I have been saying for a long time the Dems need a Truman, who knows the power of Missouri branch water. (AKA: whiskey)

He would have weekly poker games in a janitor’s closet for Dems and Reps together. There would always be some fine Missouri branch water there. This did wonders for the process of governing. Do you recall the great Sen. Everett Dirkson (Rep.) and others who did the same and loved to take advantage of free branch water?

Did you notice that as soon as the new NAFTA treaty was signed that Pelosi and others felt that they had to get some credit for it? Perhaps they should, but I am noticing a lot of people saying the same thing about Dems doing nothing for the people for the last three years.

In addition, they are following the very same format of character assassination that they have attempted on about five or six nominees and office-holders over a period of time. I really don’t think that this is working very well for them.

I continue to think that they need to get on point like Dems of the past, who could win on their ideas.

The last time that Dems were ever this close to being pure leftists was when Nixon won huge and took both houses.

I was way out on a limb when I predicted Trump’s victory. But it’s a no-brainer that he will win again, to my way of thinking. And I think that both Houses will come with him. It has come to the point that the Dems can’t do much but see their leader Pelosi shred Trump’s State of the Union speech.

Somebody needs to send Pelosi and Schumer a case of Missouri’s finest branch water. No need to send it to Schiff, Mad Max Waters or Comrade Rep. AOC in my estimation. Pelosi showed some good judgment not to go down the impeachment path at first. Jeez, they even failed to take the vote of the House in order to conduct an impeachment. Such a vote is a requirement right in the Constitution for crying out loud, but they were in too much of a toot to follow the rules.

This has been brewing for a while, so it’s really not a huge surprise.

Not soon after the Senate voted 51-49 to end the impeachment trial with the acquittal of Trump, the Demwits began turning on themselves for a fresh slurp of blood. This group of far leftists are going after each other. Nadler is blaming Schiff for not doing a thorough enough job convincing people. Meanwhile, the real brain trust and social justice side of the party, better known as “The Squad,” jumped all over Hillary for being too critical of Bernie. Bernie is their (take your honeymoon in Russia) man.

Most of you have been around families, employees or athletic teams that just seem to never be happy. Since Trump continues to beat them at their own game, the frustration of these defeats has turned them into a party of wolves that have decided to eat their own.

I heard the other day that in 1991, only 27 percent of Democrats considered themselves liberal. Today, 54 percent consider themselves liberal. The party has changed, and finding someone who can truly lead and be a moderate has faded into oblivion.

Like I said; where the hell are the Trumans, who was one of my favorites? A most honorable man.

Watching this group is somewhat scary.

You see, the left keeps saying that Trump has divided America. In fact, the leftists in this country, are divided amongst themselves — let alone what they think of deplorable Walmart shoppers in the real world.

Big problems are coming down the pike for our leftist group of non-thinkers. Nov. 2020 is really going to be a blowout.

I am again out on a limb, but I fear what is coming on another front, too. With another trillion dollar yearly debt from Trump, the “shift” will really hit the fan...

(27) comments


Great post but I disagree on Truman, He let the Soviets get a nuke he stoped MacArthur From solving the China problem 68 years ago because he didn't want Mac running for Pres as a Republican sabotaged the war for political reasons Had a lot of Communist in his administration too, Ol Truman toted the left party line just a good poker player an hid it well.


Aim High

Get a grip man. I never said they were I welcomed. I’ve said from the beginning that, as far as I was concerned, they weren’t relevant to Bill’s main point, that’s all.

Look, it’s not as though I’m sitting next to you with a gin to your head and telling you not to make any comments. I’ve said before that you’re a free moral agent. Fire away. Just don’t expect me to genuflect in your direction when you do.

Say whatever you like. I don’t care. I’ve that Bill can write whatever he likes about Democrats, Republicans, Independents, socialists, John Birchers, City and county commissioners, senators, legislators, etc. Like you, he’s a free moral agent. If/when someone disagrees with him or expects him to add their point of view to his work, folks will find that he’s very adult in his approach. I may even disagree with him and say so. I don’t think it would bother him at all.

One last think. I don’t I have responsibility to make you happy or validate your arguments. Make your own arguments. Validate your own arguments. Just don’t expect me to come running to begging forgiveness for having differed with you. You and I disagree- that’s all. You don’t have to invite me to dinner and I don’t have to invite you to dinner. We differ in opinions and I suspect our tastes in food also differ.


Aim High

I never said anything about Republican cannibalism. Not once. My point, and Bill’s was that Democrats need to come up with better strategies if they want to beat Trump in 2020.

One last thing.


Not every comment needs to conform to what you and Bill say.


I’ve never said that. Bill doesn’t need to what you and I say. You don’t have to conform to Bill or me. I don’t have to conform to you or Bill.

Where do you get these ideas?


Aim High

Thanks for making my point for me. Op-Ed’s aren’t about balance or some perceived notion of balance. That’s the point I was trying to make.

Bill was writing an op-ed that contained some advice for Democrats. He said it in the first sentence and the theme carried through in the rest of the piece. He was speaking to Democrats, offering them some advice. You need to let that sink in. You really do. Now, Bill’s a fair minded man. If he wants to write a piece about Republicans he’s perfectly capable of doing so and I think the Gazette would publish it. I’d bet it would be quite good. If that were to happen you could paste smiling faced emojis in the comments section till all the cows come home. Or, you could write your own op-ed and submit it to the Gazette. Go ahead. Blast away.

I wasn’t troubled by your pushback or what you care about me. I honestly don’t care a whit. As to whether some, most, or all those reading this forum agree with me makes absolutely no difference to me, although I can’t for the life of me figure how you divined that opinion. only a few have said anything in the comments of Bill’s op-ed. You’re the only one on this forum who seems to object to what I’ve written. That’s pretty bad logic. It’s a way of saying I disagree with netloafer, therefore everyone does.There may be more, but there’s no way of telling unless you were reading tarot cards or tea leaves. We’re you?


So you are saying my valid counter arguments are not welcome on Bill Hartman's op-eds.... unless I want to submit an op-ed of my own to be approved and published by the Gazette... and any commenters should only post comments if they are in agreement with Bill Hartman's opinions. Any valid argument to his op-ed pointing out hypocrisy should be ignored.

I've never met Bill Hartman but you make him sound a little fragile.

Maybe he will come here and speak for himself. If he comes and tells me my opinions are not welcome on his editorials, I will glady quit commenting on them.


Aim High

By the way, Bill’s op-ed mentions the Democrats 7 or 8 times and alludes to them a lot more. I wonder what I should make of that. Should the Gazette institute some sort of fairness indicator for op-Ed’s? Should it be mention for mention, like an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth?

If you want to write about apoplectic Republicans, go right ahead. You’re a free moral agent. As I said earlier. See if you can write op-ed’s for the Gazette. While I don’t handle their personnel, I believe Chris and his staff are always looking for good talent and they’re fair minded people. If they let you, you can write about Donald Trump all you want. Then the Gazette’s readers can be enlightened, copy sold, and you can become famous. If that route doesn’t suit you, I can’t really help you. I have said what I have said and Bill has said what he has said.

I realize you value your opinions. I also value mine. Neither of us is advocating murder and mayhem and that’s not bad. In terms of whose views deserve the most support, I haven’t got a clue. If the readers of this forum think I’m the village idiot, so be it. I’ll still believe what I believe and embrace my status as an idiot. I would embrace the title freely, as a free man, not beholden to the opinions of others. I think that’s the way America is supposed to work, isn’t it?


So President Trump, Republicans, and Democrats are all talked about multiple times in Bill's op-ed, but you are only willing to respond to the negative parts concerning Democrats....that is just silly. We don't really need a fairness indicator... an op-ed is about showing both sides of an opinion. It's not my fault you refuse to look at the other side of the coin.

You seem to be the only one who feels my comment about Republican cannibalism in an article about Democratic Cannibalism is totally unfair. It's your right to back away from a conversation you know isn't going to go your way and don't want to have, but don't claim some nonsense like "This article is only about Democrats"... I would write an op-ed but you seem to be the only one having problems handling what I write in the comments so it's probably not worth my time.

And just to put this conversation to rest... this Carville guys spat with Bernie is very tame compared to what we've seen with Trump and John Kelly, Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, John Bolton, James Comey, Robert Mueller, Jeff Sessions, and a whole plethora of others. Trump's administration has had an 82% turnover rate!!! If you want to have a fair talk about "cannibalism", let me know. This one sided stuff isn't for me.


Aim High

Eureka, you're right. Bill did mention Trump six times - (1) He predicted Trump's 2016 victory (2) He mentioned Speaker Pelosi's tearing up of Trump's state of the union speech (3) Trump's acquittal has led to an increased level of Democratic blloodletting within the ranks (4) The Democrats claim that Trump has divided America, but the Democrats are actually divided within their own party (5) Trump is beating the Democrats at their own game (6) If Trump is re-elected there wll be trillion dollar budget deficits.

Bill's op ed was not about Donald Trump. It was about the Democrats. He made that clear in his first sentence and, like a good journalist, hammered the point over and over and over, warning them to mend their ways if they really want to beat Trump. It's not hard to see if you have an eye to see it. Again, he made it clear in his first sentence and did it with good humor, telling the Democrats they needed a Truman type and a bit of Missouri branch water.

I didn't vote for Trump in 2016. I wrote in. I probably will again in 2016. I'm not a Donald Trump fan, but I do know that hating Trump is not an adequate electoral strategy.

I don't know how 2020 is going to turn out. I didn't think Trump would win in 2016. I don't read tea leaves or palms. I don't shuffle tarot card, play with ouija boards, or gaze in to crystal balls. But I can see the road in front of me right now. It doesn't help when the most glaring strategy seems to be TDS. All it does is increase the levels of people's anger.

If the Democrats want to become increasingly apoplectic, they are free to do so. But it doesn't seem to be a winning strategy. November is a long way off. If they keep getting more and more apoplectic their heads are going to explode before they can ever get in to the voting booth.

In the end about the only advice I can offer is for folks who have read Bill's words heed them. Barring that, it's simply "bon appetit," keep gnawing away.


Making a relevant and fair comparison between Republican cannibalism and Democratic cannibalism is off limits here because this article is strictly about Democratic cannibalism? Pot meet kettle blah blah blah.

We could also talk about how extremely apoplectic the Republican party has become too, but I'd bet that is also off limits, right? Deflection... saaaad.


Aim High:

I find this quite amusing. I understand sarcasm and I understand that James Carville is a hack. But, even hacks get it right every once in a while and he’s right about Bernie and the Democrats. They need to beware; they’re skating on thin ice.

Why am I not commenting on citizen Trump? Bill’s op ed was about Democratic cannibalism. That’s why. Why is that going over your head. If you want me to comment on the President I suggest you submit an op ed to the Gazette. I realize you’re not a budding Ernest Hemingway, but you’ve got pretty good writing skills. So, submit an op ed. I’d bet Chris and the crew would consider it.

In the meantime or until you make a submission, “Bon appetit.”


If you understand the sarcasm, but still make statements like "Bernie once said he didn’t mind being called a communist" then you seem to be purposefully misleading anyone who reads your comment. Saaad.

And you're not commenting on Trump and Republican cannibalism because arguing the point would make this article look like a bare knuckles fight compared to a mass shooting. Nothing is going over my head, as Bill's Op Ed mentioned Trump SIX TIMES in his article. I'm sure one small relevant comparison isn't enough to make this whole "cannibalism" thing sound silly, right?

James Bordonaro

I disagree with the author's contention that there was an improper method of voting for impeachment in the House of Representatives. The power of impeachment is contained in Article 1, Section 2 and says:

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

There is no mention of a vote although one is obviously implied. That the Speaker of the House may have directed the start of an impeachment inquiry without a prior vote of the full membership of the House did not invalidate the subsequent inquiry or actual vote to impeach the president. Although the president's attorneys and some senators may have viewed the procedural process as flawed, ultimately, there was no attempt made to either vote to dismiss on that basis or to make an oral or written motion to the Chief Justice to authorize a dismissal of the trial in the Senate. I trust the author will acknowledge his error in citation.


Unfortunately the author uses words like "Demwits" and thinks a good way to bring about bipartisanship is for politicians to hang out in closets getting drunk together. I highly doubt he values the constitution over Fox News correspondents.


I’m neither a Republican, a socialist, communist, or a Democrat.

Bernie once said he didn’t mind being called a communis. Carville doesn’t mind being called a hack. Keep in mind that this self described hack got Bill Clinton elected with the “it’s the economy stupid thing.” I think the Democrats may need his considerable skills as a hack. He’s as ruthless as it gets.

Bill’s op ed subject was the Democrats.l and their cannibalism. It is happening. You may not be seeing it or not wanting to. Elizabeth Warren is clawing at Bernie, Bernie’s clawing back. Ms. Warren is clawing at Mayor Pete and he’s clawing back. Joe Biden is insulting potential voters. Yada yada yada.

I find it quite amusing. Bon appetit!


I am also neither Republican, socialist, communist, or democrat.

Bernie's full comment (48 years ago) was "I don't mind people coming up and calling me a communist, at least they're still alive." The sarcasm (at least they're still alive) has unfortunately went over peoples heads and half of his comment (I don't mind being called a communist) has become "fact" on the conservative "news" websites.

Carville on the other hand admitted he was a political hack in 2020. He got Bill elected in 1992 (28 years ago) and has been riding those coattails since. Al Gore didn't become president, Hillary didn't become President, and now he is supporting Michael Bennett, who I've never heard of before now and who will not become president. Still not sure why you put so much faith in his words, but to each his own.

Not sure how your "cannibalism" example is any different than the last Republican presidential primaries. Warren's "clawing" at Bernie is extremely quite tame in my opinion to what we saw in 2016. Or maybe I just have better taste. Enjoy your meal.


Aim High, one more thing. The Sanders-Carville dustup is also being reported by CNN, The Hill, Newsweek, The Daily Beast, and others. I hardly think the qualify as right wing extremists.

The Republicans are having fun with this. I think the media is too. You might as well yourself. In keeping with the cannibalism theme I’ll just add this. As they say in those trendy restaurants in New York, “Enjoy!”


Aim High, you really missed the point. The link from the Daily Caller was simply quoting Carville’s comments about Bernie Sanders. Carville had recently been warning Democrats that they are in real danger unless they start listening to the average American. Sanders then responded by calling Carville a political hack. Carville fired back, admitting he was a proud hack and also saying that Bernie was a ‘effin communist. That looks like cannibalism to me. Both are Democrats, with Sanders the current front runner for the Party’s Presidential nomination and Carville having once been a Democratic strategist for Bill Clinton.

I was trying to point out that, as Bill Hartman also was, that the Democrats had better mend their ways or 2020 may be an even worse disaster than 2016.

But, far be it from me to offer advice to the Democrats. If they want to keep eating each other alive. sure the Republicans can just sit back and watch the feeding frenzy. As Julia Child often said, “Bon appetit!”


Not sure why Republicans care so much about Carville... a self admitted political hack who doesn't know the difference between a socialist and communist. But if their little spat is what you call "cannibalism" then I wonder what you'd call the Trump administration? He has chewed through more appointees than any other President in history! "Feeding Frenzy" LOL.

KB Thomas

After being in Real Estate for 55 years, my best all time investment was not investing in the Democratic party and the radical socialist left cry babies.





Be warned before going to that link, "The Daily Caller is a right-wing news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C. It was founded by now Fox News host Tucker Carlson and political pundit Neil Patel in 2010."

It's a propaganda site co-founded by the guy with the confused look on his face on Fox news... [Tucker Carlson, also known as Cucker Tarlson[1], is a white nationalist,[2][3] paleoconservative political commentator, news correspondent, Donald Trump supporter, and noted jackass. He started his career as a semi-respectable journalist, and has been sinking lower ever since.[4] He co-hosted the CNN show Crossfire (before it was cancelled), the MSNBC show Tucker (before it was cancelled), and currently works for Fox News, taking Bill O'Reilly's prime-time spot, with his show Tucker Carlson Tonight.[5] He is also the co-founder and former editor-in-chief of The Daily Caller. Economically, he previously held libertarian views, but has made a U-turn to leftish economic analysis, thereby combining the worst views from the right with the worst from the left.]

I looked up this Carville guy and he worked on the show crossfire too, as well as Fox news, and seems to think he is very important to the Democratic Party because he worked for Bill and Hillary Clintons campaigns. It's not surprising he doesn't like Bernie Sanders, and even less surprising he doesn't know the difference between socialists and democratic socialism. This guy probably doesn't know the difference between Liberals and Libertarians either, and he's even married to one! Anyways, take that article with a chunk of salt.


The Democrats were threatening impeachment before Trump was even elected, so they had made up their minds on impeachment before there was even an investigation. The fighting within the Democratic Party is far worse than ever. In the last election, 2016, I think the word went out not to run against Clinton or end up on the death list of those the Clintons had relationships with, you know, suicide by proxy. I really feared for Bernie Sanders during that campaign, and even now as he grows closer to being the nominee. It really doesn't matter who the Dems run anyway, as Trump will have another 4 years based on job growth alone. The Democratic Party is imploding, watch them fight like chickens in an overcrowded coop. Seriously, the impeachment articles would never have been brought forth if the Dems had a viable candidate. They get more desperate all the time, especially since their best bet to beat Trump "was" Biden. Wow, Biden as the best bet, just wow! So, anyone that thinks Trump won't be re-elected, I'd like to know just which one of those winners on the left is going to beat him. Time to get real for the Dems and look at 2024 - the rise of Pence!


Trump wants to cut social security + Bill Hartman draws heavily from social security and without it he would be in poverty = Democrats are crazy

My favorite part is Bill referencing the debt of the "fiscally conservative party" Trump boasts about the economy being good but the other day he denied federal workers wage increase due to economic conditions.

It will be a shame if Trump loses and Bill Hartman has access to healthcare whenever he needs it, or his grand kids will be able to have affordable college without being in insurmountable debt.


I don't think it's a "no-brainer" President Trump will win again... 15% of Republicans just voted against him in New Hampshire and he has already lost the popular vote once before to Hillary. President Trump brags about his approval rating being up (to 43%!). I can understand his excitement since his approval rating has been in the mid 30's to very low 40's his entire term. Saaad!

You know what else is saaad? The Senate made it clear, prior to the trial, that they had no intention of listening to whatever evidence was presented to them. If the jury does not listen to the evidence, it does not matter how good or poor a case was made: it is not going to influence their decision. An acquittal signifies that a prosecutor failed to prove his or her case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that a defendant is innocent. An "aquittal" by a 49-51 vote to not remove Trump from office is also not something to brag about. Half of Congress doesn't think Trump is fit for office! No Brainer! SAAAD!!

James Bordonaro

While I understand and appreciate the commentator's point, it should be remembered that the use of the term "acquittal" doesn't mean the same thing in the context of an impeachment trial as it does in the criminal proceeding. An impeachment trial is political in nature and the Senate is generally entitled to set the rules. What will be of interest to me will be discussions of whether the statute of limitations can be employed as a defense should the President be subject to criminal indictment after he leaves office. Without getting into an extended discussion on the topic, I do think there are strong reasons to toll the running of a statute of limitations while a president is in office although I disagree with the Justice Department's policy of providing an immunity to the presidency.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.