Now its time for the juvenile approach of "well if your gonna spank me your gonna spank him and him and her and him..." and "he started it". What a fokkin wimpweasle.

Same thing happened with the mayor from Baltimore, there was no mention of her political affiliation until somewhere at the very bottom of the original articles. Subsequent articles moved her political affiliations closer to the top of the page, but still no headlines. You know if it were a Republickin it would have been a headliner on page 1.

There used to be a time when I could choose a candidate to vote for and I actually had faith and confidence in their personal integrity. Over the last couple of decades my faith had dwindled down to damn near a coin toss or plucking petals from a daisy.

I'm either getting paranoid or just losing my faith in mankind. Honestly, I almost prefer the paranoia.

<heavy sigh>

He got what he deserved.

Well, I've been well served by a habit of either voting for a candidate -- or against. Not a lot of starry-eyed idealism goes into my voting either. Sometimes it's a third-party candidate, with the aim of encouragement to that third party. In my case, only one third party.

Skepticism towards officeholders is hardly a vice in a republic.

Someone should have given that advice to Jack Abramoff and all those members of Congress (mostly Republican) that he bankrolled.

It might have kept him and a bunch of Republicans out of jail or under ethical clouds.

Seriously, that is really an ignorant comment.

Redux, start reading National Review for at least half a year -- then get back to me about "ignorance," okay?

UG...I suggest you start here:

A report on corruption investigations of members of the 109th Congress..the last Republican majority Congress:
You might also want to read about the K Street project.

The Grover Norquist/Tom DeLay/Karl Rove plan of influence peddling with the hope of creating a permanent Republican majority.

Kinda backfired on them after Abramoff's arrest and Tom DeLay's resignation from Congress under an ethical cloud.

The Washington Post had an article in 2005 on the growth of lobbyists during the years 2001-2004 when the Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...5062200068.gif

The Road to Riches is Called K Street

We can disagree on policy issues....but integrity? I think not!

Power corrupts...not party affiliation.

Please, show a little more objectivity.

Why not just read the RNC talking points and be done with it?

And never let facts get in the way of those talking points.

Because National Review is first of all conservative, not first of all Republican. Expect a strong note of American Catholicism too; other mags like American Spectator have more a Protestant flavor, plus whatever degree of Jewishness Ben Stein's column adds.

Can't see much difference, these days.

Through all that hate - I'm amazed you can see at all. :rolleyes:

There's a sort of a red haze, yeah, but it's not opaque.

They make so good a case for the conservative cause that it's quite persuaded me. The brains all seem to be on the right-hand side of the aisle. So I hang with the smart guys.

Hmm.