House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s make-believe Secretary of State routine in Syria has been painted by the press as a sign of emboldened Democrats taking on Team Bush’s neocon bumblers. Chris Matthews echoed his colleagues’ sentiments when he joyously declared she would "open the doors to peace."
It was, of course, an outrage, a direct slap at the President, an effort to humiliate him on the international stage. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and White House spokesman Dan Bartlett were quoted decrying Pelosi’s diplomatic freelancing. Conservative talk radio was livid. But where, oh where, were the congressional Republicans?
More to the point, where is the GOP leadership? I haven’t seen the polling data, but it would surprise me if one in ten Americans could even name them, so absent are they from the scene. John Boehner and Roy Blunt lead the House; Mitch McConnell and Trent Lott lead the Senate. Other than an occasional spot on the Sunday talk shows, they might as well adorn milk cartons with most Americans.
Did the Republican leaders protest Pelosi’s freelancing? There was no sign of it on ABC, CBS, or NBC, or even in the Washington Post and the New York Times. OK, but perhaps that’s because the networks are ignoring their blizzard of press releases, once more proving the bias of the press?
But in this case, no. A search for criticism of Pelosi’s jaunt on the websites of Boehner and Blunt turned up nothing. Ditto with the sites of McConnell and Lott. Even the conservative House Republican Study Committee’s site carried nothing. The Republican National Committee had nothing on its website other than a reprint of a Wall Street Journal editorial against Pelosi, under their feature "In Case You Missed It." It would be easy to miss it when there was close to zero GOP opposition to the Pelosi fracas on these sites. They were leaving the work to Team Bush and talk radio.
Brian Kennedy, John Boehner’s press secretary, suggested that it’s still early in the electoral cycle. "When he handed the gavel to Speaker Pelosi in January, Mr. Boehner stated his belief that Republicans could disagree without being disagreeable. And I don’t think he felt the need to make repeated public remarks to state the obvious here, which is that Pelosi’s trip was embarrassing and potentially dangerous." In other words, he passed the buck.
Boehner finally managed to denounce Pelosi’s diplomacy back in Ohio in a meeting with reporters and editors of the Columbus Dispatch, only to have it backfire due to more GOP incompetence. That paper played up that Republican Rep. Dave Hobson, a good friend of Boehner’s from a neighboring district, accompanied Pelosi on her trip, and came out defending Pelosi – to an absolutely embarrassing degree. Hobson not only criticized Team Bush and Mitt Romney for daring to protest Pelosi. He even praised Syrian dictator Bashar Assad as a "very educated person" who wanted stability in Iraq.
By Saturday, Boehner finally made the New York Times – when the Times could finish an article that read like a Democratic position paper, aimed to make him look like an enormous hypocrite. Reporters Helene Cooper and Carl Hulse tut-tutted Boehner’s comment to the Dispatch that Pelosi was going to Syria ''for one reason, and that is to embarrass the president.'' But they noted, around this time in 1997, Boehner accompanied Speaker Gingrich to China, and later called the trip ''very educational.''
It’s very likely that the Times lifted this directly from leftist bloggers like Greg Sargent, who were rifling through Nexis to find exactly these comparisons to defend Pelosi’s bumbling Syrian tour. But as even Sargent admitted, the parallels aren’t precise. The Clinton-Gore team offered no criticism of the Gingrich trip, but merely stated he spoke for himself. Gingrich did raise eyebrows for making bold declarations about how America under the Clinton administration would respond militarily if China attacked Taiwan, but no one viewed this as political subterfuge. And America was not at war.
Cooper and Hulse also failed to mention the New York Times editorial from that time, which slapped Gingrich for making bold declarations on behalf of the American executive branch, but also praised Gingrich for being "refreshingly candid compared with the oblique criticism favored these days by the Clinton Administration....Mr. Gingrich's comments on the Chinese political scene were in some ways more honest than Mr. Gore's anemic formulations."
Pelosi’s Syria trip did pile up some negatives, not only from talk radio hosts, but even from a strongly critical unsigned editorial by The Washington Post. Even NBC’s Matt Lauer found "a lot of people thought she messed up." But the allegedly fearsome "Republican attack machine" on Capitol Hill? At best it ran on a very low volume throughout Madame Speaker’s daffy diplomatic adventure. At worst it was pathetic.
Comments Policy
POTUS Pelosi planning to "open dialogue" with Iran?
April 11, 2007 - 08:54 ET by RJThe hubris, and stupidity, of Nancy Pelosi is breathtaking and frightening.
Apparently, she considers herself to be the POTUS. According to this story, in the San Francisco Chronicle, she and Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, are now considering a trip to Iran to "open dialogue."
"I find the president of Iran's remarks to be so repulsive that they are outside the circle of civilized human behavior....but...it's important to have dialogue." -Nancy Pelosi
The very best thing that coul
April 11, 2007 - 09:22 ET by bassndudeThe very best thing that could happen is we let her go over to Iran, and they keep her. Hold her for ransom, and we can "dialog" with them for some time. She can write letters about how well she is being treated and how misunderstood they are. Some 600 days should do it.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Ha! Love it, Bass.
April 11, 2007 - 09:25 ET by RJHa! Love it, Bass.
Ah, the radical Islam face-lift
April 11, 2007 - 13:33 ET by misterbillHer final face-lift---Ah, the radical Islam face-lift wherein one's face, and skull are removed at the neck. It is hard to have a dialogue when one party wants to behead the other.
POTUS Nancy Pelosi refuses to meet the "other" POTUS
April 11, 2007 - 11:34 ET by RJBelieve it or not, this actually happened:
POTUS Nancy Pelosi has refused the invitation of the "other" POTUS, George Bush, to a meeting in the Oval Office. "He'll just tell us things we don't want to hear."
Following the wishes of the Democrat POTUS, Harry Reid said: "Mr. Bush has to listen to us, we don't have to listen to him. The people have spoken and we must follow their wishes."
I love that standard demoncra
April 11, 2007 - 11:44 ET by SouthJersey1953I love that standard demoncratic line "the people have spoken" (or "a clear mandate from the people"). Most of the races were won by 1 or 2 percentage points. A "mandate" would be if they won by landslides...
Harry....the people haven't spoken, they were just silent when they should have voiced thier opinion last election day.
Don't settle for a RINO. Let's find and support a TRUE conservative.
Maybe the Republican leadersh
April 11, 2007 - 12:22 ET by curiousMaybe the Republican leadership in congress thinks that hypocrisy can only be taken so far. I just read the Sargent piece above that you too easily dismiss, and I watched Sunday as Chris Wallace called Newt on his hypocrisy both for the China trip AND for his Middle East trip, in which he went overseas and flat our contradicted Clinton's foreign policy. I think it was Wallace who also brought up Hastert's trip to Columbia in which he told the Columbians that they could ignor the President and just deal with the Republican congress. Now, while I was probably distressed at the time for the precendent they were setting (I am a long time student of American history and politics), I likely also secretly applauded both for embarrassing Clinton. At least Pelogsi didn't publicly contradict the president's policy.
There's gotta be a limit to the amount of hypocrisy the American people will tolerate. True, most might be dumb as posts about politics, but that doesn't excuse someone as intelligent as yourself from contributing to their ignorance.
I for one applaud the congressional leadership for their silence on this issue. And I question your integrity on this point. Haven't you more serious, and real issues to write about?
At least Pelogsi didn't publi
April 11, 2007 - 12:34 ET by Jack BauerYes she did. As has been confirmed by Tom Lantos (D-Feat).
And I don't understand your overall point. Bad behavior is excused because others have done it and they were not called to account?
That's a rather amoral argument isn't it? Not serious are you?
Jack re: curious
April 11, 2007 - 12:53 ET by misterbillYesterday I posted a statement from the 3 Republicans who precede Pelosi's trip. They went to Syria. I Post an extract from them:"
We raised the issue of stopping foreign fighters who are killing American soldiers and innocent Iraqis from entering Iraq through Syria, ending support for Hezbollah and Hamas, recognizing Israel's right to exist in peace and security, and ceasing interference in Lebanon,' the statement said.
"They also said they strongly supported President George W. Bush's new strategy for Iraq and that they backed the Iraq Study Group report calling for 'an aggressive diplomatic effort' on other regional issues and conflicts.
Wolf, who initiated the Iraq Study Group, is serving his 14th term in Congress. He is a member of the House Appropriations Committee and the ranking Republican on the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations subcommittee."
Doesn't read like an anti-Bush effort to me! Curious is just interested in being a shill for the dems. When Ms. Pelosi refused to back down on her trip--I think the Prez wanted these 3 (magi?) to go before her and lay down the facts. A smart political move!
misterbill... there is a rath
April 11, 2007 - 13:16 ET by Jack Bauermisterbill... there is a rather large difference between any representatives of the President's own party going to a foreign country to support the President's policies, and Pelosi.
What an arrogant woman.
My post about Wallace's gri
April 11, 2007 - 13:22 ET by sarcasmoMy post about Wallace's grilling of Gingrich (Newt emerged quite well-done, if not downright-crispy!) from yesterday disappeared, but any of you who saw Fox News Sunday know what I mean...Hypocrites know no party.
JMR
National review
April 11, 2007 - 13:23 ET by misterbillJack, I don't remember which journalist at NR said this two days ago--but he is opposed to applying the Logan Law against her. He felt that she should be debated in public and confronted with her violation. He felt that she is not sharp and would look like a fool to everyone and expose the "diplomacy" problems. I say charge her because she will avoid every confrontation and will never expose herself to that risk.
A traitorous act!
Sometimes humor is the answ
April 11, 2007 - 13:30 ET by sarcasmoSometimes humor is the answer. As I said in my disappearing-post from yesterday, "y'all should start calling Nancy 'Condi'!"
JMR
"y'all should start call
April 11, 2007 - 13:34 ET by Jack BauerOr maybe what Harry Belafonte would call her: A Speaker of the House Negro
I would just like ANY republi
April 11, 2007 - 13:32 ET by Jack BauerI would just like ANY republican to start acting as if they are indulging in POLITICS, as opposed to, oh... drinks at the club.
They seem to think this is some sort of Marquis of Queensberry rules. It ain't.
Bigger issue: why is it that
April 11, 2007 - 13:44 ET by Jack BauerI suppose because there are still many Bush Republican supporters at NB. There are also many conservatives who are very unhappy with the President on many issues, such as govermnet spending, illegal immigration, et al
They say so all the time depending on the issue... check out Roger The Shrubber.
However they also tend to have short shrift for the occassional troll who call Bush a nazi.
curious
April 11, 2007 - 13:50 ET by misterbillSpeaking for myself only--my experience at NB is that on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, we usually have a newbie lib who comes on and starts the same old,same old. And it is old and it has been discussed todeath. Let me apologize for my descriptionof you as a shill. I will accept that you are sincere. There are some things that President Bush and I are polarized on. I do believe though, that his staffis skilled politically. I think the Repubs went over first to defuse Pelosi's bomb. I am a Newt man as of this writing, but I believe he did a few things while Speaker that were not only too political but plain wrong.
That being said, I will shut my mouth and see how you work with the issues. I DO believe that the 3 were sent because MS Pelosi refused to back down on her trip. today's news firms that up in my mind. She has refused a meeting with the President. Try that anywhere else in the world (or in business where you would be summarily fired), and you would be in trouble or in jail.
I did not like Bill Clinton, but if he summoned me to the WH personally, I would be there post haste. Respect the position even if you don't respect the person.
Ta!
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:34 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't . Because without it the insecure wackos on both sides will prevail...and God help America then.
Grow up.
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:34 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't as . Because without it the insecure wackos on both sides will prevail...and God help America then.
Grow up.
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:34 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't as wide as . Because without it the insecure wackos on both sides will prevail...and God help America then.
Grow up.
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:34 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't as wide . Because without it the insecure wackos on both sides will prevail...and God help America then.
Grow up.
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:34 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't as wide as the . Because without it the insecure wackos on both sides will prevail...and God help America then.
Grow up.
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:34 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't as wide as the politicians and the . Because without it the insecure wackos on both sides will prevail...and God help America then.
Grow up.
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:34 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't as wide as the politicians and . Because without it the insecure wackos on both sides will prevail...and God help America then.
Grow up.
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:34 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't as wide as the politicians . Because without it the insecure wackos on both sides will prevail...and God help America then.
Grow up.
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:35 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't as wide as the politicians and the pundits would have us . Because without it the insecure wackos on both sides will prevail...and God help America then.
Grow up.
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:35 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't as wide as the politicians and the pundits would . Because without it the insecure wackos on both sides will prevail...and God help America then.
Grow up.
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:35 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't as wide as the politicians and the pundits . Because without it the insecure wackos on both sides will prevail...and God help America then.
Grow up.
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:35 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't as wide as the politicians and the pundits would have . Because without it the insecure wackos on both sides will prevail...and God help America then.
Grow up.
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:35 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't as wide as the politicians and the pundits would have us believe. And Because without it the insecure wackos on both sides will prevail...and God help America then.
Grow up.
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:35 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't as wide as the politicians and the pundits would have us believe. And without Because without it the insecure wackos on both sides will prevail...and God help America then.
Grow up.
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:35 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't as wide as the politicians and the pundits would have us believe. And without some such efforts, Because without it the insecure wackos on both sides will prevail...and God help America then.
Grow up.
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:35 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't as wide as the politicians and the pundits would have us believe. And without some Because without it the insecure wackos on both sides will prevail...and God help America then.
Grow up.
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:35 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't as wide as the politicians and the pundits would have us believe. And without some such Because without it the insecure wackos on both sides will prevail...and God help America then.
Grow up.
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:36 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't as wide as the politicians and the pundits would have us believe. And without some such efforts, the insecure wackos on both sides will ultimately prevail...and God help America then.
Grow up.
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:36 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't as wide as the politicians and the pundits would have us believe. And without some such efforts, the insecure wackos on both sides will ultimately prevail. prevail...and God help America then.
Grow up.
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:36 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't as wide as the politicians and the pundits would have us believe. And without some such efforts, the insecure wackos on both sides will ultimately prevail. And God help America then.
Grow up.
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:37 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't as wide as the politicians and the pundits would have us believe. And without some such efforts, the insecure wackos on both sides will ultimately prevail. And God help America then.
So....Grow up, .
Nice one Blatherskite....
April 11, 2007 - 13:39 ET by MightyMouthNice one Blatherskite....
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM -- excellent site.Have yo
April 11, 2007 - 13:46 ET by Jack BauerMM -- excellent site.
Have you signed up for the weekly e-letter, that's a great read for anyone interested in our global English language?
Just did Jack, some pretty
April 11, 2007 - 13:52 ET by MightyMouthJust did Jack, some pretty interesting Clinquants nuggets in there..
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Could also be that I'm shilli
April 11, 2007 - 13:37 ET by curiousCould also be that I'm shilling for a little more truth and honesty in political discussions. If the Dems are right on an issue, then I'll say so, to anybody, anywhere.
On this particular issue, I think Pelogsi was wrong to go. For members of Congress to travel overseas is one thing, for the Speaker, the third person in line to the presidency, and the head of a co-equal branch of government, to go isn't. Nor is it ever acceptable for anyone, member of congress or private citizen, to go overseas and bad mouth their government. Say all you want at home, but not overseas or over borders. And need I add that that is exactly what Newt and Denny did, just like ol' Bagdad Jim and the Dixies.
Bigger issue: why is it that any time someone raises any criticism of Bush or the Republicans in power that he or she must be a closet liberal and/or a shill for the Dems. If the criticism is right, then acknowledge and correct it. We'll emerge the stronger for it. I don't understand why partisans of either stripe are so afraid of the truth. Is your identity so tied up with your ideology that you can't deal with challenges to the latter? If so, that's pretty weak.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just curious about things. Because I question something doesn't mean I am opposed to it, I'm only trying better to understand it....and I hate hypocrisy.
A final point: at least when I question something here you only call me a liberal or a shill. When I do the same on some leftist blogs, being called a f**king bushbot is the least of the epithets I've receive...which is NOT to say that I don't also get some pretty good and well reasoned arguments. I wish more people would take the time to try to reason across partisan differences, they aren't as wide as the politicians and the pundits would have us believe. And without some such efforts, the insecure wackos on both sides will ultimately prevail. And God help America then.
So....Grow up, and act like it.
Sorry, I just read this morni
April 11, 2007 - 13:08 ET by curiousSorry, I just read this morning that the Republican who accompied Pelogsi said that she had not contradicted or criticized Bush positions.
And, no, my point is not that one wrong justifies another, only that the leadership that Bozell criticizes might have been right not to bad mouth Pelogsi, given that the past two Republican speakers engaged in the same bad behavior.
My unspoken point is that I am sick of the hypocrisy that passes for analysis in the media and in politics generally. My estimation of Wallace grew another notch last Sunday when he called Newt on his.
Hey, I have no idea why Repub
April 11, 2007 - 13:25 ET by Jack BauerHey, I have no idea why Republicans keep carrying water for Democrats who shoot themselves in the head.
As these Republicans were not at the meeting with the Basher, how do they know what she said, and ehat "message" she gave.
I prefer to listen to what a DEMOCRAT said about their "mission." That would be Lantos who has let the cat out of the bag.
Rush Limbaugh is demanding transcripts and/or audio of the meeting. Then we'll all know the truth.