Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
>>>Voters rejected this style of pol on Nov 7, but apparently some never got the message.<<<
Guess politics is a bit like the stockmarket. Strong uptrends end with a drawn out topping process rather than abruptly. The frauds that have called themselves republicans for the past 12 years had a good run and won't disappear overnight but will get their tail feathers plucked one by one until forced into eternal hiding. Right wing politicians and entertainers alike.
The Final Demise Of The Gingrichites
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16, 2006
(CBS) This commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.
This is a story I should have written 12 years ago when the "Contract with America" Republicans captured the House in 1994. I apologize.
Really, it's just a simple thesis: the men who ran the Republican Party in the House of Representatives for the past 12 years were a group of weirdos. Together, they comprised one of the oddest legislative power cliques in our history. And for 12 years, the press didn't call a duck a duck, because that's not something we're supposed to do.
I'm not talking about the policies of the Contract for America crowd, but the character. I'm confident that 99 percent of the population — if they could see these politicians up close, if they watched their speeches and looked at their biographies — would agree, no matter what their politics or predilections.
I'm confident that if historians ever spend the time on it, they'll confirm my thesis. Same with forensic psychiatrists. I have discussed this with scores of politicians, staffers, consultants and reporters since 1994 and have found few dissenters.
Politicians in this country get a bad rap. For the most part, they are like any high achieving group in America, with roughly the same distribution of pathologies and virtues. But the leaders of the GOP House didn't fit the personality profile of American politicians, and they didn't deviate in a good way. It was the Chess Club on steroids.
The iconic figures of this era were Newt Gingrich,Richard Armey and Tom Delay. They were zealous advocates of free markets, low taxes and the pursuit of wealth; they were hawks and often bellicose; they were brutal critics of big government.
Yet none of these guys had success in capitalism. None made any real money before they came to Congress. None of them spent a day in uniform. And they all spent the bulk of their adult careers getting paychecks from the big government they claimed to despise. Two resigned in disgrace.
Having these guys in charge of a radical conservative agenda was like, well, putting Mark Foley in charge of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus. Indeed, Foley was elected in the Class of '94 and is not an inappropriate symbol of their regime.
More than the others, Newton Leroy Gingrich lived out a very special hypocrisy. In addition to the above biographical dissonance, Gingrich was one of the most sharp-tongued, articulate and persuasive attack dogs in modern politics. His favorite target was the supposed immorality and corruption of the Democratic Party. With soaring rhetoric, he condemned his opponents as anti-American and dangerous to our country's family values — "grotesque" was a favorite word.
Yet this was a man who was divorced twice, the first time when his wife was hospitalized for cancer treatment, the second time after an affair was revealed.
Gingrich made his bones in the party by relentlessly attacking Democratic corruption, yet he was hounded from office because of a series of serious ethics questions. He posed as a reformer of the House, yet championed a series of deforms that made the legislative process more closed, more conducive to hiding special interest favors and less a forum for genuine debate.
And he did it all with epic sanctimony.
These squirrelly guys attracted and promoted to power similarly odd colleagues: birds of a feather, you know, stick together. Bill Clinton of Monica Lewinsky fame had no more zealous and moralistic critic than Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana, who ran a then-powerful committee. In the course of his crusade, Burton was forced to admit he had actually fathered a child in an extramarital affair.
The man who led the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings with equal, if saner, bloodlust was Rep. Henry HydeIn the midst of this, Hyde was forced to admit to a five-year affair.
When Gingrich stepped down, Republicans turned to a master Louisiana pork-barreller, Robert Livingston. That lasted a day or so, until Livingston (you guessed it) admitted to having extramarital affairs.
Livingston was succeeded by Dennis Hastert perhaps the most, well, conventional of the GOP leaders of his era. Still, Hastert was a hawk with no military service and a defender of the rich with no money or experience in business.
In this year's election cycle, House Republicans were justly vilified for their subservience to the corruptions of Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay's entire K Street project. While extreme, there have been many other periods of extreme corruption in Congress.
What marked this Republican cadre was not their corruption, but the chips on their shoulders.
It was a localized condition. It didn't spread to the Senate. The Republican leaders there — again, suspend your ideology and just look at biography — were pretty typical American politicians.
Bob Dole, Trent Lott and Bill Frist were not acting out in office. They were not ideologues and did not use the rhetoric of the righteous. The colleagues that wielded the most power — like McCainSimpson, Lugar, Specter, Stevens, Warner — have had long runs of service in several arenas relatively free of public and private embarrassment and hypocrisy -- and even some substantial accomplishments pre-Senate.
History reveals that often great leaders and intellectuals appear in clusters, inspiring and motivating each other to extraordinary achievement. American historians have focused on this in recent books looking at the "founding brothers," Lincoln's "team of rivals," the 19th century pragmatist philosophers called "the metaphysical club," Roosevelt's New Dealers and Kennedy's "best and the brightest."
The opposite is also true.
What's next for the House is of course uncertain, but an undistinguished chapter has come to a close. Good riddance.
Dick Meyer is the editorial director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/15/opinion/meyer/main2182755.shtml
>>>I find Fox and conservative talk radio to be less manipulative than the liberal media<<<
Let me know when you're ready to compare pre-war transcripts from Fox and conservative talk radio with those of the liberal media.
>>>and doesn't have a hangup about marching in parades with gay groups.<<<
We used to think this was a negative for Bush republicans but now I'm not so sure about that. Especially not if the gays they march with are teenagers and/or prostitutes.
I absolutely agree he's an unsuspecting idiot. Pat Roberts - career Bush servant - has led Rockefeller around by the ear for 5 years and still is. Phase 2 of the SSCI investigation into the use of prewar intelligence has been stalled by Roberts for 2 years now and clueless Rockefeller seems happy with the progress.
"In February 2004, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (SSCI) announced that it had unanimously agreed to expand its investigation of prewar Iraq intelligence from focus on intelligence community blunders and into the more controversial area of “whether intelligence was exaggerated or misused” by U.S. government officials. The committee’s ranking Democrat, Jay Rockefeller, struck the agreement with Chairman Pat Roberts -- provided, Roberts insisted, that the probe into policy-makers’ activities wait until after the presidential election.
It’s now more than a year later, and Rockefeller is still waiting -- the Phase II report has yet to appear. What happened? And why isn’t Rockefeller making more of a fuss?
Republican committee staffers don’t deny that Roberts lacks enthusiasm for Phase II."
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=10492
>>>is it possible that the manipulation came from the left ???<<<
No it's not since they were not at the top of the war promotion food chain. The Bush WH was and various unsuspecting idiots got dragged along.
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. - Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002.
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. - George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002.
No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002.
What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people. - White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003.
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat. - Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003."
http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/02-10-04/discussion.cgi.25.html
>>>What you don't get is how the liberal media has manipulated you.<<<
In your opinion, is there any such manipulation on the right........like conservative talk radio and Fox news? Or are those the spin free zones where you get the unvarnished truth and nothing but?
>>>The ship's crew was displaying the banner for their families for the ship's mission accomplished! But you spin it anyway you want.<<<
Just a simple question: The quote below belongs to George Bush on the carrier deck with the banner backdrop. You see no relationship between the banner and the underlined words by Bush?
"THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.)"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html
>>>It is an active site where Al Qada is involved<<<
Every corner on earth is active Al Qaeda site. They don't need Iraq to plot against the US.
"Al-Qaeda has autonomous underground cells in some 100 countries, including the United States, officials say. Law enforcement has broken up al-Qaeda cells in the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Albania, Uganda, and elsewhere."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-qaida.htm
>>>To leave in defeat will embolden them and be a recruiting tool and lead to them wanteing to pursue the war on our homeland<<<
We already gave them the best recruiting tool available which was to invade Iraq in the first place. You just can't improve on that. Either way..........you seem to believe the US military can defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq and then withdraw to a homeland immune to future attacks. Amazingly idiotic but I don't know how else to read your thoughts.
>>>Can't you see how us leaving Iraq to it's own defense would be a stupid idea??<<<
They managed before we got there. In fact they managed so well people like you thought they were a threat to the entire global population. Now, 3 1/2 years into this humanitarian mission or whatever it's called lately you say we have liberated them into a state of defenselessness?
>>>US losing in Iraq will reverberate for decades- with the likely possibility of another 9/11 almost a given.<<<
You understand that another 9/11 was foiled a month or two ago - in London? All suspects were born and raised in the UK and just like the 9/11 terrorists, none had ties to Iraq. So considering that the first attack was plotted in Germany and Florida and the second one in London, what makes you think "winning" Iraq's civil war will reduce the chances of another 9/11?
>>>McCain jumped on John Kerry's bad joke timing. He KNEW that John was talking about Bush and not our troops, and yet pounded him about his horrible joking ability.<<<
"MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Roger, I only have a chance for a minute. Do you think John McCain helped himself in the view of the press that‘s covering this campaign, the political press, by the way he reacted to the John Kerry misstatement? Which is what it was. He‘s treated it as if John Kerry, his old war buddy, was actively out there trashing people who enlist, by saying they‘re not as bright and therefore they get somehow drafted into the military? That‘s a hideous description of what happened.
SIMON: I think the bloom is off the rose between John McCain and the press this time, and maybe that‘s a good thing. Maybe too many reporters gave their hearts to John McCain the first time. And McCain never asked them to, but they have given him a break or two or three or four or 500.
MATTHEWS: Because he‘s served in Vietnam, and a lot of us didn‘t.
SIMON: Well, it‘s one thing. One thing is he‘s a wonderful guy to cover, because he gives you access about 20 hours a day.
MATTHEWS: That‘s true.
SIMON: And that‘s what reports want, he‘s always there for you. He‘s always there."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15699444/
I think what they were saying politely is that McCain has over exploited his war hero status, has turned into a cheap media whore and lacks integrity. Couldn't agree more. Used to like him a lot but can't stand him now. That soft spoken, almost apologetic delivery of his has fooled a lot of people and has helped him get away with saying one thing in public and then doing or voting for the exact opposite.
>>>transcripts of their statements since Tues
is what I am looking for<<<
Excellent. Let me know when you find it.
>>>You essentially arguing for an increased troop level at the outset<<<
Where have you been? I've been against the whole fiasco from the start........150,000 or 500,000 troops, no difference to me.
>>>Do you honestly think that if we leave the Shia and Sunnis will start "just getting along?<<<
Of course not but they are killing each other in greater numbers since we got there. Why is that?
>>>Yeah, let's just find out if 100,000's of Iraqui's get killed just like the Cambodians after our withdrawl to satisfy your curiosity<<<
An estimated 600,000 have already been killed as a result of the US invasion. And now you're concerned that another 100,000 might die if some troops move to Kuwait, ready to go back in if necessary?
>>>Florida Recount<<<
Any reason this "key election official" shouldn't be prosecuted?
"The CBS News Investigative Unit has obtained an E-mail by a key election official indicating she may have known well before Election Day the machines weren't working properly."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/11/cbsnews_investigates/main2174376.shtml
>>>you hearing anything different from the dem leadership ??<<<
I'm hearing the same things you are. Joe Biden wants three happy families, living on evenly divided Iraqi acres from north to south and Murtha sees a gradual withdrawal into neighboring countries like Kuwait from where troops could be redeployed quickly if need be. Between those two and Bush's "why change a winning hand" strategy, a slow redeployment to Kuwait seems reasonable imo. Aren't you anxious to find out if the occupation by US troops is provoking violence or is maintaining relative order which is what the WH spin boils down to? Only one way to find out.
>>>and my guess is that 99% of our elected representatives will vote to keep our forces in Iraq until that battle is won<<<
And you will be wrong again since even the terminally stupid will eventually have to agree that Iraq is in a civil war which the US military has no business being in the middle of.
>>>it is likely that many of them are dissatisfied because he is not waging all-out war<<<
Where do you find support for that theory? Last I heard, 65% of the country think Iraq was a mistake and want the troops home as soon as practical. That shows a broad appetite for more war? Which leaves the other 35% who never were a problem for Bush since they would drop into the mouth of an erupting volcano if he told them it would keep them safe from Islamic fascism.
The core base is still with him but much of the center is not anymore and they didn't leave him and his party because not enough wars are being fought.
>>>Iraq is the battleground of our choosing to fight the GWOT<<<
And therein lies much of Bush republican's problem. It was a stupid choice that most of them still support. I'll never give the american majority credit for being quick but give them time and they recognize stupidity. Took 5 years in this case but they came through again. How much longer for you hap?
>>>Maybe hap can tell us what "fighting" Iraq has to do with fighting the "war on terror"<<<
He won't tell us that but he'll tell us that it's amazing what 140,000 troops can do and then he'll tell us that the 2006 republican landslide has been rescheduled for 2008 and how pitiful it is to watch democrats go off a cliff. As he's feasting on roast crow...
>>>Hawks think the choice is between fighting now or fighting later.<<<
So what do you call those who think the choice is between fighting smart now or fighting foolishly now?
oh....you're just a DEFEATOCRAT to take note of things like that.
>>>Murtha will heat things up...<<<
And then Henry Waxman takes over. That's the guy the WH hopes gets run over by a bus imo.
At this point, what's the value of a neocon VP with a 17% approval rating I wonder? Other than baby sitting the president I mean..
>>>I personally am not looking for impeachment, but I sure as HELL want to know why our sons/daughters were sent into a war based on a LIE.<<<
I sure as hell want to know that too but are you saying that if impeachable offenses are uncovered he should get a pass?
>>>It will get more ugly than most of our friends here can imagine or even accept at this point.<<<
It will if the dems do their job which I have my doubts about. They're just not fighters but a polite bunch that have spent the past 12 years talking about partisanship while getting republican daggers in their backs at every turn. Amazingly they never seemed to understand what was going on and they probably won't as the new minority will now continue to roll the party in charge. I'd love to be wrong about this though.
They may not start digging with the intention of impeachment but how do they rule it out altogether not knowing what they'll find? They'll stop investigating if it gets too ugly? I can think of scenarios where a majority of the country including reasonable republicans would demand impeachment.
>>>Howard Dean Says No Impeachment Of Bush<<<
How would he know? Safe to say there will be subpoenas and investigations and that the trails will be followed wherever they lead.
>>>Rumsfeld defiant to the end<<<
Bush: "Rumsfeld hard act to follow"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/08/politics/main2162973.shtml
lol......first time in years he's told the truth and it's an accident.
McCain on Larry King now.....defiant and sounding like an old geezer. "I'm disappointed since I believe america is a conservative nation". Not it's not you fool. America is a moderate nation as should be evident to anyone who's still awake tonight. Too much hard right the last 5 years and now it's correcting itself as it always does. Same process no matter which way it gets off balance. Neither liberals, nor christian conservatives will run this country for any length of time.
Pretty good.......except I'm not wild about Pelosi. Easier on the eyes than Hastert though and better for the country than Hastert so no complaints.
And Tester's up by 8% in MT. Only about half way through there though...
http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2006/state.shtml?state=MT
Virginia reporting 60% voter turnout. Massive for a midterm election and bad news for anyone with an R next to their name.
Maybe I missed it, maybe I didn't, or maybe I didn't see it as a problem. What are you referring to?
>>>the brutal evil of the democratic party andrew sullivan<<<
Did you read the story he linked to? I agree with every word of this commentary by..........The American Conservative. Goes to show what the Bush republicans here understand about politics since they have me pegged as a fringe liberal.
"It should surprise few readers that we think a vote that is seen—in America and the world at large—as a decisive “No” vote on the Bush presidency is the best outcome. We need not dwell on George W. Bush’s failed effort to jam a poorly disguised amnesty for illegal aliens through Congress or the assaults on the Constitution carried out under the pretext of fighting terrorism or his administration’s endorsement of torture. Faced on Sept. 11, 2001 with a great challenge, President Bush made little effort to understand who had attacked us and why—thus ignoring the prerequisite for crafting an effective response. He seemingly did not want to find out, and he had staffed his national-security team with people who either did not want to know or were committed to a prefabricated answer.
As a consequence, he rushed America into a war against Iraq, a war we are now losing and cannot win, one that has done far more to strengthen Islamist terrorists than anything they could possibly have done for themselves. Bush’s decision to seize Iraq will almost surely leave behind a broken state divided into warring ethnic enclaves, with hundreds of thousands killed and maimed and thousands more thirsting for revenge against the country that crossed the ocean to attack them. The invasion failed at every level: if securing Israel was part of the administration’s calculation—as the record suggests it was for several of his top aides—the result is also clear: the strengthening of Iran’s hand in the Persian Gulf, with a reach up to Israel’s northern border, and the elimination of the most powerful Arab state that might stem Iranian regional hegemony."
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_20/feature.html
>>>vote for the repubs -- a direct challenge to the Islamofacists -- we will not be defeated<<<
Already have been defeated in Iraq if you have the courage and integrity to be honest about it. Matters still deteriorating, it's lasted longer than the US involvement in WW 2 and this is an enemy that had neither a real army, nor a navy or an air force. The REAL w.o.t. on the other hand is a separate issue but chances are you feel different about whether it is or not.
You want stupidity? The bible belt doesn't count since they're beyond help but the people of Connecticut and RI should know better. They are the most anti war in the country, both states have the lowest approval rating for Bush in the country and RI registered democrats outnumber registered republicans 5 to 1. Mention George Bush by name there and they throw up. So how are they about to vote? CT is about to reelect chief warmonger Lieberman who not only stands 100% behind Bush's Iraq policy but also can't wait to destroy Iraq and Syria. In RI, Chafee is now almost even with Whitehead after being behind by 10 points. Ask Rhode Islanders what gives and they'll tell you they know he's a republican and they know a vote for him represents a vote for Bush's rubberstamp senate but "Chafee is such a nice man". Stupidity at its worst. Intelligent, well informed people voting on sheer emotion.
>>>will undoubtedly go down in history as the Bush Legacy.....<<<
Insulting Our Troops, and Our Intelligence
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/opinion/03friedman.html
>>>“We’ve got the basic strategy right,” he said, and pledged “full speed ahead.” That is not exactly the message that most Americans want to hear<<<
Actually it seems that's what they do want to hear. Go figure...
"....but a number of other hotly contested races are tightening up, increasing the chances that Republicans may be able to retain their majority."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/02/politics/main2143962.shtml
>>>The blind delusional idiot Republickens<<<
Insulting Our Troops, and Our Intelligence
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: November 3, 2006
We're not as dumb as they think
George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld think you're stupid. Yes, they do.
They think they can take a mangled quip about President Bush and Iraq by John Kerry -- a man who is not even running for office but who, unlike Bush and Cheney, never ran away from combat service -- and get you to vote against all Democrats in this election.
Every time you hear Bush or Cheney lash out against Kerry, I hope you will say to yourself, "They must think I'm stupid."
Because they surely do.
They think that they can get you to overlook all of the Bush team's real and deadly insults to the U.S. military over the past six years by hyping and exaggerating Kerry's mangled gibe at the president.
What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to the U.S. military than to send it into combat in Iraq without enough men -- to launch an invasion of a foreign country not by the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force, but by the Rumsfeld Doctrine of just enough troops to lose? What could be a bigger insult than that?
What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in uniform than sending them off to war without the proper equipment, so that some soldiers in the field were left to buy their own body armor and to retrofit their own jeeps with scrap metal so that roadside bombs in Iraq would only maim them for life and not kill them? And what could be more injurious and insulting than Don Rumsfeld's response to criticism that he sent our troops off in haste and unprepared: Hey, you go to war with the army you've got -- get over it.
What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in uniform than to send them off to war in Iraq without any coherent postwar plan for political reconstruction there, so that the U.S. military has had to assume not only security responsibilities for all of Iraq but the political rebuilding as well? The Bush team has created a veritable library of military histories -- from "Cobra II" to "Fiasco" to "State of Denial" -- all of which contain the same damning conclusion offered by the very soldiers and officers who fought this war: This administration never had a plan for the morning after, and we've been making it up -- and paying the price -- ever since.
And what could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in Iraq than to send them off to war and then go out and finance the very people they're fighting against with our gluttonous consumption of oil? Sure, George W. Bush told us we're addicted to oil, but he has not done one single significant thing -- demanded higher mileage standards from Detroit, imposed a gasoline tax or even used the bully pulpit of the White House to drive conservation -- to end that addiction. So we continue to finance the U.S. military with our tax dollars, while we finance Iran, Syria, Wahhabi mosques and Qaida madrassas with our energy purchases.
Everyone says that Karl Rove is a genius. Yeah, right. So are cigarette companies. They get you to buy cigarettes even though we know they cause cancer. That is the kind of genius Karl Rove is. He is not a man who has designed a strategy to reunite our country around an agenda of renewal for the 21st century -- to bring out the best in us. His "genius" is taking some irrelevant aside by John Kerry and twisting it to bring out the worst in us, so you will ignore the mess that the Bush team has visited on this country.
And Karl Rove has succeeded at that in the past because he was sure that he could sell just enough Bush cigarettes, even though people knew they caused cancer. Please, please, for our country's health, prove him wrong this time.
Let Karl know that you're not stupid. Let him know that you know that the most patriotic thing to do in this election is to vote against an administration that has -- through sheer incompetence -- brought us to a point in Iraq that was not inevitable but is now unwinnable.
Let Karl know that you think this is a critical election, because you know as a citizen that if the Bush team can behave with the level of deadly incompetence it has exhibited in Iraq -- and then get away with it by holding on to the House and the Senate -- it means our country has become a banana republic. It means our democracy is in tatters because it is so gerrymandered, so polluted by money, and so divided by professional political hacks that we can no longer hold the ruling party to account.
It means we're as stupid as Karl thinks we are.
I, for one, don't think we're that stupid. Next Tuesday, we'll see.
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/opinion/03friedman.html