I totally don't have time to read that right now, but I will later. I will quickly state though, that in this analysis I'm doing of domestic media coverage of domestic issues in terms of human rights, I've read a bunch of Charlie Savage articles. I must say, the dude does a great job, his objective journalism seems to almost always be pointed and somehow he gets away with it. Hats off, at least for a brief moment.

the site is bugmenot.com.

Didn't Newt just get arrested (finally?) over the whole prescription drug business? Can you be elected president with a criminal record? Also, I haven't really dug in yet on this, but are the republifucks necessarily that predictable right at this moment? Isn't McCain a much more likely beneficiary of the current confusion? I'm not trying to say that anything particularly good will come out of this, I'm just not sold on the particular bad being quite so obvious at this moment.

1) I don't feel like registering to read the boston globe right now, so I can't read more than the first page. Does anyone remember the site where they have a list of passwords to online newspapers etc, so you don't have to register?

2) Many historians believe that Abraham Lincoln committed the most impeachable offenses to date, with the possible exception of Bill Clinton, and look how history's treated him.

oh god. just what we need. a bush-lincoln comparison.

the bottom line is that the globe reported this in the SUNDAY FUCKING PAPER and still, nobody cares. NOBODY CARES. we are honestly, truly, seriously living in a country where the president chooses which laws he feels like following, based on his gut-feeling about whether or not they are constitutional.

holy fucking jumping jesus christfuck.

by the way, newt's in Iowa right now. the second he announces, he's a lock for every state Bush won. add Condi as a history-making VP -- and we continue to be fucked.

you're thinking of rush limbaugh -- newt has no criminal record.

and yes, yes, yes, republicans are that predictable -- and if newt's in the race, they will NOT nominate john mccain. democrats have to put that security blanket thought out their minds. mccain is not a viable republican -- he can't win the religious right that controls the party (even if he licks pat robertson's asshole) if newt is around.

and newt has the incredible benefit of his hands being completely clean of iraq. it's diabolical. and brilliant. diabolically so.

Right, my bad. Ooooooooops.

Oh, I wanted to add before the internet finked out on me- I don't want McCain at all, I don't want a Refucklican period (who DO I want? um, uhhhhhhhh, I, um, er....) I was talking to someone yesterday who was trying to convince me that McCain's rhetoric is clearly pure rhetoric, that he's really just a pragmatist and not at all ideologically rigid. Don't care, don't care, don't care.

I see what you're saying, although McCain obviously feels differently. Anyway, nothing consoling here at all. Which is good, I don't want to be consoled either.

What makes you think that if Newt Gingrich runs against John McCain in a primary, he would win? Bush's approval rating is at 32% these days. I'd think that registered republicans would venture a little further from W. than Gingrich. Or at least I'd hope so. Plus, McCain already has a good reputation in the blue states, which might influence on-the-fence republicans.

What I was hinting before is that I know Bush is a nincompoop, but it's irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. All people will remember about his presidency is whether or not we are succesful in Iraq, just like Lincoln during the Civil War. You can huff and puff until you're blue in the face.

uh, knapp? i know you're new to commenting, so just to respond to that: he will.

trust me, the hard-core republicans that run the party will not nominate mccain. they don't consider him a republican. who tells me this? many, many republicans.

the options are rudy, romney or gingrich: hands down newt wins. add condi. 8 more years of fuckery.