It’s also unsurprising that none of the media reports saw fit to mention that fact, either.

It sure is hilarious to go back and re-read the venomous comments on this thread now that the revelation has been made, though. ”

Comment by Anonymous — April 7, 2006 @ 11:04 pm

It’s typical though,
Speculation becomes automatic guilt if they can lay it on the President. Then they feed this insane hate with their paranoia and speculation. In addition they suffer from Christophobia. Its a pity.

It’s also unsurprising that none of the media reports saw fit to mention that fact, either.

It sure is hilarious to go back and re-read the venomous comments on this thread now that the revelation has been made, though.

But what was most interesting about our conversation was our agreement in how the different political factions generally react to the criminal and or debauched behaviour of their members. In general, progs make excuses and favour the route of contrition. Repubs are generally disgusted – it would be difficult for Ted the Swimmer to get re-elected repeatedly in Alabama or Idaho

Comment by JIMBOB McKinney

Thank you, Mr. McKinney for demonstrating why the worn-out term “racist” is no-longer taken seriously by those repelled by true racism – and a bad hair day…..

This was supposed to be the administration of professionalism and security, but for the last 5+ years we’ve witnessed breakdowns in responsibility, reliability, and accountability at multiple levels in the Executive branch.

Trolls should consider that the issue really isn’t Doyle at all, but an alarming series of blunders and amatuerism. Ignoring the PDB dated August 2001 stating that Bin Laden was going to attack America using airliners should have been grounds for impeachment, not swept under the rug.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

Instead of rushing to the political defense of Bush, they should perhaps consider that the safety of America is more important than whether liberals “win” an argument, which seems to be the overriding preoccupation of the Republican Party.

That was 1964 not 68 thank you.
If you want to continue down the history road in 1868 the kkk murderd 1300 Republicans. Lincoln was a Republican. The klan played a major role in the 1924 Democratic convention, halted from advancing their agenda only by Catholics, however they still managed to defeat a condemnation by the party.

As a political party they advocated a “Progressive” agenda,

In 1920 they elected Democrat J. Thomas Heflin to the senate.

In 1935 David Bibb Graves (D) was elected Gov of Alabama and was considered a liberal reformer one of the states most “progressive” ever.

New Deal supporter Hugo Black a democratic senator was nominated to the SCOTUS by FDR in 1937 and confirmed.

Presently Robert C Byrd a Democrat from west virginia and former klansman is serving in the US senate.

Comment by JIMBO — April 5, 2006 @ 1:49 pm

Jimbo
You should read your history books. Look up Orval Eugene Faubus. While you’re there take a look at the civil rights act of 1968 you will notice democrats opposed the measure by a 3-1 margin over republicans. The supreme court led by justice Warren Berger had to force busing on liberal democrat Boston. These are just a fe examples that prove you dont know jack.

Then please offer us a list in the same form as in post #22. We can fact check, just show that data. No one here has once argued that the Democratic Party is filled with THE examples of morality. But a comparison of convictions (or plea bargains) for crimes – particularly of a sexual nature – does seem to indicate that the politicians elected or placed by the Republican Party are inclined to criminal behavior FAR more than those in the other parties. Perhaps it is because the party platforms allure certain criminal types (which is not a comment on the platforms themselves).

Many have simply asked for a similar list to the one posted above. If it is as rampant in the Democratic party as you claim, then such a list should be easy to compile. Cite a similar number of examples of similar caliber and occurring within a similar time frame. That would be a sufficient basis for you to argue your point from. If all you have, however, is your personal opinion, with no facts, that the “Democrats are involed in these types of behaviors as well” and to a similar degree (which is implied by me and not directly in your words), it is not much of an argument to stand against clear examples. You ask us readers to accept your opinion (and of course all types of people engage in all types of bad behavior… the issue involves the illegal proclivities of politicians and the fact that the evidence at hand screams that there is a clear and present abundance of criminals in one of the parties) without any proof. I am certain that you would not accept any information from a poster here without proof, and if it disagrees with your preconceived notions then you will not accept it with evidence either. Which makes this seem pointless, as before. Still, I will continue for just a little more.

“As for DeLay, the political gain occurred the moment he was indicted–he had to step down–duh! You guys are so dilluded.”

So, you propose that by being indicted, and therefore having to step down, it was simply a partisan attack? So, because he was in a position of political power that had a rule saying that if indicted he would have to step down, in order to avoid any partisan attacks he should be IMMUNE from any indictments, regardless of any suspicious activity he may have been involved in? He should have been left in his position unless the jury had clear evidence of his ABSOLUTE guilt (in other words, he needs to be tried and convicted before being tried). That is what you and your allies seem to propose. Leave the man be, unless you have a rock solid, DeLay’s-mom-couldn’t-refute-the-evidence kind of case. That is what is expressly implied. Immunity because “he’s one of the boys”.

And who was saying something about blindly following….?

P.s. : I don’t follow ANY party – the ascendency of the (2 major) political parties into minor aristocratic-like circles is the downfall of the American political system.

Bush has put more minorities in position of political power then any president prior to him. It’s a fact, I am not going to dispute it.

It’s also a fact that most of Bush’s appointments have been ill qualified, formerly employed in positions which cast doubt on their independence, have been implicated in some of the biggest fraud cases in recent American history or have simply been incompetent. Black, White, Indian, whatever, they have not been a scandal free bunch.

It isn’t so much character assassination as simple bald fact reflecting badly on Bush’s administrations. Minorities and all.

That said, I will grant you that the racism claim was basically wrong. I won’t grant you “character assassination” though.

Then don’t make idiotic comments.

As for DeLay, the political gain occurred the moment he was indicted–he had to step down–duh! You guys are so dilluded.

I think you meant “deluded”.

Your wording suggested the political gain was for Ronnie Earle personally. I already showed that cannot be the case because Delay was indicted by a grand jury.

Earle is a prosecutor who is doing his job. If someone benefits politically from it, well, that is completely out his control. Get a hold of yourself.

Also, I noticed you chose not to insist the laws didn’t exist at the time. I will take that as a tacit admission you were wrong.

You actulally believe that corruption exists on only one side of the aisle.

Strawman.

The Democrats are as equally corrupt–in addition they’re the party of no ideas, no agenda, and constant attack of the current administration. AND they can’t be trusted with National security.

NeD -is that you?

My comment was intended to point out that Democrats are involed in these types of behaviors as well.

Show us proof. Just saying it doesn’t make it so. Post some proof or STFU.