Ed Gillespie is full of all kinds of caca.

Did you hear Mr. Doublespeak on CSPAN this morning talk his way around Abramhoff (didn't know him, never met him, knew who he was, but no face time), Tom Delay (did what was best for his colleagues, as usual), and Alito (Gillespie is all of a sudden not an expert on anything, even his own opinions, and there was no litmus test by Rs for Alito). Since when does Gillespie not have an assured answer for anything?

about what? How to lie?

On an Oct. 15, 2003, CNBC broadcast, journalist Alan Murray asked Ed Gillespie, then chairman of the Republican National Committee, about fundraising by "people like Jack Abramoff, who represents Indian tribes here," and another lobbyist whose name I'll leave out because he has not been implicated in any scandals. "Are you going to sit here and tell us that their contributions to your party have nothing to do with their lobbying efforts in Washington?"

"I know Jack Abramoff," Gillespie replied. He mentioned the other lobbyist and insisted: "They are Republicans; they were Republicans before they were lobbyists. . . . I think they want to see a Republican reelected in the White House in 2004 more than anything."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/05/AR2006010501903.html

montage? of Rs who don't know Jack.

It is still so foreign to my experience that I have trouble grasping it. When a fully grown, obviously physically mature man can stand there, on national TV, and tell deliberate lies about things that I am familiar enough with to know, beyond question, the truth of, it just totally stops making sense.

As a child, I admired adults for their veracity, depending on them to tell it straight and, though they might be wrong on something - usually due to lack of information - they could be expected to come clean, despite any embarrassment, as soon as they recognized the truth.

What a difference, today! The leaders are batshit crazy, never having gotten beyond the braggart, self-aggrandizing roles of post adolescent youth.
If I were to analyze the political makeup I would have to assign dems as overly timid but more truthful and pubs as aggressive inveterate liars. What a choice.

Peter the host must have had too many coffees as he cut people off with gusto. one caller said she had 3 points to make and quickly made two, as she took a breath for the 3rd Peter cut her off saying he was pressed for time. he did this repeatedly and he also left out words when he was reading the papers.

what got me is that at the start of the program they said one of the guests would be anti-Alito.

all the guests were either pro Alito or fence sitters that gave polite pros and cons and wouldn't really commit.

so where was the anti-Alito guests?

chairpeople.

that he didn't remember!

:rofl: