I mean, you just know the Faux Noise Machine, and Rush and all the other spinmeisters are, even as we speak, taking Boehner at his word, making the Dems who called him out look like whiny babies, and asking in essence, "what's the problem?"

And the 25%-ers (yes, the number is getting lower, but it's still too high) are just eating it up. They still BELIEVE the crap.

So nothing we say here matters one bit in the overall discussion. Boehner has been acquitted without a trial, and the people who would be most offended if a Dem did EXACTLY the same thing will forgive Boehner. Or really, not even forgive him because they believe he did nothing for which he NEEDS forgiveness. It sickens me to see this happen over and over and over again.

Baaaa. Baaabaaabaaaa.

...Bush engaged in appeals to history, which he now says on nearly every occasion will absolve him.

Doesn't anyone read history anymore?

That is Fidel Castro's famous pronouncement in his self-defense before the Cuban court in 1953: "La historia me absolvera`"

http://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/archive/castro/1953/10/16.htm

So far, both Castro and Bush have been wrong about this.

But hey, if humanity survives, perhaps it will happen some day...

but I must point out that the term "liberal media" is far older than Pat Robertson's use of it in the late 80's, as bernbart suggests. I rather doubt the actual origin of it can BE found, so ingrained in the culture has it become, but I know from personal experience, having seen him do it, that Nixon (and more to the point, his hatchetman Spiro Agnew) used the term and its expanded concept as far back as 1969 or so. I'm not sure (and don't have time just now to look it up), but I believe LBJ may have used it as well. Interesting that I think that about a supposed "liberal" Dem preznit...wish I knew why.

But in any case, it's older than Robertson's use of it in the late 80's. For one thing, Robertson has never had an original idea in his life.

I'm deeply disappointed in this move by Mr. Blumenthal, but hey...I guess everyone has the right to pay the bills however they may.

Two quick points on the actual content of the article:

1) If the Repugnicans simply MUST have an "infallible" leader, couldn't they have done better than GWB? Or did it require a dimwit like him, because anyone with half an ounce of sense couldn't have pulled off the gig?

2) This "infallible" thing may be happening again, and as one may expect, with a similar dimwit, Mitt Romney. See the following article, in which Romney in essence admits that he learned everything he needed to learn in the late 1960's, and hasn't changed much since then.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/us/politics/15romney.html

When will the Repugs STOP believing that a refusal to change thought or action, regardless of evidence to the contrary, is an attractive quality in a leader?

Huh? When?