Boy, that Bouldin has a way with words. lol!

This is classic Karol. Some yayhoo posts something on a web site, and suddenly it becomes "their" position, and this guy is, amazingly, the spokesman for all progressives from sea to shining sea.

I've never even heard of this bozo.

You calling Bouldin a yahoo and a bozo?? Hey, Bouldin, come over here and kick Michael's ass!

Pelosi opens mouth, inserts children with gavels.

There's an argument to be made that even if being Republican is worse than being a crook, being an idiot is worse than being a Republican.

Those who would speak for Democrats (and even if Boudin doesn't speak for Dems, he'd sure as hell like to think he does) aren't making me feel good about my willingness to toss the Republican Leadership under the bus....

That's OK, Michael, I've never heard of you either.

And if karol wants to advertise the words 'crook' and 'republican' in the same sentence, other than pointing out the redundancy inherent in the terminological identity of the two nouns, I say go for it. Because the simple fact is that it will remind voters of, take your pick, Abramoff, Cunningham, Ney, Taft, DeLay, Foley, and god alone knows how many others. Which is why Kean's sallies aren't working.

Not to mention, of course, that America just hates brand R these days. Six years of spectacular failures, lies, and a lost war or two will do that, folks.

Bouldin, that much froth should only be associated with an espresso machine.

Gonna be a long two years....

Michael,
Exactly what were DeLay and Foley found guilty of doing?

I don't think Bouldin is saying that those Republicans are guilty but he is right that they resigned under a cloud. The American people generally think that you don't leave Congress if you did nothing wrong.

I've already voted and I'm all over the place: for the Republican candidate for governor; for a prolife Dem for Congress over an open borders, proamnesty House Republican (one of those rare cases where the Dem was more conservative than the Republican); Republican for state treasurer; almost went fishing on the attorney general line but sighed and voted for the Republican; Reform Party for Secretary of State; Libertarian for Insurance commissioner; back over to the GOP for state house and state senate. Now part of that may be that none of those races besides the AG are close. But I think part of it is that the Republicans have let conservatives like me down badly at the state and national level the past two years.

I honestly would not mind seeing nothing get done the next two years and maybe a Republican Senate and a Democratic House is the way that is to be done though I have to say I am less than thrilled with what I consider the big story of 2006 which nobody seems to be covering, the big gains Dems will make at the state level, picking up a number of governorships. Madison was a supporter of what today is called gridlock, having interest check interest. We saw from 93-94 what a mess of big government the Dems would make if they had the presidency and both houses of Congress. We have seen the mess of big government the Republicans have made. Let them duke it out and let nothing be done.

We should set Michael & Bouldin up on a blind date.

Bouldin, your logic works both ways.
You only have to say "Hillary and Bill" , and the words "crooks" pop up immediately in my mind...

I don't understand the rationale behind Kean's campaign strategy.

Why on earth is he spending thousands of dollars on radio and television ad buys advertising the corruption of the NJ Dems, as if the electorate in the Garden State was completely unaware of this phenomenon?

Does the name Jim McGreevy, or Bob Toricelli, or almost any prominent Democrat in that state, ring a bell?

He had a golden opportunity to actually unseat an incumbent Democrat who could have been billboarded as the face of the open borders, pro-amnesty, Mexican reconquista movement-which to all intents and purposes he is-and yet he drops immigration like a cold potato just when he's gaining traction.

If he wanted advice on how to run an ineffective campaign he could have hired me and saved a lot of money.

And Bouldin, you are a brain-dead zombie, although I suppose that goes without saying.

Really, you make the Kool-Aid-swigging Kos bots almost look cogent by comparison.

Almost, but not quite.

Another typical "Alarming News" interaction:

1sttofight writes, "Michael: exactly what were DeLay and Foley found guilty of doing?" The subtext here, of course, is, "I gotcha, you stinkin' liberal!"

Anybody who bothered to actually read my post above would notice that I mention neither DeLay nor Foley; neither do I mention guilt nor innocence of anyone. I have no idea where this comes from. This kind of "WTF?" left-field attack happens all the time here and at Confederate Yankee.

The only thing needed to make the surrealism complete would be for BadBoyInASuit to jump in with something like, "Michael, I notice in your post up above that you're for forced abortion of all Republican fetuses and that you say Bush is responsible for avian bird flu. What are your sources? You effing sick liberals make me want to vomit."

Is there any particular point to be gleaned from the incoherent rant above?

Just curious.

I'm not really too impressed with any of you, wingers. Suit Boy's "argument" consists of a squawk - "Faggots!" - and the rest of ya's harumph about illegal immigration, the Clintons or whatever other irrelevance strikes your befuddled fancy.

No red meat, just stale Velveeta. "Party of Ideas"? Fumbling nitwits, more like.

Well since I was the one to bring up illegal immigration (after actually saying that I thought Boudlin was correct that most Americans assume that if a member of Congress resigns during a scandal, then that Congressman did something wrong), I will now sink into the irrelevance that strikes my befuddled fancy. The Tyler presidency is on my brain. Ah, those states rights Whigs, caught between the big government of Clay and Webster on one hand and the egalitarians of the Jackson/Van Buren school, that was a party of ideas. Look at all the eggheads in politics they had; the brilliant Hugh Legare, Charleston's leading scholar on Dryden and Byron and a damn fine Attorney General of the US; the great political philisopher Calhoun and his understudy Abel Upshur; William Rives, one of the greatest diplomats and biographers of his era. As the leaves fall and the days grow crisper, let us toast the states rights Whigs.

Well, Gerard, yes. There is something to be gleaned.

The idea is simple: several people who post on this site make a practice of attacking progressive posts based not on anything the progressive actually writes, but, instead, on something that I suppose they wish he'd written.

Case in point: 1sttofight's demand that I back up my assertion that DeLay and Foley were guilty of breaking the law. The problem with this approach for 1sttofight: I never said anything about DeLay or Foley or people breaking the law. The whole premise of 1sttofight's post was predicated on something I never wrote. This happens here regularly. That and namecalling. Oh, and writing things on the order of, "Is there any particular point to be gleaned from the incoherent rant above?"

What they all have in common is that they refuse to address what is actually written by progressive posters (probably because the responders don't have anything of substance to respond with).

Suit Boy's "argument" consists of a squawk - "Faggots!"

No, Bad Boy's argument, being the gentleman he is, consists of you and Mike getting dinner and movie (what happens after that is up to two consenting adults). My argument is that you two should beat the crap out of each other. A progressive death match! How's about it?

Is "progressive" became a curse word? Or synonimous with "neurotic self-hating baring-his-teeth-in-the-corner impotent"?
I'm always the last one on latest slang...

I think some of the confusion might be based on the fact that Bouldin's name is also Michael.

The defense rests.

The idea is simple: several people who post on this site make a practice of attacking progressive posts based not on anything the progressive actually writes, but, instead, on something that I suppose they wish he'd written.

In all seriousness, perhaps the reason has something to do with the fact you've self-identified as part of a group with certain values attached. We know, more or less, the political outlook of "progressive" people. So you're going to get some confusion when your personal position doesn't line up with other people's expectations.

I consider myself a conservative, but I share core values with only about half of the other "conservatives", since I'm pretty much a constitutional atheist. I suppose you could also call yourself conservative if you were a devout Christian, even if you believe the government should pretty much do everything. I suppose I can forgive people for thinking I have something in common with Pat Robertson, but it's not a valid association.

In regard to the original post, I hope Bouldin doesn't think crooked politicians only come from the Republican side of the house, since for every Tom Delay and Mark Foley there's a Harry Reid and Barney Frank.

Bouldin, did you sleep through the Clinton years? Even before then pretty much every Democrat from Chicago or New Jersey ended his career in the Federal pen. And then the anti-war poster-child Jack Murtha... are you old enough to remember Abscam? What about Jim Wright? I have a bunch more if you're interested.

Democrats are no less crooked than Republicans, they've simply been out of power and thus have less opportunity to indulge in crookedness. They're anxious to get back though, as they've been calling up lobbyists and suggesting what a "nice gesture" it would be to donate to the Democrats. What does it say for your party you're trying to extort money from K Street before you actually return to power?

This has been an entertaining thread.

Jay and Gerard, each of you may tell the bartender at your favorite hangout to put your next drink on my tab.

It appears that '1sttofight' inadvertently attributed Bouldin's initial mention of DeLay & Foley to Michael, rather than Bouldin.

Understandably, Michael did not appreciate being credited with saying something he clearly did not say, therefore, he responded by asserting that many of the conservatives posting here routinely create straw man arguments.

And how did Michael punctuate his point ?
By hypothesizing a straw man rant about aborting fetuses and avian flu, and assigning it to someone else !

Classic.

Is "progressive" became a curse word?

Man, I hope not. I rather like progressive rock and progressive metal.

And Bouldin, you are a brain-dead zombie, although I suppose that goes without saying. Really, you make the Kool-Aid-swigging Kos bots almost look cogent by comparison.

Sir, I must object. Bouldin can make complete sentences. And, most likely, tie his shoes.

So apparently BadBoyInASuit wants to abort fetuses with bird flu. Dem fetuses, no doubt.

"Culture of Life," my ass.

You conservatives make me sick.