The worst of the lot is Susan Dudley, a first-class randian freak. She'll do for health & safety what John Yoo did for human rights.

I thought I had read somewhere this morning that Bush had recalled his appointment of Fox. It is hell to get old, I know I read it but can't remember where.

If we hadn't heard W tell us that he's a "uniter, not a divider," I could swear that boning Democrats must be his favorite pastime.

Clinton did his share of 'boning' while in the White House. 140 recess appointments. Sam Fox, James Hormel, same thing. Every President has used recess appointments.

Not the same way. Not the same thing. Clinton and Reagan and other presidents made clean sweeps to put in their choices, as did this Bush, who had already appointed these eight Republicans. Fine so far. But then these eight were jettisoned based on their unwillingness to obstruct justice for the GOP's political gain: either unwilling to bring flimsy investigation for the mainstream media in order to impact elections, such as was the case in New Mexico in Oct. before the election, or because they did pursue cases of GOP corruption, as in the case of Carol Lam in San Diego.

Next, DOJ has since been massively lying and covering up, including contradictions to congress directly from Gonzales. Lying to congress is a felony, even if not under oath as I understand it. No?

Now there's a new wrinkle of mass resignations in Minneapolis over meddling by DOJ and an unqualified and overzealous USA there.

Why are so many Republicans speaking out against this scandal and calling for AG's resignation? You're saying there's no fire under the smoke. They aren't.

Oh yeah, I guess did forget the topic. Read "AE firings, pleasure of the Prez," etc. for "recess appts." Whatever. It's hard keep up with the egregiousness of this bunch.

No, it's not illegal to do a recess appt. It's the sheer gall of Bush to put in such a political hack who has been so soundly rejected by the Senate. Same thing as with Bolton. These ambassadors don't have credibility because they were slipped into position against the will of the governing bodies by a weak president.

To come off a Senate rejection this negative and quickly give this swiftboater a plum position has got to be a record for sticking it to the other party our of sheer spite. Clinton hired a Republican as Defense Secretary. And you still think Mr. Uniter-Not-a-Divider has never lied?

(Also, a recess appt. is usually more along the lines of the long break in between congresses/end of year, not a simple Easter vacation. More abuse of his privileges.)

CBT says: Clinton did his share of 'boning'....

Like Ricky Santorum, somebody is fixated on sex, especially if it involves Clinton. [edited]

Clinton is the last and most recent Democrat President. His actions are often the most relevant comparison to those of President Bush.

"CBT" are my initials, as most know.

And you feel the need to say, "But Clinton did it too...." even though his actions frequently are not the same, such as replacing attorneys at the beginning of his term which is unlike Bush trying to replace his in the middle because they were not political enough. Or saying Clinton did it too when talking about recess appointments, when Clinton never withdrew an failing appointment only to use a recess appointment for the same person a few days later while the Senate was out for a week.

[edit]

Dear anonymous poster 'gttim'

I have to confess, I have no idea what other meaning the letters 'CBT' have. I am not familiar with BDSM related terms and probably glad of it.

And, you choose to attack my initials? Surely you can do better than that. Geez, I'm a former Republican party chairman and lawyer.

I also don't post anonymously or make personal attacks. I believe a person loses credibility in doing so.

I suppose to could make reference to 'the last former Democrat President', but that would sound a bit silly. If others do not think a comparison between two Presidents is on point, they can post responses. Seems to me that's one purpose of a blog.

No, I choose to attack your continual, repeated attempt to excuse anything done by Republicans by bringing up Clinton. Your initials and using the term boning were just icing on the cake.

I'm a former Republican party chairman and lawyer.

Your a Republican hack? Get outta here! Who would have thought?

Being a lawyer does not intimidate me, if that was your thought. I have told more lawyers to go F%$^ themselves than you can shake a stick at. Plus, my best friend and several old girlfriends are lawyers. I am fully aware of the power lawyers have, which isn't any.

I think you are going to be as fun as Bill Hobbs!

In case you Democrats haven't noticed, you control the House of Representatives. If the recess appointment of Sam Fox and the rest of the feces chimp-boy keeps flinging at you piss you off enough, impeach the motherfucker.

If they can't get two thirds of the Senate to convict him of impeachment, bring the charge in the House is pretty useless. Besides, Bush and Cheney are the best thing the Democratic Party has going for it in the 2008 election.

I don't mind criticism of Clinton or any other Dem if it's valid. Pick on the Telecommunications Act of '96 if you want--I fear it has many problems.

However it's not valid, IMO, to excuse W with the "Clinton did it" defense, when Republicans like Reagan and Bush41 also did what Clinton did and when there's a significant difference between what those three did and what is being alleged of W doing now. Further, W is the one who specifically pledged that he would reach across party lines and "bring people together," so he carries the burden he brought on himself to being held to a higher standard of bipartisanship.

Nor is it fair to use the "Clinton-approved" excuse, when all Clinton did was to sign a huge omnibus bill that was written and passed primarily by Republicans. CBT, isn't it true that even the original Hummer tax break of 1997 that you "credited" to Clinton was still done by Republicans controlling congress? All Clinton did was to allow it to pass along with everything else in that bill. Apparently the aggregate was acceptable to him. But it's not fair to imply he even favored that loophole then, unless you know he did and can back it up.

Unlike this president, Clinton actually understood and believed in compromise, negotiation, bipartisanship, reaching across the aisle, etc. Even while the GOP Congress was busy "boning" him with a trumped up impeachment over a personal lie at the very moment of the signing!

I don't want to attack CBT. I'm glad he's here and it's fine if he wants to stay out of politics entirely. But every time he (or anyone) chooses to make a political comment, s/he is fair game to have to defend their words. I don't apologize for pulling punches in a fair and honest debate. Ideally it will stay civil, though civility doesn't survive too well on the intertubes.

If I hung out at a conservative site, I'd be darn careful to not throw out weak or empty attacks, knowing the crap I'd have to endure if I did. I'm sure CBT understands that. (Many liberal comments never make it past editors on conservative sites anyway.)

Further, W is the one who specifically pledged that he would reach across party lines and "bring people together," so he carries the burden he brought on himself to being held to a higher standard of bipartisanship.

Thus the "Family Values" burden, the "Adults are in Charge Now" burden, the "Fiscal Conservative" burden, the "Flip Flop" burden, the "Sex is Only Between a Married Man and Woman" burden, and on and on and on. You would think that they quit teaching hypocrisy and evolution to Republicans.

If conservative sites allow commenting, and most do not, they delete almost anything that does not toe the party line. The the hypocrisy is so funny when they decry lefty blogs for not allowing free speech for deleting particularly offensive comments, when most allow any wingnut the ability to post complete and utter BS anytime they want, unlike righty sites.

CBT: Now if you read Factchecker's above post, you will see a well reasoned argument with cited examples and good use of logic. You should try it sometime. Go see Bill Hobb's blog for examples for what you have been doing.

Why Mr. Neal, I have not shown Mr. CBT 1% of my famous charm that I used to show Mr. Hobbs! I have been down right civil!

Intimidate? That's funny. Heck, with the lawyer remark I was just give you something better to wail about than my initials, which you have to admit is pretty weak.

Thanks for the comment Randy. I don't have a lot of luck with Rikki. But, he's a good guy. Our common ground may only consist of where to have a beer.

p.s.

I guess I need to some sort of internet search to figure out what "CBT" means. But, I'm a bit scared of what websites it may take me to. In the words of the old Jason and the Scorchers song, maybe 'I really don't want to know'.

Republicans are conceding the Presidency,

Really? Have you missed all of this hoohah?

(Someone better inform the campaigns of John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney as well.)

and, true to form, the yellow dog is happy to lick up the barf and call it a meal. Just under two years to wait for that nutritious victory!

Fair enough.

Now, show me another viable independent candidate who can fund & run campaigns in at least 37 states and produce 270 electoral votes. And all in under two years. And who'll have major party support for his/her presidency, since this candidate may probably only pull 3 or 4 so-called "independents" into Congress.

This isn't a rhetorical question. I'd really like to know how this works. I was convinced in 2000 that Nader might have been a good bet, but seeing as how his candidacy was largely underwritten by the Bush-Cheney Victory Campaign in 2004, maybe his much-vaunted bid for the presidency was a cheap political stunt after all.

Grover Norquist sure thinks Nader was a swell guy.

____________________________

People getting rich. Some people saying "Markets!" More death. Neil Young. Death.

and, true to form, the yellow dog is happy to lick up the barf and call it a meal. Just under two years to wait for that nutritious victory!

I have a feeling that maybe this time the populace will not forget how bad the Republicans screw things up. After Nixon restored integrity to the White House, Reagan/Bush restored fiscal sanity and Bush re-restored integrity, honesty, and fiscal sanity to the White House (yeah, right), even with the MSM rewriting history to favor the GOP, I think the people are going to remember all this. The US is in the worst shape it has ever been; We are in a war we cannot win; our national debt is going through the roof; the housing bubble is exploding; there is little middle class employment; the income gap is probably bigger than it has ever been; gas costs are going up again; gas, insurance and pharm companies are ripping off people more than ever; the mistrust of the government is probably higher than it has ever been; the combined approval rate of the president and vice president is lower than 50 out of a possible 200%. Hell, my Evangelical Christian and former Bush loving brother-in-law, and former NRA member, just told me a few weekends ago "I am an evangelical Christian and that does not mean I am a Republican."

Yeah, the Dems may have to clean up after the GOP yet again, but I think they hold onto the government for a long time. Remember Bush had to steal the election twice. At the GOP's peak he could not win the election fairly. The GOP needed voter purges and intimidation, false felon databases, a compliant media, illegal phone banks, dirty tricks, gay scares and the old gun control bogyman to win. I don't think it is going to work again.

I did look and all I could come up with quickly was Chicago Board of Trade, Computer Based Training and some other similar results. As I said, I probably don't want to know.

I do find it amazing you direct childish, personal attacks toward someone you know so very little about and have never met. To me that seems to be a perfect example of ignorance.

A suggestion was made that REAL incivility exists on rightwing blogs. I would simply suggest that there's a lot of ugly hatred expressed on extremist blogs on both sides

Kos : extremist :: LGF : Islamophilia.

____________________________

People getting rich. Some people saying "Markets!" More death. Neil Young. Death.

A Blackwater "technical consultant" makes about 5 times more than an E-5.

I think it is 10 times.

You had to go back three years to find one example of Kos saying something as controversial as what you can find numerous examples of every day spread across right-wing sites like the ones listed above and their hate radio and much of their Faux News. And you neglect that Kos came back and wrote a detailed mea culpa to clarify his original post. How many times has Hannity, Rush, Ollie, Liddy, Drudge, Cheney, Coulter, Instapundit, et. al. ad nauseam gone to such length?

But people like you, JR, still hold that one, 3 yr. old post as "proof" that rancor on both sides pretty much cancels out. Not true. It doesn't. Not by a long shot.