Why cant the Bush Adminstraion hire at least one competant person? Jesus, where do they find these people? Between ," Your doing a heck of a job Brownie", to Gannon to Muckasey and don't forget Chertoff. These people don't even classify as pond scum. Your doing a heck of a job, Bushie!

P.D. @ 1:

Why cant the Bush Adminstraion hire at least one competant person? Jesus, where do they find these people? Between ," Your doing a heck of a job Brownie", to Gannon to Muckasey and don't forget Chertoff. These people don't even classify as pond scum. Your doing a heck of a job, Bushie!

You can't find a competant person in the republican party. The only question they have to answer is, "Do you believe that the president is more powerful than God?"

I have green ham at my house quite often. I suspect my lax process for coloring the ham may vary from IHOPS'.

RayC @ 6:

Ron @ 3:

P.D. @ 1:

Why cant the Bush Administration hire at least one competent person? Jesus, where do they find these people? Between ," Your doing a heck of a job Brownie", to Gannon to Muckasey and don't forget Chertoff. These people don't even classify as pond scum. Your doing a heck of a job, Bushie!

You can't find a competent person in the republican party. The only question they have to answer is, "Do you believe that the president is more powerful than God?"

It depends on what your meaning of "competent". If you want someone who knows their job and how to best deliver for the American people or someone who can simultaneously prove that the government can't do anything so you need to privatize and move massive amounts of money into Republican donor hands. The Bush adminstration has the most competent people in the sense they are getting exactly what they want.

Exactly. Well put.

It's not about competence, it's about ideology.

When it's a republican taking the government money, it's OK. If they're a democrat, it's not OK. These people don't think about what is good for our country, enviroment, infrastruture, healthcare or the citizens. The corporations need to get a good return for the investers and the CEOs need to get millions or billions in bonuses. That is the only thing that matters to them.

With Newt as the party leader, repubs took Pork Barrel spending to a whole new level. Now these same bastards are crying about spending! What a bunch of immoral dirt-bags.

Liberal AND Proud @ 8:

And it all goes back to the American People.

Slogans sound great..."low taxes", "get government off our back", "self sufficiency"...those slogans sound great, but unless you take the time to see what they really mean...in terms of the policies of those spewing the slogans...then you are simply asking to be abused.

Less government sounds great...until you realize that that means no more SS, that it means no healthcare, that it means no tuition assistance, that it means no unemployment insurance, that it means no highways subsidies, food stamps, mass transit subsidies, no protection from predatory lending, no protection from discrimination, no protection for malpractice.

Yeah...less government SOUNDS great, until the average joe learns that it's not just some brown slacker, in their mind, that's feeding off the government teat..but HIM and his family as well.

And to all the rightwingers, trolls and so-called conservatives...the advancement of our country, our ideology, our growth as a people and a nation has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. In fact it has to do with the very values that you and your evangelical cohorts claim to espouse.

It is about progress, equality, compassion and community. It is about the sum of the whole aiding those less fortunate. It is about the pooling and sharing of resources for the greater good OF ALL. I was raised in a good CHRISTIAN family, and I know that I wasn't taught to work hard to make Mo money, mo money mo money...no...I was taught to work hard to better myself, to be an example for others and to be the best that I could be. I hold no grudge against those that need public assistance...no...I do what I need to do to assist...even with something as simple as paying taxes....I don't sit and criticise...no...I thank God for MY good fortune...and work even harder. Maybe those out there spewing quotes from the Bible should try READING it first. Start with the Beatitudes. When Jesus spoke about being our brothers keeper, he did not preface it with a discussion of color, gender or sexual preference. When Jesus took pity on the blind, the poor and infirm...he didn't criticise or ridicule them...he welcomed them and made it clear that in his eyes they were no better OR worse than anyone else.

Those values are very much in keeping with the promise of this nation. No, they don't make us a CHRISTIAN nation. Those values are universal...and they transcend all faiths...Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and all the rest.

This country is finally waking up. Hopefully, this time...we will finally learn our lesson.

Well said Liberal and Proud!

Speaking of blogs. How low will some candidates go?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/4/21311/85811/447/468408

ConcernedCanuck @ 17:

Speaking of blogs. How low will some candidates go?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/4/21311/85811/447/468408

She's desperate and going rovian.

#16 CoInTel Pro: Senator Hillary Clinton Implies that She or McCain Would be a Better President Than Obama. Now, Senator Clinton is Campaigning for McCain. Joe Lieberman, Move Over. Beyond Being a Betrayal of the Democratic Party, She “Balked” at Describing Any — We Repeat, Any — Foreign Policy Experience that Would Make Her More Reliable to Pick up a WH Phone at 3 AM. Shameless. -buzzflash

It's even worse than comparing the Democratic nominee's, both Clinton's and Obama's, lack of experience to McCain's experience. Truly dumb! But there may have been some coordination between the Clinton and McCain's camps as well.

Over at TPM Cafe, Todd Gitlin notes:

At OpenLeft, Chris Bowers notes this fascinating coincidence:

So, the Canadian conservative prime minister is calling Barack Obama two-faced on NAFTA at the exact same moment that John McCain is indicating that Canada might pull out its troops on Afghanistan if we make too much a stink about NAFTA? That strikes me as more than a little suspicious. In fact, it strikes me as a directly coordinated attack by McCain and Harper to neutralize McCain on trade during the general election. It wouldn't be the first time Harper and Republican leaders have coordinated, given that Harper uses Republican pollsters and the conservative movements in both countries are deeply intertwined.
There's another coincidence. While McCain is ingratiating himself with his right-wing Canadian friends, who returned the favor by accusing Obama advisor Austan Goolsbee of making a side deal with them over Nafta, Hillary Clinton is declaring that like her, "Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

This is revolting. Is the idea to do such damage to Obama that a remorseful Democratic Party will decide he's damaged goods after all, and she, by default, is McCain's only true adversary. Then her strategy would be better known as scorched earth than kitchen sink. And it's revolting. One way or the other, it's revolting.

Mike, good one on IHOP.

I live in Chicago, where there's a tradition of downing green beer on St. Patrick's Day. Even though I know it's just food coloring, I've never been able to make myself swallow one. Ick.

As for Hillary, even though I think she'd make a good president, I'm hoping she loses both Texas and Ohio today. This intra-party sniping has got to stop.

An interesting thing about globalization, in light of NAFTA: Boeing and its surrogates in Congress are whining over the Air Force's decision to award a big flying tanker contract to a company with roots in France. Funny how these corporate guys are all for globalization until it costs them money, then it's time to wave the flag!

Leslie @ 21:

#16 CoInTel Pro: Senator Hillary Clinton Implies that She or McCain Would be a Better President Than Obama. Now, Senator Clinton is Campaigning for McCain. Joe Lieberman, Move Over. Beyond Being a Betrayal of the Democratic Party, She “Balked” at Describing Any — We Repeat, Any — Foreign Policy Experience that Would Make Her More Reliable to Pick up a WH Phone at 3 AM. Shameless. -buzzflash

It's even worse than comparing the Democratic nominee's, both Clinton's and Obama's, lack of experience to McCain's experience. Truly dumb! But there may have been some coordination between the Clinton and McCain's camps as well.

Over at TPM Cafe, Todd Gitlin notes:

At OpenLeft, Chris Bowers notes this fascinating coincidence:

So, the Canadian conservative prime minister is calling Barack Obama two-faced on NAFTA at the exact same moment that John McCain is indicating that Canada might pull out its troops on Afghanistan if we make too much a stink about NAFTA? That strikes me as more than a little suspicious. In fact, it strikes me as a directly coordinated attack by McCain and Harper to neutralize McCain on trade during the general election. It wouldn't be the first time Harper and Republican leaders have coordinated, given that Harper uses Republican pollsters and the conservative movements in both countries are deeply intertwined.
There's another coincidence. While McCain is ingratiating himself with his right-wing Canadian friends, who returned the favor by accusing Obama advisor Austan Goolsbee of making a side deal with them over Nafta, Hillary Clinton is declaring that like her, "Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

This is revolting. Is the idea to do such damage to Obama that a remorseful Democratic Party will decide he's damaged goods after all, and she, by default, is McCain's only true adversary. Then her strategy would be better known as scorched earth than kitchen sink. And it's revolting. One way or the other, it's revolting.

Kind of interesting that the left is now promising to do exactly what George Bush promised to do and,in fact, followed through on: abrogate a treaty signed by the U.S. Does the word of the U.S government ever mean anything? Exactly what part of the NAFTA treaty with Canada requires negotiation. Are our Labour standards and minimum wage not high enough for you. You wish. That treaty was negotiated in good faith and Canada has followed through on all of it's commitments. In return for equal access to each other's markets the U.S. also received an equal access guarantee to oil and natural gas resources. Canada is now your largest and most secure supplier of these resources. The U.S. on the other hand has rejected numerous rulings by the dispute settlement mechanism and imposed duties. In the case of softwood lumber, the excuse was our taxes weren't high enough. It's easy to understand why politicians like to blame NAFTA for loss of jobs but they didn't come here. You sent them to China. This is starting to sound like a tune from South Park; "Blame Canada" . We're not a smorgasboard. If you'd like to order an entree of hydrocarbons but hold the lumber and manufacturing goods it ain't happening.

I voted for Hillary Clinton this morning. The polling place was a riot. The GOP had the large usual room at my precinct with multiple machines. They put the dems in a small room with 2 machines but only 1 worked. But that is the way it is in Tyler, TX precinct 59. One voter before me didn't get her vote thru because she failed to hit the vote button and the workers didn't instruct her. I will go back tonight for the caucus and vote again for Hillary.

Thanks for the link, BlueGal!

Not By A Long Shot