Mike Luckovich

By ShadowMarch

January 10, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

It wasn’t me!

It was the one armed man!

By Andy

January 10, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

So what’s the point? It’s exactly like we’ve been saying, if you would read your own blog. If there was any wrongdoing it needs to have it’s day in court, Republican or Democrat. It doesn’t mean that we are supposed to ignore the infractions of the democrats, are we?

The democrat involvement has to brought to everyone’s attention because, so far, their response has been: Why, I have no idea how that huge wad of cash got in my pocket. The dog must have put it there. And the pinko media sure isn’t doing a very responsible job of keeping us informed, as usual.

By getalife

January 10, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

This is the point Andy :

Republicans must take the scandal seriously and work to clean up in its wake.

All lobbyists and politicians found guilty of corruption should be sent to the Gulf Coast for some community service along with the maximum prison sentence!

Let us not forget, these criminals write the laws of the land!

By Andy

January 10, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

getalife: What, you see my name and start responding? Why don’t you read my comment? If there was any wrongdoing it needs to have it’s day in court, Republican or Democrat. Are you not aware of the meaning of “wrongdoing?”

When are the democrats going to own up?

hy·poc·ri·sy- n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

By getalife

January 10, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

Andy,

I know you are mad that they got caught but get over it, your party is a culture of corruption!

The Dems did it too, whaaa!

By ShadowMarch

January 10, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

Sad.

By ShadowMarch2

January 10, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

Why hold up a mirror when they don’t even realize the irony of their own statements, much less your own.

By ShadowMarch

January 10, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

“Because its there!” - Sir Edmund Hillary when asked why he climbed Mt. Everest

By ShadowMarch2

January 10, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

Is that some vague defense of Hillary Clinton?

By ShadowMarch

January 10, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

Sigh.

By Andy

January 10, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

Alright, allow me to show everybody a fine example of the honesty of the left. Here is how cartoon boy selectively took what the pinkos want to hear from Rich Lowry’s National Review column:

*Republicans are looking for “their” John McCain. The popular Arizona maverick is already a Republican, of course. But the GOP needs a McCain in the “Keating Five” sense. Back in 1990, Senate Democrats roped McCain into the scandal over savings and loan kingpin Charles Keating on tenuous grounds, just so not all the senators involved would be Democrats. *

Insert cartoon boy’s choice of column sharing here

The first step was the permanent ouster of Tom DeLay as House Republican majority leader, a recognition that he is unfit to lead as long as he is underneath the Abramoff cloud. The behavior of the right in this matter contrasts sharply with the left’s lickspittle loyalty to Bill Clinton, whose maintenance in power many liberals put above any of their principles. Next, Republicans will have to show they can again embrace the spirit of reform that swept them to power in 1994.

Well, well, hypocrites. Turns out the author of the article actually went on to say… the democrats did it too.

hy·poc·ri·sy- n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

By ShadowMarch

January 10, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

So did the Anti Masonic Party.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

Since ml is now fully endorsing the words of Rich Lowry, a sentiment I tend to agree with, this is a very good read.

By ShadowMarch

January 10, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

I will consider it.

By getalife

January 10, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

Next, Republicans will have to show they can again embrace the spirit of reform that swept them to power in 1994.

I think ml posted this just to rub salt on the wound.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

When some nutjob like Steinback write a column ml pastes the whole thing. Here is more of what he doesn’t want you to know from Rich’s fine article.

The other problem is that Washington makes obscure decisions that enrich small groups of people. Most everyone in Washington supports making these decisions because it increases his or her power. But if Congress really wants to lessen the malign influence of lobbyists, it should reform the inherently corruptible process whereby the Interior Department recognizes new Native American tribes so they can mint money by opening casinos, and end the practice of “earmarking” federal dollars for local and special-interest projects. It’s no accident that Abramoff saw the business potential in both of these processes.

Does anyone know how many brand spanking new Indian tribes were discovered in the Clinton years? Does anyone know why McCain/Fiengold exempted them from campaign finance reform. Maybe we have found “our McCain” and he is “finch’s” neighbor.

ml, you could at least link to the story

By Andy

January 10, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

The very next articla on National Reviews site, also an excellent read, my favorite columnist George Neumayr:

Jack Abramoff scammed scammers. Indian gambling lords aren’t strangers to deceit and double-dealing. Why did those poor innocents in the Coushatta Tribe hire Abramoff? For the noble purpose of driving another Indian tribe’s proposed casino into the ground. Bay Area Democratic Congressman George Miller once snuck an amendment into a bill which allowed descendants from the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians, a tribe that had disappeared in the 1960s, to reassemble for the purposes of enriching themselves off a casino built near San Francisco.

By getalife

January 10, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

They reformed the country to the corporate and criminal level.

Christians!

hy·poc·ri·sy- n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness

By ShadowMarch

January 10, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

“To put your faith in any one man, no matter how good his actions, is to invite disappointment.” Spontaneous Combustion, January 10th, 2005.

That includes Bush, Kennedey, McCain or any other person you want to mention.

There are, however, degrees of disappointment.

By ShadowMarch

January 10, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

re·pet·i·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-pt-tv) adj. Given to or characterized by repetition.

By Emma

January 10, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

The problem here is that more of Abramoff’s cash went to Republicans, because who wants to support the party that ISN’T in power? Democrats didn’t profit nearly as much from Abramoff’s dirty cash as Republicans did.

By ShadowMarch

January 10, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

“You get what you pay for.”

By Emma

January 10, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

I hate it when you remember something you wanted to say after the comment was already posted. When I asked who would want to support the party not in power, I should have said: Who, among the legions of lobbyists, wants to support the party that isn’t in power? Sorry about that.

By Andy

January 10, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

Emma: Anybody, Republican or democrat, can attach an “earmark” to a spending bill that would benefit the Indian tribes. If the Republicans have so much power, why did ANWR get voted down, where is social security reform, etc?

By ShadowMarch

January 10, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

For the same reason a democratic president with a democratic congress didn’t get all of the federal judges they wanted.

Watch and wait:

A)Democrats Filibuster Alito.

B)Republicans use “Nuclear Option.”

C)Democrats win the Senate.

D)Republicans want to put the fillibuster rule back.

E)Andy does not accuse them of hypocricy.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

Emma,

Since Republicans are in power do you think groups like NARAL are donating most of their money to Republicans? How about the NEA?

By Brian Curtis

January 10, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

The Republicans still aren’t getting their entire agenda enacted because they haven’t quite managed to do away with the balance of powers entirely—much as they’d like to.

Too many Republican legislators know it would be career suicide to push too hard for the far-right’s goals… for the simple reason that their constituents would have their heads in the next election.

Despite the plutocrats’ and neocons’ best efforts, there’s still a tiny shred of accountability in our government. But never fear—once they conquer the third branch (judiciary), they’ll be free to crown Bush king and suspend elections with impunity.

Fascist bastards.

By Andy

January 10, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

Shadow March: C)Democrats win the Senate. Running what candidate on what platform? Is this your idea of a joke? That’s pretty funny, it’s sarcasm, right?

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

ShadowMArch,

I’d bet you right now that if your A,B,C,& D come true your E definitely won’t.

By ShadowMarch

January 10, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

Opposition is inherant to human nature.

Even if the democratic party collapses due to an internal lack of definition (you do not see me jumping up and down and saying ‘Yay Democrats’) then another party will rise to take their place, even if it means that the Republican party splits in two.

At some point, the Republicans will be in the minority again, and at that point they will regret ever using the ‘nuclear’ option.

By Andy

January 10, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

Shadow March: They won’t need the “constitutional” option in the case of Alito. That would be democratic suicide. It doesn’t poll well enough for the pinkos too chance it. They will give Alito a hard time, try to wound him and then crawl back under their slimy little rocks.

By ShadowMarch

January 10, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

We will see.

By Dusty

January 10, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

Did Rich Lowry write the piece Luckovich posted? I wouldn’t have known if Andy and RW hadn’t mentioned it. Mike Luckovich’s name is on it. I have seen Rich on Lehrer New Hour and he is very “sharp”. But I don’t usually read the National Review. Did I miss Lowry’s name somwhere in the introduction here?

By M.S.

January 10, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

Let me see if I understand,the money Mr. Abramoff gave to democrats doesn’t count because it’s a republican scandle. All who took part should be investigated regardles of party. A few corrupt politictians doesn’t change my political views. Republicans should get rid of the corrupt ones and replace them with HONEST conservitives.

By getalife

January 10, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Here you go Dusty

ML does read the conservative view, he did one on Pat!

By Andy

January 10, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

getalife: If cartoon boy spent his time perusing the Conservative websites he wouldn’t be a pinko anymore. It would have a profound live changing effect on him, he would a-ssume responsibility for himself and would probably become an ardent Bush supporter. 95% of you libs are really Conservatives, you just don’t know it.

These pinkos probably have some MoveOn.org intern who’s sole purpose in life is to scan the Conservative sites looking for negative things for the democrats to use. Cartoon boy probably got the link in an email.

By getalife

January 10, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

Andy,

Mike has a Monica intern. No wonder he likes Clinton.

BTW, I do not blindly follow the criminals from any party. I will vote for the candidate not locked up if any are running. Right now, the Iraq war veterans look pretty good.

By Dusty

January 10, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I don’t care what Luckovich reads. If he is going to cut and paste, seems like he ought to say who wrote it. I knew he didn’t write it because it had capitals and sentence structure, not to mention he doesn’t work for the National Review.

By getalife

January 10, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

RW needs to let ml know the rules for linking or posting other people’s opinions.

I think he did write this : The Abramoff Scandal It’s the Republicans, stupid.

By Andy

January 10, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

Jan. 10, 2006 — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called the Bush administration “incompetent” when it came to protecting the troops in combat and called the lack of adequate body armor for soldiers and Marines “unforgivable.”

Doesn’t this woman sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee? Isn’t the Congress, with members such as Senator Clinton, responsible for the appropriation of funding for concerns such as these? Who will these pinkos blame for their problems when Bush is out of office in 2009?

By Dusty

January 10, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this

getalife,

If it says “stupid” then it is Luckovich in all probability.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

Andy,

Hillary must have missed this.

By Liberal Texas Democrat

January 10, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

“Who will these pinkos blame for their problems when Bush is out of office in ” Interesting comment from the side of the “debate” that has for eight years had as it’s whole measure of competence ” Well, Bill Clinton…” P.S. being picked off one by one on foriegn soil for lack of body armor is not a “pinko problem” it’s an American Shame. Spying on citizens of the United States of America is not a “pinko problem” it’s an American problem. If you fail to understand the tragedy of going from a nation that was as free speech zone to a nation with free speech zones you are the American Problem.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this

LTD,

If you read the link right above your post you will find that many soldiers think piling on the body armor is getting them killed because they can’t move. I’ll take their recommendation over yours or Hillary’s any day.

By Andy

January 10, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this

Liberal Texas Democrat: Hillary is on the Armed Services Committee, this issue is her job. The committee’s almost entire purpose is to procure funding for the military. Hillary got caught with her pants down (yikes!) and used the same old tired pinko excuse that is so worn out; Bush did it.

By physicsDawg

January 10, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this

Liberal Texas Pot, take a look at the Kettles, which are your Liberal University administrator friends. THEY are the ones enacting “free speech” zones on campuses across our country. It is a tragedy, though, I agree. The only Free opinion is a liberal one. If you disagree with liberal mindset, you are a “hate-monger” And as we know, “hatecrimes” are special.

By physicsDawg

January 10, 2006 05:15 PM | Link to this

That’s cool, I hit on the other part of the argument that Andy and RW didn’t. Nice coincidence. By the way, referencing those free speech supressing universities, My Hero, Mike Adams

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 05:18 PM | Link to this

physicsDawg,

Welcome! That was a nice three sided effort.

By physicsDawg

January 10, 2006 05:20 PM | Link to this

Whether or not spying on US citizens is an American Shame, or not, is one thing. But it IS a “pinko problem,” because it’s the pinko, liberal, peacenik love-everybodies that want the terrorists to succeed, and therefore are the ones most likely to call them up and offer Aid or Advice.
Impeach Murtha!

By physicsDawg

January 10, 2006 05:22 PM | Link to this

Thanks, RW. As you could guess by the name, I usually spend time on the UGA Blog, but football is over, so spending a little time here while work is slow.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 05:29 PM | Link to this

Andy,

That small plane from “blogger’s banners” is trailing your words around again on the KG thread if you’ve missed he/she/other.

physicsDawg,

We’ve had others use some form of “Dawg” in their nic, they haven’t usually been too pleasant.

By physicsDawg

January 10, 2006 05:34 PM | Link to this

That’s because so many Dawg fans are redneck jerks. But I mean that in a good way.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 05:37 PM | Link to this

physicsDawg,

It’s not the fans or the rednecks for that matter, it’s the wannabe ACLU lawyers.

Probably Tech students trying to give UGA a bad name. Although I guess UGA is swarming with moonbats like most any campus.

By sickoftheneocons

January 10, 2006 05:47 PM | Link to this

Would anyone mind telling me how long it’s been since you stepped on a college campus as an instructor or professor?

By physicsDawg

January 10, 2006 05:47 PM | Link to this

Oh, yeah, LOTS of moonies.
Hitting on the body armor thing, and the “right” of soldiers’ loved ones to say all they want: Why does Cindy Sheehan have blank billboard space given to her for “giving her son” to the military. I don’t think he was “hers” to give. He probably enlisted on his own accord, without mommy’s permission. I’m sure if he was against the war, we would have heard no end to her quoting his disagreement to his fate, before he met his untimely end. Since we have not, I assume he didn’t, and would probably be against her crusade.

By physicsDawg

January 10, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this

OK, I’ll bite, just to hear you complete your thought. I have never stepped on a college campus as a professor. Does that make my answer to the question like dividing by zero?

By Liberal Texas Democrat

January 10, 2006 05:51 PM | Link to this

“If you read the link right above your post you will find that many soldiers think piling on the body armor is getting them killed because they can’t move” The Steel Pot you see here was very unpopular in Viet Nam for numerous similar reasons, but very available and in the case of this young man (me) the difference between having his brains blown out or simply having a plate in his head.

I’m of the opinion that since every committee is lead by the majority party and since Mrs. Clinton is a freshman senator of the minority, problem funding or lack thereof still rests with the party in charge. Unless, of course, the hitstory of our nation demonstrates it’s freshman members of the minority party in the congress are the movers shakers, and power brokers.

By sickoftheneocons

January 10, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

I don’t think I’ve ever heard a political ideologically motivated statement from any of my professors but hey, I’m just a Political Science major and how much political insinuation can you interject in a History of Ancient and Medievil Political Thought class?

By Andy

January 10, 2006 06:02 PM | Link to this

Liberal Texas Democrat:

I’m of the opinion that since every committee is lead by the majority party and since Mrs. Clinton is a freshman senator of the minority, problem funding or lack thereof still rests with the party in charge.

So it’s Bush’s failure to tutor Bill’s “wife” about her duties as junior committee member. O.K. it’s much clearer now…

By physicsDawg

January 10, 2006 06:06 PM | Link to this

OH, LTD. I see. Let me make sure I get your theory straight: The Majority party, is then to blame for everything wrong with our government. I bet their records (the ones not from sealed sessions) would be availablie for Hillary to prove that she argued so hard for the right thing to do, and didn’t just waste her party’s position on the commitee. I also find it funny that you can say movers shakers, and power brokers, NOT refering to a Clinton, with a straight face! :) The fact of your service to America, warrants my deep respect, if I do disagree with your views. Let me say Thank You

By ShadowMarch

January 10, 2006 06:06 PM | Link to this

I have.

Everyone has an ideology, and it enters everything they do.

The question is not ‘do you have an ideology’ but ‘Does your ideology respect the ideologies of others?’

A professor who says that they are not making politically motivated statements is lying, because any subject, even math, has connotations that ripple throughout everything else.

Now, they might not be CONCIOUSLY lying, after all, they might not mean to make statements, but they are.

The question is not not making a statement ‘devoid of ideology’ but of having an ideology that includes principles such as mental flexibility, truth and respect in its paradigm.

By ShadowMarch

January 10, 2006 06:07 PM | Link to this

To have power in a democracy is to accept responsibility for the acts that come of it.

Shouting at the top of your lungs to the contrary does not make it so.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 06:13 PM | Link to this

LTD,

I join physicsDawg in thanking you for your service.

Now would you provide me with some source material showing Hillary running in 2000 by asking New York voters to send her to a six year training class?

By physicsDawg

January 10, 2006 06:17 PM | Link to this

That’s too deep for me, ShadowMarch. sickoftheneocons, I applaud your professors for their objectivity. It’s important to give neutral views when you teach the very subject matter, but it’s the other professors (english, geology, history, etc.) who let their ideology seep into their teaching. Then their are the teachers who threaten to fail a student for an “unexcused” absence, just b/c the rally they wanted to attend was a conservative one.

By Libera Texas Democrat

January 10, 2006 06:19 PM | Link to this

Dawg “NOT refering to a Clinton, with a straight face!” The Clintons seem, to me, to hold far greater sway with neocons needing an excuse for their failures in moving government towards their goals. After eight years of republican majority rule every thing is still Bill’s fault. As a liberal I found myself frequently at odds with Clinton and his policies. During the present tense, however, the party in power had NO trouble funding bridges in Alaska.

By getalife

January 10, 2006 06:21 PM | Link to this

Congress recently passed a law to reimburse troops who purchased the armor themselves, but Clinton said not all of those people had been given their money.

Congress has not figured out a way to get some of their money.

Criminals!

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 06:26 PM | Link to this

I must have missed President Bush taking office in 1998 and Tom Daschle becoming a Republican from May 2001 until January 2003.

By physicsDawg

January 10, 2006 06:27 PM | Link to this

It’s not ALL Bill’s fault. It just is hypocracy for Libs to condemn Bush for something they all did. Even Jimmy Carter. That doesn’t mean the pot AND the kettle aren’t black. It just makes the pot a hypocrite to boot…

Bridges In Alaska! Now that’s a great note to agree with you on, and I’ll say “Later, I’m out fellas’.”

By getalife

January 10, 2006 06:41 PM | Link to this

You know the culture of corruption has hit an all time high when Mexico pushes us around on immigration.

By finch

January 10, 2006 06:45 PM | Link to this

Nice dialogue here. Seriously. Even Andy is relatively restrained! (grin)

I’ll make one teeny comment:

“A professor who says that they are not making politically motivated statements is lying, because any subject, even math, has connotations that ripple throughout everything else.”

ShadowMarch, really? Sure English, history and political science courses can be tainted by ideology. Even biology (Intellegent Design!)

But math? Physics? Chemistry? I must have missed something in school, ‘cause I can see no way to politicize these subjects. They don’t call them the “hard sciences” for nothing.

2+2=4, E=MC(2), a=piR(2) no matter what political universe you’re in.

Later. Dinner!

By rushncap

January 10, 2006 06:46 PM | Link to this

Ummm, physics dawg, and what “ideology” might your geology professors be pushing?

By physicsDawg

January 10, 2006 06:53 PM | Link to this

I think I meant to say geography, as in human geography, but I never noticed any political pushes/pulls from either, personally.
I thought they called them hard sciences because they were so hard.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 07:07 PM | Link to this

For what it’s worth, I think a geology professor might have all sorts of ways to flaunt ideology.

Oil drilling, mining, global warming, etc. could be spun either way as to it’s potential geological effects by a professor that wanted to push a viewpoint.

By Washington State

January 10, 2006 08:02 PM | Link to this

Pile on time: Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican congressman who co-led the petition drive that helped oust Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, said in an interview yesterday: “We don’t just need a new majority leader, we need a course correction.

“A lobbyist can’t be corrupt unless he has somebody to bribe, and we’ve created a culture that just breeds corruption,� he charged.

At least a few Republicans recognize that there is a Republican problem and it could come back to bite them hard in the next elections. I say let them obfuscate all they want. The voters know the truth and all that spin trying to tar Democrats makes the Republicans look worse. The Democrats have had their own problems with corruption, but this isn’t one of them. K street is owned by the Republicans thanks to DeLay and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

By Andy

January 10, 2006 08:17 PM | Link to this

Washington State: Well that’s awful sweet of you to come up in here and wash the democrats hands of the whole matter. But I believe you might be putting the cart before the horse. You say a lobbyist has to have a corrupt Congressman to bribe, this is true, Delay and Cunningham have done the right thing and stepped aside. The Judicial system will tell their tale in due time.

But doesn’t a lobbyist have to have a cause to bribe a Congressman for? What is he trying to get in return? In this case he was allegedly lobbying for various Indian tribes. They, being the tribes, were looking for the legislation to be cast in their favor. Abramoff was just a tool of the tribes.

The big question is why did the tribes bypass Abramoff and go directly to the democrats, as Howard Dean has admitted? Is it because of long term working relationships? No matter, they were seeking the same graft that Abramoff was, it’s easy to trace, just find out who received money and who authored legislation that favored the Indians. There’s your criminal.

If no big time dems were going down and this truly was a Republican scandal, the front 5 pages of the AJC would be devoted to the coverage, complete with pictures of jail cells and hysterically happy pinkos dancing in all corners of the world.

Who knows who Abramoff is going to give up. You haven’t got a crystal ball, have you? He may just be able to remember democrat names, he is a “Republican,” after all.

By Mrs.Godzilla

January 10, 2006 08:25 PM | Link to this

Excellent Mike! Every day more and more people are wondering.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, THIS IS A REPUBLICAN SCANDAL.

There is legal lobbying and illegal lobbying. NO DEMOCRAT TOOK MONEY FROM JACK AMBRAOFF OR HIS WIFE.

I read that Harry Reid and other Democrats took legal $$$ in legal ways from Indian Tribes. No Democrats have been indicted. No Democrats are under investigation. No Democrats have made plea bargains. No Democrats have been convicted. With Republicans in control of THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT don’t you think they’d find evil democrats if they could! THIS IS A REPUBLICAN SCANDAL.

Face up to it. The party of Lincoln., Eisenhower, Rockefeller, et al. is defunct.

I always liked Republicans. Small, non-intrusive government. Fiscal responsibility. Stuff like that.

We argued over social policies on occasion. Mostly I saw, truly compassionate conservatism. Now I see people afraid of their own shadow.

GOD BLESS AMERICA, HOME OF THE FREE AND THE BRAVE.

STOP ALITO!

By getalife

January 10, 2006 08:27 PM | Link to this

it’s easy to trace, just find out who received money and who authored legislation that favored the Indians. There’s your criminal.

It goes further than just the Indians. I say look at all the legislation authored by Republicans since they took power of this once great country!

By Andy

January 10, 2006 08:31 PM | Link to this

The only one I’ve heard so far, other than Abramoff (I don’t have ESP like Godzilla apparently does): Bay Area Democratic Congressman George Miller once snuck an amendment into a bill which allowed descendants from the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians, a tribe that had disappeared in the 1960s, to reassemble for the purposes of enriching themselves off a casino built near San Francisco.

Good Luck!

By Mrs.Godzilla

January 10, 2006 08:35 PM | Link to this

Talk about ESP.

There is no PROOF, no even a real WHIFF of any Democrat being investigated or indicted.

Apparently your testoterone is greater than my estrogen.

Oh Poop!

By getalife

January 10, 2006 08:37 PM | Link to this

But before you do your usual “they’re all crooks” wave of your hand - don’t. This case is different. It is particularly ugly, and it’s just beginning.

By Mrs.Godzilla

January 10, 2006 08:39 PM | Link to this

P.S. Sorry, congenitally bad speller/typist.

ALSO, I have a recipe for ROcky Mountain Oysters. I’d use it on anyone who took advantage of the American people. It’s does not require either Left or Right ingredients.

By Andy

January 10, 2006 08:39 PM | Link to this

Let’s try this in reverse: You tell me how many Republicans have been legally charged with taking bribes to help the Indian tribes.

By Washington State

January 10, 2006 08:40 PM | Link to this

Andy, That whole thing was a quote from a Republican congressman except for the last paragraph, which was my comment. If you want to argue with the conservative Republicans who profess to be sick of the current culture of corruption brought about by their own party, be my guest. Personally, I think there is a lot to be said for coming clean.

By Andy

January 10, 2006 08:44 PM | Link to this

Washington State: This is you: The Democrats have had their own problems with corruption, but this isn’t one of them.- My comment was to the point that I wouldn’t start celebrating if I were a pinko. Harry Reid has had connections to the casinos long, long time before any of this came to light. We may finally get our government to become bipartisan like we want; sharing the same jail cell.

By getalife

January 10, 2006 08:50 PM | Link to this

I am looking forward to that celebration!

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 08:51 PM | Link to this

Mrs. G,

Doesn’t that recipe require both left and right?

By Mrs.Godzilla

January 10, 2006 08:52 PM | Link to this

I think all liberals and progressives agree with the spirit of your train of thought Andy. Bless ya’.

Break the law. Pay the price. However, to bear FALSE witness is a major no-no.

(Not my Grandad’s) REPULICANS: INDICTED, UNDER INVESTIGATION, PLEA BARGAINING, FOUND GUILTY.

NOTICE to Democrats, Greens, Independants, MugWumps, BullMoose: The same applies to you!

By Washington State

January 10, 2006 08:56 PM | Link to this

Andy, I won’t argue that the Democrats have had their share of scandals, but I will predict that this isn’t going to be one of them. Perhaps if the Democrats had any real power, it would not be the case. But the reality of the situation is that there has been a concerted effort to convert K Street into a branch of the Republican party. With the House, Senate, and Executive all Republican, there hasn’t been much need to bribe Democrats. There may be a few scraps thrown to a Democrat here and there, but the big meals went to Republicans. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The smart Republicans are hurrying to put as much distance as possible between themselves and any of Abramoff’s or DeLay’s associates. Personally, I think that there is way too much money influencing politics. Power and money can be a nasty combination for any politician. But this one is going to be a black eye for Republicans no matter how you spin it. The next one may well be the Democrats’ problem, but not this one. The way some people carry on, you’d think Republicans s**t icecream.

By Mrs.Godzilla

January 10, 2006 09:00 PM | Link to this

No, the recipe calls for fresh.

Right now the Delay, Frist, Safavian, Cunningham, Libby, Rove, Ney, Blount, (oh, god, who really keeps count anymore) are in season.

By Andy

January 10, 2006 09:01 PM | Link to this

Washington State: K street really has nothing to do with this. It is all about Abramoff and the Indian tribes seeking influence. And they gave money to a whole lot of legislatures.

By Midori

January 10, 2006 09:07 PM | Link to this

The GOP members can make a case that the scandal reflects more the way Washington works than the unique perfidy of their party, but even this is self-defeating, since Republicans run Washington.

By Mrs.Godzilla

January 10, 2006 09:07 PM | Link to this

Hastert! Did I forget Hastert?

Denny With a ver blanc, vermouth instead of white wine. A bit more woody.

By Washington State

January 10, 2006 09:10 PM | Link to this

Andy, K Street has everything to do with it. The conservative Republicans who are calling for a return to true conservative values are referring directly to K Street. Abramoff is just a guy who got caught in the wringer. The whole system is rotten. K Street is all about money and using it to buy influence. Abramoff is a symptom, not the problem.

By Mrs.Godzilla

January 10, 2006 09:16 PM | Link to this

K street has nothing to do with this? Somebody just give him one good whack. Like I give the sons-in-law when they smart off to the old man.

AGAIN: (More Specific) REPUBLICANS ARE MOSTLY NICE PEOPLE. They just have to deal with their share of loony radicals and sneaky bastards right now. Heck, I’m a Democrat - I’ve been through it. You get rid of the SCUM, get up and dust yourself off. (Maybe a high intensity, ultra high frequency, laser guided, star wars,decontamination) YOU CAN DO IT!

By Midori

January 10, 2006 09:17 PM | Link to this

The GOP members can make a case that the scandal reflects more the way Washington works than the unique perfidy of their party, but even this is self-defeating, since Republicans run Washington.

By buff

January 10, 2006 09:30 PM | Link to this

Some reasons why I hate Democrats:

Today,I watched Schumer, Kennedy et al. make as-es of themselves trying to outfox Alito

It was like watching Homer Simpson play one-on-one with Michael Jordan

Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the ugliest federal employee in the government’s history, replaced Byron, Whizzer, White, usually voting a conservative agenda

Schumer and Kennedy et al. bemoan the issue that Sandra Day O’Connor should be replaced with a clone, which would be a tingly, emptathetic, hugger, Like Oprah, who ignores the Constitution, and makes decision by “feelings” and what is “morally correct,” and who wants to be the “conscious of the court”

When the aforementioned hag, Ginsberg, was going through confirmation, the GOP never argued that she should be replaced by a Byron White-like justice

What ideological cowards, distorters, and intellectual losers. Oh well, they are demoRATS

By Mrs.Godzilla

January 10, 2006 09:47 PM | Link to this

Buff, may no one ever go after your gluteus maximus with a broom handle. You’ll be rather unhappy with how Alito feels about it.

Pray they never evict you with a gun held to your childs body.

Don’t have daughters who want to go to the precious Alma Mater. (Gosh, don’t be of color!)

May you never have to face the wrath of the “smaller” government, in any way shape or form.

May the repeal of laws giving jurisdiction over a womans body ever come back and haunt you. Castrate the rapists, pedophiles and sexual molesters! Sterilize men who miss child support payments for the 2nd time! Take the golf clubs away from men who shrink sweaters and turn underpants pink.

May the world be as you think it is. May the true citizens of the planet make it what it truly should be.

By Midori

January 10, 2006 09:54 PM | Link to this

Buff, the magic dragon

By Midori

January 10, 2006 09:54 PM | Link to this

trust me

By finch

January 10, 2006 10:02 PM | Link to this

The cons in Congress being tagged as major feeders at the Abramoff trough are starting to protest WAY too much. It’s not even funny anymore. Watching grown men whine and play victim is just… sad.

Burns says Democrats behind Abramoff scandal - HELENA - Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., said Monday his political enemies are behind newspaper reports linking him to confessed felon and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

It’s enough to drive you to drink!

By buff

January 10, 2006 10:08 PM | Link to this

Mrs. G. you inept fool. I was addressing the DemocRATS hypocrisy; not legal issues

No wonder you people keep losing elections, you are idiots, intellectual cowards, and anti-American

By buff

January 10, 2006 10:18 PM | Link to this

M G.

After I once again read your screed, you are even dumber that I thought you were, and that is a whole bunch!

By Jay not jay

January 10, 2006 10:23 PM | Link to this

Hey finch, you know what comes around goes around…I would hold off uncorking the champagne just yet.

By Dusty

January 10, 2006 11:20 PM | Link to this

buff,

Watching the inquisition of Alito was truly amazing. Ten hours, I believe it lasted today. Prisoners at Guantanamo are treated better than that. Democrats were so obvious in their attempts to “snare” Alito. They should have carried protest signs and stopped all the pseudo questions of concern.

Don’t mind Mrs. Godzilla. She doesn’t get out of the swamp very often and is a trifle “snake-bit”.

By Ricky

January 10, 2006 11:33 PM | Link to this

I love how ml posts random article that are to his liking. Even the Wahsington Post and the New Yort Times called out Dean for saying the Democrats were clean on the Abramoff issue. I am sure more Republicans are involved and Abramoff is a Republican, so by nature it will be a Republican issue, but the Dems are not home free on this one. On another issue, the Dems continue to amaze me with Supreme Court nominess. Their hyprocrisy knows no bounds. They keep talking about the court moving in a different direction, but they wouldn’t care if it fit their agenda. The sad part was it wasn’t always like this. Justice Scalia got 98 votes, because he was QUALIFIED. Just like Alito is. It is sad proof of what has become of the Senate.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 11:34 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

I’ve got quite a deal going with the Godzilla family, they blame you for everything I say. (At least the Mr. anyway)

Sorry and Thanks!

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 11:38 PM | Link to this

Ricky,

It wouldn’t be so bad if ml was consistent. When some liberal lunatic like Steinback weighs in he posts the whole article, in this one he cherry-picks what he likes. By now I think we have posted the rest of it anyway.

By Jay not jay

January 10, 2006 11:39 PM | Link to this

Why doesn’t ml just post in here like the common folk?

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 11:44 PM | Link to this

Jay not jay,

This isn’t an etch-a-sketch, how is ml supposed to keep up?

By Dusty

January 10, 2006 11:47 PM | Link to this

RW,

I’ve had a little experience with that kind of deal. (Marriage!) I forgive you this one time.

Isn’t it time for a new work of art? Luckovich is getting lazy. His venture into journalism is ill-advised, to say the least. We’re the ones who cut & paste and we don’t get paid.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2006 11:56 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

I think Judge Alito is making things tough on our scribbler. He so wanted his heroes to come through with some blistering interrogation, but look at the basket he has his eggs in.

So I guess we’ll get another “Bush is snooping” cartoon, or he just gave up.

By Dusty

January 11, 2006 12:16 AM | Link to this

RW,

I am sure we will have a full “exposure” of some bare facts about the president soon enough. Luckovich seems to have a one way mind except for a few elephants.

Just a wandering thought here: Would you believe there was a big blob of frozen octopus for sale at the grocery store? All this diversity is gonna kill my appetite.

By Jay not jay

January 11, 2006 12:18 AM | Link to this

I think Dusty found our answer, when the etch-a-sketch fails, just paste some fodder on it.

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2006 12:22 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

The Thrashers have won a few games lately, we may yet need those frozen octopi.

By Dusty

January 11, 2006 12:24 AM | Link to this

Well, Jay not jay,

Just as long as that “fodder” isn’t octopus. That poor creature is one ugly blob. Worse than some of Luckovich’s cartoons.

By Jay not jay

January 11, 2006 12:28 AM | Link to this

Hey now, that’s not p.c., that’s a delicacy out on the Left Coast.

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2006 12:32 AM | Link to this

It could be worse.

Have you ever read “The Beast”? It’s by the same guy that wrote “Jaws” and a made for TV movie.

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2006 12:37 AM | Link to this

As it turns out fodder is much more normal.

By Dusty

January 11, 2006 12:40 AM | Link to this

Jay not jay,

Let us keep that delicacy out on the Left Coast. To heck with p.c.

RW, from the looks of that octopus, he’d already played some pretty rough hockey. I think the Thrashers need somethng with a little more savoir faire.

Well, good night all until our thoughts convene tomorrow. Pleasant dreams.

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2006 12:42 AM | Link to this

Goodnight Dusty,

Maybe tomorrow you will be able to tell the difference between an octopus and a squid.

By Jay not jay

January 11, 2006 12:44 AM | Link to this

Night all. Don’t let Mr. Hogzilla bite!!

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2006 12:46 AM | Link to this

Uh Oh, Dusty is in trouble with the Gozilla family again.

By RW-(the original)

January 11, 2006 01:02 AM | Link to this

IT”S OFFICIAL

I can’t wait for the acceptance speech!

By Andy

January 11, 2006 04:37 AM | Link to this

A Justice Department investigation into influence-peddling on Capitol Hill is focusing on a “first tier” of lawmakers and staffers, both Republicans and Democrats <———————**, say sources close to the probe that has netted guilty pleas from lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Am I ever wrong, y’all?

By Andy

January 11, 2006 05:16 AM | Link to this

A good read on the pinko media- By contrast, I visited my sister a few years back and was struck by reading the Washington Post in person and on paper. Far more evident than on the web, the newsprint Post struck me as, well, sick. The Post created news, too, just like Ben Hecht, but it did so self-righteously, as a matter of policy — not just some reporter’s prank.

By AntiRadical

January 11, 2006 05:32 AM | Link to this

What’s news? “America has the best government that money can buy.â€?- Will Rogers, circa 1928 Does anybody really imagine that there have ever been ANY “honest” politicians?

Anybody see Alito yesterday? Thought I would enjoy seeing the Dems rip him up but found hin to be intelligent, mostly forthright (considering the venue), knowlegeable of the law, reflective, and unruffled. Being a voter who votes for the person (not the party) I was impressed. Like Roberts, I can’t believe this nomination came from the “Mental Midget”. To see nominees with these qualifications after Harriet Myers is confusing to say the least. Dems will embarass themselves if they jump hard on this one so I expect some parrying and the usual platform for party rhetoric (inappropriate I think), but in the end, Alito should be heading uptown. Good one GWB.

PS- I don’t happen to agree with the Rep party support for “right to life” and expect that Alito will be an activist in this and other regards. I, also, don’t have a problem with that; “To the victor goes the spoils”. If the Dems want different, they can get up off their keisters and give me a viable candidate to vote for. Dean is at least pro-gun but otherwise not in control of himself. It would be a good thing for the next President to have control of himself before we give him control of the nation (yeh, that’s a dig at GWB, too).

By Liberal Texas Democrat

January 11, 2006 05:52 AM | Link to this

Summing it all up on the way into town. All the previous discussions seem to indicate we only need to get three or four Democrats to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge and two hundred and ten Republicans will follow.

By Andy

January 11, 2006 06:14 AM | Link to this

If anybody wants to see exactly how ridiculous Cynthia Tucker has become, check out her column on “stealth” HIV infections. My one rather large question, if women can “insist their sexual partners use condoms” to protect them from HIV infection, as Mother Lib suggests, why couldn’t women insist on condom use to protect the lives of unborn children?

hy·poc·ri·sy- n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies- The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

Follow the “teachings” of these left wing geniuses, y’all, hook yourself up with a depressed disease ridden bitter little existence, just like them.

By Objective Observer

January 11, 2006 06:30 AM | Link to this

Anti: I appreciate your open-minded approach on issues. I agree with you regarding honest politicians. Jimmy Carter was one, but basically ineffectual as President. Idealistic, but that doesn’t get you very far in this life.

Congressmen & Senators are more inclined to fly under the radar with their misdeeds. Most of the American public don’t even know who theirs are. But why would a man, GWB, place himself front and center, within view of the public, if his intentions were evil and self motivating? I can’t buy that argument from the left.

By Objective Observer

January 11, 2006 06:38 AM | Link to this

Oops! Make self-motivating, self-promoting. It’s early and I woke up tired.

By Objective Observer

January 11, 2006 06:45 AM | Link to this

R.W.: I love your consistency in exposing “lies of omission”, i.e., ml’s snippet from the “Conservative National Review”. Snip this, but omit this. Exposure is essential to finding the truth. The media must be scrutinized.

By physicsDawg

January 11, 2006 08:09 AM | Link to this

I think all this is good, in the long run. I hope half of both the Reps and Dems are implicated. Then maybe we can eliminate K street with the “fair tax” (HR25/S25). There will still be lots of lobbyists, but politicians can no longer “pay back” their bribes in the formn of warping the tax code. The Fair Tax is “un-warpable.”

By AntiRadical

January 11, 2006 08:16 AM | Link to this

OO- Good to hear from you. Please don’t mention Carter (I voted for the nob and have never ceased to regret it). I’m OK with politicians being overly idealistic and hamstrung (Jefferson and Madison would be smiling); my biggest complaint with Carter was his ban on breeder reactors. As it turns out we have to watch ALL nuclear material with highest scrutiny, banning only breeder technology (plutonium cycle) was just plain dumb. We might have been near completely energy (oil) independent and have mostly eliminated the production of large quantities of nuclear waste product by now, if only this politician had kept his nose out of real science. Carter is an almost “larger than life” example of why I no longer support imperial presidencies (mostly, when the Pres and both houses of Congress are uniparty). Most Republicans, nowadays, are forgetting that the shoe is sometimes worn by the other foot. I appreciate the fact that you have this awareness.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 11, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this

Buff, could you please be a little more creative with your name calling?

Gosh, I know ten-year old boys who do better.

By Mike Parker

January 12, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

How can the average person respond to corruption in politics?

Currently, there is very little the average person can do but vote out the dirty party.

That does mean voting out some innocent officials. But, if the innocent parties knew retribution for scandal and crime TRULY touched their re-election chances, politics would become self-regulating in terms of most corruption.

Not only would Democrats have a reason to watch Republicans for corruption, they would have a reason to watch other Democrats to prevent corruption.

The only power the average person has with a politician is a vote for the other side.