Well, I started by looking at who wanted to be president, spent a LOT of money to become president, was elected president in 11/2000 and was president on 09/11/2001. Bush had plenty of warning on this through his PDBs and made fun to the people who warned him. It was his responsiblity to prevent this attack and he did not do his job. Does that give you a clue to why I blame Bush?

Fordfan-How do you lay 9/11/2001 onto Bush? Wasn't The impeached Willy Clinton was president and head on national security 8 of the previous 8.75 years before this happened?

And do you really think the Democratic Party is not just as "morally bankrupt" as the Republicans?

Get your blinders off. As has been pointed out earlier the two parties are just using the right and the left to keep themselves in power by splitting the true middle majority apart. When ever an honest politician enters the fray they are either converted or lose the next election.

Anyone who throws their support behind either of these parties is a fool for thinking that they are in it for anything but themselves.

I don't know how today's politicians can even look at themselves in the mirror.

Rick - I agree that Bush did something about what happened on his watch. What he did was cause the death of 4,500 additional Americans by ginning up false information to go into Iraq after he allowed the deaths of 3,000 Americans on 9/11. I personally do not want that type of action again. I assume this all makes sense to you, however, as long as it does not affect you or your family. Why, you didn’t even have to pay for the war as yet – it is on the credit card that you lay on Obama.

jcommon – I did vote for George HW Bush at least once. And I would vote for Sec. Clinton as she is by far the most qualified for president that I see right now. You all are trying to make a false equivalency between what happened on 9/11/12 and 9/11/01. This is a huge stretch but that is what you have to do when you are a advocate and supporter of a totally dishonest and morally bankrupt political party such as today’s Republican Party. Dishonesty, trickery and excuse making is all the Republicans have to stay in existence.

fordfan,
Did you vote for Bush? If not, then why would you vote for Clinton?

Bush sure did something,
but it was not about it.

Midnight - based on your posts you seem to be a scared little guy in general.

Rick-Raff said: "The woman presided over the deaths of 4 Americans when she had MULTIPLE requests for security help marked "URGENT" in her email box. That ALONE, disqualifies her."

Interesting comment as GWB presided over the deaths of 3,000 or so Americans in one day and then 4,500 more Americans because he invaded the wrong country when he had MULTIPLE warnings about an attack on the US marked "URGENT" in his PDBs. That ALONE, seemed to qualify him for re-election.

Where is the equivalency here?

"I’m ready to vote for HILLARY CLINTON on Tuesday, November 8, 2016. Are YOU?"-from article

Yes, I will do that the same day I gouge one of my eyes out with a spoon and pull all my teeth with a pair of channel locks.

Eagle1, I didn't say it was, but by addressing a comment about honesty to me that had nothing to do with my comment you made it all about me. I only ask that you quit addressing your complaints about the honesty and/or dishonesty of others to me. Something simple enough that you should be able to understand without having it repeated again.

poobah, it's not all about you, hate to burst your bubble. I sure hope I can sleep tonight after disappointing you so much.

Eagle1, you said, "poobah, take it from someone that has been in classrooms with Mr. Eyster, he has a blatant bias, is that any different than anyone else? No. But lets at least be honest about it."

My comment that you have taken repeated exception to did not deal with bias. It addressed the way in which jcommon had mischaracterized the bio at the bottom of John's blog. You apparently can not understand that regardless how many times I tell you that or how many times you re-read my comment. How could I have been either honest or dishonest about bias when it was not what I was addressing?

If you have a problem with someone other than me being honest or dishonest, please address your comments to them and not to me.

Mongo, well thought out, perhaps we had different experiences, I recall a few shots at specific politicians, but I appreciate your take.

poobah, re-read my comments to you I was not blasting John for having a bias I essentially said it was human wether it is in the classroom or a blog or a news channel I just want people to be honest about their bias' and own them.

John, Did you ever consider that many of us from the State of Wisconsin are embarrassed by you and your comments?

Hey gang. Ever hear of the First Amendment...Freedom of Speech? Eyster's expressing his opinion which is covered under the First Amendment. Several of you feel as though he's not entitled. You've expressed yours...he's expressed his. Get over it. Many have suggested that he be tarred and feathered. Sounds like they're not it favor of the First Amendment.

If there is a ring left after 4 more years of Obama's reign of distruction.

Hillary's toughest questions in the 60 minutes interview:
"How are you? How is your health". Just once I'd like to see the so called media, and I use that term loosely, put Obama or Clinton's feet to the fire. It doesn't take a college education to be in media anymore. Just a sock and a hand.

I very must like Governor Martinez also from New Mexico. I hope she throws her hat into the ring.

"OK Hillary, when they start grilling you on our inept attempt to cover our incompetence with the "Wag the Dog" BS story on the anti-Muslim film YOU GET ANGRY! You say who cares how it occurred, Four AMERICANS are DEAD

That should appease the American public and their short memories. Remember your adulterous impeached husband is still a rock star after taking advantage of a young intern, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Paula Jones, "Furnituregate", it is all good."

Eagle1, Rick_Raff and jcommon: re-read my comment! It is not about any bias in John's blog. It is about the way in which jcommon mischaracterized John's bio!

And please, the classroom and the blog are two distinctly separate things. What you're arguing, in effect, is that someone who has an occupation that requires them to suppress their views while working, also have that same requirement while not working; that they forfeit their right to EVER express their views. I strongly disagree with that position.

poobah,
Do you think it would be fine for Mr. Eyster to teach his blogs in a public education setting, under the guise that he is not biased? What would you say if his blog was pushing someone like Republican Mark Sanford?

poobah, take it from someone that has been in classrooms with Mr. Eyster, he has a blatant bias, is that any different than anyone else? No. But lets at least be honest about it.

Will Hillary bring back the rest of the stuff she took from the Whitehouse if she is elected?

More importantly, will she leave it there when she leaves?

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/feb/10/...

Whitewater, Bengazi, the affairs, the insanity.....If she becomes POTUS I think I become Canadian.

Rick_Raff, I have read most of John's blog entries and for as long as I remember the bio line has not changed. My comment to jcommon was about the way in which jcommon had mischaracterized the bio line. You need to re-read my comment -- a bit slower this time.

NEVER!!!!

H.Clinton does not have me scared fordfan. Benghazi anti-American Barry is the real threat to the USA.
As far as female GOP candidates you mentioned would be better for our nation then Clinton.
If you're only scouting females: Profile New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez and don't count out Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.

jcimmon said, "If Mr Eyster wants to write a politically biased blog then maybe he shouldn't portray himself as a politically unbiased adjunct professor of political science in his signature."

From the bio line at the bottom of John's blog: "He is an adjunct professor of political science a UW-Waukesha and an advocate for democracy/civics education in Wisconsin high schools. John is a community blogger and is not a part of The Gazette staff."

You need to re-examine the way you have mischaracterized John's bio. There is nothing in the bio suggesting that John is committed to writing a blog of any particular political persuasion or one that is apolitical. There is nothing in his bio that represents John as anything other than an adjunct professor, an advocate for democracy/civics education and a community blogger. Being any of those does not mean that John has forfeited his right to express his views in his blog.

Perhaps John before you a get thrill up your leg over giving your Senator, over a clearly partisan position, a failing grade based on Sen Kerry's comments you should do your homework.

Sen Kerry raised an issue over a viewing of video to a closed meeting that Sen Johnson was not invited to. As a member, today, of that committee he would be invited to see that video; yet on the day of that viewing he was not ALLOWED to see that video.

Clearly the idea you raised in your last blog over credibility has not increased your flagrant lack of credibility on your postings.

poobah,
If Mr Eyster wants to write a politically biased blog then maybe he shouldn't portray himself as a politically unbiased adjunct professor of political science in his signature.

wislady - maybe the problem in in your mind and thought process. Words have various connotations and meanings. And sometimes people start using a word and then figure out that is has multiple connotations but then can't stop the usage of the word.

Eagle1 - I see it as a problem but I think you are grossly overstating the situation when your state that the US will cease to exist in a little over four years. When we continually overstate our problems, it is not helpful in solving our problems.

Why are some people still using words that are not considered acceptable in the comment sections?

"Keep it clean. Comments that are obscene, vulgar or sexually oriented will be removed. Creative spelling of such terms or implied use of such language is banned, also."

nope, I think Hilary would be a great president but, I think it would kill her, she just isn't as healthy as a presidential hopeful has to be. time to retire and wait for grand kid Hil

That would be another sad day for America

no thanks

It will sink us when the practice of manipulating currency catches up to the chinese and the dollar tanks due to increasing printing of currency to pay for our bills, artificially playing with interest rates in order to keep inflation down can only go so far when you continue to build unsustainable debt. Now I realize fordfan that you don't see it as a problem because Obama is now in the White House but did you say the same when Bush was wasting money with his wars?

Eagle - "....it will take more than 4 years but not much more but I can give you more than 16 trillion facts on that." Please do so and keep to reality. This debt will not sink the country unless we let it. The majority party in the house refusing to work with the president and the majority party in the Senate is the greatest danger that we face in the future. If we would give the economy some stability and direction, it would go a long way toward fixing our debt problem. Our cost of health care problem would be another major thing that we coud address along with the unchecked military spending. Now - facts please to back up wislady's statement if you wish to stand in for her.

GO Hillary!! I'm more than ready to vote for her!

jcommon said, "What bothers me is that a respected professor of political science always seems to show his partisan bias in every blog he writes."

I would ask why you are bothered with a person asserting their opinion and/or partisanship in a blog? This isn't a classroom. Are you equally as bothered by opinion editorials and syndicated columns? I don't recall you raising your objections to those.

jcommon, it was even worse when we had him doing the same at Parker.

Eagle1 and Maynard, I agree with you both 100%. What bothers me is that a respected professor of political science always seems to show his partisan bias in every blog he writes.

Maynard, once again spot on I too believe they are working together for a greater as they see it good, I would disagree with that. I sadly don' hold much hope for a 3rd party either, the partisan blindness is far too deep. This is a result of many groups and organizations being used as political arms (religious, unions, NRA.. etc.) When we hear things like a bill will reduce the debt $1 trillion over the next 10 years (while running trillion dollar deficits) and that is seen as sufficient, it just indicates how truly hopeless these two parties are. Thank you Maynard for seeing the trough the crap I appreciate your opinion.

Eagle1: I am in complete agreement with you. And sadly I do not believe a 3rd party stands a chance. I believe the two parties are actually in cahoots and have been for decades. The Republicans say we can be rich if we work hard and if the poor were not taking our money. The Democrats say the poor could become middle class with the help of the government if we use the money from the rich to help. Meanwhile the elite on both sides are laughing all the way to the bank cashing their checks on their lifetime government jobs or their lucrative consulting jobs after resigning. If they really wanted to help the country, they would have done something with the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. The gang of 12 that was supposed to come up with a budget was, imo, a well planned farce. Believe there never was any plan for an agreement. 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans (some not running for reelection) to basically give cover for the other 429 representatives and 94 senators. They could all say "Well I would have voted on a plan but they did not come up with one". Well played from a strategic point but not to the benefit of our country.

John said, "It is clear to me that Sen. Johnson did NOT do his homework. If he were a student in my American Government & Politics class at UW-Waukesha, he would achieve an “F” on the assignment. What grade would you assign our WI US Senator Johnson?"

I agree, John. I would have given him an "F" and also reported him for violating the Shared Vision Statement of the University of Wisconsin Colleges [ http://www.uwc.edu/sites/default/files/i... ] which states:

"Respect for Persons: Basic to respect is the freedom of inquiry and expression - the right to be heard and the OBLIGATION TO LISTEN.

Personal Integrity: All community members must meet high standards of personal and academic integrity. Recognizing the value of others’ time and effort, they strive to be ACCURATE, to be timely, and to EVALUATE CRITICIALLY."

Maynard... OUTSTANDING, you nailed it, the two party system is broke, it is all just a game and a charade.

I got an email through the Gazette from John Eyester asking me to explain my comment to his readers on another of his blogs that "I did not trust any politicians". Not sure how to get back to that so here we go. Only get to vote for politicians in November that are far right or far left (or claim to be). Moderates are defeated in their own primaries. Romney was, imo, one of the least conservative Republican candidates. However, he moved far right to get the nomination and then was caught in his changing views. Obama did not have primary competition so he moved more towards the middle during the campaign to avoid losing votes. Then comes the inauguration speech and he is back to Far Left instead of reaching across the aisle. I suspect though that he will be more moderate in the gun control debate because of a fear of losing the Senate and more of the house in 2014. So there will be a feel good law or two with not real effect and identifying and treating the mentally ill and keeping them from getting guns will not be part of it. Both sides are talking immigration reform now. Why? Because the Democrats continue to need a high percentage of the Hispanic vote and the Republicans need to get more of this vote. Politics -- not because it is needed and the right thing to do. We have 435 representatives, 100 senators, and a President that are supposed to represent all the people of their district, their state, their country .... not the wishes of the lobbyists. Anyone of them is capable of saying NO to the lobbyist. Most won't because they would effectively end their political career. In the early days, serving our country in Washington was not supposed to be a lifelong occupation. The Republicans tell us if we work hard enough we can become rich and it is our money going to the poor that stops that. The Democrats tell us that the government can help us get into the middle class and it is the Rich that keep that from happening. So we have class warfare (verbally now ... eventually it will be more than verbal). Meanwhile the elite establishment on both sides are joking and laughing all the way to the bank. The two political parties have, for decades now, been a self serving growing cancer supporting their best interests and not the best interest of the people they are supposed to represent. IMO. There, John, that is why I no longer trust politicians. A liberal at 20, a conservative at 40, and a very frustrated independent at 60 without moderate candidates to support.

fordfan it will take more than 4 years but not much more but I can give you more than 16 trillion facts on that. Before you get all partisan it isn't an attack solely on Obama but both parties and the fools that continue down this path.

Newsflash for y'all! The best candidate doesn't belong to a political party! Keep playing LEFT vs RIGHT and we'll continue to watch this country deteriorate by the minute.

"Let's just hope the United States exists in four years, it is questionable under the current WH." Can someone tell me what factual basis there is for this comment?

...and what Republican females would be considered? Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman...WWWaaaaaaaaaaHHHHaaaaaaahhhhaaaaaaaa.

Its january 28, 2013 a WEEK in the obama second term and you already want someone else?

From the right wing comments here, it sounds like Clinton is the perfect candidate. She certainly has the righties scared.

I can't believe that there are actually respectable people here that would even remotely stick up for this unsympathetic/irresponsible human being named Hillary Clinton. How quickly we seem to forget that she didn't care what her very own husband was doing during the 90's, let alone care about the citizens she represents currently. Look up the Clinton's, they happen to be some of the most unethical, corrupt politicians currently in Federal Government and you want one of them as another POTUS? I am continually amazed at the ignorance of our current lefty population.

wasp2491, what conservatives have you been seeing listed, keep in mind Paul Ryan is not a fiscal conservative.

H.Clinton probably would have made a better President then Benghazi Barry. She faced "angry" Republicans due to the massive White House and Stepford Wives media (we all bundle) ignoring all facts. She was certainly more qualified then little Barry, but then again, who wasn't?
Our next President? Not if they look as bad as they do now. Benghazi Barry received a stay only because he's Black. The historic nature had to be kept in check. Clinton's historic "first women" is only an after thought now.
You'll see the GOP take back both houses of Congress in 2014 just as Obama lost the House in 2010 and never got it back.

Wislady-That would still put her head and shoulders above a number of the conservative candidates I have seen listed here.

She said she still has "lasting effects" from her injury. In four years she won't even remember she was SOS, let alone running for election.

I think at this time Hillary is probably the leading candidate to win the presidency. The repubs only have light weights available. As far as her answers, look at some of her questioners. Our very own senator "sun spot" what an embarassment!

4 years ago ...YES ... now ..never. Why? Her statement at the hearing (paraphasing): What does it matter now if it was a demostration or some people going out for a walk that decided to kill some Americans? We have 4 Americans dead. Statement astounded me. Still covering up. It matters because we have to understand what went wrong and how to help prevent it again. She talked about that. But WHY could she not say "a demonstration out of control or a planned terrorist attack"? Where in the world did this some people going out for a walk that decided to kill some Americans come from. Talking points or her own thinking? Watched the hearings and was okay with the Democrats lavishing praise for her service and the Republicans doing the same and then asking for answers. BUT COULD NOT BELIEVE MY EARS WHEN SHE MADE THAT PARTICULAR STATEMENT. How about you?

Cool, and when Joe Biden congratulates her, he can make a classy comment about the size of a part of her anatomy like he did with the father of the fallen soldier in Benghazi, whom she ultimately let die for no reason.......

I was in support of Hillary in 2008 and I think she has been a pretty good Sec of State, that is until last week. Hillary has generally been someone that has been respectable in that she has been able to be her own person at least once she was elected to the Senate and got away from making excuses for Bill's extra activities. But after seeing her completely pass the buck last week and dodge legitimate questions, yes John, Senator Johnson’s questions were legitimate, you may not like them because they made your Administration look like either incompetents or complete liars, but it was legitimate. The fact that they pushed this BS idea it was a protest over a YouTube video that was the reason for the Benghazi attack is unethical at best. They even went so far to run PSA type ’commercials’ in Muslim based countries like Pakistan to say we (the US) respect all religions and that the person responsible for ‘the video’ will be brought to justice, by the way he is currently sitting in jail on an unrelated probation violation, which he was picked up on after this uproar, PR move or what? The fact that the embassy in Benghazi requested extra security for months and were denied despite knowledge that Al Queda was in the area and the fact that the Obama admin watched (literally) as requests for help were going on during the attack all while doing nothing is deplorable. However what is even worse is the fact that there is now a cover up and if we have learned anything from Watergate, Paula Jones, Iraq, the cover up is always worse than the initial covered up act. I use to think Hillary was better than this and above it since she left the “Protect Bill at all costs” club, but after seeing her ridiculous and childish responses last week I see she isn’t, I am very disappointed in Mrs. Clinton, I actually had respect for her. My best wish for 2016 is that people FINALLY wake up and look at 3rd party candidates, I won’t hold my breath the partisan ignorance has much too deep of a stronghold on the unwilling to think crowd. Looking forward to the partisan responses that pick out only what they want to read for their own skewed partisan insanity.

Because of Bengazi Hillary deserves NO consideration

I'm not interested in reading Mr Rothkopf's opinion about this. I won't vote for Hillary Clinton even knowing that she would do better than our present President. (ANYONE could do better than what we have now) I'm hoping that the Republicans nominate someone like Rand Paul, or Rubio. I noticed in your "list" of wannabes, they were all Dems; no Republicans.

Let's just hope the United States exists in four years, it is questionable under the current WH.

A day late and a dollar short. Four years ago I would have said yes.Age is a factor here,I don't think she is up to it physically. Mentally yes.