God's Politics

God's Politics


Gonzales Resignation Reactions /by Duane Shank/

posted by God's Politics

Here’s a collection of quotes about Gonzales’ resignation from the AP. A few to start with:

“Al Gonzales is a man of integrity, decency and principle. … After months of unfair treatment that has created a harmful distraction at the Justice Department, Judge Gonzales decided to resign his position and I accept his decision. It’s sad that … his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons.” — President Bush.


“The rampant politicization of federal law enforcement that occurred under his tenure seriously eroded public confidence in our justice system. The president must now restore credibility to the office of the attorney general.” — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.


“Alberto Gonzales was never the right man for this job. He lacked independence, he lacked judgment, and he lacked the spine to say no to Karl Rove. This resignation is not the end of the story. Congress must get to the bottom of this mess and follow the facts where they lead, into the White House.” — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.


“It is my hope that whomever President Bush selects as the next attorney general, he or she is not subjected to the same poisonous partisanship that we’ve sadly grown accustomed to over the past eight months.” — Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky.


“I have said for a long time that I thought the president would be best served if the attorney general resigned so I think it’s the right thing to do.” — Sen. John McCain of Arizona.


“His mistake was underestimating the ferocity of relentless partisan attacks and not preparing more to address them.” — Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.


“This is a great, great development. … The next attorney general has to understand that his primary loyalty is to the Constitution and the rule of law and that sometimes he has to tell the president no.” Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico, one of the fired U.S. prosecutors.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(152)
post a comment
justintime

posted August 27, 2007 at 5:43 pm


I hope our next attorney general will not be another Bush crony.
We need someone who can fix our seriously damaged Department of Justice which has been scandalously politicized by Bush loyalists.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted August 27, 2007 at 6:01 pm


Ditto justin,
Ditto



report abuse
 

Larry Parker

posted August 27, 2007 at 6:32 pm


I loved John Edwards’ press release. It was just four words:
“BETTER LATE THAN NEVER.”



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 27, 2007 at 6:52 pm


House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers weighs in:
“It is a sad day when the attorney general of the United States resigns amid a cloud of suspicion that the system of justice has been manipulated for political purposes. More than accountability, we need answers. Unfortunately, the continued stonewalling of the White House in the U.S. Attorney scandal has deprived the American people of the truth. If the power of the prosecutor has been misused in the name of partisanship, we deserve a full airing of the facts. The responsibility to uncover these facts is still on the Congress, and the Judiciary Committee in particular.”
I hope Conyers and Senate Judiciary Patrick Leahy keep going on their investigations.
The Bush administration is looking more like a crime syndicate than a government.
They’ve allowed corporate criminals to invade the United States Treasury.
By far the biggest swindle in history.
Dwarfs Enron.



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted August 27, 2007 at 7:00 pm


As a general rule, US Attorneys serve at the discretion of the President, and can be dismissed at his (or the Attorney General’s) discretion. There is no great scandal here aside from Gonzalez’ ineptitude.
You’ve got your scalp, congratulations. I won’t shed a tear for Gonzalez, who served his President and country rather poorly. Hopefully we’ll have a replacement in a few weeks, at which point this matter will be closed for all intents and purposes.
Wolverine



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 27, 2007 at 7:06 pm


I seriously doubt this matter is over, Wolverine.
Just watch.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 27, 2007 at 7:17 pm


Comment Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
“Under this Attorney General and this President, the Department of Justice suffered a severe crisis of leadership that allowed our justice system to be corrupted by political influence. It is a shame, and it is the Justice Department, the American people and the dedicated professionals of our law enforcement community who have suffered most from it.
“The obligations of the Justice Department and its leaders are to the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people, not to the political considerations of this or any White House. The Attorney General’s resignation reinforces what Congress and the American people already know — that no Justice Department should be allowed to become a political arm of the White House, whether occupied by a Republican or a Democrat.
“The troubling evidence revealed about this massive breach is a lesson to those in the future who hold these high offices, so that law enforcement is never subverted in this way again. I hope the Attorney General’s decision will be a step toward getting to the truth about the level of political influence this White House wields over the Department of Justice and toward reconstituting its leadership so that the American people can renew their faith in its role as our leading law enforcement agency.”
Interesting that Christian warriors – graduates of Regency U Law School – were key operatives in the politicization of our Justice Department.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 27, 2007 at 7:23 pm


“I seriously doubt this matter is over, Wolverine.
Just watch.”
Well, it won’t be over on Dailykos, but that is not what he was talking about.



report abuse
 

Don

posted August 27, 2007 at 8:56 pm


Well, to trot out the old Yogi Berra cliche, it ain’t over until it’s over.
And it probably won’t be over by January 20, 2009, either. And I’m not talking about DailyKos. I’m with Justintime. Just watch.
D



report abuse
 

Jerseykid

posted August 27, 2007 at 9:30 pm


Good riddance. Can’t wait for the rest of the administration to go.



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted August 27, 2007 at 9:43 pm


“Dwarfs Enron”
What’s this? Are you saying Enron was owned by Dwarves?
I’m sorry, but the discussion of Harry Potter storylines was on some other thread.
Wolverine



report abuse
 

N.M. Rod

posted August 27, 2007 at 10:11 pm


What was truly disturbing was that the chief law enforcement officer of the country was in favor of returning to medieval concepts of torture and called modern human rights treaties “quaint.”
More along the lines of “The Grand Inquisitor” of Dostoyevsky’s “Brothers Karamazov.”
It’s hard to believe that the revelations of recent months have actually rehabilitated John Ashcroft’s reputation in comparison to someone who was initially seen as having less of a “holy warrior” and more of a law enforcement approach to counter-terrorism than he did.
Ashcroft was made famous for emphasising to his staff that justice was all about vengeance, not mercy.
Pray that eyes are opened and sober-headed practical leadership committed to the spirit as well as the letter of the law come to the fore. Let someone be chosen who will be willing to be accountable to a power higher than expediency and possesses sufficient sobriety and maturity of experience.



report abuse
 

Tongue In Cheek

posted August 27, 2007 at 10:37 pm


This doesn’t mean he’ll be following Elvira back to Mexico, does it?



report abuse
 

TimR

posted August 27, 2007 at 11:09 pm


N.M. Rod:
I totally don’t understand your Grand Inquisitor reference.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 27, 2007 at 11:44 pm


“medieval concepts of torture”
Google that phrase.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 27, 2007 at 11:51 pm


The Bush crime syndicate appears to be in the final stages of its collapse.
Soon it will be down to Dubya, Cheney, Condi, Laura and Barney, isolated in the bunker.
Tony Snowjob is leaving for Pox News where he can make a lot more money doing the same thing he was doing at the White House – lying through his teeth.
Then who will be left to spin the press conferences?
I think America is finally waking up from a long nightmare under the Bush pretender.
America came dangerously close to permanent one-party rule by a fascist theocracy.
Will Bush bomb Iran to distract Americans away from the accelerating disaster in Iraq and the collapse of BushCo?
Stay tuned.



report abuse
 

c kitty

posted August 28, 2007 at 12:23 am


In most employment situations, the boss can fire an employee for any or no reason, except for certain classes of reasons, such as dicrimination, employees’ refusal to commit illegal acts, sexual harrassment, etc. Investigation will hopefully provide us with the information as to the question of illegality.
Aside from illegality, the harm done to the reputation of the justice department and the office of the attorney general needs to be repaired. In short, we need an attorney general with the intelligence, commitment to the law and courage to say “no” when the white house is seeking to do what is unlawful. It is not realistic to expect that from the same white house that chose Fredo. What is really sad is that the justice department now has no better reputation for competence, integrity, or impartiality that does the white house.



report abuse
 

N. M. Rod

posted August 28, 2007 at 12:40 am


The Grand Inquisitor chapter in The Brothers Karamazov is sometimes called the finest in all world literature. It’s not that long and it’s worth reading because it can stand alone in that great novel. It is perhaps the best allegory of the church having pretended to the political throne, warning Christ of interference with its agenda, and pronouncing the freedom that He gave men as simply too heavy a burden for them, which they have supplanted as a purported act of kindness. It is a warning against the dangers of seizing temporal power in the name of the Lord, attendant with all the excesses we have seen in history.
But, don’t take my word for it – there’s much more and it’s far more profound than that – I’m no Dostoyevsky, so read it for yourself. [Note - Dostoyevky was no socialist radical - so his critique - or is it really that of the atheist intellectual Ivan, who purportedly composes it for his initiate Monk brother Alyosha, who is impressed by what he thinks is its faith in Christ, rather than church? - is aimed at all temptations to wield worldly power in the name of Christ, especially in his day the leftist ones.]



report abuse
 

N.M. Rod

posted August 28, 2007 at 1:01 am


Wikipedia has an entry with someone’s take on The Grand Inquisitor; it’s not bad, but incomplete – so it would be better to read it here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8578
Really, every literate Christian ought to read the whole novel. I think it will continue to resonate long after Left Behind and even Harry Potter recede in importance! :-)
Ironically, it was Dostoyevsky’s influence, along with that of Solzhenitisyn, which geared me to be philosphically sympathetic to the claims of American political conservatism – because of the strong element of rejection of socialist radicalism in both, even if in retrospect there wasn’t all that much convergence otherwise, especially once totalitarian communism fell!
In retrospect, I should have paid more attention to Solzhenitsyn’s own critiques of materialist philosophy, which have dual expression in the competing materialistic philosophies of east and west, and to one of which has fallen a hegemony with some of the worst characteristics pointed out by its critics now expressed without the restraints of competition.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 28, 2007 at 1:15 am


” In short, we need an attorney general with the intelligence, commitment to the law and courage to say “no” when the white house is seeking to do what is unlawful. ”
Previous to this, you noted that we should consider this “aside from legality”. If Gonzales did not perpetuate that which is illegal, would he be exonerated in your mind? If he was not complicit in illegal acts, then why should the reputation of the office need to be “restored”, save for the fact that it was tarnished by accusations made by those who had a political interest in making the accusations?



report abuse
 

Nickerson

posted August 28, 2007 at 10:34 am


The attorney general is a political appointee that acts as an attorney for the government. He represents the government which now is Republican and severely conservative so he represents the government from that perspective. If the American people don’t like the present attorney general maybe they are misdirecting their dislike. They should impeach the head of all of this then they can clean the government of the political philosophy they don’t like.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 28, 2007 at 11:32 am


“And it probably won’t be over by January 20, 2009, either. And I’m not talking about DailyKos. I’m with Justintime. Just watch.”
Depends on what you mean by “over”. If a special prosecutor is netting another perjury conviction wherein no underlying crime has been committed sometime in 2010, it will essentially be over, so far as America is concerned.
At a certain point, Hillary is going to want to distance herself from this, and I think that certain point is now.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 28, 2007 at 11:45 am


If he was not complicit in illegal acts, then why should the reputation of the office need to be “restored”, save for the fact that it was tarnished by accusations made by those who had a political interest in making the accusations?
Somehow, I don’t think that a former acting attorney general has a “political interest” in accusing Gonzales of unethical, if not downright illegal, acts.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 28, 2007 at 12:26 pm


I think that Pres Bush should appoint his brother Jeb – someone that he could trust and that understands him. He is a fine jurist and I believe that it would be a workable team.
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

jona bark

posted August 28, 2007 at 12:57 pm


There are several illegal actions at issue here . On all of them the Attorney General refuses to be questioned and the Bush White House claims executive privelege to protect all the witnesses. So conservatives?, do you agree that the constitution gives the executive branch this kind of freedom from legal accountability? I personally want acountability for both parties. Republicans wanted accountability during the (admittedly excessive ) Whitewater hearings, but now they have had a major change in philosophy.
All of these claims of executive privelege are predicated on a misreading of constitutional war powers. The whole idea of far reaching unaccountable war powers without even a declaration of War by Congress as called for by the constitution is a formula for disaster as played out under Johnson in Vietnam and Bush in Iraq, and as clearsightedly predicted by James Madison.
Both wars and all foreign was of aggression are the result not of a pursuit of justice or Democracy, but the result of greed. The consequences are always the same, despotism, increased inequity, corruption, cronyism, police states.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 28, 2007 at 12:59 pm


It’s not over because Bush needs to make a new appointment, something he was desperate to keep Gonzales to avoid.
Gonzo could have been found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy and Bush would have still had ” every confidence” in him.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 28, 2007 at 1:00 pm


I think that Pres Bush should appoint his brother Jeb – someone that he could trust and that understands him. He is a fine jurist and I believe that it would be a workable team.
He can’t, due to a nepotism law passed after Kennedy. Besides, he got into this mess by hiring only people he knew and trusted without regard for qualifications or aptitude.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 28, 2007 at 1:27 pm


“He can’t, due to a nepotism law passed after Kennedy. Besides, he got into this mess by hiring only people he knew and trusted without regard for qualifications or aptitude.”
I agree with this, though I think Jeb would do a fine job under another president.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 28, 2007 at 2:05 pm


Jeb Bush for Attorney General of the United States?
Jeb and the Savings and Loan scandal:
Jeb Bush defaulted on a $4.56 million loan from Broward Federal Savings in Sunrise, Florida. After federal regulators closed the S&L, the office building that Jeb used the $4.56 million to finance was reappraised by the regulators at $500,000, which Bush and his partners paid. The taxpayers had to pay back the remaining 4 million plus dollars.
The Jeb-Enron Connection:
The Florida pension fund was the biggest loser, $350 million, next to Enron employees.
It surely brought no joy to Jeb’s inner circle to see the paper of record point out that Jeb Bush, a state pension trustee and one of three who administer the state’s pension fund, also had a direct economic relationship with Enron in the form of a partnership.
And that like his brother, George W, Jeb at times promoted Enron interests and received campaign donations from Enron executives.
Jeb’s Family Values:
All three of Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s children, Noelle, Jeb Junior, and George P. Bush, have appeared in Florida police reports.
We all know about Noelle Bush, who called a Tallahassee Walgreen’s Tuesday pretending to be doctor “Noelle SCIDMORE.” The 24-year-old was eventually led off in handcuffs for attempting to illegally purchase a controlled substance.
But if you prefer sex scandals instead of drug scandals, you’ll be rooting for her brother Jeb Bush Jr. A little over a year ago two security officers at the Tallahassee Mall found him parked in a blue Jeep Cherokee with an underaged female. Both Jeb and the teenaged girl were naked from the waist down , according to the police report.
Sexual frustration appears to be a factor in another police report filed on the brother of Noelle and Jeb Junior. George P. Bush broke into the bedroom window of a former girlfriend, and though he eventually fled the scene, he later returned to drive his Ford Explorer across the family’s lawn.
To say nothing of election fraud in Florida 2000 where he helped his brother, Dubya, steal the presidency.
These are just a few of the many credentials Jeb Bush has for taking over the Justice Department.
Are you guys crazy?



report abuse
 

Don

posted August 28, 2007 at 2:14 pm


I’m not aware of any of justintime’s allegations, except for the last one, but I agreee with his overall sentiment. I’ve had enough of the current Bush ever to another Bush in any high government office, ever. I didn’t want a Kennedy dynasty either, so my motivation is not partisan.
Peace,



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 28, 2007 at 2:56 pm


Gonzo could have been found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy and Bush would have still had “every confidence” in him.
And not even Edwin Edwards would have gone that far … :-)



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 28, 2007 at 3:05 pm


I’ve had enough of the current Bush ever to another Bush in any high government office, ever. I didn’t want a Kennedy dynasty either, so my motivation is not partisan.
I don’t have a problem with political “dynasties” as such; I care only if the person has what it takes to do the job. The current president, on the other hand, clearly has never had it. I’m sure he rues the words he said after the 2004 election, insisting he had political capital “and I intend to spend it.” He’s certainly done that. It also says volumes that Bush has complained that Gonzales hasn’t been accused of doing anything wrong — which wasn’t true.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 28, 2007 at 4:10 pm


Rick, I have a problem with one party rule in America, dynastic or not.
It defeats all of the advantages of democracy.
Karl Rove’s efforts were all directed toward pushing America into a permanent Republican majority, assisted by the unholy alliance of the Christian right and wealthy corporate fascists.
A corrupted Justice Department was the key to Rove
securing a permanent Republican majority to lock up Congress, the Presidency and the Supreme court rendering moot all future democratic elections in America.
Look what a Republican majority did to America in six short years.
Can you imagine what they could do with a PERMANENT majority?
The corruption of the Justice Department is all about legalizing election fraud, to achieve Rove’s permanent Republican majority.
Gonzo was just following Rove’s directions.
And Christian lawyer warriors from Robertson’s Regent University law school did the dirty work for Gonzo.
Robertson has been plotting a dominionist Christian coup since the early 80′s.
This is why I keep saying America narrowly escaped the fate of becoming a fascist theocracy.
Stay tuned while we watch it fall apart.
Now that both Rove and Gonzo are outside the Bush administration, will they go state’s evidence against Bush and Cheney?
Or will they be silenced by the hope for a Bush pardon?



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 28, 2007 at 5:33 pm


Karl Rove’s efforts were all directed toward pushing America into a permanent Republican majority, assisted by the unholy alliance of the Christian right and wealthy corporate fascists.
Wasn’t going to happen — God has ways of removing people who try to trade on His name for their own selfish purposes. He did it with the TV evangelists, He sabotaged the Clinton-haters who tried to have him removed unjustly and He exposed their media as fraudulent. And, in fact, the religious right (I don’t like to call it “Christian” because it doesn’t deserve that moniker) was not all that influential as it was; it took its cues from the secular right, which was keeping it in business. Joel Hunter’s resignation from the presidency of the Christian Coalition, because it wouldn’t immediately move off the abortion and gay marriage bit, said quite a lot about it.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 28, 2007 at 6:14 pm


And, in fact, the religious right (I don’t like to call it “Christian” because it doesn’t deserve that moniker) was not all that influential as it was; it took its cues from the secular right, which was keeping it in business.
I agree, the ‘twisted Christian right’ (I prefer to call them twisted Christians for twisting the teachings of Christ to fit their agenda) really didn’t have much influence on the Bush administration – only to the extent that Bush would occasionally feel obliged to throw them bones – defense of marriage, church in the schools, anti stem cell research, anti women’s rights, Terry Schaivo and the right to die, faith-based everything, etc.
This was all cheap talk from Bush, but for these false promises, the Christian right served as Rove’s loyal propagandists and footsoldiers.



report abuse
 

Jeff

posted August 28, 2007 at 7:42 pm


Justintime,
“To say nothing of election fraud in Florida 2000 where he helped his brother, Dubya, steal the presidency.”
“The corruption of the Justice Department is all about legalizing election fraud, to achieve Rove’s permanent Republican majority.”
Do you really believe this?
Justwondering
Jeff



report abuse
 

James Palmer

posted August 28, 2007 at 7:49 pm


“What’s this? Are you saying Enron was owned by Dwarves?
I’m sorry, but the discussion of Harry Potter storylines was on some other thread.”
Wolverine
AAAHHHHHHH! HILARIOUS! Actually, not to nitpick Wolverine but Dwarves are actually more a part of Tolkien’s realm:) Are there dwarves in Harry Potter? I don’t remember. Sorry for the non-sequitur folks. As y’all were…



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 28, 2007 at 8:10 pm


Do you really believe this?
Justwondering
Jeff

Of course I do.
And those who don’t believe it are either not interested or afraid of the truth.
If you’re really interested in confirming election fraud by the Bushies, just google
‘Bush election fraud’.
See what comes up.
I know, it’s tough to admit to yourself that you’ve been supporting a crime syndicate.
And all along you thought it was a righteous government.



report abuse
 

Jeff

posted August 28, 2007 at 8:30 pm


Justintime,
A little sensitive are we? You don’t know what I support or what I think or thought on this topic.
Your post just seemed a little out of character for you.
Jeff



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted August 28, 2007 at 8:34 pm


know, it’s tough to admit to yourself that you’ve been supporting a crime syndicate.
And all along you thought it was a righteous government.
Posted by: justintime
Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job too ?



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 28, 2007 at 9:14 pm


9/11?
I know this much:
The facts about 9/11 have not been given adequate study.
The 9/11 Commission did not meet the responsibility of due diligence and failed to follow up on all of the facts.
Many facts were completely avoided, even suppressed by the 9/11 Commission.
There are many inconsistencies between the 9/11 report and facts on the ground.
As a result there is no closure for the 9/11 tragedy.
The families of the victims are only too aware of this.
The 9/11 Report reminds me a lot of the Warren Commission Report on the assassination of JFK.
Four decades later there is still no closure on this American tragedy.
For lack of an adequate, credible explanation of the events leading up to and including 9/11, Americans are free to speculate on what happenned.
This is not good.
Most Americans do believe the Bush administration was looking for an excuse to justify curtailment of American civil liberties and the seizing of unprecedented executive power.
Many Americans consider this as circumstantial evidence the Bush administration was in on 9/11 to some degree.
The tinfoil hat crowd believes the Bush administration ‘Made it Happen on Purpose’.
Their’s is the MIHOP position.
Many Americans believe in a lesser conspiracy – ‘Let it Happen on Purpose’, the LIHOP position.
At a minimum, I believe the Bush administration was incredibly incompetent preparing for and responding to 9/11.
For me, MIHOP and LIHOP are both possible explanations, but until all of the facts come out I’ve suspended judgment about 9/11.
We may never know the full truth about 9/11, just like the JFK assassination.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 28, 2007 at 9:18 pm


Jeff, I did not necessarily mean you personally.
I was using the word ‘you’ in the collective sense.
I did not mean to insult your intelligence.
But I’m curious what you believe about 9/11.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 28, 2007 at 9:24 pm


Jeff:
I meant to ask, “What do you believe about election 2000?”
Mick,
What do you believe about 9/11?



report abuse
 

Jeff

posted August 28, 2007 at 9:36 pm


Justintime,
The History Channel did an interesting documentary on 9/11 conspiracies. It focused on claims made in a movie by Loose Change. The Loose Change people didn’t come out looking very credible. I don’t buy MIHOP (made it happen on purpose) or LIHOP (let it . . . .).
I think for the most part the facts of what happened that day have come out. What are the specifics facts you doubt or question?
Jeff



report abuse
 

Jeff

posted August 28, 2007 at 9:45 pm


Justintime,
I wrote the above post before I saw your second post.
I think W won. And would have won by a wider margin if not for NBC calling the election for Gore before conservative Western Florida closed their polls. I think 2004 was interesting in that W won it pretty easily. My thoughts are the 2004 election in Florida was so closely monitored that Dems. couldn’t get their usual 1% – 3% votes from fraud. Maybe its just the hometown team thing. The refs always have it in for your team if you lose.
I’ve been to the sites that make the Bush stole the election case and have not found them to be compeling.
Jeff



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted August 28, 2007 at 10:07 pm


Mick,
What do you believe about 9/11?
That the Taliban orchestrated it . It was planned and carried out by a cultish group of folks who have used the Muslim Religion as an excuse to declare war on those they see as an insult to their God . They saw the deaths on 9/11 as a Blessing to their god .
Popular Mechanics scientifically proved the Truth folks wrong , their first film was based on numerous eras in facts , they have a second conspiracy theory film out that is suppose to make it more believable . Also on the right their are conspiracies about One World Order and Bones and what ever that have both politcal parties main leaders in cohoots on the 9/11 to steer America in the direction they want .
The fact you have to believe that people sent their spouses to die that knew aboiut this supposedly just baffles me . And that it remains in secret when so many people would have been involved , this in DC and the Military ranks .
Well , it would be silly if it was not based on the truth that thousands of people were murdered , and their spouses and families have to hear this stuff.
Also I believe people who blame Clinton or Bush for the disaster are not really focusing on the real problem . My brother inlaw died on 9/11 , a Port Authority police Officer , I really think people that speak to this or blindly follow docu dramas without really investigating the so called facts are irresponsible . these folks are making money on this , and many are very sincere .
I believe Oswald acted alone also by the way . At least I found that interesting and the points compelling .
I would not have created a new Home Land Security Department , I would have advocated to improve the CIA and FBI and the communication systems inter linking them with Local and Federal authorities .
How much of a threat ? I don’t know . Were they lucky , I think they were lucky to have done the damage they did . But could it happen again , yes , and I think they will try again .
I don’t have the answers on what to do , and I am not sure the democrats see the problem , sometimes I think some of them get it . Sometimes I think they are in denial .
The problem as I see it is that the Taliban did not need that many people in the cells here to carry out the hi jackings . And face it , if a nut with explosives wants to hurt many people , and is willing to do while killing himself , they can and I fear will do much damage . Going to Iraq did not seem like a good idea to me , but Collin Powell address to the UN sure made a great arguement for it . Now the folks on the left that were shut up for a while are back at the the right hates America and the poor rhetoric . The Right is blaming the homos and ACLU for pushing their agendas on the rest of us .
Actually I am one of those who get goose bumps when the National Anthem is played , so I am off my nut compared to your beliefs I guess.
but sorry , I don’t get into into this Bush is is the mass murderer who designed this so he could keep his daddy and friends into oil .
President Bush I believe is a decent man doing the best he can . And I will be glad when his Administration is over .



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted August 28, 2007 at 10:43 pm


And it probably won’t be over by January 20, 2009, either. And I’m not talking about DailyKos. I’m with Justintime. Just watch.
D
Posted by: Don
Don I really do not see the dems chasing after this . They have more things on their plate . The grass roots may want blood , but the American people are tired of this . The Congressional ratings are actually lower then the President’s of late . Thye biggest hope republicans have of gai9ning a majority back is the democrats listening to their grassroots .
Regardless , its good he resigned . From the cheap seats its hard to tell how much was incompetence , how much was political rhetoric and just how much was actual illegal wrong doing . The Justice Department needs creditability , and it had lost it regardless of why . I thought he took the high road in his comments , he said his worse day was his Fathers best day . I thought that was a classy way to go .



report abuse
 

canucklehead

posted August 28, 2007 at 10:45 pm


Adios, Senor Gonzales – maybe now the U.S. will clear the Maher Arar file so that the man can finally get some, ahem, justice.



report abuse
 

canucklehead

posted August 28, 2007 at 10:49 pm


Yeah, bring in Jeb Bush to see the White House go from Bush League to, uh, well, to…



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted August 28, 2007 at 11:14 pm


Justintime,
I can’t help but wonder — have you ever had any conservative Republican friends?
Wolverine



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 28, 2007 at 11:39 pm


Regardless, its good he resigned. From the cheap seats its hard to tell how much was incompetence, how much was political rhetoric and just how much was actual illegal wrong doing.
“Political rhetoric” had very little, if anything, to do with it. Occasionally I receive e-mails at work from the Libertarian Party — though I’m not myself a libertarian — and it was frankly ecstatic. Remember, Gonzales had lost the support of even Republican members of Congress, and don’t think that they were necessarily acting out of principle; they were likely hearing it from the folks back home.



report abuse
 

TimR

posted August 28, 2007 at 11:50 pm


N.M. Rod:
I have read The Grand Inquisitor. I too think it is brilliant. I was just a bit surprised and confused to see Dolstoevsky’s name invoked on a liberal website.
Everyone is entitled to his or her own interpretation, but the most obvious critique expressed was that of the spreading Socialism…not the spread of the totalitarian church. The forces behind the Revolutions of 1848 were liberalism, nationalism, and socialism…not religion.
I think every evangelical liberal should read all of Brothers K. When you bring religion into politics you are asking which politician will govern the most like Christ. Christ chose to govern the humans he created by freedom rather than forced welfare. Christ cared passionately about the poor, but he allowed poor people to exist. This is because serving the poor would have no morality if it were not voluntary. When liberals invoke the government to engage in charity through transferring of wealth, anti-poverty programs, or artificial price setting…it is not voluntary.
“Oh, never, never, will they learn to
feed themselves without our help! No science will ever give them
bread so long as they remain free, so long as they refuse to lay
that freedom at our feet, and say: “Enslave, but feed us!”
-The Grand Inquisitor
P.S. sorry for getting off topic



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 29, 2007 at 12:07 am


Does anyone think that any amount of evidence will assuage Justintime of any notion that makes Bush look like anything other than a depraved serial killer?
I am confident that he has conservative friends. He probably talks to them on a daily basis, saving his rhetoric for his left-wing blogsites, which incubate a singular set of beliefs to the point where they take on a religious fervor. They even have their own little language: Bushco, Pox News, Tony Snowjob. It’s like World of Warcraft meets politics.
This is what scares me about the very left-wing blogosphere that gets so riled up over Gonzales (and 9/11 conspiracy theories, and Patrick Fitzgerald). Two years ago, liberals were secretly hoping Gonzales would join the Supreme Court. Now he’s the antichrist. Living in the moment, I guess.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 29, 2007 at 12:28 am


Justintime,
I can’t help but wonder — have you ever had any conservative Republican friends?

Wolverine,
Almost all the members of my church congregation are conservative Republican Nordic Lutherans from pioneer farming families.
Traditionally we avoid talking politics at church gatherings so we can stay friends.
I’ve been holding my tongue for a long time.
Probably why I’m as open as I am on this site.
Our whole family is generally pretty open about our political leanings – there’s an ‘Impeach’ bumper sticker on our car and everyone knows where we stand.
The minority progressives in our congregation have discovered each other and we talk freely about the troubling political landscape in America.
Increasingly – especially since the Katrina disaster – my conservative Republican friends at church are beginning to accept unpleasant facts about the Bush administration and are more willing to express their concerns about politics and current events.
Like I said, it’s tough to admit to yourself that you’ve been supporting a crime syndicate when, all along, you thought they were righteous and decent men, trying to do their best.



report abuse
 

N.M. Rod

posted August 29, 2007 at 2:31 am


I disagree that The Grand Inquisitor is a critique of atheistic socialism; Dostoyevsky was quite capable of addressing atheistic revolutionary and anarchic movements directly – see his novel “The Devils” which shows them as not just amoral but positively immoral, one of its idols even imputed guilty of child sexual abuse.
He was not so narrow as to believe that all vagaries of Christian religion were unalloyed blessings. He was no Dwight Eisenhower who believed that religion was essential to the nation’s good character – and he didn’t care which one it was.
There’s a repeated refrain from Dostoyevsky that is deeply critical of Jesuitical intellectualism and Roman Catholicism. You have to remember he was a Russian Orthodox Christian, and strongly influenced by the personal piety of the Old Believers. His The Grand Inquisitor chapter is quite in line with this
tack of seeing Catholicism and its purported usurpery as a berayal of Christianity’s purity of spirit in favor of worldly compromise. From today’s perspective, I have to include all of modern Christianity, save perhaps a remnant I haven’t yet personally discovered.
You may recall that Dostoyevsky, who suffered from epilepsy, was once involved in a socialist conspiracy – not to condemn someone for becoming convicted that something was very unjust in the most backward and feudalistic monarchy in Europe – yes, Dostoyevsky was a “Sojourners” type! see his allegory of his Siberian prison as the condition of all mankind as condemned prisoners suffering until released by Christ’s mercy – and subsequently suffered mock execution and then exile to Siberia.
The Grand Inquisitor is guilty of one type of anti-Christ behavior, of the religious variety. Marxism is certainly another, but it’s a later Christian heresy which is atheistic,
and in many ways a reaction to the practical moral failures of the Christianity of its time.
I think, on reflection, that it has something profound to say to us today in our own current situation when we are engaged in yet another Manichean struggle of purported Good vs. Evil, so recently having defeated with the help of the lastest Evil, Islam, the previous Evil, atheistic communism. The scene then is Seville, where the Islamist Moors had lived and been driven out.
The Inquisition was motivated to a great extent by the covetousness of the Christians for the worldly goods of those who stood accused of being infidels, couched in the dynamic of a great religious crusade for moral dominance.
Our own “Long War” and “Crusade” might share at least some of these same cognitive dissonances that Ivan, the atheist, proffered to Alyosha in both a challenge of ironic cynicism, and it must be imputed, a kind of hope of refutation and possibility of longing for redemption after all.
Can we offer the Ivans (and Islamic “heretics”) of today that kind of
possibility? Sure we can! Maybe they
will shout with joy if we succeed, “Hooray for the Christians,” just as The Brothers Karamazov ends with the forgiven children shouting “Hooray for Karamazov!”



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 29, 2007 at 10:24 am


Posted by: justintime | August 28, 2007 2:05 PM
Can’t believe that you bring up Jeb’s ‘past dealings’ when not one liberal gave a flying fig about the ‘Clintons’ pervious dealings when he was govenor. Talk about double standards.
To say nothing of election fraud in Florida 2000 where he helped his brother, Dubya, steal the presidency.
Sorry – Harris hired a law firm from MN with direct tied to the DFL here to walk them through the FL recount. They were the main source of advice for how FL handled the issue. So – stealing the election is only in the minds of those who can not face the truth. If the election had been stolen like you stated. Believe you me – Gore and Co. would have been in court with law suit after law suit and never given up – he did – deal with it.
Have a great day -
./



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 29, 2007 at 10:26 am


This is what scares me about the very left-wing blogosphere that gets so riled up over Gonzales (and 9/11 conspiracy theories, and Patrick Fitzgerald).
Kevin — the right wasn’t any different. It’s just that the “left” was nearly non-existent until the war in Iraq started.
The Inquisition was motivated to a great extent by the covetousness of the Christians for the worldly goods of those who stood accused of being infidels, couched in the dynamic of a great religious crusade for moral dominance.
Translated — they wanted to be worshipped.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 29, 2007 at 11:18 am


“Can’t believe that you bring up Jeb’s ‘past dealings’ when not one liberal gave a flying fig about the ‘Clintons’ pervious dealings when he was govenor. Talk about double standards.”
I won’t accept your Clinton card anymore, ML.
It’s just too shopworn to have any residual value.
Try something else next time.
“Sorry – Harris hired a law firm from MN with direct tied to the DFL here to walk them through the FL recount. They were the main source of advice for how FL handled the issue. So – stealing the election is only in the minds of those who can not face the truth. If the election had been stolen like you stated. Believe you me – Gore and Co. would have been in court with law suit after law suit and never given up – he did – deal with it.”
Your logic is seriously flawed, ML.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 29, 2007 at 11:40 am


Can’t believe that you bring up Jeb’s ‘past dealings’ when not one liberal gave a flying fig about the ‘Clintons’ pervious dealings when he was govenor. Talk about double standards.
Oh, they cared, all right — in fact, I have on good information that many, many Democrats absolutely despised Clinton. It’s just that they understood that Clinton’s “corruption” had nothing to do with why the conservatives went after him.
Believe you me – Gore and Co. would have been in court with law suit after law suit and never given up – he did – deal with it.
He would — but there was this little judicial body called the U.S. Supreme Court that stood in the way. The Bush folks would have done the same.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 29, 2007 at 11:51 am


Posted by: justintime | August 29, 2007 11:18 AM
I won’t accept your Clinton card anymore, ML.
You never did – from what you write, he still ‘walks on water’ for you.
Your logic is seriously flawed, ML.
Truth sucks doesn’t it – but I understand why you believe that it is ‘flawed’
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 29, 2007 at 11:58 am


Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 29, 2007 11:40 AM
‘…many Democrats absolutely despised Clinton.’
The dems knew about him prior to the first primary and still ‘stood by their man’. You got to thank Baba Wawa for getting the spin started for Clinton(s) so they could be President. That is why I am talking that page out of the Dem Play Book and adding it to mine. The title of the chapter is ‘Who do you vote for?’ The answer is – Any SOB the party puts up for office.
Have a great day -
.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 29, 2007 at 12:06 pm


ML appears to be trapped in the past.
Here’s hoping someday he will wake up and find himself in the present.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 29, 2007 at 12:50 pm


“Kevin — the right wasn’t any different. It’s just that the “left” was nearly non-existent until the war in Iraq started.”
Whether or not the right was different, I am nonetheless concerned about the content I see on the left-wing blogs. They are a minority, but they are easily controlled. As such, they have more power to influence elections. I want them to have as little power as possible.
I actually encountered Wallis’ work while looking for a liberal equivalent of the National Review, which takes issues, dissects them, and argues on behalf of the conservative cause. I’m still looking. Even TNR (which is best of breed among left-wing rags) features a story on the drinking habits of gay Republicans… What a curious topic.
For the party that is alleged to house our nation’s intellectual elite, I see surprisingly little in the way of intellectual defenses of liberal values. At Sojo, we get a simple equation. Jesus said “least of these” and therefore we have to support entitlement programs. The Bible says “love your neighbor” and so we need comprehensive immigration reform. We are commanded to honor our parents, so we can’t support any reform to Social Security.
Then you get to the comments, and it’s “Hitler this”, “Racists that”, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, neo-Con conspiracies… Blah, blah, blah. Am I to assume that this is the intellectual substance of the Democratic party?
Hillary Clinton’s success ought to be proof that voters still want gravity and seriousness from their president, but are Democrats supporting her because they are moved by her arguments, or because she is inevitable? I hope it is the former, and that the bulk of the Democratic party simply hasn’t found the Internet.
At any rate, I guarantee you that the average American is largely unconcerned about whether or not Gonzales committed perjury. He’s out of office. He is not going to be the centerpiece of your impeachment dream. Give it up.



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted August 29, 2007 at 2:15 pm


Like I said, it’s tough to admit to yourself that you’ve been supporting a crime syndicate when, all along, you thought they were righteous and decent men, trying to do their best.
Posted by: justintime
And do you say about every person who is a republican ? Because you it seems it must be tough to admit that also . And when Bill clinton was pardoning his crime bosses , did you admit to his crime syndicate ? Plus the FBI files ending up on Whitehouse computers has always fascinated my amazement of why the Clintons themselves did not go balistic that people with in their ranks were doing that . wonder why ?
Or does it make you feel better your side is the good guys ?



report abuse
 

Tim S.

posted August 29, 2007 at 2:18 pm


I didn’t see a name associated with the assertion that the politicization of the Justice Department was brought about by a number of “Christian warriors” who were graduates of Regent University (the school founded by Pat Robertson). I’m not particularly doubting the assertion, just wondering if whoever posted the assertion has documentation of the Justice Dept. having a number of staff from that particular school?



report abuse
 

N.M. Rod

posted August 29, 2007 at 2:25 pm


I am extremely tired of the whole leftist and conservative schticks. I don’t think the bases of the Democratic Party or Republican Party have much valuable to say to me anymore. I don’t think they do to anyone. We’ve been on this go-round before. There’s a repetitive sloganeering aspect to the whole thing that’s highly manipulative.
What possible hope is there in any of the endless shouting heads, sarcastic snipers and self-glorification?
Each caricatures the other, making what straw man arguments they will, seeking to confirm only to themselves that they are right, convincing no one. I’m convinced that in this the truth is only incidental and peripheral to a push of propaganda in service of a will to power.
The bands play on, the passengers dance, the unsinkable sinks inch by inch. And even those aware of some disquiet only dimly squint at a small part of the iceberg that’s above water.
The world gears up for yet another major war, economic and ecological disaster, paralysed, distracted, with those who should stop it become ridiculously irrelevant. A seemingly unstoppable rough beast slouches towards Jerusalem.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 29, 2007 at 4:02 pm


Posted by: justintime | August 29, 2007 12:06 PM
‘…hoping someday he will wake up…’
I am very much awake and current. I am also extreamly excited about the future and hold no malace against anyone. I just believe that there should be level ground for all and accountability required.
Just for the record – I have not tried to make ‘God’ fit my political agenda. Quite the oppsite. I know that my God is very disappointed in what is going on in the US and around the world. I am working within my area of influence to make the world a better place and to show the love of an Almight Creator God and only use words if I have to do so.
Am I disappointed in the Senator from Idaho – yes and I really believe that as the truth comes to light, he may have to resign. But no one is dead because of his actions.
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 29, 2007 at 4:12 pm


Posted by: | August 29, 2007 4:02 PM
This one is mine…Moderatelad
justintime – praying that someday you will use my complete handle when refering to me. it is a simple cut-n-paste.
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 29, 2007 at 5:44 pm


For Tim S:
Perhaps the most famous of the Regent U Law School graduates is Monica Goodling, the former top aide to Alberto Gonzales who was central to the scandal of the fired U.S. attorneys. She took the Fifth amendment to avoid answering questions from the Congress.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2033067.ece
“Up until 2001, it was exceedingly rare for Regent graduates to take governmental positions; since it took office, the Bush Administration has hired 150 Regent graduates and most of these lawyers are employed by the Department of Justice.”
In Gonzales’ Justice department, young attorneys with no prosecutorial experience were responsible for firing very competent and dedicated prosecutors.
Out of Monica Goodling’s graduating class, over 60% flunked the BAR exams.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 29, 2007 at 6:12 pm


Whether or not the right was different, I am nonetheless concerned about the content I see on the left-wing blogs. They are a minority, but they are easily controlled. As such, they have more power to influence elections.
That’s what you think. If the “left” were so easily controlling and controlled the right would have been out of business long ago.
For the party that is alleged to house our nation’s intellectual elite, I see surprisingly little in the way of intellectual defenses of liberal values.
Wait — they’re coming, especially since the right is failing now.
Then you get to the comments, and it’s “Hitler this”, “Racists that”, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, neo-Con conspiracies … Blah, blah, blah. Am I to assume that this is the intellectual substance of the Democratic party?
Not really. But you see, conservatism itself was advanced not so much by its intellectuals than by activists with major financial backing. What you’re seeing from the “left” today pales in comparison to the attacks on “liberals” in 1980. Furthermore, there’s much truth is what conservatism’s critics are saying, because it’s well-known and well-documented what the right has done over the years (although the right tends to be in denial about that).
Hillary Clinton’s success ought to be proof that voters still want gravity and seriousness from their president, but are Democrats supporting her because they are moved by her arguments, or because she is inevitable? I hope it is the former, and that the bulk of the Democratic party simply hasn’t found the Internet.
Both, but she hasn’t made any major campaign mistakes, and with her husband I doubt she will do so — and even some conservatives are rethinking their attitude toward her.
And when Bill clinton was pardoning his crime bosses, did you admit to his crime syndicate? Plus the FBI files ending up on Whitehouse computers has always fascinated my amazement of why the Clintons themselves did not go balistic that people with in their ranks were doing that. wonder why?
Because, frankly, it didn’t happen — most of those allegations were promoted in right-wing media, one of which is in my city (and competes with my newspaper). When Hillary complained about the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” she actually had the goods.
didn’t see a name associated with the assertion that the politicization of the Justice Department was brought about by a number of “Christian warriors” who were graduates of Regent University (the school founded by Pat Robertson).
Start with Monica Goodling.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 29, 2007 at 7:16 pm


N.M.Rod,
If you or anyone else would like to help us stop Bush from bombing Iran, please call your Congressional reps and ask them to support a resolution requiring Bush to get specific approval from Congress before taking such action.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 29, 2007 at 7:44 pm


Don’t get yourselves trapped in the past, folks.
The future is now.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 29, 2007 at 8:51 pm


The dems knew about him prior to the first primary and still ‘stood by their man’. You got to thank Baba Wawa for getting the spin started for Clinton(s) so they could be President.
Yeah, if you believe that one… In fact, conservative activists went to a Federal judge Arkansas several months before the 1992 election and tried to get him thrown off the ballot. (The judge threw them out of his office.)



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted August 29, 2007 at 9:23 pm


A couple of times I was unfortunately treated to hearing what Robertson said on the 700 Club about Gonzales, and it all boiled down to “oh the Democrats are trying to make political hay out of nothing.” Not only did he never mention that a conflict of interest Rat was smelled over Karl Rove holding meetings at the justice department, but one troubling fact was never brought up. That’s the fact that Bush not only traded on a solid Pro-Life AG (John Ashcroft) for one who angered the Anti-abortion crowd, but did so for apparently another reason: Ashcroft didn’t support what Bush wanted to do in the latter’s surveylance activities.
Gotta make you wonder: is Bush all that really committed to family values, or is he more interested in placating the knee-jerk Religious Right long enough to get what he wants, and then dumps on a man of integrity like John Ashcroft when he’s no longer of use the President’s overall scheme of power-grabbing.
Don’t think so? Then why was Ashcroft so quiet before the 2004 election? Out of sight, out of mind, apparently. Would Bush have won re-election if the public knew we would have a new Attorney General?
And it also makes me wonder: what’s Robertson’s real agenda when he can’t be fair and balanced and tell the whole truth and probe deeper into the issues?
Alternative Conservative Media my arse!



report abuse
 

Jerseykid

posted August 29, 2007 at 9:33 pm


I think that Pres Bush should appoint his brother Jeb – someone that he could trust and that understands him. He is a fine jurist and I believe that it would be a workable team.Blessings – Posted by: Moderatelad
Yeah and he can even spell and talk.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 29, 2007 at 9:36 pm


Zbigniew Brzezinski’s statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Feb, 1, 2007:
“If the United States continues to be bogged down in protracted, bloody involvement in Iraq — and I emphasize what I am about to say — the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran, and with much of the world of Islam at large.
A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the United States blamed on Iran, culminating in a quote-unquote “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire, eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
Zbig’s prediction from last February accurately describes Bush’s fabricated justification for bombing Iran and warns of the consequences.
Can Bush be stopped before he brings us Armageddon?



report abuse
 

Jerseykid

posted August 29, 2007 at 9:36 pm


“But no one is dead because of his actions.”
Since when did that ever matter to you? As the saying goes…Clinton lied and nobody died…



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted August 29, 2007 at 10:19 pm


Because, frankly, it didn’t happen — most of those allegations were promoted in right-wing media,
Thats beyond ignorance Rick , google it . I am getting very frustrated with your ouright quotes with no basis of fact , is it ignorance or do you do it on purpose . Of course FBI files ended up on the WhiteHouse Computers , the problem was who put them there .
No credible evidence was found to link the Clintons to it . That was from the Non Partsian Prosecutor appointed by the Congress to come to the bottom of it . the files were there , and unless Bill Gates now puts FBI files on new computers , someone put them there . The facts were not that a crime was not committed , it was that no one could prove who did it . What sheltered world do you live in ?



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 29, 2007 at 10:30 pm


Posted by: Mick Sheldon | August 29, 2007 10:19 PM
Save your breathe Mick – Rick has his rosie clinton glasses on and that taints his view of the world. Bill Clinton is pure as the driven snow in Rick’s world. All the women are just a bunch of lying ^&*()’s and have been funded by the VRWC. (I believe he is off his meds)
Later -
.



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted August 29, 2007 at 10:32 pm


Because, frankly, it didn’t happen — most of those allegations were promoted in right-wing media,
This from that right wing Enclylopedia .
On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations.[
Rick, more right wing propaganda . This never happened in your world , so it it obviously is not true.
President Clinton cited executive privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group.
Oh no , anther Clinton in the WhiteHouse may mean more of this .
First Lady Hillary Clinton's youngest brother, Tony Rodham, was an acquaintance of the Gregorys, and had lobbied Clinton on their behalf.[9] In October 2006, the group Judicial Watch filed a request with the U.S. Justice Department for an investigation, alleging that Rodham had received $107,000 from the Gregorys for the pardons, in the form of loans that were never repaid, as part of a quid pro quo scheme.
Rick this is made up too , so don’t let it bother you .
Clinton issued 140 pardons as well as several commutations on his last day of office (January 20, 2001).[11]
Some controversial actions include the following:
Carlos A. Vignali had his sentence for cocaine trafficking commuted, after serving 6 of 15 years in federal prison.
Almon Glenn Braswell was pardoned of his mail fraud and perjury convictions, even while a federal investigation was underway regarding additional money laundering and tax evasion charges.[12] Braswell and Carlos Vignali each paid approximately $200,000 to Hillary Clinton’s brother, Hugh Rodham, to represent their respective cases for clemency. Hugh Rodham returned the payments after they were disclosed to the public.[citation needed] Braswell would later invoke the Fifth Amendment at a Senate Committee hearing in 2001, when questioned about allegations of his having systematically defrauded senior citizens of millions of dollars.[13]
Marc Rich, a fugitive, was pardoned of tax evasion, after clemency pleas from Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, among many other international luminaries. He was required to pay a $100 million dollar fine and waive any use of the pardon as a defense against any future civil charges that were filed against him in the same case. Critics complained that Denise Rich, his former wife, had made substantial donations to the Clinton library and to Mrs. Clinton’s senate campaign. Emails uncovered during the course of the investigation revealed that her final donation was provided a year before Scooter Libby requested that she approach Clinton for a pardon. According to Paul Volcker’s independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels of oil.[14]
Susan McDougal, who had already completed her sentence, was pardoned for her role in the Whitewater scandal; McDougal had served 18 months on contempt charges for refusing to testify about Clinton’s role.
Dan Rostenkowski, a former Democratic Congressman convicted in the Congressional Post Office Scandal. Rostenkowski had served his entire sentence.
Melvin J. Reynolds, a Democratic Congressman from Illinois, who was convicted of bank fraud, 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice, and solicitation of child pornography had his sentence commuted on the bank fraud charged and was allowed to serve the final months under the auspices of a half way house. He had served his entire sentence on child sex abuse charges before the commutation of the later convictions.
Roger Clinton, the president’s half-brother, on drug charges after having served the entire sentence more than a decade before. Roger Clinton would be charged with drunk driving and disorderly conduct in an unrelated incident within a year of the pardon.[15] He was also briefly alleged to have been utilized in lobbying for the Braswell pardon, among others. However, no wrongdoing was uncovered.
Obviously from the world I live in you have a failure to seek truth , and no ability to understand it but deny it . Why are you bothering to contradict statements that are proven and accepted by left wing sources and are historical facts .



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 29, 2007 at 10:48 pm


Posted by: Jerseykid | August 29, 2007 9:36 PM
Clinton lied and nobody died…
Are you sure? You must be too young to remember a now sainted democrat that went for a late night drive with a young women and thought about going swimming with her – car and all. Then making his way back and talking with his lawyer prior to calling the police. Then put on a neck brace just so it looked good. Oh – they found the women still in the car under water. Yup – Teddy is a great driver as long as there are no bridges in the area.
St Teddy of Mass – doesn’t get any better than that one.
Later -
.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 29, 2007 at 10:58 pm


Yup – Teddy is a great driver as long as there are no bridges in the area.
Quit changing the subject — this is about not personal foibles or scandals but policy.
And Mick — For God’s sake, GET OFF THE CLINTON PARDONS! They are so OVER!!!



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 29, 2007 at 11:02 pm


Moderatelad — Your contempt for Clinton knows no bounds, apparently, so much so that you have to insult me personally when I tell you the truth about him that you can’t accept. That comment about my “being off my meds” is beneath someone who calls himself a Christian. I would never say that about you.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 29, 2007 at 11:08 pm


I am getting very frustrated with your ouright quotes with no basis of fact, is it ignorance or do you do it on purpose. Of course FBI files ended up on the White House Computers, the problem was who put them there.
Remember, I know far more about the Clinton “scandals” than you do, so calling me “ignorant” holds no quarter with me. It eventually came out that they were there from the previous administration. It became a huge story here because Craig Livingstone — who also eventually was exonerated — was from my area.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 29, 2007 at 11:22 pm


But seriously, folks — can we talk about Alberto Gonzales and the reality that his running the Justice Department in the way that he did has hurt this country? That IS the topic of this thread, of course.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 30, 2007 at 12:56 am


Rick,
You’re doing a great job debunking the standard lies about the Clinton administration, but you’re wasting your time trying to straighten out this chorus of Clinton bashers.
They will probably never admit they’ve been supporting a crime syndicate instead of a legitimate government.
The reason they keep bringing up Clinton on this thread is because it’s embarrassing for them to stay on the topic of Gonzo the stooge and his corrupted Justice Department.
It’s actually painful for them to talk about the utterly corrupted and failed Bush administration.
Their ideology has been thoroughly discredited by the facts on the ground.
So they use Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes as a distraction, a smokescreen, to cover up the embarrassment of having enabled the corrupt and incompetent Bush administration to destroy America’s true values, America’s good name around the world, the solvency of the US Treasury and thousands upon thousands of human lives.
They forget that the worst days of the Clinton administration were far better than the best days under the Bush crime syndicate.
But that was then and this is now.
BushCo has driven America into the ditch and we’ll just have to fix it.
Clinton bashers are trapped in their own deluded version of history.
Let’s leave them back there and move on to the real challenges.
Did you call your representatives about a resolution requiring Bush to obtain permission from Congress before starting a new war with Iran?



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 30, 2007 at 8:20 am


Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 29, 2007 11:02 PM
Sorry about the meds comment – I should be on meds – it helps me to handle the arrorgance on this site.
The ‘Clinton; issues are not over – they are just beinging. If HRC should win the Oval Office – I will be investing in companies that mfg kneepads as their sales will go up with Bill back in the White House.
OK – the Dems got rid of Gonzales over an issue that pales compaired to Janet. (tell me – how did she get those weapons to Waco that she was not to have in her possession?) Reno could have been a poster child for the Peter Principle. Clinton fired 90+ and they make an issue about 8 or 9?
Why don’t you just start your own ‘rickopedia’ about the Clinton(s) and then just link to it so you don’t have to always type things out. You believe that you know more about that time in our history over anyone else on this site – just because your are in the print media. Not impress. I read several periodacles on line and in print and there are many differening opinions on the Clinton(s) – you are just one of the many – get in line with the rest.
Clinton(s) – morally – was the worst occupant of the White House in the last century. As a Pres – C+ at best. As a father, I will give him an A. As a husband – HRC is still with him – sorta. If Joan could have been more like Hillary – Teddy might have been Pres. so ‘stand by your man, gife him…’ HRC can finish the words – she rewrote them.
Have a great day!
.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 30, 2007 at 8:38 am


“And Mick — For God’s sake, GET OFF THE CLINTON PARDONS! They are so OVER!!!”
When we are discussing the alleged scandals of Alberto Gonzales, it is entirely relevant the contrast and compare them to the scandals that surrounded the Clinton administration.
The attacks against Gonzales have been nothing short of political opportunism. When your people are blathering about the Bush “crime syndicate”, it is completely reasonable to compare this administrations actions to a previous administration that is defended by the person making the charge. It renders you a hypocrite.
I agree that the Clinton pardons are over. So is Gonzales’ tenure. So are the beginnings of the conservative movement decades ago that you constantly bring up on virtually every single post.
To the topic at hand (which is not what you say it is, btw… An example of left-wing journalistic bias perhaps?)
What happens to Gonzales will not likely affect policy at all, accept perhaps as a reason introduce some toothless legislation that is essentially an excuse for a press conference. At the press conference, we’ll have affirming speeches about how the national crisis has passed.
Gonzales more or less did his job, and may or may not spring the perjury traps that are being set for him.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 30, 2007 at 8:56 am


The reason they keep bringing up Clinton on this thread is because it’s embarrassing for them to stay on the topic of Gonzo the stooge and his corrupted Justice Department. It’s actually painful for them to talk about the utterly corrupted and failed Bush administration.
Their ideology has been thoroughly discredited by the facts on the ground.

We have a winner!
The ‘Clinton; issues are not over – they are just beinging. If HRC should win the Oval Office – I will be investing in companies that mfg kneepads as their sales will go up with Bill back in the White House.
You said that your faith kept you from hating anyone. By that statement you exposed yourself as a hypocrite.
When we are discussing the alleged scandals of Alberto Gonzales, it is entirely relevant the contrast and compare them to the scandals that surrounded the Clinton administration.
No, not in the least — the Clinton “scandals” were more of a personal nature and the result of a highly-orchestrated campaign (don’t argue with me on this, because one of the behind-the-scenes players lives here), while the Gonzales scandals — notice I didn’t put them in quotes — had to do with policy.
I agree that the Clinton pardons are over. So is Gonzales’ tenure. So are the beginnings of the conservative movement decades ago that you constantly bring up on virtually every single post.
Well, the conservatives don’t seem to think so — even now the likes of Richard Viguerie are still trying to find the next Reagan. And this continued Clinton-bashing on your part isn’t helping, either.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted August 30, 2007 at 9:25 am


Sheesh Moderatelad–you really need to get over Bill Clinton. It’s time to forgive and let it go. You sound absolutely hateful and unChristlike, and it is painful to me that you don’t even recognize it! Clinton did not personally harm you, but you act as if he did.
When it all came out, Billy Graham sent a letter to the Clintons that was full of gracious love and non-judgemental forgiveness, and he also spent time counseling them. If he can forgive, why can’t you? If he can see them as humans in need of Christ’s redemptive love, why can’t you? Here’s a challenge for you–next time you write anything, and anything about either Clinton especially, read it through Christ’s eyes and edit it accordingly.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 30, 2007 at 9:39 am


“We have a winner!”
I am more than happy to discuss my ideology. I disagree that it is a failed ideology (I would also disagree that it is being implemented at this point). And I have talked about this issue and the Bush administration at length. That this statement resonated with you because you want for it to be true.
When this blog first began, Justintime didn’t know who Milton Friedman. No he suddenly has very strong convictions, and we’re all Friedman-obsessed worshippers of, what was the term? The “bitch goddess of he free market”?
Every time I explain why I support the free markets, you start yammering about how it’s really all about civil rights, and how I’m a disciple of the architects of the Nixon administration. It’s like you read one book on the subject, decided it was a hammer, and now everything is a nail.
I don’t think liberals want to discuss ideology. Of the liberals who post on the comments section, three have made any effort to discuss policy on any subtantive level. If Democrats in congress are trying to represent their ideological kin, then it is no surprise that they are focusing on scandals.
“No, not in the least — the Clinton “scandals” were more of a personal nature and the result of a highly-orchestrated campaign ”
This statement contradicts itself.
“(don’t argue with me on this, because one of the behind-the-scenes players lives here)”
Of all your various appeals to authority, this is certainly the most curious.
“notice I didn’t put them in quotes”
That says more about your biases than anything.
“Well, the conservatives don’t seem to think so — even now the likes of Richard Viguerie are still trying to find the next Reagan. And this continued Clinton-bashing on your part isn’t helping, either.”
Right, so let me get this straight.
Previous president whose wife is running for president… Irrelevant, old news.
Richard Viguerie. Highly relevant and worth repeating over and over. He has a blog, after all.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 30, 2007 at 9:47 am


Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 30, 2007 8:56 AM
‘…don’t argue with me on this, because one of the behind-the-scenes players lives here…’
No – we have every right to argue with you because we all own our own opinion and convictions. I choose not to argue with you because of your arroegance and know-it-all attitude that is very demeaning. So I will not argue with you on those reasons.
Bye -
.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 30, 2007 at 9:55 am


Posted by: squeaky | August 30, 2007 9:25 AM
Sheesh Moderatelad–you really need to get over Bill Clinton
I am so over them – it’s just the Clinton Worship of several on this site is a little over the edge.
I believe that the Billy Letter is a myth – I will look to see if I can find a copy on line – but I believe it was a myth. I know that Dr. Graham said in public that he could forgive Clinton. Then Katie ‘Correct’ cut to commercial and ended a 10 min interview at the 5 minute mark – she got her sound bite and was not going to let Dr. Graham say anymore.
Will be interesting if HRC is the Dem Canidate – who lota stuff going to come back to haunt her, and rightfully so.
See you in the funny papers -
.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 30, 2007 at 10:32 am


I disagree that it is a failed ideology (I would also disagree that it is being implemented at this point). And I have talked about this issue and the Bush administration at length. That this statement resonated with you because you want for it to be true.
Well, is is true, and nothing you say can change that. It’s a failed ideology because from the start its purpose with to give power and authority to the elites that had it during the 1920s (“limited government” was the smokescreen). I don’t think it was any accident that Karl Rove took his cues from Mark Hanna in order to maintain a period of unquestioned Republican dominance.
Of all your various appeals to authority, this is certainly the most curious.
I’m going to break one of my cardinal rules here, as I don’t like to mention specific names. But when you have a chance, look up Richard Mellon Scaife.
Right, so let me get this straight.
Previous president whose wife is running for president… Irrelevant, old news.
Richard Viguerie. Highly relevant and worth repeating over and over. He has a blog, after all.
Well, look at it this way. When Hillary said that her husband was the victim of a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” I knew then that she was telling the truth. Three years before, when the Vince Foster non-story was hot, I had written a column for my campus newspaper with information I had found rather easily, connecting the dots as I went. Thus, anything negative conservatives say about her which has nothing to do with policy (that is, most of it) I take with a grain of salt. And more and more people are doing so, even some conservatives, as watching the Bush Administration implode I’m sure is painful for the right. But this was the natural end of Reagan-style conservatism, because it rejects other views out of hand and thinks it knows everything.
Viguerie, on the other hand, was one of those many conservatives who blame Bush for “betraying conservatism” and even said — and fairly recently at that — that the GOP needed to find “another Reagan.” Some are hoping that Fred Thompson is he.
No – we have every right to argue with you because we all own our own opinion and convictions. I choose not to argue with you because of your arrogance and know-it-all attitude that is very demeaning. So I will not argue with you on those reasons.
You deliberately forget one thing: I know the facts about Clinton, and they directly contradict what you believe; thus, my so-called arrogance is not my problem. If you try to tell me that the sky may be green that’s obviously nonsensical, so anything that you say that contradicts what I know today is not worth hearing — and I will say so.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted August 30, 2007 at 10:45 am


Moderatelad,
Not one word I said to you reached you. Not one. Please, explain to me clearly so that any Christian can understand, how your hateful rhetoric about the Clintons, or anyone of a liberal stripe, for that matter, is in any way Christlike.
I would like to be more like Christ, not less. So far, your words show me that you wish to be more like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter than like Christ. Snide comments and insults are fun, but they aren’t the least like Christ. If that is more important to you than being like Christ, than have at it.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 30, 2007 at 11:38 am


Posted by: squeaky | August 30, 2007 10:45 AM
So – I am not allowed to have my opinions and observations about someone? My accessments of a person can not be direct and to the point. (OK – snarkie might be a little over the top) So I have to talk about UBL and Hitler in sweet and hushed tones. My assessment of the current leader of the KKK and White Power groups have to be tempered in such a way as to not offend anyone?
I believe that I can be ‘Christ-like’ and have my own opinions and definitions of peoples trustworthyness and character and should be allowed to express them.
The ‘hatred’ that has been express by some on this site for Kennedy (the pastor) Dobson, and the late Fawell. My assessment of Clinton is nothing compaired to what they say and think. I believe that Clinton(s) character is extreamly flawed and he is unrepentive. Their assessment of K-D-F is hateful, vengful, awful.
Clinton will have to answer for his actions – but he is an elected official and has direct access and effect on all. K-D-F are people with ministries that I can elect not to listen to or support. Their effect on me is limited to my allowing them access to my life.
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 30, 2007 at 11:42 am


Squeaky,
As long as Clinton bashers remain addicted to the failed ideology of Reagan conservatism and the myth of the ‘free market’ they will be incapable of the Christian act of forgiveness when it comes to the Clintons.
Indulging in Clinton bashing is a defense mechanism for a closed mind.
Clinton bashing defends the closed mind from real world contradictions with the failed ideology of Reagan conservatism in the post cold war era. Milton Friedman’s ‘free market’ideology is an integral component of Reagan conservatism and cover for an indifference to the suffering of the poor and the sick in our society.
By the way Kevin, I’ve known about Milton Friedman since my college years. But I was ignorant of Friedman’s heir apparent, Thomas Sowell, until timk posed a trick question for me to answer.
(Whatever happened to timk?)
Since then I’ve read enough of Sowell’s works to realize that his intellect is a mere shadow of Friedman’s.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 30, 2007 at 11:48 am


Kevin: ‘I am more than happy to discuss my ideology.’
Bring it on.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted August 30, 2007 at 11:56 am


You didn’t answer my question, Moderatelad–how are your words Christlike? Stop avoiding the issue.



report abuse
 

N.M. Rod

posted August 30, 2007 at 12:22 pm


If people are looking for political salvation (as, evidently many are now just as in the time of Jesus) they’re not going to have much chance of finding it with backing pet ideologies or ideologues, or even garden variety Dem or GOP political hacks.
If we look at the example of Israel, after they clamored for a political leader just like all the nations around them had, instead of being ruled in their hearts by God, what we see recorded in scripture is a refrain of failure of political leaderships. Time after time, yet another King is recorded as “having done evil” after having left office – the vast majority of them.
What we can say looking at the long list of failed and unsuccessful presidencies is that our system produces a certain number of people expert in getting elected, but remarkably lacking in the actual abilities of governance.
This phenomenon is not bounded by political affiliation.
Political solutions might grow out of the heart, but in themselves without that are useless and in fact will be positively pernicious.
That is what we’re seeing now, and in all seriousness, looking at the current candidates of any stripe, that’s highly unlikely to change.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 30, 2007 at 12:29 pm


N M Rod,
None of the current candidates come up to your standards?
Will you be staying home on election day 2008?



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 30, 2007 at 12:53 pm


The ‘hatred’ that has been express by some on this site for Kennedy (the pastor) Dobson, and the late Falwell. My assessment of Clinton is nothing compaired to what they say and think. I believe that Clinton(s) character is extreamly flawed and he is unrepentive. Their assessment of K-D-F is hateful, vengeful, awful.
You have no basis for making that comparison. For openers, Clinton never attacked anyone for any reason; folks went after him because he was a (barely) liberal Democrat who was elected fairly and squarely, which was unacceptable in some quarters; more honest people will tell you that his “character” had absolutely nothing do with that. The other men you mentioned, on the other hand, made their living marginalizing people not like themselves; even other Christians were fair game, and people eventually get tired of that. (Falwell once insulted Jim Wallis as “as evangelical as an oak tree”; on the other hand, Billy Graham once told Falwell to “shut up.”) In other words, they deserve every ounce of criticism they get.
The real problem, however, is not so much “hate” but the fact that conservatives as a whole are so immature that they don’t want to accept the responsibility for their attitudes, statements or actions or that they may be wrong; they tend to be so touchy that when you challenge them even on the slighest thing they go ballistic. I knew full well that GWB would blame “outside forces” in Congress holding Gonzales to account, because he fits the profile to a T.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 30, 2007 at 1:50 pm


Posted by: squeaky | August 30, 2007 11:56 AM
You didn’t answer my question, Moderatelad–how are your words Christlike?
Maybe because the are truthfully from the heart. I take no joy in expressing them but I can not gloss them over to make them more PC for some. I would rather have someone tell me directly where I am in error than for them to sugar coat what they have to say. (not applicable to you Rick)
Stop avoiding the issue.
Oh – as if that does not happen all the time on this site when someone like me asks the question. Give them a shake peaches – avoiding is what happens best with Sojo and Co.
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

Modweratelad

posted August 30, 2007 at 1:52 pm


Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 30, 2007 12:53 PM
excuse me – Rick who?
No argue – no talk
Later -
.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 30, 2007 at 2:47 pm


Deluded Conservative Trolls, Trapped in the Past:
Whenever they encounter facts at odds with their delusion:
1. If the facts are embarrassing, they will try to deny the facts.
2. They will complain how the liberal media is slanted and suppressing the truth.
3. If this doesn’t work they will try to change the subject.
4. If you continue pursuing the topic at hand
they will try to ignore you.
5. If you refuse to be ignored they will usually play the Clinton card.
4. If you refuse the Clinton card, they might try the Ted Kennedy card or the Jane Fonda card or the Saddam Hussein card, etc.
6. If they run out of cards they will complain how unfair or mean you are or how you’ve insulted their righteousness.
7. Finally they will pout and leave the discussion.
8. But they will always be back, disrupting discussion of the next topic.
9. Under no circumstances will they dare to talk about the embarrassing facts of the topic at hand.
Troll tactics vary somewhat, depending on the topic at hand and the individual Deluded Conservative Troll, Trapped in the Past.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 30, 2007 at 3:27 pm


Maybe because the are truthfully from the heart. I take no joy in expressing them but I can not gloss them over to make them more PC for some. I would rather have someone tell me directly where I am in error than for them to sugar coat what they have to say.
You said that last statement doesn’t apply to me — which says volumes, because I’ve already told you where you’re in error and you don’t want to deal with it. This is not at all about “political correctness”; it’s about, as I mentioned, taking responsibility for, so to speak, your side of the fence. Not doing so is simply irresponsible, not to mention embarrassing to the Christian faith in general.
You’ve said on other threads you orignally came to this blog to dialogue with others who may not think the same way you do; however, you need to understand that when you do that sometimes your pet doctrines may be challenged. The mature person considers, “Hey, he may be right — let me get some more information from other sources.”



report abuse
 

N.M. Rod

posted August 30, 2007 at 3:32 pm


What I’m seeing is preconceived ideologies, which the Bible is then trolled for to cherry-pick support for.
This is called self-justification.
Christ’s standards need to inform positions.
Anything else is putting the cart before the horse.
It smacks of political opportunism as well, as each man-made ideology seeks to “prove” that it’s Christian this way, even though it arrives on the scene as the product of many other forces and compromises that might have nothing to do with ethics but rather the expediencies that serve their selfish interests.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 30, 2007 at 3:52 pm


It smacks of political opportunism as well, as each man-made ideology seeks to “prove” that it’s Christian this way, even though it arrives on the scene as the product of many other forces and compromises that might have nothing to do with ethics but rather the expediencies that serve their selfish interests.
I basically agree, but the trouble is that we all have them. Most of us fit into one side of the spectrum or another, depending on what you want to emphasize, and we — even how we read the Scripture — are influenced by our environments. I do not pretend, for example, that my urban/inner-ring-suburban upbringing as an African-American male has nothing to do with how I see the world. It’s a major reason I attend the interracial, multicultural church I do — I remember during last year’s men’s weekend at my church I remember seeing a Hispanic man (we don’t have too many in my city), and my first reaction was, Great — we could use some of that “flava” here. (Not that we’re trying to fill a quota.)
The biggest problem is that at times those other perspectives are denigrated, often for the sake of power. Going back to Gonzales for a second, it turns out that many Hispanic groups no longer supported him because through Bush he supports policies that they find injurious; most blacks never liked Clarence Thomas for similar reasons.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 30, 2007 at 3:58 pm


Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 30, 2007 3:27 PM
Rich who -
let someone else deal with ‘rickapedia’ – I won’t
‘don’t argue’ – ‘you are wrong’ – ‘I know this…you don’t’
‘…which says volumes…’
Right – you are really into respecting others perspectives – NOT!
I have disagreed with some and respectfully so -
Your arrorgance yells so loud I can hear what you say – it’s not worth your time or mine. I respectfully disagree with you and value that you have your opinions – you don’t – Fine. Bye.
later -
.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 30, 2007 at 4:09 pm


have disagreed with some and respectfully so -
Your arrorgance yells so loud I can hear what you say – it’s not worth your time or mine. I respectfully disagree with you and value that you have your opinions – you don’t.

I will respect your opinion when, and only when, you back it up with hard, irrefutable facts that everyone understands. You haven’t done that yet, simply making unfounded assertions based on questionable information — which, as things turn out, is little more than glorified gossip that is, again, beneath a Christian. So if you want someone to blame, look in the mirror. And BTW, you haven’t shown anyone, least of all me, respect.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 30, 2007 at 4:14 pm


Posted by: N.M. Rod | August 30, 2007 3:32 PM
nicely put…
I try to not make my God fit my mold as I know that He is greater than anything I could come up with. I try to allow my Faith Convictions influence my actions in life. I believe that we are our ‘brothers keeper’ – that is not a liberal or conservative ideal. I just do see where we have to be our brothers caretaker for the rest of their lives. I do believe that we need to come to the assistance of those in need. I just don’t want to create another hugh gov’t dept to make that happen. I believe that the church needs to be the church. (I am not blowing my own horn…OK – maybe just a little – but just as an exapmle) I just was able to get my employer to donate 36 computers to an inner city ministry that deals with kids that live in there area. Another person will be using those computers to help kids learn so that they can achieve in school. Outside of Sylvin Learning – this ministry is the largest organization working with at-risk students. What did this cost us. Basically nothing. It will cost me about $7.00 in gas to deliever these computers and this other person as well as others that take time out of their week to sit down with these students. Can you imagine if all believer were slugs like me and just did one or two things a year to make life better for others. And yes – I do donate $$$ to this organization a couple times a year.
Little is Much when God is in it…
Have a great day!
.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted August 30, 2007 at 4:20 pm


Moderatelad,
“So – I am not allowed to have my opinions and observations about someone?”
I’m not saying you can’t have your opinion. Is it really that hard to say you disagree with someone’s actions without saying it hatefully? Without being insulting? Without denegrating and demoralizing someone? You are an intelligent person–why can’t you understand that? Do you let your kids call each other and other people demeaning names and speak of others disrespectfully?
“I believe that I can be ‘Christ-like’ and have my own opinions and definitions of peoples trustworthyness and character and should be allowed to express them. ”
You still haven’t said what is Christlike about the WAY you have expressed those opinions. This is the crux of the matter.
“The ‘hatred’ that has been express by some on this site for Kennedy (the pastor) Dobson, and the late Fawell. My assessment of Clinton is nothing compaired to what they say and think. I believe that Clinton(s) character is extreamly flawed and he is unrepentive. Their assessment of K-D-F is hateful, vengful, awful.”
“Oh – as if that does not happen all the time on this site when someone like me asks the question. Give them a shake peaches – avoiding is what happens best with Sojo and Co.”
The old “they started it” defense. I’m talking to you specifically. Do you except “they started it” from your kids? My parents never did. They made me own up to my own mistakes even when I was just following the example given to me by others.
“Maybe because the are truthfully from the heart. I take no joy in expressing them but I can not gloss them over to make them more PC for some.”
The glee in your Clinton bashing is palpable. Again, I challenge you–before you send a post, read it through Jesus eyes. Would Jesus say what you have written (I would extend that challenge to everyone who posts here)?
“Clinton will have to answer for his actions”
It is between him and the Lord. Why can’t you let the Lord handle the judgement? You treat him like a cartoon character rather than a real person who needs the love of Christ in his life. If you were around in David’s day, you would probably say the same things about him as you say about Clinton, and he was guilty of far more heinous sins than Clinton. What does that say about your understanding of God’s mercy and forgiveness? The fundamental aspect of Christianity and of Christ is love. You are right, others here have not been loving in their posts, either. But I am talking to you. Why do you insist on justifying an un-Christlike attitude? I’m still waiting for your answer…



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 30, 2007 at 4:22 pm


Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 30, 2007 4:09 PM
‘…you haven’t shown anyone, least of all me, respect.’
Yes I have – I have never told anyone that ‘they are wrong’ or ‘don’t argue with me’. I have given sources but they are ones that you do not agree with and so…?
I enjoy the verbal volleyball that most have on this site – just tired of your arrorgance ‘slamming’ back so much of the time.
have a great life – live your convictions – be passionate about everything…just without my input.
Be blessed -
.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted August 30, 2007 at 4:33 pm


I have been directing a lot of criticism towards Moderatelad’s attitude. However, he is right that others have done what he does, so in the issue of fairness…
I think it was N.M. Rod on a different thread who said that s/he is frustrated with how many of these discussions degenerate into Liberal vs. Conservative rhetoric. When this happens, we stop listening to each other and shut down actual conversation. It’s too bad we, as Christians, can’t have discussions without falling back on our preconceived notions about each other. Moderatelad’s constant Clinton bashing gets really old, but statements like “Deluded Conservative Trolls, Trapped in the Past” and other finger pointing do nothing to further the discussion, either. Enough with the sweeping generalizations. Every one of us here is far more complex with our views than our political stripe would reveal. Would that this forum become kinder and gentler where everyone is treated with the respect due a child of God. Maybe then we would listen carefully to each other with open hearts and minds. Maybe then we could have an honest exchange of ideas. If we can’t do it, how can we expect anyone else to?



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 30, 2007 at 4:43 pm


Yes I have – I have never told anyone that ‘they are wrong’ or ‘don’t argue with me’. I have given sources but they are ones that you do not agree with and so…?
When people spout stuff that I know to be false and reject stuff I know to be true for the sake of their agenda, they lose credibility; conservatives have been doing that since 1980. And also, being in the media, because I do the research, I know the difference between what’s credible and not credible. You see, I don’t believe in malleable truth — things are generally either true or false. That said, I HATE falsehoods with a passion, and you’re not going to tell such on this blog without my reacting to it.



report abuse
 

N.M. Rod

posted August 30, 2007 at 4:47 pm


Jesus breaks the barriers of all those self-justifying perpectives, because He calls us to put our feet in the shoes of the “other” and to have no enemies – to overcome that false perspective of our separation from one another by loving them.
Have you ever wondered why God never does fight on the side of any nation in war? Why we struggle to find in the aftermath of any lengthy conflict some semblance of self-respect, self-justification or explanation for all the loss of innocent life and participation in war crimes? Once the hatred reaches fever pitch and the angry violence starts, everyone is fighting on just the same side – the side of death and destruction and all the Just War Theory restraints end up getting “blown to hell” along with our “enemies” – to use Jerry Falwell’s colorful language.
That’s why I loved no-B.S. director Sam Fuller – he said that no realistic war movie has ever been made, even those that weren’t John Wayne-style propaganda. He said that soldiers weren’t stopping to pray like they did in the movies of his era, either. He said as a former infantryman, it was simply terror, killing to keep from being killed without any moral dimension possible. And to capture that in a movie, there’d have to be random machine-gun fire every few minutes from left and stage right spraying at the audience leaving each time a few dead or maimed to really make the audience realise the truth of it.
No wonder I’ve never heard a sermon on loving your enemy that took Jesus’ commands too seriously! The closest I’ve heard is references to loving your neighbor, with the usual dowubts about just who that is – as Jesus observed, even the heathen do that. No doubt it would not be well-received and could result in grievous losses at the collection plate. This Christianity could be hard work, and cheap grace is so much more comfortable.
You think?



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 30, 2007 at 4:58 pm


Squeaky — I sympathize, completely, and I too wish things could be more civil than they have been. But as important as, and sometimes even more so than, civility is truth, and when people lie and gossip to support their pet agendas and the people that support them the whole enterprise falls apart. Lying and gossip are, of course, prohibited in Scripture, and if we tolerate it even for a second we lose our integrity. Having been on the wrong end of such throughout my life, my blood boils when anyone is unjustly treated in that way, and that’s why I go off whenever anyone slams Clinton. Does he deserve it? Not at all. For the record, I would react similarly if someone said similar things about Bush; I know what’s been said about him personally but will not repeat it because 1) I have no proof and 2) they have nothing to do with his performance as president.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 30, 2007 at 5:05 pm


“Well, is is true, and nothing you say can change that.”
It isn’t true of me or anyone I know. I have no power to preserve.
“I’m going to break one of my cardinal rules here, as I don’t like to mention specific names. But when you have a chance, look up Richard Mellon Scaife.”
Are you he?
“Viguerie, on the other hand, was one of those many conservatives who blame Bush for “betraying conservatism” and even said — and fairly recently at that — that the GOP needed to find “another Reagan.” Some are hoping that Fred Thompson is he.”
So, the fact that he is still alive and offering commentary means that he is more relevant to dredge up than Bill Clinton?
“You deliberately forget one thing: I know the facts about Clinton, and they directly contradict what you believe; thus, my so-called arrogance is not my problem.”
Rick Nowlin doesn’t have opinions. They are facts accompanied by roundhouse kicks. If you know the facts about Clinton, you know he is a sleazeball, and unworthy of your highly-principled defense.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 30, 2007 at 5:08 pm


Well put, squeaky.
I’m also frustrated by the lack of continuity on many of these threads.
We rarely manage to stay on a topic long enough to reach a better understanding of its full dimensions.
It’s notable whenever we achieve partial success in this – the recent intelligent design thread comes to mind.
I apologize for going over the top with my ‘Deluded Conservative Trolls, Trapped in the Past’ piece.
This was intended to identify disruptive tactics utilized by trolls – in the collective – not to point a finger at individual posters on this forum.
When I wrote this I was hoping that by recognizing these tactics, we might avoid rising to the bait and losing focus on the issues.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 30, 2007 at 5:19 pm


Are you he?
No — he’s right-wing and pro-choice, among other things.
So, the fact that he is still alive and offering commentary means that he is more relevant to dredge up than Bill Clinton?
Yep. He still thinks he’s relevant even in the face of reality. Clinton’s active political career is over, on the other hand.
If you know the facts about Clinton, you know he is a sleazeball and unworthy of your highly-principled defense.
No more than anyone else, truth be told. But Clinton was the first person to be the conservatives at their own game, and for that reason alone he has their undying enmity. Were he a conservative Republican we’d have the mother of all cover-ups, even surpassing Watergate.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 30, 2007 at 5:37 pm


A typo:
I meant to write: But Clinton was the first person to beat the conservatives at their own game…



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 30, 2007 at 5:45 pm


This was intended to identify disruptive tactics utilized by trolls — in the collective — not to point a finger at individual posters on this forum.
Apology accepted, but there was truth in what you wrote. The old ways don’t work anymore.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted August 30, 2007 at 5:52 pm


Thanks Rick,
The point I am making is that opinions can be voiced very strongly without resorting to snide remarks or name-calling. I don’t have every word you have ever said memorized, but I don’t recall you doing such, although you are very good at firmly stating your opinion.
Justintime–except for the title, I did not disagree with your post. In fact, I think you make a good point. I might add that people on both sides of the spectrum have their favorite gripes about the other side they can pull out and throw at the other…thus derailing any meaningful discussion.
“If you know the facts about Clinton, you know he is a sleazeball, and unworthy of your highly-principled defense. ”
If you knew the facts about any one of us, you would know we are all sleezeballs, and unworthy of anyone’s highly-principled defenses. This is true of me. It is true of you, Kevin. It is true of every one of us. And as soon as you or I or anyone else starts pointing fingers at others and judges anyone else, we lose sight of how absolutely decrepit we really are and how much we really need Christ. This is Christianity 101.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 30, 2007 at 6:34 pm


Ain’t that the truth.



report abuse
 

Nuttshell

posted August 30, 2007 at 7:31 pm


Squeaky, my dear. It wouldn’t be a SOJO blog without the preening, arrogant, I’m smarter than all of you, only conservatives are righteous comments from Kevin S., Moderatelad and Wolverine. I long ago tired of them because they try to beat and bludgeon everyone who disagrees with them. If you call them on their tone, you get the hurt “I can’t express my opinions…” from them. I’m convinced their only purpose is to provide op arguments to the Christian Left. They can’t imagine that someone can be a Christian and not be a conservative. If Moderatelad is moderate, then I must be Che Guevaro.
I was no Clinton fan but looking back on how this country was and how my life was then, I get very wistful about him. No, I’m not supporting Hilary. Frankly, I’ve been an Edwards supporter for years. I used to listen to a lot of right-wing radio years ago but after Bush got elected, I noticed the tone changed. I was an Independent for more than 15 years, but Bush pushed me into the Democratic fold. My husband, who is a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, can no longer stand this group. He’ll vote for any Dem as long as it’s not Hilary.
These people have gotten so ridiculous with their contempt for the American people that it’s nauseating. Government is not evil unto itself but we’ve witnessed evil because the Bushites have used their position to enrich themselves and their friends at the expense of the citizens of this country. Gonzales, was their enabler. He did not put the Constitution first. He put the interests of the president and Republican machine above all else. It’s interesting that no one replied to the comment about Monica Goodling. I guess you right-wingers can’t defend what she did? How is one suitable for a job in the Bush Admin? All you need to be is a Republican. That’s criminal! Good riddance to Gonzales. I can only hope Bush doesn’t find someone more odious.



report abuse
 

N.M. Rod

posted August 30, 2007 at 8:04 pm


I hope this doesn’t apply to the circumstance of generosity for the underprivileged that someone cited here, but let me give my perspective as a former well-paid IT director who happened to work at a United Way charity.
Imagine you have a bunch of obsolete computers that you’ve told your customers aren’t worth upgrading. It costs in our jurisdiction $10 per monitor and $5 per CPU to dispose of these.
Now, the clever thing to do is to turn this liability into an asset – by “donating” them to some folks who can’t afford to purchase current technology. You get to take a tax deduction many, many times greater for this disposal – er, donation – than it would cost to get them to the landfill.
As well, think of all the free publicity that goes to the donor! And let’s not diminish the effect of the feeling of selfless sacrifice that enhances employee morale for doing such a great good deed!
But, Jesus said that the only real generosity is that done where the good deed remains unknown except to God.
OK, on the recipient’s side. Just who’s going to maintain these machines and the infrastructure that the well-to-do business or school deemed no longer efficient? To the donor, there was no economic sense to this, so this means there can’t be for the recipient either (unless they install Linux, maybe :-) ) The recipient has even FEWER financial and technical resources. Is the donor going to provide free support?
Now those poor underprivileged are still poor and underprivileged and at a technology disadvantage.
I remember when people used to save their old teabags to donate to Indian Reservations. People used to feel real generous about it, too, without a bit of shame.
Again, maybe this doesn’t apply in this case – but across the board, we find that a whole lot of purported generosity just ain’t – look at foreign aid which only benefits American businesses without changing any dynamics on the ground – in this land reputed (by itself) to be the most generous of nations in the world.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 30, 2007 at 8:25 pm


N.M. Rod — I operate on this principle when giving clothes to second-hand stores: If it’s not wearable enough for me, I don’t give it to anyone else.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted August 30, 2007 at 9:07 pm


As the only green party hippy on this board I have to agree w/ N.M. Rod. None of the democratic candidates do much for me (right now) but I am waiting to see what will happen. If I had to vote right now I would vote for none of them. It’s over a year and a half away so I will hold off on any more judgements.
p



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted August 30, 2007 at 9:08 pm


As the only green party hippy on this board I have to agree w/ N.M. Rod. None of the democratic candidates do much for me (right now) but I am waiting to see what will happen. If I had to vote right now I would vote for none of them. It’s over a year and a half away so I will hold off on any more judgements.
p



report abuse
 

Tishy

posted August 30, 2007 at 11:06 pm


There was a brief report on one of the less-baised tv stations here in Australia on his resignation.
The ‘achievements’ they attributed to this man included – changing the laws to allow Guantanemo Bay and torture.
“Mr Gonzales drew fire from civil liberties groups for writing in January 2002 that parts of the half-century-old Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war were “obsolete” and some provisions were “quaint”.” (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/27/2016950.htm)
That just send shivers up and down my spine.
Pray for the next person given the position – start praying now. America and the world need someone sensible, people-loving and God-fearing in this important role.



report abuse
 

Larry

posted August 30, 2007 at 11:21 pm


I don’t usually spend any time on blogs, but I happened upon this one through a SOJOURNERS link.
It was really interesting to read the opinions of some obviously very intelligent people with totally opposite allegiances. Republican/Democrat—-Bush/Clinton
This a great example of the real problem that faces not only our country, but the entire planet!
DUALITY
The 50/50 separation between the “left” and “right” has become a battle to prove that one side or the other is right. Can’t you see that they are BOTH corrupt? The DEM and REP party have both been taken over by the “corporate oligarchy” that uses Jesus and God’s name in vain to support their ideologies.
It’s time to elect people outside the “C.O” to work on this duality issue. In my opinion, the best two parties to have this dialogue would be the LIBERTARIANS/GREENS. Realizing that this would never happen by the 2008 election, I’m going to visualize a Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich
ticket………
Go ahead, rip me apart for my silly dreams.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 30, 2007 at 11:43 pm


Who’s your president?
Like payshun, I’m hanging back before making a serious commitment to a candidate.
I’m looking for a president that believes in good government, can fix the damage Bush has done to our infrastructure and actually govern effectively.
If Gore threw his hat in the ring, I would support him in a heartbeat.
But right now, I would have to choose Edwards because of his progressive ideals and concrete proposals.
Hilary is a little too corporate for my taste.
Not a good sign for her to be hobnobbing with Rupert Murdoch.
Obama is a great politician, maybe not quite ready for prime time.
But an Edwards/Obama ticket would really get me motivated.
Richardson and Dodd both are looking better all the time.
Biden is good on foreign policy, but maybe a little too much of a grandstander.
Kucinich best articulates my progressive values but it would be a miracle if he could get elected.
The Dems have an awesome lineup for 2008.
Who did I miss?
Oh, the Republicans.
Pathetic, just pathetic.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich recently called the nine-man field of fellow Republicans running for president a “bunch” of “pygmies.” Poor choice of words – he must be referring to their lack of political skills and charisma.
I would say the Republican candidates all lack a vision for America – they’re selling more of the same thoroughly discredited bonehead ideology.
America won’t buy it this time.
The only hope Republicans have of winning the presidency in 2008 is to lie cheat and steal.
Please call your Congressional reps and demand a resolution requiring Bush to get Congressional approval before doing anything really stupid like bombing Iran.
If we don’t stop Bush from starting another war with Iran, there may not be an election in 2008.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 30, 2007 at 11:56 pm


I think I understand where you’re coming from, Larry, but a Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich ticket is a guaranteed loser at the polls.
It would be a spoiler campaign, just like what the little guy from Texas with the big ears did to the Republicans and Ralph Nader did to the Democrats.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 31, 2007 at 12:31 am


Payshun, N.M.Rod,Squeaky, Nuttshell



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted August 31, 2007 at 2:04 am


Tish said:
Pray for the next person given the position – start praying now. America and the world need someone sensible, people-loving and God-fearing in this important role.
Me:
I am almost sick of having a relgious person in office. So far we have had Christians in office and I don’t know. It leaves me disappointed. Maybe an athiest will do better. It just seems to that sensible and God fearing went out the window a long time ago. Maybe I am too jaded for my own good but it just feels like America has lost much of leadership and it’s going to take a generation before we get it back.
Larry,
You are speaking my language. Both sides suck. Democrats are spineless w/ an idea here or there but nothing they are fully committed to (exceptions are the war in Iraq and disliking lame duck Bush’s presidency.)
Republicans want to dismantle government or show that they really have no value for it unless it benefits them. The same could be said for the democrats. The only difference is that there is a perception that the Dems will look out for the outcast. That’s not really true but they do try.
I don’t know I am sick of all it. Yet I am fascinated by the pagentry of it. I guess my old love of politics and it’s characters is a live and well.
p



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 31, 2007 at 8:13 am


It was really interesting to read the opinions of some obviously very intelligent people with totally opposite allegiances. Republican/Democrat—-Bush/Clinton
It’s not that at all. More accurately, it’s modern conservatives vs. everybody else; as I said earlier the conservatives want to be worshipped and always intended to put everyone else out of business. (Bush’s remarks that “You’re either with us or with the terrorists” should be understood in that context.) They hate especially Clinton because he won despite their best efforts; if anything, they made him stronger and put Hillary on better footing, especially financially, for the presidency.
Anyway, that’s why Gonzales was able to do what he did without complaints from the right. But libertarians were ticked off at him as well (which is why you can’t make this into a strict Republican/Democrat dichotomy).



report abuse
 

Ben Oates

posted August 31, 2007 at 8:59 am


So much for an unbiased Blog site!



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 31, 2007 at 9:10 am


Squeaky — some people just believe that they are the ‘truth detectives’ for this site. They claim that they would correct statements that were said against both parties – but when they view one as the savior of the world and the other as the cause of all misery – don’t think they will do much correction in some areas. I know that I am direct in what I believe to be true but would never be so arrorgant as to claim to tell others that they are ‘wrong’ or not to ‘argue with me’ because I know the truth. I and others have stated that we do not ‘agree’ with them or even that their thinking might be ‘flawed’. But still valuing the person and willing to engage them in hopefully meaningful dialog on any number of issues. Not sure that I would label anyone a ‘Troll’ but might limit my interaction with them – and I have.
Have a great weekend!
Moderatelad
.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 31, 2007 at 9:18 am


Posted by: Payshun | August 31, 2007 2:04 AM
I don’t know I am sick of all it. Yet I am fascinated by the pagentry of it. I guess my old love of politics and it’s characters is a live and well.
Now – I am in the same boat with you on this one. (I’m the ‘big guy’ on the right so the boat is tipping a little – tee hee) I know that the classic idea of politics still is alive in DC – although it is on a smaller scale. I learned that from my neighbor as he was an aid to a MN Senator.
Have a great day -
.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted August 31, 2007 at 10:02 am


Moderatelad,
Sigh…just not going to answer my question are you?
You know, I agree with what you said on your last post, but I also get the impression it is all aimed at liberal-minded folk, when I see just as much of that coming from conservatives. And you are perfectly capable of rising above it, but I haven’t seen that from you with all the Clinton bashing. You are better than that, and when you do that you denegrate yourself, stooping to a really low level of discourse.
“they view one as the savior of the world and the other as the cause of all misery ”
This is spot on, but you are aiming it at liberals, and I get no sense that you realize the conservatives have been doing this for years–in fact, if liberals are doing it with any verve, it is reactionary. Thus your sentiments seem hypocritical to me.
Have a nice Labor Day



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted August 31, 2007 at 10:14 am


Presidential race. Sigh. I’m with most of the sentiments expressed so far. However, I do think the Democratic candidates have much more freshness and even hope to offer than the Republicans. I fear much of that will wear off since this whole thing has started way way WAY too early.
Who do I like? I heard John Edwards speak at a graduation a few years ago, and was hooked. Then I saw him in a debate recently, and thought he didn’t answer questions very well. Maybe it was just a bad night for him. Actually thought Kucinich and Biden came off strongest. I am really hoping it isn’t Hilary that gets the nod. Many of my Democratic friends say they will not vote for her no matter what. I would love it if Gore ran, but I think he thinks he will do more good doing what he is doing now.
As for the Republicans, I used to be a strong supporter of John McCain, but I have been really disappointed in him the last couple of years as he has come across as an appeaser to the Bush administration. He would probably be in better position had now had he continued setting himself apart from those politics. I still hold out a little interest in him, and if it is between him and Hilary, I will probably vote for him. I hope those aren’t the choices, though.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 31, 2007 at 10:48 am


Ben Oates, “So much for an unbiased Blog site!”
Looking for unbiased entertainment?
Try Sesame Street.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 31, 2007 at 11:08 am


I know that I am direct in what I believe to be true but would never be so arrorgant as to claim to tell others that they are ‘wrong’ or not to ‘argue with me’ because I know the truth.
When you believe what by any objective standard is factually wrong or refuse to believe what is factually right and won’t admit either because doing so casts doubt on your entire philosophy, you (collectively) have a problem. When you regurgitate unfounded rumors, scurrilous allegations and vicious gossip about someone without definite proof — from multiple, independent sources — just because doing so supports your pet agendas, that says something about your collective character. As much as you may disagree with Jim Wallis, you will never get that from him, me or basically any other “non-conservative” who frequents this blog. So we all would appreciate it if you stopped insisting that something is true when I (personally) know that it’s false, especially since doing so makes you look extremely arrogant and woefully uninformed. That would mean, specifically, no more comments about Bill Clinton.
You see, the vast majority of us here are Christians, who (at least in theory) believe in objective standards. We believe that all persons are created by God and are owed simple dignity and respect — and that has absolutely nothing to do with their conduct. However, the ideological right has taken the faith and used it as a battering ram for the purposes of power and authority, which it is now losing because it has abandoned its basic principles, and I commend Wallis for working to bring it back. As a conservative you are not unwelcome here, but be advised that your conduct to date has not been conducive to Christian witness, and I have enough experience to know that it has to be confronted head-on. Because the conservatives who frequent this blog do so generally under false pretenses, basically to be disruptive, I do not apologize for being harsh at times; Jesus Himself was not all sweetness and light.
But this leads to the primary issue at hand. As I said before, we believe in objective standards and reserve the right to say that conservatives can be, and often are, just plain wrong — and that’s where the food fights start. We feel that they refuse to listen to anyone outside their circle and have led this country down a blind alley, in this case into an unnecessary war in Iraq. We further believe that their very ideology, which we find by definition elitist, is the culprit because it leads them to want to be the unquestioned boss — in essence, to be worshipped. That we cannot accept, either personally or spiritally, because there is but one God and He recognizes no other. We believe that Alberto Gonzales’ conduct while attorney general went against both Biblical principles and the U.S. Constitution; therefore, we have every right to call it what it is. For once, you will hear what we have to say, even though it may hurt.
I may have mentioned on another thread about a conversation in December 2000 I had with a fellow basketball player; he was exulting that the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Bush. When I told him I voted for Gore, he responded, “You must know something I don’t know.” That’s true; I did. Granted, I didn’t know he would go into Iraq, but I suspected Bush would act as if he had a virtual “divine mandate” for his actions and policies and I wasn’t disappointed. In his reaction to Gonzales’ resignation Bush has demonstrated how out-of-touch he continues to be, blaming the Democrats for forcing him out, never mind that he lost much Republican support as well and even the Libertarians were calling for his head!
Bottom line, we feel that the right wants the final word. We aren’t falling for that one.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted September 1, 2007 at 5:34 am


In addition to all that has been said about the Conservatives who frequent this board pulling the Clinton card to avoid dealing with the issues, note that I brought up the issue of Bush having traded Ashcroft for Gonzales, and what that says about the President’s commitment to saving lives vs. bugging your phone.
I got a Clinton card to pull for you: nobody has capitulated to the Right more than Bill & Hillary. Think of Welfare Reform, NAFTA, and a certain Senator from NY who voeted to send us into Iraq and the Patriot Act.
Oh, yeah- the “Patriot Act” another thing that Gonzales was more committed to than stopping abortion!
And getting back to that same Senator who is now a candidate for President and bears the initials HRC- she is “the top Democratic recipient of pro-Israel funds for the 2006 election cycle thus far, pocketing over $58000 as of October 31 last year.” For that quote, go to counterpunch dot org and enter “Clinton” into the search engine. Some very interesting articles come up.
So if all the dirt the right-wingers want to bring up about Bill & Hillary turn out to be the gospel truth, we can just say that’s whats expected of the GOP’s best philosophical ally on the Left side of the aisle.
But I doubt that will get the thick-headed Conservatives who frequent this site to acknowledge that they were betrayed by Bush’s having picked Gonzales. They’d rather talk about urban legends about Bill Clinton.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted September 1, 2007 at 9:58 am


Kevin Wayne — Actually, Hillary didn’t actually vote for the war in Iraq per se — she voted to authorize it if Bush went through the proper channels, which of course didn’t happen. Media Matters for America has the specifics.
But you’re correct in one sense — what you brought up is why I said that Bill was “barely” liberal, and he also was chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, hardly a bastion of the left. Interestingly, some conservatives today are suggesting, “Perhaps we could live with her after all,” National Review’s Rich Lowry writing a piece to that effect.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted September 1, 2007 at 10:06 am


Kevin Wayne puts his finger on good reasons why many progressives, myself included, aren’t that excited about Hillary running for President.
But the very best ally the GOP has on the left side of the aisle is Joe Lieberman, owned by the
America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Insurance Industry and the Pharmaceutical Industry.
The biggest mistake Al Gore ever made was running with ‘Holy Joe’.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted September 2, 2007 at 3:20 am


Rick, Justin-
There was an in-depth article in the NYT Magazine recently regarding Hillary’s decision process on voting for the war, done with the assumption that examining those events could shed light on how she would make decisions in other areas. If I can find it I’ll reference it for you.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted September 2, 2007 at 1:36 pm


There was an in-depth article in the NYT Magazine recently regarding Hillary’s decision process on voting for the war, done with the assumption that examining those events could shed light on how she would make decisions in other areas. If I can find it I’ll reference it for you.
I’m a Times subscriber so I may be able to find it, but go ahead. However, it’s important to make the distinction between an authorization, which she made and which could be legitimate, and supporting the actual carrying out of the war. Hillary’s problem is that Bill supported going into Iraq, as evidenced by an interview published in Time magazine some years ago.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted September 3, 2007 at 12:17 am


I’m a Times subscriber so I may be able to find it, but go ahead.
This looks like a likely candidate:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E6D8173FF934A25755C0A9619C8B63



report abuse
 

justintime

posted September 3, 2007 at 3:42 pm


Hillary’s War June 17, 2007
Americans have to be outraged that any senator would vote to send the nation to war without reading the most relevant document: the 90-page 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. This report, available to all 100 senators, contained enough information to cause Bob Graham to doubt the threat to the United States posed by Iraq. He was one of only six senators to read the report. Clinton was not among those six; she opted for ”briefings” instead. She voted, as did many others, for a disastrous foreign policy blunder based on the CliffNotes version of a national intelligence report. Not very smart for one of the ”brainiest” people in the Senate.
Charles Hamlin
…..
Hillary offers no real explanation for her vote to ‘authorize’ the use of force to deal with Bush’s trumped up crisis.
That’s important.
Edwards says, “I made a mistake” (voting for the authorization).



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted September 3, 2007 at 10:52 pm


With all due respect, that’s just one reader’s assessment.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted September 4, 2007 at 6:36 pm



With all due respect, that’s just one reader’s assessment.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | September 3, 2007 10:52 PM

Well, of course. But what it amounts to in the long run is that we don’t have a serious anti-war candidate in Clinton. And that’s what Soujouners is all about- or supposed to be.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting God's Politics. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:14:07am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Why I Work for Immigration Reform (by Patty Kupfer)
When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago

posted 12:30:52pm Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Audio: Jim Wallis on "Value Voters" on The Tavis Smiley Show
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. + Down

posted 10:11:56am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Verse of the Day: 'peace to the far and the near'
I have seen their ways, but I will heal them; I will lead them and repay them with comfort, creating for their mourners the fruit of the lips. Peace, peace, to the far and the near, says the Lord; and I will heal them. But the wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss u

posted 9:35:01am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Daily News Digest (by Duane Shank)
the latest news on Mideast, Iran, Romney-Religious right, Blog action day, Turkey, SCHIP, Iran, Aids-Africa, India, Budget, Brownback-slavery apology, Canada, and selected op-eds. Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail » Blog action day. Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green

posted 9:31:25am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.