Upon learning the term DINO (Democrats In Name Only) at DU last week I've created a few other acronymes...
First of all, liberal bloggers that can't find the time to actually make a sign and protest with Cindy Sheehan, who had a VERY meager turn-out this weekend, need a name:
Protesters Expecting Typing Success - (PETS)Also leading Republicans that engage in or support criminal activity need a new handle
Conservatives Operating National Scams (CONS)Last but not least we have our less than illustrious media that many still call "liberal" although the name no longer seems to apply.
Lazy Idiots Accepting Republican Solutions (LIARS) Online I found a particularly hard hitting piece called:
A Rebellion Around the Edges
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, March 17, 2006; 12:03 PM
So Republicans in Congress are telling President Bush they're sick and tired of being pushed around and aren't going to take it anymore?
So we hear. And yet their rebellion is only around the edges. Sure they forced Bush to back down on a deal that would have put port operations in the hands of the United Arab Emirates. But where's the oversight?
The Republican Congress's response to Bush's wildly unbalanced budget? Unbalance it some more.
The response to Bush's domestic spying initiative, which is by most reckonings a violation of Congress's own statutes? Figure out a way to make it legal.
And when it comes to the many controversial and still mysterious issues at the heart of the Bush presidency -- among them, why he went to war, how abuse and torture became a widespread military practice, why the war has been so costly in lives and money, etc. etc. -- the Republican-controlled Congress remains not only unrebellious but actively and intentionally incurious.
About That RebellionJim VandeHei writes in The Washington Post: "President Bush's troubles with congressional Republicans, which erupted during the backlash to the Dubai seaport deal, are rooted in policy frustrations and personal resentments that GOP lawmakers say stretch back to the opening days of the administration."
VandeHei writes that, privately, many lawmakers have long "felt underappreciated, ignored and sometimes bullied by what they regarded as a White House intent on running government with little input from them. Often it was to pass items -- an expanded federal role in education under the No Child Left Behind law and an expensive prescription drug benefit under Medicare -- that left conservatives deeply uneasy. . . .
"Congressional scholar Norman J. Ornstein has written that the recently vented anger, after being suppressed for years out of loyalty or fear, might be seen in psychological terms. He called the condition 'battered-Congress syndrome.' "
Former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan, writing in the Wall Street Journal, is shocked to realize that Bush is not at heart a fiscal conservative.
"Is that what Mr. Bush meant by compassionate conservatism?" she asks.
"That's not what I understood him to mean. If I'd thought he was a big-spending Rockefeller Republican--that is, if I'd thought he was a man who could not imagine and had never absorbed the damage big spending does--I wouldn't have voted for him."
Liberal blogger Brad DeLong is not impressed: "Peggy Noonan and the rest of the plastic Republican chattering teeth did not think back in 2000 that Bush's 'compassionate conservatism' meant that he was a spender, they thought it meant that he was a liar--and that they were in on the con. . . .
"Now they are surprised--and shrill--to learn that George W. Bush was lying to them too."
And what is the Republican Congress's response to this discovery?
As Dana Milbank observes in The Washington Post this morning: A "Vote-a-Rama" in the Senate yesterday, where members raised the federal debt limit to $9 trillion, then "did their darnedest to empty the Treasury."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
