Daschil was the guy the gave meaning to the term "slicker than snot on a doorknob" At least he is soon to be gone.

Well, then you can see why we appreciate a guy like Ronnie Earle. He's actually kind of a hero to the little guy here, in both parties. No matter what Delay says, this is not a partisan witch hunt. These guys are crooks.

I always considered him an honest man, and most Dems considered him a pussy who was a pushover for the Repubs. You may wish for him back.

Two words: Term limits.

Plus, I'd take a slacker over a cheater anyday.

Its amazing how Republican support for term limits has evaporated, isn't it?

How lucky we are to have a president who is both.

You're right. We haven't heard much about term limits lately, have we? Imagine that.

Says who?

Better than a liar, waffler and a coward .........Kerry

No comment as I voted for Badnarik.

I believe you have Joe confused with me. As far as I know, neither of us has ever changed our screen names.

I never said Clinton did not commit perjury either, but I did say the question of whether or not he was having sex with Monica Lewinski was asked in the context of a grand jury investigation gone awry - the subject of the investigation was Whitewater, not blowjobs, dirty dresses or sex in the oval office. Even the judge said the line of questioning was not pertinent to the case. So, the consequence of Clinton's perjury, committed because of political agendas of the opposition party at the time and not because of a complaint by Ms. Lewinski that he refused to pay to have her dress laundered or any other short coming on the part of President Clinton, affected no one. Because it was no one's business. Unless, of course, you are unable to mind your own business, and are obsessed with the Presidential Erection.

But, in the case of Tom Delay, there is a pattern of abuse of power, and as Kirk has noted, subversive activities to launder corporate politcal donations to help Republicans get elected in Texas. That is not Tom Delay getting a blow job from a woman, a man, or himself, which would be no one's business. But violating a federal or State law, that is of interest to all of us who want to ensure the country is ruled by law, not by those who would ignore the law.

I know you have a great deal of difficulty seeing that Clinton's perjury is about as menial as perjury can get, and in the grand scheme of things, he allowed himself to be painted into a corner where his judgement failed him. It is apparent that all politicians are human and have lapses of judgement. Clinton's were not failures that endangered the national security, interfered with his ability to continue to carry out the duties of President, or were in any way detrimental to any Americans other than those in his family. Nothing he did was illegal, up to the point of being cornered by Kenneth Starr and asked a question having nothing to do with the purpose of Kenneth Starr's investigation of Whitewater, which in and of itself was a politically motivated witch hunt.

But, the fact that you cannot get over Clinton's effort to spare his wife and daughter the embarrassment of confessing his sins to Kenneth Starr on the stand in a grand jury investigation of some other allegations, is clear evidence your judgement is clouded by other issues. You may hate Clinton for some other reason having to do with his policies that might be valid if the actions were contrary to your judgement of what would have been right. But I have surmised from your persistent, unsupported declarations about Clinton's perjury that you merely hate him because he is a Democrat. You can do that, it is within the range of options you have, just don't accuse others of being run by the DNC when it is so apparent that your depth of thought on these subjects goes no further than swallowing the RNC propaganda fed to you from the radio talk show blow hards and Fox News tools of the RNC. Jim

Republican support for term limits has evaporated? I haven't seen anyone with any credibility even hint at changing term limits. One wacko on the web does not a movement make, and believe me, I can find some interesting web wackos far scarier than that :P

The rules change itself is interesting. Repubs pushed for those particular rules in 1993 in reaction to a series of indictments against democrats. The rules only apply to the House, not the Senate -- and I've generally perceived the House as a bunch of jokers and idiots compared to the Senate, is that bad? :)

Since the vote was a closed-door one, there isn't a good way to know who supported the rules change and who didn't. An Arizona paper said their guy, J.D. Hayworth, was one of "30 to 50 GOP lawmakers who opposed the change", which is interesting.

On the one hand, people are innocent until proven guilty, so you could make a weak moral argument in a sense in favor of the rule changes; on the other hand, what a stupid time to propose such changes, when your party is already viewed with such fear and suspicion. This certainly does not constitute taking the moral high road.

That post is a doozy, even for Va Dude. In just nine words, VD both accused W of being a slacker and a cheat and made an unbelievable accusation of cowardice against Kerry. That is quite an accomplishment, Mr. Dude.

Jim perjury oin the stand is a criminal offense......period. Anyone else would have extra jail time for "wanting to spare their wife and kids" . I hate Clintons because they think they are above everyone else. I also have worked in close proximity to them doing my job and So has my boss who worked IN the White house.

I know things about them they never want public.

Every statement I made is very clearly part of the public record. And I see enough of the News from an insiders perspective I can make many of those assertions.

Do you actually believe Dan Rather is unbiased? And didn't have an ax to grind.

And when someone keeps repeating the same UNSUBSTANTIATED comments made by the DNC such as were so very persistant during the election I can call them on it because in many of those cases ample proof was shown to dispell them.

Such as the persistant insistance Sadam had no links to terrorism. The money trail from Sadam to the terrorists families has be disclosed and substantiated. And yet people insist Iraq was unjustified and Illegal.

The Left refuses to acknowledge the fact that there was numerous repeated material breaches of the cease fire agreement made by Sadam.

Keep in mind what would happen in Korea if one side violated their part. That war is not over, its still in a cease fire situation.