I am disappointed in every democrat who voted to authorize spending for the Iraq debacle. I don't think congress declared war did they? Hmmm...I may have missed something.

But intimidated? Nahhhh...hey for a goof, just look at this.

"You know, I've experienced many great moments and it's hard to name the best," Bush told weekly Bild am Sonntag when asked about his high point since becoming president in January 2001.

"I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound (3.402 kilos) perch in my lake," he told the newspaper in an interview published on Sunday.

(I just couldn't help it.) snicker...

Intimidated? No. Sad, Yes. Disappointing, yes. Pandering, yes. Does it leave a empty spot in my liberal heart, YES.

At least Feingold calls the dems out on the issue.
Enough is enough of both parties.

I don't understand how you continue to support a "commader in chief" who's best day (in 5 years as President) is catching a freaking fish. What a bunch of rubes.

How, oh how, can you continue to swallow his rhetoric, "hook, line, and sinker."

I couldn't help it...

maroons.

I'm waiting for some Dems to start whining about how Governor George W. Bush "intimidated" them all the way from Texas to make them, against their wills, make speeches about the need for regime change in Iraq, so long before he became the "Intimidator-In-Chief". Poor babies. Did the bid bad pwesident scare the wittle senators?

See, that's the cool part about being a liberal---you can take wildly divergent positions, because when you come right down to it, it's all about emotion---and if it FELT good to hear a Clinton, He or She, make speeches about the need to get rid of Sadaam, and it FEELS bad now to see that someone else actually had the (ahem...) manly parts to actually DO just that, then both positions are equally valid. Cause it's all relative, and it's all dependent on how they are told to feel by Ranty, et Al.

As for the Big Fish story---it's certainly a few steps above being chased across a lake by an enraged rabbit.

At some point, a public persona has to get thoroughly sick and tired of the same old inane questions posed by the same old inane questioners. It's like the idiot who rushes up to the woman who just watched her house burn down, with three of her children in it, and shoves the mic into her face and asks "How do you feel?" I'm sure that raker would be one of the gullible who would buy into a sarcastic comment like "I feel great---how the hell do you THINK I feel?" and write passionate posts about the heartless woman who didn't care if her family burned to death.

I think after one insanely stupid question about his worst day in office, the president might, just might, have decided to say something completely unexpected about his best day. And for all we know, his true best moment was something he can never talk about, ever. It might have been intensely personal, or the kind of victory that has to remain top secret. Who cares? He could not have said anything that would have made a Bush-hater happy anyway, so why not just grab something out of left field?

Bwahahahahaha!!!

Only a far left wing lunatic could be "intimidated" by a vote. What a bunch of crying whining little girls.

Matt,

You forgot the word unconstitutionally in your last paragraph about wiretapping terrorists.

Could you please make the change with an "Update" so you don't confuse the blog readers.

Thanks so much.

Robert

Unconstitutional according to who? So far every single court and judge has claimed the wiretapping is Constitutional and legal. Only left wing lunatics claim its unconstitutional

I took the time to watch Sen. Whinegold -- err Feingold speaking out on this issue again. I heard nothing new, nothing compelling, nothing riveting in his comments. In my opinion, his censure motion and utterances for his fellow Dems will continue to fall on deaf ears. That is, unless and until they get a majority once again in the House. Then, being the gutless, finger-in-the-wind politicians that they are, they might - MIGHT - attempt to move on this issue. But that's what got them in trouble in the first place - having their fingers in the wind. When the wind was blowing ferociously in favor of the President invading Afghanistan and Iraq, they were jostling for a position in front of the microphone and and to be by the side of our Commander-In-Chief. When the going got rough and they started hearing from all the usual suspects in the "anti-war at all costs" crowd, they put their finger up and decided that, notwithstanding whatever they said or appeared to support only a few short years ago, they didn't really mean it after all. Thinking that the American public is too stupid and lazy and forgetful, they started up the anti-Bush, anti-War machine. Many of them got whacked down into silence when audio and videotapes of their previous positions began to be aired for all the world to see. I guess they didn't understand that the drive-by media isn't the only game in town any more.

To his credit, Sen. Feingold has been consistent in his position - as far leftist as it is. To that extent, I congratulate him. His associates in Congress could take a lesson from him on that count.

But pursuing a finger-in-the-air policy and a majority in the House won't be enough to move Sen. Feingold's agenda forward. Without the Senate being firmly in control of the Dems, any censure motion will fall flat and any attempts to move beyond censure into impeachment will be an exercise doomed to failure.

I welcome the discussion. In part, because I know that they're not going to shut up about it anyway. So, in my opinion, let them gnash their teeth and tear at their hair for as long as they want. They'll still come up with the same result - ground-down teeth and hairless!

dbogdan, as a liberal it saddens me to agree with most of your last post. I'm from Ca. (surprise?) and am also extremely disappointed in Sen. Feinstein, and her lastest lap dog approval of Hayden's nomination. Sad, sad,sad. But...can you imagine an A.G and R.F ticket? Oh gloryoski! A new dawn will break over America. It will start slowly, there's quite a mess to clean up. (to say the least). As we rejoin the world, we can again hold our heads high, a TRUE bastion of freedom and real liberty. Can you imagine it? No more U.S. torture. A day when we limit nuclear arms growth, rejoin the world in saving the earth from eco-disaster (it is real, maroons), wean ourselves from the teet of middle eastern oil, advance science and arts, and more than anything else...become proactive truly protecting human rights here at home and across the world. No more hypocrisy. Leaders again. It can happen you know, with the right leader taking us in the right direction.

Kum-Bye-yah, my lord, kum-bye-yah!

And all men and women won't have equal opportunities, they'll have equal outcomes!

Kum-Bye-yah, my lord, kum-bye-yah!

And instead of suckling the teet (sic) of middle eastern oil, we can suckle the teat of those that work and produce; REPUBLICANS!

Oh lord, Kum-bye-yah!

And it can all happen in your little fantasy world can't it? The terrorists only need your head for kissing, right? God help us if you boobs win. PS Can't you spell morons correctly or doesn't your revisionist dictionary list that word?

What an absurd and pointless post. Calling someone a crybaby and making leaps of logic that make no sense except to the 31% who still support Bush and are doing their best to lash out at his increasingly numerous and vocal critics. Yes, who would be intimidated by a President with a 90% approval rating with all the GOP wingnut spinners calling anyone who disagrees with anything Bush does a treasonous traitor? How dare the Democrats admit they were wrong? Bush is never wrong and has made no mistakes. That's what made him strong when he was high in the polls and that's what will make him a visionary to be judged by History now that he's low in the polls. It becomes much harder to call everyone who disagrees with Bush policy or the execution thereof a spineless traitor when so many conservatives are joining the chorus. But what a great precedent Bush has started, saying he doesn't need to fix any laws that are inadequate or ancient, he can just choose to ignore them in the name of national security. How disturbing that the GOP see breaking the law a matter of politics and not about right or wrong, illegal or legal, proving once again that the GOP is only interested in staying in power, and are scared to death that if the rubber-stamp conservative congress gets removed from power in November that the Bush administration make actually - gasp - be held accountable for their actions. Oversight. What a horrible notion in a Republic.

GOPisDying is the perfect example of the "hate-filled leftists," being currently discussed in a newer topic on this site...

And Judith, I think that raker13 is trying to imply "moron," but thinks he's being clever by saying "maroon," as in Red-staters...

But then again, based upon the intellectual level of most of his posts, I may be reading too much into his comments...