Home > Uncategorized > Moving On

Moving On

I purposefully avoided adding new topics last week because I wanted the attention to stay with the tragedy at Virginia Tech. I appreciate most of the posts made on that thread and still wish some of you could avoid personal attacks on one another and try sticking to the issues. But I may be asking too much.

Our friends at the Tribune have been taking a beating over their decision to publish 1-2-3 photos of the VT shooter Cho on their front page last Thursday. The national cable networks continue to cover the story 24/7. There are days when it is tough to work in the media with a straight face.

Meanwhile President Bush stands behind his embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, giving his loyal friend a temporary reprieve. Don’t know if we’ll be getting a new AG soon, or not. However, I would bet that Paul Wolfowitz will step down from the World Bank by the end of the month.

Given these recent controversial appointees, I thought you might find the following article of interest:

“Campaigning in 2000, Texas Gov. George W. Bush would repeatedly raise his right hand as if taking an oath and vow to “restore honor and integrity” to the White House. He pledged to usher in a new era of bipartisanship.

The dual themes of honesty and bipartisanship struck a chord with many voters and helped propel Bush to the White House in one of the nation’s closest-ever elections. Americans re-elected him in 2004 after he characterized himself as best suited to protect a nation at war.

Now, with fewer than two years left of his second term, the Bush administration is embroiled in multiple scandals and ethics investigations. The war in Iraq still rages. Bush’s approval ratings are hovering in the mid-30s. And Democratic-Republican relations have seldom been more rancorous.

Congress is also investigating whether Rove and other Bush political advisers improperly used Republican e-mail accounts to discuss the firings and other official business. The White House concedes the possibility but says much of the e-mail was lost or deleted.

The furor over Gonzales and Rove’s e-mail practices follow disclosures of shoddy medical treatment of war-injured veterans, FBI abuses of civil liberties, and the conviction of a top White House aide of lying to a grand jury.

What ever happened to restoring honor and dignity?

“From the very beginning, this administration emphasized loyalty over competence. And at some point, that catches up with you,” said Paul Light, a professor of public policy at New York University. He said the increase in scandals and investigations also reflects the “natural decay” that happens late in a second presidential term as many experienced people have already left and those remaining start focusing on their financial futures.

Some recent incidents:

• World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the Iraq war as deputy defense secretary, acknowledged he erred in helping a female friend he is dating to get transferred to a high-paying job at the State Department while remaining on the World Bank payroll. The revelations fueled calls from the bank’s staff association for him to resign.

• Matteo Fontana, a Department of Education official who oversaw the student loan industry, was put on leave after disclosure that he owned at least $100,000 worth of stock in a student loan company.

• Lurita Doan, head of the General Services Administration, attended a luncheon at the agency earlier this year with other top GSA political appointees at which Scott Jennings, a top Rove aide, gave a PowerPoint demonstration on how to help Republican candidates in 2008. A congressional committee is investigating whether the remarks violated a federal law that restricts executive-branch employees from using their positions for political purposes.

• Julie MacDonald, who oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service but has no academic background in biology, overrode recommendations of agency scientists about how to protect endangered species and improperly leaked internal information to private groups, the Interior Department’s inspector general said.

Increasing coziness between federal officials and the industries they oversee “is not endemic to any particular administration in Washington,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, which seeks to reduce the role of money in politics. “This has been an ongoing problem for some time now.”

Potential conflicts “come into heavier play in the second term of two-term administrations because people who have been there for some time start leaving,” said Wertheimer.

Both the House and the Senate, responding to voter frustration with corruption and special interest influence in Washington, have approved ethics and lobbying measures. But they apply only to members of Congress, restricting their gifts and free travel, and not to the executive branch.

Republicans like to emphasize that scandals, some large, most small, happen under Democratic presidents too. But Bush’s critics say the number of current ethics allegations is unusually high. And they say evidence is strong of close links between the Bush administration and certain industries such as energy and defense.

For instance, Philip Cooney, a former oil-industry lobbyist who became chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, acknowledged to a House committee last month that he edited three government reports to eliminate or downplay links between greenhouse gases and global warming — and defended the changes. He left the government in 2005 to work for Exxon Mobil Corp.

Former Air Force procurement officer Darleen Druyun served nine months in prison in 2005 for violating conflict-of-interest rules after agreeing to lease Boeing refueling tankers for $23 billion, despite Pentagon studies showing the tankers were unnecessary. After making the deal, she quit the government to join Boeing.

Scooter Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, became the first high-level White House official to be indicted while in office in more than 100 years.

He was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in a grand jury’s investigation of the outing of CIA operative Valierie Plame. The trial also implicated Rove and Cheney in a campaign to discredit her husband, retired diplomat and Iraq war critic Joe Wilson (news, bio, voting record).

Ties between Bush administration officials and convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff also taken its toll in the executive branch, as it has in Congress.

J. Steven Griles, a former oil and gas lobbyist who became deputy interior secretary, last month became the highest-ranking administration official convicted in the Abramoff influence-peddling scandal, pleading guilty to obstructing justice by lying to a Senate committee about his relationship with Abramoff. Abramoff repeatedly sought Griles’ intervention at Interior on behalf of Indian tribal clients.

Former White House aide, David H. Safavian, was convicted last year of lying to government investigators about his ties to Abramoff and faces an 180-month prison sentence. Roger Stillwell, a former Interior Department official, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for not reporting tickets he received from Abramoff.

Not all the administration officials who have left under a cloud have been accused of white-collar misconduct.

Claude Allen, who was Bush’s domestic policy adviser, pleaded guilty to theft in making phony returns at discount department stores. He was sentenced last summer to two years of supervised probation and fined $500.

Advertisements
  1. Not a bush apologist
    April 23, 2007 at 7:54 pm

    Fact is that many of these “scandals” aren’t scandals at all. Let’s go down this list:

    Darleen Druyun – Here is the facts that this story is not telling you. Tom Daschle’s wife, Linda Hall, started the lobbying effort on behalf of Boeing in 2002. Everyone has know that the 767 tanker deal has been pointless. This deal cost a former Secretary of the Air Force a chance to be the Army Secretary.

    There are four people listed as being either investigated for “lying”. Scooter Libby did not lie about any facts. He was convicted of not remembering who he told the truth to about Valerie Plame. Everything he said about her was the truth. Other were convicted of lying to investigators or Congress. Bill Clinton was found in contempt of court and lost his law license for lying to investigators. Process crimes should not be an indicator of any “culture of corruption”. If process crimes are the bell-weather, then the Clinton Administration is the guiltiest of the all because Clinton himself was convicted. Others cited here are just people politicians have a beef with like the fish and Wildlife person or the guy that downplayed the junk science of global warming. This is more liberal Democrat scandal-mongering “tempests in a teapot”. For example: 8 US attorneys get fired and there are calls for Gonzalez to resign; Reno fires all 93 and there was no crime. Hypcracy so thick you can cut it with a knife.

    But here is the most important pull quote that underminds any seriousness of the article as an indictment of the Bush Administration:

    “Increasing coziness between federal officials and the industries they oversee “is not endemic to any particular administration in Washington,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, which seeks to reduce the role of money in politics. “This has been an ongoing problem for some time now.””

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  2. Gregory
    April 24, 2007 at 12:46 am

    Dave: Glad you did let it percolate for a week! Lets lots of people exhibit their true colors.

    Elected on a pledge to “restore honor and integrity,” the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave just might have a few things to answer for.

    Or the Democratic Party would not have won such a lop-sided, mid-term election. Slim majorities in both houses, but control nonetheless and a clear message to get US out of Iraq!

    Across the country, many state houses changed their membership with winning Democratic candidates.

    (You question that? The Democratic sweep in 2006 was bigger than the Republican “Revolution” of 1994–yet no one ever says Republicans didn’t “win” in 1994.)

    Democrats have taken action, passed important bills and are kicking butt and the work of the people is getting done.

    Which includes the oversight hearings into what the foxes have been doing in the national henhouse. Where did those billions of $$ in hot, actual cash disappear to in Iraq???

    Not to mention the lie of WMD’s that bought our ticket over there. And the lie of Saddam’s nuclear program. And the lie of…well, you get the picture.

    Just remember, it’s not the crime (if any), it’s the cover-up. The lying to cover someone’s culpability and involvement going to, or near, the top: The Office of the President.

    Nixon resigned because the American public woke up to the Watergate cover-up and called him on it.

    There are the Bush supporters who point–“over there!”–to some Democrats who also have crossed the line of ethical propriety. But surely they don’t mean we should overlook ALL trangressions.

    (You wouldn’t let your child’s misbehavior slide with the lame excuse “but everyone else is doing it?” Or would you?)

    Dave’s list is only a partial sampling and does not get into the ongoing investigations branching from the Duke Cunningham bribery case and numerous others “under the radar of the media.”

    Don’t let the “process” argument fool you. It’s the wholesale appearance of impropriety, and potential–or actual–conflicts of interest in these numerous cases that’s amazing.

    Isn’t all this directly connected to the idea of “restoring honor and integrity” to the country?

    Not just hiring all new US attorneys at the beginning of a term as presidents do, but later on, firing a handful to provide cover for axing the attorneys that were actually doing their job–and rooting out the free-market, congressional bribe-takers.

    Firing these people could be called true “obstruction of justice.”

    The trail of possible malfeasance goes in the direction of the #3 man at the CIA (before he resigned).

    Fred Wertheimer has a good point about the political-industrial complex. But please, Mr. Pipe smoker, won’t you say now’s the time to clean up the mess that’s been created in the last six years?

    Or does the “everybody’s doing it” argument sound better to you?

    By the way, how’s that pipe smoking going??

  3. Bob from San Luis
    April 24, 2007 at 2:15 am

    “Yeah, everybody does it, Democrats and Republicans, so, no big deal.”

    Yes, this is a big deal. What has been going on for the six years of this administration is a wholesale attempt to establish a permanent, one party, unitary executive branch. Most everyone has been focused on the fired US Attorneys; the administration has claimed that they were fired for “performance issues”, and I believe they are correct. The “performance issues” cited by the White House was that these US Attorneys were not performing the assigned “task” of prosecuting “voter fraud”. The fired attorneys all reported to the Justice Department that they could not find the abuses that they were supposed to find, so they were fired. Big deal, you say? Here is the “big deal”; the attorneys who were not fired have come up with the means to keep their jobs, by looking more closely for “voter fraud”, while quite possibly ignoring more serious violations, such as “voter intimidation” as has been proven to have happened in Ohio and Florida. The more that the counting of the votes is controlled, the more citizens who can be denied their Constitutional right to vote, the more the outcome of elections can be manipulated. Please research how many times “voter fraud” is found and prosecuted and then tell me that this the most serious issue that the Justice Department should be focusing on. Not having enough ballot tabulators so that long lines are not a problem should not be a reason for people to not vote. I know that I am prejudiced in this manner but I have to repeat a question I have asked before: Why is it that Republicans seem to not want to have “clean” elections where everyone who is eligible to vote can do so easily, and everyone is sure that their vote it tabulated for whom they voted for?

  4. Rep William Jefferson
    April 24, 2007 at 2:23 am

    Here’s another injustice, possibly racial and Al Sharpton has been notified. I was bought and paid for, had 90 grand in my freezer and Bush took it away.

  5. Joesph S
    April 24, 2007 at 2:37 am

    Bob, were not into elections, you know better than that. Come’on comrade!

  6. golfingslo
    April 24, 2007 at 6:52 pm

    If there were Republician voter fraud, then why did the Democrats win the House and Senate? Does look like the “fraud” worked.

  7. Anonymous
    April 24, 2007 at 7:37 pm

    Demo-Rats always say that the Republicans are so corrupt, racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes. Blah, blah, blah. The fact is that MORE corruption goes on during Democrat administrations than Republican. Democrats, like George Wallace and Bull Connor, were the racists during the ’60’s. They are the traitors like the Rosenbergs. Democrats, not Republicans, spat on our soldiers, almost all draftees, that fought in Vietnam. They support the defeat of America against the Islamofascist threat facing America today. The practices that cost the Republicans control of Congress, like earmarks and graft, were invented by Democrats. Democrats are the biggest hypocrits and liars and they protect and insulate their own against scrutany better than the Republicans. Where is the investigation of Chuck Schumer for identity theft or interference in an investigation? Where is the investigation on Feinstein’s kickbacks to her husband? Where is the investigation of William Jefferson’s $90k in the freezer or Benedict Harry Reid’s shady land deal where he made a $6 million dollar killing?

    Here is an example of Bob’s math:

    Democrats = well intentioned and pure as wind driven snow.

    Republicans = Evil, corrupt, in the pockets of big business

    What a load of crap!!

  8. Brett
    April 24, 2007 at 8:42 pm

    “Demo-Rats always say that the Republicans are so corrupt, racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes. Blah, blah, blah. The fact is that MORE corruption goes on during Democrat administrations than Republican. “

    Jeez did Jerry finally figure out how to turn off the CAPS lock.

  9. Bob from San Luis
    April 25, 2007 at 1:15 am

    anonymous: I said nothing of the sort that you imply, and I have never alluded to Democrats being pure as the driven snow. There has always been corruption in politics on both sides, period. The distinction I am alluding to hear is that the corruption and fraud being committed by the far right Republicans is not your usual self-enriching type of corruption only that has occurred and by all accounts is continuing to occur. What is being attempted now is different because of what is being tried; voter intimidation on a national level. Caging lists, scrubbing elegible voters off of voter roles, challenges to ballots, this is all voter intimidation and the Republicans have been doing this very effectively. The Democrats won in ’06 because there was such a massive turnout that it was impossible for the vote counts to be manipulated without raising suspiscion.
    I would like to see every national politician scrutinized as closely as is permitted so that we can have elected leaders who truly are motivated by a sense of duty for their motivation for serving the public good. Altruistic for sure, but to me that would be the ideal. I will not attempt to diminish your allegations about the Democrats you have mentioned; if you have read Dave’s blog for any length of time you will have seen that I do hold Democrats out to not be scrutinized. Link here to a slightly long but very informative read about the brewing “scandal” of those in the White House not using the communication system that they are required to use, by law. But what ever is being done by the Bush loyalists is okay, because Rep. William Jefferson had ninety thousand dollars in his freezer- sheesh.

  10. Free Speech Advocate
    April 25, 2007 at 1:38 am

    Dave is an enemy of free speech on his own blog! What does he really feel about the Constitution? I’m sure he’d go after it with a highlighter and a black sharpie marking all of the things he likes and dislikes.

    What’s a matter, Dave? Can’t take a little heat? Just can’t believe your skin is THAT thin.

  11. Anonymous
    April 25, 2007 at 2:02 am

    Bob, you are deluded. Nothing going on is any different than anything else that has happened in the past. The 2000 election was full of Democrat voter fraud. A Democrat judge ordered that polling places stay open for four extra hours. The 2004 election in Washington state was decided when the US attorney, fired by Bush, refused to examine any election results that were “discovered” in a warehouse and were counted for the Democrat candidate. New Mexico’s House seat was decided by less than 100 votes… in favor of the Democrat. So I suppose that every vote there was legit, huh?

    The mainstream media invented the whole “maccac” thing with George Allen. The Democrat Party held the IM’s from Mark Foley for their August Surprise. The Democrat prosecutor in Texas jury shopped until he found one that would indict Tom DeLay for violations of laws that didn’t even apply. All you idiot Democrats DEMANDED electronic voting machines. Then when you get them you make up bogus stories about people reprogramming them so you can have a reason why George W. Bush kicked your ass again. Then in 2006, you all claim a mandate where none exists. One seat in the Senate and 15 in the House is not a landslide, it is a deadlock. The House Democrats have been an embarassment of ineffectiveness with Nancy “scatterbrains” Pelosi (where the elevator does not go all the way to the top) bungles her way from fiasco to fiasco. Harry “Benedict Arnold” Reid tells our enemies they have won Iraq while our troops are still fighting the war. Lincoln would have expelled him from the Union and sent him to Iraq and FDR would have had him in prison for providing aid and comfort to the enemy. The entire Democrat Party are the bought and paid for spokespeople for the enemies of the United States. They do not represent America; they do represent our enemies.

    Why? Two resons: Power and a hatred of George W. Bush. They will do or say anything to get the first and do or say anything to destroy the latter. They are pathetic in every sense of the word.

  12. empty liberal
    April 25, 2007 at 3:47 am

    I hate Bush!

  13. Dave Congalton
    April 25, 2007 at 7:40 am

    Free Speech Advocate —

    There is no such thing as absolute free speech. I will delete comments that are abusive and immature.

    Stick to the arguments — if you have any.

  14. Marilyn
    April 25, 2007 at 9:44 am

    I think what we are seeing now is a symptom of the “gluttony of empire.” Moral decay (in the political as well as the social spheres) contributes to and is a result of expansion and affluence. Sociologically speaking this still holds true to a certain degree in modern “empires” which spend blindly on military expansion. At the same time, the accompanying complacency and affluence, coupled with arrogance and a sense of entitlement due to the perception of invincibility and power will weaken such an empire. It happened to the Athenians, the Romans, the Persians, the British, the Soviets, the cultures of the Ancient Americas, and now it is happening here. The theories of Ibn Khaldun still hold true, in my opinion.

    Widespread political corruption is a symptom of that state of being.

  15. the ghost of Christmas past
    April 25, 2007 at 4:26 pm

    Strangely, I agree with Marilyn, sort of.

    America is not an empire by definition. Websters defines an empire as: 1 a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state

    However, I agree that America is a military and economic powerhouse, but it is not an empire in the political sense. America does weld great influence with such organizations as NATO and it’s seat on the UN Security Council, but every liberal out there reminds us of the diminishing influence and prestige in the eyes of the rest of the world and only Democrats can restore that prestige. I agree with Marilyn that America’s days as the chief economic powerhouse are on the wane mainly because of:
    – the complacency of the American people with regard to the Islamofascist threat and the rising influence of China and Iran in Asian affairs, and the sense of entitlement that the American “poor” have that robs them of any motivation to excel an to the connection to the productivity of the nation
    – if we continue to try and maintain our petroleum based economy in the long-term, but we have to maintain the petroleum economy in the short-term until technology makes conversion economically viable
    – our open borders that allow anyone and everyone to enter our country, both for work and to commit terrorism.

    Even if America was an “empire”, the reason for our decline are totally different than the decline and fall of the Greek, Roman, British and Soviet Union empires.

  16. Anonymous
    April 25, 2007 at 8:32 pm

    Once again another Hate blog.

  17. Anonymous
    April 25, 2007 at 10:25 pm

    I hate Bush and Cheney

  18. al sharpton
    April 26, 2007 at 2:02 am

    The more santa maria bill speaks the more deranged he sounds.
    asking the obvious, is he for real?

  19. china,korea,japan,india,muslims and mexico
    April 26, 2007 at 2:16 am

    Bill said that Germans are the smartest people in the world. Where did he learn this?

  20. George Tenet
    April 26, 2007 at 3:03 am

    When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in a raid in Pakistan, the “enhanced interrogations” were apparently a surprise to him. According to Tenet, the captured terrorist told CIA interrogators, “I’ll talk to you guys when you take me to New York and I can see my lawyer.” Instead, he was reportedly flown around the world, kept in secret prisons and water-boarded. Tenet repeated his denial again and again: “Let me say that again to you. We don’t torture people. Okay?”

  21. We are American Torturers
    April 26, 2007 at 3:06 am

    IA TENET BREAKS SILENCE ON ’60 MINS’; BOOK SET FOR RELEASE
    Wed Apr 25 2007 16:15:01 ET

    Ex-CIA Director George Tenet says the intelligence extracted from terror suspects in the Agency’s “High Value Detainee” program, which includes so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” was more valuable than all the other terror intelligence gathered by the FBI, the National Security Agency and the CIA. In his first network television interview, the nation’s former top spy denied any torture took place, but tells Scott Pelley that the High Value Detainee program saved lives and allowed the U.S. government to foil terror plots. The interview will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, April 29 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

    MORE

    The High Value Detainee program uses “enhanced” techniques said to include sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme temperatures, and water boarding, in which suspects are reportedly restrained as a steady stream of water is poured over their faces, causing a severe gag reflex and a terrifying fear of drowning. In Sunday’s interview, Pelley challenges Tenet on the “enhanced interrogations,” a topic that gets little play in his much-anticipated book, At the Center of the Storm. “Here’s what I would say to you, to the Congress, to the American people, to the President of the United States: I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots,” he tells Pelley. “I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together, have been able to tell us.”

  22. rosie
    April 26, 2007 at 3:26 am

    I had to quit the “view”. I miss santa maria bill

  23. Anonymous
    April 26, 2007 at 5:27 am

    I’m watching the Bill Moyers Buying the War on PBS right now.

    All I can say is–fuck. Every American should have watched this program.

    I always thought that those calling for impeachment were just out on the fringe.

    After watching the program the President and the Vice President should be impeached and removed from office.

    I hope never again the media and American public are so trusting of our elected representatives.

  24. Bob from San Luis
    April 26, 2007 at 6:49 am

    Anonymous: The fraud committed in Florida was widespread and almost exclusively perpetrated by Republicans. Polls were held open for four hours! Gasp! Oh, the horrors. How about a real violation that is just now being addressed: LInk here to a current article about some of the violations. Another link here that details more potential violations, with links to some interesting data. One last link with a little more data on the disenfranchisement that occurred pretty much state wide.
    As for the Washington State Gubernatorial race in 2004; yes, that was a very drawn out process that had a manual recount. If you have a sources to back up your assertions about the US Attorney doing something improper, please link or at least copy the url so anyone can check out what you are saying. Same thing for the New Mexico result you are bringing up, link or citation, please.
    As for the “mainstream media” inventing the macca thing with George Allen; did you mean to imply the “liberal media”? The thing is, the “media” did not make George Allen call the young man with dark skin a slur word that Senator Allen was brought up with, that was his own doing. What the media did do is to pick up on the incident and, like the media will do, they played it over and over. Once people understood what it was that the Senator had done, then they decided who to vote for and Jim Webb was elected in George Allen’s spot. As for Ronnie Earle, you must have believed all of the right wing talking points. Read the link for a few facts about Mr. Earle; yeah, he is really a “bad” person- not. Democrats demanding electronic voting; you must be the one is deluded. Democrats have long asserted that electronic voting is fraught with problems with the source code being one of the primary problems. Link here to an article on the release of one of the programs source code being released. It is fraught with problems; read the article. In my last comment I addressed the claim that there was a “mandate”; the Democratic victory in taking the majority in both Houses of Congress was not a landslide, but it was a “small” majority, not a mandate. My earlier comment was how the Democrats were able to overcome any possible election rigging by turning out in much higher numbers than in past elections. Why did so many turn out? Conventional wisdom is claiming that many people are fed up with the direction that the Republicans have led the nation for the last six years; why else? Nancy Pelosi led the Democrats in the house to achieve more in the first one hundred hours of session than the Republicans did in most the previous two years ( that was the infamous do-nothing 109th Congress). Senate Majority leader Harry Reid did not tell our enemies they had “won” in Iraq; he said: “I believe myself that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense — and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows — that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday,” Reid said. Even if the current surge could be successful, we do not have the ratio of one soldier to every 40 or 50 people in Iraq, or even in just Baghdad alone. This “new and improved” surge cannot succeed simply because their is not enough manpower available to do it correctly. Oh, and the Democratic party does represent America, an even larger proportion than the Republicans do. Who are the Democratic leaders beholding to? I wish I could say it is only to the voters, but even though they can be as “corporate” as the Republicans, they are representing the views of those who elected them and put them into office. They are the majority party in Congress; they do not represent our “enemies”, who ever “they” are.

  25. Anonymous
    April 26, 2007 at 6:54 am

    Bill Moyers doing his job.

  26. Anonymous
    April 26, 2007 at 1:46 pm

    Moyers feeds on taxpayer money at PBS to run his production company.

  27. Anonymous
    April 26, 2007 at 3:11 pm

    Washington governor’s race illegalities: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/206969_dead07.html>Dead people voted

    New Mexico and 5 other states: http://informationinquest.com/savearchive/deadvoters120504.html>Dead people voted there, too

    http://www.talkshowamerica.com/2006/10/i-see-dead-peoplevoting.html>Dead people vote Democrat 4 to 1 in New York State

    So, you’re right, Bob. We are disenfranchising people because we want to remove them from the voter rolls after they die. I can add the dead to the list of Democrat constituencies. The fact is that every liberal group from the ACLU to liberal judges are allowing people who have lost the right to vote, either through felony conviction or death, to vote. They cite the possibility that legal voters could get disenfranchised or, in the case of WA state, a federal judge ruled the process for felons to get the franchise back as unconstitutional because it violated the “equal protection clause” because the $15,000 worth of fines was discriminatory against “poor” felons. I’m sure you agree with that, Bob, but to me this is outrageous! “Poor felons”? So let’s just ignore how the fact that they had to break the law to lose their franchise in the first place and take pitty on them because they are poor. Here’s a newsflash: Don’t break the law and you won’t lose the right to vote. how about that one?

    To continue:
    New Mexico Voter Fraud: http://www.coldheartedtruth.com/index.php/UserBlog/2007/03/29/indictments_in_new_mexico_voter_fraud_ca>and Democrats were indicted

    You can parse and mince and spin words all you want Bob, but when you say a war is lost and you want a timetable for when you are going to implement your defeat, you are telling the enemy that they will win on a date certain. That is inescapable and only an idiot kool-aid drinker would think otherwise. And on the topic of the military, General Bob, what should we do to win in Iraq? Either you agree with Reid or you want victory. Since you know from your vast military experience, that you detailed for Rich from Paso many months ago, what the correct ratio of troops should be, and since you say that Reid hasn’t thrown in the towel, what should we be doing to try to win? Truth is that you are throwing out there stuff you have read and you haven’t the foggiest notion of why we should have that ratio of troops.

    Pelosi’s congress is better? What has her Congress done that has actually been signed into law? Nothing. Not one piece of legislation from the so-called “100 hours” has even made it out of the Senate, let alone signed into law. I challenge you to link to any one of the six agenda items that has been signed by President Bush. That and only that is the true benchmark of a successful agenda. Newt Gingrich got 8 of his 10 “Contract with America” items signed into law. That’s 80%, for you slow math bunnies. Right now, Pelosi is batting 0 for 6, or a big fat Zero%. In any school in the land, a Zero grade is a failing grade.

    Democrats no more represent America than you do, Bob. Keep drinking your own kool-aid, Bob, keep drinking.

  28. the ghost of christmas past
    April 26, 2007 at 4:39 pm

    Something that anonymous said I want to dove-tail with. That guy said that Reid thinks the war is lost, and in many ways, it has been lost in the mind of Harry Reid. I know I am going to get instant criticism for saying this but it is true none the less: Rush Limbaugh said on his show a few weeks back that a military exists to not only kill people and break things, but to destroy the enemy’s will to fight. That last part is the most important part because it goes to the heart of the fighting in Iraq. Our military, as great and wonderful as it is, has not broken the enemy’s will to fight. The enemy, however, has utterly destroyed Harry Reid’s and the rest of the Democrat Party’s will to fight, if they ever had any at all. Here is a case in point: Why did JERRY and Paso Rich quit blogging here? It is not because Santa Maria Bill or Bob or Dave are right and they are wrong (although they believe they are right). It is because JERRY and Rich lost the will to continue fighting them. Same is true in Iraq.

    And speaking of Iraq, why is the occupation of Iraq going worse than that of Germany or Japan at the end of WWII? Two reasons: 1 – Germany and Japan were defeated and the will of the people to fight was crushed, either with US and Russian tanks or with the two A-bombs. 2 – Germany and Japan are homogenous cultures with long standing and deeply rooted institutions. We all have to keep in mind that Iraq only came into existance after WWI and that three different religious sects and two different racial groups make up the majority of the Iraqi populace. Finally, the lack of long standing and deeply rooted institutions is making the rebuilding effort incredibly difficult. The arab culture in general is centered on tribal alligence before alligence to the government. Saddam created a national identity at the point of a gun. When that intimidation factor was removed in April 2003, the populace when back to their natural alligences, that of religion and tribe. We are getting smarter about this fight, though. I saw a news report that the U.S. forces in Anbar province have helped to foster a tribal council of Sunni tribal leaders to address the insurgency and to help qwell the violence. I disagree with Sen. Reid that the war is lost, but if we don’t do a better job of learning who it is we are trying to help, it just might be.

  29. Bob from San Luis
    April 26, 2007 at 5:14 pm

    anonymous: Thank you for your effort at the links, but most of them were not done correctly. I was able to track down a few of the links you were trying to direct us to, so let me break them down. Washington State Governors race: The article you wanted us to see is here, and, !gasp!, there were eight voters listed as voting who were dead! Of course if you read the article to the end you will see that the only person who admitted to sending in their deceased spouse’s ballot was a Republican who did want the Governor-elect to obtain office. Nice try.
    The article on dead voters you tried to link to concerning New Mexico is here, and, once again, if you read the article, it was reporting on deceased persons being on the voting rolls, it did not make a claim about them casting ballots. Smoking gun? Hardly.
    The other two links you attempted were to a talk show host’s website and a blog; just as if someone else were to link to my or your assertions, linking to a conservative radio website or a blog is not credible. At the radio guy’s website I attempted to check out his source for his allegation but it led to a pay-per-article link. Try again, please.
    And for Iraq: Please define what you mean by “winning in Iraq”. We are not a war in Iraq, we are occupying Iraq. Iraq is engaged in a civil war that we have no place being in the middle of. The military objectives of removing Saddam and dismantling the military has been achieved; we have no further business being there, except to look after someone else’s business interests. Isn’t our military still guarding the oil installations? When military objectives have been achieved, what remains to be accomplished is a political determination as to how the situation is ultimately resolved. The remaining military duties right now are mainly that of a large police force; security details, arrests and detainment. if our military were going to be successful in implementing the “surge” plan, they would need to have the one soldier to 40 or 50 civilian ratio that General Patreaus wrote about in his book on quelling insurrections. This administration will not provide what the General needs to “succeed”, so the mission is doomed to fail because of the poor planning and execution by the White House; the ultimate “failure” in Iraq is George W. Bush’s fault.

  30. worried in los osos
    April 26, 2007 at 5:41 pm

    Dave
    Where did the guest 4/25/07 from Santa Maria get his information on Germany being the smartest country on earth. Sounds very racist to me.

  31. Anonymous
    April 26, 2007 at 7:02 pm

    Bob, first: my bad on the bad links; I’ still new to this. Second: The radio show host was commenting on an article in the Poughkeepsie Journal, not his opinions alone. If you were paying attention, you would have read beyond the radio show hosts name and saw that. The fact remains that there are thousands of illegal names (felons, illegal aliens, the dead) on voter rolls. Why is the rolls important? If you have thousands of dead people on your voter rolls, as the article talked about, and the Democr… ah, I mean miscreants know this, they can vote under that persons name. The article had the saying: “If I die, bury me in Chicago so I can stay politically active.”

    As for Iraq: I find your arguement reprehensible in the way you ignore the moral imperitive to fix what we have broken. So what you are saying is that since the specified military goals have been achieved (i.e. removed Saddam, eliminated any possible threat to America and Iraq’s neighbors, et al), then we should pack up and leave because to remain means that it is furthering some other goal outside the original mission? Here is an anology: I want to have a party at your house, Bob, and you can’t stop me; there is absolutely no way possible for purposes of this discussion. It is going to be a 10 kegger that is open to the public. I am going to have easily 500 people parade through your house this Saturday. When the party is over, I’m leaving. Screw you and any clean up or damages that may ensue from the party I am holding at your house is your responsibility. I’m going simple so you will understand and not misconstrude my point. That is what you are saying about Iraq: We broke it to achieve our goals and now that our goals have been achieved, best of luck to you but we are out of here. That is morally repugnant to me. Look, I haven’t been in the military either, but I know enough history to know that to leave a country in chaos is the best recipe for continued chaos. Look at Afghanistan. The Soviets leave, the Taliban takes over, you have al Qaeda training there, presto-changeo, 9-11 happens. You liberals amaze me with how you distort reality to fit your myopic world view of things. That is why I do not believe a word you say on the subject of Americans supporting your point of view. It just doesn’t seem possible to me for even a slim majority of Americans to believe as you do, its so whacky. As for winning, the president has outlined a plan and you obviously disagree with it. I suspect that Bush didn’t write it; General patreaus did. So the guy who you cite as having the wrong force ratio for success in Iraq crafted a plan that was doomed for failure before it started? Don’t think so. Plus, why would the Democrat controlled Senate unianimously approve of him to head the mission in Iraq if his plan was already a failure? I’m sure your answer will look a lot like John Kerry’s “I was against the war before I voted for the war” contortion. You can pretzel yourself into any argument you want, but you look ridiculous as you do it.

  32. Islamic Killers
    April 26, 2007 at 11:29 pm

    Thank you Harry and Nancy. We knew your country had no balls and you have proven it with your votes. We might just kick you out of Iraq before Oct 1 unless you lisen to our demands.
    The next time we attack New York or wherever, you know to keep out of our way.

  33. Anonymous
    April 27, 2007 at 1:46 am

    Yawnnnnnnn!
    Typical radical lefty libs…when will you learn hate doesn’t sell?
    Is this really all you have?

  34. gossip columnist
    April 27, 2007 at 1:52 am

    Do Dave and Marilyn have a “thing” going on?
    How can he defend her so Vehemently when she is so wrong all the time?

    Where is the shredder when we need it?

  35. Brett
    April 27, 2007 at 4:25 am

    “Yawnnnnnnn!
    Typical radical lefty libs…when will you learn hate doesn’t sell?
    Is this really all you have?’

    Gawd if that isn’t the kettle trying to call the pot black. The whole neo conservative movement is based on creating hate. Hate the homosexuals, hate the illegal immigrants, hate those who believe in a womans right to chose, hell hate everyone that doesn’t think or believe just like you.

    Hell Jerry I don’t hate you, I just think you’re an idiot.

  36. Bob from San Luis
    April 27, 2007 at 6:55 am

    anonymous: The link thingie will work for you, keep trying. I did notice that the opinion of the radio guy was linked to an article by that Journal; what I objected to was having the article behind a pay-to-read firewall. If the information is that valuable, perhaps the radio guy could purchase it for printing on his website so that his “source” could be viewed at no charge. Until that time, his sourcing is not verifiable for the general public, and we are left to either take him at his word, or discount his information. That being said, what I did not make time to discuss in my comments this morning was that I agree that who is on voter roles is important. Where I part company with those on the right about though, is how important the voter roles are as compared to how important it is that voting is accessible to all who are eligible, convenient so that those who work can do so without sacrificing wages, and that everyone who does take the time to vote is sure that their vote is counted, and is counted correctly. If voter roles were not being scrubbed of people who have similar names to ineligible felons or those who have been disenfranchised; if voters stop being harassed because they are not white or by virtue of their zip code or neighborhood, if voters are not being told that Republicans vote on Tuesday and Democrats on Wednesday (yeah, most people would not fall for that, but how about having a uniformed sheriff or policeman knocking on your front door and telling you that to your face?), if voters who showed up to vote were not challenged to their right to vote by lawyers or Republican operatives, if voting officials would have enough machines so that if all the registered voters in each precinct would not have to wait more than say, 30, 45, or 60 minutes in order to exercise their right to vote, THEN making sure that voting fraud is eliminated is a thing very worth while pursuing. Why don’t voter officials keep tabs of posted death notices and take steps to make sure that they are removing only those who have passed on? The root of my argument; voter fraud may be a problem, but it is not as bad as denying anyone their right to vote.
    Iraq: Let’s go forward with your “invasion party” analogy. Okay, you have set up a ten kegger party at my house, and five hundred people parade through my house, and being that many of them will imbibe too much and not care about my stuff, they trash my place and I am powerless to do anything about it. I think I have your point correct at this point; so what do I do at this point? First, I would be very thankful that everyone had left my house. Then I would start cleaning up the mess. It will take a long time, I will be pissed that it happened, but I would have possession of my house again, without anyone else doing anything bad to it. In short, as screwed up as my house would be, I would be glad that everyone is gone. As for an analogy to the mess in Iraq, I think that works pretty damn well. Going further about the “invasive party”; what if you have friends that operate a large housecleaning business that specializes in cleaning up houses that have had large invasive parties? Are you simply invading houses to hold these ten kegger parties so that your friends have more business? When you have a huge hammer that is the biggest in the world, everything starts to look like it needs to be nailed. President Bush is a “war President” because he chose to start a war. It is no longer a war, it is an occupation of a foreign nation, and yes, we have broken it, but who is benefitting? The large defense contractors who have the no-bid contracts to do the reconstruction that is not being done.
    General Patreaus wrote the book on fighting insurgencies; he has not been given access to the number of troops he said he would need to successful. If he cannot be successful, doesn’t that mean that he will be unsuccessful? Is the violence in Iraq subsiding or escalating? How many more six month turnarounds do we need to give the administration to finally get it right in Iraq? We simply keep letting our military get killed and maimed so that none of this was in vain? Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results = what is being done in Iraq.
    As to how the majority of Americans feel about Iraq: Poll results, with history. Look at the numbers. Tell me again how wrong I am and how I am not with the majority of Americans.

  37. eric
    April 27, 2007 at 5:10 pm

    Bob you’ve got to be kidding.

  38. Anonymous
    April 27, 2007 at 8:36 pm

    Bob, you’re not only wrong, you are crazy, out of your mind, talking out your ass, wrong.

  39. Steve
    April 28, 2007 at 3:54 am

    Marilyn

    Why did the Taliban destroy the Buddhas of Bamyan?

  40. Bob from San Luis
    April 28, 2007 at 4:08 am

    anonymous, Eric: How am I wrong, and about what am I wrong? If you read the link to the polls that I left, you can see that a large majority of America agrees with me, somewhat. How about some more information; link here, an article that completely dispels any notion that the tired old meme about “we have to fight them there so they won’t come here to attack us”, by Richard Clarke. Good read, unless you are one of the 29% who thinks President Bush is on the right course. So, please explain yourselves about what and how I am so wrong. Thanks.

  41. A Muslim in Slo
    April 28, 2007 at 4:43 am

    Marilyn was a joke today on Dave’s show. She couldn’t string together two thoughts. She was all over the map with repeated sound bits and generalizations.

  42. Anonymous
    April 28, 2007 at 5:20 pm

    Bob

    political correctness-the 100% complete, total, absolute opposite of common sense.

  43. Marilyn
    April 28, 2007 at 5:29 pm

    Steve,

    Why does any religious nut say or do anything stupid or violent? Maybe you should ask the Taliban why they destroyed the statues.

    Or could it be the universal patriarchal excuse of “my way of life is better and more legitimate than yours, therefore, I HAVE THE AUTHORITY to destroy yours.”

  44. Bob from San Luis
    April 29, 2007 at 6:43 am

    anonymous: political correctness-the 100% complete, total, absolute opposite of common sense.

    That, is the best you can come up with? Either the conservatives have absolutely nothing left to say because they have learned how wrong they have been, or they have stopped commenting here, or they’ve given up? Wow. Okay, what’s next?

  45. Anonymous
    April 29, 2007 at 12:53 pm

    gay marriage,abortion and the aclu

  46. steve
    April 29, 2007 at 1:46 pm

    Marilyn

    Why do muslims blow each other up with car bombs in Iraq? I understand its Bush’s fault but I thought islam was a religon of peace.

  47. Anonymous
    April 29, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    Nobody takes marilyn seriously anymore. She is all washed up.
    While raping the American way of life and it’s freedoms she continues to tear down the system and the people that provide her, not only safety but, a huge income.
    In many circles they would call this crazy…funny thing about this is…look where she works!
    The line, in her case, has been blurred between patient and nurse.
    Want more proof? Just look at her blog. That provides the last nail in the coffin.
    Bottom line is this…marilyn supports anti American terrorists. No one doubts that anymore.

  48. Thomas E
    April 30, 2007 at 1:32 am

    who invented the homicide vest bomb?

  49. murtha
    April 30, 2007 at 2:31 am

    i repesct the rights that gives Marilyn the right to thrash america

  50. Bob from San Luis
    April 30, 2007 at 5:19 am

    I said: Okay, what’s next?

    anonymous said:

    gay marriage,abortion and the aclu

    What about them?

    gay marriage = equal rights under the law, as described under the ninth amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Marriage is a legal contract that is also recognized as a religious institution, which can be accompanied by a religious ceremony. If you want to believe that marriage is only a religious institution, try asking your priest, rabbi, minister or whatever your religion’s leader is, and ask them to perform a “divorce”- it cannot be done that way, it has to done in accordance with the law. So, since marriage is a “legal agreement”, it is a violation of the ninth amendment of the US Constitution to deny or disparage rights to any US citizen.

    Abortion: First trimester abortions should be available to any woman of the age of consent, period. Second trimester abortions should be available to those who have medical considerations first and foremost, and to those who really have a desire to have one at that stage for whatever their reason. Third trimester abortions should be available for those who have a medical need, as most women would not have the procedure during that time unless there is a real medical problem. If you have a problem with that for whatever reason, be it religious or ethical, then don’t have one. If you are not a woman, what gives you the right to tell women what they can do with their body? Ninth amendment, again. Are there any laws that restrict the procedures that men can have? If there are not, then isn’t it against the ninth amendment if you restrict what procedures a woman can have?

    The ACLU: Again, what is the problem? The American Civil Liberties Union is an apolitical group that is neither liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. They have one purpose only, to uphold the Constitution of the United States. They will represent anyone who has need to have their Constitutional rights protected. Every Senator, Congressional Representative, Supreme Court Justice, and especially the President should be a member of the ACLU. Please remember what the oath of office for the President is: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” There is no mention of defending the United States; it is so self evident that the President would do that, that it is not mentioned. What is mentioned though, is that the President is entrusted to be the protector of the Constitution, which is the same mission of the ACLU. So what is your problem with the ACLU?

  51. Anonymous
    April 30, 2007 at 12:17 pm

    great post
    thats right out of”liberalism for dummies” or is the”dummies for liberalism”

  52. Steve
    April 30, 2007 at 4:55 pm

    Bob says

    The American Civil Liberties Union is an apolitical group that is neither liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. They have one purpose only, to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

    Bob has zero objectivity

  53. Anonymous
    April 30, 2007 at 5:06 pm

    Bob why don’t you google
    Charles Rust-Tierney

  54. Thomas W
    April 30, 2007 at 5:32 pm

    I just went through all of the comments to Dave’s latest. The strangest and most disturbing comments concerned the ACLU. There are times when that group does upset me with their defense of certain people or views and/or their attack on others. However, having said that I still feel that we, as Americans, are far better off having such a watchdog group operating. There are times when their opinions and viewpoints disturb me a lot. But, we still need a strong descenting voice in our country. Whether we agree with them or not is no where near as important as having them out there making us think.

  55. Bob from San Luis
    April 30, 2007 at 5:54 pm

    Thomas W: After thinking about what you wrote, I have to agree with you. It bothers me that they will represent skinheads and Neo-Nazis, but that is the price you pay when you take on the role of protecting the Constitution. Why those on the right are so vindictive and hateful towards the ACLU is something I just cannot wrap my head around. Kind of reminds me of how they would like to paraphrase Roosevelt famous “Fear” quote: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself…” ; if they could, their version would be something like : “The only thing we have is to keep you in fear, because we are the powerful and we will protect you, if we are given all of the power with no oversight or questions about what we are doing”.

    As for Charles Rust-Tierney; he is sick. Anybody who is into child pornography is sick, be they Republican, Democrat, liberal, or conservative. The fact that Mr. Rust-Tierney was part of the ACLU does not reflect badly on the ACLU anymore than Mark Foley reflects badly on the Republican Party.

  56. the ghost of christmas past
    April 30, 2007 at 6:23 pm

    On the three topics of discussion, here is my take from the right side of the equation:

    Gay marriage: Who cares? Really, guys? Why do we care about gay marriage? I’ll tell you why; it’s about the freakin’ money. The only thing people can hang their hat on with the gay marriage debate is that equal access to medical and survivor benefits as a hetrosexual couple. Admittedly, many on the gay side of the issue make the mistake of bringing up benefits as a rationale for gay marriage which plays into the fears of those against the argument. My brother is going through a messy divorce from his bitch of a wife; to paraphase Chris Rock, why should we deprive the homosexual community the pain and suffering half of all hetrosexual couples experience?

    Abortion: Me, personally, I think that life begins at conception. For the abortion debate, the demarkation line should be when independant life begins. That line moves to the left as medical science gets better and better at keeping pre-me babies alive. If a fetus can survive outside the womb on vetilators and whatnot, then that is the point where abortion should begin to be illegal with the frequency decreasing up to the partial-birth abortion which should absolutely be illegal. Here’s a fact about partial-birth abortions: they are performed in only .17% of the time. If anything killed .17% of our children, say guns, alcohol or smoking, they would be outlawed the next day. And because of the infrequency of it’s use, why do we really need it? The only reason why the baby’s (and it is a baby at this point) is pulled out feet first is so the doctor can avoid the definition of “birth” by avoiding the crowning of the baby’s head. Partial-birth abortion is the most barbaric thing we do in America in the name of “choice”.

    The ACLU: In theory, there is nothing wrong with the ACLU; a noble pursuit to defend our civil rights. However, the problem I have with the ACLU is that they want to be an absolutist organization, but fail to live up to that standard. For an apolitical bunch a Bob claims, they do have a funny way of picking cases. Where was the ACLU to defend Imus’ free speech? Where is the ACLU to sue for an injuction to prevent a muslim prayer area in airports under “separation of church and state”? But what cases do they take on? They supported an injuction preventing the prosecution of laws that made illegal “virtual” child pornography on the grounds that the “child” wasn’t real. Maybe so, but the intent to molest our children is real and the ACLU let’s those creeps off the hook. When you support child pornographers in the name of the 1st Amendment, real or “virtual”, you are wrong. The ACLU sues on behalf of the detainees at G’itmo even though none of the detainees, Mr Padilla aside, are American citizens. They don’t sue based on the Geneva Conventions because they know the detainees don’t have standing. Regardless of why they were in Iraq, why didn’t the ACLU sue the butchers that beheaded our citizens and permenently infringed on their civil rights in Iraq or Afghanistan? The ACLU sues to remove nativity scenes, christmas trees and even santa claus under the freedom of religion, but does nothing to stop the special treatment afforded to muslims over Christians and Jews. Now, again, the ACLU may be apolitical, but many of their actions appear to make them a liberal organization or at least an organization with a liberal bent.

  57. eric
    April 30, 2007 at 7:04 pm

    Bob,
    You are thick as a brick.Charles Rust-Tierney was more than just part of the ACLU. This man was the friggin PRESIDENT of the Virginia ACLU and while he was President, he lobbied to keep the internet available to child pornographers via any port available, and WHILE he was President he was engaged in purchasing and subscribing to child (infant and toddler torture) pornography for his personal and sexual gratification.
    When you compare Foley to this sick twisted bastard Rust-Tierney,
    there is no reason to reply to you anymore.

  58. the ghost of christmas past
    April 30, 2007 at 11:39 pm

    This was news to me since i don’t following the goings-on of the ACLU of any state. I agree with Eric that this Rust-Tierney pile of dog excrement used his position as a “watchdog of our civil liberties”, as someone else stated, to advocate a practice that all sane people would find abhorent. Let’s take it one step further: who was watching the watchdogs? If the Secretary of the Army had to resign because of the incompetence of a few at Walter Reed, why then does this Rust-Tierney creep not reflect negatively on the national ACLU leadership. Furthermore, if Foley, who is supposed to have solicited sex from a 16-year old page, epitomized the whole “culture of corruption” that lost the Republicans control of the House last year, why then doesn’t Rust-Tierney eptiomize the stereotype that the ACLU is the “Atheist, Criminals and Letchers Union”?

    As a father of three, this Rust-Tierney person has changed my entire outlook on the ACLU and makes the ACLU even more contemptable, above and beyond their support for terrorists and their stridently anti-christian legal actions.

    here is what Wikipedia had to say about Mr. Rust-Tierney.

    Sounds to me that Bill O’Reilly was right about them all along.

  59. the ghost of christmas past
  60. Anonymous
    May 1, 2007 at 1:58 am

    hey bob in slo,

    Gay people have the same rights as straight people, a gay man can marry any woman who consents to marry him just like a straight man, he cannot marry another man, neither can a straight man. The law doesn’t ask who you love, or who you’re attracted to.
    As far as a woman having the right to decide what she does with her own body- a fetus is not her own body, it has it’s own unique DNA and is therefore somebody else’ body. So what the laws are doing is giving women the right to kill someone. There have been over 45,000,000 abortions performed in this country since R-V-W. It’s foolish to think that is not effecting our society in a detrimental way

  61. New Tone
    May 1, 2007 at 6:06 am

    Brett Said:

    Brett said…

    “Yawnnnnnnn!
    Typical radical lefty libs…when will you learn hate doesn’t sell?
    Is this really all you have?’

    Gawd if that isn’t the kettle trying to call the pot black. The whole neo conservative movement is based on creating hate. Hate the homosexuals, hate the illegal immigrants, hate those who believe in a womans right to chose, hell hate everyone that doesn’t think or believe just like you.

    Hell Jerry I don’t hate you, I just think you’re an idiot.

    Hate homosexuals? Why should we have to think it is OK and NORMAL to have drag queens in our streets in mission plaza celebrating their sexuality? Do we have normal married couples flaunting their sexuality choice? How is being against this destructive lifestyle of more domestic violence being hateful? Homosexuals men have more sexual partners? They spread disease? Just like loose hetrosexuals.

    How does not wanting people to break the laws of our country equal hateful? How does making it fair for all immigrants and not rewarding people who sneak into our country mean that we hate them? What a twisted logic!

    Hate the womans “right to choose”? Have you ever seen an 4d ultra sound of a child in the womb? How would you like to partially deliver a child that can survive outside of the womb, poke a hole in it’s skull, suck the brains out and collapse it, and deliver the lifeless body mean we hate the woman’s “right to choose” er I mean end a human life? Why is it so important to have the ability to kill these babaies that they did not mind creating? Where do you draw the line? How come people cannot carry out the term and give the baby to a couple that desires a young child? You can trust them to make the decision to spread their legs and get screwed! Why have then just kill the life off instead of helping someone out. There is just too much killing.

    To me Brett, I am sorry to say that you are the only one here who cannot look at other points of view without just calling them an idiot as you close your mind to new ideas.

    Go Mrs. Clinton!

  62. Brett
    May 1, 2007 at 9:40 pm

    “How is being against this destructive lifestyle of more domestic violence being hateful?”

    Huh?. I’m certain you have a documented statistic to back up the claim that same sex partners are more likely to be involved in domestic violence than heterosexual couples.

    Tell me, how does some same sex couple hurt you?. How does it hurt the nation?. What is it any of your business anyway?.

    “How does not wanting people to break the laws of our country equal hateful? How does making it fair for all immigrants and not rewarding people who sneak into our country mean that we hate them? What a twisted logic!”

    That’s not the argument the Right makes and I think you probably know that. The argument is that illegal immigrants are destroying the American way of life through all sorts of social costs. And if you got rid of all the illegals the Country would be better off.

    Here’s what the Right would like to say, “if it weren’t for illegal immigrants, homosexuals, abortion, _____ (fill in the blank) America would a great nation once again.”

  63. ellis
    May 1, 2007 at 11:58 pm

    The left supports rights for illegals, can’t get enough of the gay crap, jump up and down demanding abortions.
    This country is in such a mess at this point, bring on the illegal gays running around giving abortions. Bring on Hillary,Nancy, Barbara, Diane and Lois. They have the power so lets see some progress somewhere.

  64. Anonymous
    May 2, 2007 at 12:27 am

    I don’t know what “Right” person or persons you have talked to, brett, get the impression you talked about. The “Right” doesn’t hold up one or any group as the reason for the ills of the country. As a matter of fact, I deny your entire argument. The statement you attributed to the “Right” would make all on the right no different than the Nazis, as they said that Germany would have been better off if it weren’t for all the Jews.
    Now there are a whole series of issues that the solution to would make the United States a better place to live. Immigration happens to be one of them. What the “Right” does believe is that an unfettered, unabated flow of illegal people streaming into America is undermining all of our social institutions, as you said, to include our health system, housing, education, welfare programs, ad nausium. No sane person is for “getting rid” of all the illegals; it’s just not practical or even warranted. As a matter of fact, the Right has no problem with controlled, legal immigration at all because we understand that every human being on the two American continents came here from somewhere else (even the indians walked over the Bering Sea land-bridge at some point in the distant past). The Right would like more immigration, especially from the skilled technicians, doctors, scientists, etc. to make up for the deficit of those same people not being produced out of our domestic, liberal ran colleges and universities. We just don’t like anybody and everybody coming across our borders. There is a security element and it’s just plain wrong for Mexico, in particular, to aid and abet these people across our border with pamphlets on how to get away with it. That to me what allows Mexico to be so jacked up with corruption and unemployment. It is the American taxpayer that is subsidizing the Mexican economy and taking away any driving need for reform in the Mexican government. That’s where I stand on that issue.

    I, for one, have no issue with gays or lesbians. As someone else said, why should anyone care? There are just as many straight pedophiles as gay, maybe more. Gay men and women molest; straight men and women molest. Gay couples love their children (regardless of how they cam by them) just like straight couples love their children. Everyone just needs to realize, gay and straight, that gay people are not a different species of human, just someone with a different perspective on who they are attracted to. And I don’t care if you were always gay or “became” gay; I really don’t. What I don’t like is gay men and women galavanting around in their gayness, trying to make the “breaders” watching uncomfortable, like during “gay pride” rallies and parades. Is that really necessary in order to be gay? Why do many in the gay community feel it necessary to get “in the face” of the straight folks to feel good about themselves. For me that is no different than abortion advocates saying that it empowers women because they get to exercise their “choice” to kill their babies. That’s just crazy. Just being another “average” American would lessen ability for many homophobes to want to stigmatize the gay community.

    Understand that even with all of the issues that every liberal wishes to blame Bush for, this country is still the greatest on earth. Solving the small problems that are sapping our country of its full potential will only make the country better.

  65. Brett
    May 2, 2007 at 1:12 am

    “I don’t know what “Right” person or persons you have talked to, brett, get the impression you talked about. The “Right” doesn’t hold up one or any group as the reason for the ills of the country.”

    Because I enjoy pain I occassionally listen to Rush Limbaugh (until I can’t take it anymore) who according to himself is the voice of conservatism. And I occassionally take dose of Hannity as well.

    Now you can argue that Rush isn’t speaking for you, but he certainly has a very large audience who listens and believes his utterances.

    So far I haven’t heard any outcry from Right that Rush or Hannity isn’t speaking for them. So I’m assuming that beliefs of Rush and Hannity are pretty much held by those on the Right.

    In fact when I listen to Congalton I hear, what I call the Hannity Holdovers, call in and spew the same BS that they’ve heard on Rush or Hannity earlier in the day.

    These guys constantly demonize illegal immigrants, same sex couples, environmental groups, and those who support a woman’s right to chose to a point where they generate the foment necessary to create hate against those groups.

    Rush makes it easy for those on the Right to hate. Liberals should have challenged him a long time ago but I’ve got this sense they, especially elected representatives, believed he’d just fad away. That didn’t happen and he continues nearly unabated in his lies and spreading of misinformation to his flock.

  66. lives in reality
    May 2, 2007 at 1:25 am

    Rush still dominates the airwaves because the majority of the country likes his jive.

  67. Anonymous
    May 2, 2007 at 1:44 am

    the right rules and the left hates it…but then the left hates everything

  68. Anonymous
    May 11, 2007 at 1:56 am

    So Dave “I hate Bush” is mature….if your going to delete “I will delete comments that are abusive and immature.” delete from both sides.

    By the way who was it that reduced the armed forces to the point that we now can’t arm them when they need it???? Clinton….who was it that created a moral problem in the armed forces….Clinton (see article dated 1998) who ignored terrorist activity against our troops here and abroad while he was having an affair…Clinton…..

    I find it very interesting how the liberals (you include) have selective memory….

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: