Comparing the Cheney hunting incident to Hurricane Katrina is like comparing September 11th to the Holocaust.

[url]http://www.obgin.org[/url]

<a xhref="http:// www.obgin.org"> Obgin</a>

It's great isn't it. Just about all the Republicans with a few exceptions really, really stink, and just about all the Democrats with some exceptions really stink.

Tom

He's comparing the PR handling of the events, not the events.

Tom

Shorter Whittington:

"Thank you, Cheney! May I please have another?"

DON'T MISS THIS!!!.

Out done Dick Cheney in this game

He also got shot. Don't forget that part.

There are so many people who need to apologize to Mr. Cheney.

The families of the American soldiers who have been injured or died must feel awful that their loss has put Cheney's war in such a bad light.

Libby must be sorry his trial is leading toward his office.

Lynn must feel terrible about how embarassed her husband must feel for shooting a 78 year old man while out with the Swiss ambassador.

All those soldiers and prisoners at Abu Ghraib - so much to be ashamed of there. Can you ever forgive them for giving torture a bad name, Dick?

What about all those leakers and whistleblowers who have hurt him?

Then there all of us, who must apologize for all the debt we're accruing that makes his tax cuts look bad.

And how could we forget the universe who must feel awful, just awful for constructing reality in way contrary to his ideology? Can the facts ever be forgiven?

Basically, Whittington has chosen his own epitath:

Cheney's Bitch. 

 Class has nothing to do with it, unless you equate money with class.  These are Republican moneybags, people who believe it is a sin for people other than themselves to  have any wealth.  So, they close ranks, even if it means cozying up to a really classless, clueless Dick Cheney.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Odd as it may sound, Whittington might sincerely mean his apology. I think he's a real, old-fashioned WASP, to whom a public spectacle is (almost) worse than the gunshot that caused it.

Well... either that, or Cheney threatened to throw his kids into a lime pit or something.

Whittington's comments had to be Rove's idea. Turning Cheney, the perpetrator, into the victim is pure rovian tactics. Just like he turns honorable veterans and war heroes who are political opponents, into cowards, liars, cheaters and traitors that didn't actually earn their medals.

what interests me is what if Harry Whittington had died? Would he have had to videotape a final snivelling apology to Mr Cheney? And have it played back on Fox News?

"Mr Cheney, Dick, my friend. I don't think I'm gonna make it. I'm so dang sorry about dying, I know that dying is the action of a weak man, a fool, but I just can't help it. One of those BB's has messed up my heart pretty good, and I'm about done here. But I'm the lucky one, really. You're the guy who has to go on living and being happy and taking vacations, while I get to sing with the angels. I just wanna say before I go... (coughing attack)... uh, ugh, sorry, I just wanna apologize for catching all that birdshot and embarrassing you so bad. Okay, guess I'm gonna die now Mr Cheney, I'm so sor... (head lolls back and he dies)..."

Back to Fox News anchor...

"Well, it was a good try by Mr Whittington, but did his deathbed apology go far enough? More after the break..." 

Whittington's strange statement seems to be saying to the press:

Keep on digging into this story.

But I'm not gonna help.

Sorry Charlie, there's a word for people like you.

Enabler. 

Whittington's apology reminded me of one of those old Hanoi Hilton tapes of John McCain. I am surprised Harry didn't admit to war crimes.  Somebody needs to check his hand movements for hidden code. 

Ed, I know you probably think I pick on you, and you seem like a really nice guy, so I feel bad about that.  This subject is completely OT, and I ask you to forgive me for that. 

Many of us rank and file Democrats are quite disturbed about the Democratic leadership.   I am only half in jest when I ask you if the DLC could set up a link to donate money to entice Marshall Wittman to be a spokesman for the other side?  He is killing us - metaphorically speaking, of course.

Why does he have access from progressive and Democratic forums to continually attack "lefties"?  If all the "lefties" bolted, what would the Democratic Party look like?   He ridicules and insults a large swath of the party on a regular basis.  Is this type of attack really what the Democratic leadership wants to be about?  He's not attacking policies; he's attacking many of the party's staunchest supporters by using the tactic of name-calling.

Deleted my own content and reposted in correct place; 'scuse please.

I don't know, here's my "conspiracy" theory. Neither Bush nor Cheney is ever running for any office again so it doesn't matter how far they drop in the polls as long as Congressional Dems are sinking with them (which is pretty much where we are today). Every one of these "PR nightmares" for the Adminisration hurts a little but the Dems go sofar overboard making the most outrageous statements that they come out looking worse than the Administration does. Contrary to what most on this site believe, a majority of America does not hate Bush and Cheney, they may not agree with them but they don't hate them. It's the get Bush-Cheney at any cost wing of the Democratic party that is dragging y'all down. I don't think it's so much "secrecy" that the administration is after, but "reaction" or more precisely "over-reaction" from Dems and the press. If you ask me it's working pretty good.

I don't know... I wonder how many people will see it as the man who got shoot apologised but Cheney, the shooter, didn't.

Nah... OK, I take that back. They won't think that way. But then again, his approval ratings can't get much worse anyway.

ARGville - a home for ARGs

like most conspiracy theories, sfcwallace, yours is quite inane and nonsensical.

meanwhile, the bush-cheney approach is working so well that the only second term president to have lower approval ratings at this stage was nixon. the bush-cheney approach is working so well that the dems haven't looked this good on the generic congressional polls in a very long time; indeed, the last time anyone looked this good was the gop in 1994. the approach is working so well that pat roberts of all people is looking to create the illusion of distance between himself and the executive branch.

here's a suggestion, sfcwallace: start with data, then draw conclusions. when you start with conclusions, you end up making arguments that are unsupported by any data and you look like a "conspiracy nut."

when you start with conclusions, you end up making arguments that are unsupported by any data and you look like a "conspiracy nut."

Oh, and Howard, you really ought to take your own advice, you have several outlandish assumptions in many of your previous posts 

sfcwallace, we live in a country where a substantial minority still believe that saddam had a connection to 9/11. unlike the average blog reader, the average citizen is busy making a living, visiting with friends and family, and attending super bowl parties. people vote for a variety of reasons, including misinformation and willful denial.

so no, i am not saying that dems should be clobbering republicans. i am merely pointing out to you some realities about how well the bush-cheney approach is doing. whether the voters decide to take that out on the republican party in november is not something i'm going to speculate about until, about, november 1.

but i am going to speculate about what republican members are going to do between now and november: they're going to position themselves as separate from the bush-cheney administration. because they don't think the bush-cheney approach is doing so well either.

PS. it would be quite fascinating to see what you think "tough on terrorism" is, because i'd be hard-pressed to see what it is that you think the bush-cheney administration is doing that is "tough on terrorism." getting us bogged down in iraq doesn't count....

No I was actually refering to your claims the WMD"S only refers to Atomic weapons not Bio and Chem hazards. You know BS like that.. oh and you don't have to start every response to me recalling the first post of mine you ever read...it's getting old.

ah, sfcwallace ol' pal, you misquote me. the terms WMDs has been used rather promiscuously over time; my point has always been that the terms should be reserved for the weapons that can actually, you know, cause mass destruction, namely nuclear weapons! i am, of course, far from alone in this rather humble belief (most people in the arms control community think this way), and were this the topic of today's posting, we could extend the debate.

as for you and joe wilson, valerie plame, iraq, niger, and uranium, who knew that your skin was so thin on the matter? i bring it up regularly because it set the tone for your comments, which, as far as i can tell (and i must admit, i do not hang on your every syllable), generally are quite consistent with the propaganda line of the day but relatively unaquainted with the facts of any given situation. indeed, when i see the byline "sfcwallace," it usually means that i'm going to read some standard right-wing piffle, and i think to myself that first posting that i remember really did foreshadow the whole sfcwallace commenting career. still, if it causes you such angst to be reminded, i'll try to limit my references to when they are really called for....

I think, but am not sure, that during Cheney's tenure Halliburton acquired a firm that had a lot of liabilty involving asbestos-related lawsuits.

Tom

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

But whai if Cheney had apologized for Iraq?

Well one thing I guess - those Democrats who voted to give Bush the power to kill would be falling all over each other in a race to yesterday's talk shows. Like the little lemmings they are.

 But don't blame the victims, don't blame me. I knew it was a crock from the get-go.  Sadly, so did they.

And don't blame the miliions of Americans who even now are paying with their health, their security, their very lives as Bush & Co methodically shred the social safety net to recoup some of that 450 Billion of your tax dollars they've pissed away

yano, it's funny, Gettysburg, parts of your points # 1-4 above reminded me of this little recent rant by Barack Obama, especially this excerpt:

....According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party.  They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda.  In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda.  The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people.  From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon.  They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent.  They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs.  They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings.....

bluebell

It would appear right now as if the GOP has the stronger field but only time will tell.  I would suspect the DEMS and GOP will be saying essentially the same things come election time.

Excellent point, if by accident. The Republicans are better Republicans than Democrats so when the Democrats run as faux Republicans in 2006/2008 they will lose and they will deserve to lose. 

Running as real Democrats ain't been too successful lately either...

Why y'all keep losing #108: Take responsibility for running loser campaigns! "They stole the election" only convinces 21% of the country (sure it's 86% of San Francisco and 95% of the members on this site but using it as your campaign slogan only wins seats on the San Francisco city council and 4 ratings here. You know what that and a quarter will get you).

Everyone is "not" a crimnal until you are convicted (That's that constitution thing y'all keep prtending to love when it's convienient). You're supposed to say who is...everyone else is not.

Did you read my posting? 

If its good for me it must be Good 4 A Merica

I may think Romney has little national future but he is taking steps to create that future.  Feb 23 Romney hired a former Bush domestic policy adviser to help him build his political operation outside Mass. 

Sally Canfield, currently policy adviser to House Speaker Hastert, will move to Boston and join the payroll of Romney's political action committee ... After working on Bush's 2000 campaign, Canfield served as a top adviser to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson before helping draft the founding legislation for the DHS following Sept. 11, 2001... She served as the department's first deputy chief of staff under Secretary Tom Ridge.

He is more active nationally with formal operations than I knew.

[Romney's PAC] founded in 2004, is constructed not only as a federal entity to support national candidates, but it also has state operations in Iowa, SC, and Mich, and is about to open in NH -- all early or key presidential voting locales.