Thinking Right

By Realist

March 9, 2007 8:08 AM | Link to this

No talk of my candidate for president, Newt Gingrich? Finding out that he’s a hypocrite was very dissapointing this morning. Not to mention refreshing my memory about him talking of divorce to his cancer sick wife. If not him then who? Romney’s my pick I guess.

By Brian Curtis

March 9, 2007 8:09 AM | Link to this

And with his commentary on the death penalty, Wooten finally forfeits any credibility he may have had among libertarians. Who else but a big-government Republican would so casually trust the state with the power over life and death itself?

Thank goodness for the “surrender plan”… maybe now we can start fighting terrorism effectively for a change, instead of getting our soldiers maimed and killed needlessly.

And the latest reason for trying to deny workers any power at all? “National security.” See, if your job is important, then it’s essential that you have no rights whatsoever! Now it’s not just doing blatant favors for management… it’s “to fight terrorism.” Good thing THAT excuse came along.

By Shar

March 9, 2007 8:11 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten! A week that has seen Libby’s conviction, the Walter Reed scandal, PeachCare’s door swing shut, sadness and sacrifice serving the bus crash victims and a polyglot assortment of other highs and lows, and the best you can get grumpy about is local hacks being clownish and the sportive appeal of the MegaMillions winner? Are you mellowing or just restricting your reading to the back pages?

By Reece

March 9, 2007 8:19 AM | Link to this

Oh geez, where to start with this.

Jim say’s that he’d form sone kind of union with another man. Hypocrite, you’d scream at the top of your lungs if two people wanted to have a real union based upon love, not money. Go Coulter yourself Jim, you’ve just shown us all the true Renamblican message.

Jere Wood( and others) rode bicycles from the Roswell area to the capital to promote bike safety.

“We apologize”, two words you’ll never hear from our Dolt-in-Chief for all the incredible harm that he’s done not only to our nation but to the world.

Jim picks at another straw(man) about public transportation with the Amtrak reference. Redneck, idiot, racist.

I’m 99.998% opposed to the death penalty, the one exception being Bobby Brown. So we agree on that one. Proving the old adage that if you put a chimpanzee in front of a typewriter for long enough he’ll write a novel.

By SC

March 9, 2007 8:20 AM | Link to this

If you’re going to compare Lovejoy to other train systems, then compare apples to apples. Chicago’s Metra (the commuter rail line which would be comparable to Lovejoy) had an on-time performance of 96.4 percent overall for 2006. Being against commuter rail is fine, but be honest with your data and comparisons.

By Reece

March 9, 2007 8:25 AM | Link to this

Realist,

I sincerely hope that you and the rest of the Renamblicans nominate Nutty Newty. Not only do I then get a Democratic president, we get that result and don’t have to spend $500 million. Newt’s nomination would be the worst Renamblican defeat since Barry Goldwater.

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 8:31 AM | Link to this

Don’t all of you folks think that today’s headline about Newt is a hoot? I mean really, who in this universe did NOT know that already. I’ve heard him confess that personally a dozen times at least. The next thing they’ll tell us is that Ted Kennedy is a drunk and Donald Trump is a cad!

By Reece

March 9, 2007 8:35 AM | Link to this

SC,

When you make a call for honesty from The Wootenanny, you’d do as well trying to dam the Mississippi River with 7 toothpicks. He’s taking all of his honesty clues from the Chimp-in-Chief and Scooter (He’s in the Jailhouse Now)Libby.

By One

March 9, 2007 8:36 AM | Link to this

Reece Nutty Newty I love it!!! And yes, that would practically seal the deal for a Democratic president!!

And WTF? is Dubya thinking…denying funding for our children. What happened to No Child Left Behind? Lying ba$tard…..sick children cannot be taught!!! So we son’t leave them behind in the classroom, we’ll just leave them to all get sick and stay sick! This is what you all elected….you should be ashamed!!!

By Reece

March 9, 2007 8:37 AM | Link to this

It’s All Bill Clinton’s Fault®

Just wanted to get the first Clinton deflection in there.

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis - the hypocrisy here is palpable. You will sanction abortion on demand and yet decry the death penalty? I’m pro-choice with limits (no abortion after 4 months except in exteme circumstances). However, think about the Jessica Lunsford case. Certain crimes just cry out for the death penalty. He made a very arbitrary decision about life and death. At least a judge and jury are forced by law to deliberate! Absolutes in any situation are bad, but options in exteme cases should always be available.

By H.O. Lionel

March 9, 2007 8:43 AM | Link to this

I have to admit that I’m unfamilar with the place, so someone please enlighten me as to what it is about Lovejoy that warrants a commuter rail line over any other location? Is there a large commuter population there vs. rest of the metro area?

By jbmlaw

March 9, 2007 8:43 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Ms. Pelosi will be unable to get anything other than a clean Republican-type defense bill through the House. She has too many moderate democrats who desire re-election. Americans still want to win the war, not give the terrorists a timetable to victory. I credit Ms. Pelosi with sufficient political smarts to avoid poll disaster in 2008. And none of those moderates care a fig about PeachCare, because that will not make or break an election for any of them.

The anti-death penalty crowd prefers the slow torture (of imprisonment without potential for parole) for the evil ones; unlike the leftists, we conservatives just don’t have the stomach for torture. But I will take this opportunity to apologize to all axe murderers for the torture inflicted on them by our leftist brothers.

Jim, you’ve gone wobbly! There was a time when good conservatives (e.g., guys like me) decried the mere existence of government papers as a requisite for citizenship. Now we merely object to the form and/or forgery of same.

I appreciate Jim’s recognition of Safronov, and I fear President Bush has inaccurately judged the character of his good friend Mr. Putin. In my church we don’t kiss copperheads.

The Senate’s airport screener bill ought to be named the “Max Cleland union honorarium” act.

Only Jere Wood would find a way to have to purchase carbon offsets for a 20 mile bicycle ride.

There is an Ann Coulter joke latent somewhere in Jim’s Eddie Nabors one-liner, but I think I am too dim to find it.

Vernon Jones, and the people of Dekalb County, deserve our admiration for their willingness to help out our distressed brothers. No joke, I was unaware of the offer of help, and I wish to add my respects.

One day this week the blog had a lot of theological exchanges. An extraordinary essay on religion and war today, http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110009766, for the willing.

By Brian Curtis

March 9, 2007 8:43 AM | Link to this

Edwin: No hypocrisy at all, once you recognize that a fetus is not the same thing as a living, breathing person with all the rights of a person.

And no, I don’t trust the government with the power they already have, still less the power to kill people.

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 8:44 AM | Link to this

Newt won’t run in the end because he doesn’t want to be savaged by hypocrites like Hitlery and Jesse and other liars, fornicators and jerks. For the Democrats EVER to attack someone for adultery when they have elected Presidents like FDR, JFK, LBJ and WJC, it is too much for color TV! Newt is still the best idea man the Republicans have, so he will be out there with his ideas, but he’s way too smart to actually run.

By Reece

March 9, 2007 8:45 AM | Link to this

One,

I’m please that I could provide you with a chuckle on this lovely Friday morning.

You ask “what is Dumbya thinking”, clearly there’s more intellectual capacity in the dried apricots over on the corner of my desk.

By One

March 9, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this

Run, Nutty Newty, Run!!!!!

By Brian Curtis

March 9, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this

Fortunately, Democrats seldom run on a “family values” platform, so the hypocrisy really is one-way.

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 8:52 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw says: “Americans still want to win the war, not give the terrorists a timetable to victory.”

jbmlaw— there is no “win” for America in Iraq… it’s the Iraqis’ country, not ours, remember? Any “win” will be because the Iraqis decide to stop killing each other in order to attain power, and how do you think that’s ever going to occur?

By zeke

March 9, 2007 8:53 AM | Link to this

NO UNIONS IN GOVERNMENT JOBS, PERIOD! Better yet, no unions at all! They are just a socialist plot and should have no power whatsoever! Apologize for slavery when the African nations that captured and sold their people into slavery, and still do, apologize for causing slavery to exist! Hopefully the voters will see the democrat ploy for what it is and throw all of them out next election! Passenger mass rail transit will not work until ther are dedicated high speed rails for use only by those systems! Then it will only work if safe, efficient AND SELF SUPPORTING WITHOUT SUBSIDIES AND WITHOUT TAXING THE GENERAL PUBLIC!!!!

By melo

March 9, 2007 8:54 AM | Link to this

* Life without parole is the death penalty for jurors who don’t have the stomach for it. Die fast or die slow. Morally, there’s no difference*

Nope, not morally the same in my opinion. Only God has the power and authority to kill.

Newt Gingrich is human after all.Nothing new here i guess, just a reminder that even Republicans are not some super humans from outer sapce!!

Somebody mentioned Mitt Rumney, the mormon to be the only one left. Maybe yes, the only one who is not ultra liberal on the Republican side. But that mormon thing hangs over his head because i know he likes to have more than one wife(thats the religious practice folks-don’t let him hide behind a finger) although in public, he has to potray himself differently for political reasons. He is fronting in many respects, like Hilary does so well. Rudy is as liberal as they come. If he wins the nomination for the Republicans,Obama would be the centrist and i could’nt be happier because Obama would be a shoo-in.(they, Obama and Rudy will have to split the gay vote-no kidding) May be Mccain then, but than age wise, he may well die in office! Either way, the race is decided already for the democrats if these Republican candidates remain in. The only credible salvation, Jeb Bush. But then America is not ready for a Monarchy!!

By Morris

March 9, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis - If you feel “national security” is a bogus reason to deny government national security employees a union, how about unions for the military, CIA and FBI agents, and other similar front line positions? Is that a stretch?

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 8:57 AM | Link to this

“Newt won’t run in the end because he doesn’t want to be savaged by hypocrites like Hitlery and Jesse and other liars, fornicators and jerks. “

Correct, Edwin Williams… it’s only fair that we hold Newt to the same standards that you Republicans held for Sen. Gary Hart back in 1986. Remember, he was unfit to run for the presidency simply because he had a “mistress” outside of his marriage.

Y’all started this whole “family values” thing and made it too narrow for most Americans to try to fit into!

By Erin

March 9, 2007 8:57 AM | Link to this

“Die fast or die slow. Morally there’s no difference.” Does that mean the abortion debate is over? After all, what’s the moral difference between ending an unwanted pregnancy and sentencing a child to die slowly from abuse and neglect? Oh, that also means the right decision was made in the Schiavo case. Thanks for clearing all that up, Jim.

By Jack

March 9, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this

A U.S. Marine squad was patrolling north of Fallujah when they came upon an Iraqi terrorist, badly injured and unconscious. On the opposite side of the road was an American Marine in a similar but less serious state.

The Marine was conscious and alert and as first aid was given to both men, the squad leader asked the injured Marine what had happened. The Marine reported, “I was heavily armed and moving north along the highway here, and coming south was a heavily armed insurgent. We saw each other and both took cover in the ditches along the road.”I yelled to him that Saddam Hussein is a miserable lowlife, and he yelled back that Ted Kennedy is a good-for-nothing, fat, left wing liberal drunk.” “So I said that Osama Bin Laden dresses and acts like a frigid, ugly, mean-spirited lesbian! He retaliated by yelling, Oh yeah? Well, so does Hillary Clinton! “And, there we were, in the middle of the road, shaking hands, when a truck hit us!

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

March 9, 2007 9:08 AM | Link to this

*I have no choice but to move forward and say that you cannot accept…perjury in your highest officials.”

So says the Newtster, evidently referring to the peoples who run this country…that they shouldn’t be a-lyin’ to us good folks.

Except when they’re Republicans who say they “can’t remember”.

Isn’t that right Jim?

It’s ok for Republican’s to lie, because they’re fighting the good fight?

Isn’t that right? Republicans can lie and be corrupt and all that good, fun stuff, because they’re Christain and all.

Just come out and say it. All this beating around the bush you’re doing is kinda nauseating.

After me…Republicans…Can….Lie. It’s ok. It’s allright.

There, there. It’s going to be ok.

Whew.

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

Reece, I like how you’ve registered that Republican trademark — making any money off that thing yet?

By Redneck Convert

March 9, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

Well, I’m right sorry to hear Wooten is a prevert. Talking about marrying another man. Us GA rednecks have been knowed to turn to a sheep or a horse or two, or maybe a kid in a pinch, but never another man. That would make us preverts too.

I see old Newt is telling everybody he had a affair while he was in charge up there. Glad to learn he wasn’t gay. Heck, if a man can’t fool around oncet in a while its a pretty sorry world. I hope it wasn’t one of them interns. They are just a bottle looking for a cork.

Me and my buddy Jim Earl was talking last night about the death penalty. We say life without parole is for wimps. We need to put the needle to them all. Sooner or later there won’t be nobody left to commit crimes. Everybody will be dead. You can’t kill nobody when you are dead. Heck, I would be willing to use my beer truck to help haul away the bodies if the prison people need some help. Maybe one of the warehouse forklifts too.

Well, we got a NASCAR weekend coming up. Me and Jim Earl has laid in a stock of beer and plenty of pork rinds. Everybody have a good weekend.

By TFTrealTruth

March 9, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this

By Jim Wooten | Friday, March 9, 2007, 06:54 AM

The Atlanta Journal-ConstitutiThose who control Congress are determined to put one of their own in the White House.

And thanks to the wingnuts, fringe lunatics, and neo-cons on the far right wing of the republican party, they probably will, Jim. Mainstream America and moderate republicans sent a message to the right wing in 06. Unfortunately the folks dwelling on that wing of the party are too damn dumb to realize that it was them who caused this. Just watch Jim. These right wing imbeciles will hook their wagon to someone that will once again sabotage the party and alienate the very voters that rebelled against them in 06. No candidate that smells of the “religious” right, neo-conservatism, or the miscellaneous nativists and xenophobes that found a home on the right wing has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning in 08.

By One

March 9, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this

Reece So true, so true!! I am soooo ready for ‘08!!

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

March 9, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this

And Jim,

RE your cherry pick on Amtrak in Chi-town…why don’t you do an article on something closer to home?

I’m sorry you have to go so far afield to find something negative to say about rail.

If you’d like to do something on me, I’d be more than willing to help. I returned to Atlanta in Nov of 05, and have driven to work a total of seven times since then. Thats one less car in traffic and 20 less miles a day of gas wasted.

C’mon…do a positive story. All you report on is the “bad” news.

If you can call that reporting. It’s really more like hatchet work. Political spin…that’s what it is.

By CJ

March 9, 2007 9:14 AM | Link to this

Memo to Jim Wooten: Unless you’re prepared to institute the draft (and you’re not), the war in Iraq is unmanageable. It’s simple arithmetic. Even after the so-called surge is complete, we’re still short 350,000 troops or so. At the same time we’re jeopardizing NATO operations in Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden and friends are having a resurgence. Remember that guy?

On the fake ID penalties, they’re draconian and yet another demonstration of racial politics from Georgia legislators. Our representatives attempt to do absolutely nothing about the demand side of the illegal immigration problem, where they can actually have an impact, since the criminals on the demand side are their (our) friends and neighbors.

By Realist

March 9, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this

Dammit Jim, did you knot take your vitamins before you wrote this?!! These liberals are having a field day on your weak arguments! Dammit!

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this

Zeke says: “Better yet, no unions at all! They are just a socialist plot and should have no power whatsoever!”

Yeah, much better to go back to the good old Depression days with child slavery and 100-hour work weeks… who do you think paved the way for you to spend time sitting on your arse posting garbage on a blog? You ingrate.

By Jack

March 9, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis. If a fetus is not a living thing why are you charged with 2 counts of murder if you kill a pregnant woman?

By Reece

March 9, 2007 9:16 AM | Link to this

NeoCon Artist,

It’s a shame that I didn’t think to register it myself, I’d have made billions over the last 10 years.

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this

Neo-Con Artist - Gay Hartpence himself started that argument, and was caught by the Miami Herald, no conservative newspaper. He challenged the press to follow him around. He was just plain dumb on every level that I can think of in that situation. Making that argument is both sophmoric and vacuous. The hypocrisy was in the main-stream press’s decision to excuse Clinton from the very beginning. He turned out to be indescrete and out of control. At least FDR, LBJ and JFK had some sense of discretion, if not true morality.

Erin - NO there is no moral difference in any kind of murder. Comparing abortion to the death penalty is really just pathetic. An innocent child is an innocent child whether ripped from the womb or allowed to die from neglect. I have always taken the position that abortion should be allowed but limited because certain circumstances are just unavoidable. But by four months, a woman should know and have made that decision long ago. I do not know ONE conservative who would find any moral difference in partial birth abortion or killing a three month old. Your argument is rather vapid because it is like saying killing a person with a gun is worse than poisoning that person because one was quicker. Dead is dead and taking a life requires a proper penalty. Wooten made a perfectly valid point. You are sentencing a person to die quickly or slowly, but the result is the same!

By Mike

March 9, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this

NP and the Dems are on the right track. How in the H… can we call Iraq a War. That is nothing but a conflict! Why are we there. The enemy WAS in Afganistan. It cowardly to pick on a country you already beat down,because you can’t find the enemy who F….us up. Our LEADERS are not interested in doing what is right for the country just making money and lying

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this

Melo- I like what you say:

“Obama would be the centrist and i could’nt be happier because Obama would be a shoo-in.”

Obama in ‘08!

By Reece

March 9, 2007 9:21 AM | Link to this

Jack,

As someone that would and perhaps will vote for Hillary Clinton, I’ve just one thing to say about your joke.

That’s funny, I don’t care who ya are.

By TFTrealTruth

March 9, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

By Jim Wooten | Friday, March 9, 2007, 06:54 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution• Two state House bills that attempt to address the use of red-light cameras to gin up revenue have promise. House Bill 77, as revised, would divert 75 percent of the revenue, after installation and maintenance costs, to a state trauma network and would require a traffic engineering study before they’re installed. Another, HB 590, would lower fines from $70 to $35. Pass both (if legislators are determined not to ban them altogether). No financial incentive should exist.

Jim, I’ll bet you a dollar to a donut hole that if this passes, you won’t see anymore cameras going up period. This was a revenue grab of the first magnitude from day one. Remember the ones where the selling company actually had shortened the time between yellow and red? There sales guys were even pitching this to prospective buyers as a revenue producer. Furthermore, if you took the “confiscation” (i.e revenue) incentive out of the biggest boondogle in American history, the “war on drugs” you’d probably have alot more careful and judicious waging of that war. Reality bites at times. And it is an indusputable reality that anytime financial gain is interjected scrupples and ethics are the first things that fly right out the window.

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this

Edwin: “I have always taken the position that abortion should be allowed but limited because certain circumstances are just unavoidable.”

Sounds Pro-choice to me, Edwin — you’re really a good guy even though you seem to buy into most of the Republicans’ dictates.

By Peggy

March 9, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this

Jim Wooten is an idiot. What a shock. I may need another cup of coffee to get over it.

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this

Reece, I think I’ll try to register a few other slogans myself:

“Cut-n-run!”

“Freedom is on the march!”

“We’ll be greeted as liberators!”

“We have to fight them over there!”

“Withdrawing our troops will only embolden our enemies!”

“It’s a slam dunk!”

And I’m sure there’s a few others, but I need to get a coffee refill now…

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this

I apologize right now for the typo, I really did mean to write GARY Hartpence. I did not mean to disparage any gay person by comparing him or her to such a base, venal and hypocritical twit! Most of the gay people I know are quite open and above board and quiet sophisticated and refined. I am sure like every other group there are exceptions. I do not hold the same line on gays as many conservatives, that is why I am supporting Giuliani.

By spaceman109

March 9, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this

hmmmm…..interesting that, thus far, jim has had nothing to day about the scooter libby verdict; perhaps he is too personally devastated to do so at this time.

so i shall fill in.

i thought it notable that for the longest time, the defense team had said that vp dick cheney would testify for his former aide. but when it came time for the deal to go down, cheney bailed. in my opinion, he turned his back on his former aide. i can hazard some guesses as to why he did not testify; feel free to check as many as you think apply.

*he realized that the prosecutor was unlikely to kiss his backside.

*he realized that the prosecutor was unlikely to ask him the sort of candyass puffball questions that he hears when interviewing on talk radio.

*he was aware that he could possibly face inconvenient questions which he could not answer without invoking the fift amendment.

*he thought himself way too special to answer questions in front of a jury composed of the great unwashed.

one also notes the shrieks of outrage from the right wing over this verdict and the associated demands that president bush immediately pardon libby. the president rightly realizes that it would be seriously improper for him to pardon libby before the legal process plays itself out. also, to pardon someone is to admit that such person committed a crime. i wonder if that has previously occurred to the right-wingers who are frothing at the mouth while they wail for a pardon.

i shall get down from my soapbox now :)

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this

Neo-Con Artist - what too many of you lock-step, talking-point liberals do not understand is that there are NO dictates made upon conservatives or Republicans. We are held together by a common belief in personal responsibility and freedom, within the limits of the law. I would remind you that my position of limiting abortion is opposed diamentrically by almost all Democrat office holders and fascist organizations such as NARAL. I get as much grief as them. I will remind you that Governor Casey of Pennsylvania was not allowed to address the Democrat convention because he held pro-life positions. The Republicans have always allowed “pro-choice” people to address their conventions - e.g. Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Rudy Giuliani, Christine Whitman. The diversity of views in the Republican party on social issues is much greater than that of the Democrats. What unites us as a party is the fact that we are not SOCIALISTS with a lust for government power and a belief that only we can make basic economic and educational decisions for the masses because they are just too stupid to do it for themselves. If you take away economic freedoms and the right to fail as well as succeed, then basic civil liberties will not be far behind, and neither will grinding poverty!

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this

“i shall get down from my soapbox now “

No, please do go on, Spaceman!

By Writer's block

March 9, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this

Didn’t W pardon Newt for his affair?

By Reece

March 9, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this

Spaceman,

Here’s the URL for an interesting piece regarding the possible Presidential pardon. Essentially, if Bush pardon’s Scooter(watch your butt)Libby, he’ll be doing so in violation of DOJ guidelines. Of course breaking the law has never stopped Bush and his cabal of criminals.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17507199/site/newsweek/

By One

March 9, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this

Obama in ‘08!!!

Our LEADERS are not interested in doing what is right for the country just making money and lying

The TRUTH!!!!!

Obama in ‘08!!!

By JK

March 9, 2007 9:47 AM | Link to this

Spaceman, you are mistaken. The other day Mr. Wooten suggested that Mr. Libby be pardoned for his crimes because… I forget, but it has something to do with it not really being a crime if THIS administration does it, because afterall, only THEY care about the safety of America.

By Reece

March 9, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this

Also interesting to note is that Wootenanny has had a bad week. The Libby verdict on Wednesday must have unhinged his mind even more than usual. He’s gotten his legs spanked here on ThinkingBlight two days in a row.

By Grampus

March 9, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this

All of you are a bunch of hypocrites over this “had an affair” business. Only the count of dikwads claiming to be the father of Anna-Nicole’s baby is higher than the number of affairs attributed to JFK. Everyone still seems to think he walked on water. JFK - like attributes are glowingly applied to Barack Obama. Should Obama decline the honor? John Edwards goes out of his way to look like JFK’s equally lecherous brother RFK. FDR had a life long affair. Do we need to put an asterisk by his name? Ike supposedly had one while he was running the war in Europe. God knows Jimmy Carter needed to have one bad, but typically the best he could manage was lust. Three-quarters of the population have probably had an affair. That’s no excuse, but is Newt any less credible now with his admission than those who preceded him? At least he freely admits it instead of lying like an self-centered adolescent and making us feel his pain for three wasted years.

By For the Record ...

March 9, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this

Life imprisonment is “slow torture” and death is preferable? Any data from death row inmates to back up this view? Should we give them the option? Surely all of them would choose death over the slow torture of life imprisonment — right, Mr Wooten? It would also save the state lots of money (interesting fact for you “conservatives” who never loved a human being more than a dollar bill: it costs more money in appeals to execute someone than it does to incarcerate them for life.)

And those of us who oppose the death penalty do so because we have no “stomach for it”? Perhaps the most searing moral and ethical question a human being can consider — should the State have the power to put people to death — and you reduce it to a matter of “stomach.”

And you wonder why people consider Southerners to be ignorant fools …

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this

Writer’s block - no one had to pardon Newt for his affair. He did not lie under oath or soil anything in his office. He never committed a crime. Clinton on the other hand committed perjury on several occasions. For sarcasm to work, there must be an element of truth to it. Here there is NONE!

By harold

March 9, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this

uh, it aint the pelosi withdrawal plan. it’s the oringal bush exit stargetry: the “blame the democrats” plan.

harold called it years ago: His exit stratergy was he wood just tread water until he could blame democrats. he did and now he is.

youll notice the guy still have no exit plan. quite the opposite actually. he is just making believe he will send 10s of thousand more US people to die and to kill 10s of thousands more of iraqi people when all he is really doing is playing poker to invoke his actule exit stratergy: blame the democrats for the failure

there’s always been a federal bailout for the misadventures of dubya whatever they may have been throughout his whole life. now the bailout is the half of the federal he doesnt own: blame the democrats

By abc

March 9, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

Wooten, some of your comments today are just plain stupid. I hadn’t thought you to be so silly before.

The new commanding General in Iraq was in the news yesterday with statements of how military efforts alone won’t end the strife there. Don’t you read the newspaper? There are 24 million people in Iraq, and there have been 655,000 Iraqis killed. That’s approximately the population of the U.S. during the Civil War, and about the same number of deaths. Are you so heartless that you don’t care? You’d rather proceed as we have? You think this war has been well ‘managed’?

The moral difference between life without parole and a death sentence is obvious. Your statement on that is just plain idiotic. One allows one to live, albeit in a restricted environment that won’t allow them to cause harm to others; the other removes life from them, which violates one of the 10 Commandments.

By harold

March 9, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this

nomrally a bike commooter will drive sometimes to do a clothes xfer. since roswell mayor does not work in the capitol in atlanta, he has no suit there.

the police escort is indeed the statement: asshats in cars who think they own the roads make bicycling to work hazardous. an enitrely corrupt DOT who will never pave bicycle lanes because they dont want people otu of cars also maeks it very hazardous. the whole point was there should be the possibility of riding a bicycle to work WITHOUT an absurd polie escort

you knwo how long the marietta riders took to get to the ATL? < 1 hour. that’s faster than you can drive there during traffic. if it weren’t incredibly unsafe due to the motor vehicles and the a-sholes driving them, thousands upon thousands of people could be bike commuting from vinigns smyrna and marietta to downtown atlanta

but, no, dipsheet old white men are too scared of that, so the bike facilites will never get built

By Jeff

March 9, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

Edwin:

Agreed. For example, I am a Republican simply because I support those things and no Democrats will. I do not support government recognition of gay marraige simply because it would be yet another expansion of government, and I believe that the only direction government should grow is SMALLER.

The trouble is that NONE of the current Presidential candidates is anywhere NEAR a Thomas Thorn, or even a Jack Ryan.

This is my plea: Someone - I DON’T CARE WHICH PARTY - PLEASE give me a Thomas Thorn. If you can’t give me Thorn, PLEASE, AT LEAST give me a Jack Ryan!

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

For the record - YOU are the ignorant fool and a bigot to make such a statement about Southerners. And I would remind you that Bill Clinton is one as well. He’s one of your heroes, remember? Also, I would remind you that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington Carver, Martin Luther King, Jr., Eudora Whelty and Margaret Mitchell were all Southerners. I guess you are confusing the rest of us with AL GORE and JIMMY CARTER!

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Reece - the law on this issue is the Constitution of the United States of America. The president has an absolute right to issue pardons, despite “guide-lines” by the DOJ. Just ask Mark Rich!

By harold

March 9, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

NASCAR IS A MARVELOUS SPORT BUT KEEP THAT S** OFF THE ROADS. ROADS ARE FOR PEOPLE TO GET PLACES.

PRIORITY #1: PEDESTRIANS

PRIORITY #2: BICYCLES

PRIORITY #3: BUSES

PRIORITY #4: OTHER PUBLIC TRANSIT

LOWEST PRIORITY: PRIVATE MOTOR VEHICLES

By getalife

March 9, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

The Iraq disaster is w’s disaster and should end under his failed Presidency.

The intellectual cowardice to blame the Dems is pure wingnut.

There are many cuts to American aid .Peachcare is just another casualty of the Iraq disaster.

By Reece

March 9, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

I’m somewhat surprised to see that Jim Wooten hasn’t come back with one of his “When I’m King of America” retorts. That’s the true fantasy of most of these NeoCons, right?

By time for the truth

March 9, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

The greasy verminous Brazilian filth rioting for leftist HATE AMERICA tv cameras need to feel the bone crunching wrath of a righteous rainforest of police truncheons on their prominent extra thick doltish foreheads. The ONLY way to deal with thuggish cowardly hateful leftist anti-American rioters is to mercilessly beat them. Then tear gas them, and maybe try and wash some of their leftist bile off with a strong bleach solution from extra powerful water cannons and then just leave these commie creep vermin for local rabid dogs and armed muggers to prey on. Naturally this almost kid glove treatment makes superb urban jungle footage for the Discovery Channel!!

The virulently anti-black sickster inbred rednekkk is obviously a clear target for prosecutors as a hapless beneficiary of false state issued ids … how else could a gibbering retarded racist extra chromosomed mutant numbskull get daily access to the internet?

Still no news of the corrupt incarcerated felon Billy bigot Campbell in the federal big house!! Will he eventually get a jail house slot on lard arse Oprah to confess all about his bigoted anti-white attitudes while his snout was deep in the ATL trough for EIGHT long venal years of grab whatever we can get and run with it to the casino??!!

Knuckle dragging thuggish leftist unions have NO part to play in a modern society. Leftist unions and socialists should be banned and forcibly deported immediately!!

Partial birth abortion is something the bestial liberal scum are predicktably DEEPLY PROUD OF!!

Newt would make a superb president!! Just think of ALL that poisonous unremitting unhinged liberal hate if he was elected!! We patriotic clear thinking conservatives gotta pay these perfidious lice ridden sick pinko bed wetting punks back for eight years of treasonous scum sucking Bush hate!!

Time to properly carpet bomb the backward genocidal Persian Hitlers in Iran … while a squadron of Blackhawk gunships circle Tehran with the loudspeakers noisily playing an acid house remix of A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall

By JK

March 9, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

Harold nails it at 9:54. JK nods in complete agreement. Whatever happens, this administration’s only true consistent strategy on anything, foreign, domestic, economic, or adulterous, is to blame Democrats. “Personal responsibility” is only a noise they make, kind of like a poot. JK’s nose crinkles in disapproval.

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this

abc - funny how you libs misquote the 10 Commandments when it is useful to do so, but you don’t want them displayed or taught in school because it would promote religion. Please give me a break on the hypocrisy. What you are saying is that you have more sympathy for the perpetrator than the victim. Remember, the murderer gave his victim NO CHOICE. At least when people are sentenced to death it is after a trial and the decision is made by a jury. If made the argument that sometimes innocent men or women are convicted, then some of us might by it. Your argument is one of very misplaced values and compassion. Have some compassion for the innocent party first.

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

“but is Newt any less credible now with his admission than those who preceded him?”

No, but Newt pressing forward with impeachment for President Bill during this time might just label him one big, fat hypocrite — all’s we’re saying.

At least Rudy can say that he wasn’t urging impeachment based on an illicit affair during the same time as his own illicit affair was occurring… score one point for Rudy as a non-hypocrite.

By harold

March 9, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

Memo to Roads of Atlanta’s Planned Expansion Repeat Splost (RAPERS) backers:

Commuters using private motor vehicles alone are on time 0% of the time, which is 11% less than commuter rail.

By Reece

March 9, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

Edwin,

Reading the entirety of your posts confirms that idea that you’ve become addled by too many bible-thumpings to your head. Go on back to your TaliBaptist enclave and worry about something important…like making sure that demon rum may never be sold on Sunday.

By abc

March 9, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

What hypocrisy? The 1st Amendment plainly states that government won’t endorse any specific religion, nor impede any individual in the right to practice one. It has nothing to do with liberal vs. conservative (misnomers if ever there were any), nor Democrat vs. Republican.

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

Must be feeding time at the zoo:

The greasy verminous Brazilian filth rioting for leftist HATE AMERICA tv cameras need to feel the bone crunching wrath of a righteous rainforest of police truncheons on their prominent extra thick doltish foreheads. The ONLY way to deal with thuggish cowardly hateful leftist anti-American rioters is to mercilessly beat them.

Someone please feed the little beasts already!

By Bob Newhart

March 9, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

Let’s see, it’s April 1st when the AJC ceases to make itself available in print form to most of the state. Is that when they are “rightsizing,” Wooten out of a job, too? I can’t recall.

By abc

March 9, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

…and it’s pretty difficult to misquote something as simple as ‘Thou Shalt Not Murder’. The topic was the moral difference between a life sentence and the death penalty. The difference is obvious; that you take it as an opportunity to lash out against so-called liberals simply illustrates to me your inability to think clearly.

By WascoGuy

March 9, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

Bailout Peachcare?

What a joke. The Georgia GOP overspent their federal funding and went crying to Congress to fix Georgia’s overspending.

Its time the Georgia GOP show some accountability for its spending and — Wooten you are a complete hyprocrite on this issue. If this had happened when the democrats controlled the statehouse you would be criticizing them for their lack of fiscal accountability. Once again you show that you’re nothing but a rank partisan. I think you should drop your ‘holier than thou’ attitude —- it just makes you look silly.

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

Jeff - recognition of gay marriage is no more an expansion of government authority than changing the stop light color for go from green to chartreuse. That argument on its face is silly. If one is opposed to gay marriage it is ONLY for moral reasons. I will make no judgment on those opinions because they are valid ones which people have a right to hold. I just think on that particular issue, many Republicans are wrong because it won’t change anyones nature or “morality.” Even Rush Limbaugh is for “civil unions.” That’s fine with me because a rose by any other name ….

By Barbara

March 9, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

Jim, I gotta admit, these are pretty lame today. I was hoping you’d do something on the Brian Nicols case and why we have to wait for the state to get more money in order to defend him? I just don’t get it at all, and it really p** me off. But if I have to pick one of your topics, I guess I’ll say I certainly agree on the traffic camera funds. I like having traffic enforcement, but I don’t think any kind of traffic enforcement should result in a gain for the agencies issuing the tickets. Keep in mind, however, that’s coming from someone who got a speeding ticket this year :-)

By Bob Krispy

March 9, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

Reece, Talibaptists. Funny. They will be successful in keeping Sunday alcohol sales blue law in place. But that’s just my literal and inerrant opinion.

By Goldie

March 9, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

“Personal responsibility” is only a noise they make, kind of like a poot.

Amen, JK — the Republicans really mean “blame it on Clinton” when they speak of taking responsibility. Seems to be what comes outta their mouths next, once they even say the word.

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

reece - you must not be reading my posts very thoroughly or you would not have made the quite STUPID statement you just made. I do believe that this is the first time in my life I have been accused of being a Bible-thumper. Please don’t call people names when you don’t know them. All I can say is that I named my dog “Reese”.

By Goldie

March 9, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

Please don’t call people names when you don’t know them.

Sounds like good advice for everyone here, including you, Edwin.

By spaceman109

March 9, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

hey jk :)

thanks for pointing out the article from the other day…i missed it owing to other pressing matters.

it is sad to see the once-sharp analytical skills of jim wooten fade into nothingness. to call this trial nothing more than insider politics is 42 exits past bizarre. ex-president clinton committed perjury in court and that was horrendous; according to jim, these charges against libby were nothing more than one washington gang against another? perhaps jim conveniently forgot that special prosecutor fitzgerald was nominated to his federal prosecutor post by a republican senator from illinois and then named special prosecutor for this case in 2003 by acting attorney general comey.

perhaps jim thinks it perfectly okay for scooter libby to commit perjury and obstruction of justice (what sp fitzgerald called “throwing sand in the face of the umpire”) for the greater glory of this administration.

reece… thanks for that link about the doj guidelines regarding pardons. one should note that these are guidelines and not set-in-stone rules.

and just to quell any speculations about my political leanings…i like to take the opposite side of a debate to see what kind of person is on the other side. can this person debate an issue thoughtfully? or do they prefer demonization and name-calling like some regular posters on this blog?

i take the same approach to those bloggers that bill parcells took on t.o., who he referred to as “the player”. i will refer to bloggers who resort to demonization and name-calling as “that blogger” since they do not deserve to be named.

By Reece

March 9, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

Edwin,

You spelled your dog’s name incorrectly.

By DawgBite

March 9, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 8:44 AM | Link to this

Newt won’t run in the end because he doesn’t want to be savaged by hypocrites like Hitlery and Jesse and other liars, fornicators and jerks. For the Democrats EVER to attack someone for adultery when they have elected Presidents like FDR, JFK, LBJ and WJC, it is too much for color TV! Newt is still the best idea man the Republicans have, so he will be out there with his ideas, but he’s way too smart to actually run.

Well, well! Little Eddie “I am the one” Williams finally came out of hiding after getting his azz handed to him the other day about a hundred times. Welcome back moron. I’m sure it will be a wingfest of ignorance here today with you on board. Will you treat us to another of those foaming at the mouth foreign language rants that anyone can come up with using a translation program. What a dumbazz you proved to be Eddie poo. But we know, you are “the one”.

By Barbara

March 9, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

Oh, and another rant, since I’ve already strayed off topic this morning….. Why would the AJC do a front page (front webpage, anyway) story on the high-priced hooker and porn star, showing off the things she’s aquired with money she made on her back? I’m sorry, but that’s just got my conservative ire up!

By Po'ed

March 9, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

Can I just vent and say that I am p** off at our government!! In my Douglas County neighborhood they have a sign in complete Spanish regarding domestic violence paid for by taxpayers. Stop encouraging illegal immigrants to not learn English..jeeesshhh!!!!!

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

Babara says: “Why would the AJC do a front page (front webpage, anyway) story on the high-priced hooker and porn star, showing off the things she’s aquired with money she made on her back? I’m sorry, but that’s just got my conservative ire up!”

Barbara, I said WTF myself when I saw that on the website, too! And I’m a silly Liberal — who’da thunk that?

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

abc - the commandment indeed is thou shalt not murder. If you read the TORAH there are a plethora of crimes for which EXECUTION was THE penalty. I am just saying that you are picking and choosing when to quote that commandment. The hypocrisy is palpable with folks like you. And I am thinking quite clearly. I gave up sweets, land meat and alcohol for Lent! Maybe you should do the same. You also might decide to read some Plato and Aristotle before talking about logic.

By Dr.Doom

March 9, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

reece - you must not be reading my posts very thoroughly or you would not have made the quite STUPID statement you just made. I do believe that this is the first time in my life I have been accused of being a Bible-thumper. Please don’t call people names when you don’t know them. All I can say is that I named my dog “Reese”.

And I named my lover here at the state pen Edwin.

By Van

March 9, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

Barbara,

I’ve got my eye on you. Since John D may steal Dusty from me, will you please accompany me to dinner at the Dwarf House followed by a trip to the shooting range where I will let you fire my pistol?

By Camus

March 9, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

Edwin Williams writes: “The hypocrisy was in the main-stream press’s decision to excuse Clinton from the very beginning.”

This really has no basis in fact at all. The MSM was utterly complicit in all the Whitewater/Lewinsky/travel office drum beating. The NY Times in particular, under Howell Raines, was the absolute leader in trumpeting every piece if minutiae (whether factually supported or not) to come out the Whitewater investigation. The Times and the Wa Post were running neck and neck to see who could print the leaks from Ken Starr’s office first. And even NPR (most notably the execreble Cokie Roberts) could not restrain their daily display of outrage at the horrible behavior of the Clenis.

No, sir, it was not the MSM who excused Clinton’s philandering, it was the 7o% of the American people who knew that it was a tempest in a teapot. Oh yeah, and the Congress that defeated the impeachment putsch.

But kudos to you, Mr Williams, for your refutation of Jeff’s brainless argument that allowing civil unions somehow expanded the power of the government.

By DawgBite

March 9, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

Barbara, doesn’t one of the ten commandments deal with coveting what someone else has got? Your jealousy does not become you Barbara.

By Reece

March 9, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

Barbara,

They run stories such as that because..it’s a new medium and the need to sell papers is the overriding idea here. That’s in part why Wootenanny has a job, honestly it would not surprise me to learn that he believes only about half of what he says. Much like Lush Rimshot and Bill O’lielly he’s in it for the circulation.

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

Barbara - I just checked out the headline, and I don’t know about conservative ire, but I do find that the entire story is NOT newsworth, irrelevant and insipid. It is a shame that the AJC will run this kind of story and still call itself a serious news source. At best this belonged in the Lifestyle section as one colossal joke!

By jm

March 9, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten, with all due repect what this administration has been doing can hardly be called “managing a war”. I was against the invasion of iraq from the start (wrong war at the wrong time for the wrong reasons) but was willing to support the president in his decision at the time. When he decided to prance on that aircraft carrier in front of that “Mission Accomplished” banner purely for political gain while “osama been forgotten” was still on the loose, he forfeited the right to ask for “patience” in Iraq.

As for Peach Care, that’s your tax cuts at work. Those government programs that every keeps wanting cost money and that money has to come from somewhere (currently loans from China, Japan and Saudi Arabia and other countries).

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

DawgBite - I don’t remember anything being handed to me. And I don’t recall you at all. I also don’t recall being gratuitously insulting and rude to someone I don’t even know. You are childish and rude and remind me of the bully on the playground who hates anyone who won’t let him win. I’ve been gone from the other blog because I have been busy and I won’t return to it because too many infantile insults are traded by both liberals and conservatives. Grow up.

By Jack

March 9, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

Barbara. What do you expect from this liberal rag?

By abc

March 9, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

I gave up debating with fools for Lent, Edwin.

I swear, this blog could be quite an interesting and informative thing, but for all the idiotic trolls.

By getalife

March 9, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

I see the Speaker of the GA house is refusing to apologize for slavery.

I would like to hear the Pope address this issue.

By Town Crier

March 9, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

Hear ye, hear ye all mainstream Americans, moderate republicans, and members of the democratic party! The right wing of the republican party is dead! Killed off by talibaptists, neo-cons, and bigots! What a joyous nation we will have in the coming days! They went too far. They showed their true colors. And they committed political suicide. But as we rejoice on this day at their long waited and over due demise, please take one moment to appreciate what they have done for this country. Their ignorance and overjealous quest to hijack this country blew up in their faces to the point that never again will they have the power to oppress and dictate to mainstream America. They did us all a favor. We will have endured 8 long years of pain, but it is over. The right wing is dead.

By Van

March 9, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

Wow, this is good. I have been working all morning and I see some SOB has been using my name - Hmmm, seems some fool is having fun at my expense. May he find an infected televangelist in his wife’s/daughter’s bed, or if they are in mid-town, their life partner’s bed.

By MarkP

March 9, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

On the death of Ivan Safronov: George Bush looked into Vladmir Putin’s eyes and declared him decent. George Bush told us we’re all making brave sacrifices for the Iraq war by watching TV and feeling badly about the casualties. So, I don’t quite get the point you’re trying to make here.

On the death penalty vs. life without parole: They’re only morally the same if we presume juries to be correct in a conviction 100% of the time. There have been enough death sentences carried out in the past 10 years based on single non-affirmative eyewitness accounts (of passerby strangers) to pretty much assure that there has been at least one wrongful conviction. But then again, the Right Wing depends on the impossibility of proving a negative for many rationalizations.

On railways and bicycling as commute alternatives: In many metro areas, a bicycle is a safe and realistic way to travel. In metro Atlanta, we allow cities to pass laws preventing cyclists from traveling in ways normally deemed legal. That Jere Wood’s normal commute wouldn’t go to the State Capitol is beside the point. Also beside the point is the Amtrak on-time track record. Tell me: what is the on-time percentage of the typical automobile commuter in Georgia? How much extra time must be budgeted (i.e. wasted) due to lack of decent alternatives? Surely more time than result from typical Amtrak delays. If you don’t like bicycles, and you don’t like trains, let’s hear some better ideas.

By Captain Freedom

March 9, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

Hello Barbara, my delight,

I agree. The cover store on the Sugarloaf Strumpet raised my conservative ire, as well, and the Captain must admit that his ire is not raised as readily as it used to be. (Alas, Mrs Freedom came into the room as the flag pole was rising, but her cascade of laughter rather spolied the moment, as you can well visualize.)

Even worse than flaunting her floozie on the front page, the dullards at the AJC neglected to provide links to websites where we might have a more unobstructed view of Ms Taylor’s sugarloaf. What laziness and journalistic neglect!!! Why, with further visual aid, my ire might have risen again, as will the South. Ah, someday, perhaps….

As to Mr Wooten’s idle fantasying about the nouveau riche Mr Nabors, well come on and really, what decent manly man has not had a stray impure thought or two sweep over him during those long hours in the bass boat or duck blind?? A nip of bourbon only goes so far to keep a man warm on those cold days in the wilderness. It no more makes Mr Wooten a latent homoqueer than Ms Coulter’s exaggerated Adam’s Apple and man hands makes her a transsexual. Though I have often wondered (with a shudder of involuntary frisson) whether she has an auto-transmission or a stick shift.

By Doug

March 9, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

Hagel for President!!

By Jim Wooten

March 9, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

To the contributor who posts using the established identities of Van (@10:42), Dusty, TFTT, Marcus and others: Give it a rest. Most of the regulars here recognize the style and subject matter differences, but it annoys some.

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

Do these words from Newt’s mouth sound like he’s “presidential material” to you?

“How can you have the mess we have in New Orleans, and not have had deep investigations of the federal government, the state government, the city government, and the failure of citizenship in the Ninth Ward, where 22,000 people were so uneducated and so unprepared, they literally couldn’t get out of the way of a hurricane.”

By jbmlaw

March 9, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

Dear NeoCon @ 8:52, I understand that losing is so deeply ingrained with the leftists that you cannot envision victory. In fact a victory in the war against the terrorists does not require the US to conquer another sovereign country. It does, however, require the fortitude to kill the bad guys.

Dear Melo @ 8:54, you have already forgotten Janet Reno and Waco. Government always has the capacity and moral authority to kill, imprison, and steal – those are its #1, #2, and #3 products.

Dear JaCP @ 9:08 and spaceman @ 9:34 and JK @ 9:47 and Reece @ 9:48, difficult concept for leftists to grasp, but I’ll try. You are driving 50 mph on I-285, another car passes you going 55 mph, and then the policeman pulls you over. He asks how fast you were going. You say 45. You are then convicted of lying and obstructing an investigation. It does not matter that the act underlying the investigation was not a crime, nor that the guy who passed you also did not violate the law, nor even that the policeman knew that there was no crime before he stopped you. You lied, and thus should go to jail. That is why those of us with principles argue that Fitzgerald is guilty of prosecutorial abuse, and that Scooter Libby is an innocent victim of a political (but not a statutory) crime committed by Richard Armitage.

Dear Edwin @ 9:40, your post was brilliant – excellent flair for language.

Dear abc @ 9:59, you overstate Iraqi death by 10x, and the virtually all of those deaths are of terrorists and of the victims of terrorists. What is your point? Are you saying the American military is inflicting death on people who do not deserve it? The rational view, of course, is that the American military is preventing undeserved deaths by causing deserved premature deaths. You need to re-read Exodus; “murder” as proscribed by the 10 commandments, is not the same as “death” which is a recommended penalty for numerous evil acts. And @ 10:12, you need to re-read the 1st Amendment, when it says what “Congress shall not do.” Don’t add your surplusage to what it “plainly says,” you’ll only confuse yourself.

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

Camus - indeed Clinton was excused in the very beginning. You do not remember the flap over the Gennifer Flowers episode early in the campaign in 1992 and the excuse by Hitlery, bought hook line and sinker, by the mainsteam press that it was only a matter for them in their marriage. It was hubris which sank Gary Hartpence and it was complicity that saved Bill Clinton. Had a Republican wife made such a declaration on 60 Minutes, the press would have still been all over it. Just watch what they will do to Rudy Giuliani when it is no more relevant to his ability to govern than it was for Clinton. Also remember the classic snooty and snobbish statements made about Paula Jones that the elitist liberal media never jumped on e.g. James Carville’s statement that you just had to drag a hundred dollars through a trailer park to get the trash to come out. And I thought that the Democrat party was the party of the poor and oppressed. BS!

By Grampus

March 9, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

“No, but Newt pressing forward with impeachment for President Bill during this time might just label him one big, fat hypocrite — all’s we’re saying.”

Neo-Con Artist @10:11, I don’t disagree, but if the President of the United States had been a real man and told the truth for once in his life instead of again acting like a horny teenager who thought thought lying would once again get him off the hook, then Newt’s affair would be nothing more than a historical footnote instead yet another reminder of how the nation was distracted from pursuing more important business at the time.

By Van

March 9, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten,

I am truly sorry. This sudden revelation of a possible love triangle between Dusty, John D, and me leaves me confused as a socialist on Wall Street. I guarantee my word that I will quit seeking the affection and comfort of dear Barbara and stick to the topic at hand.

By harold

March 9, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

harold says if he paid that sugarloaf w******* thousands of dollars and then there was cat hair everyewhere harold would be p**

By John Holmes

March 9, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

Barb, you’re just jealous that a used single-wide is all you could afford if you were making your living on your back instead of waiting tables at Waffle House.

Lisa Taylor, may or may not have been a prostitute. She has made a lot of money legally as a stripper and model.

By Barbara

March 9, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

Po’ed, I’m with ya buddy! And get the spanish off the bank machines, government forms, etc., too! Dammit!!!!

Neo Con, I find that libs and conservatives sometimes can find common grounds. Go us! Yeah….

Jack, AMEN!

DawgBite, believe me, I am not jelous. I just have a real problem with a story that glorifies assets gained through such disgustingly immoral behavior. Before you say I’m judging, remember, I am not comdemning, just holding accountable the actions which this woman has admitted, as well as those where there’s certainly a mountain of evidence that she’s guilty.

And Faux-Van, I’ve got my own pistols. Remember, I’m a card-carrying die-hard, pro-gun conservative! Besides, my heart belongs to the Captain!

Jim, you know you could stop the ID stealer by letting us register our IDs. We’ve asked for this many times.

By abc

March 9, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

Regarding Iraqi casualties:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

I give up trying to interact with you clowns. You’re so drastically partisan and offensive, it’s plainly a waste of time.

By Dusty

March 9, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

Camus,

I think you are looking in the wrong teapot about Bill Clinton. There was a tempest in a teapot and Americans said “that’s not my cup of tea”.

The Senate impeached Clinton. The House undid it and tried to look the other way. Clinton’s reputation will always be that of a philanderer and cheat AND the one of two presidents that have been impeached.

Hillary will try every trick in the book but she will still have that albatross hanging around her neck. The noble wife pose does not resonate with the do anything for power personality of Hillary. It is obvious everytime she makes an appearance.

By Shar

March 9, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

Another thing to give a rest to, although probably just as difficult for some as revealing him/herself would be for the identity-poacher referenced by Mr. Wooten, is clinging to the belief that only Democrats, and particularly Clinton, have been unfaithful womanizers and covered it up. Yes, JFK and LBJ did so, but so did Eisenhower, Garfield and Wilson. Harding described himself as being unable to say no; his party (here, Republicans) sent his best-known mistress and her husband off on a long cruise during the campaign but they neglected to deal with the second string, a woman to whom Harding gave a government job and with whom he was frequently discovered in flagrante in White House closets. Thomas Jefferson, of course, had Sally Heming, and the list goes on. No one party has any claim to the moral high ground here, and the debate becomes pointless.

On the death penalty, I would ask the regulars if in fact those criminals who are sentenced to death are automatically entitled to paid legal representation for appeals all the way up to the bitter end, as well as special housing which costs the taxpayers more than regular prisons do? Although there may be a visceral satisfaction in a sentence of death, I find the idea of such people being forever lost in the government labyrinth, like the Ark of the Covenant at the end of “Indiana Jones”, without hope or voice, to be appealing, particularly if it realizes a substantial cost savings.

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw - thanks for the compliment! You rebuttles were quite well reasoned and logical. Thank you for the lack of rankor in your responses. It makes everyone’s day much more pleasant when arguments are cloaked in reason and quiet thought rather than vituporative personal insults.

By JK

March 9, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

those of us with principles argue that Fitzgerald is guilty of prosecutorial abuse

Hahaha! You are TOOOOO funny today, lawyer man. You assume we don’t know Fitz was appointed by Repubs, and only went after Libby for lying because somebody had to take the fall for that kind of national security breach after all the “She wasn’t really undercover!” whining failed to convince everybody that Cheney & Rove’s Soprano-style retaliatory gestures were worthy of overlooking. You think we don’t know that this particular set of perjurous and obstructive actions are a drop in the bucket of much bigger crimes perpetrated by the current members of the administration, enabled by a complicit, weak-kneed Congress and he-owes-me-a-favor appointed judiciary and justice-department officials. Even the jurors who convicted him said that Libby was the fall guy. He’ll never go to prison, and anybody who can say any more on the matter, or the bigger matter of manipulating intelligence on Iraq, will be pardoned (ala Weinberger) before uttering a word of truth to the American public.

Prosecutoral abuse, to YOU lawyer man, probably doesn’t extend to those who investigate a sitting president for losing money on a long-gone land deal and wind up deposing him as to the whereabouts of his private member, does it? Haha! Come back when you and all you war-enabling, selectively-outraged men willingly document the whereabouts of YOUR private members for the last ten years, tell me it is indeed MY business to know, and bring your so-called “principles” with you. Those, and $3.50, will get you a mocha latte and a pat on the back for how impressed I’ll be.

By Dusty

March 9, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

Barbara,

I am afraid that “The Captain” is an ID stealer. His confession confirms my suspicions. Sorry to break your heart.

Now that Jim Wooten has straightened things out, do you think this means I don’t get lunch at the Dwarf House? Well, I’d rather eat at the Big Chicken anyway.

By Curious Observer

March 9, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

I’m certainly relieved to know that the house in Sugarloaf was only a scene of prostitution. It could have been revealed as a gay wedding chapel, and then all those wealthy knuckle-draggers would have had to move out of the subdivision.

I watched an interview of Newt Gingrich by James Dobson. Newt freely confessed to having an affair while hypocritically pursuing Bill Clinton, and Dobson raised an eyebrow as though to say “Interesting!” Strangely, the fact that Giuliani has been married three times is a disqualifying event for these evangelical right-wingers, but an affair or two—or demanding a divorce from your wife while she’s being treated for cancer in a hospital—is a minor indiscretion.

I get great satisfaction these days from watching the right-wingers wring their hands about the race for the Republican presidential nomination. McCain and Giuliani are unsatisfactory because of their positions on social issues. The Mormon is an obvious non-starter. They are left with the characterless Newt, who had to resign from office after being caught lying about a Republican tutorial he was conducting at Kennesaw State University. If nominated, he ought to draw about 30 percent of the national vote—the portion that still blindly supports Dubya.

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

It does, however, require the fortitude to kill the bad guys.

jbmlaw— and those “bad guys” in Iraq would be… Sunnis? Shia?

Whose side are we on now? If we kill the Sunnis, then we’re supporting IRAN and the so-called gov’t in Iraq… if we kill the Shia, then we’re standing with Saudi Arabia and some others in the Middle East.

So, whose side are we on now, jbmlaw? It’s a real simple question these days, and no one in this administration cares to answer it. They just want to label everyone in Iraq as “terrorists” instead.

By getalife

March 9, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

The hate party are hypocrites

I see Newt was having an affair during this time. I think him and Rudy have been married 7 times.

Geez, of the Dems will win in a landslide in 08.

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

JK - the investigation of Clinton was NOT initiated by a Republican anything and the original prosecutor was replaced at the behest of the Clinton Justice Department. There was no prosecutorial abuse because many people were convicted, and rightfully so, for the crimes surrounding the Whitewater land scam. Among these people were Governor Jim Guy Tucker and Deputy Attorney General Webster Hubble. Also, remember that Hitlery’s records did not even show up until the case was rapping up and they had been in the WH all along. It is clear prosecutorial abuse when Fitzgerald knew from the inception of his “investigation” that Armitage was the leaker and there was no crime anyway as Plame was not a covert agent under the law. Comparing apples with oranges is not something that either Plato or Socrates would have approved of as convincing rhetoric. The problem in the Clinton situation was that the press had a double standard for a base and venal individual who wanted more to be a rock star than an effective President. Bill Clinton’s entire life and career have been more a matter of seeking fame and fortune through calculation and manipulation rather than doing what is right. I will remind you that our greatest Presidents have most often realized that in the end good policy makes better history than good politics. Lincoln is the best example of that. Doing what is popular for the minute can often have desasterous effects in the long term. Coolidge’s collection of WWI debts come to mind immediately. So does Wilson’s “missionary” diplomacy in South America. Arrogant and short-sighted policies to say the least which we paid for dearly. Clinton’s legacy is the war on terror because he did not deal with it effectively when he had the chance. He looked at it as a law enforcement problem when in fact it is the ultimate philophical, moral and political struggle - part of one which has gone on against Greco-Roman based civilization since the late sixth century. Until that is acknowledged by people like you, we will continue to look weak and vascilating by our enemies and as unreliable by our friends and potential allies.

By jbmlaw

March 9, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

Dear abc @ 11:21, for an accurate count, that rebuts your wildly exaggerated number, please see http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108. I don’t doubt that you have quit interacting with us “clowns” – we have the goods on ya.

Dear JK @ 11:27, all smoke and mirrors? I cannot determine through the fog whether you grasp the evil of prosecutorial indiscretion, or even if you care about such abuse. Your bizarre post suggests that you think Colin Powell’s guy, who “outed Saint Valerie” should get a pass? Fitzgerald knew the statute did not cover this case, and he could not convict. He thus made up a case.

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

Edwin @ 11:44— please try to use some paragraph breaks at some point. It may keep us from just scrolling on down thru your propaganda for the rest of the day.

Thank you.

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

Shar - do not drag Eisenhower into this please. His driver was not his mistress by her own admission and if you want the unvarnished truth please read Steven Ambrose’s exhaustive bigography of the great General and President. He gives reather explicit details about the alleged affair with Kate Summersby and concluded that no such affair took place, although it did look rather bad and maybe he should have done it anyway. And anyway comparing one affair to a man who could not control himself and was simply what used to be called a bounder and cad is rather a stretch by those trying to defend the indefensable, don’t you think?

By Camus

March 9, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Recall that Clinton had a 70% approval rating on the day the House voted on articles of impeachment. (Compare to the approval rating of the current resident of the Oval Office.) Despite all the best efforts of the MSM, the Republican controlled Congress, and the free-spending Ken Starr, the vast majority of the country looked at Horndog Clenis and yawned.

Come on, horndogginess in Washington is such an assumed commonplace that nobody can really get worked up over it. (Recall in Casablanca: “I’m shocked, sir, shocked to discover gambling here.”)

Nobody would care about Newt and Giuliani’s peccadilloes either, if there were not such a history of the Christianists flogging the immorality of the liberals.

“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” It is a Bible verse that is well-known, even by the non-religious. And when the panderers like Gingrich/Dobson/Falwell/Haggard set themselves up as the arbiters of morality, they deserve our scrutiny and disdain — not for their sin, but for their false pride and hypocrisy.

But here’s a shock, Dusty…I agree with you completely about Hillary. I do not care for her one bit (though for different reasons than yourself, I suspect), and frankly do not expect her to garner the Dem nomination.

By tired

March 9, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

Edwin Williams - Very nice. It is pleasant to see someone using facts and arguments that have a base to them. Much similar to that of jbmlaw.

jbmlaw - I always enjoy reading your posts.

Thank you both!

By Regulator

March 9, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

Edwin has selective memory, he remembers what is convienant and forgets what he wants, his delivery is kinda nice for a guy who went to school in Alabama. He is just pretty much just a typical Republican. He did forget to mention the greatest philandering president of all time, Ronald Reagan.

By Lord Doom

March 9, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

Edwin Williams,

Your blogs tend to go on and on and never provide concise useful information. You must be a democrat.

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

What, no defenders of Newt now? Or do you right-wingers now see just how Newt is not presidential “material” for all of America?

By Jen

March 9, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Edwin Williams,

You’re singing to the choir (jbmlaw, Van, Dusty) with your Clinton bashing. We were all around in the 90’s, and we’re all well aware of his accomplishments and failings as person and as President.

So, you can continue to offer your pop-psychological assessments of Clinton, but if you hope to pursuade, your lasting obsession won’t get you very far.

By Devastator

March 9, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

Camus,

Who do you think will garner the democratic nomination if she doesn’t? Obama?

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

Dear Webmaster,

Can you tell me why when I post here that I keep getting a message that says: “website cannot be found”, but still my posted words do end up getting posted here after all? Also, there are some suggestions along with the “website cannot be found”, one says “try retyping the address”… is there some way to stop this message from occurring, or do I need to make some kind of adjustment on the AJC website that controls where my posts are headed to?

Thank you.

By jbmlaw

March 9, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

Dear Camus @ 12:06, anyone who can quote Captain Renault gets a pass from me.

Dear Tired @ 12:09, thanks, I am flattered to be mentioned with Edwin. I am also impressed with his argument.

By time for the truth

March 9, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

So now we see the predicktable nauseating liberal fa ggot hypocrisy about Ann’s hilarious use of fa ggot about the slimy hypocritical fa ggot Edwards, showing us that leftist fa ggots are dissembling simpering fa ggots when it comes to glibly and gleefully posting fa ggot in cyber space or using fa ggot in print/speech about conservatives.

Indeed the leftist use of fa ggot in this link that reveals leftist use of fa ggot is pure hate speech, whereas Ann’s witty, erudite use of fa ggot was simply clever ironic mocking of the fa ggot thought police who gutlessly won’t state the obvious about the fa ggot Edwards.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.aspPage=/Commentary/archive/200703/COM20070309a.html

Alright Barbara …I trust your pro-gun, traditionalist, loathe appeasing liberal scum and illegal immigrant leeching world view is still informing your generally very sound politics!!

By Barbara

March 9, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

Neo Con, that happens to me too! Another thing we have in common. I have to go all the way back to the ajc.com, and then back through the opinion section every time.

By harold

March 9, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

who gives a damn how the sugarloaf w******* made her money? as long as ppl got what they paid for, there was no harm. she sure doesnt seem harmed and the liberals always says the prostitute is the victim. harold wishes he was as victimized as her.

By time for the truth

March 9, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200703/COM20070309a.html

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

time for the truth - please, please, please, one of my pet peeves. ALL RIGHT are TWO (2) words! I cannot understand after 12 years of teaching why people cannot figure that one out. Typos are excusable, but that one drives me crazy! I know it’s petty, but allow me that little heresy from civility!

By Van

March 9, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

Camus,

I do not understand your linking of Newt and Billy Boy.

Newt is a health heterosexual that has a problem with commitments and Billy Boy is a convicted liar.

How are these two linked?

By jbmlaw

March 9, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

Dear NeoCon @ 11:40, short answer to your question is that the bad guys are the terrorists. Your question is rather like asking whether the idiots are New Yorkers or Californians. The answer is they are both, and that many people in New York and California are not idiots.

To the extent that you argue that our noble military has a tough job identifying the bad guys, I respectfully agree.

By Camus

March 9, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

Well, let’s start with those who have no chance in hell…Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. They should join Tom Vilsack in the “what was I thinking” club, the sooner the better. Dodd will be out sooner than later, but Biden will hang around on his MBNA money just to get his toupee on as many TV screens as he can manage.

Bill Richardson is an impressive candidate with lots of solid experience. I could vote for him with no reservations. But here’s the rub…Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all reportedly in the neighborhood of 15-20m $ raised so far. I just do not believe that Richardson can compete in that game.

So, I’ve already said Clinton won’t be there. My crystal ball isn’t perfect (if it were I’d be getting big bucks for this exchange!), but I have a feeling the Obama will falter along the way due to his inexperience. However, I do not discount his becoming president in 2012 or 2016. He’s young, he’s very smart, and he is learning to play the campaign game very quickly. (e.g., the way his staff handled the Geffen/Clinton pi$$ing match).

Edwards has been running a very smart campaign so far (despite the photo-obviousness of his Lower 9th campaign kickoff), and if I had to bet on anyone from the current crop, he’d be my pick. But I would not bet the ranch on it.

My personal preference would be Gore, but I think he’s too smart to subject himself to the foolishness that goes with getting elected. He’s clearly enjoying his current role in the larger conversation, and he does not have to put up with the constant sniping of fools like Maureen Dowd.

But in a way, it hardly matters…I find it hard to imagine that any of the current crop of Repub wannabes has a chance in hell of winning a general election. It’s really one of the weakest fields in living memory. My dear old conservative dad, who has squandered most of my inheritance (that’s a joke, folks) on lavish giving to the GOP (sadly, that part is true) recently shared with me his complete despair over the choice he will have to make. He loathes McCain as a “double-talker”, thinks Rudy is unelectable (though he likes him well enough), and referred to Romney “that haircut”. When I asked him about Brownback and Hunter, he said they have less chance than Vilsack.

So, any predictions about the GOP nominee?

By Lord Doom

March 9, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

Edwin,

Who are you to give the people on this blog grammar lessons Jacka$$? Go back to teaching or wherever the hell you came from and die!!!

By Dusty

March 9, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

Ah Camus,

“A kiss is but a kiss”. Yep, I liked Casablanca too.

But, frankly, my dear, I do not know the meaning of horndogginess. Am I sheltered? I could guess since it is connected to the likes of Clinton whom you defend so valiantly—Bill, that is.

But your thoughts on peccadilloes are laughable. There has never been a campaign manager who did not slip in the innuendoes and news-leaker slips on the private lives of opposing candidates. It is an old practice.

The morality of conservatives was not taught by the likes of TV preachers and fire-and-brimstone oraters. It was taught by grandparents, loving parents and teachers who showed their loved ones how to live a moral life.

If conservatives hope for morality, we are often disappointed. We do try not to judge until behavior becomes blatant (Clinton).

I am now for Giuliani, not for being imperfect, but for being strong enough and wise enough to guide this country in some very difficult times.

By Devastator

March 9, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

Camus,

Thanks for the response. It would have to be Rudy at this point, because I do not currently see any other viable candidates in the republican party.

By WTH

March 9, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this

First we knew this was supposed to be a FORMAL-language blog.

Word Usage

Alright has never gained wide acceptance even though it is to be seen in the prose of many well-known writers such as Langston Hughes, Gertrude Stein, and James Joyce. It is generally regarded as nonstandard, and so should be avoided in formal writing unless it is purposely included in fictional dialogue or another special context in which a particular effect is sought by the writer. Use instead all right, which has all the meanings, including “satisfactory,” associated with alright.

By WTH

March 9, 2007 1:03 PM | Link to this

and “alright, Barbara” is certainly the proper way in that context.

geeeeeeeeeeeeez.

By time for the truth

March 9, 2007 1:03 PM | Link to this

The Who and Bob Dylan must also be “morons” then bubba … alright????

http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/itsalright.html

http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Who%20Lyrics/The%20Kids%20are%20Alright%20Lyrics.html

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

Doom - you and your ilk just make my point about a lack of civility on the left. I apologized for being petty on that point. I suggest you look in the mirror. My animal is an elephant, a most noble beast. Yours is quite course and common.

By Van and Facts = Oil and Water

March 9, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this

Van at 12:44,

President Clinton was not convicted of anything. He was held in contempt of court. Comparing a contempt of court citation by a judge with a felony conviction by a jury is like comparing driving five miles per hour over the speed limit with vehicular homicide.

Get your facts straight.

By Joe L

March 9, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this

Camus:”They should join Tom Vilsack in the “what was I thinking” club, the sooner the better.”

Actually Vilsack be all objective measures should’ve been a decently competitive candidate. The Dems are on the path of shooting themselves in the foot again by only putting forth Congressmen. Governors are always much, much better candidates.

I keep hoping that Warner is merely not wasting money now in what has turned into another money contest of little substance between two fairly weak candidates to this point and will re-enter the race closer to the actual elections. Richardson is the only good candidate in it so far.

I honestly don’t know who is supporting Clinton because no one I know personally has any desire to vote for her.

If Hagel enters the race he will beat Obama or Clinton and the Dems better wise up to that soon. But the Dems have always been much, much poorer political operatives than the Repubs. The Repubs are not much more than political creatures and Dems let “ideals” go to their heads.

By time for the truth

March 9, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this

“Alright” is nowadays a very common, friendly greeting in the UK. Especially for chaps. One quite often accompanies the “alright?” question/greeting with a casual nod to whom one is greeting.

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this

By the way doom, I am NOT a Democrat, but I am for democratic government. I can proudly say, I have never voted for a Democrat for President because I a not a Socialist! Read my blogs more carefully. I will try to be less like Faulkner and more like Hemingway. They were both Democrats by the way!

By Camus

March 9, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

Dusty and Devestator,

Interesting choice in Rudy. He carries a lot of baggage. I predict his America’s Mayor shtick will crumble as completely as McCain’s Straight Talk Express. And his entire electibility premise rests on that.

But I have no doubt the Christianist wing will embrace him regardless of the “moral baggage”; this wing of the party has always been ruthlessly pragmatic, and if their leadership sees Rudy as the best hope, they will talk about his redemption and declare him their own. Whether they can get their rank and file to turn out for such an ambiguously moral man is another question.

A question for Dusty…was it strong and wise to place the NYC disaster command center in the World Trade Center when it had already been a target of one terrorist attack and had been openly threatened by al Quaeda prior to 9/11?

By DawgBite

March 9, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

By Lord Doom

March 9, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

Edwin,

Who are you to give the people on this blog grammar lessons Jacka$$? Go back to teaching or wherever the hell you came from and die!!!

Don’t you know? He is Mr. Edwin “I am the one” Williams. What he really is is the most arrogant, not to mention STUPID jackazz on this blog. And we know Eddie poo. You “are the one.” And we all know what that is moron. Please Eddie poo, give us one of those translation program rants again today to remind people how REALLY dumb you are.

By Barbara

March 9, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

So that really was you, TFTT? I assumed it was the ID stealer. I read your paragraph 5 times and I still do not understand the point you were making to me. Say again?

By Shar

March 9, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

No, Edwin, I don’t think that Ike and Bill did things all that differently. Although Ike’s affair with Kay (not Kate) Summersby was not proven, Summersby admitted it in a book she wrote. The number of mistresses is not the measure of the sinner, to me - it is the fact that the sin is committed that counts.

Both men lied about their affairs as well, although Clinton lives in an age where investigation and publication of that information is far more acceptable than it was in Ike’s, so his lies were caught in the spotlight. All of that was, in my view, his family business and if Hillary (and please stop using your silly ‘Hitlery’ - it just makes you look petty and trivializes your argument) chose to stand in the long line of White House spouses who covered for their men (in public), that was indeed her choice to make.

The big difference between the two was that Clinton lied under oath. No question about it. The same arguments that jbmlaw uses to disparage the Libby prosecution apply to the Clinton prosecution as well, but the fact that a crime was committed in both cases remains.

Oh, and on Lincoln - the man is a personal hero of mine, and is the consensus winner of the Best President Ever award on a consistent basis, but the biggest, irrefutable strike against him is his suspension, quite illegally, of habeas corpus in secession-minded Maryland. He got away with it due to the stmosphere of war hysteria, but bad policy nonetheless.

By Lord Doom

March 9, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

Edwin $hithead Williams,

My animal is a lion bit@h! I know your punka$$ is not a homocrat, I was just pointing out the uselessness of your blogs!

By Jack

March 9, 2007 1:21 PM | Link to this

About gridlock. I think Mayor Shirley should try to get the NBA all star game in Atlanta every year. It was so much fun sitting in the car listening to the rap coming from the other cars all night

By Camus

March 9, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

Hi Joe L -

I’d be very surprised, given Hagel’s vocal opposition and criticism of the Bush’s Iraq adventure, that he will survive the Republican primary. If he enters the race (and the signs are that he is likely to), I suspect he does so to force a debate on the war within his own party, much like McCarthy in ‘68.

He’d be a hell of a general election candidate though. The Dems would have a tough time countering him.

By Jack

March 9, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

Alright! And yourself?

By Van

March 9, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this

Van and Facts = Oil and Water,

Dear Clinton apologizer.

Clinton was convicted of lying under oath in a federal civil trial.

He was found guilty and fined, I think $90,000, and was disbarred in Arkansas for a period of time and lost his ability to plead cases before the Supreme Court.

It was not a felony, but does fall under high crimes or misdemeanors.

By K-Squared

March 9, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this

Edwin Williams,

Faulkner? Faux lawyer and conservative-when-it-suits-me jbmlaw’s compliments have gone to your otherwise empty head.

Perhaps you should try to be less like Coulter (no doubt, the comparison with with the right’s Clinton-obsessed cleric will make you proud).

By JK

March 9, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this

Camus, I wish Wesley Clark would run. He’s qualified to clean up the ugly mess left to the next administration (aka “the Bush strategy”), but the booty-smooching required to win seems beneath him. What do you think?

As to the GOP nominee, somewhere a PR firm is scrambling to fluff the “public service” record of a corporate bigshot somewhere, who’ll come out of obscurity to be greeted as Jesus himself — per the memo, O’Reiley’s talking points, and the bat bat bat of little Hannity’s eyelashes. Ironically, the slogan “Restoring integrity to the White House” is being considered for another run through the propaganda machine. HAHA!

By Doug

March 9, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

Hagel would be a great candidate except for one thing. He will get torpedoed by the ignoramuses on the right wing that think they still have relevance. After all, he is the real deal. A real war hero that is against this stupid war. The wingnuts tend to adore chickenhawk cowards like the prez and 5 deferment Dick. Those clowns never saw a coward they wouldn’t vote for.

And Edwin Williams, you’re neither Faulkner nor Hemmingway. Just another pompous azz that thinks you are smart but proves how damn dumb you are with your effort to make us think otherwise.

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

Joe L. - I could not disagree with you more. The Republicans have rarely been better politicians than the Democrats, especially since 1932. If your statement were true, the Democrats would not have controlled the House of Representatives for 60 out of 62 years. The Democrats are completely political creatures - remember this is the party of Hubert Humphrey AND George Wallace.

By spaceman109

March 9, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

tis amusing how jbmlaw and his fellow travelers on the radical right continue to downplay libby’s perjurous actions while screaming from their rooftops about clinton’s perjury. no, this was not a case of prosecutorial abuse; it was a case of a prosecutor who did not go up the ladder and also charge karl rove and richard armitage with outing valerie plame.

i can just see jbmlaw as he unfurls his prayer rug 5 times a day, points it toward washington, d.c., and worships a lifesize cardboard cutout figure of president bush.

as for the lottery winner: at least ed nabors did not have to steal from shareholders to get that 80 million.

i get such a laugh from those who automatically assume that he will be miserable from this time forward. taking that argument through to a logical conclusion would require one to say that all ex-ceo’s who get outsized severance payments for poor performance would be similiarly miserable for all time.

and yes, i can name two of them: carly fiorina and bob nardelli.

one more thing: jbmlaw claims that i am a liberal. he apparently does not know that i am all for smaller government and the elimination of the present tax code; too bad his beloved president bush did not have the stones to execute those two concepts.

By troll

March 9, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

Edwin Williams — I will try to be less like Faulkner and more like Hemingway.

You couldn’t be less like Faulkner if you tried.

As to you plans to emulate Hemingway, pray, does this involve a shotgun?

By Jack

March 9, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this

Plame was NOT a covert agent… Just another witch hunt.

By Shar

March 9, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

I agree with Dusty and Camus - Hillary Clinton is yet another Democratic prospect who voters should support on the basis of some amorphous moral ‘superiority’, but whom no one actually wants to pull a lever for. She lost me at “trailer trash”, I confess. I also agree that governors, or perhaps even mayors, have the executive experience that legislators usually lack, and are therefore better prepared for the executive functions of the presidency. I like what I know of Richardson, and only hope that the Democrats come to their senses.

For the Repubicans, I feel sorry for McCain - his time has come and gone. He lost what had made him attractive in his zeal to be all things to all people. Mitt Romney is a Massachusetts-tainted Mormon who has changed his position on core Republican issues, and is thereby unelectable. Guiliani did a good, bipartisan job in NYC, and of course distinguished himself before the country after 9/11. However, his personal history is a problem. Also, as mayor, he focussed a great deal of energy on very small issues, like squeegee guys, that affected quality of life but which were not policy-driven, big picture things. I think of him as a very good detail person, a great chief of staff perhaps, but lacking the imagination or scope to be Commander In Chief. We’ll see as the campaign plays out, but of the three current front runners he’s probably the most likely.

By Joe L

March 9, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

Camus - I don’t know, Hagel may resonate well enough with the moderate conservatives who are not so happy with Bush’s decisions either. And don’t forget that a lot of the 30% that still “support” Bush do so in name only so that they aren’t “aiding” the Dems. When they have a Repub that represents their apprehensions they can support him without cognitive dissonance.

Hagel would beat either Clinton or Obama is a general election. The Dems better get someone better than those two or they will lose in ‘08. The supposed anti-Repub backlash will neither carry as far as they think or apply to a Presidential election like it did to Congress.

By Southern Democrat

March 9, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

It cracks me up that so many Republicans are giving their tacit support to Giuliani.

As someone who lived in New York City for three years of Giuliani’s pre-9/11 mayoral term, let me tell you, he ain’t the guy you think he is. Bloomberg is A MILLION times better mayor than Giuliani… Giuliani happened to be a street-smart guy who seized the opportunity of 9/11 to push his personal agenda. He is a New York version of … Bill Clinton! I could go on and on about Giuliani, but I will let the story play itself out…

Camus,

Richardson has a bit of a groping of women problem that might be an issue. Otherwise, he is a brilliant foreign policy strategist and somewhat accomplished ambassador and governor.

To my friends on the far right,

Here are your candidates: a Mormon who either supported or didn’t condemn (as recently as 5 years ago) abortion, same sex unions, gun control, and strict environmental regulations; a former POW who has had more than a few marital issues, was torched by your current president, and flip-flops more than Kerry; a New York mayor who dressed in drag, put his family and city through a marital soap opera, ran roughshod over civil rights, has supported abortion, gun control, same sex unions, and is going to have some ‘splaining to do on his financial disclosures (not to mention his Kerik issues); a former Congressman who resigned when he couldn’t follow through on his 1994 promises and was a bit preoccupied with other interests in the office than the work while shouting from the rooftops about immorality and disgrace to the office…

I’m literally chuckling as I write this. You guys sure can pick ‘em!!!

By Van

March 9, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

Barbara, Good news.

DC Gun Ban struck down by Federal Appeals Court.

It also re-established the second amendment as an individual right.

Sorry lefties, you lost another one.

By Joe L

March 9, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this

Actually the Dems diversity PROVES that they are not purely political creatures. Repubs are not about principles, they are about appealing to certain voter groups and base their “principles” around what will attract those creatures.

And I should have qualified my “always” to say for the last 30 years.

By Jack

March 9, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

Spaceman. Politicians in this country have no stones at all. I thought everone knew that.

By Carolyn

March 9, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this

I do not blame anyone for not wanting to get stuck trying to correct a war started by some egomaniac. He went and destroyed a country for selfish reasons and now can not stop it. Started a civil war, gave the taliban entrance and now he is up to his red neck in you know what.

By Joe L

March 9, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

“Guiliani did a good, bipartisan job in NYC, and of course distinguished himself before the country after 9/11.”

I have to disagree here. Guiliani was really not an outstanding mayor beyond his handling of 9/11. And honestly even that, well how badly could you have bungled it? There was very little room to screw up and a lot of room to be a hero. Not trying to disparage the man, just stating the facts.

He was not perceived very well by most New Yorkers for the couple years leading up to 9/11. He only has that to hang his hat on, nothing else. Which is why he will fall apart in the scrutiny of Presidential race.

On the flip side, Dubya - the worst candidate in 50 years - somehow survived the same scrutnity. Proving that our culture of celebrity may value name recognition over substance at this point.

By Joe L

March 9, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this

Southern Democrat:”I’m literally chuckling as I write this. You guys sure can pick ‘em!!!”

Yeah but the sad fact is that there is no one in the Dem camp that is head and shoulders above these guys. What a farce politics has become in this country!

Your comments on Guiliani as a mayor are spot on. But the giant eraser that is 9/11 may clean up his record in the eyes of enough people.

By jbmlaw

March 9, 2007 1:56 PM | Link to this

Dear spaceman109 @ 1:30, you are all epithet and no substance today. Unlike you, I do take the law seriously, and I condemn prosecutorial abuse. Peculiar for a self-proclaimed “small government” guy to be an apologist for Leviathan.

By Peter

March 9, 2007 1:56 PM | Link to this

Jim…You are a Right Wing Nut Job, all this week you have truly shown your disliking for America, why don’t you move to another country!

Seems like maybe you are Bi as well, why don’t you sit on Kewt’s lap and talk about your thought’s on extra Marital affairs, while condemning everyone else.

Also Robert Mueller is taking responsibility, it seems the taking of responsibility with all the baloney that has been going on needs to roll up hill, as the folks at the top don’t!

HA HA HA……..you are a joke, so is the “Religious RIGHT”, and all the folks who haven’t got their eye’s wide open…..

By Dusty

March 9, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this

Camus,

In regard to your question on the World Trade Center as to why the NYC Disaster Command was placed there after a previous attack.

Well, 1993 was the first attack on WTC. Six Islamist terrorists were convicted and put in prison for life. I am assuming that this was a problem thought to be corrected.

This first NYC terrorist attack was also thought to be the way terrorists were going to scare the USA from participating in Middle East affairs.

Since the USA does not usually seek confirmation or approval from terrorists about the placing of their offices…well..that might answer your question. USA/NYC put their Disaster Center in a place they thought was the best location.

Hope that answers your question as I am gone for awhile.

By jbmlaw

March 9, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

Poor spaceman, I feared my tutorial (using a traffic analogy) would fly right past you. I think the others got it, however, so it was not a waste of time

By Jack

March 9, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this

I agree Joe L. They put forth Kerry for president. They sure know how to pick um.

By Barbara

March 9, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

Van, and one of our GA representatives is now trying to pass a law that lets us law-abiding, but non-permitted gun owners carry firearms in concealed places other than the glovebox or visible in the seat. I really believe we may live to see the day when car-jacking thugs and other street robbers will think twice before trying to pull a fast one on Joe Citizen. Keep your fingers crossed……

By Camus

March 9, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this

Alas, Southern Dem, the Democratic Party can “sure pick ‘em”, too. Mondale. Dukakis. Kerry. Arguably good men all, but for the love of mercy, could we imagine worse candidates?

And I’ll never forget the wave of nausea I felt when Holy Joe Lieberman was announced as Gore’s running mate. As soon as I heard it I told my wife that Gore would lose. (ok, I know he did not “lose”, but he did not become prez)

EWilliams is wrong though, about the relative political skills Rep v. Dem. Beginning in 1968, the GOP has been far and away more effective on the national level.

Beginning in 1980, the GOP has proved itself politically superior on the regional/local level, largely as a result of the co-optation of the party by the Christianists. Only in the past couple of years, with the rise of the Netroots efforts on behalf of the Dems, has the Democratic Party offered any effective counter to Republican organizational superiority.

Bill Clinton was a political phenomenon that was largely unrelated to party structure. He only won in 92 largely thanks to Perot’s campaign. Despite his personal flaws, he is the best pure campaigner in this country in many decades. Had he been eligible to run, he would have won a third term with no sweat. But it really had nothing to do with the capability of the Democratic Party’s political wing. In fact, I would argue that Bill won twice in spite of his campaign team.

Herein lies one of Hillary’s greatest challenges…she will never be the superb natural at campaigning that Bill was. She always comes off as canned and staged. But unfortunately, she is surrounding herself with the same useless advisors that Bill used, and their efforts are really terrible.

By jbmlaw

March 9, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

Good afternoon Southern, if I may add to your list on Rudy – whom I deem the next president – Rudy was as evil as Spitzer back when Rudy was a prosecutor. Leaves me a bit of a sinking feeling.

By TFTrealTruth

March 9, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this

By Van

March 9, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

Barbara, Good news.

DC Gun Ban struck down by Federal Appeals Court.

It also re-established the second amendment as an individual right.

Sorry lefties, you lost another one.

Now if they would just work on all those other rights the Patriot Act tramples all over, huh Van.

By CJ

March 9, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

Camus, Joe L, Shar and others,

If you don’t mind, I’d like to jump in on the prognosticating (violating my pledge to avoid discussing the elections until next year).

You guys can correct me if I’m wrong, but my impression is that the debates during the general election can have a tremendous impact on the outcome. Bush Sr. and Dole didn’t have a chance against Clinton; Gore hurt himself in the 2000 debates (sigh); and Kerry helped himself in 2004 (although not enough to overcome mischievousness in Ohio).

So, I intend to lend my support to whichever Democratic candidate can come close to replicating Clinton’s debating skills and win handily. Unfortunately, Edwards, who has provided outstanding policy proposals, didn’t perform well in his debate with Cheney, and as far as I can tell, there was no excuse for that. At first blush, Senator Obama seems to be the one, but I’ll be watching to see. I like Governor Richardson too.

While I respect Chuck Hagel tremendously, these last two elections have demonstrated that the differences between the Democratic Party’s priorities, budgets, appointees and approaches to foreign policy and those of Republicans really do make a huge difference in our lives, the lives of those we love and the lives of people around the world (e.g. Romney’s positions on social issues as a national candidate versus those he held as a Massachusetts candidate). As a result, our country can’t afford even a moderate Republican as our next President. To much damage has already been done, and there’s little room for error in the coming decade.

By WTHagain

March 9, 2007 2:18 PM | Link to this

Yours is quite course and common.

was he implying the donkey was COARSE?

By Jake

March 9, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

Barbara at 2:00,

I don’t have the facts in front of me, but if you’re willing to do a little research, you’ll find that at the same time that concealed weapons laws are being passed in states all over the country, violent crime rates are rising at alarming rates in those same states.

The evidence contradicts your speculation.

By Joe L

March 9, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

“I really believe we may live to see the day when car-jacking thugs and other street robbers will think twice before trying to pull a fast one on Joe Citizen”

Nah they will just shoot you on sight since you MIGHT have a weapon. Why does anyone in their right mind think you are going to win an arms race with a psychopath? Sheer stupidty. They will always have less qualms about shooting you than you will about them, no matter how much of a dirty harry all you armchair-cop surbanites think you are.

By ARTC

March 9, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this

There are three things that are killing the republican party. 1) The religious right. 2) The Bush/Cheney neos 3) The immigration issue. That issue alone cost them millions of votes for many years to come.

By Van and Facts = Oil and Water

March 9, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this

Van at 1:27,

You continue to throw the word “convicted” around as if its definition is malleable to your liking. Again, Clinton was held in contempt of court, not convicted — big difference.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt in my first post by assuming you made a mistake. Unfortunately, you have proven that my moniker is accurate and that you don’t consider simple facts to be important. That’s too bad.

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this

Camus - I would agree on a national level the Republicans have been somewhat more successful, but that was because of exploitation of issues, not pure politics and manipulation of the system. The Democrats were always better at those things. That is why they held sway so much longer and so much more completely in the South than the Republicans ever did in their own baliwicks, even in such places as Kansas. As a result, there was one point when only Kansas had both a Republican legislature and governor. The Democrats were able to keep power even though in most elections beginning in 1966, the Republicans actually won the popular vote in contested elections, when all votes for all contested districts were totalled. The Democrats were masters at the art of the gerrymander.

As an illustration, the Democrats held on to the Georgia legislature from 1994 through 2004 because of this time honored American institution, even though they were losing the popular vote. Look at what King Roy the Worst did to keep control with multiple member districts with the 2002 redistricting.

I would also like to take this time to apologize again for being a language snob. I know it is not an attractive trait, but sometimes we just cannot help ourselves. I can only defend myself by saying that I can imagine having worst faults. :)-

By LARRYMUNSON

March 9, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this

By Joe L

March 9, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

“I really believe we may live to see the day when car-jacking thugs and other street robbers will think twice before trying to pull a fast one on Joe Citizen”

Nah they will just shoot you on sight since you MIGHT have a weapon. Why does anyone in their right mind think you are going to win an arms race with a psychopath? Sheer stupidty. They will always have less qualms about shooting you than you will about them, no matter how much of a dirty harry all you armchair-cop surbanites think you are.

You just stepped on them with a hobnail boot…just crushed their face Joe L. The biggest threat these imbecile wannabe Rambos pose it to their own feet! LMAO!

By Southern Democrat

March 9, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this

Camus,

I wholeheartedly agree! The Democratic Party is a joke right now. It is a loose coalition that tries to bring everyone from Webb to Boxer under its tent without offering a cohesive strategy for how to make things better besides “We’re not as bad as the other guys.” I am fully convinced that John Kerry is the only person on earth who could’ve lost 2004, and he lost it with one action, not replying to the Swift Boat accusations. If he comes out and fights and shouts them down in a Rove-ian way, I think he’s in the White House… but what deplorable candidates the Dems have put up lately!

Jbmlaw,

Here’s to a good weekend! Giuliani as USA-SDNY was actually much more vindictive than Spitzer as AG-NY. Spitzer sought headlines and capitulation, Giuliani sought blood and to settle scores.

By Jack

March 9, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

Jake. Check out the stats for Kennesaw. Since each houshold is required to have a gun, their crime has dropped big time.

By Matt

March 9, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

a direct correlation exists between state carry licenses and increased homicides?

from FoxNews:

Last fall, mayors and police chiefs reported seeing recent spikes in violent crime, calling for greater support from federal law enforcement agencies that have been distracted by counterterror missions since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

Camus - I will have to disagree about Clinton. He is for some mysterious reason personally popular, but he was a disaster for the Democrats. The Republicans won control of Congress three times under him. The Democrats, who usually will eat their young if they believe it to their advantage, kept coming back to him like a drug addict to heroine. He never won the popular vote. His appeal is limited and overestimated owing to two pyhric (for the Democrats) victories.

For the foregoing reasons, Hitlery will not be nominated. They want to win this time! After all, the spirit of LBJ and Richard Daly, Sr. are still alive an well in the souls of the pure politicians who run the “poddy”.

By TW

March 9, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

ARTC - you’re exactly right. Rather than policing their party for the benefit of our country, they instead broke out the knee pads, sold their souls. And for that their party will be given the death penalty by the electorate for years to come.

By ARTC

March 9, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

Oil and water, facts mean absolutely nothing to ideologues. It is all about the ideology and the ends justify the means.

By spaceman109

March 9, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

regarding the lottery winner: at least ed nabors did not have to steal from shareholders to get that 80 million.

i get such a laugh out of those who insist that anyone who wins a lot of money in a lottery will be miserable for the rest of their lives. if one takes that argument through to a logical conclusion, one would have to assign similar misery to any ex-ceo who got an outsized severance payment for less-than-stellar (sometimes even shoddy) performance.

jbmlaw: i realize you are determined to think of me as a liberal; so i will have to shatter all your hopes and dreams and hereby confess that i am totally for smaller government and the elimination of the present tax code. too bad your beloved president bush did not have the stones to do either of those things

By tired

March 9, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this

Jake,

Your analysis of the gun laws is flawed. You stipulate that while the gun laws are being past the crime rate is still rising. My question to you is, how can we tell the effect of the gun laws until a period of time has passed?

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

Van and Facts = Oil and water - being held in contempt of court is indeed a conviction, albeit without a jury. It is a decision made by the judge and the criminal (or civil) penalties apply. I know because as a reformed lawyer, I had it laid on me a few times. Bad tempers don’t belong in a courtroom. There is such a thing as being overzealous. In Clinton’s case, he was just a liar.

Folks can also be held in contempt of Congress - criminal or civil penalties there too w/o a jury.

By Barbara

March 9, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

Hi Jake. I’ve actually seen evidence that contradicts your point (evidence that shows crime rates go down….). I just want to ability to protect myself and also I’d like for the other guy to have to guess that maybe I have a gun, rather than knowing that even if I do, I can’t get to it fast enough.

Joe L, I must admit, although you called me stupid, I still had to laugh at your dirty Harry reference. Especially since the last time we went to the gun range, my husband whipped out his long barreled .45 and handed it to me, thinking I was going to be scared of it. (I’m scared of the .44 b/c it kicks a lot.) Anyway, I shot that .45 better than he did, and now he’s getting one for me! I will be dirty Harry, long barreled .45 and all…….

I understand some folks are opposed to carrying guns. If you’re opposed, don’t carry one. I won’t interfere with your right to make that decision. But I want the option. Please don’t take that from me. I have never, and would never, use it for anything but my own (and those around me) protection. Well, and for target practice.

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this

LARRYMUNSON - you just defeated your own argument about guns by your flawed logic. You also justified Bush’s policy of preemptive strikes. Because we know our enemies are armed we must go out and strike first. Disarming is not going to restrain a psychopath any more than arming will restrain him, by your logic. Crazy is crazy, hate is hate.

Hence, if a psychotic enemy perceives a threat, it is real and he will attack. If your enemy is sane, as most criminals are, then they will restrain themselves. That is why deterence worked during the Cold War. Most criminals in today’s America are not crazy like Bin Laden, they are just out for profit, like the Vikings.

By Van

March 9, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this

TFTrealTruth,

What rights have been taken from you?

By Camus

March 9, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this

Edwin Williams,

What are you disagreeing about? I said that Clinton’s success was extraneous to his affiliation with the Dem Party. Whether he was an overall liability to the Party (and his continued popularity and prowess at fundraising makes that arguable), he was always happy to kick the party to the curb as it suited him (welfare reform, NAFTA, ad nauseum). But nothing about my post contradicts my position that until the election last year the Dem Party was, on a purely political skill level, outgunned, outspent, and outmaneuvered every at every turn. I believe that is the position you were trying to defend.

And had it not been for the co-called rise of the Netroots, and their insistent support of the likes of Webb and Tester, nothing would have changed in 2006, either. Because the Dem Party remains enthralled to congenital LOSERS like Carville, Beglala, Brazille, and Schrum. These guys resisted the netroot efforts as long as they could, and then tried to claim credit when it saved their hash.

I may be wrong, and Hillary may be the next Dem nominee. And if she is, well, there are worse alternatives out there. But to me, the best thing about Hillary getting her a$$ handed to her will be the once-and-for-all repudiation of these consultant hacks who have dragged the party down for years.

But enough of this for today. I leave you with a fact that’s a real kicker to me…Clinton and Ronald Reagan are easily the most popular presidents since FDR, and a close study of polling trends might even put Clinton in first place. What does this say about our citizenry?

I have no answer, but perhaps our august host will opine in one of his future columns. No charge, Jim.

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this

Joe L. your 1:46 p.m. post is really off base. The Democrats do not have any great diversity, at least ideologically, any more. They are purely creatures of left-wing politics who attempt to disguise their ideology in the cloak of moderation. They are manipulative of the coaltion of “minority groups” and “interest groups” to an extreme. The Republicans are much more consistent in accepting diversity of opinion on certain issues while being true to core principles. That is why the Democrats are rotten at their core.

By Jack

March 9, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this

Hey Barbara. The anti-gun folks will be hiding behind us praying we shoot the bad guys chasing after them. :)

By Joe L

March 9, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this

“I understand some folks are opposed to carrying guns. If you’re opposed, don’t carry one. I won’t interfere with your right to make that decision. But I want the option. Please don’t take that from me. I have never, and would never, use it for anything but my own (and those around me) protection. Well, and for target practice.”

The big difference here is that proliferation of guns and encouraging gun play on the streets puts EVERYONE in danger. It’s not just a personal choice. What about the person that robs you and steals your gun? What are they going to use if for? What about the innocent bystander that gets shot when a gun battle erupts? And in the case of the law that is in Atlanta right now it’s sheer idiocy. Get a concealed permit or keep you gun in proscribed locations. All you are doing is encouraging unsafe practices without the balancing education and taking a prosecutorial weapon out of the hands of officials.

The facts are plain and simple, every country with strict gun laws has a MASSIVELY lower murder rate.

By Jeff

March 9, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

The Second Ammendment DOES apply to INDIVIDUALS

Thought y’all might like to see that!

By Connie Williams

March 9, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this

Guys I have had enough! I am Edwin Williams ex-wife. And I can guarantee you that he is neither a PHd nor has he ever been anything close to being a lawyer. What he is is a deadbeat dad that won’t support his children. And while he has been held in contempt folks it wasn’t as a lwyer. It was for losing his temper with the judge the last time I hauled him to court over unpaid support. He got 3 days in jail for that one. What Edwin Williams is is a huge lier people. You need to get a job Edwin and support your kids. And yes people I married this degenerate lier becuse he told me all the same stories about PHds and JDs and you can’t imagine what else. You are sick Edwin. You need help!

By Shar

March 9, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

ARTC - I agree, but I think you need to add the deficit and the war to your list of how the Republican Party has shot itself with this electorate. However, if Hillary Clinton is nominated and the Republicans can keep from letting the farthest fringe of the party decide the nominee, we’ll have a Republican president again.

By Joe L

March 9, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this

“Most criminals in today’s America are not crazy like Bin Laden, they are just out for profit, like the Vikings.”

Bin Laden is not crazy. He has a clear set of goals and pursues them in a rational (albeit violent) manner. He is no different than the criminals you compare him to in that regard. And similarly if shooting you is a means to their ends criminals will do it. But if they can do it without shooting you the probably will. Making them think you have a gun makes them more likely to shoot you first, not avoid you if they feel it’s the norm.

In the Old West everyone carried guns and no one ever shot anyone right?

By GodHatesTrash

March 9, 2007 3:19 PM | Link to this

That Russian reporter sounds prety brave - so unlike the chickenhawk chickensheet cowards of the Woo-ten Klan.

By Old Fuddy Duddy

March 9, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

Connie - your joke is lost on me, as I have never been married. Your shrill little tantrum proved that I made the right decision. You can come over and see my diplomae if you like. I’m sure you will want to dissinfect before entering this bastion of male snobbery. I will make no further replies to your rantings.

By Connie Williams

March 9, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this

Oh folks. Just one more thing before I leave for my 2nd shift job to support the kids that Edwin won’t I have one more thing to say. I am a stupid woman. Stupid enough to swallow his BS and trust him for more years than I should have. He was such a good lier that it took me 3 years to find out that he doesn’t even have a high school diploma. He has a GED people! And I was so dumb that I believed stories about investments and having money taken for a 401k when he would bring home a check that didn’t even pay our rent and utilities most of the time. I have to go to work now, but when I came on here and saw his BS it just made me so angry. He is supposed to be workin by order of the court and here he is laying out to blog. You make me sick Ed!

By Edwin Williams

March 9, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this

Connie you’re sick. My girlfriend would be amused to find out that I have been married after we have lived together off and on for twenty years. She’ll want to know when I had time to tame the shrew.

By Doug

March 9, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this

Old Fuddy Duddy, you are Edwin Williams?

By Captain Freedom

March 9, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this

By Barbara March 9, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

Especially since the last time we went to the gun range, my husband whipped out his long barreled .45 and handed it to me, thinking I was going to be scared of it. Anyway, I shot that .45 better than he did.

The Captain believes that Barbara is the one doing the mocking today. I realize you are beyond my reach, dearest Barbara, but to find you ridiculing my .22 here in public is too much to take. How can you be so cruel? Flaunting your escapades with your well-endowed husband and the way you handled his 45 caliber barrel, I never dreamed such filth could emerge from such as yourself.

By Edwin and Facts = Oil and Water

March 9, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this

Edwin Williams,

Apparently this blog is a magnet for make-believe lawyers.

Your misinformation that a contempt citation is the same as a conviction (which requires a trial and has a much higher standard, “beyond a reasonable doubt”, than a contempt citation) gave you away. It was kind of you to come to Van’s defense, but by acting as an accomplice to his lie, you only damage your credibility further.

By DawgBite

March 9, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

Damn Edwin Williams! You got outed big time!

By Old Fuddy Duddy

March 9, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this

I am not Edwin.

By Edwn Williams

March 9, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this

Dawgbite - no I have not been “outed”. I have never met Connie, don’t want to meet a lying shrew like that and wonder what nut has decided to blog that. You can also check with the California bar under that name and my birthday if you do not believe that I was once a lawyer. (2-16-60) I have nothing to hide. I only state facts. I must have really hit a nerve with someone to have caused this kind of vitriol. In fact, if this were not so anonymous, I could actually sue for slander, and I don’t think that you have to be a lawyer to know that making up malicious lies about someone is not only stupid but actionable.

At any rate, I must go now as I have to go out of town. I won’t be blogging for a while. Good health to all.

By Amber

March 9, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this

Edwin Williams wrote, “I must go now…”

Ceeeeeeelebrate good times. C’MON! Let’s celebrate.

By troll

March 9, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

I’m still counting on Edwin to make like Hemingway and give that shotgun a beejay.

By conservative but civil

March 9, 2007 4:20 PM | Link to this

You folks are really mean. I was just glancing through this blog and I cannot believe the stuff that some of you are daring to write. I wonder what “troll” would say if someone suggested such a thing to him/her. I don’t care what you think about someone, that is just rude. Get a life.

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this

Plame was NOT a covert agent… Just another witch hunt.

Jack, you need to ask the CIA about Mrs. Wilson’s status instead of just repeating the lies you hear from Hannity and Limbaugh. The CIA clearly states that she was considered “covert” and working at the time of Cheney’s leak on WMD’s being acquired by IRAN. Remember IRAN? And how we’re supposed to be not letting them acquire nukes — great job, you rightwing morons!

Also, you may recall that when Scooter was telling Ari Fleischer about Mrs. Wilson’s job at the CIA, he said that the info was “hush-hush”. What ever could he have meant by that?

Any other lies you care to tell, Jack?

By Van

March 9, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this

Joe L,

If you had bad intentions toward someone and they had a .45 longslide or a 5 1/4” SAA in plain view, what would you do? How about if you were not sure?

In the old west, the open carry was the rule. I can live with that. I have a CCW, so you will never know if I am carrying or not.

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this

If you’re opposed, don’t carry one. I won’t interfere with your right to make that decision. But I want the option.

Barbara, you certainly do appear to be one of those Pro-choice conservatives? I’ve heard they existed, but never met any here in the state of GA or on this blog!

By Edwin and Facts = Oil and Water

March 9, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this

Edwin Williams wrote, “I will remind you that Governor Casey of Pennsylvania was not allowed to address the Democrat convention because he held pro-life positions. The Republicans have always allowed “pro-choice” people to address their conventions - e.g. Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Rudy Giuliani, Christine Whitman. The diversity of views in the Republican Party on social issues is much greater than that of the Democrats.”

The ever so intelligent Edwin Williams clearly gets his misinformation from the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and FrontPageMag.

The truth is that several pro-life Democrats spoke at the 1992 convention including Chicago Mayor Daley, Senators Breaux and Heflin plus five pro-life Democratic governors.

Casey wasn’t excluded from speaking (he attended the convention) because of his position on abortion; he was excluded from speaking because he wanted to make a speech on the topic of abortion. Now, before you claim that that is a distinction without a difference, look at the list of names of pro-choice Republicans that spoke at Republican conventions. Did any of them speak on the topic of abortion? The answer is, forgive me, NO!!!

When Republicans allow pro-choice Republicans to make a speech about abortion at their convention, then they can complain about Bob Casey in 1992. In the meantime, this Bob Casey lie is just more misinformation and hypocrisy from the right intended to distract the easily distracted (such as Van, jbmlaw and Edwin Williams) from the important issues.

By Edwin and Facts = Oil and Water

March 9, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this

Dear “tired” at 12:09,

I’m sorry that Mr. Williams let you down. I’m just as disappointed as you.

By Barbara

March 9, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this

Joe L, regarding innocent bystanders caught in the cross-fire, you may have a valid point. Regarding someone taking my gun and then using it for other means, don’t kid yourself. Most criminals who want a gun already have one or certainly have access to them. I understand your position, but I just don’t agree with it.

pg, Captain. Keep it pg…… (You’re kinda creeping up on pg-13…..)

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 4:34 PM | Link to this

The Republicans are much more consistent in accepting diversity of opinion on certain issues while being true to core principles.

HA, HA, HA, HEMINGWAY— er, I mean Edwin! You are so full of yourself, aren’t you?

Well read up — we are not your English students. We’re posting on a blog, you moron! Nobody cares if you get irritated about bad grammar — alright???

By Conservative but civil

March 9, 2007 4:37 PM | Link to this

Neo-Con Artist - I hate to burst your bubble, but despite the CIA wanting an investigation, Plame was not considered covert under the statute. In fact, that is why no one (Armitage) was prosecuted for “outing” her. I know that people of the liberal stripe want to create a crime here so someone can be impeached or go to jail or worse, but there was no “outing”. And at any rate, Wilson had already outed his wife and that she worked for the CIA was common knowledge in Washington. That is how Armitage knew in the first place.

By Barbara

March 9, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this

Neo Con @4:26, no, my friend. On that we shall disagree. I’m all for choice of carrying firearms, and totally against using abortion as birth control. The only abortion I support is in the case of proven rape (proven), or when the mother’s life is in danger. Even in those circumstances I’ve known folks who chose to have the child and are glad they did. I am definately not pro-choice. Sorry. But I’m sure we will find other commonalities if we continue to debate.

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this

“Old Fuddy Duddy, you are Edwin Williams?”

I believe you’re right, Doug! They both certainly get their pants in a wad over the silliest anal-retentive things!

By Conservative but Civil

March 9, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this

This is my first, and I am afraid last, forray into this medium. I have finally finished reading through this blog, and after seeing how nasty you people are to each other, I believe that my mother was right: You can’t reason with liberals. They will just attack you and say nasty things because they can’t counter you with reason.

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this

Rather than policing their party for the benefit of our country, they instead broke out the knee pads, sold their souls.

TW nailed it for you Neo-con lovers!

By Old Fuddy Duddy

March 9, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this

For the last time, I am not Edwin. I am an 80 year old bachelor trying to pass the time while waiting for God (also my favorite show.

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this

I only state facts. I must have really hit a nerve with someone to have caused this kind of vitriol.

Edwin, whose “facts” are you stating? Seems like a lot of blowhard opinions, based on the posts I’ve read from you.

By Conservative but civil = Facts and Water

March 9, 2007 4:55 PM | Link to this

Conservative but civil,

You’re wrong on all three counts (“Plame wasn’t covert”, “Wilson already outed his wife” and “common knowledge”. Repeating “facts” that you learn from Fox News and talk radio is dangerous.

I’ll give you a chance to do the research for yourself. Don’t make me come after you.

By Van

March 9, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this

Joe L,

“The facts are plain and simple, every country with strict gun laws has a MASSIVELY lower murder rate.”

You mean like merry old England? There the firearm is banned and they have a growing fire arm crime rate.

And you have to agree, Switzerland(every male member of the military, active and reserves, has a fully automatic weapon at home) has a very high crime rate.

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 5:04 PM | Link to this

I am definately not pro-choice. Sorry.

Oh, I see, Barbara. You are all for no gov’t interference with your CHOICE to carry a concealed weapon, but you’re also all for the gov’t allowing NO CHOICE in a woman’s right to make birth control decisions for herself and her family, is that it?

By Conservative but Civil and Facts = Oil and Water

March 9, 2007 5:05 PM | Link to this

Just a quick correction to my 4:55 moniker.

It’s “Conservative but Civil and Facts = Oil and Water”, not “Conservative but civil = Facts and Water”

I apologize.

By Barbara

March 9, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this

Neo-Con, not exactly. You’re right on the concealed weapon part, but you’re not really stating it correctly on the birth control decisions. Women have plenty of birth control choices. 1) use an approved birth control method such as the pill, IUD, whatever. 2) learn your body and avoid sex during the 2 to 3 days out of the month when you can get pregnant. (How hard is that? Really?) or 3), and you won’t like this one, but Don’t have sex out of wedlock!

I said I don’t support abortion being used as birth control. I didn’t say I was against tried, tested, and approved birth control methods.

I am hoping we will continue to debate with civility.

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 5:13 PM | Link to this

And at any rate, Wilson had already outed his wife and that she worked for the CIA was common knowledge in Washington. That is how Armitage knew in the first place.

Conservative and Uncivil— you really need to get some different “news” sources. Repeating what you hear in the rightwing echo chamber (sometimes called Fox News or Washington Times) is not the same thing as stating “the facts”, as your friend Edwin also claims.

By Goldie

March 9, 2007 5:21 PM | Link to this

“Women have plenty of birth control choices. 1) use an approved birth control method such as the pill, IUD, whatever. 2) learn your body and avoid sex during the 2 to 3 days out of the month when you can get pregnant. (How hard is that? Really?) or 3), and you won’t like this one, but Don’t have sex out of wedlock!”

Barbara, you apparently have never heard of birth control methods failing, and some married women need to be able to control the size of their families. Is that something that should be decided by our government?

By Van

March 9, 2007 5:24 PM | Link to this

Neo-Con Artist,

I don’t see a conflict with Barbara’s stand.

Both are to protect lives.

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

To paraphrase what Barbara posted:

If you’re opposed to abortion, don’t have one. I won’t interfere with your right to make that decision. But I want the option as needed for my own personal life.

By Neo-Con Artist

March 9, 2007 5:34 PM | Link to this

I don’t see a conflict with Barbara’s stand. Both are to protect lives.

Van, both also involve the extent we allow our government to make decisions about our personal lives.

By Carolyn

March 9, 2007 5:37 PM | Link to this

When did conservatives get civil? All you have to do is listen to FOX News and listen to Ann (foot in mouth) Coulter. GET REAL….

By troll

March 9, 2007 5:42 PM | Link to this

Conservative but Civil is correct. Conservatives are nevvvver rude, especially on this blog. It’s only the dirty foooking hippies.

By Joe L

March 9, 2007 5:44 PM | Link to this

“Joe L,

“The facts are plain and simple, every country with strict gun laws has a MASSIVELY lower murder rate.”

You mean like merry old England? There the firearm is banned and they have a growing fire arm crime rate.

And you have to agree, Switzerland(every male member of the military, active and reserves, has a fully automatic weapon at home) has a very high crime rate.”

And those facts are not contrary to my point at all. England still has a MASSIVELY lower rate, regardless if it’s “rising”.

And Switzerland still has strict gun laws. Your point does not contradict that fact. Having to be a trained member of the military would be a STRICT law now wouldn’t it?

When you can actually bring up points that are accurate and refute what I have said, feel free.

By Joe L

March 9, 2007 5:48 PM | Link to this

“2) learn your body and avoid sex during the 2 to 3 days out of the month when you can get pregnant. (How hard is that? Really?)”

Wow you should take a decent biology class before you speak. One, there is about a 6-7 day window when sex could lead to pregnancy. Also many women actually ovulate more than once in a month from time to time. And it’s not an exact science on when ovulation occurs in relation to menstruation.

I find it cavalier that you think a fetus conceived from rape is less of a person than one conceived from love. You can’t have it both ways, either a fetus is a “baby” or it’s not.

By JohnD(the actual)

March 9, 2007 5:51 PM | Link to this

Government should not be involved in medical decisions, whether through some type of Hillary-Care or by judicial fiat.

I am pro-life but the responsibility for all medical decisions lies in the hands of the patient and the doctor. Once we allow the govrenment to dictate medical care we are then open to socialized medicine and all the pitfalls therein.

Those who post here and declare a fetus is “not the same as a living, breathing human being” probably have not had a doctor tell them their baby sudddenly does not have a heartbeat. Live through that and deny the fetus is a child! Life seems very empty for a period of time.

By Libertarian, former Republican

March 10, 2007 11:36 PM | Link to this

First, the biggest issue with outing Ms. Plame is this: Although she was not operating undercover at the time, when she was overseas she was operating as a NOC, without a diplomatic passport. People and governments are not our friends are now researching who she was in contact with, putting their lives at risk.

Second, it is funny to watch each side (far left and far right) beat the other side up for being partisan, nasty, stupid, etc. It would be far more interesting to watch a civil debate of ideas. I can disagree with anyone without thinking they are the devil.