Just having a picture with Bush doesn't mean anything!

Not to belabor the point, but just having my picture with Bush doesn't mean anything - this was sort of my point in the discussion with the anonymous emailer.

Case in point - Lloydright commented earlier that "RMR is a fine individual...just don't tick him off or he will hold you down and pour Tabasco Sauce down your throat. This does not reflect his viewpoint on torture...it is just how he deals with annoying people. "

Now, I'm not denying or admitting anything, but Lloydright has also mentioned that he and I are in several pictures together. But, just because I may have poured tasty hot sauce on Lloydright for such horrible deeds as "bugging me" or "breaking my toy truck" and that I have had my picture taken with him does NOT mean that I have poured a condiment on anyone ELSE that I have had my picture taken with.

That's why calls for me to "come clean" about pictures of me taken with the President (because he spoke at my graduation and I was on stage at the same time because I was singing in the ceremony) are just as ridiculous as calls for the White Hous to come clean with photos of him taken with Jack Abramoff. Abramoff and I are among the THOUSANDS of people who have had their photo taken with the President, who has had probably MILLIONS of photos taken of him (that's why they all get a library - the presidency generates a lot of 1 - paper and 2 - photos). Why should the white house release photos for the sole purpose of having them run in Democratic attack ads in the fall (don't vote for Frank Johnson....he is friends with the President and......JACK ABRAMOFF - DUH DUHHHHHH!) ? A mere photo with the President doesn't mean Bush was involved in activities with Abramoff any more than a photo with the Rock makes him a wrestler or a photo with me makes him my pal.

The whole issue is RIDICULOUS. That's why no one who isn't in the press even cares. At all.

ATTENTION: THIS BLOG IS BIASED!!!

I just thought I would go ahead and say it. We can't hide it anymore. I know we have been keenly keeping it quiet for some time now...but I must come out and admit it. I LEAN TO THE RIGHT POLITICALLY. There I feel better now. I feels so good to come clean about it. After spending all these months posting my feelings on a website that has no connection to any journalistic entity whatsoever, giving editorial commentary on the things of the world (i.e OPINIONS), and cleverly naming the blog in some sinister rightwing code that in NO WAY clues the reader in to the pre-disposed opinion of the authors...OH MY GOSH I AM FINALLY FREE OF THIS BURDEN OF MY UNDISCLOSED AGENDA!

I would personally like to thank the dear soul that brought this to our attention and cleverly smoked us out of the ideological weeds that we were so horribly hiding ourselves in. We are truly better people for having been under your influence.

You have my sincere gratitude sir!
LoydRight

PS. I have in my possession a picture of myself next to Tweedle-Dee, Tweedle-Dumb, a four year-old, and a pregnant lady. I just wanted to disclose this should I wish to make any policy related comments toward the Disney Corporation, the mentally disabled, preschoolers, or the unborn.

Warning: The faint smell of sarcasm has been detected in this posting!

I PROMISE I'm not friends with Bush

Well, I heard back from my mysterious emailer:

"Look, I KNOW that you know Bush personally. How else would you be in a photo with him? So you'd better be honest and come forward with your close personal friendship. There's just no other explanation for you being in the same photo, you [expletive deleted]!"

I don't know what to say - so I'm in a photo with the President. That doesn't mean I'm his friend or that we have even spoken to each other even once! I say, put up or shut up! Prove it!

RMR

I don't know G. W. Bush

This article appeared in Yahoo today - 'I don't know' Abramoff, Bush says - Yahoo! News, which is an interesting coincidence, because I received a communication recently that I wanted to share with you.

"RMR - I think that you are biased and your site is biased because you are close personal friends with the President. I have personally seen photos of you with the President, and I think it's wrong of you to write on issues of policy when Dubya is your buddy. Where do you get off acting objective when you and he are such great pals, being in the same photos and all that you big [expletive deleted]?"

Well, I think that I would be unbiased regardless of my relationship with the President, but needless to say, even though we both are from Texas, both conservative, and both ruggedly good looking, I am not friends with Dubya. Not that I wouldn't have a non-alky beer with him if he asked.

Well, I hope that clears up that whole controversy!

Ummmm.....okay?

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060117/NEWS/60117013

This is a link to a article in the Argus Leader. Apparently Tom Daschle is considering a run for President.

Just a little hint there Tom...if ya can't win a Senate election in SOUTH DAKOTA...probably not gonna be President.

LoydRight

A Real Threat to Freedom

This article City Journal Winter 2006 | The Plot to Shush Rush and O'Reilly by Brian C. Anderson is a good discussion of the push to end meaningful freedom of speech and the press in America. You should read it.

It is most interesting that in both the Alito and Roberts hearing there was much bluster about 'inherent' rights to 'privacy' and the extent to which they protect sexual activities and abortions, but hardly any (none?) about how the absolute rights to freedom of the press and speech explicitly spelled out in the bill of rights are being limited in the name of campaign finance reform.

Sandra Day O'Connor was one of the 5 votes upholding McCain-Feingold.

David

It's about #$%#$# time!

I was very pleased today to see this story: Bush Recess Appointments Meet With Protest - Yahoo! News. Basically, Bush used his recess appointment powers to fill about 20 executive vacancies that have been stalled by partisan filibuster tactics.

This is the perfect response to Democratic abuse of the filibuster - remove them from the process. Bush also did this with Bolton at the UN last year. Now, when the perfectly qualified candidates come up for renewal at the end of the congressional session (which will be in 2007, tee hee), they will have a year on the job backing up their case. The White House response is, we wouldn't have done this if you had given them a fair hearing - what, ALL of them are eeeeevil bigots? It just makes the Dems look like the fools they are to those that are even paying attention. The average american is going to get upset about recess appointments? Many won't even know what they are.

I have long advocated the use of the recess power on the courts as well. The response to ANY judicial filibuster of a district or appellate judge should be a recess appointment, unless the constitutional option is finally utilized (except for the Supreme Court - with its higher profile this should be fought out in public on the merits). Just like it's hard to get some folks stirred up over the unfairness of the judicial filibuster, the Dems will have a hard time stirring up anger over a recess appointment.

The point is that the filibuster was never meant to be used this way, and Dems and RINOs (note McCain was upset with the administration - always a sign you are doing something right) that condone and encourage its abuse should get it right back in their faces.