The 2008 Presidential Race

[Bulldogcakes]

Might as well start a thread now, so much stuff comes up related to it, and we can put it all here and make the thread police happy.

More than half of Americans won't vote for Clinton, poll shows (http://www.contracostatimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6260144&siteId=571)

The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of Americans wouldn't consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the can't-stand-'em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn't consider voting for him.

Doesn't surprise me at all. Her negatives have always been high, WAY higher than Bill's. I think half of Bill's negative ratings are directly attributable to her, to be honest. Bill is a shmoozer who wants everybody to love him, including the cocktail waitress.

We've had quite a few of these races in NY, D'Amato was famous for them. What this tells you is it will be a VERY NASTY, UGLY campaign (I assume she'll still get the nomination). The way you combat this is to raise the negatives of your opponent. We're not talking mudslinging, were talking a full out mudslide, an avalanche of crap flying. Negative campaigning always works, and when it does the candidate being attacked has to return fire.

Should be fun.

[S0S]

Representative Dennis Kucinich or Senator Joe Biden then..

[scottinnj]

I never believe that. I won't vote for her, but I can't believe half of this country is ready to send another Republican to the White House, especially when the potential candidate is former Senator Fred Thompson.

They say they'll never vote for her, but it's too early to tell. The Republicans can wind up nominating a complete dummy and she'll win.

But this story should make Senators Obama, Edwards and Governor Richardson feel better.
The others don't even come close.

[Doctor Z]

Giuliani's got my vote, if he gets that far...

But he won't, cuz he doesn't hate gays enough.

[scottinnj]

Just get Lott to run as VP. That'll balance the ticket.

[HBox]

I don't mean this as an attack on anyone but I honestly have no idea why anyone who doesn't support Bush right now would vote for Giuliani. More than anyone else he's Bush Part Two.

Stupid, overly simplistic and aggressive foreign policy sold by idiotic catch phrases? Check.
Penchant for hiring incompetent cronies based on nothing but loyalty? Check.
Hostility towards rule of law and limits of own power? DOUBLE Check.
Delusion of what's really going on in Iraq and the Middle East? Check.

And he's changing positions daily on abortion and immigration.

I just don't get his appeal, especially now. Maybe following another administration, but not this one.

[Fat_Sunny]

I don't mean this as an attack on anyone but I honestly have no idea why anyone who doesn't support Bush right now would vote for Giuliani. More than anyone else he's Bush Part Two.

Stupid, overly simplistic and aggressive foreign policy sold by idiotic catch phrases? Check.
Penchant for hiring incompetent cronies based on nothing but loyalty? Check.
Hostility towards rule of law and limits of own power? DOUBLE Check.
Delusion of what's really going on in Iraq and the Middle East? Check.

And he's changing positions daily on abortion and immigration.

I just don't get his appeal, especially now. Maybe following another administration, but not this one.

Pro Gay (At Least Compared To Bush): Check
Not Completely Anti-Abortion: Check
Articulate (Compared To Bush): Check

[HBox]

Pro Gay (At Least Compared To Bush): Check
Not Completely Anti-Abortion: Check
Articulate (Compared To Bush): Check

Yes but take a look at the things I listed and how they are affecting you and this country and then look at the things you listed and think how they affect you and this country.

[Fat_Sunny]

Yes but take a look at the things I listed and how they are affecting you and this country and then look at the things you listed and think how they affect you and this country.

Well, Yes, In Terms Of What Really Matters, You Are Correct.

But You Posed Your Question In Terms Of How People VOTE.

And Abortion And Gay Rights Are The Two HOT Buttons For The Religious Right.

Conversely, They Are Two Issues That Can Appeal To The "Broad Middle" And "Libertarian" Parts Of The Republican Party, And Hopefully, To Some Dems As Well.

[Snacks]

The only way Giuliani would get my vote is if he was running against GW Bush. Since that cant happen he will never get my vote. Hes a cocky, corrupt ass whose claim to fame is that he walked around NY after 9/11. He did nothing but lie about the air being ok, when he knew it wasnt (he wore a mask after being told the air wasnt good). I still dont know why people like him?

[Bulldogcakes]

[color=navy][size=2]I don't mean this as an attack on anyone but I honestly have no idea why anyone who doesn't support Bush right now would vote for Giuliani. More than anyone else he's Bush Part Two.

Stupid, overly simplistic and aggressive foreign policy sold by idiotic catch phrases? Check.
I don't disagree with you on that, but campaigns are loaded with overly simplistic, mind numbing slogans. So I don't necessarily hold that against him. They all do it, unfortunately. At least the ones who actually get elected.

Penchant for hiring incompetent cronies based on nothing but loyalty? Check.
You're right about Bush on this one, but wrong about Guiliani. The difference between the two here is ACCOUNTABILITY. Both have hired cronies (and again, everybody does) but Rudy had management systems in place and demanded results, Bush didn't.

Hostility towards rule of law and limits of own power? DOUBLE Check.
You have to put Rudy's record on this in context. NYC was a mess when he took it over. Dinkins himself said the city was "unmanageble" because it was too big and too complex (for him at least). Much of the CAUSES of the city's troubles were entrenched interests, some in the court system. The housing court was a repository of radical far leftists, where tenants could go for months without paying rent on the flimsiest of accusations. Rudy took control back from the panel that used to appoint them (set up by Koch) and set up an escrow system and appointed as many new judges as he could. It is a big reason why the building boom which has faded in most of the US is still going strong in NYC. Simple, common sense reform, and you wouldn't believe the shit he caught for doing it. Thats just one of many similar examples.

Delusion of what's really going on in Iraq and the Middle East? Check.

I agree with you there, he sees the region through the eyes of the Israeli right wingers. Who in my view are part of the problem in that region.

And he's changing positions daily on abortion and immigration.

I think he's been much more nuanced than you're portraying him, trying to take his long held views and couch them in ways that will sell in Peoria. But what goes on in a campaign is meaningless to me, everybody knows that politicians will do and say what they have to to win elections. I have no doubt that Rudy is supportive of abortion rights, he has been his entire public career. And his record on immigration in NYC was solid. Very pro-immigrant. I think parents were Italian immigrants. Lets not suspend our sense of reason just because we oppose someone politically. It doesn't fly.

[foodcourtdruide]

You have to put Rudy's record on this in context. NYC was a mess when he took it over. Dinkins himself said the city was "unmanageble" because it was too big and too complex (for him at least). Much of the CAUSES of the city's troubles were entrenched interests, some in the court system. The housing court was a repository of radical far leftists, where tenants could go for months without paying rent on the flimsiest of accusations. Rudy took control back from the panel that used to appoint them (set up by Koch) and set up an escrow system and appointed as many new judges as he could. It is a big reason why the building boom which has faded in most of the US is still going strong in NYC. Simple, common sense reform, and you wouldn't believe the shit he caught for doing it. Thats just one of many similar examples.

You have to admit, he would overstep his bounds constantly as mayor. He may have been doing the "right" thing but his disregard for checks and balances and the flow of the rule of law is alarmingly similar to Bush's.

[oh_kee_pa]

The only way Giuliani would get my vote is if he was running against GW Bush. Since that cant happen he will never get my vote. Hes a cocky, corrupt ass whose claim to fame is that he walked around NY after 9/11. He did nothing but lie about the air being ok, when he knew it wasnt (he wore a mask after being told the air wasnt good). I still dont know why people like him?

here's the problem w/ that 9/11 quote. He really had no choice in that matter. He needed to get in cleaned up unthinkably fast or else more deaths would amass. Here's why.

The towers were built over Garbage, not bedrock. Because of that they built what is basically a huge bathtub to support the structure. If, there was a crack in the surrounding concrete the entire thing would flood, as well as flooding a great section of the surrounding Trade Center Area.

Second, The Democratic race is going to turn into a Carnival Side Show when it comes down to the nominations, which is going to cause alot of the quasi demo. supporters to lose faith in the party. You know, those people that only don't like republicans cause its the "cool" thing to do. They really don't care either way, so when they see this "black" guy going against this "girl" they are going to say forget it (which is how more then 50% of this country thinks) and go vote for Guiliani.

I understand that people think a "democrat" may be a better person to serve based on what Bush has done, but there's no way a black or a woman is going to win.

I work in the construction industry, I'm a General Contractor, and 58% of the time when faced with a choice between a White G.C. and a Black G.C. a black family will choose the white G.C. because they feel "he knows more".

[ShapopoJoe]

I don't disagree with you on that, but campaigns are loaded with overly simplistic, mind numbing slogans. So I don't necessarily hold that against him. They all do it, unfortunately. At least the ones who actually get elected.


You're right about Bush on this one, but wrong about Guiliani. The difference between the two here is ACCOUNTABILITY. Both have hired cronies (and again, everybody does) but Rudy had management systems in place and demanded results, Bush didn't.


You have to put Rudy's record on this in context. NYC was a mess when he took it over. Dinkins himself said the city was "unmanageble" because it was too big and too complex (for him at least). Much of the CAUSES of the city's troubles were entrenched interests, some in the court system. The housing court was a repository of radical far leftists, where tenants could go for months without paying rent on the flimsiest of accusations. Rudy took control back from the panel that used to appoint them (set up by Koch) and set up an escrow system and appointed as many new judges as he could. It is a big reason why the building boom which has faded in most of the US is still going strong in NYC. Simple, common sense reform, and you wouldn't believe the shit he caught for doing it. Thats just one of many similar examples.



I agree with you there, he sees the region through the eyes of the Israeli right wingers. Who in my view are part of the problem in that region.



I think he's been much more nuanced than you're portraying him, trying to take his long held views and couch them in ways that will sell in Peoria. But what goes on in a campaign is meaningless to me, everybody knows that politicians will do and say what they have to to win elections. I have no doubt that Rudy is supportive of abortion rights, he has been his entire public career. And his record on immigration in NYC was solid. Very pro-immigrant. I think parents were Italian immigrants. Lets not suspend our sense of reason just because we oppose someone politically. It doesn't fly.

Delusion of what's really going on in Iraq and the Middle East? Check.

I agree with you there, he sees the region through the eyes of the Israeli right wingers. Who in my view are part of the problem in that region Oh Really? Please inform us what the delusion is? I cant wait to hear this....

[ShapopoJoe]

I don't mean this as an attack on anyone but I honestly have no idea why anyone who doesn't support Bush right now would vote for Giuliani. More than anyone else he's Bush Part Two.

Stupid, overly simplistic and aggressive foreign policy sold by idiotic catch phrases? Check.
Penchant for hiring incompetent cronies based on nothing but loyalty? Check.
Hostility towards rule of law and limits of own power? DOUBLE Check.
Delusion of what's really going on in Iraq and the Middle East? Check.

And he's changing positions daily on abortion and immigration.

I just don't get his appeal, especially now. Maybe following another administration, but not this one.


Please Inform everyone of the delusion of the middle east...gotta hear this laugher!

[HBox]

I don't disagree with you on that, but campaigns are loaded with overly simplistic, mind numbing slogans. So I don't necessarily hold that against him. They all do it, unfortunately. At least the ones who actually get elected.

Well, the first part is the more important part. The second point just annoys the shit out of me. The moment that illustrates the first point is when he went apeshit on Ron Paul for supposedly proposing that we were to blame for 9/11. We weren't, that wasn't what he was saying but god forbid anyone in that thinks about the Islamic extremism problem in any other way than the asinine "We gotta get them over there/stay on the offensive" paradigm. Because that's worked so well so far.


You're right about Bush on this one, but wrong about Guiliani. The difference between the two here is ACCOUNTABILITY. Both have hired cronies (and again, everybody does) but Rudy had management systems in place and demanded results, Bush didn't.

Bernard Kerik?


You have to put Rudy's record on this in context. NYC was a mess when he took it over. Dinkins himself said the city was "unmanageble" because it was too big and too complex (for him at least). Much of the CAUSES of the city's troubles were entrenched interests, some in the court system. The housing court was a repository of radical far leftists, where tenants could go for months without paying rent on the flimsiest of accusations. Rudy took control back from the panel that used to appoint them (set up by Koch) and set up an escrow system and appointed as many new judges as he could. It is a big reason why the building boom which has faded in most of the US is still going strong in NYC. Simple, common sense reform, and you wouldn't believe the shit he caught for doing it. Thats just one of many similar examples.

And then he examined trying to extend his term as mayor. For all the talk of getting life back to normal that certainly wasn't doing it. I think it was irresponsible just to bring it up.

I think he's been much more nuanced than you're portraying him, trying to take his long held views and couch them in ways that will sell in Peoria. But what goes on in a campaign is meaningless to me, everybody knows that politicians will do and say what they have to to win elections. I have no doubt that Rudy is supportive of abortion rights, he has been his entire public career. And his record on immigration in NYC was solid. Very pro-immigrant. I think parents were Italian immigrants. Lets not suspend our sense of reason just because we oppose someone politically. It doesn't fly.

And he came out against the immigration bill because he didn't support "amnesty." And while he said he personally supports abortion he said he would elect Supreme Court justices who would strike it down, and then a week later says that because abortion is currently legal that the government has the obligation to pay for them. That just doesn't make sense any way you look at it!

[Bulldogcakes]

Delusion of what's really going on in Iraq and the Middle East? Check.

I agree with you there, he sees the region through the eyes of the Israeli right wingers. Who in my view are part of the problem in that region

Oh Really? Please inform us what the delusion is? I cant wait to hear this....

That a war on terror is winnable through military means. Clinton had it right, terror is a form of international crime, and needs to be fought with criminal justice methods for the most part. There can be a military element to the strategy, but it cant be the whole strategy. It simply doesn't work. Evidence of this is as follows
-We never caught Bin Laden
-We tried to impose Democracy in Iraq through military means and look how well thats worked out.
-PM Sharon proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. He started his PM-ship promising to never give away land, and get tough with the terrorists. He spent the next few years killing every terrorist he could with total disregard for innocents, bulldozing the homes of suicide bombers families, building border fences, setting up security checkpoints within the West Bank and Gaza, etc etc etc. By the end, he realized all of his tactics accomplished nothing, they only increased the terrorism and misery on both sides. So he ended up giving away the Gaza strip, and lost his leadership position in Likud (Israeli Right wing party) in the process.

BTW-Most Israelis agree with me. Likud, headed by Bebe Netanyahu, polled a distant third in their last election, despite the Gaza controversy which they were consistently dead set against.

[Bulldogcakes]

Bernard Kerik?


Yes, Bernard Kerik. He was a very effective Corrections Chief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Kerik)

He is credited with dramatically improving the safety of the city's jail system, reducing inmate-on-inmate violence by 93% over a 5 year period, and staff use of force by 76%. His tenure was also marked by greatly improved agency efficiency, including a 44% reduction in agency overtime expenditures and a 31% reduction in staff sick leave. In 2000, his Total Efficiency Accountability Management System (T.E.A.M.S.) was a finalist for the prestigious Innovations in American Government Award sponsored by Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

and an effective Police Commissioner for 2000-2001, and though it was admittedly a short term the downward crime trends continued under his watch and his efforts during 9/11 were widely praised. Both of which greatly benefited those of us that live in NYC. He was an outstanding public servant in both roles.

His "other" problems are a rather unfortunate part of living in NYC, and he really should have known better. NYC politics is messy, it wouldn't surprise me that Rudy had people around him who were playing both sides. If anyone was duped there, I think it was Rudy. I know Rudy heard these allegations before, but its plausible he didn't believe them. Especially given Kerik's stellar track record. Rudy has alot of political enemies, Kerik could have attributed the allegations to them and Rudy accepted his explanation. I don't know. But I dont for one second believe Rudy is corrupt or in bed with the Mob.


And then he examined trying to extend his term as mayor. For all the talk of getting life back to normal that certainly wasn't doing it. I think it was irresponsible just to bring it up.

I didn't take that very seriously, but you could make the argument it was a time of crisis and it was warranted. They floated that balloon and it went nowhere, no biggie.

And he came out against the immigration bill because he didn't support "amnesty." And while he said he personally supports abortion he said he would elect Supreme Court justices who would strike it down, and then a week later says that because abortion is currently legal that the government has the obligation to pay for them. That just doesn't make sense any way you look at it!

Again, it's election season. Look at his 25+ year career to see what he really believes.

[Yerdaddy]

Terrorism: Giuliani's running mate (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rudy28jun28,1,5802085,print.story?ctrack=1&cset=true)
The GOP candidate's core campaign message is the constant threat of future attack and the need to stay vigilant.
By Maria L. La Ganga
Times Staff Writer

June 28, 2007

DES MOINES — The world according to Rudolph W. Giuliani is a very, very scary place.

Just listen to the former mayor of New York City in a hotel ballroom in the scorching Midwest, two minutes and 14 seconds into a speech on "Restoring Fiscal Discipline and Cutting Wasteful Washington Spending."

"I will continue to keep America on offense in the terrorist war against us, because I think that's the overriding issue of our day," he declared.

A sports metaphor for terrorism. Awesome! Please tell me Americans are through accepting worhtless metaphors as susbstitutes for a thoughtful strategy for our national security: "Drain the swamp"; "Iraq is the front line in the Wurr on Turr"; The "smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Honestly, half of America swallowed this shit like chocolate bukake in the Green Room of "The View". Giuliani's banking that the right is still falling for that old gag. Tell me he's wrong please.

Then he leaped into a detailed discussion that wound its way through earmarks and out-of-control federal budgets to the threat of Democratic tax increases and — as always — back to terrorism.

While talking taxes, Giuliani spoke of listening to a Democratic presidential debate. "They never mentioned the word 'Islamic terrorist' during the debate…. Maybe they think they're going to be insulting somebody if they say it. I'm trying to figure out who would be insulted — other than Islamic terrorists."

Or maybe you were listening to the debate last week that was formatted to cover domestic issues and terrorism was covered in every previous debate? Or maybe they mentioned "Islamiist terrorism" and Giuliani's pandering to the anti-democrat base that will swallow any insult however false or unfair?

It's entirely provable that the Democrats have supported the Wurr on Turr all along. The things that they've opposed have been the overly aggressive, unilateral, retarded policies that have hurt us in the Wurr on Turr: Endless, unlimited detentions in Guantanamo; going into Iraq OR going into Iraq without a plan; state-sponsored torture; warrantless wiretapping of American citizens; illegal secret renditions; etc. All of these things that have been proven to be detrimental to the fight against terrorism, to America's standing and power in the world, and to the rights of American citizens, and all of them have been what the administration and Giuliani has called "being on offense", when it's better defined in hindsight as fighting this war aggressively, arrogantly, and stupidly.

This is my problem with Giuliani: he gives typical right-wing rhetorical speeches about terrorism - even when he's in a forum set up for laying out his more thoughtful ideas and opinions - but at a time when there are things that we should have learned about how to fight terrorism and how not to fight it he's never given any indication that he's learned anything. He's never been critical of any of the proven failures of the Bush administration. He's never proved he really understands the phenomena of terrorism and how to fight it, only that it's ALWAYS LURKING!

I've got one criteria for who I support for president in 2008: will he/she lead us further along in the clash of civilizations, or will he/she pull us back? So far everything I've seen from Giuliani is that he wants to "stay the course". And maybe even speed up a little.

[AKA]

More than half of Americans won't vote for Clinton, poll shows (http://www.contracostatimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6260144&siteId=571)

More than half didn't vote for Clinton in 1992 either.

[epo]

I know that many of my conservative friends are madly in love with Senator Fred Thompson and for many good reasons. But...with today's Boston Globe, the former Law & Order star seems to have a serious problem: his role in the Watergate scandal.

Link to today's article in the Boston Globe. (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/07/04/not_all_would_put_a_heroic_sheen_on_thompsons_wate rgate_role/)

The killer line from the article is: "Thompson was a mole for the White House," Armstrong said in an interview. "Fred was working hammer and tong to defeat the investigation of finding out what happened to authorize Watergate and find out what the role of the president was."

This really blows the illusion of Thompson being an "outsider" out of the water and places him on the wrong side of history during a very bad time to be on the wrong side.

[J.Clints]

Stugots in '08

[FezPaul]

Representative Dennis Kucinich



http://www.gamepolitics.com/images/tinfoil-hat.jpg

[DarkHippie]

I think the strongest democratic ticket would be Edwards/Obama. They are both young, energetic, handsome, and represent a new face of politics. I don't have a problem with hillary, but she has too many enemies and too many skeletons in her closet. Also, she is a force in congress, so why take her out of there?

[underdog]

Who's the guy who throws the rock into the pond in the campaign video? That's who I'm voting for.

[Ritalin]

I think the strongest democratic ticket would be Edwards/Obama. They are both young, energetic, handsome, and represent a new face of politics. I don't have a problem with hillary, but she has too many enemies and too many skeletons in her closet. Also, she is a force in congress, so why take her out of there?

About Edwards: What is his wife's condition? I know her cancer is back, but is it manageable?

Is it a legitimate concern to consider his wife's condition when contemplating whether or not to vote for a canditate? I know I'm touching on an incredibly sensitive topic and I'm picking my way very carefully. The Presidency is such a demanding time consuming job that I wonder if his wife's condition precludes him from potentially being able to perform the duties of the office when we live in such challenging times.

I hope that his wife lives for another 50 years, I really do, and I like what I've seen of Edwards politically as well.

[epo]

Who's the guy who throws the rock into the pond in the campaign video? That's who I'm voting for.

I like the guy who uses his wife & kids as a prop while he talks about "the future". He's the best.

[BeltOfScotch]

About Edwards: What is his wife's condition? I know her cancer is back, but is it manageable?

Is it a legitimate concern to consider his wife's condition when contemplating whether or not to vote for a canditate? I know I'm touching on an incredibly sensitive topic and I'm picking my way very carefully. The Presidency is such a demanding time consuming job that I wonder if his wife's condition precludes him from potentially being able to perform the duties of the office when we live in such challenging times.

I hope that his wife lives for another 50 years, I really do, and I like what I've seen of Edwards politically as well.

From what I remembered when the story first broke, her cancer is not operable but it is treatable and that they didn't expect any major complications from her continuing to campaign.

I give Edwards credit in that this time around I think he is actually saying what he believes, but he's too liberal for me. If I had to bet right now, I'd say the Democratic ticket will be Clinton/Richardson.

On the Republican side, while he could possibly screw it up by saying something stupid at any moment, I'd say the ticket will be Romney/Insert White Southern Conservative (Haley Barbour maybe?).

If Clinton v. Romney happens or appears likely to happen, then Bloomberg gets in the race next February.

[epo]

According to this ABC Report, Senator John McCain only has $2 million left in his campaign's bank account. He better start raising some cash or he won't be long for this campaign!

Link to story here. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/ron-paul-tops-m.html)

[BeltOfScotch]

McCain's fall from the top is unreal. With this group of candidates he should be sailing to the nomination. He could still get it, but after cutting his staff in Iowa in half, I think his chances of winning are based more on everyone else being awful than him winning it on his own.

[Crispy123]

The Ron Paul Revolution (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/)

[Bulldogcakes]

• Brownback to hit trail with Terri Schiavo's brother (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070711/ap_on_el_pr/on_the2008_trail_25)

WASHINGTON - Republican presidential hopeful Sam Brownback is embarking on a campaign trip with the brother of the late Terri Schiavo, whose fate touched off a political firestorm over government intervention and end-of-life issues


The Kansas senator is less well-known than leading GOP candidates for president, but he is a favorite of anti-abortion conservatives who influence Iowa's nominating caucuses. Brownback is calling the tour "Pro-Life, Whole-Life."

He is traveling this weekend in Iowa with Bobby Schindler, Schiavo's brother, and Francis Bok, an escaped slave from Sudan.

Schiavo, who was in a permanent vegetative state since 1990, died in 2005 after her feeding tube was removed by court order.

Remind me to scratch him off my candidates list

[A.J.]

Brownback is calling the tour "Pro-Life, Whole-Life."

And yet I'm pretty sure he's pro-death penalty.

[Jujubees2]

Yes, Bernard Kerik. He was a very effective Corrections Chief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Kerik)



and an effective Police Commissioner for 2000-2001, and though it was admittedly a short term the downward crime trends continued under his watch and his efforts during 9/11 were widely praised. Both of which greatly benefited those of us that live in NYC. He was an outstanding public servant in both roles.

His "other" problems are a rather unfortunate part of living in NYC, and he really should have known better. NYC politics is messy, it wouldn't surprise me that Rudy had people around him who were playing both sides. If anyone was duped there, I think it was Rudy. I know Rudy heard these allegations before, but its plausible he didn't believe them. Especially given Kerik's stellar track record. Rudy has alot of political enemies, Kerik could have attributed the allegations to them and Rudy accepted his explanation. I don't know. But I dont for one second believe Rudy is corrupt or in bed with the Mob.



I didn't take that very seriously, but you could make the argument it was a time of crisis and it was warranted. They floated that balloon and it went nowhere, no biggie.



Again, it's election season. Look at his 25+ year career to see what he really believes.

You've got to be kidding defending Kerik! He's an admitted crook. And if he pleaded guilty to two charges, who knows what else he may have done. This is a guy who didn’t even graduate from high school and only got the job because he was Rudy's driver and body guard.

"His "other" problems are a rather unfortunate part of living in NYC". Are you kidding me? He took kickbacks, knowing full well it was against the law. He should be in prison himself!

[AKA]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/promos/politics/blog/bloomberg-gore-blog533.jpg

Not going to happen - but could make things more fun.

[cupcakelove]

And yet I'm pretty sure he's pro-death penalty.

I read a funny phrase in an editorial once, and it is a generalization, so please don't be offended if you are a conservative and this isn't true for you.

"Conservatives believe the right to life begins with conception and ends at birth"

[high fly]

About Edwards: What is his wife's condition?.

She's in ass-kicking condition.
You see the way she made mincemeat out of Coulter?

[high fly]

I read a funny phrase in an editorial once, and it is a generalization, so please don't be offended if you are a conservative and this isn't true for you.

"Conservatives believe the right to life begins with conception and ends at birth"


The best ones I've heard about the campaign so far are:

"Rudy Giulliani has been married more times than Mitt Romney has been hunting."

and

"Hmmmm, Mitt Romney, the Mormon.
Conservative Mormon.
That means he's against same-sex polygamy."

[Bulldogcakes]

You've got to be kidding defending Kerik! He's an admitted crook. And if he pleaded guilty to two charges, who knows what else he may have done. This is a guy who didn’t even graduate from high school and only got the job because he was Rudy's driver and body guard.

"His "other" problems are a rather unfortunate part of living in NYC". Are you kidding me? He took kickbacks, knowing full well it was against the law. He should be in prison himself!


What I was referring to with that comment was the associations he was said to have with some businessmen with mob connections. While thats unseemly, its also pretty unavoidable in a city with 5 crime families involved in almost everything that moves here. You don't and cant always know who's friends with your friends, so its a pretty easy smear to make of anyone who does any business here.


About the "kickbacks", there is no evidence supporting that claim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Kerik)

On June 30, 2006, after an eighteen month investigation conducted by the Bronx District Attorney's Office, Kerik pled guilty to two ethics violations (unclassified misdemeanors) and was ordered to pay $221,000 in fines at the 10-minute hearing.[4]

Kerik acknowledged that he failed to document a personal loan on his annual New York City Conflict of Interest Report (a violation of the New York City Administrative Code) and accepting a gift from a New Jersey construction firm (or ones of their subsidiaries) attempting to do business with the city, (a violation of the New York City Charter). During the court hearing, the Assistant Bronx District Attorney stated that "although some may draw inferences from this plea, there is no direct evidence of an agreement between Kerik and the New Jersey construction firm". Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg immediately removed Kerik's name from the Manhattan Detention Complex, a New York jail that had been renamed in Kerik's honor on December 21, 2001 by Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.[5]

On March 31, 2007, The Associated Press reported that Kerik rejected a plea bargain agreement with federal prosecutors who are investigating allegations of tax evasion for failing to declare the gifts that he received from the New Jersey contractors.


Sorry, but most of those charges are bullshit, especially the tax evasion one. If he wasn't a public figure they'd never be brought. And you've yet to refute my main claim, that he was a great public servant under Rudy as Corrections chief and police commish. Minor ethics violations like these dont trump a record like this in my book.

He is credited with dramatically improving the safety of the city's jail system, reducing inmate-on-inmate violence by 93% over a 5 year period, and staff use of force by 76%. His tenure was also marked by greatly improved agency efficiency, including a 44% reduction in agency overtime expenditures and a 31% reduction in staff sick leave. In 2000, his Total Efficiency Accountability Management System (T.E.A.M.S.) was a finalist for the prestigious Innovations in American Government Award sponsored by Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

[high fly]

.. While thats unseemly, its also pretty unavoidable in a city with 5 crime families involved in almost everything that moves here.



I thought Giulliani got rid of-em.
Is he mobbed up, too?

[scottinnj]

McCain's fall from the top is unreal. With this group of candidates he should be sailing to the nomination. He could still get it, but after cutting his staff in Iowa in half, I think his chances of winning are based more on everyone else being awful than him winning it on his own.

No, its not as unbelievable as it sounds. His campaign manager blew away 22 million dollars in three months on what nobody really knows, because his message just was not out there. He rolled the dice on Iraq, and based his campaign on the surge, General Patreous' abilities and victory over the summer. So far it hasn't gone his way, and people know he is supporting a campaign that is predicted to fail.
With conservatives like myself, his campaign finance bill was a disaster for free speech, and that is one of many bills in his career that makes the Republican base do a double take on him. He will not recover from this, and I predict that after he fails to gain the R nomination this time, he will probably no longer try to be a Senator. He'll probably retire from politics after this.

[BeltOfScotch]

No, its not as unbelievable as it sounds. His campaign manager blew away 22 million dollars in three months on what nobody really knows, because his message just was not out there. He rolled the dice on Iraq, and based his campaign on the surge, General Patreous' abilities and victory over the summer. So far it hasn't gone his way, and people know he is supporting a campaign that is predicted to fail.
With conservatives like myself, his campaign finance bill was a disaster for free speech, and that is one of many bills in his career that makes the Republican base do a double take on him. He will not recover from this, and I predict that after he fails to gain the R nomination this time, he will probably no longer try to be a Senator. He'll probably retire from politics after this.

I wasn't talking about the last three months. 12-18 months ago, McCain was as much the front runner for the Republicans that Hillary was (and still is) for the Democrats. Plus, the Republican party has historically nominated the early front runner or the guy who has waited his turn (Bush 43 an obvious example of the former and Bob Dole an obvious example of the latter). If you can tell me that in spring 2006 you knew McCain was going to have these kinds of troubles, get those resumes over to the cable news networks.

Personally I'm very conflicted about campaign finance reform. From a political theory/legal analysis standard, I have huge problems with it. The donation of money to a candidate is a clear example of political speech and that should get the highest protection under the Constitution. However, from a practical perspective, it is equally obvious that money has had an enormous (and if not solely, pretty damn close to that) negative effect upon politics.

As for McCain's future if he doesn't get the nomination, his Senate term ends in 2010. He'll be 74 on Election Day that year, so I think there's a good chance he'd retire no matter what.

[scottinnj]

If you can tell me that in spring 2006 you knew McCain was going to have these kinds of troubles, get those resumes over to the cable news networks.

I didn't have a crystal ball for these specific problems with McCain, but I knew he would never get the nomination-the base does not trust him. That is not going to get me any job as a consultant on Fox News or CNN, I believe a lot of these political people knew this too, but they respected McCain enough not to editorialize this from the get go.

As for McCain's future if he doesn't get the nomination, his Senate term ends in 2010. He'll be 74 on Election Day that year, so I think there's a good chance he'd retire no matter what.


Agreed. The only reason IMO he stayed in the Senate after his last bid for the R nomination was to try again, and he thought he was "due" because that is a habit the Republican Party seems to rely on. Now his second failure, and it is much worse then his first go-round, is very embarassing, he is looking very tired when he is on the trail or in the Senate, he just is going to retire after this.

[Bulldogcakes]

No, its not as unbelievable as it sounds. His campaign manager blew away 22 million dollars in three months on what nobody really knows, because his message just was not out there. He rolled the dice on Iraq, and based his campaign on the surge, General Patreous' abilities and victory over the summer. So far it hasn't gone his way, and people know he is supporting a campaign that is predicted to fail.
With conservatives like myself, his campaign finance bill was a disaster for free speech, and that is one of many bills in his career that makes the Republican base do a double take on him. He will not recover from this, and I predict that after he fails to gain the R nomination this time, he will probably no longer try to be a Senator. He'll probably retire from politics after this.

McCain always had problem with the base because of how he is perceived as being "too liberal" and having high profile disagreements with a Republican president. Seemed like every time McCain was on the news, he was opposing something Bush was trying to do. Actually if you look at his voting record, he has one of the highest conservative rankings in the Senate. But he's a media darling, and for many in the base thats a big negative. He also made more sense a few years ago than he does today. He was seen as a maverick Republican who would pull the party to the middle at a time when Republicans held all of Washington. Thats no longer the case.

But his main problem was his strong high profile support for a war that most Americans want no part of anymore. His support of Immigration reform didn't help him with the base either.

[Think]

A true defender of your rights. I think everyone could get one board with this guy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsLcQiHKhic

Personal Responsibility!!!!

[DolaMight]

Anyone else surprised about McCain's demise? I know there's stiff competition out there, but I doubt he'll survive the first couple primaries. He always seems to be the wrong race wrong time candidate. Too bad.

Also with Imus off the air I think this is hurting him badly. Imus listeners were pretty loyal.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19762064/site/newsweek/

[epo]

It appears that Mitt Romney is going crazy and well...former Bush supporters are flocking.

Over the past couple of weeks, Romney has started a "Democrats are evil" campaign ripping Clinton & Obama (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/22/america/NA-POL-US-Romney-Democrats.php)with everything he has. Then at a rally in South Carolina, he showed the world what an amateur he is. He took photos with a crazy lady who was holding a handwritten sign that said "No to Osama, Obama & Chelsea's Moma (http://www.tmz.com/2007/07/21/mitt-catches-s-t-over-hillary-bashing-sign/)". Please note the brainpower in her spelling.

So with this type of candidate in the field, those old Bush fundraisers are flocking to the Romney camp (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a4zgFCkfsvcM&refer=us), as a reported 2/3 of them supporting Romney.

Why should I not be surprised?

[foodcourtdruide]

McCain always had problem with the base because of how he is perceived as being "too liberal" and having high profile disagreements with a Republican president. Seemed like every time McCain was on the news, he was opposing something Bush was trying to do. Actually if you look at his voting record, he has one of the highest conservative rankings in the Senate. But he's a media darling, and for many in the base thats a big negative. He also made more sense a few years ago than he does today. He was seen as a maverick Republican who would pull the party to the middle at a time when Republicans held all of Washington. Thats no longer the case.

But his main problem was his strong high profile support for a war that most Americans want no part of anymore. His support of Immigration reform didn't help him with the base either.

In a world that made sense, what you stated would be true. However, I'm not sure if I agree with it. Guiliani and Romney seem to be pretty pro-war and they're doing well.

[Bulldogcakes]

Newt goes nuclear
May enter race to foil 'pygmies' (http://www.examiner.com/a-842080~Newt_goes_nuclear__May_enter_race_to_foil_p ygmies.html)

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Dismissing the GOP presidential field as a "pathetic" bunch of "pygmies," Newt Gingrich hinted Monday he might step in to beat Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

"If, in mid-October, it's quite clear that one or more of the current candidates is strong enough to be a serious alternative to a Clinton-Obama ticket, you don't need me to run," the former House Speaker said at a breakfast sponsored by the American Spectator. "If it becomes patently obvious, as the morning paper points out, that the Democrats have raised a hundred million more than the Republicans, and at some point people decide we are going to get Hillary unless there's a radical change, then there's space for a candidate," he added. "So you'll know by mid-October one of those two futures is real."



Gingrich mocked Republican presidential candidates for subjecting themselves to a May debate hosted by Chris Matthews of MSNBC's "Hardball."

"You're watching an utterly irrelevant, shallow television celebrity dominate everybody who claimed they want to lead the most powerful nation in the world," he said.


This kind of frankness is what I love about Newt, and why he'd make an awful candidate.

I also understand that the National Association of Pygmies was "deeply offended" by his remarks.

[high fly]

Nyewt will announce in the third or fourth week of September.



And among GOP candidates, "None of the Above" leaps out to an early lead!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/17/presidential.poll.none.ap/index.html
None of the Above - 25%
Highest-rated human - 21%



Eerily reminiscent of the voters in Missouri who had the choice, Ashcroft or 'the dead guy.'
They studied the issues, trying to decide who would look after their interests more, Ashcroft or 'the dead guy.'
They weighed the advantages and disadvantages as well as the experience brought to the table when taking that fateful decision, Ashcroft or 'the dead guy.'
They pondered, which would represent them better, Ashcroft or 'the dead guy.'


Finally election day came and they chose 'the dead guy.'

[K.C.]

I still think Al Gore is going to announce around September. He's timing it just right to throw his name into the field, because if he announces at the right time, he'll run away with momentum.

But assuming he doesn't, I don't know how the Republicans can win with their current field of candidates, no matter who the Democrats nominate (be it Hillary, Obama, Edwards).

Does anyone really believe someone like Rudy or Mitt Romney will make in-roads in any of the Northeastern states, even though Rudy's from NY, and Mitt from MA?

I just don't see it. And I think those two are going to have a very hard time maintaining the solid Republican south and midwest, because they don't relate socially and culturally to the people out there. Those cultural issues voters might just stay home this time around which could tip several states.

And if you go with a guy like Fred Thompson, I don't really think he has the background to withstand a full Presidential campaign.


McCain looked like the best Republican bet to me, but EVERYONE has turned on him.



This really looks like the Democrats' to lose.

[Yerdaddy]

I still think Al Gore is going to announce around September. He's timing it just right to throw his name into the field, because if he announces at the right time, he'll run away with momentum.

But assuming he doesn't, I don't know how the Republicans can win with their current field of candidates, no matter who the Democrats nominate (be it Hillary, Obama, Edwards).

Does anyone really believe someone like Rudy or Mitt Romney will make in-roads in any of the Northeastern states, even though Rudy's from NY, and Mitt from MA?

I just don't see it. And I think those two are going to have a very hard time maintaining the solid Republican south and midwest, because they don't relate socially and culturally to the people out there. Those cultural issues voters might just stay home this time around which could tip several states.

And if you go with a guy like Fred Thompson, I don't really think he has the background to withstand a full Presidential campaign.


McCain looked like the best Republican bet to me, but EVERYONE has turned on him.



This really looks like the Democrats' to lose.

And that's what they do best.

I don't think Al Gore can beat Hillary in the primaries. I don't think anyone can, but Al Gore's still got a personality like a fart in church and nobody likes that.

Rudy's a contender in the primaries becauase he will have the the Republicans in Democratic states voting for him. If he wins that he'll still have the hardcore Republican states because he'll be the Republican candidate, but what he will struggle with is getting their money. The religious right have money and they gave shitloads of it to Bush. Without Bush's base Rudy will have the social moderate appeal to win swing states, but he may not have enough money to keep them until election day.

[Bulldogcakes]

Gingrich says war on terror 'phony' (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/08/03/newt0803.html)

Washington — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday the Bush administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001.

A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.


"None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war," the ex-Georgian told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for collegiate conservatives.

Gingrich, who led the so-called Republican Revolution that won the GOP control of both houses of Congress in 1994 midterm elections, said more must be done to marshal national resources to combat Islamic militants at home and abroad and to prepare the country for future attack. He was unstinting in his criticism of his fellow Republicans, in the White House and on Capitol Hill.

"We were in charge for six years," he said, referring to the period between 2001 and early 2007, when the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. "I don't think you can look and say that was a great success."

I love Newt.

[Yerdaddy]

Washington — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday the Bush administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001.

A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.


"None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war," the ex-Georgian told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for collegiate conservatives.

Gingrich, who led the so-called Republican Revolution that won the GOP control of both houses of Congress in 1994 midterm elections, said more must be done to marshal national resources to combat Islamic militants at home and abroad and to prepare the country for future attack. He was unstinting in his criticism of his fellow Republicans, in the White House and on Capitol Hill.

"We were in charge for six years," he said, referring to the period between 2001 and early 2007, when the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. "I don't think you can look and say that was a great success."

What a load of shit.

Back in 2003 when the Pentagon was winning it's battle with the State Department for total control of the Iraq War including reconstruction and administering the country after the initial war Gingrich played the hatchet man for the neocons who are totally responsible for fucking up Iraq.

Gingrich blasts 'diplomatic failure' at State Department (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/22/gingrich.powell/index.html)Tuesday, April 22, 2003 Posted: 4:18 PM EDT (2018 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich blasted the State Department Tuesday for a series of what he described as diplomatic failures leading up to the war with Iraq, and warned that the pattern is poised to repeat itself.

In a speech delivered at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank in Washington, Gingrich contrasted the experience of the State Department with the Defense Department. He said the State Department had failed in its efforts to apply diplomatic pressure to persuade Iraq to disarm and comply with U.N. resolutions, and it is time for "bold, dramatic change" at the department.

"The last seven months have involved six months of diplomatic failure and one month of military success," said Gingrich, who sits on a Pentagon advisory committee. "The first days after military victory indicate the pattern of diplomatic failure is beginning once again and threatens to undo the effects of military victory."

Specifically, Gingrich cited as failures the United States' inability to persuade Turkey to allow U.S. troops on its soil before the war and the failed attempt to win a second U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.

Without an overhaul at the State Department, Gingrich warned that the United States would "find itself on the defensive everywhere except militarily."


First of all it was Defense that negotiated with Turkey, not State, and not having the extra troops coming in from Turkey fit with Rumsfeld's insistance on having a smaller invasion force than the uniforms said, rightly, was necessary. Secondly, Turkey wanted money in exchange for pissing off their public and being a part of a US invasion of a Muslim country. The decision not to pay their price was not the State Department's to make - it was the President's. Newt was simply being opportunistic in blaming State for Turkey. And he was being a full partner in the administration's "failures".

We got the overhaul of the State Department Newt was looking for when neocons were placed in key positions at State by Cheney and Rumsfield when Powell left and Condi took over. And guess what? We're on the defensive everywhere inclduing militarily. And in fact we now know that the State Department was right in most of it's policy disputes with the Defense Department on post-war Iraq planning but State was shut out of leadership of reconstruction for over two years in Iraq.

Gingrich, a favorite of many conservatives, faulted Secretary of State Colin Powell for saying he would visit Syria, which the Bush administration has accused of aiding members of the fallen regime of Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Over the weekend, that criticism eased and President Bush said Syria has shown signs of cooperation.

"The concept of the American secretary of state going to Damascus to meet with a terrorist-supporting, secret-police-wielding dictator is ludicrous," said Gingrich, who resigned the speakership under fire in 1999. He had represented Georgia as a Republican congressman, and now works as a consultant and political analyst. "The United States military has created an opportunity to apply genuine economic, diplomatic and political pressure on Syria."

Talking to Syria was one of the Baker-Hamilton Commission key reccommendations and what are we doing now?... talking to Syria. Like Iran, Syria has also been impowered by our fuck ups in Iraq - only the fact that it got caught with it's pants down in the assassination of Rafik Hariri and Israel's own aggression have kept it from capitalizing on our inability to apply diplomatic and military pressure on Syria to get it to stop supporting Hezballah and negotiating with Israel. We are, as a result of the Pentagon's failures in Iraq, playing defense to a pissant country like Syria because we need them to help us to seal it's Iraq border and stop aiding the insurgency in Iraq. If we had been realistic and had the President supported diplomacy with Syria early on we may have had Syria's cooperation in exchange for concessions of our own. Nobody likes to give concessions to a government like Syria's but it's better than them having us by the balls, which is the situation now - four years into Iraq and we're negotiating with Syria for the same things that the State Dept was negotiating for back then. Newt was actively participating in that "failure" of a policy by the neocons.

Read the rest of Newt's analysis on what was going on before and after the invasion of Iraq. (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={81CC6E68-31C6-4F64-8C7B-65A192707596}) He was backing the group that was fucking things up. He was wrong then and he's completely disingenuous now that he's suddenly a critic of the policies he supported. He's simply another example that nobody ever loses credibility in Washington however wrong they're proven to be. He'll probably be our next President.

(That last sentence was a joke. He probably won't run.)

[Yerdaddy]

Speaking of the State Department and Presidential candidates - it looks like Rice had to send word back home to have her spokesman to put a lid on the Muslim-bashing-for-votes campaign:

The State Department has a message for White House candidates wanting to expound on sensitive diplomatic issues: Shut up.

Traditionally silent during presidential campaigns filled with divisive foreign policy debates, the department on Friday delivered a rebuke to would-be nominees of both parties whose recent comments have complicated U.S. efforts to overcome deep suspicion about the war on terrorism in the Muslim world.

"Those who wish to hold office can speak for themselves and whoever is elected in 2008 and comes into office in 2009 will then be in a position to talk about what they intend or plan to do," said deputy spokesman Tom Casey, a career foreign service officer.

First it was Barack Obama's talk of dialogue with dictators and invading Pakistan to kill Islamist militants, then it was Hillary Rodham Clinton refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons to that end. Now, the Democratic front-runners have been joined by radical Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, who threatened to bomb Muslim holy sites to stop terror attacks.

The State Department had hoped to steer clear of controversy, complaints and public protests sparked by Obama and Clinton, but Tancredo's comments bumped up against the limit of diplomatic patience.

Casey had unusually harsh words for Tancredo, R-Colo., who said this week that if elected he would threaten to bomb the Saudi cities of Mecca and Medina, Islam's two holiest sites, to deter attacks on the United States.

"It is absolutely outrageous and reprehensible for anyone to suggest attacks on holy sites, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish or those of any other religion," a clearly agitated Casey told reporters, shaking his head in disgust.

"To somehow suggest that an appropriate response to terrorism would be to attack sites that are holy and sacred to more than a billion people throughout the world is just absolutely crazy," he said, denouncing "any suggestion that the defense of the American homeland or the defense of American interests would ever justify attacking holy sites."

Tancredo's suggestion to bomb Mecca and Medina came as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were on a sensitive mission to the Middle East that included a stop in Saudi Arabia.

Tancredo told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in Iowa on Tuesday that he believes a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.

"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do," he said.

Despite his fringe status in the presidential race, Tancredo's statement prompted angry reactions among Muslims in countries deemed critical to the fight against Islamic extremism, notably Pakistan, where U.S. intelligence believes al-Qaida has regrouped.



What a fucking cockbag! I'm embarassed that there's a consituency in America for this kind of retarded self-destructive bigotry.

[A.J.]

If there was ever a nuclear attack on America, go ahead and retaliate against Makkah and Madinah. Just leave the Eastern Province untouched -- that's where all the sweet, sweet oil is at!

[HBox]

If there was ever a nuclear attack on America, go ahead and retaliate against Makkah and Madinah. Just leave the Eastern Province untouched -- that's where all the sweet, sweet oil is at!

If there's ever a nuclear attack on America we're taking everyone down with us. EVERYONE. I'm talking Doomsday machine. And just to prove to ourselves we're serious we ain't telling anybody.

[Yerdaddy]

If there was ever a nuclear attack on America, go ahead and retaliate against Makkah and Madinah. Just leave the Eastern Province untouched -- that's where all the sweet, sweet oil is at!

Unless the Saudi government were acually responsible for it in which case we nuke Indonesia.

[high fly]

Unless the Saudi government were acually responsible for it in which case we nuke Indonesia.

I think we have to part ways on that one, big fella.
Let's look at the Afghan model where when the enemy retreated to the EAST, the Deciderator decided the thing to do was invade 3 countries over to the WEST!
So, if the Saudis nuked us, Bush would definitely invade Algeria or maybe the "N" country....

[Yerdaddy]

I think we have to part ways on that one, big fella.
Let's look at the Afghan model where when the enemy retreated to the EAST, the Deciderator decided the thing to do was invade 3 countries over to the WEST!
So, if the Saudis nuked us, Bush would definitely invade Algeria or maybe the "N" country....

George Bush: "Africa?"

[Bulldogcakes]

What a fucking cockbag! I'm embarassed that there's a consituency in America for this kind of retarded self-destructive bigotry.


Don't be. You guys have your Al Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's, we have our Tom Tancredo's and Pat Buchanan's.
Its a big tent, baby. A few pigs are gonna find their way in, and they can vote too.

[Bulldogcakes]

He was wrong then and he's completely disingenuous now that he's suddenly a critic of the policies he supported. He's simply another example that nobody ever loses credibility in Washington however wrong they're proven to be. He'll probably be our next President.

(That last sentence was a joke. He probably won't run.)

He may not, but he's clearly setting him self up as a (French PM) Sarkozy-like insider/outsider who will try to capitalize on dissatisfaction in the country towards his own party's leader. Smart move politically. I think that's what Bloomberg is banking on as well if he decides to throw his hat in the ring.

And while I found some of your criticisms of Newt to be fair, lets be honest. Thats wont stop most Americans from voting for him. I'm sure the press will bring it up and most voters will write it off as the usual nonsense that goes on between both parties. Most don't follow politics that closely or have that long a memory, and most Americans supported the war initially, but have disapproved of the way Bush has handled it and he falls in line with that thinking. If anything, his lack of charm will lose him more votes than any of his policy positions.

Imagine if Newt ran vs Hillary? That would be the most unappealing race in history. Polls would be released "Who do you hate less?" Bloomberg would seem like Jerry Seinfeld next to those two, and thats only because he's shorter and has more money.

[epo]

The Republicans in Iowa must be bored....as we officially have some Alan Keyes talk (http://www.alankeyes.com/articles/070806iowa.php)!

Let the crazy talk begin!

[epo]

Mitt Romney heard an interesting question today. It basically went like this:

Q: If this War on Terror is so important, then why aren't any of your 5 sons serving our military?

A: Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......

Audio on You Tube here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljf2myZFNBw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhotair%2Ecom%2Farchives%2F2007%2 F08%2F08%2Fmitt%2Dmy%2Dmilitary%2Dage%2Dsons%2Dser ve%2Damerica%2Dby%2Dtrying%2Dto%2Dget%2Dme%2Delect ed%2F)

The problem for the Republicans is this....if you are all pro-war & aren't "supporting" it...you are gonna get called out on it. Historically there is a precedent for this...FDR had 4 sons and they all went to WWII.

[epo]

Actor and all-around gnarly dude, Stephen Baldwin is finally ready to endorse a presidential candidate. It appears that bat-shit crazy Sam Brownback is his man (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/actor-stephen-b.html).

With that out of the way, we can all get back to our lives.

[HBox]

Rudy Giuliani's Five Big Lies About 9/11 (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0732,barrett,77463,6.html/7)

Here's the worst part:

The mayor was so personally focused on the siting and construction of the bunker that the city administrator who oversaw it testified in a subsequent lawsuit that "very senior officials," specifically including Giuliani, "were involved," which he said was a major difference between this and other projects. Giuliani's office had a humidor for cigars and mementos from City Hall, including a fire horn, police hats and fire hats, as well as monogrammed towels in his bathroom. His suite was bulletproofed and he visited it often, even on weekends, bringing his girlfriend Judi Nathan there long before the relationship surfaced. He had his own elevator. Great concern was expressed in writing that the platform in the press room had to be high enough to make sure his head was above the cameras. It's inconceivable that the hands-on mayor's fantasy command center was shaped—or sited—by anyone other than him. Of course, the consequences of putting the center there were predictable. The terrorist who engineered the 1993 bombing told the FBI they were coming back to the trade center. Opposing the site at a meeting with the mayor, Police Commissioner Howard Safir called it "Ground Zero" because of the earlier attack. Lou Anemone, the highest-ranking uniformed officer in the NYPD, wrote memos slamming the site. "I've never seen in my life 'walking distance' as some kind of a standard for crisis management," Anemone said later. "But you don't want to confuse Giuliani with the facts." Anemone had done a detailed vulnerability study of the city for Giuliani, pinpointing terrorist targets. "In terms of targets, the WTC was number one," he says. "I guess you had to be there in 1993 to know how strongly we felt it was the wrong place."

[pennington]

Q: If this War on Terror is so important, then why aren't any of your 5 sons serving our military?

How come no one asks why isn't Hillary's daughter serving? Equal rights means equal responsibility too.

[scottinnj]

If there was ever a nuclear attack on America, go ahead and retaliate against Makkah and Madinah. Just leave the Eastern Province untouched -- that's where all the sweet, sweet oil is at!

Unless the Saudi government were acually responsible for it in which case we nuke Indonesia.

Well, worst case scenario would be to just pick a spot somewhere between Russia and Saudia Arabia, tell the American people it's called the Jerkececkistan Province, and then nuke that.
I mean fuck it, really. If we go to nukes, it's over Johnny.

[scottinnj]

Tommy Thompson has quit the Republican Nomination Race.


Did anyone even know he was running?

[Ritalin]

How come no one asks why isn't Hillary's daughter serving? Equal rights means equal responsibility too.

yawn

[scottinnj]

How come no one asks why isn't Hillary's daughter serving? Equal rights means equal responsibility too.

Because even though she voted for the war, she has been complaining about it since day one. Therefore she gets a pass from the media. Not to mention her husband's heroic order to bomb an aspirin factory in Afghanistan after the USS Cole was hit.

Ah, yes the Pre 9/11 days, when innocent, doe-eyed liberals thought sending cops to an embassy bombing was waging war on terrorism. Good times, Good times.

[epo]

Ah, yes the Pre 9/11 days, when innocent, doe-eyed liberals thought sending cops to an embassy bombing was waging war on terrorism. Good times, Good times.

Ahhh....Post 9/11 Days, when neo-conservatives in this country thought using the phrase "terrorism" was a free pass to fuck up every institution they could get their hands on.

[pennington]

yawn

Go Hillary!

[scottinnj]

Ahhh....Post 9/11 Days, when neo-conservatives in this country thought using the phrase "terrorism" was a free pass to fuck up every institution they could get their hands on.


Touche, epo. Touche!

[Recyclerz]

Even though he's been taking heat from the left-leaning blogosphere regarding his "dumbed-down" view of the world and US foreign policy in his campaign sound bites, our steadfast Rudy isn't flinching. In fact, he's doubling down on the dumbness with an article in Foreign Policy that is little more than a collage of Bush, Cheney & neo-con cliches that have proven to be about 180 degrees away from true for the past six years.

Foreign Policy Essay
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501/rudolph-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html

Slate Critique of Rudy's Essay
http://www.slate.com/id/2172285/
(Note: Fred Kaplan has been a pretty objective and insiteful observer of Iraq specifically and Bush's foreign policy in general and is not just a left-wing Bush Hater, IMHO)


With such flawed candidates (Hilary & Rudy) as the current favorites for nominees of the major parties, I think we may be looking at the possibility of a once in a lifetime event where Ronnie B may be wrong about something and we could get a third party/independent candidate elected as President.

[Bulldogcakes]

Even though he's been taking heat from the left-leaning blogosphere regarding his "dumbed-down" view of the world and US foreign policy in his campaign sound bites, our steadfast Rudy isn't flinching. In fact, he's doubling down on the dumbness with an article in Foreign Policy that is little more than a collage of Bush, Cheney & neo-con cliches that have proven to be about 180 degrees away from true for the past six years.

Foreign Policy Essay
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501/rudolph-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html

Slate Critique of Rudy's Essay
http://www.slate.com/id/2172285/
(Note: Fred Kaplan has been a pretty objective and insiteful observer of Iraq specifically and Bush's foreign policy in general and is not just a left-wing Bush Hater, IMHO)


With such flawed candidates (Hilary & Rudy) as the current favorites for nominees of the major parties, I think we may be looking at the possibility of a once in a lifetime event where Ronnie B may be wrong about something and we could get a third party/independent candidate elected as President.

Its funny how when Hillary gives us mind numbing cliche' ridden speeches (or books) no one questions her intelligence, or motives. I guess she's just assumed to be smarter, since. . . well you know.
To say that a politician is speaking in cliches' is just another way of saying "Its election season". They all do it, at least the successful ones do. I don't particularly like it when either side does it, but I don't take it all that seriously or think its meaningful in any way.

But if you have that 3rd party candidate, be it Bloomberg or whoever else, to quote the little nutjob from Texas http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/USPics40/perot2.jpg "I'm all ears".

[Recyclerz]

Its funny how when Hillary gives us mind numbing cliche' ridden speeches (or books) no one questions her intelligence, or motives. I guess she's just assumed to be smarter, since. . . well you know.
To say that a politician is speaking in cliches' is just another way of saying "Its election season". They all do it, at least the successful ones do. I don't particularly like it when either side does it, but I don't take it all that seriously or think its meaningful in any way.

But if you have that 3rd party candidate, be it Bloomberg or whoever else, to quote the little nutjob from Texas http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/USPics40/perot2.jpg "I'm all ears".

Just to clear the record with my friend BDC, I do think that Hilary is doing the same focus group framing of issues bullshit as Rudy and I won't be voting for her in the primary and I don't think I could vote for her in the general election. This time I put some $ into Bill Richardson's campaign but he's been a bumbling stumbling doofus so far. (Last time my first choice was Wesley Clark and we know how well that went.) The egregious thing about Rudy is that Foreign Affairs is a place to prove that you're smart enough to be President, so even if you have to get your underlings to write it for you, it should at least make sense. (W didn't do this in 2000 but Condi Rice did and it was at least a defensible article even if you disagreed with her.) From this article one has to assume that either Rudy is all testosterone and gall and no brains or he is so ego-centric that he feels he can get elected on the image of his post 9/11 press conferences. Either way, I can't vote for him.

I've said before what I'm looking for in a candidate is someone with the cojones to do the tough and unpopular things necessary to undo W's mistakes/catastrophes, even if that would make them a one-termer. At one time I though McCain could be that kind of guy, but no more. If Richardson gets his shit together I think he's credible, if not I like Big Mike Bloomberg.

[Midkiff]

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb274/cuntymcslut/i-gonna-rape-u.jpg

[Bulldogcakes]

I've said before what I'm looking for in a candidate is someone with the cojones to do the tough and unpopular things necessary to undo W's mistakes/catastrophes, even if that would make them a one-termer. At one time I though McCain could be that kind of guy, but no more. If Richardson gets his shit together I think he's credible, if not I like Big Mike Bloomberg.

And just to clear the record with you when I was talking about an unfair bias I was referring to the authors of the article, not you.

If Bloomie jumps in, I'd have to take him very seriously. You know he'd put together a first rate team and he could outspend both parties COMBINED with one year of his income. Plus if you and I are any barometer, there's a lot of dissatisfaction out there for him to capitalize on.

[Midkiff]

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb274/cuntymcslut/the-truth-its-right-behind-you.jpg

[Yerdaddy]

Even though he's been taking heat from the left-leaning blogosphere regarding his "dumbed-down" view of the world and US foreign policy in his campaign sound bites, our steadfast Rudy isn't flinching. In fact, he's doubling down on the dumbness with an article in Foreign Policy that is little more than a collage of Bush, Cheney & neo-con cliches that have proven to be about 180 degrees away from true for the past six years.

Foreign Policy Essay
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501/rudolph-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html

Slate Critique of Rudy's Essay
http://www.slate.com/id/2172285/
(Note: Fred Kaplan has been a pretty objective and insiteful observer of Iraq specifically and Bush's foreign policy in general and is not just a left-wing Bush Hater, IMHO)


With such flawed candidates (Hilary & Rudy) as the current favorites for nominees of the major parties, I think we may be looking at the possibility of a once in a lifetime event where Ronnie B may be wrong about something and we could get a third party/independent candidate elected as President.

I started reading Rudy's essay today and I had to stop because I found it too depressing that he's the Republican front-runner and McCain's floundering around in third place behind a guy named after man tits. I think Kaplan has understated how Rudy has totally misunderstood or is misrepresenting the very basic facts and principles of terrorism, international relations and American foreign policy. Recyclerz is right: this Foriegn Affairs piece is the place for him to show his foreign policy qualifications to be POTUS and he showed the opposite of good qualifications. He showed that he's just as crazy and idiologically-driven as any of the neocons in the Bush administration. The man's a fucking menace. He's "Bush Part III: Lithping Into the New Cruthadeth". Please don't let this man become President. I'm begging you people. Please.

[Midkiff]

Thompson: Roe 'bad law and bad medicine'

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) – Likely Republican White House hopeful Fred Thompson told CNN Friday that he would work to overturn Roe v. Wade if elected president, and would push for a constitutional amendment that protects states from being forced to honor gay marriages performed in other states.

Hooray! Fuck progress! Let's go back and be Puritans!

Hooray, Reagan all over again! Stupid Fred Thompson. Stupid republicans.

LINK. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/18/thompson-on-running-we%e2%80%99ll-be-in/)

[epo]

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is not in the race and won't be. HDNet's Dan Rather is reporting that Bloomberg has said that he ruled out a run completely.

Link to story here. (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/rather-says-bloomberg-ruled-out-white-house-bid/)

[BeltOfScotch]

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is not in the race and won't be. HDNet's Dan Rather is reporting that Bloomberg has said that he ruled out a run completely.

Link to story here. (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/rather-says-bloomberg-ruled-out-white-house-bid/)

He could always change his mind, and I hope he does.

[Bulldogcakes]

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is not in the race and won't be. HDNet's Dan Rather is reporting that Bloomberg has said that he ruled out a run completely.

Link to story here. (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/rather-says-bloomberg-ruled-out-white-house-bid/)

The answer is no. Look, I have my own beliefs. They’re not tailored to what’s politically popular. It’s what my parents taught me and what I’ve learned raising my two daughters that are the love of my life.

It — I believe that certain things and if somebody asks me where I stand, I tell them. And that’s not a way to get elected generally. Nobody’s going to elect me president of the United States. What I’d like to do is to be able to influence the dialogue. I’m a citizen.

That is generally true, and its why we end up with such watered down candidates who believe in little more than wanting a job promotion. With the waning power of the big networks and changing media landscape, I hold out some hope that will change over time. Candidates are at least testing new avenues to sell themselves and the whole debate format is getting increasingly less formal than it used to be.

But for a recent example of how this is still true, look no further than Howard Dean's candidacy. He lets out one shriek and his candidacy was over. Does anyone remember his platform/proposals? Anyone? Thats what I thought.

[Yerdaddy]

That is generally true, and its why we end up with such watered down candidates who believe in little more than wanting a job promotion. With the waning power of the big networks and changing media landscape, I hold out some hope that will change over time. Candidates are at least testing new avenues to sell themselves and the whole debate format is getting increasingly less formal than it used to be.

But for a recent example of how this is still true, look no further than Howard Dean's candidacy. He lets out one shriek and his candidacy was over. Does anyone remember his platform/proposals? Anyone? Thats what I thought.

I remember Dean's platform pretty well, (if only because it was so generically liberal - pull out of Iraq, socialized healthcare, renewed Kyoto treaty, etc.), but it still works as an example of what you're saying because it was the scream - and the media's obsession with it - that killed his campaign and not his platform.

I also agree that there's some hope with the changing media environment. I'd like to see the internet open up debates to allow third party candidates in so they can force into the public debate issues that the two parties have agreed to ignore. Perot did that with the deficit when he got access to the debates and it's been a political issue ever since. I think Nader could have done that in 2000 if the parties and the corporate sponsors of the debates hadn't changed the rules to shut him out. I think Ron Paul, who is essentially Libertarian, adds an important perspective to what Republicans consider acceptable positions to take. But if he was actually Libertarian rather than Republican we'd never know he existed.

I think with the internet opening up the debate process and changing the way the media operates it opens up a chance for new voices to be heard, which I think we need badly.

But at the same time there's still the chance that the media could go the way of the polarizing trend if people don't learn to reject the right-wing media industry and if the left finally figures out how to build a counterpart to it. That kind of media polarization would create, I think, space only for ideological crazies to dominate politics and shut out the moderates who are capable of puting aside ideology for the good of the country. That's my biggest fear right now and I think it could go either way depending on how Americans choose to take it - whether we choose to click the links of the crazies or the new rational voices. Ultimately I do think we get the polititians and the media we choose. We just have to choose better than we have been.

[Bulldogcakes]

"if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House." (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/4631.html)

CAT FIIIIIIIGHT!

[led37zep]

"if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House." (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/4631.html)

CAT FIIIIIIIGHT!


TIME FOR A BRA AND BLOOMERS MATCH WITH THESE TWO SEX KITTENS!!!!!!

[badmonkey]

I remember Dean's platform pretty well, (if only because it was so generically liberal - pull out of Iraq, socialized healthcare, renewed Kyoto treaty, etc.), but it still works as an example of what you're saying because it was the scream - and the media's obsession with it - that killed his campaign and not his platform.

I have never understood why that scream ended his chances as a viable candidate. The man was at the political equivalent of a pep rally giving a speech designed to excite the crowd. The crowd cheered when he did that yell. It's not like everybody got suddenly quiet and just stared at the friggin psychoman on the stage. I wasn't likely to vote for him or anything, but I still don't buy into the bullshit that he was "coming unhinged". He should have kept running anyway. He was far more exciting and charismatic than Lurch Kerry ever dreamed of being. Kerry made Gore's 2000 run seem like it had personality.

Badmonkey

[Bulldogcakes]

I have never understood why that scream ended his chances as a viable candidate. The man was at the political equivalent of a pep rally giving a speech designed to excite the crowd. The crowd cheered when he did that yell. It's not like everybody got suddenly quiet and just stared at the friggin psychoman on the stage. I wasn't likely to vote for him or anything, but I still don't buy into the bullshit that he was "coming unhinged". He should have kept running anyway. He was far more exciting and charismatic than Lurch Kerry ever dreamed of being. Kerry made Gore's 2000 run seem like it had personality.

Badmonkey

And innovative. Maybe the first candidate to run a serious internet based grass roots campaign raising most of his money online. Thats why he became DNC chair, they wanted to pick his brain.

But the reason that derailed his campaign is a few things if I remember correctly. First, his campaign was in trouble at that point to begin with. When it happened he had just had a poor showing in the state the scream happened in, yet another poor showing after his early fast campaign start. Also it became viral in an instant. The same internet that fueled his campaign killed it. And for most Americans who are barely even paying attention during the primaries, that became their first impression of him. That face, that scream. Nobody was going to elect him president after that.

[epo]

I have never understood why that scream ended his chances as a viable candidate. The man was at the political equivalent of a pep rally giving a speech designed to excite the crowd. The crowd cheered when he did that yell. It's not like everybody got suddenly quiet and just stared at the friggin psychoman on the stage. I wasn't likely to vote for him or anything, but I still don't buy into the bullshit that he was "coming unhinged". He should have kept running anyway. He was far more exciting and charismatic than Lurch Kerry ever dreamed of being. Kerry made Gore's 2000 run seem like it had personality.

Badmonkey

And innovative. Maybe the first candidate to run a serious internet based grass roots campaign raising most of his money online. Thats why he became DNC chair, they wanted to pick his brain.

But the reason that derailed his campaign is a few things if I remember correctly. First, his campaign was in trouble at that point to begin with. When it happened he had just had a poor showing in the state the scream happened in, yet another poor showing after his early fast campaign start. Also it became viral in an instant. The same internet that fueled his campaign killed it. And for most Americans who are barely even paying attention during the primaries, that became their first impression of him. That face, that scream. Nobody was going to elect him president after that.

Bulldog --- you are absolutely right that Dean's campaign was beginning to fall apart at that point. Remember that Joe Trippi, his campaign manager was fired shortly after the Iowa mess. But the message was right though...actually if you line up his messages to today's landscape and everybody is finally NOW saying what Dean was saying in 2003. But as Yerdaddy pointed out it was the delivery.

"The Scream" was the perfect example of the early grassroots problems. The grassroots efforts were pretty fucking amazing in terms of people-power...but at the end of the day you will have some amateurs in some key positions. That night in Iowa...when Dean made the scream, he did it to pump up the crowd & from what I understand that in that crowd the whole thing made perfect sense.

However, the amateurs running Dean's technical equipment that night gave Dean a hand-held microphone for the tv speech, the type of isolates just the voice and blocks out the crowd noise....so as Dean got louder with the crowd, his isolated voice was crazier on tv with the crowd blocked out.

It would be the job of the tech guy to inform the candidate of the selected microphone of the evening and the approach with the mic. Hence Amateur Hour ensued and Dean's campaign essentially ended.

[Fat_Sunny]

"if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House." (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/4631.html)

CAT FIIIIIIIGHT!

This Thing Of Having Spouses Going After Opponents Is Really, Well, Tacky. Mrs. Obama Goes After Hillary; Mrs. Edwards Goes After Hillary And Obama.

F_S Doesn't Ever Remember A Campaign Where Spouses Were Used Early In The Campaign As Attack Dogs. Is This A New Thing, Or Did F_S Just Forget When It Happened In The Past?

[epo]

This Thing Of Having Spouses Going After Opponents Is Really, Well, Tacky. Mrs. Obama Goes After Hillary; Mrs. Edwards Goes After Hillary And Obama.

F_S Doesn't Ever Remember A Campaign Where Spouses Were Used Early In The Campaign As Attack Dogs. Is This A New Thing, Or Did F_S Just Forget When It Happened In The Past?

Honestly, it's a cheap way of attacking another candidate without doing it yourself. Rhetorically it's no different that your vice presidential candidate or "Running mate" doing the same shit.

And you are right in the fact that it's early this year.....but then again it's early for everything this cycle. By the time that spring rolls around we are going to be sick of candidates on both sides of the aisle.

[Fat_Sunny]

Honestly, it's a cheap way of attacking another candidate without doing it yourself. Rhetorically it's no different that your vice presidential candidate or "Running mate" doing the same shit.

And you are right in the fact that it's early this year.....but then again it's early for everything this cycle. By the time September, 2007 rolls around we are going to be sick of candidates on both sides of the aisle.

Above Ameneded To Be A Bit More Realistic.

For The First Time In His Life, F_S Has Tuned Out Of A Presidential Campaign. Thank God He Has Lots Of Music To Occupy Him Instead!

[epo]

Above Ameneded To Be A Bit More Realistic.

For The First Time In His Life, F_S Has Tuned Out Of A Presidential Campaign. Thank God He Has Lots Of Music To Occupy Him Instead!

Where did you get such music?

[Fat_Sunny]

Where did you get such music?

Some From Amazon
Some From Friends
A Few From Neighbors
And Loads From Epo!

[foodcourtdruide]

I remember Dean's platform pretty well, (if only because it was so generically liberal - pull out of Iraq, socialized healthcare, renewed Kyoto treaty, etc.), but it still works as an example of what you're saying because it was the scream - and the media's obsession with it - that killed his campaign and not his platform.



A few weeks before the scream, I remember an interview with NPR where Dean said the media was being run by major corporations and it was bad for the Country. When I heard that, I thought, "wow, this guy's running for President?! They'll never let him win."

[Bulldogcakes]

"The Scream" was the perfect example of the early grassroots problems. The grassroots efforts were pretty fucking amazing in terms of people-power...but at the end of the day you will have some amateurs in some key positions. That night in Iowa...when Dean made the scream, he did it to pump up the crowd & from what I understand that in that crowd the whole thing made perfect sense.

However, the amateurs running Dean's technical equipment that night gave Dean a hand-held microphone for the tv speech, the type of isolates just the voice and blocks out the crowd noise....so as Dean got louder with the crowd, his isolated voice was crazier on tv with the crowd blocked out.


Wow! Thats an interesting little tidbit I never heard before.

[Bulldogcakes]

Honestly, it's a cheap way of attacking another candidate without doing it yourself. Rhetorically it's no different that your vice presidential candidate or "Running mate" doing the same shit.

Generally I would agree with you (and me and FS share the same brain so that goes w/o saying I agree with him). But there's a problem with that this time around

The lead horse in this race is . . . . (cue music). . . . . FEMALE!

We as men learn at an early age that there are certain things (no matter how true) that guys simply cant get away with saying to or about women. Attacking Hillary gets very dicey if its not done a certain way.
Try this. Picture Obama himself saying the exact same words his wife did. Sounds very different coming from a man, doesn't it?
Edwards wife already took a shot a Hillary about a month ago, now Obama's. Expect more of this throughout the primaries and during the general election.

BTW-Obama denied that his wife was referring to Hillary anyway.

[Yerdaddy]

Generally I would agree with you (and me and FS share the same brain so that goes w/o saying I agree with him). But there's a problem with that this time around

The lead horse in this race is . . . . (cue music). . . . . FEMALE!

We as men learn at an early age that there are certain things (no matter how true) that guys simply cant get away with saying to or about women. Attacking Hillary gets very dicey if its not done a certain way.
Try this. Picture Obama himself saying the exact same words his wife did. Sounds very different coming from a man, doesn't it?
Edwards wife already took a shot a Hillary about a month ago, now Obama's. Expect more of this throughout the primaries and during the general election.

BTW-Obama denied that his wife was referring to Hillary anyway.

This is all true. There's another dynamic at work though: that candidate's wives are usually off limits, (Theresa Heinz-Kerry and Tipper Gore being exceptions because 1. they were politically outspoken, and 2. they were Democrats). But it puts Hillary at a bit of a disadvantage as a woman candidate being attacked by wives of opponents. I think she can handle it though.

The other thing this reminds me of is that if Hillary wins the nomination we're going to see more of Ann Coulter next year than the Republican nominee.

[Yerdaddy]

More on Giuliaini's foreign policy credibility: (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1655262,00.html)
TIME Magazine
Wednesday, Aug. 22, 2007
Behind Giuliani's Tough Talk
By Amanda Ripley
Islamic terrorists are at war with us," Rudy Giuliani told about 300 people at a synagogue in Rockville, Md., one evening in July. He likes to say it that way—that they are at war with us, not the other way around. "They want to kill us," he warned a group in New Hampshire the same month. "They hate you," he told a woman in Atlanta.

But until 9/11, the security obsession of Giuliani and the FBI was crime, not terrorism. He came into office 11 months after the first attack by Muslim extremists on the World Trade Center. Yet an analysis of 80 of Giuliani's major speeches from 1993 to 2001 shows that he mentioned the danger of terrorism only once, in a brief reference to emergency preparedness. He talked more about the "terror" of domestic violence.

With his own preparedness staff, he did discuss terrorism, says Jerome Hauer, Giuliani's emergency-management chief from 1996 to 2000. Giuliani was certainly more aware of the subject than most mayors, which made sense, given the city's panoply of targets. But he was not a student of Islamic extremism, as he claims on the campaign trail, Hauer says. (Giuliani and Hauer had a falling-out during the election to replace Giuliani after 9/11, both sides confirm, after Hauer endorsed a Democrat, arguing in part that the city would be safer under his choice.) "We never talked about Islamic terrorism," Hauer says. "We talked about chemical terrorism, biological terrorism. We did talk about car bombs every now and then. [But] I don't think there was much interest on his part. If he's been studying it for 30 years, he certainly never verbalized it to me."

Giuliani has also claimed he knows more about foreign policy than other candidates, but that's exceedingly unlikely. John McCain spent 22 years as a Navy pilot and five as a prisoner of war and is now the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, where he has served for 20 years. He has been to Iraq six times; Giuliani has never been there. (Of the major candidates, only Giuliani, Fred Thompson and John Edwards have never visited Iraq.)

Giuliani had an unusual opportunity to cram foreign policy when he was invited to join the Iraq Study Group by the co-chairman, former Secretary of State James Baker III, in February 2006. Giuliani accepted, becoming one of just 10 people, including former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry and retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in the congressionally mandated group. He participated in a conference call to discuss logistics but then did not attend the first two major meetings. On those days, he delivered paid speeches.

On the campaign trail, Giuliani's foreign policy comments have sometimes come off more confident than competent. In New Hampshire this spring, according to the New York Times, Giuliani said it was unclear whether Iran or North Korea was further along on building a nuclear bomb. (North Korea tested a nuclear device in October 2006. Iran has not done so.) Then, in his speech at the Maryland synagogue in July, Giuliani mocked Democratic candidate Barack Obama for claiming that North Korea was the nation's No. 1 enemy. "North Korea is an enemy. North Korea is dangerous. I mean, I grant that. And boy, we have to be really careful about North Korea," Giuliani said, his voice iced with sarcasm. "But I don't remember North Koreans coming to America and killing us."

North Korea is known to sell advanced weaponry to other states that sponsor terrorists. The State Department has listed North Korea as a sponsor of terrorism. The reason North Korea keeps U.S. terrorism experts up at night is not that North Korean operatives will come here and attack us; it's that they might sell a nuclear bomb to people who will.

Earlier this summer, the National Intelligence Estimate stated that al-Qaeda has regenerated, directly challenging Giuliani's claims that the war in Iraq has made the U.S. safer. Yet the former mayor continues to insist that the opposite is true: "Being on offense gives us more safety than being weak and being on defense." When I ask him how he reconciles that conclusion with reports that the terrorism threat has increased since we've been "going on offense," Giuliani dismisses those findings and points to the lack of an attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 as evidence of our safety. Sometimes," he says, "we miss the forest for the trees when we sit in places and just analyze."

In a Foreign Affairs article out this month, Giuliani blames the Clinton Administration's foreign policy for provoking terrorism. "The Terrorists' War on Us was encouraged by unrealistic and inconsistent actions taken in response to terrorist attacks in the past," he writes. He also reaches further back into history, questioning the U.S. decision to leave Vietnam. And his views on Israel sound to the right even of the Bush Administration: "It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist in the creation of another state that will support terrorism," he writes.

Giuliani can, of course, make up for his experience deficit with his advisers. So far, he has chosen hawkish foreign policy gurus, including Norman Podhoretz, a founding member of the neocon movement who recently called for an immediate attack on Iran, and Kim Holmes, an expert at the Heritage Foundation who advised former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. His chief foreign policy adviser is Charles Hill, a lecturer in international studies at Yale, who says Giuliani doesn't actually require much staffing. "If you run New York City, you know foreign affairs," he says. "In dealing with the U.N. and a host of foreign leaders, that's a host of experiences."

Even if Hill is correct, Giuliani—like all Presidents—would need to be surrounded with the most qualified and competent advisers, particularly when it comes to overseeing homeland security. One of the most damning criticisms of Giuliani, however, has been his record of flawed judgment on personnel. In 2004, Giuliani recommended that President George W. Bush nominate Bernard Kerik to run the Department of Homeland Security. Kerik was a police officer and Giuliani's driver before he was elevated to corrections commissioner and police chief. But the nomination collapsed when information about Kerik's past and possible ties to mob-related businesses began to filter out. Kerik pleaded guilty last summer to improperly accepting $165,000 worth of free renovations on his apartment and may still face federal charges. "I should have done a better job of investigating him, vetting him," Giuliani told reporters this spring. "It's my responsibility, and I've learned from it." (Questions were raised about Giuliani's vetting system yet again in June when his South Carolina campaign chairman, Thomas Ravenel, was indicted on federal cocaine charges.)

For his chief homeland-security adviser on the campaign, Giuliani has chosen Robert Bonner, a partner at the law firm of Gibson, Dunn and a former head of the U.S. Customs Service. But Giuliani's most surprising security adviser so far is his old friend former FBI director Louis Freeh. Freeh's stewardship of the FBI during the eight years before the bureau's most spectacular failure makes him an unusual choice. The 9/11 commission report concluded that Freeh and his FBI had failed to adapt to reality: "Freeh recognized terrorism as a major threat ... [His] efforts did not, however, translate into a significant shift of resources to counterterrorism," the report found. "Freeh did not impose his views on the field offices."

Like Giuliani, Freeh blames President Clinton and Congress for failing to dedicate the necessary resources to the FBI's counterterrorism efforts. "There was no willingness to fund any of this before 9/11," he says. New York City's communication failures on 9/11 should not give voters pause, Freeh says, because today, with new technology and increased counterterrorism funding, things would be different. And then Freeh defaults to the iconic moment, the trump card issued to all Giuliani disciples: "You don't walk through the rubble for one moment on that day and not understand that this cannot happen again and that whatever has to be done will be done."

Getting police and fire departments to cooperate is hard anywhere. But New York City was worse than most places. "We had—and still have—a long history of competitive rivalry between the police and fire departments," says Joe Lhota, Giuliani's deputy mayor from 1998 to 2001. This kind of turf war is extremely dangerous. As we now know, the single biggest failing of intelligence agencies before 9/11 and response agencies after Hurricane Katrina was a lack of coordination and communication.

In 1996, to his credit, Giuliani tried to fix the problem. Giuliani established an Office of Emergency Management that reported directly to him. He put Hauer, an experienced emergency manager, in charge. But five years later, the problems persisted. On 9/11 the police and fire departments ran separate command centers, and communication was poor. The firefighters carried the same radios that had failed them in the 1993 bombing. At 10:04 a.m. on 9/11, after Tower Two had collapsed, a member of the New York Police Department's Aviation Unit warned that the top 15 floors of Tower One were "glowing red" and might collapse. Four minutes later, a helicopter pilot said he did not believe the tower would last much longer. Neither of these warnings made it to the fire chiefs. That tower collapsed at 10:28 a.m. "If communications were better," concluded the federal investigation into the collapse, conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, "more firefighters would have been saved."

Before he left in 2000, Hauer tried to get police and fire chiefs to use radios that could communicate with one another. It never happened, partly because of the police department's refusal to cooperate, he says. The mayor could have forced the issue, Hauer says, but he didn't: "Rudy did not back us." On 9/11 the Office of Emergency Management was run by Richard Sheirer, who now works for Giuliani Partners. Giuliani's campaign declined to make Sheirer available for an interview.

More than anything else, counterterrorism experts interviewed by Time cited Giuliani's campaign rhetoric as a cause for concern. He frequently conflates different threats, from Iraqi insurgents to al-Qaeda to Iran, into one monolithic dark force. He routinely compares the terrorism threat to the Holocaust and the cold war. In one 15-min. phone interview in August, Giuliani compared the terrorism threat with Nazism or communism six times. When I asked him if he risked exaggerating the threat, since most terrorist plots against the West are not the kind of attacks that will bring down a nation, he replied, "I'm not saying it would take down a country. What terrorism can do and has done is kill thousands and thousands of people. It's real, it's existential, it's independent of us."
Retired Lieut. General William Odom was director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan from 1985 to 1988. He calls Giuliani's terrorism rhetoric "the most delightful thing that al-Qaeda could want." And he laments that Giuliani isn't showing the stoicism he displayed on 9/11. "We need a President who cools it," says Odom, a senior fellow with the conservative Hudson Institute. As for Giuliani's analogy to the cold war, a period Odom knows rather well, he is unimpressed. "Jihadism is a mosquito bite compared to communism," he says. "Anybody who talks about terrorism this way is like a witch doctor."

Giuliani, however, seems to think it is almost impossible to overstate the risk. "We've never had a history of overestimating threats," says the former mayor. "We underestimated by a lot the threat of Nazism." Yet when candidates give terrorists too much credit, they can inadvertently assist them in terrifying the public, says Frank J. Cilluffo, a terrorism expert at George Washington University. "Our words matter," he says. "The last thing we want to do is empower [terrorists] and make them holy warriors, which they're not."

Giuliani used to speak more carefully about terrorism. "No mayor, no Governor, no President can offer anyone perfect security. You've got to be able to deal with a certain level of risk in anything that you do," he said in 1999. On the eve of the millennium New Year's Eve celebration in Times Square, he appeared on cnn to warn against melodrama: "When people overdo it about terrorism, terrorists actually win. You're sort of like becoming agents and instruments of the terrorists."

But now Giuliani is running for President, and he has apparently made a tactical decision to thunder loudly about terrorism, perhaps to deflect from his personal life and his liberal record on social issues—which an internal campaign memo termed potentially "insurmountable" last year. (The memo was leaked to the New York Daily News.) The more he can remind people of his performance on 9/11, the better off he is, says GOP pollster Luntz.

Giuliani would be four more years of agggressive incompetance.

[epo]

Thank God the Republicans finally have a candidate they can call their own. The infamous Alan Keyes is now the race to claim yer vote.

Link to story here. (http://allspinzone.com/wp/2007/09/15/alan-keyes-jumps-in-for-the-2008-gop-nomination/)

[Zorro]

I never thought I'd say this, but congrats to Hillary for her health care initiative. Forcing people to pay is an idea long past due.

[Bulldogcakes]

MAGAZINE ASKS HILLARY: 'HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THE OCCASIONAL RUMOR THAT YOU'RE A LESBIAN?'... (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/09/21/2007-09-21_hillary_clinton_im_not_a_lesbian.html)

During an interview with The Advocate to be published next week, Sean Kennedy, the gay magazine's news and features editor, asked the presidential candidate, "How do you respond to the occasional rumor that you're a lesbian?"

"People say a lot of things about me, so I really don't pay any attention to it," Sen. Clinton (D-N.Y.) replied.

"It's not true, but it is something that I have no control over. People will say what they want to say."

Kennedy told the Daily News he's convinced. "I 100% believe she's a straight, heterosexual woman," he said.

About a year away, were just about entering the silly season. I love the silly season.

[Bulldogcakes]

Gingrich Says No to White House Bid (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070929/D8RV90580.html)

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will not run for president in 2008 after determining he could not legally explore a bid and remain as head of his tax-exempt political organization, a spokesman said Saturday.

"Newt is not running," spokesman Rick Tyler said. "It is legally impermissible for him to continue on as chairman of American Solutions (for Winning the Future) and to explore a campaign for president."

Gingrich decided "to continue on raising the challenges America faces and finding solutions to those challenges" as the group's chairman, Tyler said, "rather than pursuing the presidency."

The tax exempt thing is obviously bullshit, but this is no surprise. It would have been fun, but he may be the only candidate with even less charm than Hillary has, and thats really saying something.

[led37zep]

The tax exempt thing is obviously bullshit, but this is no surprise. It would have been fun, but he may be the only candidate with even less charm than Hillary has, and thats really saying something.

I'm glad Newt is saying no to running, he has far too much baggage to try and run for president. We have enough trouble getting people to accept Rudy's personal life.

[A.J.]

MAGAZINE ASKS HILLARY: 'HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THE OCCASIONAL RUMOR THAT YOU'RE A LESBIAN?'... (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/09/21/2007-09-21_hillary_clinton_im_not_a_lesbian.html)

During an interview with The Advocate to be published next week, Sean Kennedy, the gay magazine's news and features editor, asked the presidential candidate, "How do you respond to the occasional rumor that you're a lesbian?"

"People say a lot of things about me, so I really don't pay any attention to it," Sen. Clinton (D-N.Y.) replied.

"It's not true, but it is something that I have no control over. People will say what they want to say."

Kennedy told the Daily News he's convinced. "I 100% believe she's a straight, heterosexual woman," he said.



About a year away, were just about entering the silly season. I love the silly season.


Hillary is as straight as Larry Craig.

[Yerdaddy]

I'm glad Newt is saying no to running, he has far too much baggage to try and run for president. We have enough trouble getting people to accept Rudy's personal life.

But no problem getting them to ignore his foreign policy ideas.

[epo]

The third quarter Democratic Fundraising Numbers are in and I'm pleasantly surprised that Obama is essentially staying even with Hillary. I'd like to see a good race between the two rather than the "Inevitability" that the Clinton camp is selling.

Link to AP report here. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CAMPAIGN_FUNDRAISING?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

The totals for the 3rd quarter:

Clinton: $22 Million
Obama: $19 Million
Edwards: $7 Million

[Sneaky Fucking Russian]

Ok i know this is looked down upon but I don't vote. I think it is a bunch of bullshit. I don't believe there is a difference between the two parties. They are both utter garbage. I can't remember a single time in this country were voting caused a significant political change that the people wanted. I mean half a million more people voted for Gore then Bush but Bush won any way. The south voted to succeed and the union came in and just smashed them and burned their cities down, showing the people what this country really thinks of self determination and democracy. Let's not kid our selves, we don't matter and no matter what, a worthless douche bag will be in charge.

[spoon]

I feel some of the same things at times, but I have to at least vote on principle and for the lesser of evils time and time again in an effort to get things headed in the right direction. If not, we'll continue to fall faster and faster as a nation. So in essense, I consider it a democratic speed bump of sorts.

[LiddyRules]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299977,00.html

Though Giuliani leads national polls, Romney is leading in Republican polls in key primary state of Iowa. Clinton is leading as Democrat.

Romney's national securty advisor is the Vice President of Blackwater and if you, like me, believe in the shady, underhanded, backroom theory of government and candidates, Romney right now is my favorite to win.

A cerebal palsy suffering medical marijuana advocate confronts Romney in New Hampshire. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/10/07/romney.confronted.cnn?iref=videosearch

[high fly]

Gingrich Says No to White House Bid (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070929/D8RV90580.html)



The tax exempt thing is obviously bullshit, but this is no surprise. It would have been fun, but he may be the only candidate with even less charm than Hillary has, and thats really saying something.



Pissed me off.
He had me convinced he was going to un and enter the race in late September.
He has been a regular on the Shawn Manatee show and kept dropping broad hints about it and discussing a strategy.
Maybe he's bucking to be a "favorite son" adopted by a deadlocked convention...

[epo]

Pissed me off.
He had me convinced he was going to un and enter the race in late September.
He has been a regular on the Shawn Manatee show and kept dropping broad hints about it and discussing a strategy.
Maybe he's bucking to be a "favorite son" adopted by a deadlocked convention...

If that is Gingrich's strategy, he's a bigger lunatic that I think he is. Both primaries should be realistically over by Super Tuesday.

[scottinnj]

If that is Gingrich's strategy, he's a bigger lunatic that I think he is. Both primaries should be realistically over by Super Tuesday.

Of course it isn't. Give the man more credit then that.

Keynote speaker I hope.

[scottinnj]

Betancourt has one hell of a regular season ERA.

This shouldn't take long.

Edit-Sorry. Wrong Thread. I keep going back and forth from here to the Yankees post season thread.

[epo]

What the fuck Guiliani? The Red Sox! (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ioRVOtJvlSbC1CJGJwNaWSRm3VBw)

[A.J.]

What the fuck Guiliani? The Red Sox! (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ioRVOtJvlSbC1CJGJwNaWSRm3VBw)

A politician rooting for another team for political gain? Nah.

http://bostonbrat.net/contentimg/yank_hillary.jpg

[Freakshow]

Mike Huckabee's tears cure cancer.

too bad he has never cried... (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/another_chuck_norris_fact_his.html)

[led37zep]

What the fuck Guiliani? The Red Sox! (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ioRVOtJvlSbC1CJGJwNaWSRm3VBw)

People do this all the time....you root for a team in your league so you can pull the "well at least we lost to the champions".

That being said, I would NEVER root for the dodgers to win anything, ever.


EVER!

(I'm a Giants fan obviously)

[epo]

A couple of interesting polling data/articles for you that pertain to the 2008 election:

The first is an article about white evangelicals and how they poll. It's interesting as many seem to be leaving the GOP, but only about a third of those are joining the Dems. They are becoming independents. I read this two ways, in that we could see a strong 3rd party "values candidate", or most likely we'll see plenty of pandering from both parties in the 2008 election. Link to article here (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=250).

The second link is just a raw data table from Rasmussen. They line up the issues as they poll now and also give you the "most trusted" side of each issue. This makes total sense in listening to the rhetoric of the candidates of both sides. The republicans are hammering on the only issue that seems to be in their favor (national security) and also using Mrs. Clinton as a wedge. The Democrats are kind of unfocused at this point....as they have so many issues in their favor, so it will take some time to develop that message that works. Link to polling data here (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues__1/trust_importance_on_issues).

[Yerdaddy]

A couple of interesting polling data/articles for you that pertain to the 2008 election:

The first is an article about white evangelicals and how they poll. It's interesting as many seem to be leaving the GOP, but only about a third of those are joining the Dems. They are becoming independents. I read this two ways, in that we could see a strong 3rd party "values candidate", or most likely we'll see plenty of pandering from both parties in the 2008 election. Link to article here (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=250).

The second link is just a raw data table from Rasmussen. They line up the issues as they poll now and also give you the "most trusted" side of each issue. This makes total sense in listening to the rhetoric of the candidates of both sides. The republicans are hammering on the only issue that seems to be in their favor (national security) and also using Mrs. Clinton as a wedge. The Democrats are kind of unfocused at this point....as they have so many issues in their favor, so it will take some time to develop that message that works. Link to polling data here (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues__1/trust_importance_on_issues).

I think we'll see evangelicals try to form their own political party either this or in the next couple of election cycles. They've got a real taste for political power, they've got a broad motivated and growing base of support, and they're tapped into some big big financial resources. Only thing that will stop it is the Republican Party which has the most to lose to a Christian party - religious leaders will use this as an ultimatum: either the party will back religious conservative candidates over less openly religious candidates like Giuliani, (who seems to be more of a Zionist than a Christian in his views), or they will face a split of religious vs. secular Republicans. I think they would cave and be even MORE beholden to the Christian right. Especially if Rudy gets the nomination and loses to Hillary.

On the second article I find the fact that Republicans are still more trusted on national security/wurr on turr by the American people to be really disturbing. Even if it's only a temporary reassessment of prior assumptions, with the widespread, (if very belated), recognition that Iraq was a bad idea, there should be a distrust at this time of the near universal aggressive posturing by Republican candidates. They're all trying to out-promise each other with a war with Iran and the public seems to be signaling they're not opposed to the idea. It tells me that we are a war-loving people who have a real tolerance for aggression in foreign affairs. It's frighteningly Nazi-esque. I'm afraid Americans forgot Poland after all.

[A.J.]

I think we'll see evangelicals try to form their own political party either this or in the next couple of election cycles.

I wish they'd form their own country and get the fuck out of this one.

[epo]

A little bad press for Guiliani in the short-term, but if his opposition can cement the image the Bush = Rudy, it's over for him. If the AP is already printing the story that he is being seen as "like Bush" on Iraq and eavesdropping....it's a bad play.

Link to story here. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gwgGFupNAK5rphIIjRNgbed4nEiQD8SI3B004)

[Yerdaddy]

A little bad press for Guiliani in the short-term, but if his opposition can cement the image the Bush = Rudy, it's over for him. If the AP is already printing the story that he is being seen as "like Bush" on Iraq and eavesdropping....it's a bad play.

Link to story here. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gwgGFupNAK5rphIIjRNgbed4nEiQD8SI3B004)

I don't think it's bad press for Giulini at all. His statements on foreign policy have always mirrored or even been more aggressive than Bush's and it hasn't hurt him at all. Most Americans apparently approve of Bush's foreign policy strategies, if not the way he's handled them, as noted by the poll above that shows a majority still trust Republicans on national security and the fact that none of the leading Republican candidates except (4th place?) McCain have shown any fundamental difference of opinion with Bush on the subject. I also think that you'll see a resurgence of Republican defense of Bush beginning early next year and rising through the end of the election season. Giuliani is deliberately claiming the mantle of Bush's foreign policy strategies to counter the religious right's contempt for his relatively liberal domestic agenda. It's a good political strategy, it's working, and it's working because too many Americans approve of unchecked aggression and defiance of America's founding legal principles as the best foreign policy. It's the electorate's fault, and we will get what we ask for once again.

[underdog]

Stephen Colbert to run as Democrat (http://usmagazine.com/colbert_to_run_as_a_democrat)

:clap:

[Freakshow]

Stephen Colbert to run as Democrat (http://usmagazine.com/colbert_to_run_as_a_democrat)

:clap:

I love it. The man is so dedicated to staying in character, electing him would be like 4 more years of Bush. :thumbup:

[trig]

I'm pulling for Ron Paul. Until recently I've had a hard time getting behind any of these candidates, but he actually has a plan that I'm excited about, and that can restore America to what it should be. I'm actually going to register as a Republican for this guy. Everybody should take the time to watch this, and check out where he stands on issues. Especially to those of you who aren't going to vote because you don't like any of these clowns, check him out.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG2PUZoukfA&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG2PUZoukfA&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[epo]

[QUOTE=trig;1507240]I'm pulling for Ron Paul. Until recently I've had a hard time getting behind any of these candidates, but he actually has a plan that I'm excited about, and that can restore America to what it should be. I'm actually going to register as a Republican for this guy. Everybody should take the time to watch this.
QUOTE]

If you love crazy, then yes Ron Paul is your man.

[Recyclerz]

Big Mike Bloomberg - Running or Not?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/68113/

If I were running for any office I'd be pretty happy with a story about me like the one Newsweek has dished up. And he doesn't even own them. :wink:

[trig]

[QUOTE=trig;1507240]I'm pulling for Ron Paul. Until recently I've had a hard time getting behind any of these candidates, but he actually has a plan that I'm excited about, and that can restore America to what it should be. I'm actually going to register as a Republican for this guy. Everybody should take the time to watch this.
QUOTE]

If you love crazy, then yes Ron Paul is your man.


Crazy? How so?

[epo]

Pat Robertson endorses Rudy. (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usrudy1108,0,3215022.story?coll=ny_wire_utility)

I shudder to think of the deal made on this one.

[epo]

Crazy? How so?

Ron Paul is batshit crazy.

You wanna shut down the FDA? Ron Paul is your man.
You wanna end medicare? Ron Paul is your man.
You wanna end medicaid? Ron Paul is your man.
And if you want a good racist read, find an old copy of the "Ron Paul Political Report".

The guy is nuts. Seriously though, as a democrat....please support Ron Paul.

[scottinnj]

Ron Paul is batshit crazy.

And if you want a good racist read, find an old copy of the "Ron Paul Political Report".

The guy is nuts. Seriously though, as a democrat....please support Ron Paul.


From Ron Paul:


“The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.”


That in of itself is what I believe in too, but with the stuff I've been hearing about Ron Paul's campaign accepting money knowingly from racist groups-and not returning it, and his comments about blacks being "fleet-footed" while committing crimes-also how the Isreali government is a dangerous "special interest" group while poo-pooing the necessity of having soldiers in foreign countries fighting terrorists overseas with no answers on what to do if we pull back and are attacked here.
Racist? Maybe, maybe not, I can't read the man, but there is enough crazy there now I know more about him to no longer support his campaign or defend what else comes out of his mouth.

[Bulldogcakes]

Pat Robertson endorses Rudy. (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usrudy1108,0,3215022.story?coll=ny_wire_utility)

I shudder to think of the deal made on this one.

Simple. Presidents don't have much real power over Roe v Wade, Supreme Court Judges do.

Also, I believe Pat Robertson when he says "The #1 issue is the war on terror" and I suspect he sees this battle in religious terms. Which to be fair, is to be expected of a preacher. If this scares you, just remind yourself that religious people have just as much right to participate in democracy as anyone else.

[epo]

Simple. Presidents don't have much real power over Roe v Wade, Supreme Court Judges do.

Also, I believe Pat Robertson when he says "The #1 issue is the war on terror" and I suspect he sees this battle in religious terms. Which to be fair, is to be expected of a preacher. If this scares you, just remind yourself that religious people have just as much right to participate in democracy as anyone else.

I find it a curious combo. Remember that Robertson claimed that America "deserved" the 9/11 attacks (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A28620-2001Sep14)....and well a majority of Rudy's platform is based upon 9/11.

I can't blame Rudy for grabbing the endorsement as it helps him at the least to splinter the evangelical vote in the party, but it sure seems damn odd.

[A.J.]

Also, I believe Pat Robertson when he says "The #1 issue is the war on terror" and I suspect he sees this battle in religious terms. Which to be fair, is to be expected of a preacher.

Yeah, because he wants to kick the Muslims out of the Holy Land. That's why he's so pro-Israel.

I love the neo-Crusades!

[scottinnj]

Pat Robertson endorses Rudy. (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usrudy1108,0,3215022.story?coll=ny_wire_utility)

I shudder to think of the deal made on this one.

I don't know. It's being said Robertson just wants anyone but Hillary, but he doesn't give out endorsements on the cheap. Every candidate he's endorsed to get the evengelicals like me to vote for them, has come at a price: access to the White House. He was around during Reagan, Bush and Bush. Literally. As bad as Clinton was for auctioning the White House bedrooms for campaign dollars and access to the West Wing for policy crafting, Robertson is just as bad.
I have been seriously considering Guiliani for the GOP nomination, but now I don't know if I should do it. I've been trying to get away from the religious people around me that are in the Pat Robertson camp, and it'd be a bad Godfather line if I went and voted for the candidate Robertson wants in the White House. ".........they pull me right back in."

[scottinnj]

I love the neo-Crusades!

But I miss Neo-Fez.

[Fezticle98]

Ron Paul is batshit crazy.

You wanna end medicare? Ron Paul is your man.
You wanna end medicaid? Ron Paul is your man.

The guy is nuts. Seriously though, as a democrat....please support Ron Paul.

I'm looking forward to the bump Dr. Paul will receive from the official RonFez endorsement the other day.

He wants to phase out medicare and medicaid? Those programs are so efficient, effective, an inexpensive. He's fuckin' crazy...crazy like a fox!

[epo]

Judith Regan goes crazy! Fox News, Kerik & Rudy Guiliani all look bad! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119499856219892012.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

News at 10.

From the story:

One-time book publishing powerhouse Judith Regan filed a $100 million defamation lawsuit against HarperCollins and News Corp. on Tuesday, saying her former employers tried to destroy her reputation and asked her to lie to federal investigators about Bernard Kerik, the recently indicted former police commissioner with whom she had an affair.

[badmonkey]

Judith Regan goes crazy! Fox News, Kerik & Rudy Guiliani all look bad! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119499856219892012.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

News at 10.

From the story:

One-time book publishing powerhouse Judith Regan filed a $100 million defamation lawsuit against HarperCollins and News Corp. on Tuesday, saying her former employers tried to destroy her reputation and asked her to lie to federal investigators about Bernard Kerik, the recently indicted former police commissioner with whom she had an affair.

The WSJ is now owned by News Corp. and therefore can no longer be trusted. You are going to have to find a more believable source for.......:unsure:

[epo]

The WSJ is now owned by News Corp. and therefore can no longer be trusted. You are going to have to find a more believable source for.......:unsure:

Hence the reason I used the aforementioned source.

This puts quite a in the side of Rudy as it seems to really make Guiliani look like a hack.

[epo]

National Right to Life Committee, inc. chooses............ (http://www.nrlc.org/Election2008/111307POTUSEndorsement.pdf?loc=interstitialskip)Gr andpa Fred Thompson!

So Guiliani gets Pat Robertson
John McCain gets Sam Brownback
Fred Thompson gets National RtL

Primary season is on!

[epo]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MDUQW8LUMs8&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MDUQW8LUMs8&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[HBox]

<object height="355" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MDUQW8LUMs8&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></object>

That's the best political commercial ever.

[high fly]

Pat Robertson endorses Rudy. (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usrudy1108,0,3215022.story?coll=ny_wire_utility)

I shudder to think of the deal made on this one.

Maybe Rudy set him up with one of his ex-wives like maybe the one that's his cousin or something...........

[scottinnj]

Okay, I'm a bit confused.

Nationally, Senator Clinton has a wide margin over Senator Obama.

But in Iowa, Senator Obama has a 5 point lead over Senator Clinton.


What gives? And why does the media give out the national numbers when they are talking about the Iowas caucus?

[scottinnj]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MDUQW8LUMs8&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MDUQW8LUMs8&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

And if you vote for Huckabee, you'll get free shipping on the TotalGym exercise system!

[epo]

Okay, I'm a bit confused.

Nationally, Senator Clinton has a wide margin over Senator Obama.

But in Iowa, Senator Obama has a 5 point lead over Senator Clinton.


What gives? And why does the media give out the national numbers when they are talking about the Iowas caucus?

It totally depends upon what type of story you are trying to tell.

I've always thought the primaries/caucauses are one at a time. Iowa is the only thing that really matters right now for both parties.

[scottinnj]

True, and I'm actually pulling for Senator Obama for the Democrats. I really like this guy. I totally disagree with his agenda, but I think he is going to the left for the primaries and will get back to the center if he wins the nomination.

Foreign policy-I haven't been too impressed but I feel he will surround himself with good advisers.

Domestic-He talks a lot about raising taxes, but at least he is the only one telling the truth. Senator Clinton talks a lot about programs, but I haven't heard how she will pay for it. At least I know that if Senator Obama gets national health insurance, the taxes will go up.
The only thing that bugs me is that he lumps families making around 100 grand with the "wealthy." We make about that a year, mainly because of my wife's income, (she's a registered nurse) and we are far from wealthy. Three kids, a mortgage, two cars and the property taxes really take a bite out of it. We are better off then most, but an increase in taxes verses 400 a month in health insurance? We can deduct that, but will the tax increase take away the cost of the premium? In other words, if we make 100 grand, under Senator Obama's plan, will we have to pay our premium and pay the health insurance tax?

[high fly]

The money has to come from somewhere.

Of course, had the Republicans let well enough alone, we would have had over $2 trillion in surpluses, but noooooooooo, they had to go and perform their income redistribution tricky-tricky, set 3 new records for size of the deficit and drop an ocean of red ink on the American people.

Only a fool would believe Republicans who claim their party is the one of "fiscal responsibility."

[scottinnj]

The money has to come from somewhere.




So what you are saying is I have to pay an additonal tax for others to get "free" healthcare and still pay for mine.

NO WAY!

If Universal Health Care is to be universal, we all pay a tax and get it, or none at all. Which way is Senator Obama leaning, I'll ask again.

[HBox]

So what you are saying is I have to pay an additonal tax for others to get "free" healthcare and still pay for mine.

NO WAY!

If Universal Health Care is to be universal, we all pay a tax and get it, or none at all. Which way is Senator Obama leaning, I'll ask again.

He hasn't released a concrete proposal. From what i read about it it won't even guarantee universal healthcare but it would be pretty much affordable for anyone who wanted it, either through a government program or private insurance. As for if you'd pay more that depends on what you choose to do and nobody with any plan is going to know for sure until we go through with it. Any good healthcare reform will contain measures to control costs, which are way out of whack here right now. If that happens you might even pay less, or at least stay the same, with more people overall.

Long story short: You can't really know yet. All I know is that all the Republican proposals are complete fucking jokes. Just doing what they do with everything: cut taxes and hope everything works out, but not really care because all they want to do is cut taxes. Forget the fact that most people without insurance pay little to no taxes in the first place.

[epo]

It's not too shocking that one of the presidential candidates claimed that Fox News was biased. The shocker is that the candidate claiming it is Grandpa Fred Thompson:

Link to story here. (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/thompson-charges-fox-news-is-biased-against-his-campaign-2007-11-25.html)

To be fair to Fox News, they haven't been kind to him because he hasn't run a good campaign in any regard.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Looks like Huckabee has a 16 time world champ supporting him... WHOOOOOO!!!!!!


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071125/ap_po/huckabee_flair_1

[Recyclerz]

Looks like Playa Mayor Rudy stuck NYC taxpayers with the cost of his booty calls

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/7073.html

Any Pro-Rudy, anti-(Bill)Clinton buddies on here want to take a crack at spinning this one? :wink:

[badmonkey]

Clinton campaign plants question at Republican CNN Youtube debate? (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/7085.html)

If she knew about this, she is desperate. It is now between Obama and Edwards.

[Fezticle98]

Clinton campaign plants question at Republican CNN Youtube debate? (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/7085.html)

If she knew about this, she is desperate. It is now between Obama and Edwards.

You're kidding, right?

Rather than desperation, I think it would show foolish over-confidence, if she knew about it.

[TheMojoPin]

The Republicans better be praying that Hillary ends up being the Democrats' nominee. Watching their debate tonight, she is the crux of all the major Republican candidates' campaigns.

[epo]

According to a Washington Post story, the Obama is a muslim rumors are in full season. Link here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/28/AR2007112802757.html?hpid=topnews)

This is the side of politics that I really hate.

[Jujubees2]

So what you are saying is I have to pay an additonal tax for others to get "free" healthcare and still pay for mine.

NO WAY!

If Universal Health Care is to be universal, we all pay a tax and get it, or none at all. Which way is Senator Obama leaning, I'll ask again.

Scott, who do you think pays for the uninsured now? They still get sick and go to the hospital which is paid for by government funds. At least with health insurance, they will be able to get preventative care.

[epo]

Scott, who do you think pays for the uninsured now? They still get sick and go to the hospital which is paid for by government funds. At least with health insurance, they will be able to get preventative care.

I would just like to clarify this one.

Underinsured that go to the doctor are payed for in two ways:

1. Government reimbursement...but generally they cover about 1/2 the cost.
2. Everybody else then picks up the balance through deferred costs in their bills.

[badmonkey]

I would just like to clarify this one.

Underinsured that go to the doctor are payed for in two ways:

1. Government reimbursement...but generally they cover about 1/2 the cost.
2. Everybody else then picks up the balance through deferred costs in their bills.

Again... insurance companies tell the doctors what they are willing to pay for a procedure/treatment. They then pay that amount for the procedure/treatment and that's what the doctor gets whether he/she likes it or not.

Medicaid tells the doctors what they are willing to pay for a procedure/treatment. They they pay that amount for the procedure/treatment and that's what the doctor gets whether he/she likes it or not.

The uninsured either skip out on the bill completely or pay more for their treatments than either Medicaid or insurance would have paid.

[K.C.]

Well it's under a month until Iowa. Here's my take

Democrats: It look like there's been a surge for Obama in Iowa, but I'm not entirely sure it means a whole lot, but if the caucuses were today, I think he'd lose. To really have a shot, he has to be polling at least 5-6% ahead of Hillary. For one thing, Hillary's got a better machine in place to turn out her supporters, and I have a feeling undecideds will probably break more her way than his. If Hillary wins Iowa, the race is over barring some major, major scandal. If Obama wins, it's a whole new race, and he could easily parlay that momentum into New Hampshire, and especially South Carolina. As for the rest, I think Edwards is done. He's been campaigning there for four years, and he's starting to fade in the polls. He's polling around 20%...by voting time, I think he gets half that and is bows out afterwards. In fact, I think there's more of a chance of Bill Richardson or Joe Biden, both of whom are on the cusp of double-digits in Iowa to continually build momentum and inch closer to the front to where they finish ahead of Edwards. Even though they're older guys, they're not overexposed, and those could be your darkhorse possibilities. But they're unlikely to be a huge factor. It's probably Hillary vs. Obama.

If I had to predict right now, Hillary edges out Obama in Iowa, trounces him in New Hampshire and rides easily to the nomination.

Republicans: I said way back when he was barely a blip on the radar that Huckabee would be a huge factor before the end (he was my Republican nominee prediction, in fact). He's the only guy in the race that speaks to the Christian Conservatives, he's probably the most relatable on a personal level of any of the candidates, and he's a Southern governor. These things definitely matter with that base. I think he cruises in Iowa. If Romney loses in Iowa, it hurts him a lot and makes New Hampshire a must win for him. If one of these two comes out with a sweep of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, they'll probably cruise. The hope for Giuliani is that Huckabee wins Iowa, Romney wins New Hampshire, and McCain or Thompson take South Carolina so it still remains very split by the time they get to the states Giuliani is doing well in. But if one of those guys rolls, Giuliani will be out before he ever got started, and ignoring the early states will be remembered as one of the stupidest strategies ever. As for the guys on the fringe, Ron Paul's only hope is to pull a huge upset in a libertarian state like New Hampshire, but it's not looking likely. McCain and Thompson are fading and I can't really see them coming back. It's a three horse race...Huckabee-Romney-Giuliani...and Giuliani better hope Huckabee and Romney split the early states so he doesn't get too far behind.

My prediction is Huckabee wins Iowa handily, the momentum carries over to New Hampshire and South Carolina, and by the time Giuliani gets to his key states, there will be too much momentum against him.

[badmonkey]

Hillary Clinton attacks Obama's kindergarten essay "I want to be President" and accused him of lying about not having a lifelong lust for the Oval Office. (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1690519,00.html)

Look at how Hillary only attacks her opponent on "the issues".

[HBox]

Hillary Clinton attacks Obama's kindergarten essay "I want to be President" and accused him of lying about not having a lifelong lust for the Oval Office. (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1690519,00.html)

Look at how Hillary only attacks her opponent on "the issues".


:wallbash:

[A.J.]

Hillary Clinton attacks Obama's kindergarten essay "I want to be President" and accused him of lying about not having a lifelong lust for the Oval Office. (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1690519,00.html)

Look at how Hillary only attacks her opponent on "the issues".

She even went so far as to dig up a kindergarten essay of Obama's entitled "I Want to Be President" to accuse him of lying about not having a lifelong lust for the Oval Office. "So you decide which makes more sense: Entrust our country to someone who is ready on day one ... or to put America in the hands of someone with little national or international experience, who started running for president the day he arrived in the U.S. Senate," Clinton said in Iowa Monday.

http://www.goenglish.com/GoEnglish_com_ThePotCallingTheKettleBlack.gif

[badmonkey]

Since most of her attacks seem to be like she's shouting at a mirror, I think the "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument should be making an appearance soon in the Obama campaign if he really wants to win.

Nobody has ever beaten that argument. Nobody...

[TheMojoPin]

I am honestly baffled as to how she's the frontrunner. It's like when Bush ran for 2000...people just recognize the name and don't want to do anything beyond that. Jst say "no" to Hillary.

[pennington]

most of her attacks seem to be like she's shouting at a mirror


I want to put this on a bumper sticker.

[Yerdaddy]

I am honestly baffled as to how she's the frontrunner. It's like when Bush ran for 2000...people just recognize the name and don't want to do anything beyond that. Jst say "no" to Hillary.

Democratic voters finally figured out that electoral politics is a contact sport and they finally want someone with some testicles. As a Cubs fan, do you want the owners to pick someone who looks good in shoe ads or someone who can help the team win?

We also know that most of the things she's accused of are baseless and retarded. I don't like her foriegn relations positions, but I think she's less likely to take us deeper into this voluntary clash of civilizations than the alternative - Rudy "You're All Gonna Die" Giuliani, and she's the only one who can beat him. So there you go.

[TheMojoPin]

Democratic voters finally figured out that electoral politics is a contact sport and they finally want someone with some testicles. As a Cubs fan, do you want the owners to pick someone who looks good in shoe ads or someone who can help the team win?

We also know that most of the things she's accused of are baseless and retarded. I don't like her foriegn relations positions, but I think she's less likely to take us deeper into this voluntary clash of civilizations than the alternative - Rudy "You're All Gonna Die" Giuliani, and she's the only one who can beat him. So there you go.

She can beat him with her name, and that's about it. Where are these "balls" you speak of? Her halfassed and weak attacks have, for the most part, been directed the other Democratic candidates, whereas the Republicans have smacked her around at every opportunity.

And the mentality of only voting for someone who sounds like they can win for "our side" is the same kind of thinking that helped Bush into office.

[Yerdaddy]

She can beat him with her name, and that's about it. Where are these "balls" you speak of? Her halfassed and weak attacks have, for the most part, been directed the other Democratic candidates, whereas the Republicans have smacked her around at every opportunity.

She's not running against the Republicans now. Sure she's the Republicans' Boogeyman, but there's nothing to gain by responding to their criticism right now. When the general election campaign is underway and the Swift Boating season is in full swing she's more likely to confront it head on instead of wishing it away like Gore and Kerry did.

And the mentality of only voting for someone who sounds like they can win for "our side" is the same kind of thinking that helped Bush into office.

That's clearly not what I said. I support her because she's the lesser of the two potential evils. And if Bush has taught me anything it's that the lesser of two evils is an excellent use of one's vote. All potential Republican Presidents are much more likely to take us into Iraq sequals than Clinton. And that's all I give a fuck about anymore because my "side" is not the same side you're on. My side is outside America, and my vote is to protect me from your side. It just so happens that I think the best interests of your side is the same as that of my side. But that's for you all to decide.

[A.J.]

Where are these "balls" you speak of?

She may not have them, but she can break them.

http://thegluttonist.typepad.com/Hillary_Nutcracker.jpg

Listening to her speak is like having your mother or an ex nag you to death.

[angrymissy]

So my friend, Republican 4 life, emailed me and a bunch of other people some chain letter thing laying out how Bush's house is more Green than Gore's etc etc etc, so I reply "I might just have to vote for that nutjob Ron Paul, I like how he pisses everyone off. Mitt Romney is such a wuss, your party should be ashamed!!"

She replied "Who's Ron Paul and Mitt Romney?"

[cougarjake13]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3947594&page=1



JUST A THOUGHT


what if hillary is just a figurehead to get bill in for a "3rd term" ???

like behind the scenes its all bill making the decisions

[Yerdaddy]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3947594&page=1



JUST A THOUGHT


what if hillary is just a figurehead to get bill in for a "3rd term" ???

like behind the scenes its all bill making the decisions

Her poll numbers would immediately jump 10%.

[K.C.]

I am honestly baffled as to how she's the frontrunner. It's like when Bush ran for 2000...people just recognize the name and don't want to do anything beyond that. Jst say "no" to Hillary.

I don't know that she is the front-runner anymore.

-She's behind in Iowa (and the latest poll has Obama 32, Edwards 25, Clinton 25)
-Her lead has shrunk almost to a dead heat in New Hampshire.
-She's virtually tied with Obama in South Carolina.
-Her national poll lead has shrunk dramatically.

Hillary's on the ropes right now. If she places 3rd in Iowa, especially if Obama wins in a run away, she could be in serious trouble.

She's set herself up where if she loses badly in Iowa (and it's a very distinct possibility), it's going to harm her effort everywhere else because people will see her failings in Iowa as a taste of why she couldn't stand up to the test of a national campaign.

I'm actually starting to like Obama's chances. Still not sure where Edwards figures into this thing. I'm not sure it'd make a huge difference even if he won Iowa. There's just no enthusiam fo rthe guy at all and I can't envision the circumstances under which he would build a big
wave of momentum (or Joementum) at this point.

[Jujubees2]

JUST A THOUGHT

what if hillary is just a figurehead to get bill in for a "3rd term" ???

Then I'd definately vote for her!

[ralphbxny]

If Ron B would jump in he could win!

[cougarjake13]

If Ron B would jump in he could win!

absolutely

it'd be a landslide unamimous decision

[scottinnj]

I don't know. I'm a registered Fezlican and I rarely cross over to the Benningcrat camp to cast my vote.

[SinA]

i have mixed feelings about hillary now after seeing this
http://www.zombietime.com/really_truly_hillary_gallery/Hillary62.jpg

[HBox]

i have mixed feelings about hillary now after seeing this
http://www.zombietime.com/really_truly_hillary_gallery/Hillary62.jpg

It disturbs me highly, shakes my inner core to no end, makes me question everything I thought I ever knew, when I see that Hillary Clinton can do that to Natalie Portman's nipples.

[Bulldogcakes]

source (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071208/D8TDI1B00.html)

ATLANTA (AP) - Civil rights icon Andrew Young says Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is too young and lacks the support network to ascend to the White House.

In a media interview posted online, Young also quipped that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has her husband behind her, and that "Bill is every bit as black as Barack."

"He's probably gone with more black women than Barack," Young said of former President Clinton, drawing laughter from a live television audience.

[pennington]

http://www.zombietime.com/really_truly_hillary_gallery/Hillary62.jpg

Hit the "Click this bar to view the full image" tab and look at Hillary's eyes.

Is that the look of "Crazy", "I WANT THE POWER" or the look of a "Frat guy at his first strip club"?

[epo]

Hit the "Click this bar to view the full image" tab and look at Hillary's eyes.

Is that the look of "Crazy", "I WANT THE POWER" or the look of a "Frat guy at his first strip club"?

Sorry I didn't see that at all. I did see the power of Natalie's Nipples though.

You should try again.

[A.J.]

source (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071208/D8TDI1B00.html)

ATLANTA (AP) - Civil rights icon Andrew Young says Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is too young and lacks the support network to ascend to the White House.

In a media interview posted online, Young also quipped that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has her husband behind her, and that "Bill is every bit as black as Barack."

"He's probably gone with more black women than Barack," Young said of former President Clinton, drawing laughter from a live television audience.

So what Andrew Young is saying is that Barack is a sell-out, light-skinned black who likes white women, which is bad, but white Bill Clinton fucks anything, while married or not, and that's cool because he's "black". Thanks. Got it.

I wish a Republican had said that so he or she would be attacked mercilessly for making fun of racial stereotypes.

[TheMojoPin]

So what Andrew Young is saying is that Barack is a sell-out, light-skinned black who likes white women, which is bad, but white Bill Clinton fucks anything, while married or not, and that's cool because he's "black". Thanks. Got it.

I wish a Republican had said that so he or she would be attacked mercilessly for making fun of racial stereotypes.

No kidding.

What a dipshit.

And thanks, Bill. The guy was demonized for his infidelities, but come on...how stupid do you have to be to be where he was and not keep your dick in your pants?

[epo]

The Obama/Clinton feud is getting uglier as the race tightens.

In New Hampshire where Clinton has lost a 20-point lead to Obama, to be in a statistical tie, the state co-chair slams Obama for his admission of past drug use:

Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

Link here. (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/12/post_235.html)

Seriously, this is dirty politics. Anybody smell a bit of frustration?

[pennington]

Seriously, this is dirty politics. Anybody smell a bit of frustration?

Yes.

Hiding a negative attack behind the guise of "Well, this is what the Republicans will say about him" is pretty oily. This is only the beginning.

[scottinnj]

i have mixed feelings about hillary now after seeing this
http://www.zombietime.com/really_truly_hillary_gallery/Hillary62.jpg

Hit the "Click this bar to view the full image" tab and look at Hillary's eyes.

Is that the look of "Crazy", "I WANT THE POWER" or the look of a "Frat guy at his first strip club"?

The only thing I see is that they are as big as Natalie's nipples. :thumbup: :clap:

[pennington]

The only thing I see is that they are as big as Natalie's nipples.

She does seem "happy".

Years ago I used to go out with a girl who was a sales rep. She had these hard plastic nipples that she would occasionally wear under a sheer bra when she had to meet some heterosexual male clients.

[Yerdaddy]

The Obama/Clinton feud is getting uglier as the race tightens.

In New Hampshire where Clinton has lost a 20-point lead to Obama, to be in a statistical tie, the state co-chair slams Obama for his admission of past drug use:



Link here. (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/12/post_235.html)

Seriously, this is dirty politics. Anybody smell a bit of frustration?

It's a factually correct statement and a legitimate question. It's also relatively trivial and won't help Clinton, so I don't see why it's evidence of "dirty tricks."

[scottinnj]

She does seem "happy".

Years ago I used to go out with a girl who was a sales rep. She had these hard plastic nipples that she would occasionally wear under a sheer bra when she had to meet some heterosexual male clients.

I'm just happy to be able to sport a boner in the politics section. Now I know how Bill felt!

[epo]

I'm just happy to be able to sport a boner in the politics section. Now I know how Bill felt!

Felt? Bill feels that way everyday of his life.

I'm so jealous of that man.

[TooLowBrow]

i didnt understand that when hill was supposed to speak in phili and didnt show up the news made it look like a travesty. but bill showed up to speak. id way rather see and hear bill over hill.












off the cuff poetry time...



bill and hill went up the hill
to fetch a pail of water
bill fell down and broke his crown
and hill came tumbling after

[epo]

The Hilliary camp apologizes (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/13/513905.aspx)for the Obama/Drug remarks of New Hampshire co-chair Bill Shaheen's remarks about Obama's drug past.

And the end game? Shaheen is removed from the Clinton campaign (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/NEWS08/312140080/-1/news).

There is something so fun about the human chess match that is the presidential race.

[Yerdaddy]

The Hilliary camp apologizes (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/13/513905.aspx)for the Obama/Drug remarks of New Hampshire co-chair Bill Shaheen's remarks about Obama's drug past.

And the end game? Shaheen is removed from the Clinton campaign (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/NEWS08/312140080/-1/news).

There is something so fun about the human chess match that is the presidential race.

And Hillary runs one from the Democratic playbook: apologize for nothing! Fucking losers.

[JerseySean]

The Hilliary camp apologizes (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/13/513905.aspx)for the Obama/Drug remarks of New Hampshire co-chair Bill Shaheen's remarks about Obama's drug past.

And the end game? Shaheen is removed from the Clinton campaign (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/NEWS08/312140080/-1/news).

There is something so fun about the human chess match that is the presidential race.

Anyone who believes that this isnt a work is nuts. I guarantee Shaheen will get a prominant spot in the Hillary administration. The reason she did that was to have someone attack Obama to get the drug info out to the people in Iowa and she could apologize and make a big deal about how she didnt order that. People in Iowa aren't big on negative campaigning. Look at this ad and see how soft the negative tone is. If this ad aired in NJ or on the west coast it would be ten times harsher.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hei8iDK61do&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hei8iDK61do&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[scottinnj]

Barack’s Blast From the Past (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/opinion/15collins.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)


Even while she writes about the Obama-Clinton drug reference debacle, she can't keep from taking her digs at the GOP and its nominees:

On da prez:

George W. Bush always declined to answer. “If I were you, I wouldn’t tell your kids that you smoked pot unless you want them to smoke pot,” he said during the 2000 campaign in response to the many, many questions about his own history. The phrasing was vintage George W., but tactically, the answer was a thing of genius. In one simple sentence, Bush had: a) eliminated cocaine from the conversation, b) made “you” the guilty party and c) explained that whatever happened, he was clamming up for the sake of the children.

On Huckabee:

By the next day, Shaheen was gone, Hillary had apologized to Barack and the controversy had eclipsed even Mike Huckabee’s apology to Mitt Romney for suggesting that Mormons believe Jesus and the devil are brothers.

But apparantly she's weirded out by Romney as well:

The question is whether Obama has worked out a way to explain all this to the more conservative voters he’d be wooing next fall. (Particularly if the Republican nominee is Mitt Romney, who has never tried coffee.)

I wonder how she would react if a vegetarian Hindi were running. Oh the scandal of it all!

On the Republican nomination in general:
(The Republicans are so deep into theological disputes that their Iowa race is beginning to sound like the Council of Trent.)


On that last one, how about just quit hounding them on whether or not they believe in God or whatever, and ask them the same stuff the media asks the Democrats?


But apparantly, she doesn't see Obama's confession of past drug use as just being honest. It had to be a ploy to dissuade his opponents from being able to use it as a weapon during the nominations:

The classic way to get rid of a past-misbehavior problem is to turn it into an inspiring story about sin and redemption. But Obama has a hard time with the cheesy side of political campaigns, and being required to dredge up emotions he doesn’t necessarily feel.

“The point was to inhale. That was the point,” he said, when someone asked the inevitable question.

I guess she doesn't realize if he hadn't have said it in his book, nobody would have known in the first place. If asked, he could have lied, and who is she to try to prove him wrong?

At least he told the truth, which is somewhat refreshing in this day and age of politics.
If I were running for President, I certainly expect the people to wonder if I had experience with alcohol or drugs given the times we live in.

Now when Hillary's husband came up with that coy "I didn't inhale" answer, the media just went along with his "wink-and-a-nod" attitude-any criticism of his drug use was quickly condemned as extremist or mean-spirited by the likes of Gail.

Why is this such a big deal? One candidate was being honest, another candidate's employee tried to make politics out of it, and got fired for crossing a line withou the permission of the candidate. Why is the press trying to pound it into our heads that this is some sort of political plot, either by one side or the other or both candidates?

[jimmy norton voice]I haaaaaaaate the media![/jimmy norton voice]

[HBox]

Why is this such a big deal? One candidate was being honest, another candidate's employee tried to make politics out of it, and got fired for crossing a line withou the permission of the candidate. Why is the press trying to pound it into our heads that this is some sort of political plot, either by one side or the other or both candidates?

Because they have 24 hours to fill.

[Dude!]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20071215/capt.ead497bd299642c7bfb32a642df666e9.clinton_2008 _nhjc110.jpg?x=262&y=345&sig=0AEv1_EBQ8_u8wQLhtn5vQ--


hello.....

[Ritalin]

I read this on a political blog:

In the span of a week and a half, Clinton and/or her surrogates said that Obama is or might be:
* Muslim (Iowa Clinton campaign volunteers)
* Drug dealer (Billy Shaheen)
* Drug giver (Billy Shaheen)
* Gifted television commentator (Bill Clinton on Charlie Rose)
* Chef (Bill Clinton on Charlie Rose - see quote below)
* Plumber (Bill Clinton on Charlie Rose - see quote below)
* Hasn't "actually done things for people" (Bill Clinton on Charlie Rose)
* Less black then Bill Clinton (Ambassador Young)

Put me in the Obama camp.

[Franklyn]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20071215/capt.ead497bd299642c7bfb32a642df666e9.clinton_2008 _nhjc110.jpg?x=262&y=345&sig=0AEv1_EBQ8_u8wQLhtn5vQ--


hello.....

This picture could be the equivalent of the Howard Dean scream. Let's see what happens. America doesn't want weakness or ugliness in their leaders.

[TheMojoPin]

America doesn't want ugliness in their leaders.

I'd say that history has proven the exact opposite.

[A.J.]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20071215/capt.ead497bd299642c7bfb32a642df666e9.clinton_2008 _nhjc110.jpg?x=262&y=345&sig=0AEv1_EBQ8_u8wQLhtn5vQ--


hello.....

My Mom is the same age as her yet Hillary looks 20 years older.

[badmonkey]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20071215/capt.ead497bd299642c7bfb32a642df666e9.clinton_2008 _nhjc110.jpg?x=262&y=345&sig=0AEv1_EBQ8_u8wQLhtn5vQ--
My Mom is the same age as her yet Hillary looks 20 years older.


.... or is she actually much much older? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_B%C3%A1thory)

[TooLowBrow]

http://animated-views.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/droopy-02.JPG

[NewYorkDragons80]

McCain picks up several key endorsements (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/17/politics/fromtheroad/entry3627081.shtml)
The Des Moines Register, The Boston Globe, The Portsmouth Herald, and Joe Lieberman. Things are definitely looking up for McCain
“You should have listened to me from the beginning," McCain told CBS News yesterday. "We’re working hard and we have a lot of work to do, but ... we’re back!”

[scottinnj]

Yep, starting to take a second look at McCain myself for the GOP nod.

Spencer Hughes had an interesting take on Giuliani's bid: if 9/11 hadn't happened, he wouldn't even be in the race, or would ever run for the nominaion ever.

Huckabee has no foreign policy experience. None.

Fred Thompson is running his campaign like he really doesn't want to be nominated, therefore, I'll help him retire from politics by not giving him my vote.

Mitt Romney is unelectable, unfortunately because he is a Mormon. I personally don't care, but most Republicans I talk to have written him off for that alone, and I feel that in the general election he will face too many problems vis a vie Kennedy back in the day being Catholic.

So I'm going to look at McCain again.

[scottinnj]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20071215/capt.ead497bd299642c7bfb32a642df666e9.clinton_2008 _nhjc110.jpg?x=262&y=345&sig=0AEv1_EBQ8_u8wQLhtn5vQ--


hello.....

I smell photoshop....not just because of the wrinkles, it's the excess fat on her face. She is not a heavy woman at all, and her cheeks have never been puffed out at all, they have always been taut and smooth.

I've seen women who have MS take steroids and balloon up like that. But since Hillary isn't a patient on Methyprednisone, I still am skeptical of this picture.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Mitt Romney is unelectable, unfortunately because he is a Mormon.
This whole Mormon debate in the media is a fucking distraction from the fact that this guy is devoid of vision and originality. This guy needs to do a whole lot more than toe the company line to win my respect. Mitt Romney is a dripping bucket of more of the same.

[high fly]

B-b-b-b-but Romney has the GOP 'do and McCain doesn't!

Y'know, the jet black, plastered down with greasy kid stuff coif adopted by right-wingers.

It looks downright bizarre to see a 60 year-old man with jet black hair glued down and all........

[A.J.]

It looks downright bizarre to see a 60 year-old man with jet black hair glued down and all........

I know. It is.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/284838/0_61_kucinich_elizabeth.jpg

[epo]

Mitt Romney is unelectable, unfortunately because he is a Mormon.

This whole Mormon debate in the media is a fucking distraction from the fact that this guy is devoid of vision and originality. This guy needs to do a whole lot more than toe the company line to win my respect. Mitt Romney is a dripping bucket of more of the same.

It has been my contention for awhile that Romney is the biggest "minority" in the 2008 race. The religious bigotry towards his Mormonism is very strong in this country and that is a shame.

There are so many better reasons to hate the guy than his religious beliefs.

[epo]

I know. It is.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/284838/0_61_kucinich_elizabeth.jpg

She looks out of her mind crazy. Dennis must be having the time of his life!

[DolaMight]

If anyone's wondering why Huckabee is comin on so strong, despite even his recent controversy(which seems it may have given him a boost) , check out his ad.

Politics aside, from a marketing point of view this is brilliant ad. Plays right to his target audience's war on xmas paranoia. I wish you a merry christmas and I approve this message, simple great concept, but then notice the lighting on the cabinets which is obviously a cross. Subliminal advertising at it's best.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8xn7uSHtkuA&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8xn7uSHtkuA&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[badmonkey]

If anyone's wondering why Huckabee is comin on so strong, despite even his recent controversy(which seems it may have given him a boost) , check out his ad.

Politics aside, from a marketing point of view this is brilliant ad. Plays right to his target audience's war on xmas paranoia. I wish you a merry christmas and I approve this message, simple great concept, but then notice the lighting on the cabinets which is obviously a cross. Subliminal advertising at it's best.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8xn7uSHtkuA&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8xn7uSHtkuA&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

You've got to be kidding. You're looking so hard for the subliminal message that you missed the "what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ" and the "God bless" part of the merry christmas" line. That is one of the things I do like about Huckabee. He usually seems to say exactly what he means. There's really no room for interpretation in that ad at all. Listen to the words he says you will hear all the subliminal stuff you think he's trying to say without saying.

[foodcourtdruide]

Yep, starting to take a second look at McCain myself for the GOP nod.

Spencer Hughes had an interesting take on Giuliani's bid: if 9/11 hadn't happened, he wouldn't even be in the race, or would ever run for the nominaion ever.

Huckabee has no foreign policy experience. None.

Fred Thompson is running his campaign like he really doesn't want to be nominated, therefore, I'll help him retire from politics by not giving him my vote.

Mitt Romney is unelectable, unfortunately because he is a Mormon. I personally don't care, but most Republicans I talk to have written him off for that alone, and I feel that in the general election he will face too many problems vis a vie Kennedy back in the day being Catholic.

So I'm going to look at McCain again.

That is NOT the only reason Mitt Romney is unelectable.

[Ritalin]

Spencer Hughes had an interesting take on Giuliani's bid: if 9/11 hadn't happened, he wouldn't even be in the race, or would ever run for the nominaion ever.
.

You know, Joe Biden has a funny line about how almost all of Rudy's sentences go "noun verb 9/11".

[epo]

A news story that has little to do with the Presidential race that doesn't help Governor Huckabee in the least bit.

Huckabee covered up son's torturing and murdering of dog. (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/70939/)

David Huckabee "admitted to catching a stray dog during their summer session at Camp Pioneer in Hatfield, AR, and hanging the dog by his neck, slitting his throat and stoning him to death"

I don't even know what to do with this story, but I can't think it's going to play well in Iowa. I'll be interested to see the fallout and the pr work from Team Huckabee.

[scottinnj]

You know, Joe Biden has a funny line about how almost all of Rudy's sentences go "noun verb 9/11".

I saw that, it was funny.

[scottinnj]

I know. It is.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/284838/0_61_kucinich_elizabeth.jpg

She looks out of her mind crazy. Dennis must be having the time of his life!

Of course he is. Look at that smile on his face. He looks like he just stepped off a 1975 Old Spice commercial.

[NewYorkDragons80]

That is one of the things I do like about Huckabee. He usually seems to say exactly what he means.
If Republicans gave a shit about meaning what you say, principle, etc., it would be a dead heat between John McCain and Ron Paul for the nomination, and Dennis Kucinich wouldn't be a buzzword for high treason.

[high fly]

Oops

[high fly]

If Republicans gave a shit about meaning what you say, principle, etc., it would be a dead heat between John McCain and Ron Paul for the nomination, and Dennis Kucinich wouldn't be a buzzword for high treason.

Do you mean like when Bush said he would not use the military for "nation building?"
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Bush said he would keep the budget balanced?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Bush said he was against storing nuclear waste at Yucca Flats?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Bush said he was against the 9/11 Commission?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Bush said he would not invade Iraq unless he got a UN resolution asking us to do so?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Bush was against having a Department of Homeland Security?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Bush was against taking money out of the Social Security Trust Fund?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Bush was against negotiating with the NoKos about nukes?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Bush was for a patient being able to sue their HMO?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Bush was against giving illegal immigrants amnesty?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Bush was for cutting CO2 emissions?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Bush was for 527 groups?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Bush was against having a national clearinghouse for intelligence?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Bush was against the federal government sticking it's nose into local school classrooms and having beltway bureacrats tell them what to do?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Bush was against the federal government deciding whether to allow same-sex marriages?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

[Dude!]

nice cut and paste

[Yerdaddy]

nice cut and paste

He doesn't cut and paste. He actually researches and writes this stuff. So you can argue his posts on its merits if you'd like?

[scottinnj]

Clickety Click Click! (http://www.yourconcord.com/primaryblog/monitor_editorial_not_romney)


When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state's first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we'll know it.

Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no.

[epo]

This is the new ad that Guiliani is running in Iowa. Seriously, does this fucker have anything other than the 9-11 card?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I3tt8dniJXc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I3tt8dniJXc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Bulldogcakes]

This is the new ad that Guiliani is running in Iowa. Seriously, does this fucker have anything other than the 9-11 card?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I3tt8dniJXc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I3tt8dniJXc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

I like Rudy. I don't see him as president, but I'll always be grateful for the amazing job he did here in NYC. A job that most of the entrenched left wing interest groups in NYC said "couldn't be done". He did things that every previous mayor tried and failed to do for the 20 years prior to his mayoralty. He was the greatest mayor of my lifetime, and the city has continued to prosper even today from the groundwork he laid.

All of that being said, the argument that terrorists are "trying to take away our freedoms" is both implausable and hypocritical. The notion that Osama Bin Laden will ever run America by bombing us here and there is absurd on so many levels its not worth discussing. I don't care what his manifesto says, he has no power to implement it and it is therefore simply the ramblings of a madman.

As to the hypocrisy, it was the Republicans who proposed and passed the Patriot Act, which expanded Federal powers to allow more federal (and foreign) spying on US citizens, expanded the Treasury Secretary's authority to regulate business transactions, and eased the Feds ability to deport legal immigrants and those here on visas. All of that means we as a people have less freedom. Freedom is a zero sum game. If the Feds have more, the citizens have less.

[Recyclerz]

I partly disagree with BDC's 1st paragraph but I'm so down with his last two that I won't make a scene.

However, if we're picking NYC mayors to run the country, I'm going to depart from the Teachings of the Prophet Ronnie B and support the current model.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/us/politics/31bloomberg.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[Bulldogcakes]

I partly disagree with BDC's 1st paragraph but I'm so down with his last two that I won't make a scene.

However, if we're picking NYC mayors to run the country, I'm going to depart from the Teachings of the Prophet Ronnie B and support the current model.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/us/politics/31bloomberg.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Bloomberg is very interesting. For us disaffected types, he can run as a middle of the road candidate who tries to build a new centrist coalition and is beholden to no one. While the two major party-backed candidates are sniping at each other he can play the grownup who's above the fray. He can also outspend both parties COMBINED with about 1 year of his earnings if he chooses to do so. I'd give him a very close look and would even say of the current field I'm leaning towards him if he jumps in.

BTW-Ron Paul is likely going to run all the way to the finish line as well, he has the cash and the organization to pull it off. Its tough to say who pulls more votes from which side. I could make a case for each candidate.

As much as I love Rudy, I can't vote for him for pres because I disagree with him about the centerpiece of his campaign. His approach toward dealing with terrorism is the same as the (Israeli) Likud party's approach, who he has long been sympatico with. And if you look at how that has worked out over there, its something I simply can't support. Using the military for a international law enforcement problem is a recipe for turning the US into Israel.

[epo]

Kucinch tells supporters to caucus with Obama if he's not viable.

Link to story here. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Kucinich_sorta_endorses_Obama.html)

Of course this would be a big deal if Kucinch had more than 1% of Iowa's voters.

[epo]

Turnout in Iowa was really big, as 365,000 people showed up. But the overall breakdown was hugely in the favor of the Dems:

Percentage of overall voters: (http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2008/01/iowa-wrap-up.html)

24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
18.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee

I'll be interested to see if this trend continues in New Hampshire. If so the Republicans are in worse shape than I thought they were.

[TeeBone]

I am actually praying that the recent success OBAMA (the magic negro) had in Iowa carries over to securing a nomination for the party. Picture if you will, an America with Hillary at the helm. That's bad enough for reasons too extent to list but can be easily summed up as:
Socialism, sociopath tendencies, robotic, Senator from New York.
One logical question would be, "What do we do with Bill?" I believe he will have the ability to practice law, even after his legal issues have been cleared up and if that doesn't scare you, it should. There are some that suggest that Hillary would nominate Bill to the Supreme Court, given the chance.
Can you imagine an America with a Democratic Congress, Bill Clinton as a supreme Court Justice and Hillary (the calfless liar) Clinton as President?

GO OBAMA!!!!!
Be the one-term Horses-Ass we know you can and hopefully will be!!!!!!
I think I might actually vote for you and I am registered as an Independent.




Go ahead leftist lunatics, pull your heads from your asses and comment away!!!!!

[Heather 8]

Go ahead leftist lunatics, pull your heads from your asses and comment away!!!!!

YAWN.

Nothing like election season to bring out the flame-happy trolls.

[A.J.]

There are some that suggest that Hillary would nominate Bill to the Supreme Court, given the chance.
Can you imagine an America with a Democratic Congress, Bill Clinton as a supreme Court Justice and Hillary (the calfless liar) Clinton as President?

Clinton was disbarred as a result of the impeachment. Can you imagine the confirmation hearings?

[K.C.]

The fun thing to watch now, for those of us more likely to cast a democratic vote this fall, is going to be the powers that be in the Republican party try and destroy Huckabee.

The best way to describe his rise is 'the inmates running the asylum.'

The Republican campaign structure has always (or at least recently) viewed the Christian Conservatives as a necessary evil. But unlike Bush, Huckabee's the real deal in that regard...in addition to his kind of crazy brand of religiousness, he's been talking a lot about poverty and healthcare, in terms of religious obligation to address them.

And that's what pisses those guys off. Huckabee's so Jesus-y that he might actually do a few Jesus-like things.

[epo]

The fun thing to watch now, for those of us more likely to cast a democratic vote this fall, is going to be the powers that be in the Republican party try and destroy Huckabee.

The best way to describe his rise is 'the inmates running the asylum.'

The Republican campaign structure has always (or at least recently) viewed the Christian Conservatives as a necessary evil. But unlike Bush, Huckabee's the real deal in that regard...in addition to his kind of crazy brand of religiousness, he's been talking a lot about poverty and healthcare, in terms of religious obligation to address them.

And that's what pisses those guys off. Huckabee's so Jesus-y that he might actually do a few Jesus-like things.

Great call.

It's funny as I came to work this morning and a few conservatives I know approached me with a couple of things:


They told me first thing..."You guys made the right call with Obama" and they genuinely meant it.
They other thing they said was "I'm not voting for Huckabee".


Now all three are what I would call "money conservatives"...and they aren't buying this religious thing. They obviously know they need the religious right to win, but they definitely don't want them to drive the bus.

I would bet in some world where the election is Obama vs. Huckabee, the crossover votes from the money republicans would be very high. Of course, we all know that things can and will change in the course of the next few weeks...much less days.

[Axem Red]

I am thrilled that Obama got the come from behind victory on Clinton! I can only hope for the same results down south (my fingers might break from all the crossing). Unfortunately, because I do live in Alabama and only old farts vote down here, the democratic leadership in Alabama has sided with Clinton. Honestly, with all the Ron Paul nuttiness down here I can actually see him making a dent in some of the southern caucases.

[K.C.]

Great call.

It's funny as I came to work this morning and a few conservatives I know approached me with a couple of things:


They told me first thing..."You guys made the right call with Obama" and they genuinely meant it.
They other thing they said was "I'm not voting for Huckabee".


Now all three are what I would call "money conservatives"...and they aren't buying this religious thing. They obviously know they need the religious right to win, but they definitely don't want them to drive the bus.

I would bet in some world where the election is Obama vs. Huckabee, the crossover votes from the money republicans would be very high. Of course, we all know that things can and will change in the course of the next few weeks...much less days.


I know a lot of money conservatives as well.

I don't get the impression they'd crossover to vote for Obama.

If Huckabee really wins the nomination, they'll produce a ton of loud noise to get Bloomberg in as an independent and try and drive him right up the middle of the electorate.

Of course, Obama would come out the huge winner in an Obama-Bloomberg-Huckabee race. But, then again, he'd probably come out a substantial winner in an Obama-Huckabee race.

If you're a money conservative, these are your option:
1) Pray (and I mean pray!) that McCain, Romney, and Giuliani don't all undermine each other in the primaries leaving Huckabee the winner by default. If you're a hardline conservative (money + social), then you're praying Reagan's ghost inhabits Fred Thompson as a host body.

2) If Huckabee is the winner, make a decision in whether you're willing to rip the Republican party apart by pushing Bloomberg (or another billionaire type) into the race, effectively splitting the Republican base in have, or swallow the fact that this is the party Bush left and either


vote for Huckabee begrudginly
stay home, in effect conceding defeat to Obama and try to reshape the party over the next four years in time for 2012

[Grendel_Kahn]

Keep in mind Iowa caucus is really sorta meaningless. If I'm not mistaken they have picked the wrong side going back to Reagan. Now, New Hampshire is where it's at. Looking at the way this all seems to shake out I still think it's going to be Romney or Guliani in the big dance, and I have been looking more and more at Obama as the new guy to watch. I think Hillary will put up a good fight but in the end just miss. As other threads have shown, I am a big RON PAUL guy, and while I never thought he had a shot, it was good to see he was able to shake things up in the populous. Put some of the more unconventional ideas out there for examination. And judging by the sheer amount of money he has raised, I'm not alone in my thinking.

I don't know how many of you are from NY, but I remember on Sept 10 2001 most on NY was ready to run Rudy out on a rail, with Kerik and Judith as well. I think the reason he keeps up with the "VERB NOUN 9/11" speech" is none of his handlers really want that close a look at him.

[Recyclerz]

Great call.

It's funny as I came to work this morning and a few conservatives I know approached me with a couple of things:


They told me first thing..."You guys made the right call with Obama" and they genuinely meant it.
They other thing they said was "I'm not voting for Huckabee".


Now all three are what I would call "money conservatives"...and they aren't buying this religious thing. They obviously know they need the religious right to win, but they definitely don't want them to drive the bus.

I would bet in some world where the election is Obama vs. Huckabee, the crossover votes from the money republicans would be very high. Of course, we all know that things can and will change in the course of the next few weeks...much less days.

I think Epo and KC are right on point here. A similar take by this guy in the NY Times yesterday.

http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/

When you cut to the chase, the faux-hayseed we have in office seems to have only one core principle - to protect the interests of the moneyed class. Everything else he has done has either been a smoke screen (stem cells) or a really awful seat of the pants improvisation ("War on Terror", Iraq, piss on the Constitution, etc.)

I think that you guys are right that the "money conservatives" are shitting themselves that they don't have a winner/protector in sight. I would argue (although I'm not sure how vociferously) that Bloomberg wouldn't necessarily be in their camp either. I sense a difference between rich people who made their fortunes through a combination of smarts, actual hard work and luck (Eg. Gates, Buffett, Bloomberg and even Corzine) and the trust fund set (who view themselves as our natural aristocracy). The ones who made the $ themselves seem less fraidy scared of parting with some of their cash for good public causes that do the members of the various Newport, RI yacht clubs.

[NortonRules]

Do you mean like when Hillary said she would not use the military for "nation building?"
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary said she would keep the budget balanced?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary said she was against storing nuclear waste at Yucca Flats?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary said she was against the 9/11 Commission?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary said she would not invade Iraq unless he got a UN resolution asking us to do so?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary was against having a Department of Homeland Security?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary was against taking money out of the Social Security Trust Fund?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary was against negotiating with the NoKos about nukes?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary was for a patient being able to sue their HMO?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when hillary was against giving illegal immigrants amnesty?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary was for cutting CO2 emissions?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary was for 527 groups?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary was against having a national clearinghouse for intelligence?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary was against the federal government sticking it's nose into local school classrooms and having beltway bureacrats tell them what to do?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary was against the federal government deciding whether to allow same-sex marriages?
Or do you mean when she changed her mind?

Fixed.

[A.J.]

Originally Posted by high fly
Do you mean like when Hillary said she would not use the military for "nation building?"
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary said she would keep the budget balanced?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary said she was against storing nuclear waste at Yucca Flats?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary said she was against the 9/11 Commission?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary said she would not invade Iraq unless he got a UN resolution asking us to do so?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary was against having a Department of Homeland Security?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary was against taking money out of the Social Security Trust Fund?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary was against negotiating with the NoKos about nukes?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary was for a patient being able to sue their HMO?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when hillary was against giving illegal immigrants amnesty?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary was for cutting CO2 emissions?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary was for 527 groups?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary was against having a national clearinghouse for intelligence?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary was against the federal government sticking it's nose into local school classrooms and having beltway bureacrats tell them what to do?
Or do you mean when he changed his mind?

Do you mean like when Hillary was against the federal government deciding whether to allow same-sex marriages?
Or do you mean when she changed her mind?

Fixed.

Strangely enough, keeping all the "hes" in there still works.

[AKA]

http://lucytheblog.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/mclaughlin.jpg

:wink:

Keep in mind Iowa caucus is really sorta meaningless. If I'm not mistaken they have picked the wrong side going back to Reagan.

Actually, Iowa has picked the Republican nominee every election since 1992, and the last two Presidential election cycles they went with Kerry (2004) and Gore (2000) for the Democrats, so they have a pretty decent track record. Going back to Reagan's re-election, they have only gotten it wrong three times combined between the parties.

Now, New Hampshire is where it's at.

New Hampshire actually has a worse history of being accurate - Gary Hart won in 1984, Paul Tsongus won in 1992, McCain won there in 2000 and Buchanan (!) won there in 1996.

[K.C.]

I think Epo and KC are right on point here. A similar take by this guy in the NY Times yesterday.

http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/

When you cut to the chase, the faux-hayseed we have in office seems to have only one core principle - to protect the interests of the moneyed class. Everything else he has done has either been a smoke screen (stem cells) or a really awful seat of the pants improvisation ("War on Terror", Iraq, piss on the Constitution, etc.)

I think that you guys are right that the "money conservatives" are shitting themselves that they don't have a winner/protector in sight. I would argue (although I'm not sure how vociferously) that Bloomberg wouldn't necessarily be in their camp either. I sense a difference between rich people who made their fortunes through a combination of smarts, actual hard work and luck (Eg. Gates, Buffett, Bloomberg and even Corzine) and the trust fund set (who view themselves as our natural aristocracy). The ones who made the $ themselves seem less fraidy scared of parting with some of their cash for good public causes that do the members of the various Newport, RI yacht clubs.


I don't think Bloomberg is a perfect fit for them either, but he's the best they're probably going to do if Huckabee wins.

You got way to many divisions in the Republican party right now.

Huckabee is going to grab a stranglehold on the Christian Conservatives, but more importantly, the way he talks Populism, if he gets his message out, he's going to grab a lot of the poor, white labor republicans who used to vote Democratic in the rust belt days, but switched because of social issues.

Then you've got the money conservatives who would back Giuliani, McCain, or Romney if any one of them could emerge. All the money guys want is as unrestricted a brand of capitalism as possible and lower taxes.

And then you've got the remnants of the Bush/Rove coalition which consists of people who ideologically follow guys like Limbaugh and Hannity. They don't have a fucking clue what to do now. Thompson's the only guy that really reflects Bush-ness in the race, and he's just about dead. It'd be a hell of a task to prop him up.


So if I had to guess what's going to happen, the Bush/Rove people will bite the bullet and ally with the money conservatives and try to all agree on who to back to take down Huckabee (if McCain or Romney sweeps the next few contests it'll be one of them). If Huckabee is still riding high after South Carolina, they'll throw in behind Giuliani.

I'm not sure that alliance will be enough to break Huckabee, though, with all the Christian Conservative money he stands to take in over the next few weeks.


And let's not forget Ron Paul sitting on the fringe with a treasure trove of money just waiting to fire bullets at guys like McCain, Romney, and especially Giuliani. Paul, even though it's not his intention, could end up helping Huckabee more than anyone before it's all said and done.


I'm definitely a liberal, but i have to admit that from a strategic standpoint, the Republican side is a much more interesting game. Unfortunately for them, the more interesting it gets, the harder it's going to be on whoever eventually comes out of it.

If Obama emerges, or Hillary pulls a comeback, they should have a built in, solid lead early on in the general.