> The concept of the National Review being objective is as humorous as > thinking Mother Jones is objective.
Maybe I should have said "intelligent" instead. Have you read the article I recommended? It's about as dry and objective as they come and backs up every paragraph with real direct evidence. > As for Bush, Cheney, and the corporate inside traders: when your best > campaign contributor and key insider in the circle is Kenneth Lay of > Enron and you are in the oil busiiness and the sleazy ethics of the > giant corporations is being revealed (oops, there was a 4 billion dollar > mistake in our reports) and the campaign was based on "restoring > integrity" you can be sure that Bush will be judged by the same measure > with which he judged others. It also takes a lot of gall to propose > criminalizing behavior that Bush himself admittedly engaged in, no > matter how Ari Fleischer tried to spin that today. In the end, the > politics you take is equal to the politics you make. After all that was > made over Whitewater, do you think honestly this is going to go away? What exactly did Bush admit to that was "criminal?" Not knowing why one of the SEC forms wasn't filled out in a timely manner? Please read the link from National Review. You still don't get my point or choose to ignore it. I'm all for locking up anyone who breaks the law. But first they have to be tried in a court of law and convicted of it, you know? They are not all guilty just because people who don't like them think they are guilty or wish they were guilty. They are certainly not automatically guilty because they are wealthy or have worked in the oil business. And when they are tried or investigated and cleared, their should not be a call to re-try and re-try them over and over until one gets their desired outcome. What the hell kind of kangaroo courts are people advocating? And only for Republicans, of course. Here's some links about Clinton/Gore and the Democrats are Enron for your perusal (and which appear to be from both leftist and "mainstream" media) http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020408&c=1&s=greider http://www.unionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=10765 http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_7142.html http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/enron_cong_house.asp > If you go back in the archives far enough, you will find that I > suggested in early 2000 that the only Republican who could cleanly run > for the presidency was McCain. That still holds. McCain has for all intents and purposes become a Democrat because a large amount of Republicans rejected him and he wants to stay in the game. Oh, but really Harken and Enron are all so old news now that the grand booty of Halliburton is shining on the horizon. Ooo, maybe they can take down both the President and the Vice President now with one stone!! Woo hoo! Kakki
