WE Blog

Because of life time tenure the selection of a SCOTUS judges should be a thoughtful process and not a political brownee point.

The Republicans are upset about Democrats slowing things? Is this the same Republican party that demanded 500 pages of the climate bill be read aloud, the same party that demanded a recorded vote after a unanimous vote concerning Mother’s Day, the same Republican party that has the most filibusters of any Congress in history?

Rather hypocritical.

Yes MP - it is the same Repuke Party. Pot, meet kettle.

oops! Forgot one.

Revenge is sweet.

Oh, and another…

Don’t get mad, just get even.

All partisan bickering aside, do we taxpayers really deserve to keep paying these buffoons to sit and play games? And then they wonder why Obama with his message of change is resonating so well with the average American who have shown up in the thousands at his speeches.

Even if Obama is a shill and cannot deliver change, his message of a broken government divided by partisan politics is only made stronger by stories with Senators who act more like children in the play yard than distinguished servants of the people.

But one interesting point here, those executive orders that Bush was so fond of giving himself during his terms will now be available to the next president. Republicans may not like what they find come January 2009.

Interesting, not any republicans touching this one.

Awwwww

Right wing Rhonda doesn’t like when the shoe is on the other foot!

Hmm. My advice is, get used to it.

SWEET!

“Both parties are very quilty”

But it was okay when Clinton was president, right?

By the way guilty is spelled with a “g” not a “q.”

“okobserver” admits –

“It’s time we voters were much more selective of who we put in power. This election will set the tone for the next several years. We had better get it right and send those who don’t play well home.”

Earlier today I posted a link to Frank Rich’s column in the New York Times. You should read it, “okobserver.”

No one knows if Barack Obama can deliver on his goal to change the way Washington operates. But that’s the core of his candidacy. And, yes, “hope” is a sometime ephemeral concept; but he’s delivered so far. He’s financed his campaign with millions of $10, $20, $100 donations instead of McCain’s huge bundling of corporate lobbyists. He probably caused apoplexy among Democratic Party fat cats who’d come to expect PAC and lobbyist money the way Clinton did in the 90s.

A lot of Democrats are still trying to fight the last war — like the French who built the Maginot Line, the best damned trench in the world, ready to re-fight WWI… until there was a Luftwaffe and Panzer tanks — and way too many pundits don’t get it that Obama’s candidacy has succeeded so far and will probably succeed in November because he’s playing by different rules. The rules you claim to advocate.

This thread isn’t going much of anywhere either.

At the risk of twice today bringing a tangent to a thread?

Much is made of “yes we can” “change” the culture in Washington.

As we all know, I am doubtful of that as a productive strategy. Well, not productive for liberals I mean.

Now let me tell you what I hear from the con camp. Predictably, when they are failing, the cons “hole up”. They pull into their shell and just go more hard core.

ALL the radio generals are lamenting that conservatism is going into exile. That if ONLY a candidate would really go balls to the wall with a hard nosed conservative strategy, they’d win.

You don’t have to listen to those clowns (I’ll do that for you. Call it my personal gift to the cause.) to know I’m telling the truth. You can see it here and all around you.

The cons HATE John McCain. But they are desperate. To them, McCain is right about Iraq and other beligerant con policy. And that’s just BARELY enough for them to stomach him. Some of their top strategists say McCain may be the ONLY Republican who can win in this time.

They are in trouble and they know it. But what do they lament? They can’t keep pursuing the same failed policies. They desperately believe that the worse they are the better it will get for them.

I know. It’s confusing.

So my take is, if Obama tries to work with them, he will only encourage further their bad behavior. Cons “negotiate” like a petulant child. “If you want me to do this, you have to give me that.”

So, here is where I am going. I’m told all the time that the cons here, well, they’re just unreasonable. There must be those on the right who can be worked with. Somebody heard about them or saw one once and some such. Fine.

Monkeyhawk? You are one of the more reasonable Obama supporters here. I’m picking on you because of that and because you posted last.

Also because you think that the cons can be worked with. Here is the challenge.

Now like I say, when cornered, the cons get defensive. SO if I am correct, I should put a moderate like you at a table with a hard core con and the two of you should be able to find common ground. Sound fair?

Everybody can play.

I am going to suggest outlander as your negotiating partner. You may suggest another.

Let’s have input as to the issue we want you and the representative con to hammer out.

Then you and the con show me that you can reach agreement beneficial for both sides.

The primaries are over and politics will be dead for the next few weeks. This could be a good show. Are you up for it? And if Monkeyhawk is not, would another liberal like to reach common ground with a con?

Ever notice that the repubs are bipartisan only when they’re in the minority?

Bush should not be allowed to make any more appointments to the bench period! He is a lame duck and all such appointments should be held for President Obama to make. Bush has already made enough of a mess of the country.

Parkay (the Fake Butter) don’t you have a lawsuit to deal with - Randall Terry wants to kick your ass.

Or maybe he wanted something more……….

Eh?

foydixup frmxg wlqthi ilwertnfh thlseqj ghitec npcqsr

gjbmzsq pvzmo pcajsht cuzaleg wbfkvsmaj gewnc foktpw