Joan Walsh:

I stopped answering letters claiming I'm in the tank for Hillary a while ago. But I'm going to finish this answer, and then reprint it in every letters thread when it comes up again. Unless, Xrandadu, you want to do that for me?

George Bush:

See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.

Joan says tomato, George says tomahto...

from the Democrats' point of view. This guy has so many skeletons in his closet, the friggin' door is bulging! The guy and his new wife both can be crucified by their own words. Just roll the tape where Rudy says that taxpayers should pay for abortions. That's bound to go down well among the American Taliban. And then roll the tape showing his psycho wife injecting drugs into cats and dogs and watching them die.

Overall, these two are psycho. And I'm guessing that can be handily beat.

However, I admit it's quite a risk. If the Supreme Court ends up appointing the president like they did in 2000, then our illustrious history of representative government and all that comes with it, would come to a grinding halt.

I honestly believe that Republicans would put loyalty to their Party ahead of loyalty to the country and the Constitution.

WOULD put? You don't need to use the conditional tense there. Republicans HAVE, WILL and DO put loyalty to their party ahead of loyalty to the country and the constitution. Every time. That's what makes them Republicans.

Anyone still identifying themselves as a republican after 7 years of Bush lawlessness clearly places no value on the country or the constitution.

In other news, President Bush says that Saddam has stockpiles of WMDs. Saddam says he doesn't. And we'll leave it at that. We have neither the expertise nor the interest to look into this any further.

Meanwhile, a woman was murdered. The cops said her husband came out of the house covered in blood, wielding a knife, and was arrested. The husband's lawyer said it wasn't him. Both stories have merit. And we'll leave it at that.

In the 2008 election, the Republican says he won. The Democrat says he/she won. Both sides have a point. We'll just leave it at that.

Hell, I could get better information from a magic 8 ball.

The time to come out saying that was in 2004. To say it now just proves you to be part of the same incompetence and malfeasance.

Last January, "The Surge" was defined as a military strategy designed to enable a political end, where the political end was the only real objective.

Today, "The Surge" is defined as a military strategy designed to achieve a military goal, with political objectives being basically irrelevant.

Pointing out this moving of the goalposts is totally straightforward. Just provide quotes from these two periods, and let the words of Republican fascists hang themselves. You don't actually need to utter a word yourself.

I'm serious. On the political stage, the party has become synonymous with corruption up to the topmost levels, with no real progress to ever show for it. On the pundit level, it embraces and embodies the most hateful speech uttered publicly. And on the grassroots level, it's a big tent of psychos, American Taliban and bedwetters. At what point does this group get labeled a terrorist organization?

When will the talking heads start accusing Senator Clinton of staging this for the publicity?

FreeRepublic is way ahead of you:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1932902/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1932904/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1932905/posts

Seriously, guys, it really must suck to be a republican these days. I mean, look what they're reduced to!

So what's the difference between Senators Craig and Clinton, other than party affiliation?

I mean, DAMN! The elephant uses the occasional big word, which leads me to believe that unlike most of his 29%er brethren, his IQ actually EXCEEDS his number of teeth. Which makes today's sad display something like finding a college graduate pricing cans of soup: a case of intentionally dumbing down one's own potential to the point of criminality.

Clearly, the Elephant got locked into one of those behavior patterns that Republicans just can't resist: when their party or its policies are looking bad, bring up one of the Clintons, no matter how irrelevant to the conversation. If that doesn't work, one can always try William Jefferson's cash in the freezer. And finally, if none of that works, you gotta go all the way back to Chappaquiddick. The point is to pretend that these issues have some sort of relevance to the current one, such that what happened in the past can somehow erase (or at least mitigate) what's happening in the present.

You all seem to have a rather imaginitive bunch of theories, however undounded, about the general predilictions of Republicans. And you take offense at the mildest of observations about Senator Clinton?

So, is it a theory that Larry Craig tried to solicit sex in a men's room? Seems to me it's a fact as recognized by our justice system. Therefore, it's not "undounded." What is "undounded" is the "Hillary munches rug" rumor. That is, apart from a few highly doubtable "he-said/she-said" comments, there is nothing to support that claim. If you can't see that, well, it goes a long way in explaining why you still support Bush and the Republicans.

I'm not offended that you brought it up: far from it. I love it when you expose in sharp relief the limits of your worldview. It's always encouraging. Keep it up. Thanks.