When I was 17, I was a socialist.
Seriously. When I was 17 years old and a senior in high school, I announced to everybody who would listen that I was a card-carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America. And I was fervent about it. I was a true believer.
I turned 18 in November of 1990, three and a half months after Saddam Hussein rolled his tanks into Kuwait. George Bush was in the White House, and we all saw him on CNN declaring that the Iraqi invasion would not stand. War seemed inevitable. And war, as every college freshman knows, is something that must be opposed with protests and signs and chants. Mostly because that’s where all the girls are, the pink-cheeked teenage girls in their cut-off jeans and their tank tops with peace signs on them.
Between the endless succession of vainglorious anti-war extracurriculars and the sudden post-U.S.S.R.-era tackiness of that old-time proletarianism, 18-year-old me came into the 1992 election cycle as about as rasa a tabula as you could ever hope to see. I knew that war was bad because the hippie chick with the bandana and the jeans with the hole you-know-where told me so in between attempts to teach me how to French kiss. But on the other hand, I knew that the Gulf War had been about as bloody as a Pearl Jam concert and had lasted only slightly longer. Democratic candidate Bill Clinton delivered a few stump-speech platitudes and a Ray-Banned sax solo, and it was a done deal.
That November I went into a booth and I pulled a lever and I was proud to be an American and a Democrat.
Throughout the 1990s, I was an unapologetic, though not always proud, member of the Democratic Party. I had lost none of the fervency of my high-school days; I really believed. I was twenty years old. Of course I believed. Believing is what unreconstructed idealists do best.
But in 1998, the whole world came crashing down. That summer, news broke that the President — my President — had had a protracted and wildly inappropriate sexual relationship with a 22-year-old White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. And not only did he have an affair, but he lied about it defiantly and forcefully. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” he said. He said it to the press, he said it to the whole country. He said it to me. And it was a lie.
“Oh, everybody lies about sex,” they said. You know: they. The faceless voice of the conventional wisdom. “It’s no big deal,” they said. But to me, it was a big deal. I don’t expect my President to be without sin. But I do expect that when he looks me in the eye and pounds his extended finger on that podium and says it like he means it, that he’s not lying to me.
I didn’t say anything about it to anybody. Not to my friends, not to my co-workers, not to anybody. But it was then, in the fall of 1998, that I began to feel, for the first time, like I didn’t fit in with the Democratic Party any more.
During the late 1990s, little by little, my convictions began to evolve. Things that had seemed self-evident to me five years before were suddenly up for grabs, or worse, now seemed equally self-evident to me only in the opposite direction. But I was still a Democrat — I’ve never been one to jump ship over a few differences of opinion — and I dutifully voted for Al Gore in November 2000.
The aftermath of the 2000 election was an embarrassment to the nation. Gore’s retracted concession was an act of political classlessness unequalled in recent memory, and the turmoil that resulted damaged this country in ways from which we still haven’t recovered.
But what really shocked me was the vitriol that gripped my party during and after the election. People were throwing around the word “stolen,” and they meant it. They really believed that some dark cabal had conspired to overturn a fair election and award the Presidency to a candidate who hadn’t earned the office.
In the winter of 2000, it seemed like dissatisfaction with a failed campaign boiled over into outright hatred, not just among the fringe lunatics but in the minds of mainstream Democrats around the country. Once again, I was starting to wonder whether I really fit in.
Then came a Tuesday morning in September.
I was on a business trip, visiting a client in Los Angeles. My phone woke me up. “Turn on your television,” said the co-worker on the other end. I asked which channel. “All of them,” he said.
One of the towers had just fallen and the other one was burning; smoke was rising from the Pentagon. There were rumors of planes still unaccounted for. It wasn’t over. One of our co-workers had been on a flight from Dallas to Chicago that was in the air during the hijackings; was he okay? They were clearly trying to hit “soft” targets, and the woman I loved worked in one of the largest buildings in the Southwest. And the phones were jammed and I couldn’t get through to anyone. I looked out the window of my high-rise hotel over the L.A. basin and saw, on the horizon, the blue-grey smudges of a pair of F-15s. A flash of reflected California sunshine and they were gone.
For four days I sat in that hotel and watched the news unfold on CNN. By the time the airports reopened, I knew exactly what I wanted from the government and the President. I didn’t want mere retaliation or a military quid pro quo. I wanted absolute certainty that nothing like the events of that horrific Tuesday morning could ever happen again. I wanted the smoke from the burning towers to herald the flames of a reformation that would sweep across Central Asia, the Middle East and parts beyond. I wanted the President — who at some point during that unforgettable week had become my President — to change the world.
Not all Democrats saw it that way. While American troops were fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, Howard Dean announced that Osama bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Prominent Democratic donor George Soros declared that “crime requires police work, not military action.” John Kerry, who would eventually secure the Democratic nomination, said that the President “rushed into battle.”
What the hell had happened to the Democrats? Why was a party that had been so willing to use American military force during the 1990s when the commitments were small and the sacrifice slight suddenly so reluctant to do what was right?
I came into the 2004 President election season disenchanted with my own party but ready to be won back. All the Democrats had to do was show even a token willingness to win the war. They didn’t do that. Instead they nominated an undistinguished legislator who saluted with one hand and pandered to the squeamishness of the anti-war bloc with the other.
In November 2004, I walked into a booth and pulled a lever. And I was proud to be an American and, for the first time in my life, a Republican.
I have friends who’ve been Republicans all their lives. I think we all know people like that, people who inherited their political opinions from their parents and never wavered. I had to strike out on my own and experience a sort of philosophical Wanderjahr before I was ready to come back to the values I learned from my parents.
Does that make my political opinions any more valid than anyone else’s? Of course not. But it does make them complicated. I believe that personal responsibility is a cardinal virtue, but I believe that society must sometimes protect us from ourselves. I believe that free markets solve problems better than governments, but I believe that public education is too important to leave to the invisible hand. I believe that sometimes war is the inevitable extension of a strong foreign policy, but I believe that the state has no business executing prisoners. I’m a swarming, teeming mass of political contradictions, and as such I fit in perfectly with no political party.
But I think that’s how American politics is supposed to work. I think American political parties are supposed to be made up of smart, dedicated people who disagree about practically everything but who find enough common ground to work together. I think that American politics is the politics of persuasion, and that people with strong convictions have a responsibility to get out there and start persuading others to see things their way.
And I believe that strong-willed people who disagree with each other can change the world for the better. Because I think that those are the only people who ever have.
Jeff Harrell blogs at The Shape of Days.
Thanks for the advice but if ever I find myself needing your advice, then I suspect It will be too late as my my marbles will have already been truly lost!
My dear, presuambly you are not well travelled but when you hear different people from different countries from both sides of the fence, the left and the right telling you how they percieve Bush et al, then you dont have to be a rocket scientist (I’m not far off!!!) to see that something is wrong with America today. Prior to 9/11 not many Americans would have known what was going on in the world. Post 9/11, everyone thinks they know what is going on. Bush has hijacked our fears and told us that “badmen” and “evil doers” are out to get America. Bin Laden bombs the World Trade Centre, we bomb a few mountains in Afghanistan but our ultimate goal is the removal of Saddam Hussein? Now, how bloody stupid do you have to be to buy that. Come on people!! This has to rank as the greatest con of a nation ever!
As for, it wasn’t the “sex” it was the “lies”, smarten up, dear, all politicians lie. It is up to us to choose which lies we believe and which ones we choose to let irritate us.
Similarly as for looking over the neighbours fence and then taking offence, you are quite wrong. On the whole I enjoy most of the articles on here, though not always agreeing with the sentiment. A privilege I am grateful for.
It was the “let’s roll over and piss ourselves like wimpy dogs” attitude the liberals adopted after 9/11
Despite what that traitor Rove said, 83% of self-described liberals were in favor of a military reponse to 9-11.
The Abramoff scandal will hang as many demo moonbats as it will repubs
LOL, sure it will, pal.
The Washington office of Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds, a Seattle-based law firm, keeps adding Republicans . . . Earlier this year, Preston Gates hired Jack Abramoff, a high-powered Republican with impeccable conservative credentials.
From the K Street Corridor
April 8, 1995
If a Republican era began in 1994, Jack Abramoff is K Street’s future . . . Abramoff has given himself the tough task of advancing the goals of the conservative revolution while also making money. ”They agreed that I could work on things that were important to me,” Abramoff said.
Jack Abramoff: A Lobbyist
With a Line to Capitol Hill
July 29, 1995
Some insiders have already bet on the Republicans. This summer the Association of American Railroads hired a Republican, Edward R. Hamberger, as president; and the new head of AT&T Corp’s Washington office, James W. Cicconi, was a top official in the Bush White House. ”These groups really drive K Street,” says Jack Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist with the law firm of Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds.
K Street, That GOP Street?
September 19, 1998
Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his book of lucrative clients and GOP connections are leaving Preston Gates Ellis and Rouvelas Meeds 12/31 to join Greenberg Traurig. Abramoff, a member of the kitchen cabinet of House Maj. Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX), plans to bring about 10 lobbyists with him . . . Greenberg Traurig nat’l gov’t chair Fred Baggett: “We’re heavy into substance lobbyists. Jack is heavy into the relationship side.”
Career Track: Abramoff and Running
December 14, 2000
Now comes word that Jack Abramoff, the firm’s star GOP lobbyist, has jumped ship to Greenberg Traurig and plans to take up to 15 folks with him. ” They’re completely Republican-less with a Republican House, Senate and president,” one source crowed about Preston Gates.
Heard on the Hill
December 18, 2000
Abramoff said the Bush team’s careful and deliberate approach to leadership is the exact opposite of the Clinton team. “The feeding frenzy which started even before Clinton was inaugurated, and continued to the final pardon, was perhaps best exemplified by the reckless and unprofessional handling of his responsibility to appoint honorable public servants,” he said.
Lobbyists approve of Bush’s businesslike style
May 2, 2001
Jack Abramoff has recruited a new Republican lobbyist for his team: Hill staffer Neil Volz. Volz, 31, works as the chief of staff for Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio . . . Volz says he’ll miss the flow of the legislative process, but now he plans to “enjoy it from a different angle.”
February 9, 2002
It’s being dubbed the “battle of the Republican uber-lobbyists,” pitting Haley Barbour, once the face of the GOP, and quiet Jack Abramoff, his biggest competitor. The jockeying for the top spot kicked into high gear this month when Abramoff helped open the posh Signatures restaurant, down the street from Barbour & Co.’s Caucus Room. This place is hot — and booked with GOP fundraisers . . . Also, Abramoff’s lobbying team just beat Barbour’s over an Indian casino issue in Louisiana. What’s more, he’s a big pal of Rep. Tom DeLay, the likely next House majority leader. “He’s the face of the new generation,” says an ally.
U.S. News & World Report
March 25, 2002
Last summer, in an effort to raise the visibility of his Indian clients, Abramoff helped arrange a White House get-together on tax issues with President Bush for top Indian leaders . . . The lobbyist also reportedly invited the Coushattas and two other tribal clients to a dinner party last fall that included [Interior Secretary Gale] Norton.
The K Street Jackpot From Indian Casinos
April 20, 2002
No tribe spends more–or more effectively–than Mississippi’s Choctaw . . . Most of the money has gone to one of the capital’s premier lobbyists, Jack Abramoff, a top Republican Party fund raiser. It was money well spent. In the 1997 legislative caper, Thad Cochran, Mississippi’s five-term Republican Senator, slipped into a 40,000-word appropriations bill a 19-word sentence that exempts the tribe from oversight by the National Indian Gaming Commission.
Playing The Political Slots
December 23, 2002
In a business built on relationships, Abramoff has more than two decades of involvement in Republican politics to draw on. . . . With the Republicans now in control of the White House, House and Senate, and his friend Tom DeLay (R-Texas) controlling the House agenda, Abramoff does not have to look far to find clients interested in his services.
Republican power broker
Jack Abramoff on lobbying in the Bush II era
March 26, 2003
“I think it’s a very different administration … compared to the Clinton days. They’re going to go out of the way to make sure that they are not courting special favors to lobbyists and to special interests . . . From a good government point of view, that’s very refreshing. From a lobbying point of view, it’s obviously more of a challenge.”
Quoted in: “Republican power broker
Jack Abramoff on lobbying in the Bush II era “
March 26, 2003
The (Bush) campaign . . . has 18 individuals who qualified as “Rangers” by helping raise at least $200K and 50 who qualified as “Pioneers” by helping to raise at least $100K. . . . Pioneers include . . . lobbyist Jack Abramoff.”
Bush: Take it to the Limit – and Beyond
July 16, 2003
“Everyone in town is trying to be a Pioneer or Ranger. But the only way to do it is to have contacts outside of D.C., which fortunately I do. So far I’ve raised about $120,000, and I haven’t even really started making calls.”
Quoted in: “Bush Loyalists Compete
for Spots on President’s A-Team “
New York Times
July 21, 2003
At least a dozen Republican influence merchants made the pilgrimage to Crawford on August 9 to hang out for a few hours at a barbecue with President Bush and his top campaign advisers . . . Abramoff, who didn’t go to Crawford because he does not travel on the Jewish Sabbath, added that when he reaches his $200,000 target as a Ranger, he plans “to try to help some other lobbyists meet their goals” by helping to organize small strategy meetings.
All the President’s Moneymen
September 6, 2003
In 2000, Abramoff was one of a half-dozen Washington lobbyists who raised $100,000 for the Bush campaign. This cycle, at least four partners at Abramoff’s firm hope to raise at least that amount.
Insiders Vie to Raise Cash for Bush
October 15, 2003
“I know Jack Abramoff and I know Wayne Berman. They are Republicans; they were Republicans before they were lobbyists.”
Former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie
October 15, 2003
The College Republican group is an integral part of the GOP network . . . Among those who served as chairman or executive director were Atwater; Rove; Grover Norquist, an influential conservative activist in Washington; Jack Abramoff . . . and Ralph Reed, who ran the Christian Coalition at the height of its prowess and now is a top southern consultant.”
Another Lobbyist Emerges
From the GOP Trenches
January 13, 2004
On a warm evening in June 2003, a star-studded crowd of political and corporate conservative celebrities flocked to the Homer Building on 13th Street NW to toast the opening of the Washington outpost of [Ralph Reed’s] public-affairs firm Century Strategies . . . Mingling in the lobby and enjoying drinks and hors d’oeuvres were the likes of Ken Mehlman, now the campaign manager for Bush-Cheney ’04; former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, chairman of the Bush campaign and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee; Grover Norquist, the conservative anti-tax activist; Jack Abramoff, then an uber-lobbyist for Indian casinos; and lobbyists from some of Reed’s blue-chip corporate clients.”
July 17, 2004
“If you look around Washington, D.C., today, and you look around College Republicans 20 years ago . . . if you look at who’s running the town . . . they’re all from College Republicans.”
Quoted In: “College Republicans
raring to go in 2004″
Gannett News Service
July 25, 2003
Someone says they’re close to being a rocket scientist, but can’t figure out how to post a comment to Wizbang just ONCE. It’s easy, just press the Post button ONE time.
Yes your right insurgencies have been put down by brutality in the past but also in the past those same tactics have actually flamed insurgencies and looking at Iraq that’s exactly what would happen there take the prime example of Falluja which was flamed after the firing on protestors by US troops.
The nuclear non proliferation treaty oh yes is that the one that North Korea has now pulled out of, the one that did not get ratified by the US congress is that the treaty your talking about, and what Iran is doing is still within the agreement of the original NPT.
What really makes me laugh though on here is how people get shocked at the thought of politcians lies i mean come on where the hell have you been for the last 100 years
I agree there is no easy answer in Iraq. It’s the same dilemma the U.S. has faced before, how to defeat combatants who hide within a civilian population. It’s really up to the people of Iraq to either fight for some sort of inclusive government or accept what’s imposed on them by the insurgents. As the U.S. begins it’s pullout, the people of Iraq may realize that how they will be governed is really up to them. Hopefully they don’t realize it too late.
The antics of North Korea doesn’t let Iran off the hook. If Iran persists in it’s current path, the long standing U.S. policy of deterrence should be extended to Iran. We just need to make it clear that any nuclear weapon used by terrorists will result in nuclear retaliation against Iran. There will be no hiding behind the civilian population as the civilian population is the target, just as has been the case for 50 years between the U.S. and Russia. Any country that joins the nuclear club also joins the target list. If you don’t want to be on the target list, live up to the requirements of the non-proliferation treaty.
It’s not that politicians lie, it’s what they lie about that shows their character. Everyone lies for social reasons and for strategic reasons in negotiations. It’s a given that cops lie when interrogating suspects. Show me someone who says they never lie and I will show you someone who is either a liar, mentally ill, or not human. It’s a lie like Clinton’s that demonstrates a serious character flaw. The type of character flaw many don’t want in a president.
Boy, it’s ironic how many people lecture me about reading closely while missing so many facts themselves. Harrell said when the Clinton scandal broke “the world came crashing down.” If that doesn’t sound like a turning point, I don’t know what does. And my point was that a scandal nvolving one President shouldn’t be enough to make you change your party affiliation, but I guess if your political views were formed based on what you thought would get you the most tail, then you’re shallow enough to do anything.
As for the case he makes for how the Democratic response to 9/11 made him a Republican, I call bullshit. Everything he’s saying is part of the mythology, not what people experienced at the time. The Democrats overwhelmingly supported the invasion of Afghanistan, as well as the Patriot Act. And please quote the Democrats who said after 9/11 “its our fault and lets try to understand the terrorists.” And when Kerry said Bush “rushed into battle” he was talking about Iraq, not Afghanistan. If you still think we went into Iraq in response to 9/11 then you’re just not paying attention. And as for Howard Dean, he said when we capture bin Laden (back when we thought Bush cared about capturing him) we should put him on trial. If that’s so offensive, how do you feel about us putting Saddam on trial? We put the Nazis on trial, for Christ’s sake. It’s not that outrageous an idea. You folks are fond of claiming that anyone who comes here and says he used to be a Republican is a lying Democratic troll. Well, from the tone of Harrell’s post, I sincerely doubt he was ready to vote Democratic in 2004.
Face it, we all got scared after 9/11, but some of us kept our heads and some just wanted a strong daddy who would make them feel safe. Well, you got George Bush and he’s turned out to be one of the worst Presidents in history. Virtually everything he has touched has turned to shit. Pay a little attention to who won the election in Iraq and tell me that’s a good outcome. And if you think the Abramoff scandal is going to affect both parties equally, keep dreaming. The Republican spin machine keeps pressing that point, so of course you’re going to have the idiot press picking up on it. But as the indictments start to come down people will become more aware that not a single Democrat got money from Abramoff. This is a Republican scandal, like it or not.
You can all talk about how it’s too bad that the Democrats are so weak, and how the country could really use a two-party system. Well, like it or not, it’s the political center that decides elections, and if you think the whole country’s turned Republican, you’re in for a rude surprise. More voters voted Democrat than Republican in 2000, Bush won by three points in 2004, the smallest margin ever for a sitting President in time of war (and certainly not a “mandate.”) Democratic senators represent 55 percent of the population. The Republicans took over the House in 1994 because the public saw the Democrats as corrupted after years in power. And if you don’t think that describes the Republicans, wake up. When people start seeing the ramifications of the prescription drug bill the Republicans gave to their lobbyist friends, it’s going to get even worse.
When the Democrats regain control, it won’t be because the country is suddenly Demoicrat, either. It will be because the voters recognize that one-party control of government is a dangerous thing. The Repuiblicans have demonstrated that in spades.
Belittling people who want to be safe in their own country won’t win points here or anywhere else I know of. You sure seem to lean toward those who said we should figure out how we offended the terrorists and try not to do in again. What those idiots haven’t figured out yet is that it’s their breathing that offends the terrorists.
His term is not up and the fruits of his labors have yet to be reviled and yet you claim to speak for history. Your statement is wishful leftist propaganda and nothing else.
What have you been smoking? Several Democrats have already admitted getting money from Abramoff and made a show of giving it to charity. Some Democrats have even decided to keep it thinking as you do that it “is a Republican scandal”, but no one knows at this point if voters will make that distinction. We’ll all find out this fall.
First of all, I come here to try to offer some reasoned responses to what are usually right of center arguments. I don’t really expect to “win points.” And it would be helpful if you pointed out what I said that made it seem that I “lean toward those who said we should figure out how we offended the terrorists and try not to do in again.” As I said, we were all scared after 9/11. But there’s a knee-jerk response to fear and a reasoned response. The notion that Bush will keep us safe because he dresses up in a flight suit is laughable. He so far has shown no ability to manage the important task of keeping us safe. Please tell me what he’s done that has made us safer?
And before I post a response, I usually try to check my facts to make sure what I’m saying is true, not just conventional wisdom. You might try to do the same. As you’ll see from this story,
Abramoff did not give a dime to Democrats. Some of the tribes he represented gave money, but they had been doing it all along. Remember, the tribes were being defrauded by Abramoff. They haven’t forfeited their right to donate money to politicians just because they’re the victims of fraud. As a matter of fact, Abramoff’s clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors to give more to Republicans than Democrats. In other words, Indian tribes generally give to Democrats unless they’re working with Abramoff, at which point they become Republican donors. It’s not unusual for a Senator from Nevada to receive money from both gaming and Indian interests, both of which deal with issues that are important to his constituency. I’m not arguing that it’s wrong for anyone, Democrat or Republican, to take lawful donations. That’s not what this scandal’s about.
I don’t blame you for being confused. The Republicans, as usual, are doing a pretty good job of lying about the issue. Even your President said that Abramoff gave money to Republicans and Democrats, and you know he knows better. How do you feel when your own President lies to you? And of course the media worries so much about offending the Republicans that they dutifully repeat the spin. They know better, too.
And by the way, I only share what I’m smoking with my friends.
I think it’s funny that this guy writes a very heartfelt piece about his political journey to the right and all the tolerant openminded liberals jump on him with “You’re Stupid! You’re Evil! You’re Worthless!” I turned 18 in 1991 and, like the author, I spent a large swath of my twenties as a proper goodthinkful liberal, ladeling gallons of scorn on people I disagreed with and smugly patting myself on the back over how tolerant I was. The change started slowly after I graduated from college and actually had to live in the real world. It accelerated when I met a man named Orrin Judd (who runs the brothersjudd.com blog these days) who taught me that conservative does not necessarily equal pure evil. He showed me that you can be a conservative and still be a hell of a great guy. (Believe it or not, that had never occurred to me!) Once I started looking at conservative beliefs with an actual open mind (instead of a pretend liberal open mind) I realized how many conservative beliefs were ones that I had shared my whole life! It was an epiphany. I voted for Bush in 2000, with some trepidation. After all, he was my first Republican. After that terrible day in September I knew I had made the right decision and I never looked back. Of course, like the author of this piece, I have been demonized and hated by many of the people I had thought were my friends, but all that did was show me who my true friends are.
A fine piece of writing. I’ll be adding your blog to my aggregator.
“all the tolerant openminded liberals jump on him with “You’re Stupid! You’re Evil! You’re Worthless!”
Huh? It’s nice to know that I take the time to write a lengthy rebuttal and do some fact checking to make sure I’ve got my facts straight, and that’s the best you can come up with. Please tell me what I wrote that comes remotely close to the way you characterize it.
I wasn’t talking about you.
From the source you cited.
Other democrats have already returned or donated the money they received. Obviously, they feel that voters are making a connection between them and Abramoff because of the money, regardless of whether Abromoff gave it to them personally or through some associate, and that’s why they are returning it. They have already been tainted and they are trying to cut their losses.
Typical straw-man argument. Where has anyone claimed that “Bush will keep us safe because he dresses up in a flight suit?”
I know leftists don’t like Bush and you’re entitled to your opinion, but that’s all it is. My opinion is that Bush is way ahead of the left in understanding the true nature of the threat to this country. There are likely many more secrete programs in place that haven’t been leaked to the New York Times, so no one who knows the true impact of the Bush policies can speak out at this time.
Worrying that donations will look like they came from Abramoff is not the same as them actually coming from Abramoff. A politician may return money because he doesn’t want to have to deal with the issue. That’s not the same as returning it because it came from Abramoff. And again, accepting donations isn’t illegal. If a tribe donates to a politician, unless there’s a quid pro quo, how does he know it’s at Abramoff’s direction? Many of these tribes were making donations before Abramoff ever entered the picture. And there’s strong evidence that in many cases he was telling them that their donations were buying them access when it really wasn’t. I have no problem with a Republican who got a donation from an entity that happened to be an Abramoff client. But this investigation goes way beyond that, as the Republicans will soon find out.
And I’d still like to know what Bush has done to keep us safe. Other than “secret programs” we’re not supposed to know about. Although I still don’t believe we should have gone into Iraq, our military success there is credit to the fact that Clinton left us with the finest military in the world. The planning beforehand and occupation afterward are Bush’s responsibility, and they’ve been a mess.
our military success there is credit to the fact that Clinton left us with the finest military in the world
Don’t know many people in the military, do you, Chris?
Gawd, best laugh line tonight!
I have said this many times to friends of mine…
“I was born a democrat, I became a Republican when I realized I could think for myself…”
“I was born a democrat, I became a Republican when I realized I could think for myself…”
Sorry, Darleeen – Todd’s line above would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
Who knows if Bill Clinton left us with the finest military in the world, and who cares. The facts show us that George Bush is a complete incompentent (Iraq) who also happens to be corrupt (Jack Abramoff).
Independent voters are the ones who will decide who wins in 06 and 08, and independent voters hate George Bush. Go to PollingPoint.com and check it out for yourself.