Cut and Run Dems

[LogGrad98]

Did you do any research into the only source of the comment in question, Capitol Hill Blue? And no other sources at all, just that one blog. No media outlets other than that? I would say the credibility of Capitol Hill Blue is at least as bad, if not worse, than that of the factcheck folks. Plus if you actually read the post on factcheck they are actually level-headed about it, a rarity among political pundits.

I am not defending Bush at all, I think he was poor president but I don't agree with a lot of the reasons people buy into from the media. All of those issues take substantial research to reason out. Most often the popular media puts out senstaionalistically (is that a word?) spun articles leaving out key facts and making assumptions and judgements that are just wrong. I have real issues with the whole "Bush lied" scenario for example. Lying requires correct foreknowledge that is purposefully misrepresented. I believe the facts show that he was wrong, but that is a far cry from lying.

As far as the "piece of paper" quote goes, here is a retraction directly from the source of the quote:

https://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

 

[babe]

Did you do any research into the only source of the comment in question, Capitol Hill Blue? And no other sources at all, just that one blog. No media outlets other than that? I would say the credibility of Capitol Hill Blue is at least as bad, if not worse, than that of the factcheck folks. Plus if you actually read the post on factcheck they are actually level-headed about it, a rarity among political pundits.

I am not defending Bush at all, I think he was poor president but I don't agree with a lot of the reasons people buy into from the media. All of those issues take substantial research to reason out. Most often the popular media puts out senstaionalistically (is that a word?) spun articles leaving out key facts and making assumptions and judgements that are just wrong. I have real issues with the whole "Bush lied" scenario for example. Lying requires correct foreknowledge that is purposefully misrepresented. I believe the facts show that he was wrong, but that is a far cry from lying.

As far as the "piece of paper" quote goes, here is a retraction directly from the source of the quote:

https://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

I accepted the report, initially, as probably true because of the reasons I listed above, with my observation that few politicians or even judges in my experience take the Constitution either seriously or respectfully. I've seen judges say equivalent things in disregarding the Constitution because they are fully invested in the concepts/practices of "Administrative Law/Judicial Discretion".

I did read the link you initially gave, and that first link did indeed report that "Capitolhillblue.com" issued a retraction, and further says this retraction was later rescinded with the reporter stating more or less it was his "gut reaction" that his sources were right. In this case, the second link if you go to the home page, carries a very recent date, Feb. 2011, so in failing to note this final retraction the Factcheck.org indeed is carrying on needlessly about it. Factcheck should simply say the source of the quote has issued a retraction.

Like I said, I know enough about George W. Bush, his father and his grandfather to know that they sincerely believe themselves to be enlightened folks who know best how to govern the rest of us, and that they considered themselves entitled to assert their own better judgment over merely Constitutional issues.

Jon Huntsman, Orrin Hatch, Harry Reid, and a whole lot other politicians I know are similarly conceited and should not be tolerated in government service.