Disagreeing with one's govt/House GOP

Criticism of our president and American foreign policy are acceptable within bounds, unless done to undermine the president’s authority, our foreign policy and the American people’s confidence and resolve in both."
So, criticism is OK along as it isn't effective enough that it will actually lead to a change in foreign policy? Is that his point?
Of course critics of a president, be it Rep. Murtha and his criticism of Bush, or Rush Limbaugh and his criticism of Clinton during the Balkans Campaign try to change the foreign policy. That is basic point of criticism, to enact change. If not, then freedom of speech is a pointless academic exercise in debate and nothing more.
The fact is no president, no government deserves the American people's confidence and resolve. They have to earn it and if they don't then the American people and the president or government's critics aren't obligated to give it nor are the American people.
Mr. Johnson calls former President Carter a traitor and an appeaser. But, Carter was once president just like Bush is now, so were the critics of President Carter while he was president traitors who were trying to undermine the president’s authority along with our foreign policy at that time and the American people’s confidence and resolve in both?
Criticize Carter, Clinton Kerry or any Democrat all you want. No president and no government is granted any right to be free of criticism. This is easily understood when a Democrat is president but for the life of me I cannot understand why it is so forgotten when a Republican is president. I know Bush supporters just want America to do well and believe that President Bush's policies are the best for the nation. They might be, but that is a separate question. But, you cannot state or imply that a criticism of a president when he is of one party is bad or less then patriotic and when the next party is in office forget the previous things you just said in your criticism of the new president.
When a Democrat takes the White House during this war on terrorism I don’t expect a honeymoon in the criticism of conservatives in the president's conduct on the war and I wouldn't fault them for it. If a president is wrong he should be called on the carpet no matter which party. I just hope for a little constiency in the future.


House GOP lack of ethics:

I was very disappointed to read that the GOP House struck a bid to debate a stronger ethics bill that would have made it a felony to use one’s office to influence the hiring or firing of lobbyists. The only question I have is, why vote against such a common sense proposal?
Heck, the Senate voted against even a proposal that would have even banned the acceptance of a free meal from any employee of a company that retains a lobbyist. Senators can’t afford their own pizzas?
An Office of Public Integrity to enforce reforms was scrapped. Republicans blocked an attempt to investigate House members and staff implicated in the scandals associated with Jack Abramoff’s criminal activity. Frankly, is Congress serious about ethics reform or not? Clearly Mr. Abramoff was up to no good, and anyone, no matter what party, who was involved with him in doing no good shouldn’t be given a free pass.
What is the cost to America of this low-down lobbying? Well, billions of dollars in pork. The biggest pork-laden senator was GOP Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens who secured $489.87 per person for the state of Alaska, which is about 16 times the $30.55 per person for the U.S. as a whole. Ted Stevens of course being the author of the Bridge to Nowhere, which would be a great achievement in bridge building if not for the fact that basically no one and no car will ever use it.
It’s nice to know the U.S. Senate’s system of giving two senators for each state allows us to waste so much money on so cold a place so Sen. Stevens can get a fat Senate retirement check.