different branches of Christianity were respected within the various states. It is also worth noting that each colony had its own personal religion; a Quaker in Georgia would have been far less welcome than a Muslim in Georgia today, for example; also, Maryland was a Catholic state, and Massachusetts was a Puritan stronghold. The states retained religions, but the federal government never established one.

    Salma Hayek
    Jessica Biel
    The aerobics instructor at my local Ballys
    Charlize Theron
    Just about every girl in my gf’s Victoria Secret catalog.

    1. my wife
    2. Jessica Simpson
    3. Paris Hilton
    4. Angie Harmon
    5. a tie between Shannon Doherty and Sarah Michelle Gellar

  169. 169
    Krista says:

    1. my wife
    2. Jessica Simpson
    3. Paris Hilton
    4. Angie Harmon
    5. a tie between Shannon Doherty and Sarah Michelle Gellar

    Far be it from me to impugn your taste, but I can only agree with you on #4, and your second choice on #5. (I’m sure your wife is lovely, I’ve just not seen her, and so cannot definitively agree.)

  170. 170
    ppGaz says:

    The Founding Fathers were religious men. They just wanted to make sure that different branches of Christianity

    That’s why they called the new country “The Christian States of America,” right?

    Go away, Doug.

  171. 171
    jg says:

    1. my wife
    2. Jessica Simpson
    3. Paris Hilton
    4. Angie Harmon
    5. a tie between Shannon Doherty and Sarah Michelle Gellar

    Can’t comment on #1 but I definately agree with you on #4 and #2. But #3?! Not even if she was in a lesbian porn scene with #2 and #4 would I be able to stand the sight of her.

  172. 172
    ppGaz says:

    Chloe Sevigny.

    That’s my Top Five.

  173. 173
    tBone says:

    The Founding Fathers were religious men. They just wanted to make sure that different branches of Christianity were respected within the various states.

    Huh. Who knew that deists were so concerned with protecting Christians?

  174. 174
    GOP4Me says:

    Far be it from me to impugn your taste, but I can only agree with you on #4, and your second choice on #5. (I’m sure your wife is lovely, I’ve just not seen her, and so cannot definitively agree.)

    So you don’t think Jessica Simpson is lovely? Odd. I mean no personal offense, but I feel compelled to note that I can only attribute this statement to jealousy. I can’t think of anyone hotter, and she’s brainy, to boot. She’s supposedly a devout Christian, too. Irresistable. And while I don’t approve of Paris Hilton’s lifestyle, I think I agree with her politics. I’ve heard she’s quite conservative, which certainly puts her in MENSA range (relative to other Hollywood celebs, anyway). I think she’d be very interesting to interact with, although the crazy partying would have to stop.

    That’s why they called the new country “The Christian States of America,” right?

    We are united UNDER GOD, peepee. How do you explain THAT if the Founders were all secular atheists?

    Go away, Doug.

    I don’t think he’s here.

  175. 175
    GOP4Me says:

    Can’t comment on #1 but I definately agree with you on #4 and #2. But #3?! Not even if she was in a lesbian porn scene with #2 and #4 would I be able to stand the sight of her.

    Well, okay. In the interests of harmony, I’ll substitute #3 with a young Bo Derek. Is that better?

    Huh. Who knew that deists were so concerned with protecting Christians?

    True, some of the Founders were deists. Among them Thomas Jefferson, slave-rapist and hypocrite; and Benjamin Franklin, nudist, pervert, and French delegate. The deists were only concerned with protecting themselves.

    However, the majority of delegates, who WERE Christians, were concerned with protecting their states’ entrenched religious structures. They would have been horrified if they had known that 240 years down the road, heathen adventurers settling in the states would claim each as a kingdom of Godlessness.

  176. 176
    ppGaz says:

    How do you explain THAT if the Founders were all secular atheists?

    I didn’t say they were secular atheists, you silly spoofmeister. But they sure as hell weren’t looking to advance Christianity as part of creating a new country.

  177. 177
    GOP4Me says:

    I didn’t say they were secular atheists, you silly spoofmeister. But they sure as hell weren’t looking to advance Christianity as part of creating a new country.

    America is the most Christian nation in the world, peepee. (With the possible exception of El Salvador.) If they weren’t trying to make it that way, they certainly have achieved it inadvertently. And America’s becoming more Christian every day, as you moonbats will learn to your dismay this November. Someday, this will be a nation where a Christian can hold his head up high again. Possibly the only nation on Earth where such a thing is still possible. We are the base upon which the edifice of The Lord will be built. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, Hippie!

  178. 178
    Brian says:

    And while I don’t approve of Paris Hilton’s lifestyle, I think I agree with her politics.

    Interested to know more about this. I’m shocked to hear it. Maybe she’s not as dim as she looks.

    Someday, this will be a nation where a Christian can hold his head up high again.

    I hope you’re correct. The open disrespect shown to Christians in general is appalling.

  179. 179
    tBone says:

    They would have been horrified if they had known that 240 years down the road, heathen adventurers settling in the states would claim each as a kingdom of Godlessness.

    Dude, Conan was just a character that Arnold played. And he’s only claimed one state as a kingdom of Godlessness.

  180. 180
    ppGaz says:

    If they weren’t trying to make it that way, they certainly have achieved it inadvertently.

    Then I guess you think they also intended us to be the most powerful military force on earth? Since we are, and all?

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc, and all that?

    More history lessons, please! This is so educational!

  181. 181
    tBone says:

    I hope you’re correct. The open disrespect shown to Christians in general is appalling.

    Yes, those poor, persecuted Christians. Perhaps someday, when the infidels have been swept away, they can emerge from their hidden enclaves and live freely among us.

  182. 182
    ppGaz says:

    The open disrespect shown to Christians in general is appalling.

    Wow. What a fall. From Mister I’m Really a Cool Guy to What a Fuckhead to I’m Really a Spoof, all in one post.

    A fine piece of work, my man.

  183. 183
    jg says:

    And while I don’t approve of Paris Hilton’s lifestyle, I think I agree with her politics. I’ve heard she’s quite conservative

    She’s heir to a fortune of course she’s conservative you idiot. Do you think she supports repealing the Estate and Gift Tax too?

    America is the most Christian nation in the world

    Say what? Are you counting the number of christians in a nations population to arrive at that?

    However, the majority of delegates, who WERE Christians, were concerned with protecting their states’ entrenched religious structures.

    So do you agree with them that the country as a whole isn’t any one religion and shouldn’t be? That people should determine their religioous choice? Or are you trying to say that they felt the state should tell people what their religion would be but not he federal gov’t?

  184. 184
    Ryan S says:

    America is the most Christian nation in the world, peepee.

    Umm… I think the Vatican’s got the market cornered on that one GOP.

    And to be fair all religious groups are growing, some much more (in terms of percent) that Christianity.
    ARIS Study

  185. 185
    ppGaz says:

    I think America is the most Scientologist nation on earth, is it not?

  186. 186
    GOP4Me says:

    Interested to know more about this. I’m shocked to hear it. Maybe she’s not as dim as she looks.

    I’m not saying she has well-articulated views on the issue, necessarily, but from what I gather what views she DOES have on political issues tend to be more conservative.

    I hope you’re correct. The open disrespect shown to Christians in general is appalling.

    Amen. But this, too, shall pass.

    Dude, Conan was just a character that Arnold played. And he’s only claimed one state as a kingdom of Godlessness.

    He’s not the best governor, but he’s better than any Democrat I can think of. And California was godless long before he came along as leader.

  187. 187
    GOP4Me says:

    Then I guess you think they also intended us to be the most powerful military force on earth? Since we are, and all?

    Are you saying they didn’t?

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc, and all that?

    Latin is one step below French in my esteem, peepee.

    More history lessons, please! This is so educational!

    Sorry, no time. TGIF and all that. Perhaps later.

    Yes, those poor, persecuted Christians. Perhaps someday, when the infidels have been swept away, they can emerge from their hidden enclaves and live freely among us.

    We don’t necessarily have to sweep the infidels away. But they do have to learn to respect the majority religion. It’s a democracy, after all, and the majority rules.

    Wow. What a fall. From Mister I’m Really a Cool Guy to What a Fuckhead to I’m Really a Spoof, all in one post.

    A fine piece of work, my man.

    ???

    So do you agree with them that the country as a whole isn’t any one religion and shouldn’t be? That people should determine their religioous choice? Or are you trying to say that they felt the state should tell people what their religion would be but not he federal gov’t?

    Well, the states wanted to reserve the power unto themselves. If the states ran religion, this would be a very Christian nation indeed, in every state with the possible exceptions of New Jersye, New York, and California. Regardless, the original states were all Christian, and the other 47 still are; so whomever runs the religious affairs will undoubtedly run it accordingly (unless you count activist atheist judges, that is).

    Umm… I think the Vatican’s got the market cornered on that one GOP

    Do they count as a country?

    I think America is the most Scientologist nation on earth, is it not?

    No, that would be California.

    Gotta go now. It’s been fun and all. TGIF.

  188. 188
    ppGaz says:

    So, GOP4GFY, you are declaring an entire American state, and the most populous one at that, having around 10% of the country’s entire population, to be “Godless”, and you still want to pretend that you should be taken seriously?

    Apparently it’s America you are against, so why don’t you just leave and go find a more suitable place to share your views? Like, North Korea?

    Get out. Seriously. Just get the fuck out and don’t let the door hit you in the ass.

  189. 189
    tBone says:

    We don’t necessarily have to sweep the infidels away. But they do have to learn to respect the majority religion. It’s a democracy, after all, and the majority rules.

    Actually, it’s not a democracy, and the majority doesn’t rule. Nice job, though – a lot more subtle than your usual dumb-as-a-box-of-Paris-Hilton’s-hair schtick.

  190. 190

    We are united UNDER GOD, peepee. How do you explain THAT if the Founders were all secular atheists?

    LOL! you wingnuts never cease to amaze me.

    The Pledge came about in the 20th century. The ‘UNDER GOD’ bit was added later in the 1950s by pussies afraid we were going to lose our godliness to Commies.

  191. 191
    ppGaz says:

    The ‘UNDER GOD’ bit was added later in the 1950s by pussies afraid we were going to lose our godliness to Commiesother party

  192. 192
    ppGaz says:

    It’s a democracy, after all, and the majority rules.

    No, it’s a republic, and the majority has to govern, not rule. Quite a different thing.

  193. 193
    dagon says:

    dead thread but i had to weigh in on the aniston thing. imo, she is probably the most average looking woman to ever be bestowed the crown of ‘hot celebrity’.

    i’m still at work and looking out of my office door, there are at least 6 women who are infinitely more attractive than ja; plus that ‘quirky ingenue’ think she tries to pull off just bugs me.

    my top 5:

    anne parillaud
    audrey tautou
    thandie newton
    marisa tomei
    gretchen moll

    salma hayek would be a close #6

    peace

  194. 194
    Some Other Brian Guy says:

    Notice the difference…

    If there’s a question about a Dem’s disclosure, they resign their chair. Republicans whine and complain that there is no problem, then pass rules allowing chairs to continue even after there have been indictments.

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    LOL!

  195. 195
    RonB says:

    America is the most Christian nation in the world, peepee. (With the possible exception of El Salvador.) If they weren’t trying to make it that way, they certainly have achieved it inadvertently. And America’s becoming more Christian every day, as you moonbats will learn to your dismay this November. Someday, this will be a nation where a Christian can hold his head up high again. Possibly the only nation on Earth where such a thing is still possible. We are the base upon which the edifice of The Lord will be built. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, Hippie!

    Spoof of The Day.

  196. 196
    Brian says:

    If there’s a question about a Dem’s disclosure, they resign their chair. Republicans whine and complain that there is no problem, then pass rules allowing chairs to continue even after there have been indictments.

    He resigned his chair, or he was pushed into it by the leaders of the party? If you read more about it, the guy is unrepentant about his actions. He thinks he did nothing wrong.

    Besides, is your position “We are as crooked as they are, but we immediately resign”? You look silly posting this sort of thing.

  197. 197
    ppGaz says:

    You look silly posting this sort of thing.

    Ah, back to form, the insufferable fuckhead persona.

    Too bad, it’s not your best look.

  198. 198
    ppGaz says:

    Time for your light moment of the day?

    Hu visited the White House.

    I don’t know, who?

    Right.

    Who? Who visited the White House?

    Right. Hu.

    I don’t know.

    Hu.

    I don’t know Hu.

    He visited the White House.

    Who did?

    Right, Hu did.

    I don’t know.

    Hu did.

    Who did?

    Yes.

    Who?

    Hu.

    I don’t know, I told you. Who visited the White House?

    Hu.

    I DON’T KNOW, who?

    Right, Hu.

  199. 199

    This administration is done! When the calendar turns to November, the Dems will take control of both houses and impeach just about everyone.

  200. 200
    tBone says:

    He resigned his chair, or he was pushed into it by the leaders of the party?

    Good point. Either he stepped down on his own, or party leaders forced him to – either way, it just shows how spineless the Democrats really are.

    How could we entrust these pansies with our national security when they won’t even try to brazen it out when caught in flagrant ethics violations?

  201. 201

    Around The ‘Sphere April 22, 2006

    Our linkfest taking you to some interesting posts from all over the blogo-you-know-what. Links refect various viewpoints that may not necessarily reflect…

  202. 202
    DougJ says:

    Krista — you have good taste in women. Love Diane Lane. This is undoubtedly a sign that I spend way too much time with my two lesbian fashionista friends, but you know who really looks fantastic for her age — Sharon Stone.

  203. 203
    ppGaz says:

    DougJ — you’re a woman?

    I must say, I’m mildly surprised.

  204. 204
    Pooh says:

    DougJ—you’re a woman?

    I must say, I’m mildly surprised.

    We are all DougJ, every man, womand and child…

    The Birds and the Bees and the Alligator Trees…

    Hey, where’s my beer?

  205. 205
    ppGaz says:

    We are all DougJ, every man, womand and child…

    The Birds and the Bees and the Alligator Trees…

    That is just totally gay, man.

  206. 206
    ppGaz says:

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  207. 207
    Some Other Brian Guy says:

    Besides, is your position “We are as crooked as they are, but we immediately resign”? You look silly posting this sort of thing.

    LOL! You accuse me of looking silly for posting a Republican argument that you frequently use yourself.

    That’s classic, brain!

  208. 208
    searp says:

    Meaningless statement “most christian”. Christianity is not monolithic.

    Christians aren’t oppressed, but biblical literalists are disdained by many other citizens who do not share their views and see them as both extreme and silly. That is, many ordinary citizens who hold generally moderate views on most issues of the day, see the biblical literalists as the native version of the Taliban, and hold them in contempt.

    It is un-American to argue that views stemming from a literalist reading of the Bible supercede the Constitution and other documents that guarantee liberty of belief, and that is why biblical literalists should be held in universal contempt.

  209. 209
    tBone says:

    This is undoubtedly a sign that I spend way too much time with my two lesbian fashionista friends, but you know who really looks fantastic for her age—Sharon Stone.

    She does look good. Amazing what they can do with Bondo and fine-grit sandpaper these days.

    Your lesbian fashionista friends aren’t Darrell and Brian, are they?

  210. 210
    Krista says:

    Krista—you have good taste in women.

    Um…thanks. I would have given my top 5 list of hot guys, but none of you would have cared, and Stormy and capelza were nowhere to be found.

  211. 211
    DougJ says:

    No, we’re not interested in top 5 hot men, Krista. You’re right.

  212. 212
    Krista says:

    And just for that, you’ve been demoted to #6.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Around The ‘Sphere April 22, 2006

    Our linkfest taking you to some interesting posts from all over the blogo-you-know-what. Links refect various viewpoints that may not necessarily reflect…

Comments are closed.