Plum Crazy

"Politicians suck."

Damn straight ... err ... um ... judging by the latest scandals I would have to say repubs suck more.

Seriously, what I don't get is the hatred dems have for shrub. What has he done that is out of line with their policy preferences? He signed the 1st ammendment trampling McCain Feingold. He signed Ted Kenedy's Education bill. He expanded medicare at a greater cost than Hillary care was allegedly going to cost. He signed numerous bills containing more ear marks than the democrat controlled congress had the gall to send to Reagan/Bush I or what Bill happily signed from a republican controlled congress.

The war in Iraq? It is a continuation of Bush I's and Clinton policies and actions. Indeed it is the logical path following a long line of bungling from Carter and the Iranian haostage crisis, Reagan's non-response to Islamofascists in Beruit, Bush I's incomplete GW-I (Wildly popular and cited by dems and repubs alike as "the" way to fight, and Clinton (and his people) and most of the current dems policy statements that regime change is the Iraq policy goal. So shrub took them at their word. (yes I am lumping islamo-fascists in one big stinking pile a bit of a simplification but I think still a valid generalization)

Seriously, what I don't get is the hatred dems have for shrub. What has he done that is out of line with their policy preferences?

No, seriously, now pull the other one. Advocating for torture. Eliminating habeas corpus. Spying on US citizens. Doing nothing while US citizens drown (see also "New Orleans and Katrina") Trying to tear down the church/state wall of separation ("Intelligent design", right). Campaigning on the "evils" of gays and lesbians getting married. Appointing judges who will vote against reproductive freedoms (contraception is under attack now too).

And, yes, the war in Iraq. It was the logical conclusion of nothing. Saddam Hussein was not a direct threat to the US. Even if he had WMD, they wouldn't have been powerful enough to threaten the US. Regime change may well have been our policy goal, with good reason, but there's more than one way to achieve that goal. A lot of the Democrats, who aren't serving in Congress, never believed that a full-scale invasion and occupation was the way to achieve that.

What I can't figure out is how any libertarian can stand to vote for the man who is the antithesis of every libertarian principle. And I'm not talking about you, as I don't know whether you did or would vote for him. I think of faux-libertarians like Glenn Reynolds. He's a libertarian as much as my cat is. In fact, my cat is probably more libertarian. She is big into individualism.

I didn't vote for shrub, nor did I vote for Kay Hutchinson this time around.

What I said is I don't get the hatred dems have for shrub. Other than opposing gay marriage and abortion what has shrub done that is so out of the mainstream democrat platform and positions of the past 20 or so years?

BTW the Zionist machine wasn't running to well. Kinky (former front man for the Texas JewBoys band) got soundly defeated.

I had a rough time voting FOR anybody here. We are still stuck with a guv who thought it a grand idea to spend piles of cash ($5 million) to put up a handful of cameras on the border that you can, from teh comfort of your own desk view via the internet, in an effort to slow illegal immigration.

I hope someday soon we are treated to some u-tube video of illegals stealing the cameras. The cameras will be about as fiscally responsible as the partial wall (at least $3.18 million per mile - as if any government project came in on budget) shrub trumpets as a major accomplishment. I wonder how many people we could hire to process legal immigration petitions with that kind of cash. Oh I forgot we don't want huddled masses yearning to be free anymore. Pity.