He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct

I really would like to know why the media (CNN, most of AM radio, CBS, most newspapers and Fox) thinks that a Democrat that MIGHT be guilty of jaywalking to is a bigger story then a Republican that has robbed a bank, Why has CNN devoted 50 times as much coverage to Harry Reid’s land deal as Dennis Hastert’s?

From October 12-17, CNN aired 3,361 words about allegations that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (NV) improperly reported a land deal in which he made $700,000.

Seventeen different CNN transcripts in the Nexis database include mention of the Reid land deal — and that doesn’t even count October 18, when CNN has aired at least one more lengthy segment on the deal.

By comparison, CNN has aired only 65 words about a land deal in which House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) made nearly $2 million, a story which was first reported by the Chicago Sun-Times on June 15. By contrast, the Reid land deal first broke a week ago, when the Associated Press reported on October 11 that Reid had made $700,000 “on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn’t personally owned the property for three years.”

Hastert’s property appreciated in value after he earmarked taxpayer funding for a highway near the property — but only two CNN transcripts contain any mention of Hastert’s land deal, for a total word count that is one-fiftieth the number of words CNN has devoted to the Reid story.

Now much evidence is there that Senator Reid used the power of his office in his land deal (selling real estate or transferring ownership is still legal isn’t it) for personal gain? None to date. How much evidence is there that House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) used his office and power to make a ton of cash? Plenty.

No this is not snark, McCain: “I’d just commit suicide” if Democrats take control of Senate

“I think I’d just commit suicide,” McCain said, as the Republicans standing beside him burst into laughter. “I don’t want to face that eventuality because I don’t think it’s going to happen…I think it’s going to be tough, but I think we’ll do o.k.” A few moments later McCain turned to Congressman Latham and joked that Latham would probably commit suicide first, as polls suggest control of the House is likely to swing to Democrats in this year’s election.

According to McCain, the current “tenor” of campaigns is too negative and he hopes the courts can help stop new groups called “527s” which are able to skirt campaign contribution limits. “The 527s are pernicious evil that needs to be eliminated,” McCain said. “We have a Federal Elections Commission that will not enforce the law and they are an absolute national disgrace.” McCain said.

McCain was also asked to address foreign policy issues. McCain said Democrats, like fellow Senator John Kerry, were wrong to criticize the Bush Administration in the hours following North Korea’s test of a nuclear weapon. “I think at the time of the crisis, we should probably support the president,” McCain said. “I was disappointed that the Democrats almost immediately started criticizing President Bush’s policies. I thought it was a time we should rally behind the president.”

Well Johnny Boy a man has to do what he has to do so good luck whatever you decide that you feel is right for you. As far as supporting Bush goes, patriotic Americans are simply refusing to support policies that are bad for America and humanity. If the Senator would like to engage is the mindless idolatry of the Whitehouse frat boy with a fart joke fetish rather then defend the Constitution, fight for fiscal responsible government, fight to get everyone health care, fight for a winning strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq, I guess that is the senator’s business, and good luck running on that platform for president. Vote for McCain so we’ll continue to have the same dismal excuse for leadership.

The idea of a Democratic majority fills Senator McCains(R-AZ) head with thoughts of suicide, but Peter Hoekstra, R.-Mich as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee doesn’t bother him at all, Duke Cunningham’s Little Helpers

The scale of the bribery scheme that sent Rep. Duke Cunningham, R.-Calif., to jail exceeded any other in recorded congressional history. The former Vietnam War hero collected an estimated $2.4 million in payoffs before his lack of subtlety attracted the notice of government prosecutors. “In the sheer dollar amount, he is the most corrupt,” Deputy House Historian Fred W. Beuttler said in March when Cunningham was sentenced to eight years and four months.

The scope of Cunningham’s corruption was so vast that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence couldn’t avoid ordering a preliminary inquiry into what assistance Cunningham might have received from committee staff in securing earmarks on behalf of his two co-conspirators, defense contractors Mitchell Wade and Brent Wilkes. The answer is “quite a lot.” Although no evidence turned up of serious bribery (the most lurid payoff appears to have been a souvenir “Global War on Terrorism” rug), the investigation concluded that staff members were well aware that Cunningham’s earmarks were a waste of taxpayer money. On Oct. 17 the committee’s ranking member, Rep. Jane Harman, D.-Calif., released an executive summary of the report, prompting an immediate objection by the committee’s chairman, Peter Hoekstra, R.-Mich., who said the report was an “incomplete, internal committee document.” Two other considerations may be that the report paints an implicitly damning picture of Hoekstra’s leadership of the committee, which in this instance might fairly be called neglectful, and that it does so less than a month before the midterm congressional elections.

We all occasionally reach out and with the pitter patter of our keyboards plea for some rational political discourse. But how do you you have rational discourse with the  irrational McCain(R-AZ) or Hoekstra. They’re not mentally or morally competent enough to run a shoeshine stand much less make policy decisions that effect the whole world.

Challenging the Culture of Obedience

A patriot does not tell people who are intensely concerned about their country to just sit down and be quiet; to refrain from speaking out in the name of politeness or for the sake of being a good host; to show slavish, blind obedience and deference to a dishonest, war-mongering, human-rights-violating President.

That is not a patriot. Rather, that person is a sycophant. That person is a member of a frightening culture of obedience–a culture where falling in line with authority is more important than choosing what is right, even if it is not easy, safe, or popular. And, I suspect, that person is afraid–afraid we are right, afraid of the truth (even to the point of denying it), afraid he or she has put in with an oppressive, inhumane regime that does not respect the laws and traditions of our country, and that history will rank as the worst presidency our nation has ever had to endure.

In response to those who believe we should blindly support this disastrous President, his Administration, and the complacent, complicit Congress, listen to the words of Theodore Roosevelt, a great President and a Republican, who said: The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.