It is heartening to notice the improvement in govt ethics. During the Clinton years there were 67 indictments and 34 convictions. Bush's leadership has reduced that to 2 indictments and 0 convictions. If we could only get the Democratic senators to give back all the monies given to them by the Indians (at Abramoff's direction). We know the Indians got a good return on their investment.

There you go again… …way to spin and have it result in fiction…

All during Clinton presidency, we were promised indictments. A republican controlled congress desperately used all the powers of the Executive AND Judicial branch to sift file cabinets for five years promising a national spectacle of entertaining Clinton era indictments. With a result of ZERO!

After a billion dollars, a total of ZERO indictments.

The only thing keeping the corrupt Bush administration from indictments is the fact that Republicans control all the branches of government.

Tighten those partisan googles some more, and squeeze some more brain tissue…

Don't need no goggles (or googles):

Clinton: 67 indictments
33 convictions

Bush: 2 indictments
0 convictions

Just going by the numbers.

Um, you posted no verifiable link, just an ad-hoc claim pulled out of your arse, or you just regurgitated the same claims made by white supremacist organizations and Richard Mellon Scaife that launched a right wing jihad against Clinton.

Oh, and BTW, here's a detailed list of convictions of Reagan administration officials:

http://www.dailykos.com/sto...

Again, NOT ONE CLINTON STAFFER WAS INDICTED FOR ON THE JOB MALFEASANCE.

Already, Scooter Libby, VP chief of staff has been indicted for a serious offense that affected national secruity and the president's chief advisor as well as others including the VP may be implicated as Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald's investigation develops.

My facts come from an unimpeachable source (so it couldn't by definition have come from Bill Clinton). Maybe, Naum, to avoid these disagreements you should consider becoming a conservative. Here are just a few of the benefits:

1. You automatically become a member of the coveted "Mainstream". Remember, less than 20% of Americans call themselves "Liberal" (oops: make that "Progressive").
2. You can win elections. However, just remember that in the rare event we lose an election we cannot whine about it and claim the other side cheated by rigging the machines, causing long lines, etc. Bad sportsmanship you know.
3. Our side has most the the guns and aren't afraid to use them (are we Harry?).
4. Conservative women are smarter, better looking and less likely to sue.
5. Find constant amusement in Kennedy, Kerry, Gore, Pelosi, Reid, et al. Especially that knucklehead Howard Dean. He's a riot! (Hey Moe - woo woo woo woo woo)
6. You no longer have to hang with those sullen angry lefties. The conservatives parties are more fun (but they do miss the phone calls from the polling organizations).
7. Find comfort knowing that not everything is an earth shattering scandal and the Constitution is secure after all.

Sound attractive? You bet! But there are some drawbacks:

1. You have to use your own judgement and form your own opinions. Can't simply memorize the list from Moveon.org.
2. Have to get used to the fact that the only debatable ideas these days come from conservatives. The progressives only agenda is negativity laced with reflexive anti everything.
3. Coming up with ideas is hard work.
4. The crushing realization that the information presented on most websites is wrong (even if it does re-inforce your opinion).

Well, just consider it. Always room in the big tent. Anyway, gotta go - another fun conservative party to go to tonight.

Bob's off his meds again.

Once again, allow me to state that I pledge allegiance to NO political party. I disliked many things the Clinton administration did, but at least there were some good things they put forth — i.e., opening up of government, economic revitalization, etc... Whereas with Bush 43, there's near nothing I support (i.e., outside of Afghanistan invasion), and they've been the most secretive executive group to date (don't just take my words, REPUBLICANS BOB BARR AND JOHN DEAN also have expressed this truth), and have lifted the executive branch of government here into an imperial presidency.

And as poll numbers clearly show, only the sycophants, one issue voters and blinded partisans wholely in support of Bush 43.

The invitation to join Conservatives is still open. (NAUM - please note I've never specified political parties.)

As proof Conservatives are happier than Liberals, read George Will's 2/23 column based on Pew Research.

Thanks Bob, but I already consider myself an old-school moderate conservative…

…and I don't pay much attention to intellectual frauds, devoid of ethics, like George Will.

Naum, can I ask a question? I'm just curious.

Are you still peeved at Mr Will because of the rumor that he stole Carter's debate book and gave it to Reagan?

He wrote about that last year and how the rumor was completely false. I saved the article in case you ever brought it up again.

Is this true? What else about George Will do you dislke?

NY, I am not "peeved" at Will, I just think the combination of his lack of ethics and self-appointed elitist schtick is overly tiresome and emblematic of payola pundit-cy.

For readers who are hazy about the Will Reagan/Carter debate fiasco - here it is in a nutshell. George Will used a briefing book stolen from Carter to coach Reagan for his 1980 debate. Then, in audacious fashion, Will was a featured ABC political analyst assessing the debate afterwards, without revealing to the public that he was essentially "on the team" for one side. While it may be true that he didn't steal the book, he's admitted to perusing its contents, and IMV, the fact that he served as "coach", aided by material that he claims didn't matter anyway (easy to say now, 25 years later...) while appearing to be impartial judge of affairs taints him mightily.

This is repeated in 1996 when he did not reveal that his wife was a staffer of Bob Dole, and thus his personal affinity for the Dole campaign, making him far from impartial. And this behavior can be traced to many other Will columns/TV commentaries.

FAIR has compiled a dossier on his antics:
http://www.fair.org/index.p...
http://www.fair.org/activis...
Will's rebuttal
http://www.washingtonpost.c...

Will isn't alone in this regard. Another prominent example is NBC Andrea Kraemer who frequently peppers political commentary with content defensive of her husband, Mr. Alan Greenspan, without any acknoledgement of her personal interest in this regard, that trumps the spirit of journalistic integrity.

Well, if you can only attack the messenger rather than the message..................