But what's the difference? Taking an overused play from the Bushco playbook, why should the facts get in the way of a good story?

RLTW, our disagreement has long been over which sources of news we trust. If you want to buy into to "he who makes the gold makes the rules", that's ok with me, but at least let's be honest about it.

The Iraq election was a good thing, even though half the country didn't vote. But getting to that point was a lot messier than it should have been.  

I like Harry Reid a lot, and proud to have him represent me and my home state in the Senate.

I grant you,the very flaccid Democratic rebuttals after the Bush sales pitch were extraordinarily weak, considering how much material they really did have to work with.

RLTW, I want to point out to you that in your comments in this thread, you were unable to say anything constructive. About anything. Or anyone. Your comments were nasty, and without merit to any civil discourse. It was something akin to the blowhard rhetoric one hears from Michael Savage or Anne Coulter, and not what I expect to read from one of the more erudite conservative thinkers on this board.

So, now, please explain how these comments make you any better than the Democrats and local Bush-haters you so vigorously and venomously assail? And why it makes you sound any less buffoonish than Pelosi or Reid?

Never said I agreed with anything IN his speech. I'm just saying he's got good writers and seems able to appeal to his base.

That said, I don't think the present administration is very competent in anything else