…I find this particularly diverting.

Oh, and just FYI — El Rushbo himself (Limbaugh, that is) agrees with you. He seems to think it is pretty silly that we are focused on Foley (esp. given the confusing and contradictory versions of the story), while we have other serious issues to deal with - terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Regardless of your specific position on these issues, I would much rather see people focusing on them than on how much of a perv Mark Foley is.

~EdT.

The Republican implosion has some different catalysts…

You can say that again! Oh, what the heck, don’t bother: I’ll do the honors:

The Republican implosion has some different catalysts…

:)
And, as the reports continue to roll in, I am really beginning to wonder exactly where those catalysts are originating from. Which points out one of the benefits of the MSM (when they bother to do their job correctly): the fact-checking that they tend(ed) to engage in, before putting a story on the wire. Unfortunately, in our increasing haste for instant-everything (”I want it… RIGHT NOW!!!”), they are developing some of the lazy habits as the rest of us, engaging in gossip - using high tech tools, to be sure, but gossip nonetheless. Which is one of the reasons I refrain from getting into current event/issue/political blogging on an ongoing basis — I simply see the need to sit back and let things percolate, and with the attention span of a 3-year-old, most people can’t be bothered to read about last week’s news - after all, that is So Last Week!

…I find this particularly diverting.

Diverting… or disturbing? I submit that if Mark Foley had been a Democrat/liberal, it would have been equally diverting… and disturbing.

~EdT.

I see what you are saying, Poli, though in fairness I would point that at about the same time the Democratic party was hijacked by its own ‘parasites’ - those special-interest idealogues who have agendas of their own to push down the throats of everyone in the country

Ed, I couldn’t possibly agree with you more.

Prior to the last couple of weeks, I’d have said that the Democratic Party was even more broken than the Republicans (as viable entities). Chaotic leadership (or lack thereof), messages all over the map, and a clear desire to alienate the moderates (see Lamont and Lieberman) all indicate a party vigorously pulling itself apart.

A prior post on that here (link), along with some pretty funny commentary in light of the comments on this one.

The Republican implosion has some different catalysts, and the fracturing is somewhat more spectacular — and abrupt — as a result. Given the wider situation, both home and abroad, and that the Republicans are the party in power just now, I find this particularly diverting.

Our occasional linkfest. This is being posted today due to problems posting from here in New Mexico. It’s shorter due to our problems here. Some q……

I see what you are saying, Poli, though in fairness I would point that at about the same time the Democratic party was hijacked by its own ‘parasites’ - those special-interest idealogues who have agendas of their own to push down the throats of everyone in the country. Just as John said

I think the country needs what the GOP used to be.

I will maintain that the country also needs what the Democrats used to be.

Just because they don’t invoke the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the underlying authority for their pronouncements doesn’t make them any less dangerous to their party than the RR is to the GOP. The fact that the GOP is still in control of both elected branches of the Federal government is a good indication that many see them as the lesser of two evils. Whether that holds through the November election remains to be seen.

In any case, the last time we had a spectacular change in the makeup of Congress was when Newt G. trotted out the “Contract with America”. I would like to see both parties (one might even say all parties) come out with a similar program/platform (similar in that it states what their goals are should they be elected), instead of simply nay-saying the other side.

~EdT.

The others who responded to you are not “my gang.” I don’t even know who they are.

As for traffic, well, it’s gone up steadily, so you’re out to lunch on that too. (If you have physical copies of the Chronicle around, take a look at the list of most-read posts that they run.)

Sorry, Polimom, for hijacking your blog, but I really didn’t appreciate Lazarus’s tone or misrepresentations. I’ll say no more in your comments.

I’m going to post every email we exchanged and every link on your blog where I posted and let people decide.

Oops, Lazarus.

Not here, you’re not. Find someplace else to indulge yourself with that email trail. I have no desire, nor obligation, to host such a thing.

And to be honest, I read your comment about John and Sparkle as saying that John is censoring. Evidently he saw it the same way. Furthermore, everyone else is not required to view, and vote on, whether you are more, or less, in the right.

In fact, I’m betting they aren’t interested, either. If they are, the links to both your sites are widely available.

Finally — you’ve been sniping at me non-stop, too. I’m very, very tired of it, and my response was mild compared to my frustration.

Anyway John, I was so caught off guard by a post so rude being allowed that I forgot to ask - What the heck are you talking about??

“This is what I wrote about you -“Speaking of: Consider John and Sparkle, you said you had no problem with John, an EXTREME left-winger and proud of it; but TexSparkle you do. Spakle, rightwinger, allows more freedom on her boards. John doesn’t and his style is to attack individuals with attitudes different from his own..”

Please explain your comment :” I’m proud of my open commenting policy, and I don’t appreciate you lying about it, Lazarus.”

Where do I question your openness in this post? I said you don’t allow freedom on your board and you don’t. You and your “friends” gang up on people and run most people with something different to say off your blog. That’s why you no longer get 3 and 6 hits as opposed to 15 to 30 posts like you once did SO now you get hits only from the hardcore and your “attaboys” who agree and pat you on the back.
. People don’t like to be called names, as you did me here, and then when they reply with a name of their on, you delay it by making them change something.
The “name” I had to change for “Rude Randy” after Randy had been rude to people. Heck, I’ve had VERY LITTLE to say to or about you after I pulled your “chestnuts out of the fire” with the gun crowd that went on almost a week.

But you make it sound like we had some kind of adversarial relationship, which is simply NOT what the facts support. And to prove it, I’m going to post every email we exchanged and every link on your blog where I posted and let people decide.

I disagree with your statement but I do want to thank you for showing the exact way you treat people that disagree with you on your blog.

Many thanks, I would have had no other way to prove it.