It's the end of the world as we know it - on CNN today there were

[jhrobbins]

three conservative Republicans talking about how this administration was out of control, out of touch and was not competent (and it wasn't just about Iraq either). Apparently they have been trying to communicate with the WH and no one will call them back.
So my question(s) are:
Has there ever been such a situation before - where the president is so megalomaniacal thet he will not hear anything that he doesn't want to hear? To me, this is scarier than when it seemed that the 2 parties were lined up against one another - now both parties are aligned against the administration and the WH doesn't care. It feels like France in the 1700's when Louis wouldn't hear anything against his reign - even from his own ministers.

Would anyone have thought two years ago that it would be like this today? (John Stewart, et al, must feel a huge vindication)

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Kkkarl's OIL

[illinoisprogressive]

2. I am a history buff and I have never heard of something like this.

It's beyond anything that has gone on before. but, I do blame the repuke congress for letting it get to this point. No checks or balances and letting a spoiled brat have his way for far too long with no brakes.

[MadMaddie]

3. I believe 2007 is the year that * Cabal will go down

By Dems and Repugs....unfortunately something catastrophic and pivotal is going to happen this year.

They are working out their bunker plans as we speak...

[PFunk]

7. IMO It'll be the backlash from attacking Iran will be the think that finially does it.

take down the bush crime family that is.

[Codeblue]

9. Unfortunately

that scenario will also be the end of the entire world, so it won't matter.

An attack on Iran will have so many repercussions around the world that this administration isn't even aware of, and even many of the Dems for that matter. That will truly be an apocalyptic scenario.

[MadMaddie]

10. Yes you are probably right.

Welcome to DU!:hi:

[haymark]

4. Who were those 3 conservative repugs?

Elected reps or talkling heads and "strategists"?

[waiting for hope]

13. I can't remember their names,

but they are the three opposing the sentencing of the two border officers who were arrested after shooting a drug dealer that was an illegal alien. They are pissed - Lou Dobbs has had them on a few times now discussing the situation. They feel that they are being ignored and dismissed. Imagine that!

[jhrobbins]

15. No, they were elected representatives-one was Dana Rohrabacher

but I cannot remember the other two, but I know that they were elected representatives because CNN showed their names and party affiliation like they always do.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

5. I had hoped

I was afraid to believe it could really happen.

:)

[BattyDem]

6. Whose fault is that?

Sure, it's nice to hear them say those things ... but our country wouldn't be in this mess if the Repugs in Congress did their Constitutional duty of oversight! :grr:

[jhrobbins]

16. True, but we Dems must also realize that it was also our Democratic

representatives and Senators that sorta rolled over like puppies hoping to get a pet from the 'alpha' male they thought was GWB.

[eleny]

8. Next we'll wake up and find that they transformed our White House into a bunker

[Grandrose]

11. Doubt That

If they were conservative republicans, probably ticked that he
has not bombed Iran yet.:shrug:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. No, it hasn't happened before

even during the Depression, the politicians believed in the Constitution and rule of law. It's important that you be grounded within yourself, have a community of support, and supplies gathered up. I think it will be a rather rough two years before the next President takes office-if that happens.

[Stevepol]

14. When elections are stolen, this is the disconnect you get.

The people voted for another party, so a small minority is running the country. How could it be otherwise?

WHEN THE VOTE IS COUNTED IN TOTAL SECRECY BY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS WITHOUT ANY VERIFICATION, THE RESULT IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. ELECTIONS ARE MEANINGLESS, unless there's such a landslide that the machine manipulaors are caught flat-footed and fail to program in enough tilt.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. John Tyler?

Tyler's presidency was rarely taken seriously in his time. He was usually referred to as the "Acting President" or "His Accidency" by opponents. Further, Tyler quickly found himself at odds with his former political supporters. Harrison had been expected to adhere closely to Whig Party policies and work closely with Whig leaders, particularly Henry Clay. Tyler shocked Congressional Whigs by vetoing virtually the entire Whig agenda, twice vetoing Clay's legislation for a national banking act following the Panic of 1837 and leaving the government deadlocked. Tyler was officially expelled from the Whig Party in 1841, a few months after taking office, and became known as "the man without a party." The entire cabinet he had inherited from Harrison resigned in September, aside from Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, who remained to finalize the Webster-Ashburton Treaty in 1842, demonstrating his independence from Clay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyler

[terrya]

18. Nixon is the closest I can think of in this situation.

At the almost very end of Watergate. But even he resigned.