News-Record.com

Bob,

You have done what you accuse others of doing, whining and complaining, with no suggestion for a solution. Several of your comments regarding Clinton also fit GWB to a tee. But the one about Clinton going down in history as possibly the worst president made me laugh out loud. This description fits only one and that is Bush.

Bob,
Whenever the truth is spoken about the pedophile prophet Mohammed, apoligists such as Maurine Parker come out of the woodwork to defend him. She and her ilk consider it their pc duty to condem the crusades and equate the Christians of that era with the anamils who strap bombs onto their drugged children and send them into a crowd of innocent bystanders to detonate it.

I'm gonna stick with my long held belief that Jimmy Carter holds that dubious honor.

Ditto Mick. Stagflation and cardigan sweaters. If Carter was still prez there would be a law that thermostats would have to be designed for a max temp of 68 degrees.

Muslims have learned something from us: Someone of power says one little thing outside of the pc realm and all hell breaks loose.

Only difference is we debate in the media, talk radio, blogosphere, etc. while they debate it with violent street mobs.

******************************************

On another note. Before DD starts gloating about the election results I'll say this. Republicans deserved to lose. Just my opinion here, but they have abandoned conservative principles, engaged in scandals and have not provided a strategy for winning Iraq. All this despite a good economy. Voters were disgusted, rightfully so, and picked the only alternative. Same thing happened in '94 to the Dems.

I would hope the new Congress will shed some partisanship and try to work together to the betterment of this country, but I'm not holding my breath. Dems have a golden opportunity to provide leadership going into '08. Repubs need to get back to the party of Ronald Reagan.

Glad Dan caught himself before his drivel became overwhelming. Now that the Dems are taking over, Dan is all for ending the partisanship!! You can't make this stuff up!

Dan, where were you when Bush was equating a vote for Democrats as a vote for the terorists?????

Dan, your type thinking is one of the biggest reasons Democrats are taking over the House AND the Senate. If I thought for one minute you were actually conciliatory, I wouldn't be so hard on you, but just a few days ago you were parrotting the Limbaugh Letter and using fear tactics about Nancy Pelosi. Contrition is not in your vocabulary, and neither is compromise. That arrogance and hubris cost George Bush dearly, and it is not attractive on you either.

If you study Jimmy Carter's presidency, you will see that much was not in his control. I still think he was an honest man who found himself among greedy, self-serving politicians. I choose our current president as the worst in my lifetime.

I think there is nothing to gloat about or feel smug about. I think the American people showed that they are fed up. I pray to God that we can change the course of our country. I agree with Dan on many of his statements.

Can we all omit any further references to Clinton...please. His actions have been judged and rehashed. Let it rest.

Oh, and Dan...Bush's legacy of intransigence will be remembered much longer than Carter trying to actually create a NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY. Carter is admired worldwide, while Bush is seen as an incompetent leader who took the world to war over ...what is it today???
It speaks volumes when you have to resort to villifying someone who has not been President in over 25 years. LOL!!!

Dan,

Off topic from the LTE, but I'll weigh in. I agree with your hope. I heard several Republican operatives last night (Mehlman, Gillespie) sound almost like Gandhi in their wilingness to bridge gaps and work together, however I have yet to hear that from the "Political capital" and Full speed ahead" guys. I've been looking for that attitude for six years. So some actual bipartisanship would be refreshing.

Dan,
We were all waiting for the "kinder, gentler" Dan, and here he is----AFTER the election! Glad to see you admitting that Republicans are NOT conservative, but it's gonna take a little more introspection for you to realize that Republicans lost because of arrogance and hubris. Moral certitude, as evidenced by the likes of Tom DeLay, Ted Haggard, Bob Ney, Rick Santorum did not play well across an America where ordinary people try to get by on stagnant wages. It was a referendum on a leader that you praise at every juncture. So, who is really out of step? You, or the rest of us?

Maybe, in an effort to reach out to defeated Republicans, Bush can put them in his cabinet. Lord knows, they couldn't do any worse than what he has now. And the fact they've been "spanked" might give them more perspective.

DD "It was a referendum on a leader that you praise at every juncture."

Your good old stand by. You are truly a brick wall. Reminds me of my ex-wife, not matter what she ALWAYS thought her point was correct and the only point worthy of debate.

My point is sincere, what is done is done and I hope the govt. can work together for the betterment of this country. Who are you to question someone's sincerity that you don't even know? Seems you adopted the same arrogance you disdain.

At least Howie and Carol can carry out a debate with respect instead of insults.

Thanks Yvonne.
I will watch my own words more carefully, as I have entered the gutteral areas heretofore held firmly by the right wing.
Posted by: DemonDeacon at June 26, 2006 01:31 PM

"Maybe, in an effort to reach out to defeated Republicans, Bush can put them in his cabinet."

My friend and I were talking about this yesterday. Santorum, Talent, Allen(maybe) will now likely get the Ashcroft treatment. They lose an election, but get a call from the White House. How many openings are there on the cabinet? Maybe Santorum will become the Sec of Defense, as he's probably the only person who can make Rumsfeld look good by comparison. Oh, but Rummy's doing a "great" job. Never mind.

What's interesting is to see the tide turn in LTE's so soon. I knew as soon as the democrats controlled the house and Senate the letters bashing Republicans and Bush would ease off and the letters bashing the Democrats would increase. Whoever is in power is gonna get bashed, nearly daily. I'm just surprised to see it happen so soon (with letters written pre-election results)

I wasn't totally disappointed with the results. A couple of votes went my way and a couple didn't. I was happy to see Greensboro voters turn away a lot of the bonds put before them. I think they have finally just had enough of the crap bonds. They did the right thing and supported the fire station bonds, etc.

It will be interesting to see how the democrats handle their power. This is the first time they've had any in a while. It will also be interesting to see how the republicans handle being in the minority. Will their agenda simply be to sit back and nitpick and criticize like their democrat counterparts have done in recent years? Or will they actually decide to work together on issues?

All I can say is that the democrats better make the most of their time over the next 2 years or things will swing right back the way they came from.

So far, I'm not all that impressed. The platform they were pushing last night (increasing minimum wage, stem-cell debate, etc) seems pretty weak. These are not the important issues I want to see them tackle. I want to see them go aggressively after immigration. I want to see their solutions for Iraq and terrorism. I want to see them tackle the national debt and budget deficits.

We'll just have to see.

Totally unrelated topic: Notice how Keith Holliday decided to release the findings on who leaked the RMA report on election night so it would be buried in all the other news?

I've got the article at nitpicked.blogspot.com if you want to comment.

Good comments Nit. With a Republican prez and a Democratic congress there will be equal opportunity bashing for two years!!

I'm interested to see where Lieberman falls into place. He is castigated by his former party and may harbor resentment, but is far from a social conservative siding on Republican issues. He may have alot of power as a swing vote.

As for the local bonds, I couldn't vote on them being a county resident. I was glad to see the Civil Rights Museum defeated as well as the swimming center.

"I want to see them go aggressively after immigration. I want to see their solutions for Iraq and terrorism. I want to see them tackle the national debt and budget deficits."

I heard this a lot last night and this morning, mostly from the "liberal" media. They're asking the hard questions of the Democrats, like "Okay now you've won, so what is your plan for Iraq?" My obvious question is: what are the plans from the party that's been in power for six years, and why haven't they been challenged on these plans. It's like the Democrats are now responsible to clean up this gigantic mess by Easter, when they're not the ones who made the mess in the first place. Just a burr under my saddle.

Last time I checked, Stay the Course, and Ful Speed Ahead are not plans.

Mr. Guertin, If you follow the responses to your letter--they have wandered totally away from yours. Does that tell you anything?
You slammed the "Democrats"--I have no idea how that fit in....

You slandered the Muslims--part of the problem is that we generalize too much and we really don't try to understand their theology, philosophy and political ideologies--Maybe we could learn something from them--The pope has not canonized the US yet nor has he canonized the Crusades.

If it is fair for the pope to use the past, then critizing him for not mentioning the Crusades is a valid point.

I have read his speech three times; it was very intellectual, philosophical and very difficult to understand in one reading. Really, he didn't need to bring it "conversion by the sword...etc...." to make his point. When one writes or speaks, the intended audience is not always the audience who receivces the message. He should have (and maybe he did) know that. Even I know (knew) that such a statement was not going to be well received at all.

Anyway, enough.

Howie G:

"Why haven't they (republicans) been challenged on these plans?"

You're kidding, right?

The fact they responded so poorly to them is why they aren't still in control. The democrats have been sitting back bitching and moaning for years and now they will finally have the opportunity to prove they have an agenda and will do something. And the first thing they decide to tackle is minimum wage? Although minimum wage may be a popular thing, it isn't exactly what folks said were their main issues coming out of voting.

Dan, Lieberman will continue doing what he has been doing. I don't think the fallout with democrats will change his voting much. He seems to vote his conscience. Now, what makes me curious is if you have 49 republicans, 49 democrats and 2 independents, then who is considered the majority leader given that Cheney would make the 50th republican?

Since it was raining yesterday and it was raining the only time Bush was actually elected, I thought it was a bad omen. I said in 2004 the angels were crying because the American people were so foolish as to follow a false prophet. Yesterday they must have been shedding tears of joy.

I voted the way I said I would. I did not vote for any incumbent, repub or dem.

Heard on NPR again this AM that the war in Iraq was the number one deciding factor in the way folks voted. They wanted to send a strong message to the Bush administration. Perhaps now there really will be a checks and balance in place. Prior to now, Bush has run amuck, completely unfettered by a repub congress. From now on he will have to compromise rather than doing what he darn well pleases. Past time, imho.

Yvonne,

I think we pretty much voted the same, then. I also voted against the incumbents from top to bottom. The only exception was BJ Barnes. I like him and had no qualms in supporting his reelection. I was not able to vote against Brad Miller. :)

Unfortunately, many of the incumbents held on to their positions (Albright, Timmons-Gooden, Martin, etc) but at least we tried. And I definitely think that a message was sent last night.

The elections turned out pretty much as I expected. And the nasty gloating is going about how I expected it as well.

Perhaps now, however, things will improve as the Dems have the chance to show us what they can do for us over the next 2 years, and the Reps have to step up and do something for us over the next 2 years in order to stop the bleeding.

The only election I really cared deeply about, though, my side lost. I am shocked, hurt and dismayed by Judge Bray's loss to Stuart "My Daddy was a Judge so I can be one too" Albright.

From what I heard, according to exit polls scandals were a larger reason for the tide turning than even the war. I found that very interesting.

I think both sides have an opportunity here, but I'm afraid one (or both) will blow it. If the dems go after some legislation that can pass (that's why they've listed stem cells and minimum wage), they'll show they are not trying to be vindictive over theor treatment over the past 6 years, and that they can collaborate and get things done. If they start to subpoena and threaten to impeach, then they'll blow their chance.

Likewise, if the GOP opts to stonewall every motion that comes to the floor, they'll be doomed in '08. But if they show they are a party who can be about compromise, then perhaps in two years we'll have a dramatically different landscape. After all, members of both sides have to be re-elected. Bush and Cheney are done, so they may become less and less relevant as each month passes.

"Oh, but Rummy's doing a "great" job. Never mind."

Maybe I've been misinformed. Rumsfeld's stepping down, effective immediately. Can one of the folks from the right help me out? I'm not good with slogans and name-calling. Is Rummy's departure a "cut and run" or a "flip-flop"?

Thanks in advance for your help.

It's simply an overdue resignation or firing Howie. Ya thing Santorum will get the job?

thing = think

I was perversely hoping, but it's going to be another Iran/Cotra re-tread (like Negroponte), Bob Gates. If memory serves, he was involved in iran/contra cover-up, but nothing ever stuck to him, so I may just be slinging mud. He may have a tough confirmation road though.

Hey guys! Looks like this thread is where it’s going down today, so I thought I would weigh in. It’s been a big day! Democrats take the House and Rumsfeld resigns. I have a video link I wanted to share, in relation to Rumsfeld's recent announcement. It is a clip of General Norman Schwarzkopf after the first Gulf War discussing why we did not invade Iraq. It almost seems prophetic.

It also includes a comment from Robert Gates, who is supposed to replace Rummy. Howie, I think you are right about Gates. I have read a lot about Iran-Contra and if my memory serves me correctly, he was never a major player. At the very least, this clip may demonstrate that he’s a crook with common sense. Hey, that’s still a plus compared to Rummy! I’m trying to stay upbeat.

Watching Schwarzkopf really drives home the idea that we need to listen to the pros at this point, not attack them and call them unpatriotic for telling the truth. Let’s trust, for example, The National Intelligence Estimate and realize that this war is making us less safe. Let us pray the Neocon influence is dead and never to be resurrected.

We must be vigilant in continuing to hold the government's feet to the fire until all our boys and girls are home from Iraq. Until that happens, we still have plenty of blogging to do.

General Norman Scwartzkopf on invading Iraq
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ta5DmecvGE

Good link Stevie. I wonder if this will come up in his confirmation if he's asked about an exit plan, since at least once upon a time he appeared to be convinced that we shouldn't be there. Of course "9/11 changed everything", so all bets may be off.

Also, I checked after I made that comment about Iran/Contra. Looks like he was investigated by the Independent Counsel, and one of his co-horts went to jail because she refused to testify. Then Gates had some inconsistency in his testimony, but he employed the 1980's trick of saying "I don't recall", so the IC apparently didn't feel he had enough to prosecute.

Maybe its just minor stuff in the grand scheme. Looks like another re-tread crony, but to beat Dan et al to the punch, I'm not sure who they'd put in that I'd be happy about, so I'm not going to throw myself on my sword over it.

Mick and others:

Before you announce any "long held belief" that Jimmy Carter holds the "dubious honor" as the worst president ...

Please read "From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War", written by our new Secrtray of Defense, Robert M. Gates. He credits Carter for being Very Hard on the Soviets.

Please also read CONSERVATIVE Bruce Bartlett's new book - Imposter - Bartlett holds the well reasoned conclusion that the economic troubles Carter was stuck with the result of foolish Nixon Legacy. fwiw, he also holds that we'll face similar economic troubles due to the foolish Bush Legacy.

I sense Jimmy deserves at least credit as Ronnie for tearing down the USSR.

In 1979 Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. That aid helped induce the Soviet military intervention, and the Red's were drug through 10 years of hell in Afganistan.

Add to that the Chernobol (spelling) disaster - which at one time forced the response of 300,000 Soviets troups ... and the combined strain was too much for their strugging economic system.

Now Ronnie gets rhetorical credit because he "forced an arms race", but I've not seen too much evidence the Soviets tried to match the US spending pattern. Anyone able to help me out?

I thought denial was a river in Egypt...

Good info, SD, JDR, & Howie.

NEWSFLASH:

Rummy's not "cutting and running" and he's not "flip flopping"----he just wanted to spend more time with his family.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Stevie D,
Don't you realize that Nancy Pelosi is a Communist, and that by voting for the Democrats you might as well as voted for the terrorists! Have you not heard a word that Dan has been trying to relay to you----from Rush Limbaugh!
LOL!

Great link Stevie, and thanks for putting it on this thread. As I was driving back from the Western part of the state, I was listening to Michael Savage telling his audience that Nancy Pelosi wanted to turn our country into a communist state. I am still laughing as Dan was probably glued to the radio!!

One of the conservative talk show hosts Bush called into the White House a week before the election encouraged people to call a voter intimidation line to "jam it".
Got to love the compassionate conservatives.

Click this and LISTEN !

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/07/ingraham-voter-line/

DD, newsflash....I don't listen to Savage. Just out working today, made a $10K sale. How bout you DD, did you earn $10K on your trip? Life is still good. I'll be sure to collect before my taxes go up.

BTW, how come gas didn't spike up to $3.00/gallon today? I thought Bush told the oil companies to lower it before the elections!! Damn, I spent alot of time yesterday filling up my SUV, pickup, minivan, airplane, lawnmower, and weedwhacker.

Dan,
I guess Nancy Pelosi--you know, your latest "bogeyman" took care of it! LOL!:)

Let's see, President Bush said if you vote for the Democrats, you are with the terrorists.

Seems the old saying he never could get right came true:
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".

The American people have spoken. And by the way, narcissism is still alive and well---We always enjoy hearing about your money, your airplane, automobiles etc. LOL!

Watched Hannity tonight and laughed so hard I was rolling in the floor. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig! He tried to spin this election like Rush did--saying the Republicans deserved to lose, etc. Too bad he didn't feel that way earlier! LOL!

Dan,
I've got three words to leave you with:
S T A Y T H E C O U R S E !!!

Dan,

Actually gas did go up at the Sheetz I visited alst night. I expect it will continue to go up throughout the year before topping out near $3 a gallon after Christmas. If I knew for sure, I'd be one rich dude.

I'm personally glad old Rummy resigned. Wish he had done it sooner. I really think if Bush would have been smart, he would have fired him after he was reelected in 2004. I think it could have made the difference in these past elections but coulda, woulda, shoulda. Instead, he decided to push social security reform. What the heck was he thinking?

I've always thought Rumsfeld was an arrogant buttmunch since day one. You'll never find a post in the history of this blog where I supported him.

Nit,
Why do you have a blog of your own and still post on every thread here? Not trying to be smart, but things must be kinda slow over on yours?
Getting rid of Rummy is a way for Bush to salvage his Presidency---but there is an old southern saying that goes, "You can whitewash the outhouse, but the stink's still in there".
Bottom line: The Bush Presidency is a failure and Rummy was just a cog in the wheel. Now if Bush came out and told us that "DICK" Cheney was no longer going to be involved in policy, I would know that hell is freezing over!

I comment here because this is the place to comment on LTE's.

The nitpicked blog is really just a reaction to the N&R not allowing comments on all articles (something they once promised to do but have never followed through). Sometimes, I'm interested in commenting about an article or news topic that isn't addressed in an LTE. I thought others might be interested in the same thing. I was actually trying to provide a service to the rest of you guys but you are correct in that there really seems to be little interest. Quite frankly, it is easier on me to take it down. I have another blog where I post things more personal in nature and trying to keep up 2 at one time is time-consuming.

Nit,
Thanks for the answers. :)