I too wish F. Thompson the best, but he had problems with anti-Invasion conservatives on the Invasion issue:

Here are three reasons NOT to allow Fred Thompson to become the GOP nominee for President, along with the below interview by Chris Wallace:

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0307/0307nottofred.htm

http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=TN&VIPID=743

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm#Immigration

Fred Thompson to FOX's Chris Wallace:

THOMPSON: No, no, no, no.
WALLACE: Well, let me put up on the screen something that you said last year about illegals, and let's take a look at it. "You're going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship but not make it so easy that it's unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law."

Now, you said, "Look, it's just not realistic that we're going to round up 12 million people and ship them all out of the country."

THOMPSON: Well, that's true, as a general statement. We woke up one day after years of neglect and apparently discovered that we have somewhere between 12 million and 20 million illegal aliens in this country. So it became an impossible situation to deal with.

I mean, there's really no good solution. So what do you do? You have to start over. Well, I'm concerned about the next 12 million or 20 million. So that's why enforcement, and enforcement at the border, has to be primary.

I think most people feel disillusioned after 1986 when we had this deal offered to them before, and now we're insisting that, you know, we solve the security problem first, and then we'll talk about what to do with regard to other things - certainly no amnesty or nothing blanket like that.

But figure out some way to make some differentiation between the kind of people that we have here.

You know, if you have the right kind of policies, and you're not encouraging people to come here and encouraging them to stay once they're here, they'll go back, many of them, of their own volition, instead of having to, you know, load up moving vans and rounding people up. That's not going to happen."

*******************************************
Could we trust this man the way we trusted Bush?

For all you worried about not having a conservative to vote for and send money to, Tom Tancredo gave a great speech in Iowa over the weekend (before the mass musrder in VA took over the news). It was the strongest, most emotionally appealing and riveting speech I've ever heard from the good Congressman. He definitely has a money problem compared to Romney and others, but he is worthy of your consideration, as is Ron Paul.

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

The longer the race continues without a bona-fide conservative leader to enter the Presidential nomination process, it appears that Tom Tancredo may actually be able to mobilize the base around immigration. That would be a sad day, if that happened. I wouldn't vote for him. I am still hoping for either gov. Perdue (Ga), gov. Perry (Tx) or gov. Riley (Alabama) will join the Presidential primary. I think Perdue would do a great job of solidifying the base. Sanford (SC) and gov. Pawlenty would make great candidates, but have already decided to back the candidacy of McCain. One of them would propably get the VP nod if McCain won. So Perdue or Riley would make great candidates. Sure, it would be tough against the organizations and money created by Guiliani, Romney and McCain but people's votes are still very much wide open. We have in that a flip flopper (Romney), a socially liberal Republican (Guiliani) and a real independent (McCain). I have to go with McCain, if I had to vote today. But we will see what happens.

MikeB - You want to provide a link I'll be happy to go to CNN to find the story. Otherwise what am I supposed to search on "MikeB's Son"?

I bet I'll get a lot of hits on that.

Bobby W-C and MikeB: This has been a pretty good day for an exchange of ideas. I find it very hard for anyone that has any intellegence at all to continue to believe anything this bunch in The White House says. I have e-mail alerts from some of the major news outlets and it is getting so that seldom more than 3 or 4 hours passes during working hours that another out and out lie is reported. The alarming things go by with little or no comment, such as the Fairfax, Va. deal Tuesday, when I saw not one question the claim that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Just in MSNBC cancels Imus.

To quote Reagan, well here I go again. I was just looking over today's discussion and find that once again I have been nasty and abusive.

Apparently I also have a tendency to state my opinion without offering any objective proof to back it up, and then to base my argument on it. I understand that this is frustrating to all of you, and I'm sorry. I get carried away writing about politics as many of you have pointed out, but I want to be a participating member of this discussion.

And I admit that global warming is widely accepted by scientists of all races, nationalities, and political persuasions.
In fact, I admit that many of the policies and points of view I oppose are framed by intelligent and learned people. I may not always like them, but I don't have the background to criticize them without reference to a commonly recognized authority.

Don't be afraid to let me know when I am doing this! Together, we can establish a more informative and more respectful dialogue.

Anon Coward - I take it you can read? So go read the CNN story. He was on active duty. Got shot. Shipped home. Went to a military hostipal. The doc was incompetent and did nothing! He poassed out. We got paperwork filed and got him into the reserves. Paid doc and medical bills. He got well. Attended college for 2 years. VA never did get his GI Bill benefits straightened out. Recalled to active duty.
That plain enough for you? Bush's war is being fought on CREDIT. This swine is racking up a huge charge card bill that somebody is going to pay for, both in terms of budget deficits and human misery. YOU can count on the bill coming due - higher taxes, much higher taxes!, will be the least of it. ANd you no one to blame but yourselves and FOX and the other nausiating neoncon whack jobs like Dobson and Limbaugh and Hannidy. No whining hear? Just sign over your benefit check and send it in.

"And. I would like it noted. WE, paid his medical bills." - MikeB

If your son was on Active Duty where did he receive medical treatment that you had to pay the bills? Was it your own choice not to use the available military facilities? Or, there were none close by?

"The principled stand taken by Rudy on abortion" - ?!?!?!?!?

His only principle is self-promotion. He was aggressively pro-choice as NY mayor, and he's not the kind of guy to change his mind because polls tell him to. Keep in mind, however, that he absolutely IS the kind of guy who would make statements and allow you to think that he had changed his mind. He is in no way prepared to be president.

back from the dentist, might need a cavity filled but no problem at all.
jd-thanks no problem.but hey if you want to debate other stuff im here.
lylepink-hey sorry about going off on you in one of the other threads, tell you what, if hillary wins i treat you to a steak dinner on inaguration day.deal?
mikeb-i have a sister who's in the reserves right now, and the thought of going to war for some jacked up reason scares me. sure it was her choice to join but having to leave her son and hubby to fight for a lie is maddening. i hope your son comes out of this.

and zouk-ok sunshine,let this be the last time i even adress you. i have not promoted any canidate, i have not insulted anyone on the board, ive posted all my facts with links and respected other peoples political view points. you on the other hand have insulted,belittle and out and out been a shameless promoter of everything right of center and far right. i will not respond to you or your lunatic rantings. and i call on everyone else to ignore you. just because you think you have a right to talk doesnt mean anyone is going to listen to you.

KOZ -- Here are some numbers about Fox News. Fox News views voted for George W. Bush by a margin of 88-7. Interesting that they are "fair and balanced" despite the fact that their audience is almost uniformally conservative. Interesting.

Bush and Cheney go to Fox News when they want to soft peddle a story. It's friendly territory. Democrats go onto Fox knowing that's the case, b/c it still makes sense to reach out to the folks who watch Fox news. But why should the DNC allow Fox to moderate one of its debates? It doesn't have any obligation to do that. In point of fact, it would be silly for them to do so b/c it perpetuates the myth that Fox is a neutral party. If they admitted what they really are, then that might be different. Since that will never happen, however, it's a moot point.

I repeat this because Thompson is the issue and it shows how the nut jobs on the right will keep America in the dark about anyone they like:

Fred Thompson at 3:45 central time on Hannity blamed Jordon for funding the people killing our people in Iraq - he meant to say Iran
- with the same breath he then stated how Pelosi got the message wrong from the Isaeli's to the Syrians

he does not know the difference between Iran and Jordon - and on a national radio show accuses one of our best friends in the area of funding the people killing our troops - how can this turkey be president?

Naturally that Great American Hannity said nothing in response to Thompson's mind boggling accusations against Jordon.

Hannity is all the proof anyone needs that America is lost in the wilderness - how can Hannity have a audience of more than 100 fools? Answer - American is lost

http://balancingtheissues.com/wilderness.htm

Bobby WIghtman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes - Yes, we wrote to the Post, NY Times, etc. The only media outlet that cared enough to verify our tribulations and print it was CNN. They actually did a nationwide investigation and came up with thousands of families in our position, with the same tales of woe, the same enormous medical bills, and all of the rest. Nice people there, and CNN has a tiny budget compared to the POST, but they at least *try* and dig up the facts and write about them whereas The Post merely prints White House press releases. Chris...aren't you just a bit embarrassed by your "rag"? Also, FYI, the Pentagon isn't announcing it, but virtually every family we know, with children or husbands who are inactive and active reserves, even Air Force, is being recalled to active duty. Something is "up" and I think that dimwit moron in the White House is planning on invading Iran. God help us.

MikeB, once we declare war on Iran and Syria, even this clown koz won't be able to escape the draft. I expect he'll feel a little differently about the war then.

I honestly don't know why people here bother with him. He's obviously a brazen liar and propagandist -- and incredibly juvenile to boot.

Every time I come over here he's destroyed any semblance of intelligent discussion. So I seldom bother anymore.

kingofzouk--You have not addressed my points. Please review my posts and do so.

In the meanwhile, the logic presented in your last post is flawed. Your correlations are reversed (this is Statistics 101 stuff.)

The reason were varied, but the younger son was recruited from medical school where he was studying nursing. The "hook" used by the recruiter was that the Army needed trained trama nurses becasue of the casulties. Of course, the Army made him a combat medic and sent him to the front lines. The other son enlisted becasue I had my job outsourced (actually for the third time - I'm an engineer - and something else we can all thank Bush for). So tell us, coward, you are such a strong Bushie, why haven't you volunteered?

Actually, the whole country was misled by Cheney, Bush and company. Since that ratbag twit Gate's announcement, every blog has been filled with posts from wives, parents, and even a few soldiers brave enough to risk the secret police of the military that reads their emails. Not one, not one post supported this move. The only people supporting this are a few gasbags, far right nuts and Fox News brainwashed zombies, that still hold out some faint hope that Bush hasn't been lying to them all along.

Thompson got some good news today.

From http://www.solidpolitics.com

For the first time, Barack Obama beats all potential Republican challengers, according to a poll the Los Angeles Times will release tomorrow.... In primary matchups, Obama has closed to within 10 points of Hillary and Giuliani holds a double-digit lead over Fred Thompson.... John McCain runs third....

Hey Mike B have you taken the story of your son to the press - this is common that veterans are now paying for their own health care - even for wounds suffered in Iraq- here in Texas the VA is a complete disaster and Washington refuses to act

it is so bad next week I am suing them to get them to pay the bills for private care doctors they sent me to - key - they sent me to the private care doctor and now refuse to pay the bill-

I basically pay for my own medications - in Texas the VA has refused to pay for anything not generic - so if your med is not generic yet you basically have to pay for it yourself

The press is 100 % worthless in Texas - they find all of this not newsworthy

Bobby WC

OK, in all seriuosness, I don't think they are chickens, just pandering to the base to get the nomination. sickening. compare to the principled stand taken by McCain on the war and Rudy on abortion. Agree or not, the difference is clear.

Why did they volunteer for the Army if they didn't want to fight? Is that like voting for the war before voting against it.

roo - you pulled a Dem. Declare victory and retreat. i responded to every point of your's responsibly and you provided no meat for your view - only fluff. so far we know:
1. you know what's best for us all in the way of news
2. you know how smart everyone is and its not as smart as you
3. Fox airs lies but everyone else is OK

I stated clearly and repeatedly that ratings are the only objective metric for TV. Since fox is dominating the ratings on cable news, it must be doing something right. could it be that the market has recognized the desire for actual news and unbiased, non-liberal ideas. After all those years of being force-fed lies and manipulations, the viewers said enough spin. I rightly assume that viewers are sophisticated and know their own preferences. they indicate this by not viewing MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC and switching over to Fox. Instead of lies and spin, now they can obtain facts, which is what news is supposed to deliver. this also explains the demise of the NYT and WaPo - the alternative source of information without political filter. this is a fairly common phenom in economics and can actually be shown with numbers. contrast this to your know-it-all attitude and arguement devoid of anything but your own ego. In the end the fox viewers will rightly beleive that the brave sir robin...I mean Obama et al chickened out and that this will be the approach they take as president and that they must lose as a result. the Dems on the other hand will be told it is some great philosophical stance against something sinister and those simpletons will believe it. sound familiar?

If you refuse to answer my points, you have lost due to admitting their correctness. Again.

Fred Thompson at 3:45 central time on Hannity blamed Jordon for funding the people killing our people in Iraq - he meant to say Iran
- with the same breath he then stated how Pelosi got the message wrong from the Isaeli's to the Syrians

he does not know the difference between Iran and Jordon - and on a national radio show accuses one of our best friends in the area of funding the people killing our troops - how can this turkey be president?

Naturally that Great American Hannity said nothing in response to Thompson's mind boggling accusations against Jordon.

Hannity is all the proof anyone needs that America is lost in the wilderness - how can Hannity have a audience of more than 100 fools? Answer - American is lost

http://balancingtheissues.com/wilderness.htm

Bobby WIghtman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

Anonymous Coward - You will need to excuse me. I am angry. My younger son, due to come home next month from Iraq, after two tours of duty, has had his tour extended by three months. My older son, once wounded and a college student, was called up to active duty and is being shipped to Iraq next month. (And. I would like it noted. WE, paid his medical bills. Not your idiot war on a budget President nor the career minded spit and polish dogs taking up space at the Pentagon.) So, tell us, Mr. Armchair Patriot, how are you still so brain dead that you still support this stuffed shirt of a jack*ss of "president"? Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Ms. Rice, the whole lot of them are the worst criminal swine we have ever been burdoned with. Someday, even someone as shallow and stupid as yourself will come to recognize that. The problem is, you are born stupid and shallow and will undoubtedly repeat the same mistake again someday and inflict another "leader" on us like this cancerous swine we have now. The optimal solution would be to send you over there as Bush's cannon fodder, but you are too much of a coward and would continue to hide behind the anonymity of a post.

kingofzouk--All you seem to have is strawmen and hyperbole.

koz--"roo - no numbers there - just opinion. I find that unacceptable as a metric. how do you know how smart anyone is? how do you know what interests them?"

Ratings.

koz--"Maybe you and I are just fools for spending so much time gathering news on things we can do nothing about. when was the last time any action you took effected policy or the law?"

Last week. That notwithstanding, gathering accurate information so that OTHERS may act is a perfectly valid pastime as well. If all you did was hang out on The Fix then you would be equally guilty of single-sourcing.

koz--"I find this arrogance typical of Libs who think they know what is best for everyone. now you are in charge of programming and ignoring ratings."

You just contradicted yourself. I may, indeed, be arrogant in thinking that everyone should have a measure of factual information regarding current (and historical) issues.

I doubt you will disagree there. You may disagree with me over the means how this is accomplished. But Anna Nicole's baby sure as hell is not the way.

koz--"I suppose Air America was broad and deep."

No, AA was crap. Not that it ever claimed to be unbiased.

koz--"I already stated my measure..."

No, you did not. Not that it has anything to do with the original topic anyway.

You are throwing obstructions to avoid discussing the real issue and I will cease to continue on this path.

I will respond to your posts on this as soon as you have addressed all the points I have made on this thread so far (the actual meat which you have thus far ignored with this fluff.)

If you refuse to answer my points, you have lost due to admitting their correctness. Again.

jaa - we are talking about a job interview for the position of president which you compare to international dealings. Are you daft? your UN sensibilites have polluted your thinking. We simply don't negotiate with certain entities who offer us nothing in concession and have proclaimed our death as their goal. what will we talk to them about - firing squad or hanging? On the other hand, we have Dem candidates who refuse to debate on a popular network whose viewing population happens to be mostly contrary to their views. what better place to find voters. What better place to demonstrate your magnanamous behavior and your hope for the future. Or you could just chicken out and find some philosophical BS to try and cover it. fooling no one except the fools. Pandering same as always - no difference and no policies. Obama will suffer beginning now.

roo - no numbers there - just opinion. I find that unacceptable as a metric. how do you know how smart anyone is? how do you know what interests them? Maybe you and I are just fools for spending so much time gathering news on things we can do nothing about. when was the last time any action you took effected policy or the law? I find this arrogance typical of Libs who think they know what is best for everyone. now you are in charge of programming and ignoring ratings. I suppose Air America was broad and deep. Look what happened. come up with a measure or give up your opinionating. I already stated my measure which you refute for a reason which is unclear, other than elitism. Of course they don't have to debate. but it does make them look chicken to us Anna and Brittany fans.

I've got a question, KoZ:

How is Edwards and Obama refusing to the Fox debate (i.e. refusing to engage detractors from their ideologies) different from the Bush Administration's refusal to engage Islamic groups that espouse moderate nationalism, such as the Egyptian Brotherhood? Is the latter cowardice as well?

If you want to have it both ways, you'll have to be a bit less simplistic and vitriolic in your articulation of things.

Here's where I come down on this: Obama and Edwards are right to not go on Fox if they feel that Fox does not generally promote the sort of rigorous and fair journalistic environment that is consistent with their ideologies. This is also a case in which refusal to engage will have an effect: people won't be able to watch Obama and Edwards on Fox.

The Bush Administration should engage groups like the Egyptian Brotherhood or even the political arm of Hamas, because refusal to engage them only magnifies their power and dooms every peace strategy brokered without their participation to a gruesome and violent failure for the region.

Let me crystallise: the three main problems with the U.S. mainstream media are:

1. Lowest-denominator, "Internet Works By Magic" and "Anna Nicole Had Hair!!!! OMGWTFBBQ" reporting.

2. Agendas.

3. A public incapable of independently verifying news and even willing to attempt to obtain differing views on issues (single-source news which particularly with the above two is disastrous.)

kingofzouk--"Roo- please describe what the metrics for a legitimate news organization is. I presume this would apply equally to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, WaPo, NYT, Fox, BBC, al jezeera, etc.

I would naturally assume that the ratings would be a good clue since the market has a way of sorting out the nonsense from the facts."

No, the Market for television news is, by and large, idiots who turn the TV on to be told what to do and think. They do not have the capacity--for whatever reason--to be presented with the facts, several differing views of the same facts and then make an educated opinion based on former, let alone *change* that opinion when further information comes along.

With more and more means for people to educate themselves from multiple sources (viz. WWW) the stupider will the television news networks become. Eventually, of course, the idiots will get their single-source news from the Internet too. This is the current trend.

Any channel that spent more than 15 minutes on Anna Nicole Smith or Britney's Baldness is automatically disqualified.

Of the main news networks, BBC World is by far the best. SVT International is fairly good as is DW. Some of the Indian media is very good. Al-Jazeera English is not terrible, ranks about the same as the top U.S. reporting. All U.S. cable news stations are atrocious with the exception of Fox which is slightly worse (if you consider it to be news.)

kingofzouk--"Perhaps you might want to compare a more academic measure, such as provably wrong stories printed or aired"

No. I am sure journalistic scholars could further educate you but the key parts are integrity, topic choices, broadness AND depth of reporting and objectivity defined as verifying everything independently (as opposed to the current trend of just printing the opponent's talking points as a rebuttal to whatever topic is at hand.)

kingofzouk--"If not, I will resort to the generally accepted reason for the refusal - weak knees and pandering to the move-ons. not a good characteristic in the leader of the free world. this is the kind of rookie mistake I predicted for Obama. Let's see how the press runs with it."

These have nothing to do with eachother. Obama is refusing, on an individual basis, to partake in an FNC debate (which by definition should bear some semblance to legitimate news programming) because of a continued, malicious and intentionally dishonest propaganda campaign against him by this particular network. I am, actually, fairly certain he would be happy to try to accommodate an O'Reilly or Hannity appearance where the terms are clear.

The bottom line is that he has no responsibility or obligation to sweep FNC's insulting, unethical and malicious behaviour under the rug and pretend that they are a legitimate news station so far as he is concerned.

You are free to disagree about my assessment of FNC.

This blog has a cancer. its MikeB.

Fox news rates well just like tabloid newspapers sell many more copies than broadsheets. Which deliver better quality news?

Big brother rates well too, does that make it a good show? Fox, tabloids and big brother all appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Aussie - it is how he portrayed these things to the public that is at issue. he takes a smidgeon of a fact and conflates it to suit his ego. the whole joke about him inventing the internet was clearly false. but the reaason it played is because he did that kind of thing so often. remember him claiming to hear the union way song as a child - a song that was written after he was grown. remember he was the inspiration for love story - denied by the writer. He faught in vietnam - as a photo-journalist behind the lines for 3 months. It is this history of exaggeration that stalks him. One by one they seem innocuous enough but all tolled, they indicate a pattern of aggrandizement and hyperbole. Just like the latest effort with the 20 foot rise in seas which has been widely discredited and scoffed at, among other things. but this is all such old news. Are your pitiful hopes really at stake in Al gore coming to rescue the Dems from certain electoral defeat? He stated that all scientists universally agree on global warming and that is it man made. He attempted to shut down debate with this tactic. It is far from clear that global warming, if pernicious, is man made. It is even less clear what to do about it. but you didn't hear that from Al. science is not determined by voting, it is the math. It only takes one mathematician to change the world.

This country has cancer. It's name is George W. Bush. Thuis is one cancer we had better defeat or it will kill us all.

I have known people with lymphoma - both Hodgkins and non-Hodgkins - and of them, their life span was definitely affected - one was a high-school classmate who died at 33-34 and another a family friend who died in his mid-forties or so. The third one is in remission, but has only been ill for about 1.5 years. I HOPE he lives a long time, but it will take a 5 year remission before they will relax even a little bit. Given that, he can't say that this won't affect him. If elected, he would still be within that 5 year time-frame. Until then, he can't know it won't affect his life span. Besides - at his age, it is very difficult to say (that sounds very cold and I don't mean it that way). I hope he is well, but I think that it will take a while before we know that he is.

If move-on was simply hosting a debate among candidates, I think they should attend, assuming the audience doesn't yell out or the moderators don't ask ridiculous questions. I have never noticed the influence of the moderator. do you think the fox moderators would have asked ridiculous questions? do you think clinton was asked fair questions on fox - many don't. they were fair and went beyond the softballs on other networks. good job fox. Wipe that smirk off your face. Explain the ratings bonanza. I guess you could say that half the population is ignorant. you would be correct but with the addition of Fox news - less so. Ha. didn't see that one coming.

I mean the last unsigned post. :)

"He lived in a five star hotel yet claimed he lived on a farm. He took credit for originating the Internet"

1. Gore lived and worked on the family farm in summer holidays.

2. Love the way you have changed it slightly after someone pulled you up on it...before you were saying he invented the internet, then you changed the wording. You have been shown up for this blatant lie about Gore saying he invented the internet time and time again. Time to put up or shut up.

I love the irony of you exaggerating his exaggerations.

lylepink - clinton lied under oath. He manipulated the system to his own ends. you are simplifying for partisan reasons. the man was a serial prevaricator. He got caught, as do all criminals who continue to break the law. Al Capone got nailed for tax evasion, do you think that was his worst crime? clinton ruined many people and created the stink that is in politics now, all for his own personal gains. he pardoned people for money. He sold secrets for donations. He subverted the laws to build his library. Defending him is not a task for the light hearted. He had such potential as a Dem and squandered it on his own selfish desires. He may be funny and entertaining and a master of politics, but he is NO role model of a president.

(the last post was mine)

Zouk, you didn't answer my second question: Would you complain if the Republicans refused to attend a debate held by MoveOn.org? It seems to me they'd be perfectly justified in avoiding a forum where they were likely to be attacked by moderators and facing a hostile audience. Would you disagree?

Thanks, JD--a welcome clarification. And I can't say I disagree with you. It may have been a tacky joke (and I still say it was crass) but if that is the reason to cancel a debate, then that seems petty to me. Tackiness and pettiness can abound on both sides, unfortunately.

Roo- please describe what the metrics for a legitimate news organization is. I presume this would apply equally to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, WaPo, NYT, Fox, BBC, al jezeera, etc.

I would naturally assume that the ratings would be a good clue since the market has a way of sorting out the nonsense from the facts. If this is so, your metric denotes a strong legitimacy for FOx and no support for MSNBC. Perhaps you might want to compare a more academic measure, such as provably wrong stories printed or aired - like Jayson blair, dan rather etc. I am happy to consider your arguement if you provide something other than your own opinion.

If not, I will resort to the generally accepted reason for the refusal - weak knees and pandering to the move-ons. not a good characteristic in the leader of the free world. this is the kind of rookie mistake I predicted for Obama. Let's see how the press runs with it.

roo - here's the reality in the 110th Congress that we are witnessing:

As the House of Representatives voted to deny our troops the support necessary to carry out their new mission, Democratic leaders smiled and cheered as the last votes were counted.

What were they celebrating? Defeat? Surrender?

In Iraq, only our enemies were cheering. A defeat for the United States is a cause for mourning not celebrating.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265260,00.html

True, the reality shouldn't be sugar-coated; Gen. Petraeus said he was cautiously optimistic, and I'll take him at his word.

Blarg: I have heard Camille Paglia is a Lesbian and a Conservative, I have no idea, and just on the face of it, it doesn't make much sense. Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter and no big deal has been made about that, but when a dem is cast that way it is a whole different matter. The idea of personal destruction being attempted to portray the Clintons, is just a tad out of line. The time and money spent to find out that Bubba got a bj in The Oval Office will, I am quite certain, go down as the worst waste of tax payers money in our history.

Blarg - for just the reason that I stipulated - that you Libs don't believe anything unless another lib says it. I am offering support while advocating for change. I win both ways.

and if anyone thinks that Camille Paglia is a conservative or anything other than liberal, I suggest you discover who she votes for. She admits it, being the only honest liberal I can find. she is a Democrat. Just because she doesn't comply 100% with your Kos world view deosn't cancel that fact. I thought you were the big tent party. Where are the anti-abortion speakers at your convention?

Wow, KOZ decided not to address either of my posts even though he was still on the board. Oh well, should have known better than to expect him/her to admit their error

dc voter, I think the joke was something like: "I understand that Bush is still hunting through the desert, trying to track down the 9/11 villian, you know, Obama" or something like that

The idea was, Bush isn't bright enough to differentiate between the two names, ha ha. I guess you could also argue there was a subtle (or not so subtle?) dig at Obama's name being similar to Osama, so they're probably similar in other ways, etc.

Neither interpretation is that big a deal, nor was it all that hilarious. It certainly wasn't reason enough to cancel a debate on a Fox channel; I think it was just a convenient excuse to thumb the eye of FoxNews, which makes the lefty blogosphere happy (as well as CNN and MSNBC, both pretty liberally slanted).

That's not to say they don't have a right to debate where and when they want - everyone does.

proudtobeGOP--McCain is really sticking to his guns on this issue. To me it just seems that he is old-fashioned WRONG. His assessments do not seem to reflect the reality we are witnessing.

kingofzouk--"how about he hears the sound of the left wing of the party attempting to stifle debate and punish fox. If he can't handle fox news how is he going to deal with Amajornutbag?"

To use a favourite phrase of the right, you are "prejudging."

It is not about being unable to "handle" Fox. It is about not allowing them to legitimatise themselves. You may disagree about it but Fox portrays themselves as a "Fair and Balanced News Network" which they are not. I, personally, think that Obama should not participate in any FNC programming that is falls in the supposed "news" category. He could and perhaps should go to O'Reilly or Hannity's programs instead. When FNC starts to act like a real news network (say, BBC World, not CNN/NBC/et al.), things can be re-evaluated.

Now, the truly surprising aspect of your argument is that the current administration's official protocol--which you have endorsed MANY times--is to not engage in talks with "rogue nations." How do you reconcile these two views?

You also reveal the typical tendency for oversimplification on the right. Black and white, no shades of grey, all oranges taste the same etc. Each situation should be handled separately. Refusing to legitimise Fox has absolutely no bearing on other decisions--let alone actual POLICY decisions instead of pittances like a propaganda network's ego.

Ahmadinejad (REALLY not that hard to spell, man) and his Iran are a separate matter and the proper course should be decided on individually. The current way is not working. The unconditional support of Israel is not working. The one-state solution is not working.

Here's McCain's principled stance:

"Democrats who voted to authorize this war, and criticized the failed strategy that has led us to this perilous moment, have the same responsibility I do, to offer support when that failure is recognized and the right strategy is proposed and the right commanders take the field to implement it or, at the least, to offer an alternative strategy that has some relationship to reality," he said.

McCain also said he is willing to support Petraeus at his own political peril.

"Will this nation's elected leaders make the politically hard, but strategically vital decision to give Gen. Petraeus our full support and do what is necessary to succeed in Iraq? Or will we decide to take advantage of the public's frustration, accept defeat, and hope that whatever the cost to our security, the politics of defeat will work out better for us than our opponents?

"For my part, I would rather lose a campaign than a war," he said.

McCain singled out one Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama. McCain said when Bush vetoes the deadline for troop withdrawals, as he is expected to do, Democrats should take the Illinois Democrat's advice "and immediately pass a new bill to provide support to our troops in Iraq ... without substituting their partisan interests for those of our troops and our country."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265260,00.html

Obama's reply:
"What we need today is a surge in honesty."

Is this a policy statement?

Is Obama really running for Commander in Chief, or for a board seat at the Mosquito Abatement District?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0704100429apr11,0,7634395,print.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed

it occurs to me that the level of civility on this blog would be greatly enhanced if everybody just ignored kingofzouk. the discourse is starting to sound like a bunch of 8-year-olds taunting on a playground.

i'm just saying. i wandered over here from somewheres else, and now i'm wandering back. no enlightenment to be found today, i fear.

Zouk, if the source doesn't matter, then why did you start your post by pointing out (inaccurately, of course) that Paglia was a liberal? You didn't need to specify that. If only the content mattered, it wouldn't make a difference whether that article was written by Camille Paglia or Dick Cheney.

On the other topic that you're harping on constantly, would you complain if the Republicans refused to attend a debate held by MoveOn.org? It seems to me they'd be perfectly justified in avoiding a forum where they were likely to be attacked by moderators and facing a hostile audience. Would you disagree?

JD, I'm curious -- and I mean this not to be difficult or argumentative, honest, but to try and understand -- how could such a joke be at Bush's expense? You mean because Bush hasn't found Obama yet? I guess I find it hard to swallow that Fox would want to bring any attention to Bush's failure in that regard, and the dig at Obama's name was much more blatant than anything related to Bush. Maybe this is also due to Obama's name being fodder for other jokes (especially his middle name) in less professional venues--none of which surprises me because I think that kind of fun-making happens on both sides. And I'm not saying it is right or wrong in all contexts. I just thought the "joke" was incredibly inappropriate and juvenile, especially in that context. But I admit I didn't hear the whole speech, just the clip most likely played on the Daily Show. I never would have pegged it for a Bush joke.

JD, I'm curious -- and I mean this not to be difficult or argumentative, honest, but to try and understand -- how could such a joke be at Bush's expense? You mean because Bush hasn't found Obama yet? I guess I find it hard to swallow that Fox would want to bring any attention to Bush's failure in that regard, and the dig at Obama's name was much more blatant than anything related to Bush. Maybe this is also due to Obama's name being fodder for other jokes (especially his middle name) in less professional venues--none of which surprises me because I think that kind of fun-making happens on both sides. And I'm not saying it is right or wrong in all contexts. I just thought the "joke" was incredibly inappropriate and juvenile, especially in that context. But I admit I didn't hear the whole speech, just the clip most likely played on the Daily Show. I never would have pegged it for a Bush joke.

colin - my point there and overall on this blog lately is that the originator of the idea is irrelevant. the idea should stand on its own regardless of source. when you immediately challenge the source, while ignoring the concept, you fall into the worst aspects of partisan bickering. This was the clinton method - destroy them personally and he left lots of carcasses along the way, even friends who got in the way or had to take a fall. now the 30 second shout-past-you shows have perfected this approach. but it is empty because it never gets to the details of the point being made, only who said what and what is their axe to grind. It is arguing for sissies who can't follow through on a thought. It adapts nicely to the blog forum with not-so-clever witticisms strewn about.

so ignoring the source - did al gore lose his credibility with his vastly exxaggerated movie? does he have a history of this behavior? can it be documented?

roo - how about he hears the sound of the left wing of the party attempting to stifle debate and punish fox. If he can't handle fox news how is he going to deal with Amajornutbag? the cons have been putting up with this bias forever. We didn't go crying about it and may have lost the last election because of the drumbeat. If any adversity is enough to send you packing, maybe you should apply for a different job. It is not just cons who think this.

BTW - clinton paid lots of money and lost his law license. what was that for again? Hint - it wasn't for hiding an intern under the desk.

spartan: Recall how I have pointed out several times how a sentence or even a word can be used to distort anything. "Accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing, so that you will know what you are doing.". This is my own quote and was not stolen from anyone, simply something I have learned over the years. We all learn from each other if we take the time to listen instead of shooting our mouths off about someone or something we know little/nothing about.

dc voter, the quote you remember was supposed to be a joke at Bush's expense, not Obama's.

Colin, I appreciate your civil tone (unlike so many of the crazies on this board, left and right). However I think you're wrong on some of your points - I've seen recent studies that actually say class size doesn't affect performance at all. Parental involvement is key. As for Charter schools - I'm ignoring those as they are not what I'm talking about. As for vouchers - it seems to me that if the market works *everywhere else*, why shouldn't it work for schools. I know that's not very socialist of me, but what the hell.

I agree teachers need to be compensated fairly for performance..and fired for poor performance, something the NEA is against. And if you don't think the NEA (and trial lawyers association...oh excuse me, they just changed their name to Institute for Justice or something equally Orwellian) aren't pulling the strings of the Dems, then you're in more denial than Franken is about getting a paycheck next month.

Another fun distortion by KOZ. The Chicago Tribune is not "liberal" by any definition of the word. It's a traditionally right of center publication that endorsed Bush.

Take a look at their 2006 endorsements. In contested races, they always choose either the republican or a pro-business, centrist Democrat.

Nice try though.

Cowards always get violent when backed into a corner...

I was directed to Fred Hiatt's Washington Post editorial on Nancy Pelosi the other day. By the time I read the White House talking points he was spouting and got to the comments, there were already over 30 pages of them. It was apparent right off the bat that Freeperville and all of its related suburbs had been linked there early. Initially the comments largely were supportive of Hiatt with a good bit of typical angry GOP nastiness and sexism. All to be expected given the crowd that showed up. But then I noticed a trend. The further into the comments I got the more extreme the comments. I stopped reading around page 30-something to request a post be deleted. It was a heated comment charging Nancy with treason and demanding she be locked up for life. Little did I know, the fun had just begun.

I came back later to find 70 some pages of comments. The tone had also gotten much uglier. There were a lot of ugly sexist comments, anti-Jewish comments, and the now consensus that Nancy was a traitor deserving of jail. As disgusting to wade through as this was, it didn't prepare me for the commenter who claimed that Nancy deserved to die for betraying her country, along with the rest of the traitors in Congress. They were so emphatic on this point that they repeated it at the end of their post. So again, I requested a deletion. Going back it was only a few pages further on that a commenter stated that Nancy should be hung. By this point I needed a good hot shower.

I wanted to copy some of the offending posts to include in this diary but the WaPo editors disinfected the pile of trash overnight and all of the death threats were removed. I truly hope that they forwarded to Nancy's Secret Service detail as much information as possible regarding the posts and users who made them.

The whole experience caused me to do a bit of thinking on the bigger picture. It has been obvious for some time now that the administration is backed into a corner and appears to be getting desperate. The scandal-a-day syndrome, impending subpoenas, investigations everywhere based on substantial evidence of wrongdoing by administration officials, the Iraq funding standoff, Gonzogate, and more.

It occurred to me that this rising level of anger and threatening talk by the freeperazzi was merely a reflection of the current mindset of their hero george and his not-so-merry band of idiots. And it made me wonder just how far these dead-enders will really go in support of their failed fuhrer. And how far their failed fuhrer will go in trying to retain some semblance of relevance in his lameduckery.

I foresee a long, hot summer ... for all of us.

someone above quotes Iacocca as saying "We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff..."

Is Iacocca a Flat-Earth guy now, or just guilty of mixing metaphors?

'Thomas Paine once wrote that in absolute governments, the King is law, and in free nations, the Law is king.

The fundamental problem is not that Alberto Gonzales lied, prevaricated, misrepresented or played Pinocchio when he falsely stated he was not involved in the decisions to fire the U.S. attorneys. Those actions were wrong and appropriate grounds for removal, but there is much, much worse.

Alberto Gonzales is a second-tier-quality lawyer elevated to great heights by blind obedience to the concept of absolute power and the unwise president who claims it for himself on matters that grossly violate the American notion of the rule of law.'

zouk writes
" I already said that "they did it" is not an acceptable answer... Is that your best response that being chicken is acceptable because bush did it. are you going to campaign on the "bush did it" platform? cutting and pasting my own words and switching subject/object is ignorant coward's schtick. are you usurping now?"

You misunderstand. I am not defending the Dems, I am merely pointing out that you criticize Dems/Libs for doing exactly the same thing that your boys do. Its comical, that's all - the irony & hypocrasy, dig? To double the humor quotient, you're now rebutting the 'Clinton did it' defense as well. I recall your own use of that red herring, if I'm not mistaken. Its good to see you admit that such a defense is not only intellectually lazy, but irrelevant as well.

Ooh, that's the best you can come up with? All you Fox/Limbaugh dittohead junkies and all you can do is say some boogeyman word you think connotes some evil that exists only in your own head. Daily kos is just a website, kiddies, not a monster. I don't go there, I read the newspapers, but even so it's got more credibility than the entire rightwing monolith put together -- especially your nutcase Messiah Moonie rag.

You folks might want to get up and do something -- you know, like join the military or something, instead of sitting around in your feety pajamas typing.

Didn't the Dems refuse to debate on Fox after the owner made the crass, crass comment about still looking for "Obama" as a blatant attempt at insult masked as humor to link Obama's name with Osama bin Laden? That's what I remember. I will try and find a link. To me, Republicans should refuse to debate on that channel too after that comment. To go after Obama because of his NAME is beyond below the belt--and completely devoid of anything substantive or on policy issues.

What partisan cheerleading? I have talked about Imus and black leaders and the inherent cowarice of the Dem candidates. I also repond to challenges. I have offered no support of anything bush today and not stated anything non-factual about Dems. Is anything that goes against your Kos world-view partisan? that seems to indicate that you sir are the partisan cheerleader and it is further supported by your response in defense of al gore, clinton, etc.

so why don't you take YOUR own advice. you seem like you may be redeemable, not that you might see the light and vote properly, but might respond to reason on policy issues.

JD -- there actually are reasons for disagreeing with vouchers other than respecting teachers, who you apparently think are all "union overlords" for the Democratic party. Charter schools don't perform better on standardized tests than the schools at large. Same for voucher programs that don't have selective admission.

Guess what does increase student performence according to every study that's been done? Retaining teachers with experience (3 years is the threshold that matters), making sure that teachers are trained to teach the subjects they teach (sadly, that's not always the case), and lowering class sizes. We don't gear our education systems to do any of that.

Oh, and to address your charges of union pandering. Senator Obama, who I support, is open to a version of merit based pay for teachers and wants to - gasp - pay teachers in harder to fill subject areas (hard sciences, math) more so that we actually have qualified individuals teaching our kids.

Other than ideology, why would anyone be against a plan like that?

Roger that Spartan.

Brush those teeth!

i almost feel like the koz in here today is not the real koz because he is so much more over the top and factually wrong than normal. and really, i just can't fathom comparing the clinton lies to the bush lies--besides the fact that bush has eliminated the very concept of due process in this country. i'm sure this koz's complaints of clinton's lies parallel a defense of scooter libby, who was actually convicted of lying under oath!

blarg-thanks, didnt think to look there but trying to convince zouk of something is like talking to a brick wall.

jd-another point i wanted to mention is there are single parents of all races that have to put up with all the garbage being thrown around in the media. when all a child's role model is either a arrogant wide reciver or a talentless pop star with no underware i really worry about the future. great talking to you jd i have to go to a dentist appointment in a half hour but ill leave you with this, government isnt the problem, its who's running it. you get the government you vote for

kingofzouk--"you deny that edwards and obama won't debate on Fox? Explain why if its not cowardice."

It is called a "principled stance." Something you loudly talk about but never seem to recognise in the wild.

Obama has a good reason to take a stand and refuse to aid Fox News: the continuous mischaracterisations of himself without any meaningful retractions (not that they would matter, they are always delivered with a *wink wink, nudge nudge* over on FNC anyway.)

There is the islamic terrorist angle, the christian terrorist angle, the black supremacist angle and then the simple, old, six-year-old tactic of finding amusement in a person's name although more sinister here since it attempts to tie him to a terrorist. All of this is intentional and malicious, not merely shoddy journalism (which, to this degree, should be enough to call in question their credentials for hosting a national debate of any kind anyway.)

That enough of an answer for you, kingofzouk? I eagerly await your acknowledgement or rebuttal.

I will let someone else explain Edwards.

KOZ starts his global warming bash-fest off with this statement: "From a famed Liberal - Ouch"

He then criticizes me for pointing out that the person he cited describes herself as a libertarian that is against most government regulation.

Willful blindness or intentional spin? Either way, silly. Come on KOZ, you're better than that.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Al Gore never said that he invented the Internet. He said that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet", which is true, because he helped fund the technology behind the Internet. Just like how Eisenhower created the interstate highway system, though he didn't actually invent the concept of highways or physically contribute to the construction.

The fact that zouk keeps repeating this blatant and ridiculous twisting of facts shows just what kind of person he is.

They're running to be the most powerful leader in the world. They shouldn't dodge questioners who aren't handpicked and pre-adoring.

Even the liberal Trib agrees with me. Interesting.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0704100429apr11,0,7634395,print.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed

so the next question is do they want to lose the war because they are chickens about everything or is this an actual policy - a first for Obama, a refusal to admit any mistake ever by hillary and a cold calculated manipulation by edwards.

jd-actually i do support school vouchers, but you cant stop there. crime must also be addressed too. personally i think an agressive local/federal program to get rid of the guns and drug traffiking would also help. but its got to start with the parents first.

zouk-ok fine, but who says hillary is going to win? you must since your so worried about her winning. since i lived thru rampant corruption, selling of favors, no health care, lying, heavy-handed tactics of the bush admistration, i have a vested interest in seeing who comes next dem or rep. but if you want to comment about my opinion, then stop with the partisan cheerleading and ill take you serious. other than that im ignoring you as the shameless troll you are.

Strangely enough you hang out at Kos - more like perfectly predictable.

you seem to have skipped all the other stuff and concentrated on clinton's affair. so i guess if the rampant corruption, selling of favors, giant health care, lying, heavy-handed tactics etc. return in the hillary camp, you will be pleased.

you did attempt to spin al gore's credibility.

And I didn't see any debunking with anything other than vapid, empty opinion. that is sadly what Dems consider to be acceptable retorts to facts. and they often get away with it because the GOPS have become as spinless as the Dems have become dishonest. not me.

koz, you also chanted that the dems would lose midterms and didn't have a chance of winning one chamber of congress, let alone both--so i hope you like crow because you will be eating more of it in november '08.

Spartan, I see your point about the culture problems. The difference between you and I is: you choose to lament the circumstances the kids are forced into; I blame the willingness of the minority community to tolerate the one-parent and absentee-parent househould as normal (even celebrated). We're both right I guess. (PS I hope you're in favor of school voucher/choice programs, then, something much of the sleazeball Dem leadership has opposed as a sop to their union overlords)

As for Imus - I know he's said much worse in the past, I agree. I wonder what made this comment so different? It wasn't all that outrageous in the scheme of things. An otherwise slow news cycle, plus the Youtube/everyone connected influence I guess.

When it comes to politics, former Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca is generally not much of a player. When he has dabbled in politics, Iacocca is generally known for being a Republican -- he was close with Reagan, he endorsed Bush in 2000, and backed Dick DeVos' gubernatorial campaign in Michigan last year.

But if Iacocca's new book is any indication, the retired businessman seems to be moving in a different direction.

'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."

Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!

You might think that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it).

The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?

I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged.... Why are we in this mess? How did we end up with this crowd in Washington? Well, we voted for them -- or at least some of us did. But I'll tell you what we didn't do. We didn't agree to suspend the Constitution. We didn't agree to stop asking questions or demanding answers. Some of us are sick and tired of people who call free speech treason. Where I come from that's a dictatorship, not a democracy.'

Not bad for a guy whos a former Bush backer, don't you think?

spartan - you quoted me but failed to point out the blame you said I posted. nope just fond memories of my younger days when we could worry about blue dresses and cigars.

-ok fine, the 90's were bad for you, realizing that clinton had a affair outside his marrage. i posted how it was good for everyone else. just as i can come on here and rail on about how bad bush is.

spartan will debate over minor wording and spin to avoid the main point which is so obvious to the enlightened. I am beyond bickering with stooges.

-ok then why are you on here. i havent spun anything and most of the insults and half truths have been debunked. if you like me and other like minded posters will just ignore you and be forever in the dark with out your "enlightened"view point

If you have anything intelligent to say, I will consider it. Otherwise go back to Kos or hufington or the other kooky bastions of idiocy.
-strangely enough i hang out at kos, but i disagree with most of what he says but i dont parrot spin and talking points and insult people with different points of view. why dont you go fight anon you seem to be winning there

Life Imitates Satire

'This is truly DC-czarism, 'we can't figure out what the hell we're doing so let's appoint a new bubble on the flowchart' run amok. Instead of 'czar' maybe we can just call the person 'training wheels'? Someone to oversee wars, the Pentagon, the State Department and everything else? Don't we elect that person every four years?

JP says it reminds him of this November 2005 piece from The Onion ...

'In response to increasing criticism of his handling of the war in Iraq and the disaster in the Gulf Coast, as well as other issues, such as Social Security reform, the national deficit, and rising gas prices, President Bush is expected to appoint someone to run the U.S. as soon as Friday.'

I'm not sure I've ever seen a better sign -- though wrapped in a humorous package -- of why this president really can't be trusted to be in charge of anything and why the Republic is genuinely in peril as long as this pitiful goof remains in office. Bush wants to find a general to do his job for him. But he can't get anyone to agree to do it.'

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Why should anyone want to do the president's job for him? Hello?

bsimon, I already said that "they did it" is not an acceptable answer. besides these are candidates. the President gets the message out regardless of venue. Is that your best response that being chicken is acceptable because bush did it. are you going to campaign on the "bush did it" platform? cutting and pasting my own words and switching subject/object is ignorant coward's schtick. are you usurping now?

Can't you see that Tara is a brainwashed Kos regular. why confront that simpleton? That chanting is why the Dems will lose next time - no ideas and very little thought. Still nothing constructive from that end of the party. don't hold your breath.

People will remember Clinton as a president who didn't live up to his full potential nor the dire predictions of Republicans. His dalliances were well known before election and he beat an incumbent president and a quirky billionaire with populist appeal. Remember the vote on his first budget when Dole and others all argued that's passage would bring financial collapse and deficits. Think of that next time you see the defaults of mortgages go up and up. He failed on health care but he tried and the next attempt might be easier because of him as unions, big business including auto companies and AARP have already supported health reform. If the American model is so good why hasn't a single major western country copied it while providing equal or slightly better medical outcomes and for less total percentage of GNP? He stumbled in Somalia which is the model W is working for create a mess then left office for others to clean up. He learned lesions and American air power, international partners, and guerillas defeated the Serbians with no American fatalities and that has led to a sullen peace in Kosovo, war crime convictions through out the former Yugoslavian and a vicious dictator dying while in jail. He attempted to kill Osama and made a full court press to bring peace to the Mid East that Arafat didn't have the political vision or physical courage to sign off on or even send a counter offer. After being investigated for years by the FBI, media, GOP, etc we learned that Bill Clinton could be a stranger to the truth and too friendly to women other than his wife. We also learned that he looks better than Rudy informing his second wife of their divorce during a press conference with her replacement present. McCain left the wife who stuck with him and raised their kids alone while he was a POW for a younger, richer model. Gingerich has confessed to having sex with a staffer during the impeachment that lead to the Democrats gaining historic if small gains in the Congress. Clinton is no saint, but he is not alone.
Clinton admitted global warming existed, did not preach small government while trying to fight birth control (plan B) abortion rights and stem cell. He was liberal conservative conserving the social support net with a weak hand politically. He did not advance the progressive cause as allow it to live for another day. If he was too liberal or not enough, government worked no major cities were destroyed and he presided over economic growth.
Now for progressives and true conservatives is the search for relevance. Bush has become the President of the Iraq war and the congressional GOP were the alibi party watching corruption at home and abroad widen while doing nothing. We must face maintaining our economic and political relevance while jobs leave for India and China, global warming increases and nuclear proliferation goes largely unchecked (Iran is not the only nation on the verge of nuclear weapons, look for Egypt and Saudi Arabia to follow). For conservatives it is how to maintain families while not preaching or mistaking evangelical Christians as the only Christians, repair a hollowed out military that can not care for it's own wounded while now accepting convicted felons on "a case by case basis", and realizing powers granted to one president for one cause can be given to another president for another cause (imagine the government using unrestrained wire taps for say the IRS)
For the left it remains to be seen how we raise incomes on the bottom, fight creating a permanent underclass while not ignoring personal responsibility and pathological behavior, balance the budget again while caring for an aging population, reform entitlements, and not promise a government program