Gotta give Bush credit: He made the exact right move at the exact right time. Ditching Rumsfeld, the single most visible symbol of the Iraq debacle short of Bush himself, was perfectly timed. Had he dumped Rummy shortly before the election, it would have been seen as a desperation move. I suppose there’s a possibility that it might have changed the outcome, which has been seen as a voter repudiation of the war. But I don’t think it’s a sizable chance, and probably would have been seen as a case of “too little, too late.” In this instance, though, it managed to grab headlines from the Democratic triumph back to the White House. Bush has snared the spin cycle before the election dust has settled. He did the right thing in getting rid of an advisor who has given him nothing but bad advice and been a PR catastrophe on more than one occasion, and he did it at a time when his support base is at an all-time moral low. He has sent a definite message: He’s not going to be spending the next two years with more of the same and staying the course, steering the remainder of his presidency into irrelevancy.
With a smartening-up Bush and a newly energized Democratic majority, let’s see if the government finally gets on the right track.
PAD
• 
I guess we’ll know who we go to war with next based on who Gates has been photographed shaking hands with.
Given how razor thin the elction was in a few key states I think ditching Rummy a few months agao might have kept the Senate Republican. But I think you are correct that it was feared the move would smack of desperation and, potentially, embolden the bombers in Iraq, as well as damage Republican chances. In hindsight they should have pulled the trigger earlier but hindsight is always wise.
A big clue as to how serious Nancy Pelosi is will be when they start picking chairmen. Ther’s talk of putting some joker who’s an impeached judge in as head of some important committee–if, after seeing voters name corruption as a major factor in how they voted, she goes ahead and pulls a bone headed move like that we are in for a looooong 2 years. (I have questions about her abilities but I can’t believe she’d squander the honeymoon THAT quickly.)
Given how razor thin the elction was in a few key states I think ditching Rummy a few months agao might have kept the Senate Republican.
I agree. This election was all about Bush, and if he’d shown even a week ago that he was intent on making changes to try and improve the situation in this country and Iraq, people might’ve voted differently; forcing Rumsfeld to resign was definately in the best interest of the world.
Ther’s talk of putting some joker who’s an impeached judge in as head of some important committee
Well, the first question would be: why was he impeached?
Peter, despite the reputation for being stubborn, the Bush administration had repeated been willing to change course. “Good job, Brownie” and an eyeblink he’s gone. They often talked tough then changed course–often redefining said course as not a “change” or “always been an option” or “planned all along”.
And that ruthless “brilliance” is likely how he’s beat Ann Richard, Al Gore and John Kerry. For all his rep as being stupid because he often isn’t articulate. Here in Chicago, Mayor Daley is known for his “Daleyisms” as much as the Bush is known for his “Bushisms”–only Daley has been know for them for the past 16 years elected Mayor.
Altho Daley comes across more knowing the subject he’s talking about and grasps the ideas in his head tho stumbling over the words. Bush seems to have trouble on subjects he’s not thought about and there’s more scrutiny and pressure as POTUS than mayor, so Daley often riffs off the cuff about stuff he’s not familiar with.
— Ken from Chicago
P.S. Not only did Bush dump Rumsfeld, reportedly he overruled Cheney in doing so as well as leaked the fact that he had overruled Cheney. More, he picked Robert Gates, part of 41’s administration, formerly persona non grata in 43’s administration and … NON-neocon.
“For all his rep as being stupid because he often isn’t articulate.”
I agree with Jon Stewart’s assessment. I don’t think Bush is dumb; I think he talks to *us* like he thinks *we’re* dumb.
PAD
Considering the popularity of a certain ex-president, an impeachment might make the top of a number of resumés.
I’m not sure it really did all that much in terms of grabbing the headlines. It certainly got everyone’s attention, that’s to be sure — but people are looking at it in the context of a Democratic takeover, not as a separate item distracting from it.
It’s certainly a smart move, no question about that — but I don’t know that it’s going to distract all THAT much. And while Rumsfeld was widely viewed as “the arrogant SOB who’s mismanaged Bush’s war,” Iraq is still being viewed as BUSH’s war, not Rumsfeld’s. Unless this personnel change is matched by actual policy changes, I don’t know that the electorate is going to say “I guess he really does change things.”
(And while I agree that ditching him a month or two back might have kept the Senate Republican, it’s hard to tell. Kean Jr. was running a fairly serious anti-Rumsfeld campaign here in NJ and still lost big.)
TWL
Well, I have little faith this will help government run better. What, exactly, was the central position that the Democrats ran on? They didn’t like Bush and his policies. I have trouble seeing how this is going to provide for anything other than more extreme partisan squabbling. They weren’t for anything–just against someone and his ideas. They have no mandate to do anything but oppose whatever Bush is doing. How will that lead to progress?
As long as both parties continue to be dominated by and play toward their most extreme members, government will keep being dysfunctional. Both parties keep seeing any victories as proof they have support for their extremism, but I think their victories mainly come from moderates switching back and forth as they get sick of whoever is in power. When I vote, I try to vote for the lesser evil, but somehow politicians see my vote as part of a “mandate” supporting their most obnoxious positions.
Except… had Bush 86ed Rummy on Monday, the Republicans would have won on Tuesday.
Well, the first question would be: why was he impeached?
Considering the popularity of a certain ex-president, an impeachment might make the top of a number of resumés.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110906D
Barely two years into office, “Judge” Hastings accepted a $150,000 bribe in exchange for giving a lenient sentence to two swindlers, then lied in subsequent sworn testimony about the incident. The case involved two brothers, Frank and Thomas Romano, who had been convicted in 1980 on 21 counts of racketeering. Together with attorney William Borders Jr., Hastings, who presided over the Romanos’ case, hatched a plot to solicit a bribe from the brothers. In exchange for a $150,000 cash payment to him, Hastings would return some $845,000 of their $1.2 million in seized assets after they served their three-year jail terms.
Taped conversations between Hastings and Borders confirmed that the judge was a party to the plot. Hastings was also criminally prosecuted for bribery, but his accomplice Borders went to prison rather than testify against him. Hastings was acquitted thanks to Borders’ silence. [Borders was then pardoned by President Clinton, confirming the wisdom of his refusal to testify. In a remarkable display of chutzpah, Borders then applied for reinstatement to the District of Columbia Bar, claiming that Clinton’s federal pardon eliminated his local disbarment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit did not agree, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal. To former D.C. delegate Walter Fauntroy, Borders’ case had a spiritual quality to it. “Being pardoned by the president is like being pardoned by Jesus,” Fauntroy sermonized. Thankfully, the Supremes evidently disagreed with this “theology.”]
“Be assured that I’m going to be a judge for life,” Mr. Hastings told reporters in 1983 after his acquittal. But the arguments that swayed a Miami jury did not sway the Congress. The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives impeached Hastings for bribery and perjury by a lopsided vote of 413 to 3. Then the Democrat-controlled Senate convicted him on eight articles of impeachment by well over the required two-thirds majority in 1989. Thus Mr. Hastings became only the sixth judge in the history of our Republic (and only the third in the 20th Century) to be removed by Congress. He was, and is, an utter disgrace to the nation and to the legal profession. Among those voting to impeach him were Ms. Pelosi herself, Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, the Democratic whip who is likely to become the new House majority leader, and Mr. Hastings’ fellow African-American Congressman, Michigan’s John Conyers, who took pains to deny that race had anything to do with the removal of the bribe-taking jurist.
Does this guy sound like he should head the intelligence committee?
Peter, despite the reputation for being stubborn, the Bush administration had repeated been willing to change course.
Well, apparently the rest of us have missed this, then.
“Good job, Brownie” and an eyeblink he’s gone.
Yeah, because Brownie was really part of that inner circle like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice.
And that ruthless “brilliance”
Brilliance? I’m sorry but that word should NEVER be used in the same sentence with Bush. Ever.
Bush wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near the presidency without his handlers, particular Rove.
formerly persona non grata in 43’s administration
And when we look back, we’ll wonder why it took Bush 6 years before acknowledging that his father had a better administration than he does.
I think the election results are for the best. A clear message was sent to the GOP that no more Delay, Folley and Taft type behavior is acceptable. I hope this steers the GOP back on track, they have no one to balme but themselves and they seem to realize that.
PAD, have to ask in the spirit of “reaching across the aisle” and the election yesterday, can the “Freedom Clock” be removed?
Re: that Hastings guy…past regardless, he’s been elected at least twice now to office, and is a high-ranking Dem. Not that voters are smart, and I’d personally not vote for him, but it’s not like Pelosi or anyone other than the voters can get rid of him. If he’s got the senoirity, or however ranking works, Pelosi pretty much has to abide by that.
I was listening to Bush’s press conference yesterday. I’ve never really listened to a live boradcast before, and until yesterday, it never really struck me just how personable this guy is. If you take away his administration, he’s probably a really decent guy, a good buddy, and someone that everyone likes. But since you can’t take all that he’s done away, I at least have a better understanding of why people are willing to make so many excuses for him.
I’m not sure about the timeline he presented for Rummy’s firing…he was thinking about it two Sunday’s ago, when asked if Rummy and Cheney would be around for the rest of his term (yes), but he met with Gates after giving that answer, and Rummy tendered his resignation on Sunday…seems a bit contrived (probably because it is). The thing that struck me the most was that Bush all but said he lies in his interviews with the press when it serves his purpose. He didn’t want replacing Rummy to be an election issue, for whatever reason. So when asked, 10 days before the election, if Rummy was going to stay, his anwer was “yes.” Because that was the only answer that fit his goal of not disrupting the election. Whether it was true or not was irrelevant. And he SAID that…not using all the words I did, but I got his meaning.
I’mnot surprised to learn that Bush (or any leader, for that matter) does this. What did suprise me is that he told people that’s what he did. It may have been the first time in 6 years I thought he was being honest.
A lot of talking has gone on in the past 48 hours. I’m hopeful that it leads to more than just talk.
Well, the first question would be: why was he impeached?
For accepting bribes.
Impeached by the House 413-3, convicted by the Senate, both controlled by the Democrats at the time. And Pelosi was one of those who voted for impeachment.
I’d have to agree that he may not be the best candidate for chairing the Intelligence committee. If only for appearances. There may even be a question as to why he is on the committee at all. It’s his district in Florida’s choice to reelect him every 2 years, but there are a lot of different committees he could be assigned to.
Hastings doesn’t have the ranking. The ranking member of the Intelligence Committee is Jane Harmon. However, Pelosi has apparently pledged to force Harmon to step down. Which would make Hastings next in line.
I don’t think that requires Hastings to move up. I believe Pelosi can move someone else into the position. It would be an obvious slight against Hastings, but it would probably be a good political move.
And yet more openess and honesty, courtesy of noted proctologist Rush Limbaugh:
“There have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can’t even make the case themselves – and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs.”
Strangely, the tears do not flow for his plight.
Courtesy of RightwasRight.us:
Now that the election is behind us, and the Democrats control one or possibly both houses of Congress, there’s no reason not to admit it: the Right was right about us all along. Here is our 25-point manifesto for the new Congress:
1. Mandatory homosexuality
2. Drug-filled condoms in schools
3. Introduce the new Destruction of Marriage Act
4. Border fence replaced with free shuttle buses
5. Osama Bin Laden to be Secretary of State
6. Withdraw from Iraq, apologize, reinstate Hussein
7. English language banned from all Federal buildings
8. Math classes replaced by encounter groups
9. All taxes to be tripled
10. All fortunes over $250,000 to be confiscated
11. On-demand welfare
12. Tofurkey to be named official Thanksgiving dish
13. Freeways to be removed, replaced with light rail systems
14. Pledge of Allegiance in schools replaced with morning flag-burning
15. Stem cells allowed to be harvested from any child under the age of 8
16. Comatose people to be ground up and fed to poor
17. Quarterly mandatory abortion lottery
18. God to be mocked roundly
19. Dissolve Executive Branch: reassign responsibilities to UN
20. Jane Fonda to be appointed Secretary of Appeasement
21. Outlaw all firearms: previous owners assigned to anger management therapy
22. Texas returned to Mexico
23. Ban Christmas: replace with Celebrate our Monkey Ancestors Day
24. Carter added to Mount Rushmore
25. Modify USA’s motto to “Land of the French and the home of the brave”
Does this guy sound like he should head the intelligence committee?
Sheesh, hëll no. I’m not even sure what he’s doing in Congress to begin with.
Here is our 25-point manifesto for the new Congress:
You know, I could come up with a 25-point manifesto that would describe the last 12 years of Republican control of Congress and the 6 years of Bush’s presidency.
But I won’t, because I don’t need to be depressed. 🙂
“Now that the election is behind us, and the Democrats control one or possibly both houses of Congress, there’s no reason not to admit it: the Right was right about us all along. Here is our 25-point manifesto for the new Congress:”
and here is that world’s official comic book:
http://www.accstudios.com/
Bobb, there’s no question that Bush knows how to play a room. But there’s more to being the President than having a good stand-up act. Whenever I’ve heard voters say, “He’s the kind of guy I’d like to have a beer with,” I’m always really tempted to them to look at the other people they drink with, and see if they want any of THEM running the country.
I think if the Republicans had won on Tuesday, Rumsfeld would still be there. I think he was sacrificed so that the heat would be taken off Bush.
“I agree with Jon Stewart’s assessment. I don’t think Bush is dumb; I think he talks to *us* like he thinks *we’re* dumb.
PAD”
Well, i think there’s stuff he believes, like Colbert, in his gut, but has trouble articulating a series of reasons for why he believes it. Like someone trying to explain what jazz or pørņ is. They “know” in their gut even if they have trouble spelling out a detailed list of reasons.
— Ken from Chicago
“You know, I could come up with a 25-point manifesto that would describe the last 12 years of Republican control of Congress and the 6 years of Bush’s presidency.
But I won’t, because I don’t need to be depressed. :)”
Wrong. You won’t because you can’t.
I am truly going to enjoy these next two years, seeing what you liberals are going to be like under the microscope.
My bet is that not a whole lot is going to change to any significant degree. As I recall in the debates, when pressed to discuss his goals, were he to become President, with the exception of Iraq, they weren’t that different than what Bush was doing.
Good Luck—I think you’re going to need it.
When I got up yesterday and saw that picture of Pelosi, smiling, her arms outstretched, my first thought was “My God, that look in her eyes…”
The same kind of look Banner gets just before he Hulks out.
Or when Manson gets an idea.
Good Luck—I think you’re going to need it.
Thank you. It’ll require a lot of work to repair the damage done in the past six years.
“Wrong. You won’t because you can’t.
I am truly going to enjoy these next two years, seeing what you liberals are going to be like under the microscope.
My bet is that not a whole lot is going to change to any significant degree. As I recall in the debates, when pressed to discuss his goals, were he to become President, with the exception of Iraq, they weren’t that different than what Bush was doing.”
I’ll honestly never understand the conservative’s ability to completely delude themselves. If Kerry’s objectives were so similar, what prevented you from voting for him? Oh, wait, it’s because his domestic and foreign policy objectives were COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
Wrong. You won’t because you can’t.
Aww, you’re still here?
So, are you going to give us an apology, not only for your utter stupidity, but your insults and your natural lack of Dion Warwick-ness?
Y’know, I found Ben’s little link to the Liberality comic amusing at first. Then I found it sad. Finally, I found it offensive. Because this isn’t meant to be humorous…I think there are some conservatives that truly believe that any side but their own winning will result in the kind of world portrayed in the book.
It’s offensive on two account: first, it represents the scare tactic of “vote for us or ELSE” that’s been on display for the past 5 years. Second, if any party’s been about making a more repressive state, it’s the GOP.
Craig, Warwick-ness? Really? Wouldn’t it be Warwickositude? Dionity?
Ken, a leader needs to be able to communicate. “Because I said so” doesn’t even work with my five year old. And running a country isn’t like defining jazz or pørņ. They’re both ephemeral, whereas leading a country is very specific. “This is where we need to go, this is why we need to go there, and this is the list of souvenirs we’re going to pick up on the way.” You can’t run a country with your gut.
Actually, I thought Rumsfeld’s “resignation” was a transparently cynical move. The mere fact that Bush had Rumsfeld’s replacement already lined up was a dead giveaway that this had been at least several days in the making.
The way this was handled is emblematic of one of Bush’s most glaring flaws. He’ll stubbornly stand behind one of his underlings, defending indefensible incompetence, until public pressure is so great that he is forced to cave in. By that time, however, the damage is done and is nigh irreparable, rendering the gesture worthless.
It’s really no better than Clinton’s spineless habit of letting nominees for cabinet posts and judgeships “twist in the wind” of public criticism before cutting them loose. You know, there’s got to be some middle ground! Like, perish the thought, standing behind people who deserve it, and cutting loose those who prove they don’t.
Bobb Alfred –
I think there are some conservatives that truly believe that any side but their own winning will result in the kind of world portrayed in the book.
Well, when Bush and other Republicans in office spend several weeks alluding to the idea that voting for a Democrats means supporting terorrism, then it’s pretty evident that ‘some’ is a given.
And yes, the stuff in that ‘comic’ would be far more accurate if it was portraying the right-wing.
Sean Scullion –
Craig, Warwick-ness? Really? Wouldn’t it be Warwickositude? Dionity?
I’m no wizard with the English language (although I consider myself a few steps above Bush), so I just went with the first thing that halfway sounded like it made sense. 🙂
I agree with Jon Stewart’s assessment. I don’t think Bush is dumb; I think he talks to *us* like he thinks *we’re* dumb.
Oh, I think it’s a step further, PAD – I think Bush talks to us like that out of a good, ol’fashioned sense of paternalism stemming from his religious convictions. It’s not that he necessarily talks to us like he thinks we’re dumb, but like we’re sweet children who don’t know what’s best for ourselves, but DaddyBush does and he’ll take care of it, we don’t need to know the details.
More than once, he’s reminded me of some very old, trained in the heyday of paternalism, doctors I know.
Wrong. You won’t because you can’t.
Aaw, a challenge! Anything to avoid Heidegger… shall we turn it into a fill-in-the-blank-fest, fellow PAD-readers? I’ll start us out,…
A 25 Point Republican Manifesto for the Past 6/12 Painful Years:
1. Mandatory heterosexuality
2.
3. Introduce the Defense of Marriage Act [ed: sometimes reality is scary/sad enough]
4. Build a border fence along Mexico, but don’t worry about the illegals coming in from Canada. It’s just the brown ones we don’t want. Consider moat with flame-proof crocodiles, too.
5.
6. Expand Axis of Evil to Parallelegram of Evil
7. English language enforced as national language
8. Ditch all arts classes, music, drama, or anything else that’s creative and thus cannot be empirically tested.
9. All taxes to be tripled – if you make less than six figures.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15. Fight for the sanctity of all life! Except the lives in jail, everyone knows there’s nothing sanctuous there.
16. Comatose people to receive more free medical care than the conscious poor – great publicity, and the comatose can’t vote!
17. All women of child-bearing age must be medically treated like they’re intending to/just become pregnant.
18. Make Christianity the national religion.
19. Dissolve judicial branch – our president knows the truthiness of the law.
20.
21.
22. If we can’t block Mexico, maybe we can conquer it…
23. Ban non-Christian holidays
24. Reagan added to Mount Rushmore
25. Modify USA’s motto to “Judgin’ for God since 2000…”
Surely other people have suggestions. 🙂
8. Ditch all arts classes, music, drama, or anything else that’s creative and thus cannot be empirically tested.
Or . . .
8. Ditch all science classes that are not approved by Creationist evangelicals and/or the oil industry.
A 25 Point Republican Manifesto for the Past 6/12 Painful Years:
11 – Corporate welfare only
13 – Highway funds to be replaced with vouchers for private jets
21 – Cop killer bullets & plastic handguns for everyone
Re: that Hastings guy…past regardless, he’s been elected at least twice now to office, and is a high-ranking Dem. Not that voters are smart, and I’d personally not vote for him, but it’s not like Pelosi or anyone other than the voters can get rid of him. If he’s got the senoirity, or however ranking works, Pelosi pretty much has to abide by that.
And that’s the attitude that keeps things from working as well as they should.
Regardless, he isn’t next in line–someone Pelosi doesn’t like is in line. So this will be a good indication of how she may lead.
I am truly going to enjoy these next two years, seeing what you liberals are going to be like under the microscope.
Good Luck—I think you’re going to need it.
*******************************************
I can only hope that “us liberals” can un-do a lot of the damage that has been done. One good thing has come of it so far though: The world is no longer laughing at us. They’re hopeful that America has finally woken up and that something can be done these next few years to right some wrongs.
No, the next 2 years won’t be easy, but the focus will hopefully be to build relationships and not tear down. As Pelosi said, “Democrats are not about getting even. Democrats are about helping the American people to get ahead.” And your comments, Ben Bradley, prove that you conservatives are the complete opposite.
2. Repeal all Congressional ethics rules and institute a pay-for-play policy.
5. Allow Congress to pass a law requiring the head of FEMA to have actual emergency planning experience – then issue a signing statement saying you’re going to ignore it (Yes, reality is scarier).
10. Pass legislation to authorize construction of a border fence that covers less than half the length of the border, but don’t allocate any funds to pay for it (Hey, I know where we can get some cheap labor!).
11. Spend money like there’s no tomorrw, because the rapture is a-coming!
12. Remove all pretzels from the White House!
13. Pretend you know who Albert Camus was.
14. Jam the Democrats’ phone bank, issue phony fliers in black neighborhoods telling them that the polling places have moved or the election was postponed, and institute robocalls.
20. Oppose the creation of a 9/11 Commission and the Department of Homeland Security, then change your mind.
21. Portray your opponent as a flipflopper.
The fact that Gates was nominated about 3 seconds after Rumsfeld’s resignation was announced is proof that this was in the wings for weeks now as Bush was vetting possible successor. Which of course, means he was lying just last week when he said Rummy would stay to the end of his term.
I don’t know if an earlier departure would have helped the GOP this week. Maybe in the Senate, but I think the House was already lost.
One more:
26. After finding no trace of WMDs in Iraq after over three years of looking, publish documents – in Arabic – of plans to build nuclear weapons on the web and claim that the documents themselves are proof that Saddam had WMDs in 2003.
Posted by: Kevin T. Brown at November 9, 2006 01:32 PM
And your comments, Ben Bradley, prove that you conservatives are the complete opposite.
The words and actions of one conservative prove nothing about conservatives as a whole. The majority of conservatives I know care just as much about this country as you do, Kevin, they just have different views about what’s in our collective best interests. Moreover, most of the conservatives I know are as upset about the war in Iraq and George W. Bush’s borrow-and-spend fiscal policy as any liberals I know.
The People Have Spoken… let’s see if anybody’s listening
And your comments, Ben Bradley, prove that you conservatives are the complete opposite.
If yu let ben goad you into making the same kind of generalizations as he is, you are just as bad as he is. Worse, maybe, because you seem to know better.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 9, 2006 12:42 PM
Ken, a leader needs to be able to communicate. “Because I said so” doesn’t even work with my five year old. And running a country isn’t like defining jazz or pørņ. They’re both ephemeral, whereas leading a country is very specific. “This is where we need to go, this is why we need to go there, and this is the list of souvenirs we’re going to pick up on the way.” You can’t run a country with your gut.
But — can you run a country with pørņ?
I say we try it. Otherwise, we’ll never know.
Bill: If we’re going to try it, can we add beer as well? And maybe some snacks?
ÐÃMN! YES! Pørņ, beer, and snacks! Plus football!
It’s morning in America, Knuckles.
I for one am glad the democrats won the house and senate. It gives the people a chance to see what screw ups they are once they are in power, hence the Carter and Clinton years, and remind them in time for the Presidentital elections to vote republican.
Pørņ, beer, and football! Now that’s a platform I can support!
Oh, and John Banks, after the last six years of seeing what screwups the republicans are at governing, it’s going to take a bit more than two years for the public to buy into them again.
Remember the last time the GOP had total government control after two presidential elections? That was under Hoover and you know how the public reacted to that administration and the crash: The GOP was sent to the political woodshed for twenty years!
Don’t hold your breath for a quick return to power for the GOP. After all the Dems were sure that they were going to retake both chambers in 1996.
I for one am glad the democrats won the house and senate. It gives the people a chance to see what screw ups they are once they are in power, hence the Carter and Clinton years,
Those were years where the budget was balanced, no?
And if those administrations were screwups, what do you call the efforts in New Orleans, NASA and Iraq?
Pørņ, beer, and football! Now that’s a platform I can support!
Me, too!
I sense a political party about to be born…
Posted by: roger Tang at November 9, 2006 03:36 PM
And if those administrations were screwups, what do you call the efforts in New Orleans, NASA and Iraq?
Both parties have much to be ashamed of today.
The downfall of the G.O.P. was hubris, pure and simple. If Democrats fall victim to it as well, they will suffer the same fate.
Several posts back, there was a reference to Stephen Colbert’s reaction to the outcome of the election. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen someone on this blog refer to Colbert as if the opinions he expresses on “The Colbert Report” reflect his real beliefs.
You all **DO** realize “TCR” is a comedy show, and that Colbert is playing a character (a parody of Bill O’Reilly, I believe), right?
Just thought I’d mention it.
Bill Myers, your posts are usually thought-provoking, intelligent, and responsible. I’ve quite enjoyed the “relationship” we’ve developed arround here and on your personal site, but this last post has shown you to be just as thoughtless as someone better left unnamed. That last post just goes too far. Only a FOOL would want to run this country with pørņ.
I mean, have you SEEN most of the people in DC? Would you want to see ANY of them in pørņ? I mean, REALLY!
Snicker, snicker.