I approve this message.

"Please don't do anything stupid for the next two years. Thank you."

Amen to that.

Yes, definitely.

Let's take the high road and get to business.

It's not like Republicans would tell the truth about Democrats even if they did actually manage to not do anything stupid for the next two years.  They lie.

I would only hope our country can see through all of the posturing by both sides. If you want to see a Democratic Haliburton, check out Perini Corporation, Richard Blum and who he is married to. Yes, that Diane Feinstein (D-Ca)

Of course the Dems are capable of corruption. But to compare the worst of (modern) Dem corruption to what happened the last six years is like blithely lumping together shoplifting and armed robbery.

The GOP built a machine unprecedented in scale and scope that the Democrats simply couldn't replicate even if they wanted to. It is about party, for one big reason: the GOP can tap and dole out a helluva lot more cash. 

As far as the executive branch goes, impeachment should be off the table unless the preznit refuses to back off of this Federalist Society bullshit.

The National Review's "The Plank" just penned this stinker:

Some big name Democrats want to oust DNC Chairman Howard Dean, arguing that his stubborn commitment to the 50-state strategy and his stinginess with funds for House races cost the Democrats several pickup opportunities.

The candidate being floated to replace Dean? Harold Ford.

Says James Carville, one of the anti-Deaniacs, "Suppose Harold Ford became chairman of the DNC? How much more money do you think we could raise? Just think of the difference it could make in one day. Now probably Harold Ford wants to stay in Tennessee. I just appointed myself his campaign manager."

Oh, hell, hell, hell, HELL NO.

____________________________

You can live a batter life, or a butter life. Or both, if you choose.

I caught Dennis Kucinich on some cable news show last night. He was talking about how Democrats would be able to campaign in '08 on having gotten us out of Iraq. That seems a bit presumptuous, but let's assume we do manage to more or less disengage from Iraq next year. It won't be pretty. Even if the Iraqis manage to resolve their power struggles without a prolonged bloodletting, their infrastructure is still in disrepair despite the billions we have allegedly invested in their hospitals, sewers, transmission lines, pipelines and roads. They could very well ask for more money!

If a troop withdrawal is accompanied by a huge outlay of U.S. dollars, the Republicans could easily use that against the Dems. This makes it vital that a full auditing and investigation of our Iraq expenses be done. Congress should start by looking at where the lost $9 billion went. If it's gone without a trace, some heads need to roll. How much money we've spent, lost and wasted over there under the Republicans must become common knowledge among Americans before we start to withdraw, otherwise the Dems will just become the butt of the joke.

By a similar line of reasoning, the "bad apples" theory of Abu Ghraib must not stand. Democrats must shine a bright light on all the missteps Bush made in Iraq to avoid simply inheriting the blame.

Leave Halliburton and 9/11 and the pre-war sabotage of our intelligence agencies out of it until the simple mismanagement of billions of dollars is common knowledge and the blame firmly affixed on those who earned it. 

First this, now this. Animal Farm - it's right every time. Why, there's even a Boxer!

Tuning in to Republican media today was likely to get you an explanation of how pork works. When Ted Stevens was promising to resign from the Senate if they took his precious bridge away, Republican media talked about earmarking and appropriations as though they were an inside joke shared among both parties and the American people at large. "Haha, look at those funny politicians doing what funny politicians do! You can't grow a pig without slopping the trough!"

Today the Republican media took the joke a little more seriously, tossing a civics lesson about committees and spending bills into its coverage of Murtha's bid for a party leadership position. This is good. It means four years of distraction did not wipe the knowledge of how federal spending gets out of control from Republican brains. They do remember! They just had no reason to talk about it for the last four years, being so bloated from the slopfest they could manage little more than borborygmi.

How long will this sudden Republican bloodlust for exposing corruption last? Will they go back to their usual stance of laughing it off as something everyone does once the party leadership positions have been chosen? If so, Democrats will probably be happy to play along. If not, investigations of the Executive Branch will become all the more critical as a way to keep control of public dialogue.

Any conversation about corruption should begin with military contracting under Bush. If Democrats do not demand testimony from former and current Bush officials, Republicans will turn the corruption issue on them. Libby, Hannah, Clarke, Powell, Rice, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Myers, Hughes, Cambone, White, Card, Rove, Fleischer, McClellan, O'Neill and some others not coming to mind at the moment, they all need to be sworn in.