Americans suspect a coverup

Yeah, America, get on down to Waql-Mart, and buy a clue.

Thanks for figgerin' it all out after 6 years.

Good job in '00.

And thanks for pushing us over the edge in '04. That was the last chance to step back. Too late.

Go on back to the mall, and then float a $40K loan for that Hummer.
It'll make you sleep a lot better.

And thanks for 8 years of stupidest man to ever hold the office of President of the US.

Americans should suspect a cover-up. They should also suspect a setup (and they do). This ALWAYS blame the other party // do anything AND everything to get my party in power or keep my party in power regardless of ethics mentality is tearing the country apart and is making us into a laughing stock of double standards -- Here's an example : (sorry I picked on the dems this time -- I could just as easily pick on double standard repubs)

here's a quote seen posted by one of these all too common party loyalty lap dogs in an attempt to make one party sound like their crap doesn't stink (with responses included between the quotations) --

the party loyalist statements are in quotes and refer to democrat, Gerry Studd: .... "That he (Studd) wouldn't acknowledge the censure or apologize was his perogative and that his constituents accepted his actions is theirs. Studds's case, if anything, exemplifies how Democratic Leadership responded to the scandal - they did not ignore it, nor did they try to cover it up" -

how typical of what's wrong with America -- this kind of nonsense epitomizes much of what is wrong with our country with this blaming one party for everything and can't get past party loyalty enough to think mentality

here's another quote from the same person:

"why not talk about Dan Crane, a Repubilcan (sic) who was 44 years old at the time and who, like Studds, had consensual relations with a 17 year old?
Eitherway, this issue was disposed of over 20 years ago and has no bearing on the issue at hand"

FYI: Crane (Republican) was censured (appropriately) in 1983 for something he did in 1980 (with a page) at the exact same time that Studd was censured in 1983 for something he did IN 1973 (also with a page) -- so the idea of a responsible democratic congress is a bit of a farce -- Crane apologized and was not re-elected (he did run for re-election) -- Studd refused to apologize for doing something much, much worse than Foley has done -- he harrassed AND sodomized a PAGE who was not old enough to vote AND then was not punished by congress for 10 years -- when punished, Studd openly scoffed at the punishment and got re-elected anyway.

What's also telling about those who love their party more than their country is they totally ignore other examples that don't fit with their logic -- like in this case, the Mel Reynold's incident was ignored (because there's no excuse for what Bill Clinton did for Reynolds after Reynolds was convicted of having had sex with a 16 year old campaign volunteer and because it wasn't 20 years ago -- and any informed thinking person could easily bring up very recent examples of sexploitation on the part of members of either party if time elapsed were the only issue -- which of course, it isn't).

With such an application of double-standard logic -- the democrats would have no business complaining if the people of Florida (Foley's district) and Hastert's district and Boehner's district and Stillwell's district and all others currently under attack chose to ignore the entire Foley event completely because that is, as this democratic loyalist stated, their "prerogative".

Maybe it is -- but pointing out the hypocrisy of the democrats and republicans alike is also my "prerogative".

By such a typical party lap dog double-standard, the republicans have every "prerogative" to pull Foley out of rehab and reelect him (noone can argue with the fact that Foley hasn't been convicted of anything yet).

Also by this way of thinking -- if the sleezy instant messages turn out to have been sent to persons above the age of consent (as I strongly suspect), then what Foley did was not even immoral (if it's not illegal, then it's not immoral in that book).

The truth is what Foley did was very wrong and the deliberate misinformation campaign by the democrats is almost as bad.

It's also true that as long as we remain a country divided by party loyalties (as typified by those cannot bring themselves to do anything but blame the other party for everything), we'll never be the country that we all hope we could be.

Once again -- sorry for picking on sleezy partisan democrats -- I could just have easily have picked on sleezy partisan republicans.

Yes, Virginia there was immoral activity by Foley and a coverup and there is also a deliberate misinformation campaign by the other party that is seriously unethical as well.

We need to get rid of them all and start over.

The business wing of the Republican Party is playing the Christian wing as chumps.

DZ

You hit on something there. They are not natural political allies from an economic or practical standpoint.

Most RR folks NEED Social Security and Medicare. Heck, they need universal health care.

That's why we always hear about flag burning, evolution, Ten Commandments, gay marriage, liberal Hollywoodland, etc.
Sure to get the blood up.

As a side point; Do you remember not that long ago when the Hollywood 'boggy man' was 'international Jewry' ?

Same with the banks. It was all about the 'international Jewish conspiracy' controlling all the money.

At some point it changed to liberals. Remember that?

The RR base can't get enough of it.

Give 'em Hell, tom!

(By the way, ARE you the same tom who said I'm "windy" -- with this long post here?)

Neither side is being honest about the Foley affair. The Democrats are leaping on it because it's easier than coming up with ideas and the Republicans at first tried to cover it up and then divert attention.

A pox upon both their houses!

You hit on something there. They are not natural political allies from an economic or practical standpoint.

Posted by: C.Morris | Oct 5, 2006 7:47:07 PM

C.Morris,

Right you are! In fact, the Populists, Progressives and Liberals used to have Evangelical Christian vote in their pocket.

So how and why did that change?

Juanito,

Good question.

I don't really have a good answer.
The southern strategy?
Culture war wedge issues?

I'd have thought people were too smart for that at one time.

So Tom...Not gonna vote?

Juanito...I knew you would like that post from Tom. I will stop defending the party that To me , out of the choices, seem to me to be the lesser of two evils. Just show me what to do. Take me to candyland and let me sign up. I'll even hand out posters for the Easter bunny if that will bring politics back to the people. But I think that you don't give people enough credit.
I think people "do" understand what kind of lowlife our politicians are, and also feel there is no other choice. Do you feel that sinking feeling when you read that.NO OTHER CHOICE!!!!!We could all stop voting..but you know as well as I that isn't an alternative. You don't think I get that it's all POLITICS....I get it..so what?

Tom...Who do you think is a candidate worthy of a vote? I understand what you don't like...who do you think is not going to play politics? Any?

I'm sure both of you out of NO OTHER CHOICE lean one way or the other...your not void of opinion.. or, for the life of me why do you even read this blog? If you truly hate politics and have no interest in who does what...why? I hope it's not to take some presumed higher road..that your above politics? There have been different sides to politics since the birth of this country and it has been our right and duty to vote for the best we have each time. Some have been good...some (and more lately)aren't. But each time we are called to choose...we do! some rant more than others but every once in a while
points are made that may make a difference. Why belittle us poor fools for trying to get through this the only way we can. Or show us the way.

Tom,

Your continued condemnation of the Democratic Party of today for actions that happened and were accounted over 20 years ago continues to not impress me.

Yes I am a Democrat. Yes I am a Liberal. But don't think that I came to be who I am becuase I was born some blind party loyalist. I spent the last 6 years watching this country get entagled in an unwinnable war based on false pretenses, strip its own citizens of our constitutional rights, and give massive giveaways to corporatations who move their businesses to Mexico rather than help its own people. This entire Foley ordeal is yet another example of how Repubilcans have become so obsessed with their own power that they are unwilling and unable to accept reform.

The Democrats aren't perfect, but they are the opposition, and that's good enough for me right now.

If you want to know what I honestly think, I think both parties are full of it. They've gotten so caught up in partisan mud-slinging that they've lost sight of what politics should be about - which is conducting the business of government, solving practical problems with practical solutions, and looking at and dealing with long term problems. Like alternative energy. Like social security. Like healthcare. Both parties are so caught up in satisfying their own base that they've forgotten the entire point of governance. Don't think this doesn't distrub me.

But what it comes down to is the party in power must be punished for it's incompetance. It's about accountablility, and I'm willing to put up with Democrats if it serves that end. I won't be voting for them in 2008 and on if they are unable to at least attempt to fix the problems that the Repubilcans have created, but I'm willing to give them a chance becuase 6 years has shown me that Repubilcans aren't up to the task.

Dale.
The funding cuts for brain injured vets was blasted by Olbermann tonight. The issue has received some of the attention it deserves, no doubt a result of your tireless efforts.
Kudos and kudos to you for not letting the issue be forgotten - so much so, my first thought when listening tonight was that you called Olbermann personally!

And all of you conservatives need to overcome your Islamophobia... and liberals overcome your gunphobia...and everyone get off the more lucrative paternalistic welfare state big daddy will care for all of us mentality before we succumb to North Koreanness.

Get out of the Middle East (end the US empire), respect the 2nd Amendment, do for yourselves, relearn 'constitutional republic,' limited (weak) government and, if you can, repress 'democracy' (it only applies to elections.)

If we don't change, our children will become less free than we are today. Government has no choice but to "self-perpetuate itself." While it does that it has no choice but to destroy freedom. More government, more control, less freedom, more government (as in N o r t h K o r e a). Our worst enemy is government.

I swear it looks like republicans are self destructing deliberately - it's the democrats turn to control government. The people will never know. Just because a republican supports the war doesn't mean it can't be a good candidate to vote for. But don't apply this thinking to democrats - they want more of the same (they also want you defenseless - dictators prefer a disarmed society).

Tom,

Just like Juanito,you claim to be an Independent,yet you spend all of your time bashing Democrats.

Talk about the PRESENT DAY,not the PAST,tell me what the Democrats did wrong in the Foley situation,and if you're are going to bring up the past, don't forget about the Republicans hatchet job on Bill Clinton,Jack Abramoff,Tom Delay,Duke Cunningham,Bob Ney etc....I could go on for days with Republican situations were they have wet the bed playing partisan politics like they are doing now,but that is besides the point.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PRESENT DAY,THE HERE,AND NOW.

Using the past to justify the present is an excuse that a third grader would use.

I can't tell you,or Juanito, for sure that things are going to be all rosey with the Dems in power,BUT I can tell you for sure that the Republican leadership has been disgusting,awful,and pathetic,THAT I DO KNOW.

I don't believe in rewarding people for doing a piss poor job.

Please don't use your status as an Independent to constantly bash one party if you are truly Independent.

Juanito admitted earlier on in his posts that for most of his life he has voted Republican.
I've noticed all along that he is a right wing hack dressed up as an Independent.

Tom,I hope you aren't playing the same game as Juanito....If you believe in somthing,say so.

I wouldn't be on here pushing for the Dems if they were wetting the bed like the Republicans have been doing for the last six years.....I would say kick them out,and I would even vote Republican if I thought it was necessary to help.

I hope we can have a more open,and honest government,we can't give up on that,it's the foundation of our Democracy.

Juanito,

Evangelical Christians weren't part of the base because there used to a time where politics was one thing and ones religion was a private matter and were not intertwined.

Then circa 1980 people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggert had a revelation that God was a Republican. Then along came people like Lee Atwater and his apprentice Karl Rove who together with the Falwell types perpetuated their smear campaign against tolerance and otherwise scaring the crap out of gullible Evangelicals with flag burning, gays, etc.

This is/was just another sordid chapter in the "Southern Strategy."

No Juanito, the windy "tom" above is not me. I'm the capital-T Tom, and there is another capital- T Tom who is much windier than me. My comments are usually limited to one or two sentences, but I am a very occasional windbag. The rule still holds true though -- if a blogger's rant is longer than the original article, the blogger is officially a windbag. The tom above is a windbag.

Hey I just sent Bill R. a message on another posting saying I totally respect his decision. Also I have attacked Republicans repeatedly -- it's just easier to attack them with fewer words.

I'm sorry for being windy but I'm not sorry for being an independent.

And as I told Bill in the other posting, I'm probably not going to vote -- which is sad because I'm a veteran and a father and I think I am setting a bad precedent for myself and a bad example for my children.

I didn't see combat but I was willing to go into combat to protect the individual liberties you are all expressing. My grandfather died fighting totalitarianism.

I probably got interested in this particular debate because I saw through the "cover-up" and the "set-up" right away and hated seeing either of these unethical and indefensible acts defended.

With love and a 2nd apology for being "windy"

TGIF

tom (little t)

Capital T-Tom,
Don't be afraid to read and write and explore ideas -- and to be windy.

Doug Zook,
You got it wrong.
Evangelicals were once indeed a strong element of the Liberal base. I'm asking, why not now?

C.Morris,
The quick answer is that the Democrats fumbled and the Republicans grabbed the ball and ran.

The not so quick answer:
Most analysts agree that dramatic changes in the two political parties occured in the period between '64 and '72 elections.

There has a reversal of polarity of the two parties on several levels. One of those reversals is that the Republicans who were adrift, unfocused, seemingly purposeless from the 30s to the 60s are now unified and focused while it is the Democrats who are in disarray and don't know what they stand for.

Another change (and it is very weird and ironic) is the total attitudinal inversion that has occurred.

The 19th century Populists' and the early 20th century Progressives' message was one of anti elitism, of animus towards the delicate, arrogant ruling class. "The ruling class despises you", the message went. "Besides holding you in poverty they hold you in contempt. They mock your manner of speaking, of dressing, your forms of recreation and entertainment and they mock your religion." That theme continued with the Liberal Democrats until the 1960s.

And so Evangelical white rural Christians felt quite at home in the Democratic Party of FDR, Truman, Kennedy.

In the 1960s that paradigm suddenly flipped. The old liberals were aging and retiring, and there was an influx of upper middle class, well educted urban sophisticates into the Democrtaic Party. They brought with them some attitudes that went against the grain of the Rural base. One of them was a snide mockery of rubes.

Now the wine sipping fey elitists are Liberal Democrats, and they are the ones who hold the working class in contempt , who mock their manner of speaking, of dressing, their forms of recreation and entertainment and their religion.

The Republicans meanwhile endlessly remind the voters of that fact and defend the culture of the common man, thus reaping the political benefits.

If the Democrats hope for any LONG TERM success, they are going to have to change that. (BTW, Barak Obama has said that too.)

I love being windy!

Juanito admitted earlier on in his posts that for most of his life he has voted Republican.

Posted by: John E. | Oct 6, 2006 3:47:44 AM

It is my policy to usually avoid talking to the bubbleheads, but I can't let this pass.

I have NEVER said that, Clown.

Not that it's any of yourbusiness how I vote, but I have seldom voted Republican.

Doug Z,

I wish I had said that..

C.Morris (and others),

You might find this interesting. This was originally published in Harpers Magazine. It's a forum of leading Liberal/Progressive thinkers and activists discussing what is wrong with American Liberalism and how to fix it. It costs $5 to buy the transcript, but I think its worth it.

"Liberalism Regained"
Ralph Nader, et al. Harper's Magazine, August 2004, 8 pages.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-37058/Liberalism-regained-building-the-next.html

Juanito:
Your history lesson was very interesting. What is amazing is that people will identify with a group but vote against their own best interest. During the Reagan years several of my union card carrying acquaintances voted for union busting Reagan. I guess they liked his folksy manner and his apochryphal stories. The idea of welfare cheats (always pictured as being Black) really energized working stiffs who felt screwed. I think that was the beginning of the Southern strategy. Someone, set me straight on that. Now look at what is happening to labor. Pretty soon all of us will be insisting that we will do the job forfor less than the next guy and do it without benefits.

YOU GUY'S VOTED FOR THIS CLOWN. NOW YOU GOTTA LIVE WITH MORE DEATHS IN IRAQ AND THE MIDDLE EAST. LET'S NOT FORGET THOSE SOLIDERS WE GOT IN BOSNIA AND EASTERN EUROPE. WAY TO GO AMERICA.

Juanda,
Yes,you did say it.

It was during one of your longwinded "Independent" rants against Democrats.

Juanda,people like you with continuas long babbeling posts usually know nothing,and are hoping that people believe that if they talk long enough,they will think you are a genius.

Juanda,you are nothing more than a right wing hack,dressed up as an Independent.

Juanda,It's my policy to call out FRAUDS like you for what they are....FRAUDS

From,A Clown

further evidence of my neutrality;

I wrote this yesterday AM on another posting before being accused of being a "windbag" and a "republican" in disguise.

" ...... it's both parties doing it (the same two parties that both supported NAFTA and both took money from the Chinese government and both took money from big oil companies and insurance companies and the banking industry and both got caught with pants down over 9-11 and both blame each other for everything and both fix nothing and both parties that voted to go into Iraq and both parties that took money from Enron and members of BOTH parties that overlook sexual abuses of power of their own party members)" *

I hope that is succinct enough for you. I did not write it to offend those of you who will vote republican as a lesser of evils or those or you who will vote democrat as a lesser of evils and I apologize if I offended either of those groups. I wrote it because it's true and we need to find ways to work together instead of the status quo -- both parties are putting partisanship ahead of their country in the past 2 presidencies (at least).

and for what it's worth, I've been a registered independent (in 2 different states) for a total of at least 12 years now

* I should have also added BOTH parties that looked the other way when mega mergers that violate our federal anti-trust laws were approved (another key component of the big money trumps ethical actions for BOTH republicans and democrats)

again -- have a great weekend

with love and respect (little t) tom

I will stop defending the party that to me , out of the choices, seem to me to be the lesser of two evils. Just show me what to do. Take me to candyland and let me sign up. I'll even hand out posters for the Easter bunny if that will bring politics back to the people. But I think that you don't give people enough credit.

Posted by: bill r. | Oct 5, 2006 10:00:36 PM

bill r,

You're right. Right now these are the choices we have, so we have to go with one of them or just stay home on election day.

My vinegar is usually not directed toward you, but to other's here who gush about their party saving the world.

That's not you. You are one of the few here who is smart enough to know that the lesser of 2 evils is a lousy choice.

So of course, vote for the lesser evil. But complain about it. If enough of us do, some day we'll have other choices.

Juanito...and tom(little-t)...I understand and believe me, if there were a lever to pull that stood for THE PEOPLE, I wouldn't think twice about pulling it. We have been let down for so long by so many. It's the money...not the morals.
Maybe some day we won't have to choose the
evil of two lessers!

have a great weekend!I'll be drinking on my boat!
A LOT !!!

I love how you guys quote Keith Olbermann as if he's some kind of secular saint. That's hilarious stuff, really.

Olbermann cares about as much about you and the causes you champion as O'Reilly REALLY cares about farmers and salt-of-the-earth republicans.

Do you know how many bridges Olbermann's burned in his career? Do you realize he'll do anything to get ratings and stay on TV? Including exploit your causes? He saw the hook that his predecessors (Phil Donahue among others) got at MSNBC. He knows his job is to rile up a base. Any base.

Do you realize, also, that Olbermann was famously fired from Fox Sports after he wore out his welcome at ESPN? By Rupert Murdoch? Your hero worked for Rupert Murdoch before he got canned and started a campaign to bring Fox down! Sort of puts things in perspective, doesn't it?

Well, if it was reported on "Countdown" it must be true. Guffaw, guffaw.

I view the "Countdown" the same way I view "The Factor," an entertainment program masquerading as political theater that's their purely to rile up the base and create ratings and advertising dollars. You'd be wise to view it the same way.

p.s. Don't let 'em get you down, Juanito.

Bill you are dead on about Olbermann -- I actually read Keith O's autobiography (it was on the dollar rack a few years ago) -- nobody was ever better at blowing his own horn and boy does he like to jump on whatever bandwagon the media affords him and ride it as far as it'll take him (he understands the ridiculous feeding frenzy nature of the modern media) -- he actually bragged that he was the "first" to call for the firing of Al Campanis seconds after that famous interview with Ted Koppel as if being the "first" sportscaster to demand something that was bound to happen anyway means anything to anybody.

Bill,
I'll assume your comment stemmed from my post.
Perhaps eveything you state about Olbermann is true, but it does not detract from or diminish the fact that war veterans are getting the short end of the stick as a "thank you" from the government for their sacrifices.
My post is neutral regarding Olbermann, but very supportive of Dales efforts.
Why does that rile you up so much? Cant I give Dale a hat tip without you jumping all over it?

hey Bill's just stressed but he'll be fine after getting out on his boat and kicking back a few (man, am I jealous -- literally)

Hey John F.

I'm not angry or anything, I'm just pointing out a fact. You don't see me or the conservative posters here trotting out O'Reilly and his programming as if his word is gold and his excrement doesn't smell bad.

Or Rush or any other provocateur for that matter.

I don't even know about the brain injury situation, but I never will unless you find me a more reputable source than Keith Olbermann. Yes, I honestly believe he does not care a whit about vets with brain injury. He cares about keeping himself in the news. You'd be wise to find a better standard bearer.

Oh, and John, the reason I chose this particular post to speak out about Olbermann is because I look for certain specious arguments in this blog that have been advanced more than once. I have a rule of three. The first time if the poster seems sincere I let it go. The second time could be a coincidence. The third time is a pattern of faulty thinking that deserves a response, in my mind.

Dale implored everyone to watch "Countdown" in another thread yesterday. Then somebody else posted something about Olbermann "blasting" Hastert today. I saw yours and that made up my rule of three. Has nothing to do with the issue of brain injury, I'm just sick of the argument that undermines the issue itself.

That's hilarious, Tom. I was the first to ask for Coca-Cola Classic to come back and replace New Coke.

Bill,
I see things must be "spinning" out of control for you,so much so that you had to cry to the moderator again.

Bill,Mr.Young Republican,why don't you quit your yapping,and sign up for the Iraq War???

There's an M-16 with your name on it,and a trigger waiting to be squeezed.

Thanks, John E., it's been a long time since someone called me young. The reason I asked that, John E., is I happen to have a cousin who is mentally challenged.

And if you or anyone in your family really knew what it was like for these people to deal with the challenges that mental retardation presents every day then, trust me, you and your friends wouldn't go around calling people a name that's offensive to millions of Americans who have been afflicted with the effects of this unfortunate situation. Especially not for something as trivial as a political blog.

But, by all means, don't let me get in the way of your political rant. Throw in all your old talking points and, really, who cares if the mentally challenged get ground up in the wheels of your diatribe?

How is Olbermann picking on Bush any different than Rush Limpdick picking on Clinton?

Olberman uses facts to back his critiques. Limbaugh makes stuff up.

In approximately four weeks we all will have the opportunity to go to the polls and show our distain for the mess in Washington.

I hope we have a record turn-out for a mid-term election. I will vote pretty much Democrat because I'm convinced that the Republicans have had their change to help this country and the citizens of this country but have chosen not to do so.

I have to admit that both the Democrats and the Republicans are too much into keeping their job, rather than doing their job. I'm firmly convinced that very little positive change will come about until we have adopted massive campaign reform and term limits for all members of Congress. Both parties are on "the take," and what is truly best for the country as a whole is not a priority for our currently elected officials.

Talk can be cheap! Voting in great numbers gets the message across. VOTE ON NOVEMBER 7th!

Larry Burgess,

If as many as 60% of eligible voters come to the polls the turnout will be called huge. Typically the percentile is in the mid to low 50s.

That speaks volumes.

Facts, Janet? You know Olbermann plays as fast and loose with them as O'Reilly or Limbaugh. Don't believe me? Here's some cited examples:

http://www.olbermannwatch.com