Replies

Thanks for the ping, Save.

I was so disappointed yesterday, when the Waxman lynch mob asked if anyone had ever gotten off easier than the WH "leakers" @ Plame, that no one mentioned Sandy Berger's grossly inadequate penalty for his gross violation of security.

The Republicans got out maneuvered in their effort to make the Barret Report public. The DoJ gave Sandy Berger a virtual pass. William Jefferson's exposure for hiding $90,000 in ill gotten money in his freezer was defended by Haestert. The Republican party seems to have lost their way. Talk about the gang who couldn't shoot straight!

The Democrats commit serious felonies and receive little or no penalty. The Republicans, conversely, face serious penalties and much publicity for a crime that never was [Plame]. Now, we must undergo the one sided charges of corruption from the likes of Henry Waxman who never saw an anti-Bush allegation which he couldn't embrace.

I hope that someone runs for President that will insist on the same standards for both sides and who is not part of the political fraternity that exists in Washington and that appears more concerned with incumbency than doing the right thing!

Never did I expect to see a responsible Republican cooperate with Teddy Kennedy on anything. We now have a current President and a Presidential hopeful that have cosponsored legislation with a man who has shamed his family's name.

And I don't cut very much slack for Newt either. He has worked with Hillary to broaden his political base for a possible run. It is time to run the political hacks out of office and replace them with volunteer statesmen, who do not run to have a career, but run to make this a better country.

BTW, "Happy St. Patrick's Day" from the O'FOX family.

The problem with the old ways in dealing with the Clintons is that they inoculated themselves against legal scrutiny.

The benefit to taking a less aggressive stance by allowing outrage to bubble over includes:

a) the peevish tone that Sandy Berger wants to make this stop
b) the demonstration that Hillary Clinton is a narcissistic control freak
c) the increased commentary that Berger still hasn't complied with his sentence
d) genuine alienation by potential Hillary voters.

Here's the deal. The liberal establishment went nuts in 1968 and went even crazier every year thereafter. After Clinton's presidency, no conservative or Rep can speak ill of a Clinton without the tarnish of the VRWC. It backfired. In spades. (BTW, I just finished the first book by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and this is exactly like the Muslim tribes)

By shutting up, the unthinkable happens. Democrats and liberals do the job that really needs to get done and they criticize them.

Why else would Sandy Berger have written an email to the ever fair Michael Barone to try to make this go away?

BTW Regarding cooperation with Senator Ted, clearly you forget Senator Orrin Hatch, who does call him a friend. Senator Hatch, who as I recall, was relentless in his shots to limit the antics in the Judiciary Committee for Justices Roberts and Alito.

If you read Michael Barone's original article on Berger, which is available here
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070311/19barone.htm

you could also ask how a nice guy like Barone could know and like Berger for 30 years. Barone thinks that Berger couldn't have done it except at a command of Clinton. That is the core of the reason why it's so credible that Clintons forced him to write the email.

One more thing, it hurts Kennedy more than Bush for him to call him a good friend.

And as David Brooks says, say what you will about W, but when he believes something is the right thing to do, he is unmoved by polls.

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1060366.html

It's understandable that it wasn't known that he believes that immigration law today is bad law and that he believes that it's wrong to get in the way of someone trying to do what's necessary to take care of his family.