What happened to the Eisenhower republicans, or even the Nixon republicans for that matter? The party’s has lost its soul.

Stay tuned for additional tired sports metaphors.

“Sorry I didn’t laugh at that and say nothing in response.”

So this sentence refers to…what, exactly?

“When someone makes a point, why go THERE?”

Is this a line from your high school years?

As for your ‘obsession’ I only meant why bring it up in one of the two sentences of some sort of ‘response’ to me, in which nobody mentions Clinton at all. It does not connect to this in any way shape or form. When someone makes a point, why go THERE? You’re the one that took it THERE. The second someone takes it out of bounds I steal the ball and just run with it. It’s more for humor than anything else.

In any event, sorry for my ’shoddiness’, as if your initial response was a work of logical art. Oh, someone is making a logical argument, it’s lawyer speak, just like when Clinton said “is” should be defined. Hardy har har. Sorry I didn’t laugh at that and say nothing in response.

I guess this really breaks them up on the Stern show – I dub thee a brilliant farseur!

You must be fantasizing- no obsession here. In fact, I’ve given him much credit in this blog (how long have you been here – not very long, based on this assumption) for his handling of the economy, his environmental record, Hillary’s foresight of the forthcoming health care crisis (although I believe that she went about it in a misguided way), and so on. OTOH, I did not care for his policies regarding the rest of the world, and have been vocal about that as well.

I’ve also stated that I cared less who did what to whom in his oval office, so it looks like you’re taking one sentence and making it into some kind of a grand oeuvre’ here. Quite shoddy work on your part, and is indicative of someone trying to make a claim that he cannot support.

If I’m wrong, please give cites for your declarative statement – if none are forthcoming, then you’re just talking out of your backside.

My last paragraph was meant to show that I’m not unreasonable about various ethical lapses being made in government. It’s going to happen, but if the intent is to defraud the public or get money out of it, it is stealing, plain and simple. It’s the same as stealing cable or pirating movies. Using your power to obtain money is one thing, in this case I don’t think that was what happened based on Reid’s history of paying for events.

No, tribes giving thousands of dollars to democratic candidates year after year and then giving less money to democrats when Abramoff gets involved isn’t lawyer talk. It’s a fact that affords some deductive conclusions the left makes. I happen to agree with that deductive logic.

I’m strongly in favor in knowing all the rules so you know how to get around them. It’s fair game. It’s how the political game will always work and I have absolutely no problem with that. However, when lobbyists are literally allowed to buy votes, that’s when I have a problem. That was not the case here. Nor was it the case in the other Solomon article.

This is just more parsing of language in the usual lawyerly – speak that we see from both sides these days. Reminds me of the infamous “no controlling legal authority,” from not too long ago, only to be topped later on from the classic statement, “depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”