His vetoing of the health and education bill Democrats sent to him, which supposedly had “strong bipartisan support,” is obviously welcome from conservatives, considering the significant amount of pork ($10 bil) attached to it. Sure would have been nice to see him rein in spending from the Republican Congresses he had just as much as he has the Dem Congress, tho.
Many of us learned a lot more about Alzheimer’s through the great President Reagan, after it was announced via a handwritten letter he wrote in 1994, at the age of 83, that he had been diagnosed with the disease. The more we have learned over the years and continue to learn about the disease, whether it be through reading about it or watching a loved one suffer from it, the more it was and is understood what a truly devastating disease Alzheimer’s is.
Back in 2002, Senator Max Cleland’s Republican opponent Saxby Chambliss ran a critical ad which criticized Cleland’s dismal record on the Homeland Security bill. Democrats have relentlessly criticized that ad, and used it as a call to arms of sorts – as they have the Swift Boat Vet ads – against the alleged “smear tactics” used by Republicans in order to win an election. The claim (scroll) has always been some variation of Cleland’s face supposedly being morphed into Osama’s or Saddam’s, or both.
Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris at The Politico write this morning about the Democratic Congress’ track record on legislation they’ve attempted to pass which would limit the president’s ability to command the war in Iraq:
How many times have conservatives heard over the years reports about GWB’s love/hate relationship with the press, and heard from the Usual Suspects on how the Bush administration supposedly works “unsually hard” at controlling media access to high ranking admin officials, including the President himself? That the Bush administration’s alleged “heavy-handed” approaches over what they allow to be filtered down to the news media versus what they want to “keep secret” are “assaults” on the “independent media” and “sweeping and dangerous attacks by this administration on investigative journalism“? Quite frankly, I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard such arguments, but we all know they are voluminous. The underlying implication of all of the assertions being made by these “champions of free speech” is that the Bush administration has engaged in “unprecedented” and “chilling” tactics designed to “undermine” the watchdog role of the mainstream press.
