Forum: pol
Page 2103
Subject: 2008 candidates


  Posted by: Perm Dude - [2343587] Wed, Nov 03, 2004, 19:43

C'mon people. Here's a chance to be a Nostradamus. Both parties will nominate someone new in (by my count) about 25 months or so. Guesses:

Republicans

George Voinovich: Moderate Ohio Senator, very popular, would help gain Ohio for the Republicans.

Democrats

Obama: Will be on everyone's watch list, but will probably sit out 2008.

Will add more later...
 
1Toral
      ID: 22731114
      Wed, Nov 03, 2004, 19:53
Good thread. I might post some ideas from russert and others.

Voinovich was seriously considered for Veep in 2000. I think he woulr un powerfully in the country.

Problem: I've only heard him speak maybe twice, on MTO or something, and he's a "dem and dese and dose" man.

Wouldn't bother me, but uneducated people expect POTUS to speak like an educated man.

(For scoffers, w exceeds that bar easily.)

 
2Toral
      ID: 22731114
      Wed, Nov 03, 2004, 19:55
Obama needs a term or two in the Senate, n'est-ce pas?

Personally, my guess if that he will espouse crazy-Lib causes in the Senate, exite only the Liberal Media, and as a candidate, expire like a punctured balloon.

Next?
 
3Toral
      ID: 22731114
      Wed, Nov 03, 2004, 19:57
Russert:
MSNBC: What do you think the political landscape will look like in 2008?

Russert: I think we’re going to have two open primaries. I believe Hillary Clinton will run for president. I think John Edwards will run. I think Howard Dean will run. I think Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, will run.

On the Republican side, I think John McCain will run at age 72. Rudy Giuliani will run. Bill Frist, the Majority leader of the Senate, will see Giuliani and McCain — two moderate Republicans — and he’ll run to the right. I think there will be Republican governors who will run. If Arnold Schwarzenegger can change the constitution, he’ll run.
 
4Perm Dude
      ID: 2343587
      Wed, Nov 03, 2004, 20:57
Hilary's not running, but the Right will keep talking about her running in order to continue to fundraise. Richardson will be a good choice, IMO.

Wes Clark should run again.

Rudy would be an interesting choice, but his slap at the troops will haunt him.
 
5sarge33rd
      ID: 57100318
      Wed, Nov 03, 2004, 20:59
I dont see where it makes much difference who the Dems run. With the Evangelical Right having taken over political power in this country, they are the only ones who will be represented by any numbers in the Halls of Power. Without numbers behind your philosophy, your intentions are doomed.
 
6Perm Dude
      ID: 2343587
      Wed, Nov 03, 2004, 21:07
The Moral Majority took over the Republicans in the 80's and were defeated by Clinton (who took them, kicking and screaming, into economic prosperity). So long as Republicans insist upon an abortion litmus test, the evangelicals will vote in bloc for them.

But this is a group which can turn, voraciously, quickly.
 
7Toral
      ID: 22731114
      Wed, Nov 03, 2004, 21:12
Sarge, how the Hell do you figure that the "Evangelical Right" has taken over power? I am genuinely mystified.

I thot of putting in poll numbers, arguments, etc., but since I don't know what you mean by the "evangelical right" (am I one of them, in your O?) I am mystified.

Oh i said that already.

Toral
 
8sarge33rd
      ID: 57100318
      Wed, Nov 03, 2004, 21:27
It is my opinion Toral, that the one thing which contributed the most to Kerry's defeat, i=was the 11 State Constitutional Amendments banning not only gay marriage, but civil unions as well. This factor so polarized the extreme right, that they flocked to the polls. Since GWB was seen as the more "christian" (whatever the hell that means) between the 2 primary candidates, he was the defacto beneficiary.

This is further evidenced by the exit polls findings of the single commonality amongst GWB voters being that as yet undefined "moral values". What is meant by that statement IMHO, is "religious values". That translates then to the Christian Right. Hence, the Christian Right is fully represented in Congress and the Executive Branch. With an appointment or 2, they will also hold SCOTUS. Once that is achieved, all other political groups, all other political facations, become un(der)represented. Laws will reflect the desires of the extreme right wing only. Moderates will be put out to pasture, the Left...will all but disappear. This is the stage I see being set. This is the scenario I see developing and is why I refer to this election as "the beginning of the end". Because at some point after all of this transpires, the only way left of defending the original principles of the Constitution, is via insurrection.


An extreme illustration? Perhaps. But it is what I fear will ultimately develop as GWB continues to erode individual liberties and the extreme right senses it has more and more control over the balance of power.
 
9culdeus
      ID: 409551717
      Wed, Nov 03, 2004, 21:39
I don't know what you mean by the "evangelical right" (am I one of them, in your O?)

I have a feeling I'm going to regret this...

If your place of worship has a guitar and powerpoint prominently involved, then you may be a member of the evangelical right.
 
10Toral
      ID: 22731114
      Wed, Nov 03, 2004, 21:42
1) Only in Ohio could the amendments have made a difference to Kerry's status.

2) The humongous margins for the constitutional amendments indicate that support for traditional marriage extends far beyond the evangelical community, or even the evangelical + Catholic community.

3 This is further evidenced by the exit polls findings of the single commonality amongst GWB voters being that as yet undefined "moral values". What is meant by that statement IMHO, is "religious values".

Don't think so. We may have disagreements here, but opposition to abortion, support for traditional marriage, cultural dislike of 'Hollywood values', aren't "religious values" IMO. Not all believers share them, and many unbelievers do.

With an appointment or 2, they will also hold SCOTUS.

There has never been even one member of SCOTUS from the "religious right" in the 20th and 21st centuries AFAIK.

Laws will reflect the desires of the extreme right wing only. Moderates will be put out to pasture, the Left...will all but disappear. This is the stage I see being set. This is the scenario I see developing and is why I refer to this election as "the beginning of the end". Because at some point after all of this transpires, the only way left of defending the original principles of the Constitution, is via insurrection.

Pullleeze. The "Christian Right" is still a despised minority in this society; it seeks only to advance beyond being marginalized.

Toral

 
11nerveclinic
      ID: 88592016
      Wed, Nov 03, 2004, 21:42
Sarge I think there's alot of truth to post 8. The gay marriage ammendment being placed in states like Ohio surely helped bring in the conservative right Christian vote and we know which candidate that helped.
 
12sarge33rd
      ID: 57100318
      Wed, Nov 03, 2004, 21:47
a despised minority Toral???? Please ship some of your drugs here because what you have access to is obviously more potent than anything I have ever experienced.

It is this very group which has taken the south and put it firmly into the Rep camp. NC/SC/GA/AL/AK/MS/OK/LO all go Rep, all have HEAVY populations of 'fundamentalist" christians.

Here's the truly ironic part though...this nation was founded by persons seeking to ESCAPE religious persecution. Remember the pilgrims and the Mayflower? Now, those very puritan groups, are about to persecute any and all who believe differently than they. Starting it would seem, with gays.
 
13Toral
      ID: 22731114
      Wed, Nov 03, 2004, 21:49
If at your place of worship your minister greets you by name when you come in the door, and doesn't dress up in girls' clothes to administer Communion, you are probably a member of the evangelical right;

Toral
 
14culdeus
      ID: 409551717
      Wed, Nov 03, 2004, 21:55
This has potential...

If you park in a spot that says "For Starbucks except 10-12 Sundays" you may be from the Evangelical right.
 
15Toral
      ID: 22731114
      Wed, Nov 03, 2004, 22:08
If your minister devotes a sermon to denouncing "lustful and lasvicious dress" and then shortens the service saying that we all need to get home and watch the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders, you could be a member of the evangelical right.
 
16culdeus
      ID: 409551717
      Wed, Nov 03, 2004, 22:54
If a "Cocktail Hour Service" doesn't conjur up thoughts of Gin and Tonics and dollar drafts then you might be an evangelical right member.
 
17Toral
      ID: 22731114
      Wed, Nov 03, 2004, 23:11
If you work in a grungy factory warehouse and can't get your workmates to accompany you to Church on Sunday because they won't enter such an ugly building, you might be part of the evangelical right.
 
18Toral
      ID: 22731114
      Wed, Nov 03, 2004, 23:29
If your congregation's main justice-related issue is praying that the local government doesn't accept the united application of used car part and body shops to rezone you out of the neighbourhood for bringing down property values, you could be part of the evangelical right.
 
19Toral
      ID: 22731114
      Wed, Nov 03, 2004, 23:31
those very puritan groups, are about to persecute any and all who believe differently than they. Starting it would seem, with gays.

Name one piece of persecution this "they" proposes to impose.
 
20Perm Dude
      ID: 2343587
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 00:12
The humongous margins for the constitutional amendments indicate that support for traditional marriage

No it doesn't. It indicates the distaste many have for homosexuals. It's not an affirmation of marriage as much as a repudiation of gays.

An amendment which supports traditional marriage would ban no-fault divorce.
 
21sarge33rd
      ID: 57100318
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 00:16
In 11 states Toral, "they" passed State Constitutional Amendments which prohibit civil unions or the legal recognition of the relationship, to include banning the granting of "spousal" rights. ie, a gay couple from Mass travelling across country, finds one with the misfortune of having their appendix burst while crossing Ohio. The partner, cannot now by law, authorize surgery.

Charged, tried, convicted AND executed. All because the person is gay.
 
22Myboyjack
      ID: 06141920
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 07:09
The partner, cannot now by law, authorize surgery.

None of those amendments changed the already existing law that would apply to that situation, None. Not one. Nice example.

The partner could obtain the requisite authority by executing a Health Care Surrogate document. His getting "married" in Mass wouldn't have given that authority in Ohio anyway.

Try again.
 
23Mark L
      Leader
      ID: 3601149
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 07:35
This may now be OT . . .

I would love to see Bob Graham run. His effort for '04
was a spectacular failure - maybe now the party will
see that he has the characteristics that a Democrat
needs to have a chance in the Red Belt.
 
24Madman
      ID: 43410119
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 08:11
2008 R will be dominated by Guliani. He's been putting in his chips this entire election cycle with lots of face time. He'll be calling in those favors in the future.

This will, of course, threaten to split the Republican party. But if he can win the nomination and keep the Constitution Party from taking too much of the South, then he would have the opportunity to create and expand the current governing majority. Whether he could make peace with those folks, however, is a big question.
 
25soxzeitgeist
      ID: 31102547
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 08:32
WHO CARES ?

By and large, we sit around our monitors complaining about what's wrong with politics and the government, yet within 24 hours of the election acceptance and concession speeches, we already have a thread devoted to 2008?

Why? Haven't we established that the entertainment value/prognistication/punditry is a large part of the problem?

I don't mean to be a party pooper, but for goodness sake, let's let the dust settle first.
 
26Madman
      ID: 43410119
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 08:43
Bill Frist, Tennessee, Senate Majority Leader. He is said to have Presidential ambitions, and has a powerful resume ... southern credentials to placate social conservatives, a doctor to help him win health care issues, and clearly enough experience. I don't necessarily support him, but he does seem like a viable candidate if he chooses to run.

Why? Haven't we established that the entertainment value/prognistication/punditry is a large part of the problem?

I think it is important to keep the broader strategical picture in view. If, for example, Bill Frist is thinking about a run for the Presidency, then don't you think this will impact how he "governs" the Senate? Dick Cheney is NOT going to run in 2008, and he claims that this helps him be a better VP to Bush.

Understanding the inner dynamics of politics leads to a better understanding of the power structure as it exists. That's not part of the problem, that's part of the SOLUTION. If more people were politically aware, pundits wouldn't be able to spin us around and around.
 
27sarge33rd
      ID: 57100318
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 08:56
re 22:

NO MBJ, the partner could not. The Ohio Amendment disallows the recognition of any document which creates or grants spousal like authority. It is for that reason, the Rep party even opposed the Ohio Amendment.
 
28soxzeitgeist
      ID: 31102547
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 09:14
Granted, madman that the electorate is not nearly as well informed as they could, and probably should be; "we" just re-elected Bush for gods sake. But it strikes me that your example of a Bill Frist is a double edged sword.

Your take is that Frist will be on his "best" behavior since he is (theoretically) considering a run in '08 - but "best" according to whom? His political base and the special interests he has to pander to? The money men and party machina who will have to give their blessings? I'm well aware of the inner dynamics of government and how the wheels are greased, and I would submit that this conversation is part of the problem, not the solution, because if as soon as an election is over we're already gearing up for the next one, how can we expect our "leadership" to be truly focused on the job at hand?

I recognize that politics is a dirty business where you need to constantly be "running". I know that our collective memory as a body politic is short, but is the solution to constant electioneering and jockeying for position more musing about who will be on the ticket in 2008?
 
29Myboyjack
      ID: 1727913
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 12:39
sarge 27 - I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise; you've already established that you're pretty much an expert at most everything.

But, lest anyone else be mislead, a properly executed Health Care Surrogate would be accepted in any state, before or after they passed an ammendment similar to Ohio's, (just like a Last Will & Testament would) regardless of the parties' relationship.

The ammendment had no affect on Will's or Health Care Surrogate designations; neither of those are incidents of marriage.
 
30sarge33rd
      ID: 411052310
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 12:56
understood MBJ, but lets play "devils advocate" for a moment shall we?

The Rep powers that be in Ohio, were opposed to the amendment as written because it paints with too broad a brush and leaves too much to interpretation.

Now, given the litigious nature of our society and given that these amendments passed in overwhelming style (80+% of the vote in MS IIRC and a low support of 57% in Oregon, 60+% everywhere else), the general voting population has clearly spoken. They dont want gay rights of any sort. None.

Now, since Judges are elected and not appointed at all levels, and assuming that most judges have things like families to support and mortgages to pay, how 'liberal' is any judge likely to be in 'interpreting' this new and as yet untested constitutional amendment?

As for they obtaining of wills etc, these new amendments are a civil lawyers wet dream. No more can a gay couple simply enter into a single civil contract to encompass the rights and benefits of marriage w/o the legal process of 'being married'. No, now they must have drawn up, how many different contracts to cover how many different aspects? At what expense? Will those individual contracts even standup in court or will they be struckdown as "an attempt to circumvent the constitution"?

No MBJ, I have no faith in the fair application of individual agreements. The extreme right has spoken, and the message is loud and clear..."If you are gay, get the f_ck out of my state."
 
31Tree
      ID: 76471215
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 13:04
But, lest anyone else be mislead, a properly executed Health Care Surrogate would be accepted in any state, before or after they passed an ammendment similar to Ohio's, (just like a Last Will & Testament would) regardless of the parties' relationship.

MBJ - i'm asking because you might have more insight and knowledge in this as to me, not because i am bringing up a bone of contention.

let's say two men are in a partnered gay relationship, and both legally agree to this Health Care Surrogate thing you mention.

let's say one man falls ill, and requires extensive hospitalization.

can the family of the healthy partner legally fight him on who has the authority to make health and medical decisions for the sick partner?
 
32sarge33rd
      ID: 411052310
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 13:06
Tree, do you mean to ask if the family of the ill partner can fight the healthy partner over the decision?

In Ohio, I would bet they could and with this new amendment, they would win.
 
33CCP
      ID: 11014112
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 13:10
PD: "Hilary's not running, but the Right will keep talking about her running in order to continue to fundraise. Richardson will be a good choice, IMO.

Wes Clark should run again.

Rudy would be an interesting choice, but his slap at the troops will haunt him."

I would like to see Wes Clark run again as well. He had some good things to say. Not that I agreed with 100% of his ideology, but he came off as very well informed, strong opinions and decent political values. This time, I'd like him to get the nomination though.

I think the Clinton Machine will run circles around him though and force Clark into choosing to be either VP or SecDef.

I don't have an ideal candidate yet, but I'd prefer a conservative moderate. Is there a younger version of McCain out there?
 
34Tree
      ID: 76471215
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 13:14
yes Sarge, that's what I'm asking. my mistake.

if the family can fight the healthy partner, then this whole Health Care Surrogate thing is smoke & mirrors.
 
35beastiemiked
      Sustainer
      ID: 03531815
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 13:20
Tree, do you mean to ask if the family of the ill partner can fight the healthy partner over the decision?

In Ohio, I would bet they could and with this new amendment, they would win.


Sarge, do you even know what a Health Care Surrogate is?
 
36sarge33rd
      ID: 411052310
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 13:23
I believe the term to be fairly clear bm.

I also believe the Ohio voters stated quite clearly, that no civil agreement can establish any sort of spousal (ie familial) relationship. Since blood family would trump a contract, I dont see the agreement as being upheld IN Ohio.
 
37Myboyjack
      ID: 06141920
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 13:38
can the family of the healthy partner legally fight him on who has the authority to make health and medical decisions for the sick partner?

yes, the family cold "challenge" it. They could have challenged before the ammendment; the ammendment gives them no further ammo for their challenge.

For a real life example, I am the Health Care surrogate for a gay man (my uncle). My family could challenge this if i started making decisions they didn't like. The ammendment doesn't help them do this. Whether I have sex with my uncle or not really isn't the question in a challenge of a duly executed Health Care surrogate designation. Get it?

The extreme right has spoken, and the message is loud and clear..."If you are gay, get the f_ck out of my state."

uh no. That's just a silly hyperbole.

"Extreme right" Dallas elects lesbian, Hispanic as High Sherriff

Most of the people who voted for Bush support "civil unions" for Gays. 33% of Kerry voters were against any recognition for gay/lesbian relationships.
 
38Madman
      ID: 43410119
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 13:53
MBJ -- I hadn't heard of HCS's before. If you are an HSG, can the hospital deny you admittance to the patient's room (any more than a spouse)? I.e., does being a HSG also take care of the "right to see" the person in a hospital that is often bantered about as a "right" denied to gays and lesbians?

sox Regardless of whether or not we are paying attention to 2008, the candidates will be. Keeping an eye on "up and comers" is a good thing. Keeping in mind that some people (not all) have political ambitions beyond their current station can of value when predicting and analyzing current behavior patterns.

I agree that ceaseless campaigning is not a good thing. But I think this thread is more about improving our information and keeping everyone more honest, not less.
 
39Myboyjack
      ID: 06141920
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 14:18
I.e., does being a HSG also take care of the "right to see" the person in a hospital that is often bantered about as a "right" denied to gays and lesbians?

I don't think that any such "right" exists; spouse or not. If there is a right to "see your spouse in the hospital" I don't know about it.

A HCS designation gives the designee the right to make major medical decision in the event the person making the designation is incapacitated. Kinda like a Durable Power of Attorney, if your familar with that term, for medical purposes.
 
40Madman
      ID: 43410119
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 14:22
I don't think that any such "right" exists; spouse or not. If there is a right to "see your spouse in the hospital" I don't know about it.

Well, I haven't been able to track one down, either. But I've definitely heard it used often as an example of rights that spouses have that a gay couple doesn't.

Kind of cool that HCS's are developing as a standard contract. How much, on average, would it cost to execute such a thing? Do you have to file these with the State? Or is it strictly between the two parties involved?
 
41Myboyjack
      ID: 06141920
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 14:34
It's a private agreement between the parties. It's executed (in KY anyway) the same way a Will is. I don't charge people anything to do them - but that's the kind of guy I am...:)

The Legislature of each state basically dictates the form of the document by statute.

Some hospital officials are still ignorant of their import and have to be threatened....er....persuaded....to honor them.
 
42Madman
      ID: 43410119
      Thu, Nov 04, 2004, 14:43
Some hospital officials are still ignorant of their import and have to be threatened....er....persuaded....to honor them.

Ha! Yeah, "If you don't give me the right to take over person x's health care because I'm a health care surrogate, I'm going to send you to the hospital!"

Doctor, "Bring it on!"

...

I wonder if this "persuasion" that is required is what the whole debate is about vis a vis visitation "rights" ... namely that doctors and hospitals are jerks when it comes to those sorts of things.
 
43Razor
      ID: 4195479
      Fri, Nov 05, 2004, 11:17
Personally, my guess if that he will espouse crazy-Lib causes in the Senate, exite only the Liberal Media, and as a candidate, expire like a punctured balloon.

I'm going to hold you to that, Toral. Obama is the real deal and will be the face of the Democratic Party in years to come.
 
44JeffG
      Leader
      ID: 1584348
      Fri, Nov 05, 2004, 13:09
From one betting site..

GOP nominee Odds

Rudolph Guiliani 9 to 4
John McCain 4
Tom Ridge 6
Bill First 8
George Pataki 8
Jeb Bush 12
Mitt Romney 12
Arnold Schwarzenegger 16
Bill Owens 16
Chuck Hagel 16
Norm Coleman 16
David Hill 16
Rick Santorum 16
Tim Pawlenty 20
George Allen 25
Sam Brownback 33
Condoleezza Rice33

Odds to become president 2008
Hilary Clinton 5
Rudolph Giuliani 7
Bill Richardson 10
John Edwards 10
Tom Ridge 10
Bill First 12
Colin Powell 14
Jeb Bush 14
Barack Obama 25
George Pataki 25
Bob Ehrlich 33
Charles Schumer 33
Chuck Hagel 33
John Mccain 33
Mark Warner 33
Tom Daschle 33
Al Gore 40
Harold Ford Jnr 40
John Kerry 40
Howard Dean 50
Arnold Schwarzenegger 66
Dick Cheney 66

 
45Baldwin
      ID: 61049423
      Fri, Nov 05, 2004, 15:48
Toral #13...funny stuff. 8]
 
46sarge33rd
      ID: 57100318
      Fri, Nov 05, 2004, 15:49
Arnie at 16:1? What are the odds then on the requisite Constitutional Amendment which even allow for his nomination?
 
47CanadianHack
      ID: 15126179
      Fri, Nov 05, 2004, 15:55
I am very uncertain about the chances Barock Obama
would have to become president. He may be a great
guy. He may be a great candidate EXCEPT he is black.
Thats not going to help him gather the rural and
southern bigot vote which after this year's election, I am
convinced is hugely important.
 
48Baldwin
      ID: 61049423
      Fri, Nov 05, 2004, 15:55
Unless the Bush family believes in covering their dynastic ambitions with a bit of a decent interval, I could easily see Jeb Bush run. On the Dem side it isn't even a question. You can take a 'Hillary takes the primary' bet to the bank right now.
 
49Razor
      ID: 4195479
      Fri, Nov 05, 2004, 16:15
In the Presidential race, a Democrat doesn't need to win the South. As I said in another thread, Obama could carry almost all of the states that Kerry/Gore carried, plus Florida and/or Ohio, making him President of the United States. Maybe I'm too idealistic though. It sure would be a special day in our nation's great history though.
 
50JeffG
      Leader
      ID: 1584348
      Fri, Nov 05, 2004, 16:47
Re #46 - Arnie?

It is a European web site that is taking the bets. Perhaps they are hoping to get action on Arnold figuring that some bettor out there may not be savy enough on the constitutional criteria for US President. If Arnold is listed they may as well list Bill Clinton who would also need a constitutional change to run again, and would probably have a better chance to win then some of the other candidates would.

I see some potential candidates missing from that list like...

GOP
Powell
Thompson
Voinivich
Whitman
Kean
Keyes
Gingrich

DEM
Boxer
Lieberman
Sharpton
 
51Myboyjack
      ID: 1727913
      Fri, Nov 05, 2004, 16:50
You can take a 'Hillary takes the primary' bet to the bank right now.

Hey, I've got some money coming to me from Zen and I'd love to stake it on that bet. No way the Dems try to pass of another NE libreal after losing this election almost solely on that account. I'd bet on Evan Bayh; heck I'd probally vote for him.
 
52sarge33rd
      ID: 57100318
      Fri, Nov 05, 2004, 17:01
Candidate I would most like to see but never will: C Powell.

Told katie last night he could run as any party of his choice, I'd vote for him.
 
53Myboyjack
      ID: 1727913
      Fri, Nov 05, 2004, 17:02
I like Colin Powell - but what issue(s) does he take a stance on that you agree with, sarge?

Maybe issues don't matter? I know they aren't my main concern win picking an executive.
 
54sarge33rd
      ID: 57100318
      Fri, Nov 05, 2004, 17:15
pro-military, socially liberal and above all else, he is a man of impeccable integrity.
 
55beastiemiked
      Sustainer
      ID: 03531815
      Fri, Nov 05, 2004, 17:21
Yeah, Powell's the man. Either party would be hardpressed to find a candidate that could compete against him.
 
56JeffG
      Leader
      ID: 1584348
      Fri, Nov 05, 2004, 17:24
Some names of thrid party candidates for 2008..

Ventura
Nader
Oprah
 
57biliruben
      ID: 441182916
      Fri, Nov 05, 2004, 17:35
Wally Backman '08.
Willy Nelson VP.

 
58Perm Dude
      ID: 2343587
      Fri, Nov 05, 2004, 21:33
re 53: Powell is pro-affirmative action.
 
59Tree
      ID: 9362211
      Tue, Jul 19, 2005, 12:13
Some in GOP Hope Rice Runs for President

Condi vs. Hil...hmmmm
 
60Boldwin
      ID: 47611911
      Tue, Jul 19, 2005, 12:16
Powell will never run. His wife is convinced he would be assassinated if elected.
 
61biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Tue, Jul 19, 2005, 14:19
He probably would be. Perhaps if stayed N. of the M-Dixon line, he would have a chance, but that's just not possible, and be elected. Given the GOP's reliance on Good ol' Boys (to be nice) to win national elections, I have serious doubts Powell would win. He'd have to get the Reagan Dems as replacement votes.
 
62Madman
      ID: 43410119
      Tue, Jul 19, 2005, 15:02
Given the GOP's reliance on Good ol' Boys (to be nice) to win national elections

You mean the Democrats (think Clinton), right?
 
63biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Tue, Jul 19, 2005, 15:17
Clinton seems eons ago. In this hyper-jingoistic time, I can't imagine anyone with moderate views on national security will ever again carry the south.
 
64biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Tue, Jul 19, 2005, 15:19
... obviously unless you bring race into it.
 
65Toral
      ID: 53422511
      Tue, Jul 19, 2005, 15:29
Bill Graham could (or could have). Not our fault that you nominate weaklings.

Toral
 
66Toral
      ID: 53422511
      Tue, Jul 19, 2005, 15:32
Sorry, Graham couldn't have carried the south. But he would have carried Florida, and made other southern states competitive. You know -- like when all Democratic officeholders don't find a need to get out of town when the presidential candidate visits?

Toral
 
67Mark L
      ID: 27653110
      Tue, Jul 19, 2005, 15:33
Toral - mean Bob?

Now I would certainly vote for the old concert promoter, don't get me wrong -- the opening scene to the closing-of-Winterland movie is priceless --but the former governor of and senator from Florida has impeccable national security credentials. And as might be expected, he sank without a trace in the Democratic primaries; he was done before I had a chance to vote for him in Wisconsin, IIRC.
 
68biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Tue, Jul 19, 2005, 15:40
Lol. He'd have great P.R., but I doubt he would be a moderate on nat. sec. ;)
 
69Toral
      ID: 53422511
      Tue, Jul 19, 2005, 15:45
Yep. Bill Graham is my old MP. Now Minister of External Affairs for Canada, I think. He might have been moved; like many conservatives, I don't follow this stuff that closely any more.

I once ran into Bill Graham at a bus stop while going to work. I asked him, "What is your opinion about abortion?" He, a politician, looked me up and down, and gave a vaguely pro-life answer. I said nothing. He then started expostulating and then gave me an vaguely pro-choice answer. I said nothing. He then started to get excited (in a good way) and said that to him abortion wasn't important and how the best thing we could do was to improve conditions in Africa and improve their health care there. So at least I got a feeling what he really believes.

One of the good things about Canada -- if you really want to have a one-to-one with just about anybody below PM, you can arrange it, or it just happens.

Toral
 
70biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Tue, Jul 19, 2005, 15:49
If he started with pro-life, my image of you - dreads, tats head-to-toe, nose ring - it's a bit off, eh?
 
71Toral
      ID: 53422511
      Tue, Jul 19, 2005, 15:59
Bili, you're getting a bit conventional yourself, I think. Married, and so on.

"Punks for Life" is growing big in Toronto (reported by the alternative newsweeklies).

Although abortion is convenient, it's hard to suppress people's feelings that human life is good and valuable.

Toral
 
72biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Tue, Jul 19, 2005, 16:13
Zoinks! For a sec, I mis-interpreted "Punks for Life", and pictured geriatric punks with wrinkly, hard to read tats, walkers and blue-hair mohawks. LOL!

I always have looked reasonably conventional. I'm not one for pondering fashion, is all.

I've run across a fundementalist punk or two in my time. Dare to be different. My cuz is a born again christian rocker, though she's admittedly pretty square.
 
73Tree
      ID: 439422617
      Wed, Oct 26, 2005, 20:27
Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party

from Barack Obama.

for the most part, i like what he says here...
 
74sarge33rd
      ID: 670916
      Wed, Oct 26, 2005, 20:48
thanks for the link Tree. Good solid, common sense fella that one is.
 
75Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Thu, Dec 21, 2006, 20:57
Early presidential candidates as college football teams
 
76Wilmer McLean
      ID: 331122162
      Fri, Dec 22, 2006, 04:23
Wishes Sullivan could have referred to Kerry as a soccer team. That would have been funnier.

Enjoyed the deeper meaning of "Ohio."
 
77Tree
      ID: 11162210
      Fri, Dec 22, 2006, 11:08
although i'll analyze further later, my VERY earlier prediction is that we'll have an Edwards/Obama ticket in 2008.

i was spot on for 2004 with Kerry/Edwards, and i think that prediction was 12 to 18 months out, so i'll make another one closer to that time frame.
 
78sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Dec 22, 2006, 11:12
I know PD has said she aint running, but a Hillary/Obama ticket wouldnt surprise me in the least. (Or an Obama/Hillary ticket for that matter.)
 
79Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Dec 23, 2006, 18:57
my VERY earlier prediction is that we'll have an Edwards/Obama ticket in 2008

Why do you and Sarge see Obama taking a back seat in 2008? The MSM hype machine keeps saying that he should run for President and to me it seems like if he winds up as a VP instead of the Presidential nominee it would be a let down.
 
80Tree
      ID: 291162411
      Sun, Dec 24, 2006, 12:17
Why do you and Sarge see Obama taking a back seat in 2008?

personally? because Obama is a very young man. even after serving 8 years as VP, he'll be just 55 or so, and then can run for president to further Democrat dominance.
 
81Pancho Villa
      ID: 1311532913
      Tue, Jan 16, 2007, 20:56
Two more enter the fray:

Obama Tancredo
 
82biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Wed, Jan 17, 2007, 11:23
Obama's had enough.

Great speaker.
 
83Perm Dude
      ID: 9025208
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 10:27
She's in.

I'm very surprised. And now the Freepers have found their liferaft. Way to let them back in the party, Hillary!
 
84Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 311151718
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 12:22
Candidate Obamma will be just as prone to their assaults, don't you think?
 
85Razor
      ID: 2107611
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 12:30
I think Hillary will make a fine VP to President Obama.
 
86Perm Dude
      ID: 9025208
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 12:34
#84: You're kidding, right? You don't think the name "Clinton" has a special place among the far right? Do I really have to dig up the quotes where they are actually hoping she'll run?
 
87Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 12:41
After all these years of the Bush's & Bill I really don't think we need 4 possibly 8 years from another Clinton, but let the mud slinging begin. This shrew is the queen of it.
 
88Pancho Villa
      ID: 1311532913
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 12:48
From about three sentences into Hillary's announcement:

the bold but practical changes we need to overcome six years of Bush administration failures.

IOW, she plans on being a polarizing and divisive partisan candidate. I think Obama's positive message will kick her butt with the voters.
 
89Perm Dude
      ID: 9025208
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 12:51
I think both are solidly against Bush's policies, but Hillary's will be perceived as "polarizing" while Obama's will be perceived as "healing."

I don't think she's as much a mudslinger as a divisive person for the Dems to have. Even her biggest supporters know that she has huge negatives that won't be overcome. Unlike Obama (who has a chance of winning over voters), there are a larger percentage of people out there who would not only never vote for her, but are motivated to vote for whoever is running against her.
 
90Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 311151718
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 12:55
LOL. I guess post 87 backs up your point.

I believe that once Obamma's positions on public health care are out of the bag, Freepers and the like will have a highly vulnerable target to attack and exploit.

I also think HRC is probably better equiped to weather the assault.
 
91Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 12:57
I think she has to bring much more than additional Bush bashing to the table. We've all listened to that sthick for years. I agree that we all need to take a step back, and listen to some fresh ideas from some different people other that the usual suspects.

I'm really not interested in the past Ms. Clinton. I want to know how plan on running the store.

 
92R9
      ID: 3511512123
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 13:07
From her opening statement, the only one she's made so far:

Bringing "the right end" to the war in Iraq, reducing the deficit, making the country energy independent and health care affordable were issues Clinton touted in her announcement, speaking on a video posted on her site.

If you really wanted to know what her plan for the future was, you would have looked for it. ;)


I agree though, Obama has the moderate track and has to be considerd the favorite going in.
 
93Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 13:19
R9, I read that statement. She dosen't say how she's going accomplish those goals. I guess that may unfold in time.
 
94Toral
      ID: 52621719
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 13:25
But what happened to your "inside" sources, pd? You told us they were "really inside". Could it be that they were talking from really inside their ass?

I view Hillary as a formidable candidate in a general election. She is super-smart, smart politically, is no longer gaffe-prone the way she was in the early 90s, has the advice of the smartest Democratic advisers, not even counting Bill. She is pretty, (needs to be in a race against the male-model types Obama and Edwards) albeit aging (no big problem; you want a President who's had a lot of life experiences.) Her stance on Iraq is almost impossibly deliberate. She says she has the "responsibility gene". Peggy Noonan once said that Hillary reminded her of the prefects at school who would officiously walk into the girls' can and turn people in for smoking there. Maybe so, but I think her abilities will wear well in the campaign. She's against Obama, who is all sizzle and no steak, and Edwards, who is an empty suit (albeit an expensive one).

I have actually come to like Hillary now. I don't think I could ever like Edwards. Of course once Hillary gets into full campaign mode, I will intensely dislike her. For me this election, as for both me and SZ in the last election, the three most important issues are courts, courts, and courts, and Hillary will pack as many liberals as possible, and the more liberal the better in, while respecting the strict gender and racial quota system for appointments she enforced in Clinton 1993-4....If the GOP continues to stay loyal to Capt. Bush as the seat goes down, the Democrats could easily have 60+ seats in the next Senate, and all Hillary's appointments would be filibuster-proof. Every Clintonista, and every leftie with a law degree will be packed into the courts. If SZ is passed over for a Court of Appeal vacancy, it will be because he isn't left wing enough.

Seriously, although I am no fan, Hillary Clinton is a very credible candidate for POTUS. She was better credentials than John Kerry, George Bush, Al Gore (IMO), Bill Clinton (definitely), and Mike Dukakas.

The candidate Hillary most reminds me of is Ronald Reagan. From 1977-1980, Democrats laughed at Reagan, saying "Reagan can't win. His negatives are too high."

I won't bet on her because I can't root for her, but right now, Hillary is the most likely person to be POTUS in 2009, IMO, beating McCain be a small margin.

Toral



 
95Perm Dude
      ID: 9025208
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 13:37
You think McCain has any chance to win the Republican nomination? Many on the Religious Right are actively against him. And his support among New Hampshire independents has dropped 20 points, to 29%.

His support for the "surge" has caused his whole candidacy to fall, IMO. Iraq is going to be hung around his neck.

As for Hillary, I noted a couple of weeks ago (#261) that I'm not really in contact with her office so much anymore.
 
96Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 14:57
I think Toral's #94 is right on. Hillary v. McCain with HRC a 3-2 favorite.

I think she's been a much better Senator than she was a First Lady and I'd pick her over McCain or Obama any day.
 
97Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 311151718
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 15:08
Post 92

Obama has the moderate track and has to be considerd the favorite going in.

Clinton is more moderate, even if she is more partisan.
 
98bibA
      Leader
      ID: 261028117
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 16:27
Maybe this thread would be the appropriate place to post a comparison of the views that each has. Anyone know of a (non-partisan) site that does this?
 
99Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 311151718
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 16:54
Best place I know of.
 
100Pancho Villa
      ID: 1311532913
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 19:03
Looks like Obama might get swift boated real early.

Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?
This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama.
An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.
"He was a Muslim, but he concealed it," the source said. "His opponents within the Democrats hope this will become a major issue in the campaign."
When contacted by Insight, Mr. Obama’s press secretary said he would consult with “his boss” and call back. He did not.
Sources said the background check, conducted by researchers connected to Senator Clinton, disclosed details of Mr. Obama's Muslim past. The sources said the Clinton camp concluded the Illinois Democrat concealed his prior Muslim faith and education.
"The background investigation will provide major ammunition to his opponents," the source said. "The idea is to show Obama as deceptive."


link
 
101Toral
      ID: 52621719
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 19:19
Dobson is just one person, of course. Religious conservatives don't follow him like lemmings. It's sort of like the RC voters' response to the bishops' thunderings in 2004. It has an impact, but also raises a backlash.

If I were a politician, I wouldn't rely on Dr. Dobson at all. He is the kind of guy who thinks that, if he helps a party to win one election, narrowly, then every piece of public policy must be done as he likes it, or the 'leaders have betrayed him'. OTOH he's also a fool, as shown by his support for Harriet Miers on the basis of 'certain very personal assurances' that she would be great. IOW, he got to talk to Bush on the issue. It's a replay of President Reagan's assurances to Jerry Falwell that Sandra Day O'Connor was pro-life. As it turned out, she wasn't. But Reagan has the teflon. No one on the right holds the O'Connor or Kennedy nominations against him; nor the Bork defeat, which he *might* have averted if he wasn't back in California "clearing brush off the ranch". No one among conservatives was prepared for the Left assault in 1987. I shouldn't go over those events again, it would be boring, sorry.

From all I've seen, religious conservatives will be, somewhst well...promiscuous in their voting. Essentially their votes will be split relatively evenly among Brownback, Huckabee, Romney, McCain, and Giuliani.

Toral
 
102Toral
      ID: 52621719
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 19:23
100 Guess Barrack's gonna find out he's in the big leagues now.
You get in the way of a Clinton, and your minor league options have expired.

Toral
 
103Pancho Villa
      ID: 1311532913
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 19:45
Dobson borders on comedy in PD's link in #95.

First, he chides McCain for saying,

"I think, uh … I think that gay marriage should be allowed if there's a ceremony kind of thing, if you wanna call it that … I don't have any problem with that," McCain says.

and translates that into:

He's not in favor of traditional marriage

So, in Dobson's world, not opposing a gay marriage ceremony means you are not in favor of men and women marrying. In my world, "not in favor of" means to oppose.

What a moron.



 
104Perm Dude
      ID: 9025208
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 20:16
Brownback, Huckabee, Romney, McCain, and Giuliani.

I can't see religious conservatives voting for Rudy at all. And many religious conservatives are in the same boat as Dobson, in annointing Bush with savior-like attributes (and therefore, the need to support him as a matter of applied faith). They don't like McCain because he was hostile to them in the past and Bush in the present.

Romney is backpeddling from his more moderate past but he won't get away fast enough without getting burned. Others like Brownback will use it to try to paint Romney as far too liberal for the Republicans--he won't even have to play the Mormon card for Romney to have problems.

Republicans are going to have to form some kind of post-Bush set of positions which minimizes their own responsibilities for things while seemingly appearing to be the more responsible party to correct the obvious problems. I would love to see an old-style Republican come through (like a Bob Dole, or James Baker) who have the chops to bring together a fractured caucus.
 
105Toral
      ID: 52621719
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 20:18
Dobson's a card really:

Dobson noted he'd been interviewed by U.S. News and World Report after the 2004 elections and warned if Republicans squandered their opportunity, they would pay a price at the polls in either 2008 or 2006.

Dobson's predictions about values and the Republican Party go back even further than that, too.

In 1998 he told a reporter that the GOP was in danger of losing its ability to "claim to speak for those of us with deep moral convictions."

He said at that time the party has "ignored the moral issues year after year, term after term" and said at that time it was "time to fish or cut bait."
Basically he's a Cassandra, who has always prophesied doom for the GOP because it's not conservative enough. He looked very wrong in '00, '02, and '04.

Well now he's been right. And further doom prophecies are appropriate for '08.

I wonder if he's smart enuf to get out from under and DENOUNCE AND PREDICT DISASTER FOR Republicans in '08 and then just wait for the '08 Senate tsunami to hit the GOP. He can then say that HE PREDICTED IT! And foster a program for getting power back, etc.

Dobson: I don't believe he's bad or evil. My Church uses his Focus in the Family inserts each month, and if I printed them here with no attribution, no Gurupie would take any issue with them.

By convincing Christians that there is such a thing as "psychology" that is not inherently secular or evil, plus through his basic 'family advice' work, he has probably made a significant positive contribution to tens or hundreds of thousands of lives.

Would that we all would be able to so display the use of our talents, when we are called to account for them at the day the last trump sounds.

Toral
 
106Perm Dude
      ID: 9025208
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 20:39
I have no problem with most of Dobson's non-political work. I listen to his show when its on, and he's got a number of very good pamphlets (the last one I read was on bullies, ironically, which was quite good).

I do wish Dobson and others would listen to some of the deeply religious among the Founding Fathers, who were as interested in keeping religion out of government as government out of religion.
 
107Tree
      ID: 21029208
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 22:46
i'm really hoping that the Dems don't tear each other apart in an effort to win the White House. ruining someone like Obama would really wreck the long term benefits he could have for the party.
 
108Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 311151718
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 23:37
Why would Obama be more divisive than anyone else? Resentment from the rest of the field who all feel their time is due?
 
109katietx
      ID: 3810431417
      Sat, Jan 20, 2007, 23:38
RE: 100 - might do a bit of checking before posting:

debunking the latest Obama info
 
110Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 311151718
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 00:27
Katie I don't think PV espouses those claims about Obama.

Further, I question that the claims in that link likely came from the Clinton campaign at all. I find it very strange that she would lob such transparently disingenuous attack at a respected Democrat rival at this early time. I'm very curious about these "researchers connected to Senator Clinton".

Really, Audacity of Hope is still on the best sellers list and in it (as your snopes article points out) he offers a bit of detail on his time in Indonesia, openly discussing his exposure to Islam there.

And he has been a Christian for longer than he has been a politician, which I'm sure is easily varifyable. So I'd love to know how these 'sources' came to the conclusion that "Obama's education began a life-long relationship with Islam as a faith".

HRC is much smarter than this.
 
111biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 00:38
Baldwin must be in his own private Illinois heaven.
 
112Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 311151718
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 00:49
I first heard the Obama/muslim talk about a month ago. For some insight into the value of the Dec 18th column, note that Debbie Schlussel wrote:
And while Obama may not identify as a Muslim, that's not how the Arab and Muslim Streets see it. In Arab culture and under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, so are you. And once a Muslim, always a Muslim. You cannot go back. In Islamic eyes, Obama is certainly a Muslim. He may think he's a Christian, but they do not.
...she then updated it Friday with the following
Looks like Hillary Clinton's camp agrees with me and has dug up more info that confirms my suspicions about Obama and his Muslim background, including his attendance at a Wahabbi (ie., extremist Sunni) Madrassa (Islamic religious academy).
Confirms? And exactly where did Schlussel express these suspicions about his attending a Wahabbi school? That column is maybe 150 words. Does she really have such little respect for the intelligence of her readership?
 
113Seattle Zen
      ID: 46315247
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 01:30
Post 94

If SZ is passed over for a Court of Appeal vacancy, it will be because he isn't left wing enough.

Laughing! Hey, I've been boning up on my Chomski and really pushing lefty issues like Instant Run-off Voting and Mass Transit. I've even bitten my tongue and promoted certain minority candidates whom I can't stand over good friends whom are completely more qualified. No one can be more lefty than me! The only fossil fuel I burn is bought from Hugo Chavez.

Seriously, Toral makes great points: Hilary has bent over backwards to become as moderate has possible. If this administration has shown us anything it's only thing that matters is WINNING THAT ELECTION. You can then get away with murder - absolutely no one will have to account for a single broken campaign promise. Just tell them that you are a compassionate conservative, that you want to change how things are done in Washington, get elected then do whatever the FU*K you want. Hilary, want to put Lani Guiner on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals? Go for it!!! Let's bring back the 70% income tax bracket for those making over $7million/year and let's do much more than school busing, let's FLY kids from rural states to metro areas, yeah, I'm talkin' REAL integration.

There is something to be said about having a Bush or Clinton in the White House for twenty eight consecutive years. It's a lot easier to remember than Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison, Cleveland, McKinley I tell ya.
 
114Razor
      ID: 2611333012
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 01:50
In Arab culture and under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, so are you. And once a Muslim, always a Muslim. You cannot go back. In Islamic eyes, Obama is certainly a Muslim. He may think he's a Christian, but they do not.

An attempt to connect Obama to the Muslim world is nothing more than a pathetic smear attempt at trying to associate him with the heretical Muslims who have waged war on the West, and who most certainly would not acknowledge Obama as a Muslim simply because his father is one.
 
115Perm Dude
      ID: 19030217
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 08:33
I agree (#114). Its like those on the fringe who insist on using his full name whenever they refer to him.

I haven't yet seen any Muslim quoted as saying Obama is one of them. Seems easy enough to verify, yes?
 
116Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 311151718
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 11:25
There might be valid reason to connect Obama to Islam. He played with Muslim children in Indonesia for 4 years and as a result may have some greater insight into Muslim culture than typical American politicians. Considering the many reports I've read regarding American ignorance of Islam (the rarity of American troops stationed in Iraq who speak Arabic, that only a small percentage of people working in our embassy in Iraq speak Arabic, reports on members of the House Intelligence Committee, including the new chairman, who do not know the difference between Sunni and Shia) A CIC or VP with personal historical ties to Islam, even if limited to early childhood, might prove to be useful.

The "once a muslim always a muslim" thing, even if true, seems completely irrelevant to me. What difference could it possibly make that muslims view him as one of their own? My guess is that the answer to whether it is true probably varies from sect to sect.

I did find an Egyptian blogger, who discusses leaving Islam, his track is a bit different from Schlussel's
In Islam, it is forbidden to convert to different faiths. The idea is that God slowly provided the world with his divine words progressively through the Bible, the Torah and lastly the Koran. Islam is the faith which EVERYBODY should follow because it is God’s final words. Thus, it is completely blasphemous to revert back to the ‘old’ and ‘outdated’ faiths – in essence one should keep with the trend and if it isn’t fashion then it should certainly be their spiritual connection to God.

As much as this could be a source of mockery and tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, this is truly the situation. It is very rare for Muslims to revert to other faiths and if that is the case, it is usually kept under wraps. In Egypt, the most common situations revolve around Christian women converting to Islam for purposes of marriage. However the opposite is rarely heard about.
He also states later in the column that Sharia Law advocates punishing those who renounce Islam with death. And in the comments portion of the page he discusses a reader's Saudi friend who has converted to Christianity. No where does he state that these converts are still viewed as Muslims in Islam.

I could research it further but its such a silly and irrelevant issue (even if true) that I don't see the point. I have some errands to run today around the neighborhood and two stores I'll go to are run by muslims who I am firendly with. If I have a chance maybe I'll strike up a discussion about it.
 
117Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 13:04
Ms Clinton is clearly playing to the fears of biggots and Islamaphobes. IMHO she might as well start attending Klan meetings.

I think Obama's Muslim heritage might lend some valuable insight into understanding the feelings and concerns of Muslim Americans.

I can remember Jack Kennedy having to jump through the Catholic hoop back in the 60's. This smacks of the same kind of bigotry.

 
118Perm Dude
      ID: 19030217
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 13:22
It does somewhat, except that Kennedy actually was a Catholic. This is even worse--they are trying to get Obama to give a reason why he won't say what he isn't.
 
119Perm Dude
      ID: 19030217
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 13:26
BTW, I have to throw out that there's no proof Clinton is the source for the accusations

Everyone is getting this information from Rev. Moon's InsightMag.com, and no where else.
 
120bibA
      Leader
      ID: 261028117
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 14:57
Texas Flood - Can you give any evidence to back up your assertion that Ms Clinton is responsible for these allegations? You compare her with the Klan, so I assume you have info from an independant source that is balanced, and gives some identity to those making these statements, other than "the Hillary camp says...."
 
121Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 18:14
I guess this cannot be validated till it shows up in the NY Times, eh?

If you can find an indpendendant/balanced source for news please let me know. I've been looking for one for a long time.
 
122Pancho Villa
      ID: 1311532913
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 18:35
The point is that this information is only alleged to have come from the Clinton camp.

The article is rampant with unnamed sources.

Sources close to the background check

and then 4 the source(s) said follow, even delineating from singular to plural.

I wouldn't put it beyond Hillary to investigate, then leak this info, and I wouldn't put it beyond some right wingers to attempt to divide the Democratic Party with fallacious material.
 
123Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 18:44
PV, you may be right but I really don't hear anyone from the Clinton camp crying foul...YET!
 
124Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 311151718
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 23:12
Here you go:
"It's an obvious right-wing hit job by a Moonie publication that was designed to attack Senator Clinton and Senator Obama at the same time," says Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson. Insight, like the Washington Times, is owned by a company controlled by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.
Its entirely possible that the Clinton campaign has been investigating Obama's time spent in Indonesia. But - ethics totally aside - HRC is much smarter than to leak these allegations in any matter that ties them to her campaign. I'd be shocked if that turned out to be the case, despite what is "clear" to Texas Flood.
 
125Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 49848118
      Wed, Jan 24, 2007, 17:05
Update:
1/23/07 CNN Debunks Obama madrassa story
But reporting by CNN in Jakarta, Indonesia and Washington, D.C., shows the allegations that Obama attended a madrassa to be false. CNN dispatched Senior International Correspondent John Vause to Jakarta to investigate.

He visited the Basuki school, which Obama attended from 1969 to 1971.

"This is a public school. We don't focus on religion," Hardi Priyono, deputy headmaster of the Basuki school, told Vause. "In our daily lives, we try to respect religion, but we don't give preferential treatment."

Vause reported he saw boys and girls dressed in neat school uniforms playing outside the school, while teachers were dressed in Western-style clothes.

"I came here to Barack Obama's elementary school in Jakarta looking for what some are calling an Islamic madrassa ... like the ones that teach hate and violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Vause said on the "Situation Room" Monday. "I've been to those madrassas in Pakistan ... this school is nothing like that."

Vause also interviewed one of Obama's Basuki classmates, Bandug Winadijanto, who claims that not a lot has changed at the school since the two men were pupils. Insight reported that Obama's political opponents believed the school promoted Wahhabism, a fundamentalist form of Islam, "and are seeking to prove it."

"It's not (an) Islamic school. It's general," Winadijanto said. "There is a lot of Christians, Buddhists, also Confucian. ... So that's a mixed school."
CNN news package on the school.

I'll also note that Debbie Schlussel has not addressed the debunking of her story and the allegations about Obama.

Insight Magazine has offererd a rebuttal to the CNN story:
We at Insight commend CNN for at least showing the initiative to follow-up on the story and send a correspondent to check it out. But, contrary to their claims, CNN didn’t debunk anything about our story. For the record, Insight never—not once—in its article claims that Obama went to a Madrassa. We didn’t claim it; Hillary’s people did. We reported—and we fully stand by our story—that the Hillary Clinton camp had conducted their own opposition research on Obama’s Muslim past, and that the Clinton investigators had concluded Obama had attended a Madrassa. This is what Hillary’s camp was saying and desperately trying to prove—not Insight. Our sources also confirmed to us that the Clinton camp had come to the conclusion that not only had Obama been raised and educated as a Muslim, but that he had been deliberately concealing it. Moreover, our sources also said that Clinton’s people were seeking to find out about the possible radical Wahhabi angle, and then peddle their information to their media allies later this year—prior to the January 2008 primaries.
As for CNN’s investigation into Obama’s Muslim school, we are not yet convinced. To simply take the word of a deputy headmaster about what was the religious curriculum of a school 35 years ago does not satisfy our standards for aggressive investigative reporting. The State Department portrays Indonesia as a hot bed of radical Islamist activity. Christians and non-Muslims face persecution on a daily basis. CNN’s claim that Obama attended a multi-confessional, secular public school needs verification by other news outlets—such as FOX News—who will look the facts straight on, without a vested ideological interest in downplaying Obama’s Muslim heritage.
This rebuttal is linked on their website's home page - right under the headline linking their original story, which remains as the #3 story on their site. The byline still reads:
Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?
More creative reporting on the story:

Fox & Friends host Steve Doosey 1/19:
DOOCY: Why didn’t anybody ever mention that that man right there was raised — spent the first decade of his life, raised by his Muslim father — as a Muslim and was educated in a madrassa?

[snip]

DOOCY: We should also point out that Barack Obama’s father is the one who gave him the middle name of Hussein. And the thing about the madrassa, and you know, let’s just be honest about this, in the last number of years, madrassas have been, we’ve learned a lot about them, financed by Saudis, they teach this Wahhabism which pretty much hates us. The big question is was that on the curriculum back then? Probably not, but it was a madrassa and the big question is whether or not any of these revelations about the fact that he was a Muslim — right now I understand he does go to the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, although not a regular parishioner — but raised as a Muslim, went to a madrassa.

 
126Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Mon, Feb 05, 2007, 14:18


Familiar Face, but a New Tone to the Message
Faced with what he always knew would be a tough race against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination and now the challenge of convincing his party that he is also a better alternative than Senator Barack Obama, Mr. Edwards is trying to muscle his way past them and the rest of the field, in part by staking out early and provocative positions on the big issues.

On the war in Iraq, Mr. Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, not only came out for a complete withdrawal within 12 to 18 months, but he also challenged his Democratic rivals who are still in government to confront President Bush more directly. And on Monday, Mr. Edwards will set out a plan to provide health insurance to the 46.6 million Americans who do not have it, stealing a march on Mrs. Clinton and other Democrats on what is shaping up to be one of the biggest domestic issues of the presidential race.

Appearing on “Meet the Press” on NBC on Sunday, Mr. Edwards said he would raise taxes on people making more than $200,000 a year to help pay for the plan, which he estimated could cost up to $120 billion a year.


I like Edwards and I think that he stands a decent chance. He's leading in Iowa. I think he is very Clintonian, women like him, he's a "harder-edged economic populist" yet that Southern accent is very disarming.
 
127Perm Dude
      ID: 5013158
      Mon, Feb 05, 2007, 14:27
I liked his message, but thought he was a little too smooth in the last election. Seemed very oily to me.

I like many of his positions, particularly health care (which Obama has put as a centerpiece). I don't like his trade policies, and I think he'll find his efforts at more international cooperation will be stymied, in part, by a protectionist trade policy.
 
128Pancho Villa
      ID: 37154320
      Mon, Feb 05, 2007, 19:51
It's official. Rudy is in.

Now, let's see if the press can muster up the courage to bring up the Building 7 controversy and what role, if any, Giuliani has played in the cover up. Since he's running as the hero of 9/11, that should make it fair game.
 
129Boxman
      ID: 211139621
      Mon, Feb 05, 2007, 19:57
I think he is very Clintonian, women like him

Heh. That would make him very Clintonian, now wouldn't it?
 
130Toral
      ID: 52621719
      Mon, Feb 05, 2007, 20:38
PV, I know you're into this building 7/8 or whatever thing. President Bush blew them up. Everyone knows that.

More seriously, suppose you were one of four reporters quizzing Mayor Giuliani on the old Meet the Press, NBC, Irving R. Levine, Moderator.

I'll get it started. But everyone may contribute. It is a free-flowing story. Perhaps serious truths about the reality of the life in our world among the powerful might be allowed to be expressed in the form of fiction -- the very same ideas that would be a cause for certain death under the Bush/Hitler regime if openly expressed...

You get two questions, each with a brief supplementary. You are surrounded by mainsream/journalist/normal people...but this is CBS as well so you can have your Perry Mason moment --

(Mason) "And you say, Mr Corporate Sleazebag, that you left the World Trade Centre Building in question after the plane hit -- and not BEFORE! it hit?

(Burger) I OBJECT! Immaterial, irrelevant, not properly introduced into evidence, hypothetical, and calling for a conlusion from the witness.

(Judge) (PONDERING) I think I'll disallow the objection. However, Mr Mason, you must direct your examination towards matters relevant to the case. [ALERT...*Key Term in Perry Mason Series Coming*/ALERT}

(Judge) Mr Mason, I will not allow you to go on a fishing expedition


(Mason) Of course not, Your Honor.
 
131Pancho Villa
      ID: 37154320
      Mon, Feb 05, 2007, 21:11
Toral,
WTC 7 was never hit by a plane. I'm sure Perry would have known that.
 
132Tree
      ID: 29082512
      Mon, Feb 12, 2007, 11:38
per Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a vote for Barack Obama is a vote for terrorism...

regarding Obama's plan to pull troops from Iraq in the somewhat near future, Howard said Obama's plan meant al-Qaida leaders in Iraq should "be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats" at presidential elections in November 2008...

..."I hold the strongest possible view that it is contrary to the security interests of this country for America to be defeated in Iraq," Howard said.

"Let me make it perfectly clear, if I hear a policy being advocated that is contrary to Australia's security interests, I will criticize it."


Obama, however, came right back out swinging.

Obama, in Iowa a day after formally announcing his candidacy, responded to Howard's initial comments by saying he was flattered that one of Bush's close allies had chosen to single him out for attack.

He then challenged Howard on his commitment to the Iraq conflict, noting the United States has nearly 140,000 troops in Iraq compared with Australia's about 1,400 forces in the region.

"So if he is ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq," Obama said. "Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."


i love this new breed of Dem, not afraid to talk smack.
 
133walk
      ID: 3511361116
      Mon, Feb 12, 2007, 13:43
Yeah, I read that, too -- I love Barack's reply. Does he ever not say the right thing? No, cos he's smart and thoughtful and courageous. I really will vote for this guy in the primary, and hope he gets the nom. He seems like a true leader.

And, technically speaking, he has more years of office in elected politics than either Hillary or Edwards.

- walk
 
134boikin
      ID: 59831214
      Mon, Feb 12, 2007, 13:45
and they where both right
 
135Tree
      ID: 29082512
      Mon, Feb 12, 2007, 15:37
and they where both right

who's right? John Howard, for insinuating that a vote for Obama is a vote for terrorism?
 
136boikin
      ID: 59831214
      Mon, Feb 12, 2007, 15:40
Obama is right about them needing to either put up troops or shut up and he was right that al-Qaida leaders (islamic extremists) would be happy with a US hasty withdrawl. I do not know if that necessarily means a democratic victory for that to happen.
 
137Perm Dude
      ID: 38146128
      Mon, Feb 12, 2007, 15:46
Obama wants a one-year timeframe for a pullout. I'm not sure that's altogether hasty. In fact, I think Obama (like Murtha, for one) realizes that you simply can't pull out all that quickly without a huge exposure problem.
 
138Tree
      ID: 29082512
      Mon, Feb 12, 2007, 15:52
al-Qaida leaders (islamic extremists) would be happy with a US hasty withdrawl.

if we pull out 12 months from now, that would mean we were there nearly 5 years.

5 years of failure is hardly a hasty withdrawal.

al-queda was a non-entity in iraq before our attack. we have created this situation in its entirety.
 
139boikin
      ID: 59831214
      Mon, Feb 12, 2007, 15:57
It has nothing to do with al-queda in Iraq it has to with percieved defeats, much like isreal after they with drew from lebanon they gained nothing but strengthing the opposition in lebanon. With that said we should have taken 1 year of semi sucsess over of 5+years of failing.
 
140Perm Dude
      ID: 38146128
      Mon, Feb 12, 2007, 16:08
I think you are probably right--there is a propoganda value in the US leaving Iraq.

This can be overcome (IMO) by an actual plan of attack against actual al-Qaeda terrorists. We need to get back into Afghanistan, for instance and reclaim that country. Then finally track down bin Laden.
 
141boikin
      ID: 59831214
      Mon, Feb 12, 2007, 16:12
PD you are right about afghanistan, a place where we probably can atually help the people too. It is funny how little afghanistan is mentioned now. Any theory why that is? From what i have seen/read is that we are not doing so good there have lost ground.
 
142Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 49848118
      Mon, Feb 12, 2007, 16:30
What is with this increasingly commonplace backward logic that rightists employ in their arguments?

The idea that a policy can be assessed by determining whether it will please our enemies or advarsaries is one of the most patently absurd things I've heard.

I recently could not decide whether Treasonists was joking recently when he listed support from Senator Kennedy among his most valid reasons to oppose a minimum wage.

al-Qaida leaders (islamic extremists) would be happy with a US hasty withdrawl.

Don't these people realize that ANY course of action we take in Iraq will make some of our Islamist opponents there happy? If we attack the Shia insurgents based in Sadr City, it will please the Sunni Ba'athist insurgents. If we attack Al Qaeda in Iraq, it will please the Shia militias preparing to keep the Kurds from controlling Kirkuk.


Honestly, who cares about "propaganda value"? Militants - especially the Islamists - have no trouble distorting every news event to their favor. Recruitment and morale are obviously not problem areas for these people. This idea that we are helping them is like giving a fish more room to swim by adding a cup of water to a 50 gallon tank.


Hey... here's a thought... wanna know the biggest and most effective thing that America can do to embolden our enemies in Iraq?

Howsabout we wage a clumsy, ill-prepared, ill-planned and half-assed occupation that is understaffed with ill-equiped soldiers and a far greater focus on private sector profiteering than the well-being of the local citizenry we swore to liberate which will be a sure-fire lock to undermine its own stated objective for stability in the region!?!

I DEFY ANY PATHETIC CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE OR NON-BINDING AGREEMENT TO HOLD A FLICKER TO THE DAMAGE THAT OUR GROSS INCOMPETANCE HAS ALREADY ACHIEVED.
 
143CJ
      Sustainer
      ID: 499271021
      Thu, Mar 01, 2007, 23:47
49 Razor
Sorry...I am just getting into this thread. But Your theory on Obama would stand until he ran against Guiliani. Why? New York State! He wins it and Florida and Ohio. Election over.
 
144Perm Dude
      ID: 51245123
      Fri, Mar 02, 2007, 00:45
It certainly isn't a given that Rudy wins NYS. For 7/8 of his time in office, he was hated by a large number of New Yorkers, and was positively thug-like in his methods.
 
146Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 4144179
      Fri, Mar 02, 2007, 01:02
Don't be so sure Guiliani wins NYS. I suppose he'd be favored here over Obama today but a lot can and will change in 19 months. Those of us downstate are a lot more familiar with him than the simplistic 9/11 lens the rest of the country views him through. He might not be as popular here as you think. And regarding Razor's point in that post, do you think pro-choice, pro gun control, pro gay rights Guiliani can be expected to carry the south, anyway? If he wins the nomination I'd expect low Republican turnout in the southeast or possibly even for a southern 3rd party conservative candidate to emerge. Further, if you change the discussion to Hillary as his opponent, I don't think he's the favorite here in NYS at all. Hillary's been a very popular senator.

One of the Dems' major strengths headinig into 08 is that all 3 of their currently front-running candidates appeal much more broadly to their own base than the GOP's front-runners appeal to theirs. Of course it will become very interesting if Newt dives in.
 
147Tree
      ID: 1521225
      Fri, Mar 02, 2007, 06:35
i'm with MITH on this. Guiliani was the right guy for the job after 9/11, and really showed his strengths.

unfortunately, there was an air of oppression in this city during the rest of his time as mayor. PD calling his reign "positively thug-like" is a bit over-bearing, but not by much.
 
148Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 4144179
      Fri, Mar 02, 2007, 08:28
i'm with MITH on this. Guiliani was the right guy for the job after 9/11, and really showed his strengths.

I don't know. I guess. How else would you expect a mayor to act? What Guiliani did that was so encouraging and great in the eyes of Americans was simply rush down to the site and be seen - and remain in the spotlight over the folling days and weeks. Does anyone else reading this picture himself or herself doing anything less in the same situation? He had the luxury of being juxtaposed with Bush (who famously and on camera did not immediately react to the tragedy and then was swept to other corners of the country far away from the attack sites) and 4 years later, with Ray Nagin following Hurricane Katrina.

Of couse anyone who cares to look closely enough realizes that Nagin did not share the "benefit" of respondining to a disaster which allowed him to be seen by the world in its immediate aftermath. The levies toppled in the middle of the night. The floods wiped out electrictiy and transportation and forced residents throughout the city to respond to personal affairs rather than show up at work, all of this making local media coverege of the floods mostly impossible for at least the first day. Even the natioanl cable tv nets weren't reporting from there until almost a full day after the levies broke.

Further, Guiliani's own police commissioner has since come out with claims that Guiliani made costly tactical errors on the morning of 9/11 that may have hampered the city's response to the emergency.

But I'm definitely in agreement with Tree's greater point, that the first 7 1/2 years of Rudy's tenure was no love affair with NYC residents by any means. He might be more popular upstate, but I our electoral votes are not a given for him. And as I said, if Hillary is his opponent, you can probably forget it.
 
149walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Fri, Mar 02, 2007, 16:49
My recollection of Rudy as my mayor was that he cleaned up the city, making it safer and nicer, but he did it in a way that was very antagonistic to minorities. He was not liked by fellow politicians, but as a NY resident, and a liberal (as if my wife), we are positive about Rudy (but aware of his autocratic style). I would not want his autocratic style running the country. We've done bad with Dick the ruler and Bush the feeb. Between Hillary and Rudy, oy, I don't want that choice. I'd rather have Edwards or Barack than Hillary, and I have no clue on the Republican side. I cannot picture a president named "Newt," or "Mit," and Rudy, I think, would not know how to deal with others very effectively. I think Hillary is way too orchestrated and lacks true personal convications (or the ability to stand by them, whatever they may be).

- walk
 
150walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Fri, Mar 09, 2007, 16:39
Senator Inevitable (Hillary) - The Nation
 
151katietx
      ID: 3810431417
      Fri, Mar 09, 2007, 18:47
Excellent article.
 
152nerveclinic
      ID: 3727102
      Sat, Mar 10, 2007, 03:59


I'm still not counting out Gore.

He won the 2000 election and it was stolen from him.

He's made smart moves since then, taking the coup with grace.

He opposed the Iraq war for all the right reasons, something Hillary can't claim. Here's an excerpt from a Boston Globe article from September of 2002.

Gore's Surprising Act of Leadership Against Iraq War

Gore, speaking Monday at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, warned that unilateral action against Saddam Hussein would ''severely damage'' the more urgent war on terrorism and ''weaken our ability to lead the world.'' Gore declared that the president has turned the broad reservoir of good will for America ''into a deep sense of misgiving and even hostility.'' In a pointed dig at President George W. Bush's go-it-alone cowboy rhetoric, he added, ''If you're going after Jesse James, you ought to organize the posse first.''

link

Building an image as a forward thinker with his film and talks on the Global Warming issue (Whether you think Global warming is man made or not, most of the country and world is starting to buy it, even Bush)

He's positioned himself as the leading candidate on Global warming which will just continue to grow as an issue between now and 2008.

He could be taking his time, staying out of the fray, letting the others fight while he does the Global warming / Oscars tour appearing like a statesman.

If he announces his candidacy in 6-9 months even, money will pour in from all the big Hollywood environmentalists, past supporters, those who are still emotional about the 2000 coup.

He's not the most exciting talker so the longer he stays out, the less we have to bear listening to him speak. He could roll up votes and delegates on past reputation alone.

Obama is already starting to get smeared by the establishment. Hillary has too high a negative rating and she pissed off the Democrat core with her support of the Iraq war.

Gore is the kind of candidate who could also help America's image with he rest of the world which at the moment has us painted as the apocalyptic anti Christ preparing to take over the planet or destroy it trying.

It could be Gore who comes in and saves the day for the Democrats in 2008.

I wouldn't vote for him, this is just a scenario I could see playing out.


 
153walk
      ID: 259313119
      Sat, Mar 10, 2007, 10:29
I tend to agree with your prediction, Nerve, but I would personally vote for him. I expect Gore to announce later, just like I expect (and loathe) Gingrich's inevitable announcement. I think it'll be Gore vs. Gingrich in a battle of opposites. Gore should win, and I if he does in fact run, I'd vote for him in the primary above all others in the Dem category, including Barack. I also think that Barack would potentially become Gore's VP running mate.

BTW, who would you vote for Nerve?

- walk
 
154walk
      ID: 259313119
      Sat, Mar 10, 2007, 10:36
Dems Dump Fox Debate
 
155Tree
      ID: 342281012
      Sat, Mar 10, 2007, 13:38
a Gore/Obama ticket definitely would be very interesting. The stately, worldly, Gore - representing a successful Democratic presidency of years past; and the dynamic, exciting, but relative neophyte Obama - representing potentially a Democratic party of the future, one of great success.
 
156nerveclinic
      ID: 352401012
      Sat, Mar 10, 2007, 13:54

BTW, who would you vote for Nerve?

I Haven't voted for a Republican or Democrat for President in over 20 years.

I generally hold my nose and vote Libertarian, although I have plenty to disagree with them on also.

My position on Dems and Repubs who make it that far, is that they are all unfortunately, bought and paid for. Or they wouldn't be there.

Voting for any of them would make me feel like I am going along with the scam.

It wouldn't bother me seeing Gore win because I am so concerned about how we are viewed in the world right now, it would have a dramatic healing effect on how other countries perceive us. That may be exactly why he becomes anointed to win.

I couldn't with good conscious vote for him though.




 
157Perm Dude
      ID: 3326187
      Sun, Mar 18, 2007, 22:17
Bush vs Bill Clinton on the economy: Not even really close, according to this Cato Institute Fellow.

The Cato Institute has never been a friend of Democrats in general, but I think they dig through the dross pretty well here. Best line: "results matter, not intentions." Unfortunately for many on the Right, they still cling to the belief that intentions are more important than results. They might assail the Clintons for not having a political certitude, but Bill Clinton can at least point to a long record of economic accomplishments to rebut that argument that pragmatism trumps idealism in politics.
 
158walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Mon, Mar 19, 2007, 12:18
March 19, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A One-Man Civil War
By MATTHEW CONTINETTI
Washington


CALL me crazy, but I wasn’t expecting the crowd at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference here to devote its most passionate boos to Senator John McCain of Arizona, a conservative himself and the Republican establishment’s choice for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. But boo it did.

The right’s ambivalence, even antagonism, toward the McCain candidacy is stunning. And it is responsible for all the talk these days of a looming conservative crisis.

Last week’s New York Times/CBS News poll of Republicans seemed to portray a party in disarray. Most Republicans are social conservatives, yet the poll found they embraced Rudolph Giuliani, the pro-choice former mayor of New York, over Senator McCain, who is pro-life. Most Republicans are hawks who support President Bush’s new counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, but the poll also found that they want a candidate in 2008 who will demonstrate a flexibility in policymaking that this notoriously stubborn White House lacked for the first three and a half years of the war. And almost two-thirds of respondents want more choices for president.

It’s Mr. McCain’s transformation from insurgent to semi-favorite son that has unsettled the Republican Party and conservative movement. In past years, the Republicans nominated the man who had patiently waited his “turn”: Ronald Reagan in 1980, George H. W. Bush in 1988, Bob Dole in 1996. The man who ought to benefit from the machine this time around is Senator McCain, whose insurgent campaign against George W. Bush came close to winning the nomination eight years ago. And sure enough, large portions of the party establishment have embraced him.

But there’s a problem. While Mr. McCain and the conservative activists who compose the Republican grassroots share many positions — pro-war, pro-life, against waste in government and for low taxes — a significant portion of those grassroots just ... doesn’t ... like him.

For some, the animosity is issue-based. Conservatives recall that during the 2000 primary campaign, Mr. McCain adopted some of the left’s pet issues and flirted with the idea of a party switch. Others have become First Amendment absolutists with respect to campaign finance reform legislation, which Senator McCain champions. Many refuse to accept the scientific consensus on global climate change and recoil at Senator McCain’s attempts to find a free-market solution to the problem. Others cannot forgive the senator for his votes against the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.

Another reason for the animosity is personal. Ideologues have long memories. There are Republicans who haven’t forgiven Senator McCain for labeling the Revs. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance” back in 2000. There are others who bought into the story that Mr. McCain’s temperament made him unfit for the nation’s highest office. An article in April’s Reason magazine, a libertarian journal, calls Senator McCain an “authoritarian.” You hear conservatives saying Mr. McCain’s turn back to the right seems desperate, or that Mr. McCain seems tired and “old” on the stump.

More important than ideology or personality is culture. For years conservatives have cast a suspicious eye on Senator McCain because non-conservatives find him appealing. They distrust the institutions of liberal culture — the news media in particular — to such a degree that a politician those institutions embrace must be suspect. They grow furious when they hear Senator McCain on Don Imus’s radio show but not Rush Limbaugh’s. The politics of polarization militate against a McCain candidacy. The man transcends the partisan divide — but what partisans want above all is a fellow partisan.

So the Republican Party is left at an impasse. The unsettling effect the McCain candidacy has had on the party is one reason so many Republicans are chomping at the bit to enter the presidential race. It’s come to the point where two of the handful of Republican senators who supported Senator McCain in 2000 — Chuck Hagel and Fred Thompson — are positioning themselves for a late entry into the campaign.

Call it poetic justice, tragedy or farce: Senator McCain’s quest to become the establishment candidate has jeopardized his candidacy and exposed deep fissures within the conservative movement. A true reckoning will be had only if Senator McCain revives the authentic, conservative, reform-oriented insurgent spirit that motivated his 2000 candidacy. Let Senator McCain be Senator McCain, as the saying goes. Then the fissures will be healed, for better (from Mr. McCain’s point of view) or worse.

The 1988 Democrats had seven dwarfs. The 2008 Republicans may have as many as 10 — possibly more. That’s a sign of weakness and confusion. And until the McCain campaign corrects course, it will have only itself to blame.


Matthew Continetti is the associate editor of The Weekly Standard and the author of “The K Street Gang: The Rise and Fall of the Republican Machine.”
 
159Jag
      ID: 14849321
      Tue, Mar 20, 2007, 02:34
A loopy right winger, out of touch with the mainstream Republicans, but alas we need him and others, such as the extreme far right Christians to fight the greater evil, The Looney Left.
 
160Perm Dude
      ID: 19229227
      Thu, Mar 22, 2007, 12:05
Edwards suspends campaign.

Memo to Ann Coulter: This man has more character than you'll ever know.
 
161Perm Dude
      ID: 19229227
      Thu, Mar 22, 2007, 12:56
Rumor denied..
 
162Pancho Villa
      ID: 42231410
      Wed, Mar 28, 2007, 18:48
Dobson - Fred Thompson is not a Christian

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson has dealt a potentially devastating blow to Fred Thompson’s presidential aspirations, saying the former senator is not a Christian.

"Everyone knows he’s conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for,” Dobson – considered the most politically powerful evangelical figure in the U.S. – said in a phone call to Dan Gilgoff, senior editor at U.S. News & World Report.

"[But] I don’t think he’s a Christian. At least that’s my impression.”


Amazing that Dobson actually has influence in the choosing of the Republican nominee.

 
163Pancho Villa
      ID: 42231410
      Wed, Mar 28, 2007, 18:53
So, who does Dobson like?

From the link in #162:

Although Dobson has not endorsed any Republican presidential candidate, he told Gilgoff that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was the "brightest guy out there” and "the most articulate politicians on the scene today.”

Ah yes Newt, that paragon of family values, who recently admitted to having an affair while nailing Clinton for having one. You can't make this stuff up, folks.


 
164biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Wed, Mar 28, 2007, 18:55
Is Fred an Athiest? I would freakin' love that.
 
165Pancho Villa
      ID: 42231410
      Wed, Mar 28, 2007, 19:04
Thompson’s spokesman Mark Corallo took issue with the statement.



"Thompson is indeed a Christian,” he said. "He was baptized into the Church of Christ.”

Focus on Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger sought to clarify Dobson’s statement, telling Gilgoff that while Dobson didn’t believe Thompson belonged to a non-Christian faith, he "has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian – someone who openly talks about his faith.

"We use that word – Christian – to refer to people who are evangelical Christians. Dobson wasn’t expressing a personal opinion about his reaction to a Thompson candidacy.”


same link

 
166biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Wed, Mar 28, 2007, 19:07
Damn.

Oops.
 
167Pancho Villa
      ID: 42231410
      Wed, Mar 28, 2007, 19:11
Ha! I was gonna post Damn Cam, read the link!
 
168katietx
      ID: 3810431417
      Wed, Mar 28, 2007, 19:39
"We use that word – Christian – to refer to people who are evangelical Christians. Dobson wasn’t expressing a personal opinion about his reaction to a Thompson candidacy.”

Wow...that's leaves a lot of us out of being Christian then.

Good 'ol Dobson...hey buddy, go write a book and stay out of politics.

 
169Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Mar 28, 2007, 19:52
Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Orthodox, all those guys aren't Christians? And it's because Dobson says so.

Wow.

Christ seemed like a uniter to me. I don't think he'd tolerate (in His forgiving way he probably would) this Dobson fellow for long. Maybe he'd laugh at him like He did to the pharisees.
 
170boikin
      ID: 59831214
      Wed, Apr 04, 2007, 11:44
the value of third canidate an interesting article why canidates should try and keep it 3 person race instead of a 2 person race.
 
171biliruben
      ID: 52014814
      Wed, Apr 04, 2007, 13:39
Ya caught me, PV.

Links are for the infantless!
 
172Perm Dude
      ID: 353158
      Thu, Apr 05, 2007, 14:48
NY Sun calls on Cheney to run

 
173Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Apr 05, 2007, 17:11
Mitt Romney: the John Kerry of the 2008 field (except that the flip-flopper charge actually applies in Romney's case)
 
174nerveclinic
      ID: 27051103
      Sun, Apr 22, 2007, 03:52

Nerveclinic post 152 Marchh 10th

I'm still not counting out Gore...It could be Gore who comes in and saves the day for the Democrats in 2008.

I wouldn't vote for him, this is just a scenario I could see playing out.


Sunday telegraph April 21st...

Friends of Al Gore have secretly started assembling a campaign team in preparation for the former American vice-president to make a fresh bid for the White House.

Al ore campaign team assembles in secret
Al Gore is third favourite for the Democratic nomination

Two members of Mr Gore's staff from his unsuccessful attempt in 2000 say they have been approached to see if they would be available to work with him again.

Mr Gore, President Bill Clinton's deputy, has said he wants to concentrate on publicising the need to combat climate change, a case made in his film, An Inconvenient Truth, which won him an Oscar this year.

But, aware that he may step into the wide open race for the White House, former strategists are sounding out a shadow team that could run his campaign at short notice. In approaching former campaign staff, including political strategists and communications officials, they are making clear they are not acting on formal instructions from Mr Gore, 59, but have not been asked to stop.

His denials of interest in the presidency have been couched in terms of "no plans" or "no intention" - politically ambiguous language that does not rule out a run.

One of his former campaign team said: "I was asked whether I would be available towards the end of the year if I am needed. They know he has not ruled out running and if he decides to jump in, he will have to move very fast.


link

We'll see...

 
175Tree
      ID: 15314228
      Sun, Apr 22, 2007, 10:15
i've been telling people at work i could easily see a Gore/Obama ticket. i'm not quite ready to make that my early prediction, but that's where i'm leaning...
 
176Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Apr 22, 2007, 10:19
I thought your early prediction was Edwards/Obama. How many do you get?
 
177Tree
      ID: 15314228
      Sun, Apr 22, 2007, 13:09
no, like i said, i was leaning certain ways, but i hadn't made my final decision yet. i'll have to look back at previous threads to see how early i finalized Kerry/Edwards for 2004, and go with that time line...
 
178Perm Dude
      ID: 363332210
      Sun, Apr 22, 2007, 13:17
re 174: Gore Camp Denies It

Also:

Gore approved NH backer to send $$$ to Obama
 
179katietx
      ID: 323472012
      Sun, Apr 22, 2007, 15:52
I definintely DO NOT want Gore. But I would go with Obama...just not sure who he'd share the ticket with that would please me.

Yeah, yeah...its a conservative-leaning independent looking at a liberal. Go figure.

Life changes, does it not?

cf
 
180Perm Dude
      ID: 837278
      Fri, Apr 27, 2007, 13:47
Romney: Osama not worth spending a lot of money catching...

Unbelievable. We've spent billions and billions in Iraq as a result of 9/11--Romney seems to forget that the "worldwide jihad" is emboldened by the fact that Osama is still free. Osama not being brought to justice puts the argument about our moral argument in the war on terror to the lie.
 
181Toral
      ID: 52621719
      Fri, Apr 27, 2007, 18:58
Ron Brownstein analyzes the candidates' appeal to the Democrats' constituent groups.
 
182Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Apr 29, 2007, 07:50
Carl Bernstein Prepping Unauthorized Bio on Hillary Clinton

Drawing on a trove of private papers from Hillary Clinton’s best friend, the legendary Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein is going to publish a hard-hitting and intimate portrait of the 2008 presidential candidate, which will reveal a number of "discrepancies" in her official story.
 
183Perm Dude
      ID: 3844717
      Tue, May 01, 2007, 11:09
Bruce Bartlett on why Republicans should consider Clinton

I think he makes a very good case, although it isn't clear what Republicans, in the Democratic primary, should do, exactly. Give money? Consider not hating her so much? If Clinton wins the primary then it doesn't seem like Republican help would be needed so much, since whoever wins the Republican primary will probably lose in the general election.

So the points seem right one, but not put into a larger context. Interesting points in any case, particularly on NRO.
 
184Toral
      ID: 52621719
      Tue, May 01, 2007, 11:50
1. A minor point. Not to deny that an element of courage is shown by Sen. Clinton's refusal to apologize about Iraq, but that decision is also a tactical political choice. Her camp has concluded that, as a woman, she must take every precaution against seeming weak on national security, so that things like apologizing over Iraq, which are not worrisome for other Democrat candidates, must be avoided.

2. Bartlett seems focussed entirely on economics. For those considering other issues, my intuition would tell me to take a chance on Obama. His rhetoric praises avoidance of dogmatic solutions and searching for ideas that work, from wherever their source. So far his actual positions have been dogmatic liberal, but perhaps as president he would be more able to do what he says he wants to do. In addition his appointments, while probably overwhelmingly liberal, wouldn't be just the same old gang of Clintonistas. Worth a try.

3. The GOP candidate is likely to be someone regarded as a moderate. If conservatives abandon ship when a moderate is (in line to be) selected as nominee, it becomes harder to convince moderates to stay with the party's candidate when he is a conservative. Something to be considered before conservatives take the position "I would never vote for Giuliani/McCain."

4. Even if the GOP is doomed to lose the presidency in 2008, it is to its interest to run the strongest possible candidate to minimize the damage to the rest of the ticket, particularly in the Senate, which could be the real GOP disaster area in 2008.

Toral
 
185Toral
      ID: 52621719
      Tue, Jun 05, 2007, 10:13
I saw something somewhere on the Net this week in which an anonymous person reported on a dinner conversation he had with Bill Clinton. Clinton was said to have a few interesting things to say about 2008, one being that past Democratic candidates made a mistake by completly ignoring the evangelical vote and that Hillary was going to go after it.

Sounds like an implausible goal...but I just heard a brief clip of Hillary's performance at yesterday's liberal evengelical faith forum Hillary used two distinctly evangelical terms. She said that she had gotten through her husband's infidelities and other problems with the assistance of thousands of "prayer warriors"; in another connection she spoke of the need to "pray for discernment". She used the terms appropriately in context, which people who try to do for political purposes usually screw up, instantly revealing them as phonies.

Hillary has been a devout Christian at least since college (and I assume before) but I have always understood her to be a classic social-gospel liberal Methodist, and would expect these terms to be foreign to her. She's been studying up or something and I will now be very interested to see whether she throws any such terms into her acceptance speech or the presidential debates. Using terms like this is actually a very cheap and easy way to make evangelical voters feel comfortable with you. Hillary has big obstacles in her path towards evangelical support but picking up just a few percentage points could make a big difference to her campaign.

Toral
 
186Tree
      ID: 29082512
      Tue, Jun 05, 2007, 10:57
Using terms like this is actually a very cheap and easy way to make evangelical voters feel comfortable with you.

yep. and it won GW two terms. well, that and the fear mongering.
 
187Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Tue, Jun 05, 2007, 12:12
Hillary has been a devout Christian - Toral

OMG

 
188bibA
      Leader
      ID: 261028117
      Tue, Jun 05, 2007, 13:21
Toral - Did you actually make that statement without checking with the resident judge as to just who qualifies as a devout Christian?

OMG
 
189Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Tue, Jun 05, 2007, 15:25
Hillary has been a devout Christian at least since college

If only we could hold a weegie board session and contact the ghost of Vince Foster.
 
190Perm Dude
      ID: 4954358
      Tue, Jun 05, 2007, 15:52
We wish. Then you conspiracy theorists could just shut up about it all.
 
191Tree
      ID: 29082512
      Tue, Jun 05, 2007, 16:15
weegie board

it's Ouija board...
 
192biliruben
      ID: 52014814
      Tue, Jun 05, 2007, 16:23
Hang Bill from a WEDGIE board, and make him tell the darn truth. About Vince, and the stained dress, about the dozens of others he murdered with his bare hands while laughing maniacally.
 
193Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Tue, Jun 05, 2007, 16:31
She's faithful alright...to her own appetites.

Which of her merry traits did you mistake for christianity, Toral? Looting S&L's? Was the cattle future scandal christian? Just because she is more discrete than Bill, her screwing around outside of marriage doesn't count towards it. There is no church within a 100 miles of her residence who claims her, where does she go? Does hiding subpoenaed documents count as christian? It was her goon in charge of the illegal FBI files and computer database of them. Was that your tipoff? The fires set to cover her tracks as counsel to S&L's...you smelled christian somewhere in that smoke? All those S&L scandals where hers as much or moreso than Bills.
 
194sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Jun 05, 2007, 16:32
Odd...I seem to recall the name of "Bush" being strongly associated with those as well.
 
195Pancho Villa
      ID: 42231410
      Tue, Jun 05, 2007, 17:01
I seem to recall the name of "Bush" being strongly associated with those as well.

McCain as well.
 
196Perm Dude
      ID: 4954358
      Tue, Jun 05, 2007, 17:50
Heh heh. Yeah, Clinton couldn't possibly be a Christian. That would mean that "bad" people are claiming that label.
 
197Toral
      ID: 52621719
      Tue, Jun 05, 2007, 19:47
Baldwin, if you hope to be glorified in the last day even according to the weird and heretical doctrines of your own sect; take the mote out of your eye.

Your bizarre accustaions against Hillary and hatred of her are embarrassing to conservatism. Stop them and it.

Your failure to vote may be accounted against you in the last day more than whatever Hillary's faults might be.

There is no church within a 100 miles of her residence who claims her, where does she go?

Evidence? Hillary has been a regular churchgoing Methodist forever. During the Clinton Presidency, they went to different churches -- i.e., Hillary refused to go to his just to make a show of marital unity.

I do not presume to look into Hillary's heart. However there is no reason to believe that her professions of faith are insincere.

And if she doesn't choose to go to a church, I hope she doesn't go to a JW pagan temple.

Very large numbers of people end up psychologically disturbed when they, children of JW parents, do not accept the JW religion. Often they are cast out of the house and never spoken to again.

As a JW, you face the burden of proof to show that you should even be allowed to comment on politics in a civilized society.

Take Care,

Toral

 
198Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Tue, Jun 05, 2007, 20:12
Wow, calling someone a pagan is a very serious charge, especially when you know perfectly well there is no religion anywhere that has so assiduously eliminated every vestige of corrupt pagan influnce such as holidays of pagan origin that are everywhere common in religions claiming to be christian. Or doctrines that are 9/10 pagan Plato and just a veneer of christianity.

How can you say anyone is unqualified to merely make observations? When I point out the crisis in Darfur you read me the riot act and tell me exactly why I can't point it out.

As for the disfellowshipping of children...been thru it. He is now doing great and taking his relationship with God seriously, has made it 'his own', has proven to himself the good and acceptible and perfect will of God. It did him a world of good which is why it's there in the Bible in the first place.

True he could have deliberately 'chosen' to be a bad person which would have been a tragedy which I would not have let him minimize for all the world.

And I'll give you a boost. I did in all my study of Hillary run across an incident of Hillary going to church. Her husband surprised her by taking her to a San Francisco church famous for promoting immorality, so much so that I believe they have 'gay orgy' among their scheduled items. She was very moved.

 
199Perm Dude
      ID: 4954358
      Tue, Jun 05, 2007, 20:17
So you found that they went to an immoral church (RC, by any chance)? And your study was so thorough you believe that they might have had a gay orgy?

If you are trying to impress us with your qualifications you aren't making the grade.
 
200Toral
      ID: 52621719
      Tue, Jun 05, 2007, 20:55
As for the disfellowshipping of children...been thru it.

I believe that anyone who conducts the JW disfellowship of children is of Satan, pure and simple.

Such a person has much more to worry about in the afterlife than Bill or Hillary Clinton.

God be with you,

Toral
 
201Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Tue, Jun 05, 2007, 22:01
Go roll an Easter egg and call me pagan again. Rolls right off.
 
202Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Tue, Jun 05, 2007, 22:02
And BTW we don't disfellowship unbaptised people and we don't baptise people too young to make an adult decision.
 
203Boxman
      ID: 211139621
      Wed, Jun 06, 2007, 07:11
Toral: Since you're our resident expert on who is a loyal Christian, who said this "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."?

 
204Tree
      ID: 153365
      Wed, Jun 06, 2007, 07:17
Ozzy Osbourne, February, 1982, shortly after urinating on the Alamo.
 
205Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Wed, Jun 06, 2007, 13:49
LMAO!!!!
 
206Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Wed, Jun 06, 2007, 14:10
 
207Doug
      ID: 441251914
      Wed, Jun 06, 2007, 18:26
This is the first time I've heard that the public thinks Al Gore is an environmentally-conscious stripper.
 
208Toral
      ID: 52621719
      Tue, Jun 12, 2007, 02:22
Boxman 203 Toral: Since you're our resident expert on who is a loyal Christian, who said this "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."?

Don't know. It definitely wasn't Jesus. Unless that's a new "Boxman translation".

BTW -- I don't mind being considered "not a conservative" by anybody, but I am tired of illiterate fools with IQs below 80 claiming to represent conservatism. I made some inquiries into why you were vetoed for playing in a Political Gurupie league. A person on the left who I usually diagreed with vetoed you for a political league saying (not a direct quote), "Life's too short to deal with assho*les like that." And you know what -- I couldn't disagree with him.

Conservatism has a distinguished pedigree, and you are the type of person that society tries to educate enough to be a contributing member of it.

You're not near there yet.

Please go away, and take Jag with you.

Toral
 
209Doug
      ID: 113132214
      Tue, Jun 12, 2007, 04:26
Confused. Isn't that Matthew 7:1? If it's definitely not Jesus saying it, then who is it?

Or are you simply objecting to this particular translation of that verse? King James has it as "Judge not, that ye be not judged." so I don't really see a dramatic difference based on those semantics. Or are they both incorrect translations (and if so, what's a more correct translation)? Or is the point that Jesus didn't speak English thus wouldn't have literally said that? Or... what?

Like I said, just confused. Help.
 
210Toral
      ID: 52621719
      Tue, Jun 12, 2007, 06:24
Actually I must apologize to Boxman. Looking it up, his translation is the same as that of the NIV, my preferred text. I was wrong.

So perhaps I should retreat completely, or self-edit...no, I will not.

(NOTE: If you're wondering why the Hell I am doing such a long post...I have to stay up all night before a medical test. So I should be out of here around, uh, 6:45 AM headed for the hospital.)

We must look first at the context in which Boxman said what he did. His criticism was of my criticism of Baldwin when Baldwin denied that Hillary Clinton could be a Christian.

If you go back to 185, there I said that Hillary Clinton had been a devout Christian at least since college. That statement was denounced by Baldwin in 187 and ridiculed by Boxman in 189. And then Baldwin went wild in 193. Baldwin, on this topic, is what secularists would call "insane", and Christians would call "deceived by Satan". The hatred that Baldwin displays for Hillary Clinton is unChristian, without doubt.

It hurts me more than you might believe to say this because it will (and should) hurt...Baldwin's hatreds and weird political doctrines hinder people from becoming Jehovah's Witnesses; they are a stumbling block, they deter people from becoming JWs. For a great part of the appeal of JWs is their complete separation from the world; they will not vote, they will not participate in politics. I know that Baldwin truly believes and would not knowingly do anything that would hamper people from coming to his faith-beliefs...but there it is. He has done so. I don't think he can deny it if he looks in his heart. In any case, I am not his judge.

If I challenged you, Baldwin, to show your whole corpus of political postings to the leadership of your local group (I was going to call it a "cult temple" but that would have been inappropriately flippant).... I have enough trust in you to expect an honest answer (or more likely, no answer) to these questions: Do you think they would be pleased?
Would they encourage you in this endeavour? Is it possible that you yourself might be disciplined on the road to disfellowship, for these activities? You don't need to answer me or respond to me; I am not your judge. Give your answers to God.

Getting back to Boxman, we are in a circle game here. I do not claim to know any man's heart. I simply stated that Hillary Clinton had been a devout Christian since...whenever. Baldwin denied that this could be possible, and slandered her. Then we got into a discussion of the JW religion. And I reiterate what I said there, that it is a cult, and that the cruel and unBiblical practice of disfellowship of children shows it in its evil, and proves it (its cultship).

Then Boxman, the idiot savant minus the savant, comes in with his Scripture. But let us read not only verse 1, but verse 2:
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

As the commentators sum it up: be ready to be judged by the same standard by which you judge others.
I am ready to be so judged. I believe that Baldwin's hatred of Hillary Clinton is sinful by even the standard of his own cult, and certainly by any real Christian standard. If I have such a hatred of anyone: show me, judge me, prove me.

And I continue to judge Boxman by the same standards by which I am willing to be judged: intelligence, knowledge, human feeling, absence of malice, etc. And if you think my vices relevant, bring them up. Bring everything to the table when you judge.

I believe, that if one wants a serious forum, he should have been gently encouraged to shape up or ship out of this forum a long time ago. But there is no one there to do that any more. There are only a few leftists, dozens of sheep-like liberals, the libertarians and other assorted cranks, and the conspiracy theorists.

Judge me by the same standards by which I judge Boxman. "For in the same way you judge others you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." I believe you should judge me by the same standards I use. Seattle Zen has already done so; he has strongly urged me to leave this forum because I am not learning enough from him and his leftist ilk. I have not yet taken his advice, but I appreciate it. It was probably only meant as another insult, but there was truth behind his words. I am planning on taking his advice in the fulness of time. So give your judgment if you are willing to be judged by the same standard; it may be efficacious.

The minimum standard of intelligence for this forum should be the Sarge-Tree line. (Trademark Toral 2008) If you asked me 2 years ago, I would have said both sarge and tree should be thrown out for stupidity and arrogance -- but they're still here. Their intelligence is low and their audacity in view of that intelligence somewhat amazing.... but they contribute something.
sarge brings -- well first of all, katiex, who would immunize him anyway. But he also brings knowledge of warfare on the ground, and of the hard task of making a living in sales after that; he brings commitment and steadfastness in his beliefs; he brings candor, having exposed his job needs right here in the open and asked for help. If any Gurupie feared for the safety of his spouse and family from a known threat of armed thugs...well, I know who I'd call to ask for advice, or to hire to serve in person if available. I think any Gurupie would.

Tree brings to the table (besides his assiduous defence of left-wing opinions), knowledge of the music industry, a charming vulgarity (as when he discusses what amount of jewelry he likes to see down there on his sexual partners), crazed defence of Israel, and -- a great knowledge of baseball, and football, which is pretty key here.

I long ago diagnosed Tree as a person with serious ADHD, and, lo, and behold! he recently acknowledged himself having a little bit of that. That really sums up the good and bad aspects of Tree. He flies off the handle at anything and he can't remember anything for 24 hours. (The good side of this is that he doesn't hold grudges. 48 hours after an imbroglio, it's as if it never happened.)(And Tree is not the person on this board with atypical neurology. Hint: I hate NTs.)

Now, by comparison...what do Boxman and Jag bring to the table to compensate for their sub-normal IQs and general stupidity?

----

Anyone?

I say they bring nothing. Boxman claims to be a consultant. Based on his posts here, I would love to know who the Hell would ever hire Boxman to consult with, about anything. Who would allow a person with sub-normal intelligence, who is aggressive in his ignorance, to even be in the building?
--------------------------------------------

You may have gathered from the tenor of my post and its bluntness that I am unhappy with this Forum. If you so gathered, you are correct.

As some people on the PG Forum know, I am disgusted with the Forum, with the general stupidity of the discussions therein, with the lack of intellectual competence, knowledge, and basic honesty of the members thereof, and so on.

Although I do recognize that the problem may be me, and not they. I may have just outlived the Forum's usefulness to me. Almost all genuine conservatives have left because of the poor fortunes of the GOP and the general poor-doings of conservatism (can't blame them; I am kind of a die-hard). People who were undergraduates when I joined are now practicing defence law and being very aggressive about calling out their former elders. Many of the people I used to know have proceeded (or are proceeding) from undergraduate life unto other things. I recently negotiated a trade with Twarpy and we thought it was the first time we had communicated in a year-and-a-half; we used to talk on that old thing, IRC or whatever, at least 3 times a week, but he's all growed up now. Chris, my old bud, who I used to talk to 3 or 4 times a week, who I had to pummel to enter RIBC -- and won it -- is gone. (A long time passes. I remember Chris telling me that Mark Prior had a perfect pitching motion and would never get injured....) The old Chat Room buddies have dispersed. I don't think I've talked to bmd in over 2 years. Blue Hen is as obnoxious as ever, but now has a job title to back him up in his obnoxiunoxity. I have started to harbour strong dislikes of some of my PG Baseball members -- and that's really a bad sign, because I used to love all of them. The relationship seems to be changing. I am ceasing to cherish my once-held love, the PG Forum and its leagues, and am lusting after other harlotry diversions.

I am planning not to return to PG sports in 2008 -- if I do return it is a sign that I am addicted and can't leave. What I will do with the time I formerly spent on Rotoguru-related activities, I hope will become apparent over the course of the next many months. Ciao,

Toral
 
211Seattle Zen
      ID: 46315247
      Tue, Jun 12, 2007, 10:55
I have realized that I have become extremely lazy in my posts here. I once read everything regarding a topic and would write impassioned pleas or defenses of certain points. Now I rarely have the desire to put in the time to make a halfway scholarly post. I spend an embarrassing amount of time following baseball right now, hours and hours each day. The Fourth Circuit sends a stinging rebuke to the Administration's "enemy combatants" habeus policy and I simply read the newspaper story, can't summon the energy to read the opinion.

It's not just conservatives who are discouraged these days. I'm sick of this fuçking war and the lies and yet we are still there, throwing good men's lives after bad ones, if I may. I was furious about going into Iraq but few people can stay furious for four years. The last two Presidential elections were the two lowest points in American discourse in my lifetime, I'm not too hopeful for 2008.
 
212Perm Dude
      ID: 28525129
      Tue, Jun 12, 2007, 13:09
Good posts, guys.

I find myself just waiting for this administration to be over, frankly. Every new revelation about these guys just makes me realize that we've got a lot of work to do when they leave, and that is real tiresome.
 
213Toral
      ID: 52621719
      Tue, Jun 12, 2007, 16:56
That's it?

Back from the hospital now...I opened this thread with genuine fear, expecting 75 flames and possible banishment from the board.

"Good posts, guys?"

I spoke from my heart. To anyone I offended, whether intentionally or otherwise, I am genuinely sorry.

As I said, the problem is (very probably) me, not you. I am plain burnt out.
-----------------------------------------------

1. I share the belief that the U.S, should get out of Iraq. I see some signs that Republican Senators may start demanding such action after the "surge" effectiveness check in September.

2. permdude You would not believe how many posts I have seen on conservative message boards and other websites just saying the same thing -- I just wish this Administration were over. There is much less hatred/loathing of President Bush on these conservative websites -- but just as much wish that this Administration be over.

There is almost a lethargy in dealing with the problems the GOP -- or what's left of it after 2008 -- and conservatism will face in the future. "Please God, this started out in 1999 when Governor Bush announced as a great dream, then degraded into a good dream; then an OK dream, then a moderately bad dream, and now it is a nightmare looking to get worse all the time. It must end, right?"

Toral
 
214Perm Dude
      ID: 28525129
      Tue, Jun 12, 2007, 16:59
My own lethargy extended to my quick note in #212. I just am stretched very thin these days, making it difficult to respond more appropriately. I genuinely liked your post, however--don't let the shortness of my reply mean more than "PD doesn't have much time these days."
 
215biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Tue, Jun 12, 2007, 18:39
I too used to read every thread in it's entirety, but have largely turned to skimming or looking at the name on the last post and bypassing it entirely if it's not someone who's opinion I respect on a given topic. A rarer and rarer event.

Even rarer is my contributions. I find we've lost the critical mass of, I don't know, thoughtfulness? Those capable and willing to contribute something I'd learn from, and willing to critique my thoughts? This may just be a natural progression of a board like this, where there is no one person invested, responsible, deputized and actively working to maintain a high level of discourse. Dunno. It definitely takes someone with moral force demanding the high road, or maybe it's simply impossible.

I still like the sports comradarie, however, and will continue to try my best to kick all your butts. It certainly won't be nearly as fun without Toral's butt to kick, however.
 
216Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Tue, Jun 12, 2007, 18:46
Toral, you didn't offend me. I'm honestly not worried about it and I didn't give it much thought after I read it. The internet, and this board, is not my life like it seemingly is to other people around here (to each his own though); it's a recreation for me along with tattoos, investing, my quest for the perfect chili, videogames, and reading.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to type out term paper length posts. I contribute what I have time to contribute because I think political discussion and problem solving (like how to "go green") is good for the country. I prefer asking questions like I did about having gov't buildings install solar panels instead of debating SCOTUS cases because quite honestly I'd rather watch paint dry than get into legal symantics.

I say they bring nothing. Boxman claims to be a consultant. Based on his posts here, I would love to know who the Hell would ever hire Boxman to consult with, about anything. Who would allow a person with sub-normal intelligence, who is aggressive in his ignorance, to even be in the building?

The list of companies I have consulted for would most likely impress and probably "shock & awe" you based on your incorrect perception of me. They have ranged from members of the Fortune 100 to not-for-profits that you have certainly heard of and you would recognize without a problem. Currently I am at a high profile not-for-profit that is going thru a strategic change and it's pretty fun work. Whatever you think you think.

What caused me to ask you the question about the Bible is that I don't like to see people singled out and harped on about their religion; especially if they're Christians because of all the myriad of Christian sects. Whose to say who is right? Only God knows. I read the hate speech sent Baldwin's way by the likes of Tree and you and I don't think that's something people should be doing. I think religious intolerance is the root of a lot of evil in this world.

If Baldwin is a Jehoviah's Witness, I'm born again, and you are what you are, as long as we recognize Christ as our savior that unites us more than some other things divide us. (For the record, you could be a sun worshipper and it really wouldn't bother me.)

Enjoy your journey.
 
217Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Tue, Jun 12, 2007, 18:49
as long as we recognize Christ as our savior that unites us

LOL - might want to check with Baldwin on that one.
 
218Toral
      ID: 52621719
      Tue, Jun 12, 2007, 19:30
Thank you for your thoughts, Boxman. Very classy post.

I'm glad you weren't offended. I feel better.

I'm glad to hear that I was wrong about your consulting business. I wish you continued success with it.

You are born again? I must say that I haven't recognized that in your posts. I made a point of looking at quite a few of them. Quite possibly this was my error however.

Re Baldwin and Christ -- JWs do not believe that Jesus was divine. However Baldwin has said, when I have made this point in the past, that he recognizes Jesus's name as the only name by which people may be saved (a reference to Acts 4:12 or some similar verse).

By orthodox Christian views, JWs are heretics and cannot be saved because they disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity.

So JWs have zero chance of going to Heaven, according to orthodox Christian beliefs. And I am an orthodox Christian.

However if I was setting a morning line, I personally would make Baldwin an odds-on favourite, viewing the record of JW doctrine as what horseplayers call "false form", and viewing Baldwin as a contender having "back class". And if I was betting money, and given the odds against Baldwin that orthodox Christianity would set, I personally would bet on Baldwin with both hands. We will all eventually find out at the same time.

I am perhaps hyper about religion at the moment because of what is happening in the Anglican Church of Canada. At General Synod, which begins next Tuesday, there will be a vote on the legitimacy of (services of) blessing of same-sex unions. There has been much acrimony in preparation for this event. The Anglican Church of Canada has less command of its own rules than the Political Gurupie baseball league does. It has not been clear whether this decision would require a 50% plus one vote; or a two-thirds vote of all three houses (laymen, clergy, bishops). Logically it must be one or the other; but the Primate decided to split the difference with a political compromise -- require 60%. Sorry to bore you with these tedious details.

Short strokes: I live in the most liberal diocese in Canada, and it is quite possible that later this year, possibly as soon as a month from now, or maybe as late as a year from now, our bishop will break into our building, lock us out of our building, fire our wardens and minister, and appoint new ones. The congregation that is left will be insufficient to maintain a church, and so the bishop will declare our parish to be superfluous and sell the property on which the church building sits, possibly for a housing development. Our congregation will split -- not sure of the percentages; our initial vote has been 74-3 for orthodoxy, but when push comes to shove, the percentage may be maybe 2:1 leaving against staying (?), and the majority of us including me will be meeting for a while in a rented hotel room or empty office building. The damages in personal relationships will be huge. And it is quite possible that very soon after that, I will, technically, be a member of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, or of Uganda!

So I am very sensitive to doctrinal disputes that might seem not worth pursuing to others. They can have practical consequences.

Toral


 
219Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Tue, Jun 12, 2007, 20:05
You are born again? I must say that I haven't recognized that in your posts. I made a point of looking at quite a few of them. Quite possibly this was my error however.

No error on your part. I don't believe it was ever brought up or asked about. I am a born again Evangelical, which is probably a swear word to some around here, but so what. I don't consider myself to be a member of the stereotypical religious right because there is too much intolerance and craziness going on over there for me. I believe what's in the Bible to the best of my understanding and I accept Christ as my savior.

I can understand your concern about your church. Just keep in mind that it all belongs to God. It doesn't matter if you pray in a basement or in a stadium with thousands of people, He hears it. Actually, there are excerpts of the Bible that actually encourage private prayer instead of going to church and acting like a Pharissee. God is bigger than any church or place of worship and just let His Will be done.

Where I'm really going with the Baldwin thing is that he seems to get mobbed at times. Deservedly or not, it seems to be just him against the masses all the time and some of the criticism is bigoted and intolerant in nature. Disagree with politics or personal preference all day, but I just don't see the need for some of the insults slung his way. I understand he is no saint either, but I keep in mind that he's in a corner a lot of times and people are the most dangerous when they're in a corner.
 
220Toral
      ID: 52621719
      Tue, Jun 12, 2007, 20:10
Where I'm really going with the Baldwin thing is that he seems to get mobbed at times. Deservedly or not, it seems to be just him against the masses all the time and some of the criticism is bigoted and intolerant in nature. Disagree with politics or personal preference all day, but I just don't see the need for some of the insults slung his way. I understand he is no saint either, but I keep in mind that he's in a corner a lot of times and people are the most dangerous when they're in a corner.

I agree with the point about mobbing Baldwin. I don't do that. I believe the disfellowship of children issue is important enough to make a stand on.

Actually Baldwin does not lash out when he is a religious corner. Never has. In a political corner, yes.

Toral
 
221nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Wed, Jun 13, 2007, 16:41

PD 178 Also:

Gore approved NH backer to send $$$ to Obama


Duh of course he would approve money for Obama...

A) Anything to stop Clinton.

B) Because Obama will be his running mate.

 
222nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Wed, Jun 13, 2007, 16:43


Baldwin we don't baptise people too young to make an adult decision.

How old is "old enough to make an adult decision" i.e. how old is someone adult enough to be baptized?

 
223nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Wed, Jun 13, 2007, 17:12


Toral Conservatism has a distinguished pedigree, and you are the type of person that society tries to educate enough to be a contributing member of it.

You're not near there yet. Please go away, and take Jag with you.


The final quote about "please take Jag with you" has raised you several bars in my book.

There are only a few leftists, dozens of sheep-like liberals, the libertarians and other assorted cranks, and the conspiracy theorists.

Ok so the "libertarians" are the "cranks" but the conspiracy theorists are just "conspiracy theorists ".

What specifically about libertarians make them "cranks" aside from the fact they want to sell all the national parks, reduce taxes by 40% and stop invading countries that haven't attacked us?

I'm all ears.

So I am very sensitive to doctrinal disputes that might seem not worth pursuing to others. They can have practical consequences.

Practical consequences if you allow them to. What's wrong with a hotel room if it's your faith? What's wrong with the "church of Uganda" if they share your beliefs? We all bleed the same. The physical church is just a building, the belief of the heart is what's important...right?

As far as post 210...most board members feel the same, we don't make the same time for the posts we did in the past...it's not just conservatives, I don't even have time for the conspiracy posts anymore even though my opinions haven't wavered in 20+ years.

Life has moved on.

 
224Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Fri, Jun 29, 2007, 13:21
Taipei Times (c/o Captain's Quarters, nodding The Corner and Power Line):
ˇö ENVIRONMENT
Al Gore visit postponed
Former US vice president Al Gore will not be able to make it to Taiwan this September to address the issue of global warming, Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Tien Chiu-chin (ĚďÇďÝŔ) said yesterday. Tien, who invited Gore to visit Taiwan to promote awareness on global warming, told reporters yesterday that she received an e-mail from the Harry Walker Agency, which has the exclusive right to arrange Gore's speeches, saying that Gore had canceled all his scheduled events in the next six months. The visit to Taiwan had been postponed to next year, she added. Tien said the reason for the cancelation was that Gore was considering a presidential bid.

Captain Ed:
If this is accurate, it's the best indication that Gore will challenge Hillary for the top spot on the ticket. He has made it his mission to campaign worldwide against global warming, as well as making a living from at least some of his appearances. Cancelling six months of commitments clears him throught at least the start of the primary elections next year.

Of course, this could just be Gore's way of dumping the Taiwan appearance in a way that doesn't burn bridges. He could have decided not to irritate backers who want to concentrate on wheedling Beijing into changes, and a Taiwan appearance by Gore may have bruised some feelings in mainland China. The politics in that region have become very strained, and Beijing may have resented a challenge from Gore from the disputed island.

We should keep our eyes and ears open for other cancellations. If a rash of them suddenly appears, I think we will have our answer. Given the mood of the activists in the Democratic Party, Gore could give Hillary a real problem in the primaries -- and she might wind up at the bottom of the ticket.
 
225Perm Dude
      ID: 50549298
      Fri, Jun 29, 2007, 13:45
When Gore's name is put into the mix, nearly all his support is pulled from Clinton (which isn't a surprise to me--they represent some of the same interests).

Obama would, I think, be very pleased to see Gore in the race!
 
226biliruben
      ID: 35112816
      Fri, Jun 29, 2007, 14:18
I listened to a little bit of the Howard debates.

Clinton just grates. Maybe it's because everything she says just feels like she's cracking open a snac-pac of poll-pudding, or maybe it's just her lack of charisma, but I think it would be good for the party if she were somehow marginalized. Maybe Gore coming in would do it, or maybe she will start looking charismatic in comparison!
 
227Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Fri, Jun 29, 2007, 20:34
I still think that Gore is the Republican best last hope in 2008
 
228Baldwin
      ID: 125312919
      Fri, Jun 29, 2007, 21:24
Prepare for a very revealing E-mail in the next day or two, Toral. 8] Stuff I just don't owe every last person here.

Nerve

We discourage marriage between people still 'in the bloom of youth' for the same reason we discourage young baptisms. They are still making big changes in their personalities and do not have 'set' personalities. It isn't at all anything we rush the young into, just the opposite. You'd be amazed at just what mature spiritual people some of our young become, however. It can be difficult to deny them.

 
229Baldwin
      ID: 125312919
      Fri, Jun 29, 2007, 21:33
My son who was disfellowshipped for example was 23 when he was baptised, the same year he was married.
 
230Doug
      ID: 113132214
      Fri, Jun 29, 2007, 23:33
Gore is not running in 2008. Period.
 
231Wilmer McLean
      ID: 46528303
      Sat, Jun 30, 2007, 04:50
How history turns:

Nixon in 1960 and 1968,

Gore in 2000 and 2008.

Very interesting.
 
232nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Sat, Jun 30, 2007, 09:39


billi
Clinton just grates. Maybe it's because everything she says
just feels like she's cracking open a snac-pac of poll-pudding,
or maybe it's just her lack of charisma, but I think it would be
good for the party if she were somehow marginalized. Maybe
Gore coming in would do it, or maybe she will start looking
charismatic in comparison!


I completely agree about your points concerning Hillary. As far
as Gore goes I felt the same when I wrote my earlier post but
have since read that he has spent a good part of the last 8 years
working on his public speaking skills and we would not see the
same boring Robot who even so won the presidential election in
2000.

 
233nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Sat, Jun 30, 2007, 09:53


MBJ I still think that Gore is the Republican best last hope
in
2008


I find it curious you would say this. He should have won the
election in 2000 (losing on a pure voting ballot problem
technicality), and since then he has only improved his public
perception.

He's a better public speaker now.

He's won an Oscar.

He's become a very successful businessman raising his net
worth by close to 100 million since leaving office. (Not just by
speaking)

He was right about his opposition to Iraq unlike others who
voted for it.

He was ahead of the curve on global warming (Whether it's real
or not, most people believe it, Limbaugh not withstanding)

Most Americans can look at the last 8 years and realize we
would have been better off had he won, I mean anyone would
have done better then Bush.

Why would he be a weaker candidate then the one who should
have won the election in 2000?

By the way I'm not trying to turn this into a "who really won in
2000" thread high jack. Just my completely honest opinion that I
have to include in the context of the possible 2008 candidate
Gore.

You are allowed to disregard that point and continue to believe
Bush actually won without changing the focus of the thread or
my points.


 
235soxzeitgeist
      ID: 49511308
      Sat, Jun 30, 2007, 10:14
RE: the tone and content of 210, 211, 215 etc.

I was practically moved to tears when I read these posts. Ok, not
really, but it was definitely an "ahha" moment.
I haven't been a good citizen of the RotoGuru community since
last year, ostensibly because life kind of crept in with big
changes in tow - marriage, a difficult decision to leave a career I
was passionate about in return for one that better pays the bills
but is less rewarding and more time consuming, a traumatic
accident and the loss of a good decades-long friend to his
addictions.

But even without those events, the shine had started to wear
off a while before. I'd made conscious decisions to steer clear in
the past, but even then lurked virtually every day, and
sometimes even had to stop myself from getting pulled into a
thread. But that was less and less of a "problem" the last 12 or
14 months - my interest in the issues wasn't any less keen, just
my desire to participate in the vapid flame-fest that we had
created. I figured it was just me, and I'm pleased to no end to
see that figures from both sides of the aisle, whose posts I most
looked forward to reading (even if I disagreed) fell the same way.

Maybe this will be a new start for me/us insofar as participation
is concerned. Not that I'm implying that my posts are "general
excellence" award winners, but if the underlying shift and
attitude is swinging back towards (or towards for the first time,
who knows?) quality discourse, it will be fun - and challenging -
to be here again.

I certainly hope so.
 
236Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Sat, Jun 30, 2007, 13:29
nerve - Given the situation in 2000, the popularity of Clinton, the appealing state of the economy, etc - the fact the 2000 election was even close is a testament to the unelectablity of Gore.


He's won an Oscar.

If you think the fact that Hollywood is firmly behind him helps him win votes in Tampa or Charlotte or Louisville,, well......
 
237Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sat, Jun 30, 2007, 15:11
Do Edwards, Obama and Hillary fair any better in the southeast?

Its still very early but Hillary's campaign has not been very strong. I don't know at all that she'd be a more electable Dem nominee than Gore.

I think she may be the Repubs' best hope in 2008. I agree that it doesn't look like anyone from their field could fit the bill - with the possible exception of Thompson.
 
238Perm Dude
      ID: 555593010
      Sat, Jun 30, 2007, 15:22
Thompson's buildup will be a noose around his neck. He'll be down in flames not long after he starts.
 
239Doug
      ID: 113132214
      Sat, Jun 30, 2007, 15:54
I'm still on McCain's mailing list from way back in the day when I appreciated his political positions... his strong shift to the right in the run-up to the '08 campaign violated one of the things I liked most about him previously... that he seemed to stick to his principles regardless of the political cost.

ANYWAY, the point is that yesterday I got an email from his campaign attempting soliciting a donation prior to the June 30 deadline. It was very short and to the point. I'll do my best to recreate it here:

There are many reasons to support John McCain, but as we approach this quarter's fundraising deadline Saturday at midnight, let me remind you of just one of them...

John McCain is the only candidate
who can defeat Hillary Clinton.


And it goes on from there briefly from there requesting a donation. I thought it was interesting because this early in a primary, to be playing the anti-Hilary card to drum up support/donations, when she's far from assured of the Democratic nomination... it just reeked of desperation to me. I was honestly really surprised by it.

It got me thinking, I might sign up for all of the leading candidates newsletters from both sides, so I can see what they have to say and how they are conducting their campaign... and maybe even put up a website with screenshots of each campaign's literature for analysis and comparative criticism purposes.
 
240Doug
      ID: 113132214
      Sat, Jun 30, 2007, 15:59
Oh, and the blue underlined text was a link to McCain's donation page. I was naively expecting a link to some news article that would contrast McCain against the other Republican candidates in how they differ from Hillary, or perhaps some recent polling data where they did "Hillary vs. Guiliani" and "Hillary vs. Romney" and "Hillary vs. McCain" and he was the only one to come out on top... SOMETHING like that. But no, nothing. Just a completely unfounded blanket statement.

So kudos, McCain campaign, kudos. If it worked for Bush (WMDs, Iraq = Al Qaeda, etc.) then it'll work for you... just keep repeating your mantra louder and more frequently so more people will buy into it, subconsciously or otherwise. Nice work.
 
241Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Jun 30, 2007, 18:21
A Better than Fair Day
By Fred Thompson
Friday, June 29, 2007


Yesterday was a good day. Talk radio, along with the blogs, helped block an immigration bill that the American people overwhelmingly opposed. Then, a congressman, who is also an ex-radio talk show host, managed to get a “yes” vote on language in a House bill that could permanently stop those who want to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine.

We've been hearing threats to use the obsolete Fairness Doctrine to go after talk radio ever since the left-leaning talk radio network, Air America, failed. Ironically, I think Air America might have had a shot if its target audience hadn’t already been served so well by many in the mainstream media. But regardless, giving the government veto power over radio stations' programming decisions is wrong. I don't think forcing the one sector of the media where conservatives have a clear voice to provide equal time to liberals is the American way. At the very least, it has a chilling effect on station owners.

I understand how the left feels though. For most of my life, the big broadcast television networks and almost all the major newspapers and magazines presented only one side of a lot of issues. Talk radio is a relatively small part of a bigger media picture, but I imagine it aggravates the new congressional majority to hear their opposition’s arguments without the old filters.

I would remind them, though, that a few Republicans were elected even when the entire mainstream media was painting us as heartless Neanderthals. I would also remind the current congressional leadership that they managed to win the last election despite talk radio.

Americans are smart enough to recognize news that’s biased -- even when journalists pretend they’re not. New polls show that more than seven in 10 people recognize that the news comes with an agenda. So maybe we should welcome a new Fairness Doctrine. We could start by requiring that every broadcast television news show be co-anchored by both a liberal and conservative; and all major newspaper staff be evenly divided.

Not much chance of that happening. Nor should it in a free country -- but I'll tell you something that those who want to control the media apparently don't know. Everyday, more people are listening to streaming radio on the Web and downloading podcasts. Some popular talk shows skip radio altogether and go straight to the Internet. You can even hear talk shows on Web-enabled telephones if you want, and that will get much easier and cheaper quickly.

If the current stars of talk were pushed off the radio dial, they'd get their audiences anyway. The era of controllable media is over, and nothing will ever bring it back.
 
242Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Jun 30, 2007, 18:39
Hillary Clinton’s ‘Patriotic’ Tax Hike
By Amanda Carpenter
Friday, June 29, 2007



Just in time for the Fourth of July holiday, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y) equated higher taxes with patriotism during the third nationally-televised Democratic Presidential debate Thursday evening.

When asked if she believed Americans were paying enough taxes, Clinton praised billionaire U.S. investor Warren Buffett because, as she said, “He’s honest enough to say, look, tax me because I’m a patriotic American.”

She went on, “We have to change the tax system and we’ve got to get back to having those with the most contribute to this country.”

Buffett made headlines earlier this week when he said the wealthy should pay more taxes at a Manhattan fundraiser for Clinton’s campaign with a $4,600 per person admission fee. Clinton raised $1 million at the event.

Because Buffett is the son of a former Republican U.S. Congressman from Nebraska, Clinton asked Buffett why he was a Democrat. He replied that Republicans were more likely to think "I’m making $80 million a year, God must have intended me to have a lower tax rate."

Buffett said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 percent.”

After reflecting on that conversation, Clinton concluded at the debate, "So, yes, we have to change the tax system. And we've got to get back to having those with the most contribute to this country."

Clinton also said that she would raise taxes to prevent the outsourcing of U.S. jobs. She pledged she would “end the tax breaks that still exist in the tax code for outsourcing jobs,” as well as enforce trade agreements with stricter labor and environmental standards and increase job training.

“Global warming would create millions of new jobs for Americans,” said Clinton.

The debate was held in Washington, D.C. at Howard University, a historically black college. It was hosted by PBS and was moderated by television and radio personality Tavis Smiley.

Before introducing the candidates, Smiley explained the purpose of the debate: “It’s called the All-American (that means you) Presidential Forum. We call it that because it’s about time we had a debate that focused on the issues that affect all of us including those of us who happen to be black and brown.”

Clinton received great applause for the thoughts she shared about the AIDS rate among American women. ?"If HIV/AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outraged outcry in this country," she said.

“I’m working to get Medicaid to cover treatment,” she said. “I'm working to raise the budget for Ryan White, which the Bush administration has kept flat, disgracefully so. Because there are a lot of women particularly who are becoming infected in poor rural areas, as well as under-served urban areas in states where, frankly, their state governments won't give them medical care.”

During the debate, Clinton managed to plug her 1996 child-rearing bestseller, “It Takes a Village.” When asked why the unemployment rates of black high school graduates was 33 percent higher than an unemployment rate for white high school dropouts, Clinton replied, “Well, I really believe that it takes a village to raise a child, and the American village has failed our children.”
 
243walk
      ID: 2530286
      Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 08:47
July 4, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Fireworks for Former First Lady and Future First Lad
By MAUREEN DOWD


Hillary looks over at her husband.

He’s in a pretty good mood. He just finished a grilled chicken sandwich from the Dairy Queen near Grinnell, and as a reward for eating healthy, she gave him a bite of her Snickers Blizzard. Crowds all over Iowa have been clamoring for him. Here in the privacy of their black S.U.V., driving through flat Iowa farmland with the press bus trailing, she senses an opportune moment to iron out a few wrinkles.

As Bill works on The New York Times crossword puzzle, Hill tugs on the sleeve of his black shirt in what she hopes is a playful manner.

“Sweetie,” she says, smiling brightly. “Everything’s going really well. You abide by your five-minute limit and talk only about me. You’re still having a little trouble getting that adoring smile down. In fact, on our first stop you actually looked bored and fidgety while I was talking. But I think we solved that problem today by having you leave the stage as soon as I start speaking. If you can just refrain from looking so longingly at the microphone, our pas de deux will be perfect!”

Her smile fades. “Of course,” she frowns, “there was that awkward moment when I said Bush should not have commuted Scooter Libby’s sentence because he was elevating cronyism over the rule of law, and there you were, Mr. Elevate-Cronyism-Over-The-Rule-of-Law, sitting on a stool right behind me in that look-at-me Crayola yellow shirt, reminding everyone of that passel of pardons you sneaked in under the wire, including one for that fugitive tax-evader Marc Rich, whose ex-wife was your fund-raiser and whose lawyer was — can it get any worse? — Scooter Libby! And as soon as we get out of cow country, you’ve got to start dialing for dollars. How could that pest Obama outraise us by $10 million?”

Bill looks dolefully at her, his pen poised in midair. “What’s a seven-letter word for ball-and-chain,” he asks. “Hillary?”

“ ‘Partner,’ ” she replies briskly. “Now listen, Bill, this is important. Everyone’s asking what your role in my administration will be, and I think it’s time we figure that out.”

“Oh, baby,” he says, taking her hand. “Don’t fret over me. I’ll be as happy as a tick on Al Gore. I’ll resolve some little conflicts here and there, stop some genocides, powwow with Tony Blair in the Green Zone. Maybe I’ll be U.N. Secretary General, or some little thing like that.

“You focus on the big stuff, sweetcakes. I’ll just be hanging with Vernon in the East Wing, or maybe in a suite at Blair House, organizing some spouse retreats. I think I could learn a lot from Cécilia Sarkozy. French, after all, is the language of diplomacy. And I could do some bipartisan outreach with, oh, I don’t know, maybe Fred Thompson’s wife? She seems smart.”

“You know, hon,” Hillary says, shaking off his hand. “Hillaryland has some ideas about Billville.”

“I have ideas, too,” he interrupts, excitedly. “I can redecorate the family quarters, get Kaki Hokersmith to come by with some leopard-skin swatches, get rid of all that boring stuff Laura Bush brought in after we left. Put up my Salma Hayek poster. Maybe have an open bar in the Lincoln Bedroom. Call it Club Mandela.

“I’ve been the first black president, the first female president and now I’m going to be the first man who’s First Lady, with my own staff of ladies — ”

“BILL!” Hillary shouts. “Enough! Hillaryland has spoken. You’re not going to have your own office in the East Wing or your own staff there. And don’t even think of pulling a Cheney and destroying the visitor logs. We’re going to set up a desk for you in the Oval. In Hillaryland, we say: Keep your friends close but your husband closer. You’ll have a nice little room of your own in the pantry. You were, after all, the guy who put the pant in pantry.”

“That sounds great, my little Arkansas watermelon,” he coos. “I love the time I spend with your big gang of chicks. But alas, I’ll have to be out of the country a lot of the time as your roving ambassador.”

“Speaking of roving, don’t even think about going on your Hollywood rat pack’s planes after I’m elected,” she snaps. “Strictly Air Force for you, mister, with extra federal marshals. You promised me two terms after your two terms, and I’m not going to get that if you’re caught Burkling or Binging. And Hillaryland wants you to use the title Mr. Ambassador after the corona— , I mean, inauguration. Two presidents in one White House will be too confusing.”

Her voice softening, she asks, “Do you know what your First Lad project will be?”

“ ‘Just Say Yes?’ ” he proffers. Going back to his crossword puzzle, he asks, “Do you know an eight-letter word for `loving wife?’ ”

“Overlord,” she replies, smiling lovingly.
 
244Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 08:53
“Oh, baby,” he says, taking her hand. “Don’t fret over me. I’ll be as happy as a tick on Al Gore. I’ll resolve some little conflicts here and there, stop some genocides...

Yeah, like Rwanda.
 
245walk
      ID: 2530286
      Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 09:03
Geesh! It's a satire and you are further criticizing the people being criticized?
 
246Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 09:28
I just found that specific comment to be humorous in a sick way.
 
247walk
      ID: 2530286
      Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 09:44
Got it.
 
248Perm Dude
      ID: 3164859
      Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 12:18
Fred Thompson as Nixon mole?
 
249Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 06:20
Giuliani Jeered for Opposing Fair Tax

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani ran into a buzz saw of opposition Saturday when he explained his opposition to elimination of the federal income tax and replacing it with a so-called "fair tax" based on consumption.

Giuliani addressed a group of about 500 people in a standing-room only crowd at a town hall meeting at the University of North Florida, answering questions for about 30 minutes on a variety of topics from Iraq and Iran to Social Security and his plan for tax cuts.

"I have to study it some more," the former New York City mayor said. "I don't think a fair tax is realistic change for America. Our economy is dependent upon the way our tax system operates."

"Fair tax" proposals would abolish federal income taxes and other federal taxes and replace them with a form of national sales tax.

Giuliani emphasized he supported a simplified tax system and cuts in federal taxes, including elimination of the so-called death tax, but his response to the fair tax question brought some cat calls and jeers. "I have a real question whether it would be the right transition for our economy," he said.

"I am disappointed in him," said Ken Mertz of Fernandia Beach, who was wearing a "Fair Tax" hat. "But he did say he would look into it."

At a news conference after his speech, Giuliani said taxes would go down under his presidency, saying his philosophy was different from the Democrats. "They want to see them go up," he said.

In response to another question, Giuliani warned against pulling out of Iraq, saying it would create a country run by terrorists. And he said Iran should be kept from getting nuclear weapons.

"No way, no how should Iran be a nuclear power," he said.

Giuliani was serving as grand marshal at the Daytona International Speedway's Pepsi 400 later Saturday.

___

GREENVILLE, S.C. (AP) _ New Mexico governor and presidential candidate Bill Richardson urged South Carolina Democrats on Saturday to avoid making a hasty decision before next year's primary race.

Richardson met with about 100 party activists as part of a two-day swing through the early primary state.

"My only message here is don't make a decision based on who raises the most money, who has the greatest political pedigree ... but who has the best vision for America," he said. "Don't let the media tell you who the next president will be."

Richardson's campaign reported raising $7 million in the year's second quarter, more than he raised in the first, but far behind Illinois Sen. Barack Obama ($31 million), New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton ($21 million) and South Carolina native John Edwards ($9 million).

Richardson, a former ambassador to the United Nations and energy secretary under Bill Clinton, listed his priorities as president including removing U.S. troops from Iraq "within a short period" and holding direct talks with Iran and Syria.

"They're bad folks," he said. "But you don't have peace talks with your friends."

Richardson also said he would set a fuel-efficiency goal of 50 miles per gallon as part of an energy plan to make the nation less dependent on foreign oil while improving the environment.

___

DAVENPORT, Iowa (AP) _ The Davenport campaign headquarters for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was burglarized Friday night.

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, said two laptop computers and some campaign literature were taken. A campaign worker discovered the burglary Saturday morning, and a report was filed with Davenport police.

"It doesn't appear that it was anything sensitive or irreplaceable," Vietor said.
 
250Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 06:25
Edwards Says Votes Count, Not Money

Presidential hopeful John Edwards said Saturday he's raising enough money to compete in the early states and invoked Howard Dean's 2004 fundraising totals as a cautionary tale.

"Money will not decide who the nominee's going to be," Edwards said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Everyone will remember Governor Dean who outraised everyone else by more than 2-to-1 and wasn't able to win the nomination."

Edwards' campaign reported it raised $9 million from April through June. It's a shortfall compared to Sens. Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton _ his top rivals who best him both in the polls and fundraising tallies.

"I like very much where I am," Edwards said, taking a break from his three-day vacation with his wife and two youngest children. "Among the three of us, I'm the underdog. I'm fighting. I like that place. It's always worked very well for me. That's the story of my life."

Edwards said he's on pace to run the $40 million campaign through the early states.

"We have at least three presidential candidates on the Democratic side who have plenty money to run a serious campaign in the early states, where the nomination will be decided," Edwards said. "We will have plenty of money. We'll have more money than we had last time, a good bit more."

"We don't want to discourage anybody from giving," Elizabeth Edwards said, interrupting him.

"We'll have more than John Kerry had last time when he won the nomination," her husband added.

Edwards was Kerry's vice presidential pick in that failed campaign. He said his party will pick a nominee smartly.

"Democrats want to win. This is not an intellectual exercise for us. We want to make sure we nominate somebody that can win the general election and win the White House," John Edwards said.

Elizabeth Edwards said part of that process should be listening to the candidates and not just looking at them.

"You look at the Democratic field and there's a lot of extremely attractive people. But if you spend time talking about how attractive they are, it almost diminishes what they're saying," she said.

"You shouldn't be talking about that. I'll complain about it for anybody. I'd much rather have you talk, not about how they look and what they're wearing or how attractive they are, but what it is they have to say. That's what's going to matter, their rationale for being president, what it is they're going to do. That's what is going to matter in the long run."

The Edwardses are vacation in New Hampshire's Lakes Region, borrowing the cottage of a state senator and supporter. Earlier in the day, the Edwards clan went fishing, visited a firefighters' competition and a fed trout in a pond. The stops were not campaign events; Edwards wore jeans and a T-shirt, not his typical button-down campaign trail uniform.

"There's never a complete break, you know. This is about as relaxed as it can be during a presidential campaign," John Edwards said. "That just goes with the territory. We knew this already. We've been through this before."

His two children, Jack and Emma Claire, ran through the crowds, ate their hamburgers and hot-dogs.

"I think they understand it. They understand what's at stake," John Edwards said. "They like traveling. They're very flexible, They're very adjustable. They love being around people. They're not that excited about hearing mom or dad give another speech. That part they can deal without."

Their parents walked with them through the field where firefighters tested their skills with water challenges and other competitions.

"I've got to choose how I'm going to spend my days," said Elizabeth, who has announced her cancer has returned in a tougher variety. "If I'm willing to spend them this way, it's because I believe that John is not only should be the candidate, but will be the nominee."

She said she's doing well.

"I feel strong and healthy. I'm still not fast enough to keep up with these kids," Elizabeth said.

"Nobody is," her husband said.

(This guy just makes me puke. Whether it's the apparent leveraging of his wife's condition, that he said in court that a dead baby "speaks thru him", or his general persona. From my POV the worst thing that happens is that this guy wins.)
 
251Tree
      ID: 5663688
      Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 10:20
from the article above:
Elizabeth Edwards said part of that process should be listening to the candidates and not just looking at them.

"You look at the Democratic field and there's a lot of extremely attractive people. But if you spend time talking about how attractive they are, it almost diminishes what they're saying," she said.


from Boxman's post that contained the article:
(This guy just makes me puke. Whether it's the apparent leveraging of his wife's condition, that he said in court that a dead baby "speaks thru him", or his general persona. From my POV the worst thing that happens is that this guy wins.)

apparently, Elizabeth Edwards nailed it.
 
252Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 15:01
Tree: It is just amazing how in every thread, every topic, every discussion you just come off as a partisan apologist buffoon.
 
253Tree
      ID: 5663688
      Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 15:52
Boxman - how so?

Elizabeth Edwards was clearly saying that people need to concentrate on the issues, and not more superficial issues.

and then, in the post, you managed to clearly state your disgust for a candidate, not on his view of the issues, but for more superficial reasons.
 
254Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 16:25
Even Elizabeth Edwards must know her husband is full of s#it. How can you not at least acknowledge that?

I don't deny that I'm Republican and there's a 90% chance I'll vote for the one in the general election, but at least I listen to what the Democratic candidates have to say.

Edwards on the other hand is an enormous POS. He could say 2+2=4 and somebody should have it fact checked because he's such a schiester.

I don't know how anyone could support this guy and say they think he's good for this country. I can understand, even though I don't agree, with the argument for Obama and a handful of candidates on either side. Edwards is the one, that I just don't see how ANYONE votes for.
 
255Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 16:29
John Kerry even spotted this bulls#it artist.

Kerry & Edwards

Kerry talked with several potential picks, including Gephardt and Edwards. He was comfortable after his conversations with Gephardt, but even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again. When they did, Kerry tried to get a better personal feel for his potential number two; as rivals for national office since 2000, shortly after Edwards had entered the Senate, the two men hadn't spent a lot of time together. Kerry also wanted a specific reassurance. He asked Edwards for a commitment that if he was chosen and the ticket lost, Edwards wouldn't run against him in 2008. Edwards agreed "absolutely," as Kerry recalled him saying. If Kerry had shared this at the time, I would have told him what I did later: it was naive to think he could rely on a promise like that. Unlike Joe Lieberman, who'd been plucked from relative obscurity by Gore, Edwards had made his own mark in the primaries. He was ambitious—and if he saw his chance the next time, he was likely to go for it.
 
256Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 16:47
Hillary's Strategist
By Robert D. Novak
Saturday, July 7, 2007



WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Clinton is facing increasing Democratic criticism for using Mark Penn as her presidential campaign's chief strategist while he also serves as CEO of Burson-Marsteller, the public relations giant with corporate clients whose policies run opposite to Clinton's.

Clients include Royal Dutch Shell (attacked by Clinton for "windfall profits"), as well as tobacco and pharmaceutical firms with records she has deplored. Penn was a key operative in President Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign and continued as a second-term adviser.

A footnote: Penn criticized Bloomberg News, which has reported on conflicts between Burson-Marsteller and the Clinton campaign, for obtaining "several months" of Penn's internal blogs. On June 29, a former employee who started a rival firm filed suit in New York City against Penn for monitoring his personal e-mails.

Obama Aloof

Newcomers among some 30 reporters who followed Sen. Barack Obama's campaign to Iowa this past week were surprised how little contact they had with the Democratic presidential candidate over two days.

Obama traveled in an SUV, at first alone and later with his family. No reporter ever entered the SUV, and Obama never visited the bus containing the reporters. One scheduled press availability was trimmed to 10 minutes.

A footnote: Obama's aloofness contrasted with Bill Clinton, accompanying Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in Iowa the same week. At the Dairy Treat in Nashua, Iowa, the former president whipped out $60 and bought malts for reporters following his wife.

McCain's Decline

Just before Sen. John McCain drastically reduced his presidential campaign staff, he finished fifth in the straw vote conducted at Hershey, Pa., June 30 during the summer conference of Pennsylvania's Republican State Committee.

Rudy Giuliani was first with 87 votes, ahead of unannounced candidate Fred Thompson's 40. McCain was favored by only seven straw voters, also finishing behind Mitt Romney and non-candidate Newt Gingrich.

McCain had been scheduled to attend the Hershey meeting but cancelled because the Senate was debating the immigration bill.

Investigating Cheney

The narrowly defeated attempt in the House June 28 to block funds for Vice President Dick Cheney's home upkeep and other expenses was voted against by two of the chamber's most powerful Democrats: Rep. David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and Rep. John Murtha, an Appropriations subcommittee chairman and an influential adviser of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

That surprised House Democrats who considered the proposal a party matter because it was introduced by Rep. Rahm Emanuel, House Democratic Caucus chairman. The amendment to the Financial Services appropriations bill followed Cheney's continuing resistance to congressional efforts to extract information from him. It failed, 217 to 209, with 24 Democrats opposing it.

Obey and Murtha did not explain their votes. But as Appropriations "Cardinals," they generally oppose floor amendments to spending bills. While most of the other Democrats voting no were moderates, they also included left-wing Rep. Jim McDermott. His spokesman told this column McDermott "had questions about the impact" of the proposal. McDermott followed his vote with a floor speech calling for Cheney's impeachment.

Dole's private polls put her favorability level at 59 percent, compared with President Bush's 42 percent. Republican insiders attribute that mostly to her opposing the immigration bill backed by Bush. Thanks to effective second quarter fund-raising (at a level not yet announced), Dole is sitting on an estimated $2 million. She previously had been criticized as an ineffective first-term senator, mainly because of her national chairmanship of the failed 2006 Senate campaign.

Gov. Michael Easley, the strongest potential Democratic challenger so far, has resisted pleas that he run. Dole's war chest may discourage lesser-known Democrats. But State Rep. Grier Martin, an Iraq war veteran, has family money for a possible candidacy.
 
257Tree
      ID: 5663688
      Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 16:57
Edwards on the other hand is an enormous POS. He could say 2+2=4 and somebody should have it fact checked because he's such a schiester.

shyster.

again, you're failing to see the irony in your post. i couldn't make it any clearer than i already did, but yet, you keep compounding the irony, as you continue to dwell on your personal beliefs regarding Edwards, and still, not one mention on his stance in various issues.

your post very clearly had Elizabeth Edwards begging for people to address the issues, and not the individuals. you, still, can't manage to do that.
 
258Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 17:06
WHY do you think Elizabeth Edwards is saying that?

By the way, using the old spellcheck critique is pretty sad.
 
259katietx
      ID: 25520216
      Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 17:25
Thompson is the man that Democrats fear most.

The Next Reagan (food for thought)
By Bruce Walker

Two months ago, I wrote an article, The Next Reagan, in which I
outlined many of the reasons why Fred Thompson will be the next Ronald Reagan.
Events since then have confirmed my arguments. I predict that Fred
Thompson will enter the Republican nomination, that he will win it fairly
easily, and that he will also defeat Hillary comfortably in the
presidential election. Why?

First, no Republican since Ronald Reagan draws remotely as much genuine
enthusiasm among conservatives as a serious presidential candidate.
Both of the Bush presidencies have been mild disappointments. Though
respect for our current commander-in-chief is high, President Bush is simply
not an effective communicator or articulator of conservative
principles. President Bush, however, is light years ahead of Senator Dole, the
1996 nominee, and also better as a communicator and campaigner than his
father. That is how bad things have been for conservatives since the
Gipper left the White House. Fred Thompson, in stark contrast, is a
phenomenal communicator. His background as a film and television star
combines perfectly with his background as a very persuasive trial lawyer so
that he is not only comfortable in front of the camera or at the
microphone, but his skills in rhetoric are unequaled in any major political
figure since Senator Robert Taft over fifty years ago.

Second, Thompson has always walked the walk on ethical issues. When he
was Republican counsel in the Watergate hearings - the same hearings in
which Hillary cut her teeth in politics as a Democrat - Fred Thompson
did not tolerate the corruption of the Nixon Administration. He can
effectively point out that both Hillary and he were on the same side in
opposing corruption when it was his political party that had problems.
Thompson also, though, was unrelenting in his opposition to the corruption
of the Clinton Administration and stood out as the lone Republican
senator with real guts during the impeachment trial of Clinton. The
combination of these two principled stands will allow Thompson to relentlessly
condemn Hillary as an accomplice in her husband's thoroughly corrupt
eight years in office, to ask her point-blank about how she became the
best investor in America (with no experience), and otherwise to do more
than simply suggest that Hillary is a liar, a hypocrite and a bully.

Third, Thompson would unite the whole leadership of the Republican
Party. No one dislikes him and almost everyone likes him. Although some
conservatives may worry about his friendship and past support for John
McCain, the critical fact is that friendship is reciprocated: McCain would
be a very active and passionate supporter of Fred Thompson in the
presidential election. In the interview Levin asked about his friendship
with McCain and McCain’s position on illegal immigration. He acknowledged
his good friend but said that McCain was dead wrong on his stand on
illegal immigration.

Fourth, the rap on Thompson is that he was 'lazy' when he was in the
Senate. This is precisely the same sort of rap that Leftists made about
Ronald Reagan. In fact, this is a strength. Because Thompson acts from
principle, he does not need to engage in the Machiavellian machinations
which pass for 'work' in Washington. The reality is that it is absurd
to consider Thompson, who has worked during his life in more real jobs
than almost any politician in Washington and who today stars in two
television programs as well as being the substitute for Paul Harvey and a
frequent commentator in conservative periodicals as 'lazy' at all. Like
Reagan, he probably works harder than anyone in Washington.

Fifth, because he was an extremely popular Tennessee senator, Thompson
would completely sweep the South, including problematic states like
Arkansas, Florida and Virginia. Thompson, like Reagan, is one of the few
modern candidates who has true regional drawing power. Thompson, though,
would run very strongly in swing states outside the South like Ohio,
Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon and New Hampshire. His appeal to truly
independent and undecided voters is real.

Sixth, Thompson cannot be demonized. His whole life has been a study in
how the American Dream works. His blue collar background, his constancy
of moral purpose, his lack of ambition for power for its own sake, his
palpable decency - all of these will make anyone who tries to slime him
look awful and any attempt will backfire in sympathetic support for
him.

Seventh, because Thompson cannot be hurt in the usual ways that
Leftists hurt conservative Republicans, Hillary will have to campaign him on
the issues. This will create an insurmountable problem for her because,
like all Leftists, Hillary has no stands on any issues. She just wants
power. Thompson just wants what is best for America. We have our
Reagan.
 
260Tree
      ID: 5663688
      Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 17:33
By the way, using the old spellcheck critique is pretty sad.

i wasn't critiquing you at all. i made no comment regarding the spelling - as i've spelled plenty of things incorrectly myself - and instead, just made the correct spelling.

WHY do you think Elizabeth Edwards is saying that?

because of people like you who continually to look at anything other than the issues?
 
261Perm Dude
      ID: 13652810
      Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 17:39
I sincerely hope Thompson becomes the Republican candidate. He would be torn apart in the general election.
 
262Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 19:03
I question Thompson's sincerity. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if this all turns out to be a mental masturbation exercise on his part.

There is a strategic value to holding out like he has because it allows him to stockpile money and gives the competition and the talking heads less soundbites to criticize him over.

With all that, the most important decision in the world, IMHO, is done every four years in this country via electing the President of the United States. I would rather the job go to a sincere dedicated person that truly wants it and will do good, regardless of party, than have a conservative win and gets the job only because he doesn't have a TV drama to shoot during the week.

I want Thompson to show me that HE wants it before I take him very seriously. Right now he's an intriguing novelty item.

Tree: because of people like you who continually to look at anything other than the issues?

You have to take persona into account; at least I do. Take Thompson as an example. He could tell the free world in one of his blog columns all the things that I want to hear: that he would seek to limit abortions via states rights, lessen gun control laws, lower taxes for everyone, shrink the size of the federal government, mandate a balanced budget, take energy policy reform seriously (none of this x% less dependency by some arbitrary year when I'm old and gray) and if I don't think he really wants the job I won't vote for him.

Truth be told, if it comes down to Obama (as an example) vs. Thompson and if Thompson doesn't convince me he really wants the job and takes it seriously; I'll either stay home (unlikely), vote for Obama, or not vote in the President category.

You know as I that this country has serious problems, some that this administration inherited and some more that they caused as their own fault. I want a serious problem solver in there that will at least lose sleep over the same issues that a lot of American families lose sleep over.

Think about this. We have a thread dedicated to 9/11 conspiracy. I don't think guys like nerveclinic, Baldwin, and Building 7 are goofy or anything. In fact, they are probably very patriotic to the United States. Yet, isn't it sad that a topic like that has to be discussed? Why does that have to discussed? Because people don't think the government works for them anymore. That is what pi$$es me off.
 
263Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 20:41
Boxman 250
Whether it's the apparent leveraging of his wife's condition, that he said in court that a dead baby "speaks thru him"

Would you please offer an example of Edwards "apparently leveraging his wife's condition"?

Also, I'm very curious about where you learned that Edwards claimed a dead baby spoke through him. Please provide the source of that information.

You had to hear that somewhere, please do provide your source.

This sentence of yours makes it patently obvious that when you say, "at least I listen to what the Democratic candidates have to say", what you really mean is that you listen to what right wing hacks say about what Democrats say. I'd like to know exactly which disinformation outlets you trust for propaganda.
 
264Wilmer McLean
      ID: 4762720
      Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 21:44
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE NORTH CAROLINA SENATOR; In Trial Work, Edwards Left A Trademark

NY Times

By ADAM LIPTAK AND MICHAEL MOSS
Published: January 31, 2004

In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl.

Referring to an hour-by-hour record of a fetal heartbeat monitor, Mr. Edwards told the jury: "She said at 3, 'I'm fine.' She said at 4, 'I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing O.K.' Five, she said, 'I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, 'I need out.' "

But the obstetrician, he argued in an artful blend of science and passion, failed to heed the call. By waiting 90 more minutes to perform a breech delivery, rather than immediately performing a Caesarean section, Mr. Edwards said, the doctor permanently damaged the girl's brain.

"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

...

On the other side, insurance companies, business groups that support what they call tort reform and conservative commentators have accused Mr. Edwards of relying on questionable science in his trial work. Indeed, there is a growing medical debate over whether the changes have done more harm than good. Studies have found that the electronic fetal monitors now widely used during delivery often incorrectly signal distress, prompting many needless Caesarean deliveries, which carry the risks of major surgery.

The rise in such deliveries, to about 26 percent today from 6 percent in 1970, has failed to decrease the rate of cerebral palsy, scientists say. Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins.

An examination of Mr. Edwards's legal career also opens a window onto the world of personal injury litigation. In building his career, Mr. Edwards underbid other lawyers to win promising clients, sifted through several dozen expert witnesses to find one who would attest to his claims, and opposed state legislation that would have helped all families with brain-damaged children and not just those few who win big malpractice awards.

In an interview on yesterday, Mr. Edwards did not dispute the contention that the use of fetal heart rate monitors leads to many unneeded Caesarean deliveries or that few cases of cerebral palsy are caused by mishandled deliveries. But he said his cases, selected from hundreds of potential clients with the disorder, were exceptions.

...
 
265Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 21:48
I want a serious problem solver in there

I'm suprised you're not leaning toward Mitt Romney then, since his track record of problem solving in the private sector is unparalleled among the candidates.
 
266Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 22:08
My point is that Jennifer Campbell was not dead. Why does Boxman think she was?

My next question is whether Boxman or anyone else thinks Edwards' intended that literally, that he hoped to convince the jury he is phychic or something.
 
267Boxman
      ID: 211139621
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 06:22
Why does Boxman think she was?

Hey wait a minute. If her brain was damaged there's some doctors in Florida that worked on Schiavo that'll be happy to say that she's dead. I'm using the liberal definition of the word; just trying to fit in. ;)

My next question is whether Boxman or anyone else thinks Edwards' intended that literally, that he hoped to convince the jury he is phychic or something.

You take that story and combine with the one about Kerry and climbing on the slab and it gives you an insight into a person that they are a total whack job and bullsh!t artist.

Apparently his haircut is enough to impress you though Mith.
 
268Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 07:27
Why is it so hard to get a simple answer out of some people?

1. An example of Edwards "apparently leveraging his wife's condition", please.

2. Why did you think she was dead? There are a couple of really terrible, rabid right-wing blogs I came across where that claim was made. I'll assume that you came across your info at one of these or at some similar site.

Why am I picking on you over this? Because it always amazes me where people are willing to get information they will trust to form their opinions of a potential world leader, and what they derive from the info they come across. You said in post 262 you believe that in electing the the POTUS, Americans are faced with the most important decision in the world. Wherever you got this info, you trusted it enough that you chose to express and spread it here as if it were fact.

3. Do you believe Edwards intended that literally? Perhaps you did answer this one - if this is evidence that Edwards is a BS atrist, then I'll assume you think he truly did intend to make that jury believe that he has the psychic ability to literally channel the final thoughts of this girl whom you thought was dead. Is that correct?
 
269Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 09:12
If her brain was damaged there's some doctors in Florida that worked on Schiavo that'll be happy to say that she's dead. I'm using the liberal definition of the word; just trying to fit in. ;)

yea, i don't think anyone here, or any reputable doctor, equated brain damage with being dead.

and regarding that case, let's not forget it was a JURY case. Edwards didn't simply walk into a hospital and steal money - a jury of peers sided with him.
 
270Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 09:39
Honestly I really don't see the issue with it. Its melodrama akin to someone claiming, for example, that God speaks to him. It's obviously not intended in the literal sense (well, in Edwards' case, anyway) and I'm pretty confident that Edwards possesses the discretion to know better than to invoke psychic powers (metaphorical or otherwise) on the campaign trail or as an explanation for public policy in elected office.
 
271Boxman
      ID: 251142612
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 13:07
An example of Edwards "apparently leveraging his wife's condition", please.

He's behind Hillary and Obama in the polls and lagged behind in fundraising. Then he trots out his wife in front of the cameras.

It's not hard to deduct, except for the liberal apoligistas, that the man who said a brain damaged baby spoke thru him, and a man who claimed to climb up on the slab his dead son was on and said that he's telling the story for the first time (even though it was a blatant lie)would use his wife for something like this.

The Democratic Party can do better than this scum and you and Tree shuffling around like little Jawas in Star Wars trying to fix a dying droid just further proves your inability to be anything but a glorified apologist around these parts.

Yet you dare attack people like Baldwin, Jag, and myself. All you are doing is making a mockery of yourself. Either that or showing just how gullible you are to anyone the liberal zeitgeist trots out there with a fancy haircut and tells you to vote for.

To paraphrase Christ, "Remove the log in your eye before going for the spec in anothers."
 
272Boxman
      ID: 251142612
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 13:18
Pancho Villa: I'm suprised you're not leaning toward Mitt Romney then, since his track record of problem solving in the private sector is unparalleled among the candidates.

You're right, from a problem solver standpoint Romney is a stud. I don't care that he's a Mormon and, quite frankly, a lot of Christians and other people are showing their bigoted stripes by holding that against him. My little religious corner of the world (born agains) are disappointing me again with their statements against him.

My early take on the GOP field is as follows:

Giuliani - 9/11 hero, great mayor according to NYC residents, What have you done for me lately?

McCain - Too many miles. I don't see how he's a two term President. He would make a great elder statesman or a cabinet member.

Thompson - I don't think he's taking this seriously so I'm not taking him seriously.

Romney - Great business acumen and can seemingly work well with both sides of the fence.

The Others - Most likely unwinnable after the primary so I won't waste my time.

If the primary were held today and there was a gun to my head, I vote for Romney, but I still want to see more debates on TV and get more out of the candidates.
 
273Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 13:40
great mayor according to NYC residents

not any NYC residents i know, myself included.

The Democratic Party can do better than this scum and you and Tree shuffling around like little Jawas in Star Wars trying to fix a dying droid just further proves your inability to be anything but a glorified apologist around these parts.

Yet you dare attack people like Baldwin, Jag, and myself. All you are doing is making a mockery of yourself.


i've yet to see you make ONE SINGLE COMMENT ABOUT JOHN EDWARDS' STANCE ON THE ISSUES.

that to me is the bottom line. the best president we've had over the past 25 years was a man of questionable morals - Bill Clinton. The fact he got a blow job or 5 from some interns has no bearing on the real job he did in running this nation beautifully.

that's why i'll attack people like you, Baldwin, and Jag, when you make asinine statements that have no relevancy. you list the candidates, and i'll tell you what i do and don't like about them in regards to the issues.

i mean, heck, look at what you did above. you listed a half-dozen republicans, then measured them without even one mention of any of their stances on any issues.
 
274Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 14:07
He's behind Hillary and Obama in the polls and lagged behind in fundraising. Then he trots out his wife in front of the cameras.

Lemme get this straight... you're saying that once a candidate's spouse stays away from the campaign for any period of time due to treatment of a life threatening disease (inoperable cancer), any return to the campaign trail will then be an obvious sign of the candidate "levereging" his spouse's condition?

How dare John Edwards have his wife accompany him on the campaign trail after she had to step back from it for a while to receive treatment for a terminal disease!

Regarding the stuff about Edwards & Kerry, I do suppose that is a hint into the character of Edwards, if you prefer tabloid-like he said/she said to base your opinions of character on. I won't debate that point.

But you are so blind by your rabid wont to find a reason to hate Democrats that you will suspend logic to believe any nonsense your imagination (or some right-wing blogger's imagination) conjures up.


you and Tree shuffling around like little Jawas in Star Wars trying to fix a dying droid

I have no idea what this means. What scum am I shuffling?

Either that or showing just how gullible you are to anyone the liberal zeitgeist trots out there with a fancy haircut and tells you to vote for.

To paraphrase Christ, "Remove the log in your eye before going for the spec in anothers."


Like any typical Bible Thumper, you need to learn to practice what you preach. I've endorsed no candidate so far and have not voted for or endorsed a Dem or Republican for President in the last two elections.

Now that that speck is out of the way, on to the logs in your eye:

1. An example of Edwards "apparently leveraging his wife's condition", please.

The apparent answer to this is that the simple presence of Elizabeth Edwards on the campaign trail is an example of his "levereging" of her condition. In Boxman's world, any candidate may be accompanied on the trail by his wife, unless she has cancer, in which case the candidate is a scumbag for it. Well, I imagine the candidate probably also has to be a Democrat for this rule to apply.

2. Why did you think she was dead?

The likely answer to this is that you are too chicken-shit to answer because it'll expose you for the hack and fraud that everyone in this forum already knows you are.

3. Do you believe Edwards intended that literally?

Avoids the issue. Wonder why.
 
275walk
      ID: 75112114
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 14:23
MITH, I will now lobby for having Mattingly go into the Hall based on your patience to have to spell out these arguments. You are a noble man.

;-)

I also concur with MITH about doodee-Rudy. He was largely negatively perceived until 9/11 and then staked his claim to leadership fame by being present and vocal after 9/11, which were good leadership behaviors. He also reduced crime and kept it reduced, however, he did that by making minorities feel like criminals and was never liked by that huge sub-population of the city (we're talking about the half the city, unfortunately, they don't vote as much ...). Rudy was divisive, and very autocratic. My way or the highway type. I think after 8 years of that attitude from Lord idiot and his puppetmaster henchman the dick, we could stand to have a leaders who's a tad more inclusive. Finally, even Rudy's claim to post-9/11 fame is disputed, and not by some liberal goobers like moi, but by the fire department who said he prepared the city poorly, and was not as "present" as he'd like ya to think he was. For the most part, the rest of the country thinks this guy was a post-9/11 hero when the people he served, in NYC, think otherwise! It's great spin. It's awful spin. Bloomberg has done many of the things Giuliani did (reduce crime, maintain crime reductions) and more...better budget, more mass transit changes, smoking ban (that was a my way or the highway call), without being a jerk. Rudy would be one of the worst things for our country right now cos at the end of the day, he wants to basically maintain all of the policies that Bush has in place (unitary exec, aggressive military, "fcuk 'em all" attitude) that have served to isolate our country, deplete our military, exacerbate anti-Americansim, increase terrorism, and increase our debt. We need a change, not some nut-job turning UP the volume on Bush meter. The only thing going for Rudy in my book is that he has some socially liberal views, but I dunno about that anymore. I'd be afraid, for example, if Cheney does not bomb Iran, if Rudy is president, he will. And then our sixteen tired soldiers on their 18th tours will follow-up the bombing with an impressive end-run cross-dressed to confuse and humiliate the mullahs.

- walk
 
276Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 14:24
Boxman

Someone needs to remind you of message board etiquette. When you post an article like post 256, you need to include a link. It is preferable that you just cut-and-paste relevant portions of the article, the readers can read the thing in its entirety through the link. (That also applies to katietx in post 259)

It is true that walk posts entire columns without links, but that is because he is posting items from the NYTimes that only subscribers have access to. Therefore, everyone knows where they originate and links would be pointless as we do not have subscriptions.

As for your personal dislike of John Edwards, when he becomes President, you'll have an inkling what the past six years have been like for 80 million Americans.
 
277walk
      ID: 75112114
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 14:27
Thanks for the clarification, SZ. That is exactly why I post those columns...one needs a subscription (read $) to be able to view special columns in the Times or archived columns. Otherwise, I post links. I initially tried posting links to these Times-Select columns, but folks said they could not access the articles. So, I have to post the whole thing. If you are not interested in reading those articles, Box, please skip 'em. thx, - walk
 
278Baldwin
      ID: 125312919
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 18:21
MITH

Are you entirely sure Edwards hasn't opened himself up to this sort of thing?

Pray someone with my energy and ability doesn't fully open up the can of worms that is Edward's body of work as a trial lawyer. You can't divorce him from that.

I've given you props in the past for being a rotweiller pup but everytime I return to lurk I see your big hammer these days is abuse. I see you squawking like the Black Knight most posts but first you have to earn it, and make sure the trophy you pretend to walk away with is not larger than your achievement.
 
279Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 18:48
Pray someone with my energy and ability doesn't fully open up the can of worms that is Edward's body of work as a trial lawyer. You can't divorce him from that.

What is that supposed to mean? He was a successful trial attorney, which should impress Republicans because that means he ran a successful business, which a law practice is at the end of the day. As a plaintiff's attorney, he fought for the little guy, which resonates with Democrats and Independents. Not many people out there root for industry when they are being sued for causing harm to children.

I guess I could imagine a scenario where it was shown that Edwards came to court late regularly, treated client's poorly, pilfered their funds, lied to the Judge with regularity... those behaviors would certainly show poor character. Other than that, I don't know where you are going with that, Baldy.
 
280Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 19:04
If there's such concern about Edward's body of work as a trial lawyer(something he was very successful at, despite the general sliminess of it), where was the same concern with the current president's business career, which can hardly be called successful.
 
281sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 19:23
or shrubs military *cough* career?


Box....no shame in your making the admission, that you are a Republican endorser w/o regard to what actually would benefit the country. Its painfully obvious to everyone else, that you pay lip service to the notion of "listening" to a Dems position. IOW, you appear to "give them a fair trial and then hang 'em". (Judge Roy Bean for ex?) For my part, I'm a Dem. I'm a conservative Left-winger. And I'll probably vote Rep in the next Pres election. Why? Because as I have said before, I dont want EITHER party, in control of both the Legislative AND Executive branches of the government. Puts too much power on one side of the aisle and negates the affects of checks-n-balances. (Something this nation has been in sore need of for quite some time.)
 
282Tree
      ID: 3624918
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 19:31
Pray someone with my energy and ability doesn't fully open up the can of worms that is Edward's body of work as a trial lawyer.

i'll call your bluff. by all means, go for it.
 
283Perm Dude
      ID: 40637918
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 19:46
That is funny, Baldwin. This presumes that there is no one in the Republican Party already doing oppo research on Edwards. All we hear about is his hair.

I do think his trial work will get plenty of airing. That is, his work will be presented in a distortionist "trial lawyers are all satanists and here's a biased presentation, wrenched out of context, of some casework."

A juicier topic, IMO, would be Fred Thompson. But for this assignment we'll let you pick the topic.
 
284Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 20:36
Baldwin 278

Are you entirely sure Edwards hasn't opened himself up to this sort of thing?

That's a terrible question. Look, there's no denying that he appears to work very hard at tailoring himself to the epitome of the slick politician. And I've come around since the last election to resent the trend in c-sections his cash cow industry has apparently prompted.

But nothing edwards has done makes it OK to toss out any hare-brained nonsense that happens to pop into someone's brain as an excuse to demonize him. How could you possibly cite the simple presence of Elizabeth Edwards on the trail as anything but her own personal dedication?

No, whatever Edwards has done, he hasn't opened himself up to being attacked for invented transgressions. Does that really have to be explained to you?

That said, anyone lacking the shame to spread such baseless acrimnoy does open himself up the to being exposed as the lazy fraud that he is.


your big hammer these days is abuse.

Ah, half-truths and completely baseless attacks should be left alone, while anyone smacking the writer over it should be called out as abusive.

Good thing I didn't thrash him about the place and really make him my whipping boy. ...now where have I heard those terms proudly boasted before?
 
285Baldwin
      ID: 125312919
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 22:10
Boxman already alluded to exactly what I mean by that but you were too busy abusing him to understand it.
 
286Perm Dude
      ID: 40637918
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 22:15
Suddenly you become all coy when talking about Edwards, of all people?

I know exactly the incident you are (not) talking about. And it isn't going to doom Edwards. What will doom Edwards is that Clinton and Obama are both in the race.
 
287Baldwin
      ID: 125312919
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 22:18
I will lead by example. I burned PD's 'Washington Post editorial page has gone hard right' completely to the ground but I didn't abuse him to the degree he had coming, just some light-hearted ribbing.

First you have to win the debate decisively before you engage in taunts and the ratio of taunting to crushing should always be in favor of the crushing part. Some people around here are so lame they seem to think taunting and trash-talking is the crushing part and that is paper-thin.
 
288Baldwin
      ID: 125312919
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 22:24
I know exactly the incident you are (not) talking about. - PD

I haven't done the research on what is out there beyond Edwards' channeling the dead but I have to believe that wasn't a one-off.

With the appropriate energy there has got to be gold to be found in them thar hills.

Since I am essentially retired and already have ignored the congressional elections past and intend to ignore the presidential elections upcoming, I will leave that research to the Jag's and Boxman's.
 
289Building 7
      ID: 571192610
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 22:24
Boxman: He's behind Hillary and Obama in the polls and lagged behind in fundraising. Then he trots out his wife in front of the cameras.

Try to avoid throwing these guys any raw meat. Are you pitching in the home run derby?

great mayor according to NYC residents

Tree: not any NYC residents i know, myself included.

You don't know anyone in New York that likes Guiliani? Really, nobody. I don't like the guy either and thought he did a lousy job re: 911. I'm not arguing with you (this time at least), I just find that odd.
 
290Perm Dude
      ID: 40637918
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 22:29
#289: You burned it? ROFL! By posting a fantasy post?

Previous to that you continue on with your Clinton habit (which gets tiresome to respond to, frankly). Other than pointing out that posting a Madman quote without my response to that represents a prime example of the bias you seem to take delight in pointing out to others.

You're doing yourself, and your side, no favors by demonstrating your focus on Bill Clinton on every political issue.
 
291Tree
      ID: 3624918
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 22:30
I will lead by example.

so, lead on, brother. show us that someone with (your) energy and ability (can) fully open up the can of worms that is Edward's body of work as a trial lawyer.

you talked the talk, now walk the walk Baldwin. do it up.

or is your example more akin to flapping your gums and making idle threats? ya know, that thing you do around here quite a bit, then chalk up your lack of follow through to napping or playing a video game.

i want to hear it Baldwin. Edwards is one of the people i'm leaning toward, and i want you to tell me why i shouldn't vote for him.
 
292Perm Dude
      ID: 40637918
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 22:35
Guiliani was extremely divisive as NYC mayor. You either liked him or you hated him. He was an autocrat who was sued repeatedly for refusing to reveal public information about his Administration, including defying court orders regarding access to information.

For example, in April 2000, his approval rating was at 37%.

After 9/11 his popularity spiked, then started to go downhill when he started talking about postponing the mayoral election so he could stick around awhile.
 
293Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 22:59
A president depends heavily on those he appoints to advise and represent him.

Giuliani's record as mayor reeks of cronyism and favortism. I present a prime example:

Bernrd Kerik

The largest difficulty in considering the Kerik downfall is knowing in which niche of public disgrace to categorize him. As Henry Stern, the former Parks Commissioner, noted in his regular e-mail newsletter to friends and supporters the other day, “Officials have gotten into trouble for sexual misconduct, abusing their authority, personal bankruptcy, failure to file documents, waste of public funds, receiving substantial unrecorded gifts, and association with organized crime figures. It is rare for anyone to be under fire on all seven of the above issues.”

Is the the type of due diligence we can expect from a Giuliani presidency?
 
294Wilmer McLean
      ID: 4762720
      Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 01:59
A good piece on The Unexpected Lessons of Times Square’s Comeback

William J. Stern

Autumn 1999


The author, William J. Stern, worked for Governor Mario Cuomo (D), yet wrote the following:

Times Square was bursting with investment and renewal not because of the building project, since it had built nothing, nor even because the nation had entered into its present economic boom—42nd Street kept rotting away through the economic upswings of the 1960s and 1980s—but because government was at last starting to behave the way government should behave if it wants to nourish prosperity. Government began to do three things—two of them with the plan's help, though the city could have done them more effectively on its own—that ignited Times Square's revitalization: it started to fight crime, it kicked out the sex industry, and it lowered taxes selectively for big businesses willing to locate in the area.

...

With Giuliani's election as mayor in 1993, the war on crime dramatically intensified. Together with his police commissioner William Bratton, the mayor completely transformed New York City's approach to policing: Compstat soon allowed the NYPD to deploy personnel and resources efficiently, and quality-of-life policing became the norm throughout the city. Thanks to the new techniques—a quantum improvement over Mayronne's early innovations—Times Square's crime rate dropped to an infinitesimal level. Felonies committed on 42nd Street between Seventh and Eighth—the "worst block in the city"—fell from 2,300 in 1984 to a mere 60 in 1995, prompting a city official to enthuse that "crime has reached such a low level on that block that we don't keep statistics anymore." In the entire Midtown South precinct, felony complaints fell 50 percent, from 20,000 in 1992 to 10,000 in 1997. Giuliani and Bratton also sent a powerful message through their public rhetoric that the city would no longer tolerate crime and disorder, heightening New Yorkers' and tourists' expectations about safety and soothing the jangling nerves of the business community.

Encouraged by dwindling crime, tourists began crowding back into Times Square—always potentially one of New York's biggest draws—bringing much needed revenue into the city. Giuliani had grasped the connection between cutting crime and reviving Times Square's tourism even before his mayoralty began. The mayor recently told me about how, during the 1970s, he watched Martin Scorsese's film Taxi Driver, which depicted Times Square as a hellish nightmare, and wondered how adversely it might affect tourism. During his 1993 mayoral campaign, Giuliani got a firsthand insight into the answer. Driving down Broadway in his campaign car, he saw a tourist frantically chasing a thief who had snatched his wife's purse, bruising her hand in the process. Giuliani, jumping from the car, joined the chase, but only caught up with the tourist, not the purse snatcher. No cops were around, and none arrived until 30 minutes had passed, assuring the crook's clean getaway. Again, Giuliani thought: what would these tourists think about visiting Times Square in the future?

...

Even some of his detractors admit that he helped transform New Yorkers' attitudes on crime and proved that the city wasn't ungovernable.

,,,
 
295Boxman
      ID: 211139621
      Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 06:17
How could you possibly cite the simple presence of Elizabeth Edwards on the trail as anything but her own personal dedication?

So the topic is above reproach? All hail the infallible Elizabeth Edwards and her husband?



Tree: Edwards is one of the people i'm leaning toward, and i want you to tell me why i shouldn't vote for him.

Thank you for admitting your bias.
 
296Tree
      ID: 25656105
      Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 07:01
How could you possibly cite the simple presence of Elizabeth Edwards on the trail as anything but her own personal dedication?

So the topic is above reproach? All hail the infallible Elizabeth Edwards and her husband?


it's not beyond reproach. you just haven't really addressed it.

Tree: Edwards is one of the people i'm leaning toward, and i want you to tell me why i shouldn't vote for him.

Thank you for admitting your bias.


HUH? this is the first time you've realized i'm leaning democrat?

thank you for not being able to tell me, issue-wise, why i shouldn't vote for him. to me, that shows issues are not relevant for you.
 
297Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 07:25
I've said all I need to.

Although I don't get the meaning behind Kool Aid Man pic.
 
298sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 07:54
Re Edwards wife Boxman...Tell us this one thing;

What is so different about Elizabeth Edwards standing next to John at a campaign speech, and Barbara Bush having stood next to GBI at one of his campaign speeches?
 
299Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 16:24
Giuliani Rejects Medical Marijuana Use

Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani said Tuesday that people who want to legalize marijuana for medical purposes really just want to make the drug available to everyone.

``I believe the effort to try and make marijuana available for medical uses is really a way to legalize it. There's no reason for it,'' the former New York mayor said during a town hall-style meeting at New Hampshire Technical Institute.


Moron!
 
300sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 16:33
and just where exactly, did Dr Giuliani undergo his medical training? Specifically, as it would pertain to "pain management"?
 
301Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 16:43
Oh, this is too rich!

Scandal Taints Another Giuliani Ally
Mr. Giuliani’s chairman for the southern region, Louisiana Senator David Vitter, name is on the roster of the woman known as the ” D.C. Madam,”. Mr. Vitter issued a statement, said that his name was on the list, offered an apology, but no details. Mr. Vitter, who styled himself as a defender of traditional conservative family values, had been a key advocate of Mr. Giuliani’s in conservative circles both in the Senate and key southern states.

He rose to power during the turmoil surrounding former President Clinton’s sexual improprieties, stepping in to replace Representative Bob Livingston.

Mr. Livingston was poised to become Speaker of the House after Newt Gingrich stepped down, facing possible scrutiny about his own affair while still married. The House of Representatives was poised to impeach Mr. Clinton when Mr. Livingston acknowledged his own sexual indiscretion, and he then resigned.

Mr. Vitter stepped in.

In 2000, his wife, Wendy, was asked if she would stand by her man like Hillary Clinton if she faced a similar situation.

“I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary,” Mrs. Vitter told Newhouse News. “If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony, trust me.”

Sounds like Vitter will be getting the axe, one way or another!
 
302boikin
      ID: 59831214
      Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 17:14
and just where exactly, did Dr Giuliani undergo his medical training? Specifically, as it would pertain to "pain management"? and my friend moved to california to grow marijuana for a marijuana club becuase he was in pain. If you really think that no one in the medical marijuana movement is just in it to legalize it for everyone then clearly you have smoked to much of it.
 
303sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 17:44
Truth be told boikin, I havent "toked" since my HS days back in the early 70s. I only bought once, and that was so long ago, that my "qtr lid" came with a $5 price tag to it.

I never said "nobody" was in the medical marijuana field to get it legalized for all. I said (somewhat acidicly), that Giuliani has no medical qualifications when he says (re medical marijuana use), "There's no reason for it." My question stands...Where did he get his medical training, to gain the qualifications, to flatly state that there exists no medical reason for medicinal marijuan useage? (Or is plain, simple straight-forward English, that difficult to comprehend?)
 
304Building 7
      ID: 571192610
      Wed, Jul 11, 2007, 00:03
Here are the latest odds on my sports betting site to win the Presidential nomination. These are real odds where people can and do bet real money, not some poll:

Democrats:
Clinton 1:1
Obama 3:2
Al Gore 3:1
Edwards 5:1

Republicans:
Giuliani 6:5
McCain 2:1
Freddy T 5:2
Romney 5:1
Ron Paul 7:1
Gingrich 8:1

Others: 10:1 or more.

I would take Clinton at 1:1 and Romney at 5:1. But, you have to wait over a year to collect.
Ron Paul, who I actually want to win, used to be 200:1. Not sure how he is at 2% in national polls.
I would not take Rudi or McCain at those odds.
 
305Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Fri, Jul 13, 2007, 15:29
not sure if this has been posted yet, but it's kind of a pretty cool "catch all"...

You Choose '08, on youtube.com...
 
306Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Jul 15, 2007, 11:19
 
307holt
      ID: 410511410
      Sun, Jul 15, 2007, 11:45
A good example of our horrible method of "choosing" presidents.

I don't think I need to spell out what is so wrong about this. I'm not posting this as an attack on Edwards or Hillary. They just happened to be the ones caught on the microphone here. It's a fundamental flaw in the whole system. In my view, massive overhaul is required (it won't happen). This doesn't look anything remotely like a healthy democratic process to me. Nothing new.
 
308Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Jul 15, 2007, 11:59
While the comparison is obvious (and has been for years now), Giuliani's campaign isn't doing itself any favors by specifically calling this a ‘Swift Boat’-style attack. As Bob Novak pointed out on Meet The Press this morning, the SwiftVets are still perceived positively by Republican voters. They, he said, kept John Kerry out of the White House.
 
309Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Jul 15, 2007, 12:19
Post 307

Generally agree. Pre-nomination candidate debates are a farce, anyway. And post nomination debates aren't much better.
 
310Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Jul 15, 2007, 12:51
What role will this guy play in 2008?

 
311Doug
      ID: 113132214
      Mon, Jul 16, 2007, 04:24
Re: my own post #230... it just reeked of desperation...

In light of recent events with the McCain campaign, it seems maybe there truly was an air of last-minute desperation by the campaign leadership staff in the decision to play the Anti-Hillary card at this point in the Republican primary. He's really boxed himself into a corner with his Iraq and Immigration stances.

In fact, ALL the Republican candidates seem to have put themselves in the "I support the war" camp... which seems VERY likely to be a difficult "winning" stance for the presidential election.
Looking forward, it seems likely some (or most) Republican candidates will retreat from their current positions to varying degrees. When they do, will they label themselves as "flip-floppers"? Or is that a label that only applies to Democrats, "it's different when we do it"... for us it's based on a genuine change of heart due to changing circumstances... but when the other side changes stance on an issue it's only because they're just pandering, not showing leadership, yada yada yada?

*sigh*

I get sick just anticipating the hypocrisy of it.
 
312Building 7
      Sustainer
      ID: 171572711
      Mon, Jul 16, 2007, 09:40
In fact, ALL the Republican candidates seem to have put themselves in the "I support the war" camp

Ron Paul has never been in favor of the war.
 
313Doug
      ID: 113132214
      Mon, Jul 16, 2007, 13:04
Good point, I guess I think of him as Libertarian... but he IS running for the Republican nomination after all, LOL. An oversight on my part.
 
314Doug
      ID: 113132214
      Mon, Jul 16, 2007, 16:01
3 more senior McCain campaign staffers resign
 
315nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Mon, Jul 16, 2007, 18:51


Boxman Post 310

Thanks for making my night. This was like watching a Saturday Night Live sketch. Seriously.

What O'Rielly accused Soros of, he did himself in the skit/video in post 310 and does it every night.

Smear tactics???

He should give up Fox and switch to stand up because he's a funny guy.

He's accusing someone of SMEAR tactics? O'Rielly can smear better then Charmin toilet paper.

Then he talks about how liberal NBC is...owned by General Electric???

That's rich.

The whole SNL bit was, if it was Soros, saying the same things about O'Rielly but using the right wing analogy instead of the left, you couldn't tell the accusations apart. Power point Chart and all.

I don't see O'Rielly much over here, but honestly watching this clip, and I'm not being sarcastic, it was like watching a SNL skit.

And that chick with the big hair and botox grin!

Thanks for giving me my laugh for the night.

Oh my God what a complete dumbass dork he is.

Even if everything he said was true, the delivery was priceless comedy, I forget what suckers lowest common denominator America can be sometimes.

The horror.




 
316Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Tue, Jul 17, 2007, 12:57
And the leading Republican presidential candidate is ... none of the above.
The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back top-tier hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain or Mitt Romney, and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals. Such dissatisfaction underscores the volatility of the 2008 GOP nomination fight.

Things do not look good for Barak even though he is leading fundraising.
Clinton kept her strong advantage over Obama; her backers accounted for 36 percent of Democrats to his 20 percent, while support for Edwards remained essentially unchanged at 11 percent. Nationally, the combined sample found Clinton has the edge among black Democrats, with 46 percent of their support to Obama's 33 percent. Her advantage is even wider among Hispanics; she has the support of 45 percent to Obama's 17 percent.

You can throw the "black monolith" vote notion out the window.

When we approach the primary, I am curious about Bill Clinton's role. Everything I've heard so far is that he is to take a very limited role so as to, "not take the spotlight" away from the Senator. This reminds me very much of Al Gore's poorly devised strategy for 2000. I would hate to see the Dems lose two Presidential elections by running away from Bill Clinton.
 
317Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 911552612
      Tue, Jul 17, 2007, 16:37
Post 310

Ah the fair and balanced coverege of FOX "News" Channel. As if plutocratic influence in American politics is something new - or limited in any way to Democrats. After nine minutes of listening to Pappa Bear and his like-minded guests, the only scant reference to comparable right-wing think tanks was a blatent token afterthought in the last 10 seconds of the segment. And even if the guest's claim that the funding of the three largest think tanks is 1/15 of "Soros" (I assume he means Soros' total worth) I'd love to see a comparison of the influence and actual political funding from Soros with the major rightist think tanks. Maybe when I have more time I'll look around and see what I can find.
 
318Perm Dude
      ID: 6651178
      Tue, Jul 17, 2007, 16:38
The Right sure start getting scared of rich people when it turns out that the rich person in question is a liberal.
 
319Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 00:27
What are the odds on Thompson?
 
320Perm Dude
      ID: 6651178
      Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 00:49
According to the AP, Thompson is tied with Rudy, at about 21%.
 
321Building7
      ID: 571192610
      Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 21:40
Odds on Thompson are 5:2 from Post #304.

Odds to win the Presidntial election:

D 5:8
R 7:5
All other parties 50:1
 
322Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 13:54
When asked by reporters about his thoughts of using GITMO as a torture camp for past, present and possible future enemies of his, Rudy Giuliani responded...



"THAT'S A GREAT IDEA! I need idea men like you in my campaign, how many felony convictions or investigations have you had? Not too many I hope, well, it really doesn't matter."
 
323walk
      ID: 2530286
      Sun, Jul 22, 2007, 10:26
NYT Ron Paul Article
 
324walk
      ID: 2530286
      Sun, Jul 22, 2007, 10:33
July 22, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
A Woman Who’s Man Enough
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON


Things are getting confusing out there in Genderville.

We have the ordinarily poker-faced secretary of defense crying over young Americans killed in Iraq.

We have The Washington Post reporting that Hillary Clinton came to the floor of the Senate in a top that put “cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2.”

We have Mitt Romney spending $300 for makeup appointments at Hidden Beauty, a mobile men’s grooming spa, before the California debate, even though NBC would surely have powdered his nose for free.

We have Elizabeth Edwards on a tear of being more assertive than her husband. She argued that John Edwards is a better advocate for women than Hillary, explaining that her own experience as a lawyer taught her that “sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women’s issues.”

We have Bill Clinton, who says he’d want to be known as First Laddie, defending his woman by saying, “I don’t think she’s trying to be a man.”

We have The Times reporting that Hillary’s campaign is quizzical about why so many women who are like Hillary — married, high income, professional types — don’t like her. A Times/CBS News poll shows that women view her more favorably than men, but she has a problem with her own demographic and some older women resistant to “a lady president” from the land of women’s lib.

In a huge step forward for her, The Times said that “all of those polled — both women and men — said they thought Mrs. Clinton would be an effective commander in chief.”

So gender isn’t Hillary’s biggest problem. Those who don’t like her said it was because they don’t trust her, or don’t like her values, or think she’s too politically expedient or phony.

There is a dread out there about 28 years of Bush-Clinton rule. But most people are not worried about Hillary’s ability to be strong. Anyone who can cast herself as a feminist icon while leading the attack on her husband’s mistresses, anyone who thinks eight years of presidential pillow talk qualifies her for the presidential pillow, is plenty tough enough to smack around dictators, and other Democrats.

John Edwards and Barack Obama often seem more delicate and concerned with looking pretty than Hillary does. Though the tallest candidate usually has the advantage, Hillary has easily dominated the debates without even wearing towering heels.

When she wrote to Bob Gates asking about the Pentagon’s plans to get out of Iraq, it took eight weeks for an under secretary, Eric Edelman, to send a scalding reply, suggesting that she was abetting enemy propaganda. But Mrs. Clinton hit back with a tart letter to Secretary Gates on Friday and scored something of a victory, since he issued a statement that did not back up his own creep.

Maybe Hillary has had her tear ducts removed. If she acted like a sob sister on the war the way Mr. Gates did, her critics would have a field day.

Even in an era when male politicians can mist up with impunity, it was startling to see the defense chief melt down at a Marine Corps dinner Wednesday night as he talked about writing notes every evening to the families of dead soldiers like Douglas Zembiec, a heroic Marine commander known as “the Lion of Falluja,” who died in Baghdad in May after giving up a Pentagon job to go on a fourth tour of Iraq. “They are not names on a press release or numbers updated on a Web page,” he said. “They are our country’s sons and daughters.”

The dramatic moment was disconcerting, because Mr. Gates, known as a decent guy who was leery of the Bushies’ black-and-white, bullying worldview, has clearly been worn down by his effort to sort out the Iraq debacle. He and Condi, who worked together under Bush I, have been trying to circumvent the vice president to close Gitmo without much success, while the president finds ingenious new ways to allow torture.

Mostly, though, it was moving — a relief to see a top official acknowledge the awful cost of this war. The arrogant Rummy was dismissive. The obtuse W. seems incapable of understanding how inappropriate his sunny spirits are. And the callous Cheney’s robo-aggression continues unabated. (What could be more nerve-racking than the thought of President Cheney, slated to happen for a couple of hours yesterday while Mr. Bush had a colonoscopy? Could it be — a Medal of Freedom for Scooter?)

Mr. Gates captured the sadness we feel about American kids trapped in a desert waiting to be blown up, sent there by men who once refused to go to a warped war themselves.
 
325walk
      ID: 2530286
      Sun, Jul 22, 2007, 10:34
Rudy and Race when Mayor of NYC
 
326 Tree
      ID: 45612227
      Sun, Jul 22, 2007, 11:06
Walk - shoot me an email?
 
327Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 12:49


The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-Administration, Anti-Medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul
Thin to the point of gauntness, polite to the point of daintiness, Ron Paul is a 71-year-old great-grandfather, a small-town doctor, a self-educated policy intellectual and a formidable stander on constitutional principle. In normal times, Paul might be — indeed, has been — the kind of person who is summoned onto cable television around April 15 to ventilate about whether the federal income tax violates the Constitution. [Building 7 just passed out from ecstasy] But Paul has in recent weeks become a sensation in magazines he doesn’t read, on Web sites he has never visited and on television shows he has never watched.

Alone among Republican candidates for the presidency, Paul has always opposed the Iraq war. He blames “a dozen or two neocons who got control of our foreign policy,” chief among them Vice President Dick Cheney and the former Bush advisers Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, for the debacle. On the assumption that a bad situation could get worse if the war spreads into Iran, he has a simple plan. It is: “Just leave.” [HELL YEAH!]During a May debate in South Carolina, he suggested the 9/11 attacks could be attributed to United States policy. “Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us?” he asked, referring to one of Osama bin Laden’s communiqués. “They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.” Rudolph Giuliani reacted by demanding a retraction, drawing gales of applause from the audience. But the incident helped Paul too. Overnight, he became the country’s most conspicuous antiwar Republican.

This guy ain't half bad.
 
328walk
      ID: 75112114
      Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 12:53
Ron Paul is almost a cult figure. On Digg!, there's always an article about him with many youngin's chiming in. He was on John Stewart recently and on Bill Maher, too. The guy is surely principled, and a true Republican (not that I am a republican, but from what I have heard, he stands for the things that party (not the neocon bastardization) stands for). I don't agree with everything he says, but I do agree with quite a bit, and he is pretty consistent with his views and votes. A man of principles, he seemingly votes on an island sometimes. I'd surely rather him be president than any of the republican candidates.

- walk
 
329Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Mon, Jul 30, 2007, 16:47
Giuliani: Dems want nanny government

Good to see Giuliani continuing his policy of antagonism.

Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani on Monday accused Democrats of favoring a controlling "nanny government" as he continued his bashing of the rival party.

The former New York mayor, opening a two-day campaign trip in the first primary state, also claimed that Democrats would raise taxes between 20 percent to 30 percent. He offered no specifics to back up those figures.


 
330walk
      ID: 596182512
      Mon, Jul 30, 2007, 17:05
I've now come to grips that I really cannot stand Rudy. I freakin live across the street from him, too! (Or least where he used to live...one of his apts near Gracie mansion where his mom lived and he did, too). It makes me sick that he has any chance at all to be president cos what he stands for, and his tactics are exactly what is about the big mess that we are in. The guy is a fear-mongering bully, and I wish he would rise above his inclination to win through these methods. Where is the dignity, fairness and balance?
 
331Perm Dude
      ID: 156523010
      Mon, Jul 30, 2007, 17:09
Considering Rudy can't count there's no surprise there.

With McCain seemingly out of the way and Fred Thompson still testing the waters (you're soaking in it, Fred), there's no doubt that Rudy will start attacking Dems, since he appears to have troubles in H2H matchups against Dems. He beats Clinton in the poll by 6 points, but FOX has it the other way if that was the matchup and I can't believe that the longer Rudy goes on the offensive the better he'll look. Many moderate Republicans have looked at Rudy early because he hasn't acted all that dick-ish. He's apt to lose some of those voters.
 
332Razor
      ID: 5952069
      Mon, Jul 30, 2007, 17:15
Who does Rudy cater to exactly? He can't please real conservatives, and I don't know if he can appeal to enough moderates when pitted against a moderate Democrat. I guess he'll fare well with the set of folks who don't pay attention to the news much and still have warm fuzzies over Guiliani's perceived excellence in the aftermath of 9/11.
 
333Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Aug 02, 2007, 21:22
Followers of radical Islam must be deterred from committing a nuclear attack on U.S. soil, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo said Tuesday morning, saying that as president he would take drastic measures to prevent such attacks.
"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," the GOP presidential candidate said. "That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent or you will find an attack. There is no other way around it. There have to be negative consequences for the actions they take. That's the most negative I can think of."
 
334bibA
      Leader
      ID: 261028117
      Thu, Aug 02, 2007, 22:28
Another fine example of someone blaming (and thus punishing) "they" or "them", all of "those people", for acts that a few who are fellow travelers within the worlds largest religion.
 
335Doug
      ID: 113132214
      Thu, Aug 02, 2007, 23:32
Amazing how attuned he is to need for consequences for the actions "they" take... yet clearly has no conception of the consequences of the "response action" that he puts forward.

Gosh, that attitude seems eerily familiar...
 
336Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 06:07
Mith, biba, Doug: What would your response then be to a nuclear attack on US soil by terrorists?
 
337Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 07:11
The same as Bush's initial response to 9/11. You go after the people who did it and any nations which assisted them.

The size and method of response depends on who those enemies are and what they are capable of (both defensively and with regard to further acts of terrorism).

Tancredo apparently sees the WoT as specifically a religious war against Islam - or at least sees no issue with evolving it into a broad religious war against a billion Muslims.

Boxman, whats your reaction to Tancredo's statement?
 
338Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 08:51
Tancredo apparently sees the WoT as specifically a religious war against Islam - or at least sees no issue with evolving it into a broad religious war against a billion Muslims.

Unless there is a broad universal condemning by moderate and peaceful Muslims that has some volume and effectiveness to it; it's hard not to indict them. I personally do not, but I understand the frustrations of those who do.

Boxman, whats your reaction to Tancredo's statement?

If it's another bunch of Saudis and given the Saudis history of funding terror groups it wouldn't be hard to imagine doing what Tancredo has discussed.

The problem is that we are so dependent on foreign oil that it would further economic suicide (on top of losing a major US city) to do that.

Let's say we lose NYC to a nuclear attack. With NYC's history of being victims to terror attacks, it isn't out of the question that this is a future prime target as well.

We would need to respond in a severe manner if a few million Americans lost their lives and I don't think chasing a bunch of Arabs into caves and mountains would suffice.

Depending on the economics at the time of the attack, it might not be out of the question.

We DO need to find some sort of deterrent against the terrorists.
 
339Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 09:26
Nuclear war is the solution. If you are a f*cking moron.

Even if some terrorist organization hits us with nukes, returning the attack in kind at some random designation like a religious site will not do anything, other than inflame things even more, and will pretty much prove their rhetoric that the United States is, indeed, waging a holy war against Islam.

Going after the terrorists is the right course of action - but you must go after them, and not some symbol that is ill-perceived to represent them.
 
340Perm Dude
      ID: 3775538
      Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 10:00
We DO need to find some sort of deterrent against the terrorists.

Absolutely. Let's start with not being idiots in the first place.

Put another way: What's the best way to "embolden" terrorists? How about leaving most of them free, leaving Afghanistan after doing half the job there, spending billions of our dollars and thousands of lives picking a fight with Iraq, and arguing over whether we should even go after the al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan if Pakistan doesn't do it for us?

We've been shooting ourselves in the foot since early 2003. The terrorists couldn't have planned it better it they tried.
 
341Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 10:21
Boxman
I understand the frustrations of those who do [indict peaceful, moderate muslims].

One day you'll have to explain that understanding to me. Personally, I don't understand it any more than I do Islamists who blame everyday Americans for the transgressions they believe the west has committed agianst them.


it wouldn't be hard to imagine doing what Tancredo has discussed.

We disagree here as well. It is completely unfathomable, as far as I'm concerned, to respond to any attack with the destruction of a heavily populated city that is hundreds of miles from the enemy's base of operations, just because it happens to be one of the cultural capitols of the religion they happen to belong to.

The problem is that we are so dependent on foreign oil that it would further economic suicide

Frankly, it's appalling to me that, in your opinion, "the problem" worth mentioning is an economic one first and not that its an unwarranted and deliberate humanitarian disaster or the fact that it would be an overt and vicious act of war against a billion people, only a small percentage of whom are responsible for the initial attack.

We DO need to find some sort of deterrent against the terrorists.

I don't know that you can effectively deter a mindset that is willing and proud to die for its cause. More importantly though, nuking Mecca would have the opposite effect of a deterrant. Currently our enemy is made up of a relatively small number of people: militant Islamists and their supporters, which by every account is a small percentage of the whole of Islam. How is it not patently obvious that Tancredo's insane plan would galvanize a billion Muslims (including the hundreds of thousands residing in the United States) against us? How many of our allies would join us for that fight?

Think we could win a war against the entire Middle East reinforced by Muslims around the world and possibly Russia and whomever else decided that the US cannot get away with indiscriminately destroying cities?
 
342Doug
      ID: 441251914
      Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 12:00
Re: 336... basically everything MITH/Tree/PD said. Go after whoever was responsible for the attack, without resorting to terrorist tactics (such as incinerating a cultural symbol important to members of a religion that the attackers are perverting...). I'm pretty sure turning all the moderates in the entire middle east region and inviting WWIII isn't the only effective course of action available to us. Actually, that's not a terribly effective course of action on it's own merit, now is it?

Perhaps I misperceive, but to me your question has a frightningly rhetorical tone to it... essentially defending Tancredo's stance. Wait, you actually do so in 338 (with the "if it was Saudis" caveat). At least you add that caveat, but still a disturbing stance to take IMHO... seems an emotional "eye for an eye" type of response, which would be a travesty of a philosophical basis for our military or foreign policy. Furthermore, Tancredo makes no such distinction.

The only saving grace here for Tancredo is that he's discussing it as a deterrent. Sort of like Hillary's response to Obama yesterday ("You never take the nuclear option off the table")... but discussing these specific non-military targets is a different story. Perhaps he wouldn't go through with it. One can only hope. (Or more to the point, one can hope we never face a nuke attack on American soil in the first place... it's certainly a possibility, but not a sure thing). Regardless, he's got a snowball's chance in hell of even being nominated, so it's sort of moot. But it does concern me that (I perceive) there are a non-trivial percentage of Americans who respond favorably to this sort of emotional rhetoric. Dangerous.
 
343Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 12:10
Perhaps he wouldn't go through with it.

My hope is that this is just a naive and extreme example of the regular political one-upsmanship we see during campaigns (candidates trying to prove they are tougher than their opponents on terrorism).
 
344sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 13:04
gotta find this interesting:

Kerry courted by the GOP???
 
345Perm Dude
      ID: 3775538
      Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 15:06
Obama & Edwards looking good in Iowa

The national polls that I've seen have Clinton up about 12% over Obama. But perhaps we should actually be looking at those early states: Iowa, South Carolina & New Hampshire.

Iowa is virtually tied at the top. New Hampshire is also a virtual tie between Clinton & Obama. South Carolina has a slight lead for Obama, but take a look at the movement from July 2 through July 31 for ARG: Obama has moved from 21% to 33%, taking numbers away from both Clinton & Edwards.

Things are really looking good for Obama. Clinton has built up a very good machine, but I think the strategy was to get in early and large, and snuff out the competition early. That hasn't happened, and the mistake for Clinton is that she's front-loaded enough that if she has to go head-to-head against a surging Obama it's tough for her to make the case that she isn't Bush-lite in comparison.
 
346bibA
      Leader
      ID: 261028117
      Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 17:57
In an effort at answering Box 336 - I can only answer that it has been my contention all along, that bin Laden obviously knows that he does not have the power to wage a conventional fight against the west. He does not have nearly enough support in the Moslem world. So, what can he do? He attempts to draw the west into overreactions which will produce sufficient reactions in the mid east to give him more and more followers. In this way he gains power.

Consequently, I would also go after those responsible for whatever terrorist acts they may commit. When I say those responsible, I mean those who actually committed acts directly leading to the act in question. Not those who at best may have had some vague link.

Going after everyone who may be from their religion, may be from their countries of origin, makes as much sense as going after everyone who is the same sex. This is acting as uncivilized, as much like animals, as any of the most vile examples in the sorry history of human conflict.
 
347Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 20:42
Mith: One day you'll have to explain that understanding to me. Personally, I don't understand it any more than I do Islamists who blame everyday Americans for the transgressions they believe the west has committed agianst them.

As a comparative, I've mentioned before than I am a born again Christian. Other born agains (or Evangelicals as I could be considered) have said some pretty insane things. Ex. Falwell re: 9/11 causes. The main outcry against him came from the media and those politically opposed to him.

It's frustrating that we don't police our own, but rather instead allow "outsiders" (for lack of a better term) to smack him down.

I would like to see more action from the moderate Muslim community. I don't think that's too much to ask.

It is completely unfathomable, as far as I'm concerned, to respond to any attack with the destruction of a heavily populated city that is hundreds of miles from the enemy's base of operations, just because it happens to be one of the cultural capitols of the religion they happen to belong to.

I hope to God it never happens and we don't have to have this debate for real. If it doesn't happen we will need a better response than chasing people into caves.

I don't know that you can effectively deter a mindset that is willing and proud to die for its cause. More importantly though, nuking Mecca would have the opposite effect of a deterrant.

Just keep in mind that I haven't supported with Tancredo said, only discussed it, but these people do hold their religion sacred. Much more so than you or I ever could; and attacking it might be better than blowing up some tents in the sand if things got to the point of nuclear weapons.

Why were nuclear weapons such an effective deterrant against the Soviets? They were scared of losing their economic engine and their military complex. If we were to hold a similar threat to what the terrorists care about, perhaps it would work.

Please don't think that I want this to happen or I wish for it to happen. It's just that in light of losing millions of Americans, we need a stronger response.
 
348Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 23:36
As a comparative, I've mentioned before than I am a born again Christian.

An analogous comparison would be advocating the bombing of Evangelical churches in response to an abortion clinic bombing, reasoning that not enough Evangelicals have spoken out against them.

If it doesn't happen we will need a better response than chasing people into caves.

Agreed. And that's about all we've done so far. The tactic should be actually removing them from the caves and bringing them to justice.

attacking [the entire Muslim religion] might be better than blowing up some tents in the sand if things got to the point of nuclear weapons.

Until you offer a logical explanation to support this statement, I don't see how anyone could possibly support it.

Why were nuclear weapons such an effective deterrant against the Soviets?

Deterrant to prevent what? A Soviet nuclear stike someplace on the globe?

Exactly the same reason that Soviet nukes were an effective deterrant from an American strike anyplace on the globe. Sanity - at least enough to know better than to end the civilized world as we all knew it. In Tancredo's hypothetical, sanity is tossed out the window. Sadly, of course, an insane hypothetical is not unrealistic. So your Soviet example doesn't apply at all if we are talking about a response to a nuclear strike that has already occurred.

Further, losing focus on our actual enemies and turning our sights on the wrong target has greatly hindered and complicated our objectives. Destroying Mecca in respones to an attack beased out of tribal Pakistan would be the same mistake we made in Iraq, except it would be multiplied by thirty or forty thousand.
 
349Perm Dude
      ID: 87299
      Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 12:38
Alan Keyes is apparently drafting Alan Keyes for President
 
350Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Fri, Sep 07, 2007, 11:57
 
351Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Sat, Sep 08, 2007, 14:08
Cali Repubs making noise about trying to change the way Cali chooses its Presidential electors.

Evidently, mainly just to pi$$ off Howard Dean. LOL at all the blustering by obviously concerned Dems at what they consider their inherent right to all 55 of Cali's Electors
 
352Perm Dude
      ID: 16816810
      Sat, Sep 08, 2007, 16:25
They are just switching roles. Republicans were up in arms when Colorado tried to do the same thing a few years ago.
 
353Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Sat, Sep 08, 2007, 17:03
Yes, and I remember a lot of Gore people in 2000 talked about how insane the "winner take all" method was.

Blah, blah blah.

Maybe they can work out a deal and let Cali change its proceedure while giving DC some Congressional representation.
 
354Perm Dude
      ID: 16816810
      Sat, Sep 08, 2007, 17:22
I like the idea of EV votes broken out by Congressional district. Certainly Republicans would win some parts of California (Orange County, parts of San Diego, etc). Dems would win many large cities in otherwise "red" states (like Austin, TX, and Denver).

I know a guy is is heavily involved in the DC Statehood movement, and getting a "real" representative, along with an EV vote, is high on this list.
 
355Perm Dude
      ID: 16816810
      Sat, Sep 08, 2007, 19:41
Chuck Hagel, R-NE, will not run again

One of the WINOs (Republican Waverer In Name Only), it'll be interesting what happens in Nebraska. I had heard a month or so ago that former Senator Bob Kerry was thinking of challenging Hagel anyway.
 
356Seattle Zen
      ID: 86541617
      Tue, Sep 11, 2007, 00:11
This was jaw-dropping.

Check out question 96 of this NY Times - CBS poll: How likely do you think it is that there will be another terrorist attack in the United States within the next few months — very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, not at all likely?

The answers are unreal. The numbers have come down in the past years, but still 48% of people polled think that is it is very likely or somewhat likely that there will be another terrorist attack in the next MONTH or so! We had one attack 72 months ago, nothing before that, and still half of Americans polled, not dumb illiterates, but a group that is 86% registered voters, think that we will get hit again this month or so. No wonder the lottery does so well. And no wonder that Giuliani is polling well, if there are so many morons out there who think we are going to be attacked any moment now, they are gullible enough to buy his pathetic campaign which is summarized as such: SEPTEMBER ELEVEN!

A shockingly low 14% of likely Republican primary voters have a negative view of Giuliani. If Fred Thompson has any sense, he will immediately attack Giuliani and drive those negative numbers up. There is PLENTY of reasons that run of the mill Republicans can hold extremely negative opinions regarding Rudy, Fred just has to whisper a few of them into their ears and Rudy's lead will burst.
 
357Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Thu, Sep 13, 2007, 22:04
A Repulican candidate gives a rare, actually Conservative answer to a question

Thompson spokesman Jeff Sadosky offered this: "While he believes in the sanctity of life, he also believes that it was a decision for the family to make under state law, so there was no role for the federal government to play."

 
358Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Wed, Sep 19, 2007, 13:02
 
359Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Oct 06, 2007, 05:48
 
360Perm Dude
      ID: 4591610
      Sat, Oct 06, 2007, 12:01
:)

One thing I think people should realize about Clinton (and in particular, her fundraising efforts), is how much money she is making for Republicans as well.
 
361walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Tue, Oct 09, 2007, 14:39
Nixon: Thompson "Dumb as Hell, but Friendly"
 
362Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Tue, Oct 09, 2007, 14:58
No matter what the question is, Rudy says 9/11

good stuff...
 
364Mattingllyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Wed, Oct 10, 2007, 18:16
 
365biliruben
      ID: 17502215
      Wed, Oct 10, 2007, 18:20
Sweet ambush.
 
366Perm Dude
      ID: 69301013
      Wed, Oct 10, 2007, 18:22
Romney started to answer the question, but the guy just kept on script, and the camera guy lets Romney have it for "not answering the question." I gotta say that Romney wanted to answer the question (and began doing so), but was kept from doing so by the questioner, IMO.

pd
 
367biliruben
      ID: 17502215
      Wed, Oct 10, 2007, 18:27
Well...

He was asked a yes or no question that gets to the heart of the issue "Will you arrest me for smoking Marijuana..."

He didn't answer that question. All he said is "I'm not in favor of MM."

The dude in the wheelchair wouldn't let him off the hook and let him turn the question into a standard pat stump response.
 
368Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Thu, Oct 11, 2007, 13:28


On the other hand, I'm sure he would love Mitt Romney's plan.
 
369Mattingllyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Thu, Oct 11, 2007, 14:33
As strange as it sounds, this opinion really shouldn't surprise many people:

Christian News Wire: Hillary Would be a Better President than Rudy for the Pro-Life Cause
As horrifying as it seems, Hillary Clinton would be a better president for the Pro-Life movement than Rudy Giuliani. Therefore our mission is simple; deny Giuliani the Republican nomination. Failing that, we must deny him the White House at all costs – even if it means Hillary becomes President." Randall Terry, Founder, Operation Rescue.

"Rudy is the GOP's crazy aunt. Every family has a crazy aunt in the basement. So what do you do with her? Don't give her the family checkbook; don't give her the keys to the car; and by all means, keep her in the basement."

Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, is on a ten week, 20 state tour of college campuses, churches, and pro-life groups, recruiting pro-life Republicans to fight against a Giuliani Presidency – even if it means the election of Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Terry is currently in Upstate New York, where he will hold press conferences at GOP Headquarters in Buffalo, Syracuse, and Rochester.

Talking points for interview with Mr. Terry:

1. The ultimate goal of the pro-life movement is to make child-killing illegal again.

2. Concerning child-killing itself, Giuliani would appoint judges who will uphold Roe vs. Wade; he has stated he would allow federal funds (taxpayer dollars) to be used to pay for the death of unborn children; he would make pro-abortion appointments in positions of great power; all of this would result in setting the pro-life movement back 20 years, and severely undermining our goal of restoring the protection of law to unborn babies.

3. As President Giuliani would be the de-facto head of the GOP; he would systematically destroy the political power of the pro-life movement within the GOP; he would pressure the party to take the pro-life plank out of the party platform; he would declare the "abortion issue" is divisive, and should not be part of federal races; he would make the GOP the mirror image of the DNC regarding child-killing, thus insuring that there is no pro-life party.

4. An enemy outside your camp makes you vigilant; an enemy in your tent makes you dead. Hillary would unite us, and she could be defeated in 4 years; Giuliani would destroy the cohesion of the right wing.

5. Could we vote for a man who right on every single issue, except that he was a racist? Or was a candidate who supported slavery? (Of course, he would never own his own slave, but he would defend any other white persons right to own his own Negro.) How then can we in good conscience vote for a man who supports the destruction of innocent human life, which is far worse than slavery or racism?

 
370Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Fri, Oct 12, 2007, 13:31
The end of the coalition?

I don't know about that but could it be any clearer that the priorities of today's social conservatives are generally much more sincere than that of today's supposed fiscal conservatives, who have stood by Bush and his big government spending ways?
 
371nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Fri, Oct 12, 2007, 17:55


Sweet ambush.

yeah and the sad thing is Bill Clinton's position as President was basically the same as Romney's reaction...

One of the reasons I always thought of him as a political whore...and Hillary seems to be following in his footsteps but on steroids...
 
372Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Tue, Oct 23, 2007, 14:16
For the remainder of the 2007 baseball season, Rudy Giuliani is a Red Sox fan.
"I'm rooting for the Red Sox," Giuliani said in response to a question.

"I'm an American League fan, and I go with the American League team, maybe with the exception of the Mets," he said.

"Maybe that would be the one time I wouldn't because I’m loyal to New York."
Guess that means he was rooting for the Sox on the day after the great Yankees' ALCS collapse in 2004.
 
373walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Tue, Oct 23, 2007, 15:17
Oh man, MITH. This is just the world coming apart. I mean, it's one thing for Turkey to invade Iraq, and us to invade Iran, but for Rudy to root for the bosox. Forget it; I just can't go on.

Freakin just found out that Stephen Colbert is talking at the 92 street Y tonight (just 10 blocks from my apt), and it's sold out. I wonder if I can scalp (at the Y?). Kinda like a curb your enthusiasm episode a while back where Larry tried to scalp for Yom Kippur tix.
 
374walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Oct 24, 2007, 09:18
Lady luck was good to me last night. I went to the Y at 6:15pm, and they were holding back tix for the Colbert talk. I got 9th row center orchestra. Nice! Colbert was interviewed by Frank Rich of the NYT and was OUT of character. It was very revealing. He had most of his crew there with him, and wife, all in the front rows of the audience. He invited his crew on stage during the portion of the inteview where audience members asked questions. It was very interesting, and humorous (this is a very witty guy) to hear his take on his alter-ego.
 
375Baldwin
      ID: 125312919
      Wed, Oct 24, 2007, 21:04
It just struck me funny, this election will prolly feature a Dem candidate half the population would never under any circumstances vote for...

...and a Republican candidate half the Republicans would never vote for.
 
376Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Fri, Oct 26, 2007, 14:05
Charles Krauthammer believes there is a "fine Republican field" of candidates to choose from and that GOP voters overrate Reagan when comparing him with today's potential nominees.
Major grumbling among conservatives about the Republican field. So many candidates, so many flaws. Rudy Giuliani, abortion apostate. Mitt Romney, flip-flopper. John McCain, Mr. Amnesty. Fred Thompson, lazy boy. Where is the paragon? Where is Ronald Reagan?

Well, what about Reagan? This President, renowned for his naps, granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill. As governor of California, he signed the most liberal abortion legalization bill in America, then flip-flopped and became an abortion opponent. What did he do about it as President? Gave us Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, the two swing votes that upheld and enshrined Roe vs. Wade for the last quarter-century.

The point is not to denigrate Reagan but to bring a little realism to the gauzy idol worship that fuels today's discontent. And to argue that in 2007 we have, by any reasonable historical standard, a fine Republican field: One of the great big-city mayors of the past century, a former governor of extraordinary executive talent, a war hero, highly principled and deeply schooled in national security, and a former senator with impeccable conservative credentials.
 
377Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Fri, Oct 26, 2007, 14:08
Shh! Stick a cork in it, Krautwizenheimer, all those guys are horribly, horribly liberal and every principled conservative should voice their protest by refusing to vote, period!
 
378Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Oct 27, 2007, 11:57
Obama Fundraiser defects to Clinton
WASHINGTON (AP) — A longtime Democratic fundraiser has abandoned Barack Obama's campaign to help rival Hillary Rodham Clinton win the party's presidential nomination.

Bob Farmer, who was a top fundraiser for several past Democratic presidential candidates, had served on Obama's national finance committee.

Farmer did not respond to a request for comment after a message was left at his home in Bal Harbour, Fla. But Kirk Wagar, Obama's Florida finance chair, said Farmer let him know he was switching sides without saying why.

"I thanked him," Wagar said.
Ed Morrissey:
The Obama campaign noted that Farmer had never raised any funds for the candidate to mitigate his switch, but that misrepresents Farmer's impact. Farmer served as an idea man, a generator of fundraising strategy. His presence also gave the Obama team more credibility and heft.

His departure strips it of both, to a larger degree than his addition. The timing suggests that Farmer concluded that Obama has no possibility of beating Clinton, and he wants to position himself with a winner. His exit will undoubtedly force others to evaluate their position in the campaign and ask themselves what they plan on doing after March 2008. It also confirms what many have said all along -- that Hillary has the nomination sewn up, barring any unexpected catastrophes.

Farmer made the first jump off the ship. We can expect more to follow.
 
379Perm Dude
      ID: 5936267
      Sat, Oct 27, 2007, 12:06
Clinton, like Bush in 2000, is gaining support simply by being the frontrunner. All this moving around before the primaries is a little tough to project, but it is pretty clear Clinton wants to steamroll her opponents.

And Republicans want her to as well. There is no more tasty target, one that will revive their flagging party, than Sen Clinton, with Bill at her side.
 
380sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Sat, Oct 27, 2007, 12:19
A long time ago, I said that I really liked the idea of a Clinton/Obama ticket. I still think, that such a ticket is closer than many seem to think, and this may well be a big step in that direction.
 
381Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Oct 27, 2007, 12:28
I tend to think that if Obama doesn't win the nomination he'll more likely stay in the Senate.
 
382biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Sat, Oct 27, 2007, 12:48
gag
 
383Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Sat, Oct 27, 2007, 19:30
a Clinton/Obama ticket

Said it before , say it again. Hillary/Richardson.

He's a Clinton insider(former member of Bill's cabinet) and a Hispanic, which now outnumber blacks as #1 minority(and growing daily).

It's also a geographically strategic move, as New Mexico goes Democratic, California is out of play, and Texas, Colorado and Arizona are all at risk for the GOP. Florida is probably a wash be it Obama or Richardson.
States where Obama would be strong are mostly Democratic locks anyway, like Illinois, Michigan, New York and Massachusetts, although Ohio and Virginia could be good Obama country.
 
384biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Sat, Oct 27, 2007, 19:50
Please, Hillary. For the sake of the country. Get drunk and call Colin Powell the N-word or something.
 
385Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Sat, Oct 27, 2007, 20:35
Addendum to #383.

Obama would likely do well in Wyoming, being Cheney's cousin.
 
386Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Thu, Nov 01, 2007, 14:03


Iowa's caucus has become utterly irrelevant, with their history of supporting fringe or Midwestern candidates - Gephardt, Steve Forbes, Pat Robertson and Buchanan, Dole in '88. With the number of primaries shortly after NH, they, too, really don't matter anymore.
 
387Perm Dude
      ID: 57102716
      Thu, Nov 01, 2007, 15:46
I disagree, especially if Obama wins the caucus. This will give MSM pause in their annointing of Clinton as the Democratic nominee.
 
388Doug
      ID: 53937413
      Sat, Nov 03, 2007, 05:17
Fundraising is a huge component of the fallout from the early primaries... yes momentcum and mainstream media, but $$$ is huge. 21 states on Feb. 5... a lot of that is going to be major media, radio/TV ads... you can't have the 1-on-1 you had in Iowa and NH (and to a lesser extent Nevada and SC).

And it's not just about coming in 1st place... it's also about how you perform compared to expectations, and the ramifications that has on January fundraising (which is a huge fundraising period).
 
389Perm Dude
      ID: 22105557
      Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 12:13
McCain bitchslaps Guliani on torture

“When someone says waterboarding is similar to harsh interrogation techniques used against the mafia in New York City, they do not have enough experience to lead our military?
 
390Perm Dude
      ID: 22105557
      Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 15:34
Rudy to end illegal immigration! As he did in NYC as Mayor! Er, or not.

Does Guiliani really want to run on the fact that he (and no one else) was in charge of the safety of the City on 9/11?
 
391Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 15:50
Sarge: I'm a conservative Left-winger. And I'll probably vote Rep in the next Pres election. Why? Because as I have said before, I dont want EITHER party, in control of both the Legislative AND Executive branches of the government. Puts too much power on one side of the aisle and negates the affects of checks-n-balances. (Something this nation has been in sore need of for quite some time.)

Which Republican candidate do you like thus far?
 
392Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 17:39
Zen - if you want leagalized MMJ - Campaign for Fred Thompson

Federalist Fred: Senator Fred Thompson appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" this morning. The transcript is here. One thing I found notable about the interview was Thompson's explicit commitment to federalist principles. Here is how he described his views:

I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That’s what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government is, is, is—serves us very, very well.
Many politicians say such things. President Bush, for one, spoke quite a bit about the need for state flexibility when he was a Governor and a candidate, but seems to have forgotten about such things over the past six years. It appears Thompson actually means it, however, as he stuck to his federalist guns even when confronted with issues where many "conservatives" abandon federalism and embrace federal power. He even endorsed state autonomy where such a position meant rejecting policy positions favored by significant portions of the GOP base.

On abortion, for example, Thompson said that he believes that life begins at conception, and that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned. Yet he further stated that he opposes a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion and the language endorsing a federal prohibition in the 2004 GOP Platform.

Similarly, on gay marriage, Thompson said that he believes "marriage is between a man and a woman," but stops short of endorsing a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage. Rather, Thompson said he supports an amendment to prevent the imposition of gay marriage by the judiciary, but that state legislatures should be free to recognize gay marriage if such a policy is supported by the people of a given state. As I understand it, Thompson's position is essentially that outlined by Michael Greve, and which would provide a constitutional backstop to the Defense of Marriage Act, but would not prevent states from making their own choices about gay marriage.

I have no idea whether Thompson's positions will help or hurt his electoral chances. But I also suspect I am not the only one who finds this apparent commitment to principle refreshing.

 
393walk
      ID: 7952415
      Tue, Nov 06, 2007, 10:46
Fred is coming to my big bank in a few weeks to speak. They invite folks from both sides, so it's fair, but I gotta admit, this one would be satirical. I hope I get the chance to go; you have to basically enter a lotter and hope you get chosen. Hillary was here about six weeks ago; she was very knowledgeable and witty. Al Gore did his global warming talk about 4 months ago. Now Fred.
 
394walk
      ID: 7952415
      Wed, Nov 07, 2007, 13:48
Pat Robertson Endorses Giuliani

I think I just threw up in mouth a bit. Look at this pic, too. Robertson = evangelical ghoul and Giuliani's grin is sorta satanic. Sorry, could not resist the commentary.
 
395Building 7
      Sustainer
      ID: 171572711
      Wed, Nov 07, 2007, 14:05
Three divorces, pro-abortion, in favor of gay rights/marriage. Good choice Pat. Just the qualities a Christian Consrvative would want.
 
396Perm Dude
      ID: 16105679
      Wed, Nov 07, 2007, 14:07
Looks like he's getting the crazy Christianist vote. Though Brownback's decision to back McCain might take some wind out of Rudy's sails.
 
397Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 06:03
I'm still waiting on an answer from Sarge so while I'm waiting you guys might as well enjoy this video.

Hillary & Peter Paul
 
398sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 12:34
As for wheree I stand atm, 3 primary contenders for my vote, in no particular order:

Obama, McCain and R Paul is edging his way into my periphery.
 
399Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 12:36
Looking at the same three.
 
400Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 15:50
Mike Huckabee is gaining steam in Iowa.

The fact that Pat Robertson endorsed Giuliani and not Huckabee speaks volumes about Pat's ethics. I don't know if Rudy could answer 2 out of 10 questions about the Bible. You don't have to guess as to Huckabee's faith.
 
401Perm Dude
      ID: 31102109
      Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 13:53
Clinton staffers planted question

 
402Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 16:29
Obama isn't a Republican Sarge, how do you see him providing any balance?
 
403sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 16:53
Tell me Box, who was the last Dem you voted for? In fact, when was the last time, you HONESTLY considered a Dem candidate for anything?


Re Obama...read his books. He's as close to a true moderate, as I think exists in the arena of national politics today. The balance he would provide, comes from the fact that he doesnt automatically dismiss something,m because it originated with a Rep. Nor does he automatically endorse something, because it originated from a Dem. In fact, he states in his 2nd book, that he truly laments the sad fact that the old ways of Dems-Rep[s sitting over dinner and hammering out a compromise, are no longer valid in Washington of today. I think someone who can and is willing to compromise, through leadership, may well be able to bring those methods back into the halls of Congress.

So despite your statement that he does not bring balance, I believe you to be wrong in that assertioon. And further I believe, that you made that assertion, and thereby demonstrated how incredibly little you know about Obama.
 
404Doug
      ID: 53937413
      Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 16:57
I think it's fairly clear both from his record that Obama has a history of working across the aisle with Republican colleagues on some issues and not buying in wholesale to the us vs. them mentality. There are certainly some issues where he stands a firm philosophical ground, but you have to pick your battles and be open to compromise and focusing on the common ground for others.

I think you also see this reflected in the polls, where he does better with Independents and Republicans than any of the other Democratic candidates.

Of course, he also clearly conveyed this attitude in his famous inspirational speech at the 2004 Dem convention... but I think many folk find it refreshing to see a politician where the words appear to correspond with reality, rather than just being empty soundbites. Hence his appeal both within and beyond the Democratic party.
 
405Perm Dude
      ID: 31102109
      Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 19:00
Certainly Obama would be the least divisive president of all the candidates (though it is a tough call if Romney's phoniness would be divisive or just inept).
 
406walk
      ID: 2530286
      Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 20:51
Yeah, after x amount of time that these folks have been debating and campaigning, I'm still on tap to vote for Obama in the Dem primary when it's NY state's turn. Much time left though, but I feel he is the most sensible, sincere and non-divisive candidate. I also like Ron Paul, but I cannot vote for him.
 
407Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 21:24
o despite your statement that he does not bring balance, I believe you to be wrong in that assertioon. And further I believe, that you made that assertion, and thereby demonstrated how incredibly little you know about Obama.

That isn't what YOU said though.

And I'll probably vote Rep in the next Pres election. Why? Because as I have said before, I dont want EITHER party, in control of both the Legislative AND Executive branches of the government.

Is Obama a Republican?
 
408Doug
      ID: 53937413
      Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 21:48
If I'm not mistaken, 5 months ago Sarge said he'd "probably" vote for a Republican. Yesterday he listed 3 that he's considering, and 2 of those 3 are Republicans. Seems fairly consistent (not that there would be anything wrong if he HAD changed his mind as the campaign developed). Unclear why the fixation.

As for a Clinton/Obama ticket, I think you've got about 0.1% change of that happening. Obama's running for prez, not VP. I don't think it's any more likely to happen than an Obama/Clinton ticket. Neither candidate seems likely to seek (nor accept) a VP selection by the other.
 
409Perm Dude
      ID: 31102109
      Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 22:05
I think Bill Richardson is a likely VP candidate no matter who gets their name at the top of the Dem ticket. He can pull in the Hispanic vote, helping Dems across the Hispanic South, and give New Mexico to the Dems (which hasn't always been the case).
 
410Building 7
      ID: 41943112
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 01:40
I also like Ron Paul, but I cannot vote for him.

What does that mean? You're required to vote in the Democratic primary?

I'm voting for Ron Paul. I've always liked him. Any of the other choices that would have a chance at winning would be business as usual IMO. More spending, more deficits, more military-industrial complex, more lobbying, more printing of money, more being a butt-inski in world affairs, more boogeyman warnings, more taxes, more code orange, just more government in general.



 
411Perm Dude
      ID: 31102109
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 01:44
In New York State, you can only vote in the primary in which you are a registered member. Walk is not a Republican, so he cannot vote for Ron Paul.

Some states have "open primary" voting in which any voter can vote in any primary election race. New York is not one of those.

pd
 
412walk
      ID: 2530286
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 11:59
Cha-ching for PD...as usual. Correct, I am a registered Dem and cannot vote in the republican primary. I'd have to be an independent or a registered republican to vote for Paul.

NY Times has a lame-ish (but sorta a "finaly") article, about Ron Paul's recent "surge" in today's paper -- buried on page 30, and pretty "intro to Ron Paul." MSM is really lacking on coverage about this guy who is making a lot more waves on the net than any other "second tier" (or first tier) dem or repub candidate.

NYT: Web Finds Ron Paul
 
413Doug
      ID: 559171521
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 12:01
I like Ron Paul as well, although Obama is my first choice. As an independent in my state, however, I cannot vote for him, or Obama, and no, I'm not going to suddenly after my entire 15 years as a registered independent go join a political party in order to vote in the primary.

There are other ways I feel I can have as big, or bigger, impact on the primary election than I would with my single vote (such as volunteering, and/or blogging, and/or financial support, and so on). Not that those things are mutually exclusive with voting, but on principal I choose not to support our two-party system by joining either party, and that's more important to me (and in some sense a vote of its own) than the opportunity to cast a primary ballot.
 
414Doug
      ID: 559171521
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 12:03
And I've been up for 24 hours straight so you'll forgive things like principal vs. principle, etc. Thanks. :)
 
415sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 14:28
re 407...Boxman...are you TRULY that big of an idiot?

The very post of mine, which you quoted in 407:

And I'll probably vote Rep in the next Pres election. Why? Because as I have said before, I dont want EITHER party, in control of both the Legislative AND Executive branches of the government.

Is the word "probably" THAT difficult for you to define within your mind?

TY Doug, 408, for pointing this out to Box immediately, however I have doubts as to whether or not he (box) understood it without having it shoved down his throat.
 
416Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 15:08
So then you basically lied about your assertion to vote Republican then. Since your point was to avoid single party control, putting Obama in office is a direct contradiction to that. It completely voids out your desire to avoid single party control. Either you're a liar or you really think Obama is about to switch parties.
 
417Perm Dude
      ID: 2110241111
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 15:12
Not with the qualifier "probably" in there.

Given how godawful Republicans on the national level have been, running hard away from the things which got them into office, this should not surprise you. But keep trying for that "gotcha" moment, Boxman. There is little else about politics these days that will probably look good to you, given your strong support for getting pro-big government Republicans in office and trying to keep them there.
 
418sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 15:53
I'm in Killeen Boxman. Come call me a liar to my face you bstrd.
 
419Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 17:29
Sarge, when you state that you'll probably vote Republican to keep one party from controlling everything and then go ahead and name a Democrat as someone you'd vote for; you are either a liar or an idiot. Maybe both. Take your pick.

So did you lie about your concern for one party control or did you lie about your willingness to vote Republican?
 
420sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 17:40
3 times you dumb sonofabitch, it has been pointed out to you, that I said P-R-O-B-A-B-L-Y.

Now, either agree to face me or shut your fvcking mouth.
 
421Perm Dude
      ID: 2110241111
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 17:42
Wonder why we don't get many new posters around here anymore?
 
422sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 17:47
with apologies Fred...but when some jackass is clearly unable to comprehend the English language, and persists in personal insults...I take it, well, personally.
 
423Perm Dude
      ID: 2110241111
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 18:54
It isn't your fault, Jim. We've had a long decline for some time now, everyone in their own roles and the same arguments over and over. I think we need to break out of the roles somehow.
 
424Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 19:04
So you really don't care about one party control. That's all you had to say. There's no need to try and scream and cry your way out of it.

It isn't my English comprehension that's in question Sarge. It's your honesty and the way you present yourself on these forums. You try and pull the wool over people's eyes that you care about a balance between Congress and the Presidency but then when you're taken to task for it you respond with flabby insults and threats.

You're right Perm Dude. It isn't Sarge's fault for the content of his own posts. Good Lord.
 
425sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 19:10
<---has decided, that Boxman is indeed a complete moron.

btw, still waiting for an answer to the question I askewd you Box, in #403.
 
426Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 19:10
You're pretending to not understand the word 'probably'?
 
427Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 19:18
Tell me Box, who was the last Dem you voted for? In fact, when was the last time, you HONESTLY considered a Dem candidate for anything?

That's a good one. I can't honestly remember. Can I challenge you to a fight now? Pistols at high noon perhaps? Cowboys & Indians?

Chicago is such a disaster from the CTA mess to high taxes to lack of good roads that can handle traffic, the list goes on and on; that Democrats really have convinced me that gov't is not the answer but the problem.

We also recently had a Republican governor go to jail and our current governor, a Democrat, is a disgrace. I guess Illinois is screwed either way.
 
428sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 19:22
<--pretty sure he knows what Chicago's real problem is....


its the voters. They dont have a clue. (assuming, Box to be representative.)
 
429Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 19:24
Oh, Mith posted while I was typing 427.

No Mith, I know that Sarge used the now infamous word "probably".

Mith, I think Sarge is lying. Straight and simple. I don't know why he'd lie given that he posts in a forum chock full of liberals; perhaps to give off a sense that he's capable of bipartisan thought? Who knows. He is either lying about his concern for one party control or his statement that he'd vote for a Republican.

I knew Sarge was lying was he made the origial assertion that he'd "probably" vote Republican. You can be smart at times. Think it through. He likes big government, he practically endorses price controls from his stance about companies like Wal Mart, and I also believe he's a big fan of a HillaryCare type system. There's no way he votes Republican.
 
430sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 19:29
Sen Grassley from IA, never failed to garner my vote, until I moved from IA.

Pres Reagan got my vote during his first run.

Sorry, cant recall the specific House candidates I have voted for. But I have NEVER voted straight ticket in my adult life. Not one time have I, and I see no reason to think I ever would.


BOX...its truly sad, that you are so ingrained with party-line BS and rhetoric, that the truth causes you to play stupid.


 
431Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 19:42
'Probably' does not mean 'definitely'. It means 'more likely than not'.

When he said. 'I dont want EITHER party, in control of both the Legislative AND Executive branches of the government.", he described a preference, not the single issue that his vote is dependant on.

And I don't know why Sarge or anyone else should't be allowed a list of ideals that might conflict on certain levels.

Any real political conservative prefers the ideal of minimal discretionary spending but they overwhelmingly voted for W in 2004 anyway, dispite his extreme liberal track record on discretionary spending. That doesn't necessarily make them liars or false conservatives.
 
432Perm Dude
      ID: 2110241111
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 19:51
Boxman's problem boils down to not wanting to allow sarge to change his mind (apparently hoping for the "gotcha" of inflexibility in light of changed circumstances). Even though the change wasn't really a change at all, given the word "probably" (Boxman, in pointing this out, is apparently hoping for the "gotcha" of flip-flopping).

Either way, Boxman is more interested in the "gotcha" than why someone might completely abandon the mixed-government theory of voting because the Republicans simply aren't worth the vote at all.
 
433Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 20:10
'Probably' does not mean 'definitely'. It means 'more likely than not'.

When he said. 'I dont want EITHER party, in control of both the Legislative AND Executive branches of the government.", he described a preference, not the single issue that his vote is dependant on.


You're over analyzing. Look at Sarge's posts in this forum and tell me with a straight face that you see him voting Republican.

Any real political conservative prefers the ideal of minimal discretionary spending but they overwhelmingly voted for W in 2004 anyway, dispite his extreme liberal track record on discretionary spending. That doesn't necessarily make them liars or false conservatives.

When the alternative is John Kerry what would you have us do?
 
434sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 20:22
not start WWIII
 
435Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 20:27
You're over analyzing.

No, I'm taking a man at his word, believing he meant what he said.


what would you have us do?

You mean them. What I certainly wouldn't do is call them liars for calling themselves fiscal conservatives. I'd have them set their ideals in whatever order they choose - a courtesy you're not willing to afford Sarge.
 
436Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Wed, Nov 28, 2007, 16:34
Politico
As New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records.

The documents, obtained by Politico under New York’s Freedom of Information Law, show that the mayoral costs had nothing to do with the functions of the little-known city offices that defrayed his tabs, including agencies responsible for regulating loft apartments, aiding the disabled and providing lawyers for indigent defendants.

At the time, the mayor’s office refused to explain the accounting to city auditors, citing “security.”
 
437Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Wed, Nov 28, 2007, 17:22
 
438Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 07:08
Breitbart.com
Rudy Giuliani dismissed a report Wednesday that he expensed the cost of his security detail to obscure city offices for trips to a Long Island resort as the then-mayor began an extramarital affair with current wife Judith Nathan.
"First of all, it's not true," he said during a GOP debate hours after the story broke. "I had 24-hour security for the eight years that I was mayor. They followed me everyplace I went. It was because there were, you know, threats, threats that I don't generally talk about. Some have become public recently; most of them haven't.

"And they took care of me, and they put in their records, and they handled them in the way they handled them," Giuliani said. "I had nothing to do with the handling of their records, and they were handled, as far as I know, perfectly appropriately."

He didn't, however, offer an explanation for why the tens of thousands of dollars in costs, which aides say were routine expenses for protection for the mayor, were billed to city offices like the Office for People With Disabilities.

Tony Carbonetti, Giuliani's mayoral chief of staff and his top campaign political adviser, said he's asked Joe Lhota, a former city budget director, ex-deputy mayor and a Giuliani campaign adviser, to explain how such accounting practices could have occurred and why security expenses were not billed to the police department.

"These were all legitimate expenses incurred in protecting the mayor, and his police detail covered him wherever he went, 24/7," Carbonetti said in an interview before the debate. "You just do what you do, and the police go with you. That's just a fact of life when you're the mayor of New York."

Later, an aide said that for accounting purposes, the expenses appear to have been temporarily allocated to city offices and paid for out of the mayor's budget but that the police department ultimately picked up the tab and reimbursed the mayor's office at the end of each year.
For what possible "accounting purpose" would those expenses be billed to inapropriate and obscure city offices?
 
439Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 07:10
Townhall.com
It turns out that Keith Kerr, retired Colonel., U.S. Army; retired Brigadier General, California National Reserve, who submitted a YouTube question about gays in the military, is actually a member of Hillary Clinton's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Americans For Hillary Steering Committee. He's also part of a film production crew trying overturn the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

UPDATE: In the final seconds of the post-debate coverage, Anderson Cooper acknowledges that CNN messed this up and states that CNN did not know that Kerr has a position within the Clinton campaign and that had they known, they would have disclosed the association.

 
440walk
      ID: 7952415
      Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 08:37
Yeah, I saw that part of the debate, MITH. I was trying to understand what the real issue was, but full disclosure should have been made by this questioner.
 
441Perm Dude
      ID: 11043298
      Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 09:44
The Clinton campaign seems all about planting. The can't (or don't trust) the grassroots to support her, so they are trying a trickle-down campaign.

I suspect Clinton's support has peaked, and they know it, and are trying to fake a little more to get her over the top to run the nomination to her.
 
442Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 10:28
The Hillary machine is all about what's wrong with politics in this country. I would vote for just about any of the Republicans before considering her.

The very worst scenario would be the current frontrunners - Hillary and Rudy.

I haven't given up on Obama. Have a feeling that a lot of people will get cold feet on Hillary and look his way once they're in the booth.
 
443Perm Dude
      ID: 11043298
      Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 10:40
I hope you're right, PV. The best-case for Obama is him winning Iowa (he's leading right now) and for him to start siphoning off the Edwards voters.
 
444Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 10:48
FTR post 437 was not really intended to be coupled with 436. I came across it at Daily Dish after 436 had already been posted. It is interesting, following a report about potential corruption in his mayoral administartion, to see how he reacts to the issue of corruption within his administration.

But the reason I was impressed with the clip had much more to do with how he treats people generally. Critics of Bill Clinton often cite his ferocious temper as a flaw. To believe this we have to trust insider reports. By comparison, Giuliani's general meanness has often been on pubilic display.





This side of Rudy is a major reason for why he is so much less popular in NYC than elsewhere. Simple truth: we know him. Its not a Dem/Republican issue. Bloomberg, who is widely popular, was endorsed by Giuliani, won successive mayoral elections as a Republican and with only a few exceptions has largely mirrored Rudy's policies. It's not the party. Its the man.
 
445walk
      ID: 7952415
      Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 10:59
Yeah, I really, really want Obama, but would take Edwards as the Dem candidate over Hillary. I pretty much expect Hillary vs. Rudy though. Huckabee seems to be making a big move in the republican race. I'd rather have Paul or McCain than Rudy, and in the republican race, I think Rudy is going to start to fade due to his more socially liberal thinking. On both sides of the equation, I am biased towards having a principled leader, and I think that Hillary and to some extent Rudy and Mitt are not very principled. I think Thompson is a joke, and I will never forget the 35 minute little presentation/Q&A he did for our company two weeks ago where he gave not one detail and basically said "I think that's the most important thing..." for every topic.
 
446sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 11:15
If I get the sense that R Paul has become "electable", right now I'd be hard-pressed to not vote for him. I still question though, whether he has sufficient support to actually win the election vs play the "spoiler" by siphoning off votes.

McCain, for reasons I do not understand, is seemingly despised by many on the Right. His record, is in keeping with traditional Republican values/ideologies, yet the Right will not I think, nominate him.

Obama, would be ideal for the Dems to nominate. I hope he gets the nod, as he is the one candidate I have seen, with the ability to reach acrosds the aisle and to a greater or lesser degree, work with multiple ideologies to hammer out some solutions.

In an ideal world, we'd see Obama on the Dem and Paul on the Rep tickets. Tough call then, on who to vote for.
 
447Perm Dude
      ID: 11043298
      Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 11:43
I think Paul has a strong appeal of being small government and anti-Iraq war. But I think he would be a disaster on most foreign policy questions and is likely to have a hard time getting his policies (domestic and foreign) pushed through since he is out-of-sync (in a good way) with Republicans in Congress.

 
448sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 11:47
Agreed on all counts. I didnt say it would be "easy", just IMHO...ideal. ;)
 
449walk
      ID: 7952415
      Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 11:56
Agreed, PD. There's something very appealing about Paul's consistency and honesty, but his view is so against the grain of all other pol's, that he'd be unable to get many things done. And, he lacks experience in many areas of presidential leadership, and does not seem to demonstrate any interest in negotiation, finesse or compromise.
 
450Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 12:01
A very partisan conservative inlaw who I talk politics with at most holiday gatherings (and who I have a good deal of respect for) jokes Ron Paul would be absolutely perfect if we were living in the 19th century.
 
451walk
      ID: 7952415
      Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 13:24
I think that's pretty good, MITH. Ron Paul's views are throwbacks, and really are feasible nowadays...but some of his views are appealing, particularly in light of the alternatives from the right.
 
452Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 13:49
Sarge: Obama, would be ideal for the Dems to nominate. I hope he gets the nod, as he is the one candidate I have seen, with the ability to reach acrosds the aisle and to a greater or lesser degree, work with multiple ideologies to hammer out some solutions.

Do you have any examples of this?
 
453sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 14:02
Told you before Box...read his book(s).
 
454Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 14:42
Ron Paul didn't even get addressed until 35 minutes into last night's YouTube "debate."

It's impossible to become Republican nominee if you oppose the military industrial complex, and Paul wants to shrink government across the board, including the military. His libertarian view on drugs doesn't fly well with the "values" voters either. But one thing Paul doesn't do is pander, which is one of the reasons I'm souring on Mitt Romney. I understand that certain criteria must be met in order to garner the nomination, but Romney's incessant pandering to the religious right, most of whom don't even consider him a Christian, is borderline disgusting. All he needs to do is put his personal life on display(long, successful marriage; five sons, all law-abiding productive members of society; life-long member in good standing of conservative church)in order to be attractive to values voters. At least that's all he should have to do.

Right now, I'm favoring Obama over Romney, but if it's Hillary vs Romney, I'm going GOP.
 
455Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 14:46
USA Today's Common Ground column (Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel) took on this topic earlier this year in two columns, one for GOP candidates and one for Dems.
A ‘1’ indicates a my-way-or-the-highway approach. A ‘10’ rating shows that a candidate has impressive credentials at working toward compromise for the greater good.

On the Republican side, McCain and Thompson topped the field with scores of 7.5.

On McCain:
Bob:McCain is one of the few senators who can work effectively with the Democrats. (See campaign-finance reform and immigration.) He's gotten into trouble with Republicans for actually voting his conscience rather than the party line. If elected, I have a hunch that these are his true colors, not the required pandering we're seeing now. I give him a 9.

Cal:My fear is that McCain would give up too much just for praise, as has happened with immigration reform when he cozied up to Ted Kennedy. He was also one of the "Gang of 14" senators whose compromise in effect allowed President Bush to have his Supreme Court nominees put to a vote. But common ground ought to be a means to an end, not the end, itself. I'd give him a 6, with the potential to go lower.
On Thompson:
Bob:I think Thompson is a closet moderate. Though he's being touted as the next Reagan and the great white conservative hope, I don't see him that way. As Republican counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, he showed an ability to work with Democrats. He also broke bread with Democrats on campaign-finance reform. His issue positions are intended to satisfy the right, but he's no right-winger. I give him a 7.

Cal:It's one thing to work with Democrats; it's another to act like Democrats. Though he's an actor, that's one role he won't play. His common sense radio essays when he substitutes for Paul Harvey connect with Middle America. I give him an 8.

For the Dems, Bill Richardson and Barak Obama scored the highest with scores of 8.5 and 8.25, respectively.

On Richardson:
Bob:Every place Richardson has served, things seem to get done. He is the consummate consensus-builder with a magnetic personality. Aside from Obama, I can think of no better president to have at a common ground table. There's a lot to like about him policywise and CG-wise. For all of these reasons, I give Richardson a 9.

Cal:He has a proven track record, is a good thinker and doesn't resort to flame-throwing. Plus, he's a genuinely nice guy with good people skills. That quality alone can go a long way toward establishing common ground on contentious issues — of which there are many. I'll give him a faith-based 8.
And on Obama:
Bob:His book, The Audacity of Hope, screams for common ground. When Obama was in the Illinois Legislature, he was a consensus-builder. In the Senate, he worked with Republicans to make earmarks more transparent. I give him a 9.5, and if he is elected, I wouldn't be surprised to see a perfect 10.

Cal:Of course I like hearing his common ground message, but how would he shift from terminology to policy? He reflexively takes far-left positions. On which issues would he compromise? Abortion? Taxes? More government spending? I give him a 7 for speaking our favorite phrase but will remain cautious.
 
456sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 16:45
time is limited since I'm at work, but in the interest of at least attempting to supply Box with some places to start doing a little learning about Obama....(I have not researched the leanings of these links. I make no testament, as to their lack of or driving bias):



Rawstory---Paper Republicans embrace Obama

Us liberals (no question of bias here, but worth reading)

Republicans for Obama (obvious bias here too)

Finally Box, as I have said before....go to your local library and at LEAST peruse his writings in his books.
 
457Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Thu, Nov 29, 2007, 20:45


I watched most of the Republican last night until I could no longer hold down my dinner. Ron Paul is the Dennis Kucinich of the Republicans, massively popular with his rabid 5-6% of the electorate. Fred Thompson was horrible, he has really suffered from the Hollywood writers' strike ;) John McCain should back out now, we still can't win in Vietnam, John. I really liked that mystery man who chastised the youngster for tossing his gun off camera. Learn some respect, son! Romney has been running as far right as physically possible, he's the most hansom panderer on stage, yuck! If I had a time machine, I'd go back to Italy and convince the Giuliani clan not to come to America and I'd be willing to take extreme measures. I hate that man more than just about anyone in politics. He MUST not become the President.

I don't understand why Mike Huckabee is not the front runner. He's everything a conservative would want and he's a tireless, honest campaigner.

Truth is, they all suck.
 
458Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 07:30
Giuliani interview with CBS Evening News on questionable billing practices for weekends on Long Island

Claims that the practice had been going on throughout his tenure as mayorm that obscure agencies were billed in order to expedite payment and that he believes the timing indicates that the report was a hit job from "political opponents".
 
459Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 07:52
Sam Smith on Rudy and Hillary.
 
460Perm Dude
      ID: 11043298
      Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 09:59
NYT factchecks Rudy
 
461walk
      ID: 7952415
      Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 12:48
Op-ED NY Times: Obama's Color Line
 
462sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 10:06
<----Mildly curious as to whether Boxman has read, seriously r-e-a-d, any of the info from posts 455-456 and/or bothered to pickup one of Obamas books and leaf through it at all.
 
463Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 11:29
I read the one that you did not indicate was biased. From that and my own observations, I don't see the evidence of religious unitism that you claim. BTW, being able to work with a Christian, Jew, or Muslim hardly makes him special. It makes him tolerant. I am talking about something special here, not something expected.

I'm not saying Obama is a bigot, but I AM saying that he is not this great religious uniter you claim.

I don't have any of Obama's books. Honestly my reading list is a little thick right now. Jim Cramer's books are always fun and he has a new one on the way to my doorstep and I have a management book called Topgrading that I am getting thru.

I'm not about to hop into a time machine like Zen and dispatch anyone with "extreme measures", but I think Obama is driven more by hype than by deeds.
 
464Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 11:32
This from someone who proudly declared Giuliani to be his man.
 
465Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 12:24
Mith, what's your take on Zen wanting to hop back in time to take care of the Giuliani family?

I know you like to dig at me, that's fine, but what about what your buddy said?

Is Giuliani an anti-Semite, a racist against Muslims, educate me please. BTW, I'm waffling on him (not a full flip/flop yet) because Romney and Huckabee have really impressed me.

I'm watching the Obama on Religion video from his own site so the time stamp on this is going to be late. I'm going to comment as I watch...

Alan Keyes criticizing Obama for not being a "true Christian" is laughable. One could argue that Alan Keyes is not a "true Christian" because he's a Catholic; not that I would, but one could.

Keyes does make a point about Obama's stance on abortion.

If he has submitted himself to God's Will as he said around the 15:15 mark, why is he pro-abortion? If he wants to be everyone's President, that's fine, but you can't say you submit to God's Will and then be for abortion.

He seems to have a real problem with Robertson and Falwell (the religious extreme) on a general basis. That really isn't tolerance or being a uniter.

He is right about the problems of the world being caused by man.

He talked about the morality of the estate tax around 24:45. I counter, what is the morality of taking something that wasn't yours to begin with?

At 33:00 he talks about the Pledge of Allegiance and he makes a good point that saying "Under God" isn't going to indoctrinate you. I don't think the Pledge is a threat to anyone either.

He is a good speaker.
 
466Perm Dude
      ID: 51111428
      Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 12:37
what is the morality of taking something that wasn't yours to begin with?

Man, I laughed out loud at this one. You know that you are talking about money that wasn't theirs, right?

Your anti-Catholic comment has no place here. No argument can be made that Catholics aren't Christians. None. Citing Keyes as any source will get you into that kind of trouble, Boxman.
 
467Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 13:17
Man, I laughed out loud at this one. You know that you are talking about money that wasn't theirs, right?

Are you saying it belongs more to the gov't than it does to the heir of the estate? You are the one that is laughable.

My alleged anti-Catholic comment was followed with not that I would, but one could. Maybe next time you ought to hold off on the knee jerk response and read a posting.
 
468Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 13:20
PD: What is your take on Zen's comment of If I had a time machine, I'd go back to Italy and convince the Giuliani clan not to come to America and I'd be willing to take extreme measures.?
 
469Perm Dude
      ID: 51111428
      Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 13:21
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Keep in mind what is actually being talked about. You sound like you have no idea what the estate tax actually is.

As for your comment: You ever hear the term weasel words? How about this: "Some say Michael Vick is just a dumb nigger. I wouldn't say that, but some could." Is that better? No?

Even bringing it up as though someone else could make the argument is wrong. Simply wrong. When you say the argument can be made, you give it your own validity.
 
470sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 13:29
I'm not saying Obama is a bigot, but I AM saying that he is not this great religious uniter you claim.

First: Where/when did I say Obama was a RELIGIOUS uniter? I said, he could work with both sides of the aisle.

Second: It wouldnt hurt you in the least, to set aside your blinders and read those other links I provided and to truly digest the info/links MITH put forth.

All was done afterall, in response to your request for "proof".
 
471Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 15:10
PD: So you have no comment on what Zen said? OK.

Sarge: with the ability to reach acrosds the aisle and to a greater or lesser degree, work with multiple ideologies to hammer out some solutions.

There.

It wouldnt hurt you in the least, to set aside your blinders and read those other links I provided and to truly digest the info/links MITH put forth.

When a far left wing person as yourself tells me that links used as proof are biased, I won't waste my time. I genuinely read the other link and Mith's posting along with watching a near 40 minute speech from Obama's site. If that isn't enough, then too bad.
 
472walk
      ID: 4711118
      Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 15:24
Rich: Who Fears Obama?
 
473sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 15:38
So ideologies equates absolutely to religion? I was referring, to far left, left, moderate, right and far right political ideologies Box. This is afterall, a discussion of political candidates the for office of President. (An assumption I apparently gave you too much credit for being able to distinguish, apart from a theological discussion.)

Thanks for the acknowledgement, that the only biased sites you read, are those with a right tilt to them.
 
474sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 15:45
One final question...the site "Republicans for Obama"...why would you choose NOT to read it? The bias I spoke of, is from the title. You apparently, dont care to admit how members of your own party, could possibly be open-minded and intellectually honest enough to support of member of that "other" party. Worry not, nobody here is going to mistakenly lump you into that group.
 
475Seattle Zen
      ID: 529121611
      Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 16:09
Boxxy - Mith, what's your take on Zen... PD: What is your take on Zen's comment...

You remind me of my younger sister crying, "I'm telling Mom." You make me laugh :)
 
476Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 16:58
Actually Zen I'm proving my point quite well that you guys are just a click around here and lack any objectivity whatsoever. But go ahead and keep laughing because you guys are the real joke.
 
477Perm Dude
      ID: 51111428
      Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 17:51
No comment at all, Box. Too many other fires to put out to worry about the fantasy of time travel.

 
478sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 18:16
...and lack any objectivity whatsoever.

Between you, Jag and J-Bar (who no longer needs feel slighted), we have clear evidence of what is wrong with the Right today. To whit: "If its Republican, its good. If it aint, it aint." That simple minded, erroneous concept, seems to be what drives the three of you.
 
479Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 08:13
Boxman

what's your take on Zen wanting to hop back in time to take care of the Giuliani family?

Jag recently told us that he is writing a book about liberals' inability to know hyperbole and facetiousness when they see it. Why is it that I'm able to see those traits in Zen's post but not you?

Since it was important enough for you to ask, I'll answer your question: you can rest assured - if Zen has developed a working a flex capacitor and attatched it to a Delorean in his garage with plans to violate the space-time continuum and commit a murder in the past, I do not support him in this endeavor. I promise I will be first in line to criticize him. OK?


Is Giuliani an anti-Semite, a racist against Muslims, educate me please.

? This question is from even further out in left field, at least from you. I'll humor you here as well: no.


I'm waffling on [Giuliani] (not a full flip/flop yet)

Changing your mind about who to vote for is not a flip flop. Flip flopping is when politicians abandon their stated positions because they think it will help them get elected.

Pols who do this display a distinct lack of character - they brazenly admit to the world that attaining the office they currently run for is more important to them than their own principles and therefore cannot IMO be trusted to stick with their stated ideals.

There's nothing wrong with voters who do this, and its especially admirable when they recognize negative traits in previously preferred candidates that they didn't see earlier. Its too bad that your stated reason for waivering on Giuliani is that other candidates have impressed you and nothing to do with any disappointment for Giuliani.

I don't expect most people outside of NYC to know what that scumbag is about but here you've had the benefit of reading about the corruption, seen first hand the way he speaks to people and had it laid out in front of you how his greatest strength, his 9/11 record, which he shamelessly brandishes like an academy award, is a sham.

I do have a feeling that you've come around on Giuliani but prefer not give liberal posters here the satisfaction of admitting that you might have been wrong on that man.


because Romney and Huckabee have really impressed me.

This does make sense as you strike me as a front-runner type so at this stage I imagine you'd see supporting Thompson as just too risky. Of course shifting your support from Giuliani to Romney and Huckabee strengthens the notion of you as a front-runner. At this stage of the campaign I don't think rooting for the front runner is the healthiest approach for the process but unfortnately this does seem to be the way that most Americans choose which candidate to get behind. I can easily point to the left's almost unyielding support for Hillary Clinton, at least until very recently.

That said, I'd expect you to be impressed by Huckabee. I think he works with many of your stated political priorities more closely than any of the other candidates, except possibly for Thompson.

Romney, on the other hand, is the epitome of the classic flip-flopper. He's not the scum that Giuliani is but has made it clear that he will say anything at all to get elected, including showing us that his previously stated principles of abortion and gun control (positions I'd expect you to take very seriously if your own principles weren't crompromised by your front-runner tendencies) and taxes and immigration were all meaningless. He is 10X the flip-flopper than the right made John Kerry out to be in 2004. If you think that candidate lacked character...
 
480Seattle Zen
      ID: 529121611
      Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 21:41
I think MITH himself penned this one.

 
481Perm Dude
      ID: 30114068
      Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 11:11
As usual, it is only the underdog Christian politicians that are humble

I'm not sure if he is saying that Jesus is manipulating the poll data, or that Jesus wants Huckabee to win (talk about an endorsement!).
 
482walk
      ID: 7952415
      Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 11:34
I saw an excerpt from the 2004 Republican Nantional convenstion when Romney gave his speech saying, against Kerry, (paraphrasing) "Americans don't want 57 flavors." How would he describe himself? I was watching this interesting documentary about the 2004 presidential campaign and the focus on the state of Ohio. It was quite interesting. The conservatives made a great marketing issue of Kerry's "flip-flopping." I wonder if the other republican candidates will do the same to Mitt, or if Mitt gets the nomination, if the Dems will start their aggressive "flip-flopper" campaign...? The flip-flopping marketing strategy apparently really made a difference. I remember Bill Maher saying: "What's wrong with changing your mind? That means you actually, listen, think and are open to new ideas and revising your thoughts...This is a sign of intelligence. I did not know that was something we did not want in our leader." Of course, this is a matter of degree, and Romney's position changes are somewhat 180s, but I sure wish the anti-campaigns were based on real issues and qualities, not the one's most likely to resonate with the least informed, least intelligent masses. I guess that's what we have in our country. Ramble-rant over.
 
483J-Bar
      ID: 310172921
      Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 13:44
thanks Sarge I appreciate the shout out. I really feel that your interjecting your own erroneous opinion when it comes to my support (and from the previous posts you may have actually voted for more republicans than i have). in my case (the only one that i can speak to) republican or democrat is irrelevant, positions and beliefs that most mirror my own with a big dollop of integrity is what i tend to vote for. for the record- very few if any fit my criteria yet- but i will agree with you (and have learned from past mistakes) that electability does play a role in the decision.
"Let the Primaries Begin"
 
484biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 08:39
Mitt Romney makes me sick with his wearing his "believer" patch prominently on his chest. Apparently he has the same effect on David Brooks, with whom I don't often agree:

When this country was founded, James Madison envisioned a noisy public square with different religious denominations arguing, competing and balancing each other’s passions. But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.

The first casualty is the national community. Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious. I’m assuming that Romney left that out in order to generate howls of outrage in the liberal press.

The second casualty of the faith war is theology itself. In rallying the armies of faith against their supposed enemies, Romney waved away any theological distinctions among them with the brush of his hand. In this calculus, the faithful become a tribe, marked by ethnic pride, a shared sense of victimization and all the other markers of identity politics.

In Romney’s account, faith ends up as wishy-washy as the most New Age-y secularism. In arguing that the faithful are brothers in a common struggle, Romney insisted that all religions share an equal devotion to all good things. Really? Then why not choose the one with the prettiest buildings?

In order to build a voting majority of the faithful, Romney covered over different and difficult conceptions of the Almighty. When he spoke of God yesterday, he spoke of a bland, smiley-faced God who is the author of liberty and the founder of freedom. There was no hint of Lincoln’s God or Reinhold Niebuhr’s God or the religion most people know — the religion that imposes restraints upon on the passions, appetites and sinfulness of human beings. He wants God in the public square, but then insists that theological differences are anodyne and politically irrelevant.

Romney’s job yesterday was to unite social conservatives behind him. If he succeeded, he did it in two ways. He asked people to rally around the best traditions of America’s civic religion. He also asked people to submerge their religious convictions for the sake of solidarity in a culture war without end.


Kleiman makes an excellent point as well:

Rabbi Joshua, whom Mitt Romney believes to be the Son of God and the Savior of Mankind, had a phrase for that sort of public religiosity. He called it praying on the streetcorners, to be seen of men, and instructed his followers to behave otherwise.
 
485walk
      ID: 7952415
      Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 09:05
Right on, bili. Gives this atheist/agnostic, whateverthefcukIamIdunnobutIdon'tbelieveingod, the willies.
 
486biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 09:12
Interestingly, if Baldwin is still out there, Mitt's probably giving him more willies than both of us.

Baldwin has long complained of the homogenization of faith. I wonder if he expected it from a conservative Mormon?
 
487walk
      ID: 7952415
      Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 09:28
And I think it was homogenization of milk that was the real issue.

I think it'll be interesting to see how this plays out with the rise of Huckabee (aka, "the rapist-releaser") as he's the god-boy being a peacher and all. NY Times had a big article on how Huckabee's preaching is intertwined with his campaigning and such.

Hukabee's Pulpit Preps him for Race
 
488walk
      ID: 7952415
      Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 09:31
Actually, Huckabee's an ordained baptist minister. I bet everyone knew that but I wanted to post again with semi-impressive reading comprehension.
 
489walk
      ID: 7952415
      Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 09:52
HUffPost and Huckabee and Release of Serial Rapist Dumond

This story broke two days ago and I've been following it, and it's getting now more play and more MSM. Huffington herself responds to Huckabee himself in a nice blog. It's intense. I don't know how Huckabee is going to escape this scrutiny and the potential attacks. It's too early for the Dems to seize on this, and I dunno if the other republican candidates will seize on it, but it's very damning. The consequences, the Clinton-connection, and now the lack of ownership by Huckabee look pretty bad. The original HuffPost piece was long, and detailed with documentation and research. Huckabee's response is counter his image; attack the messenger, not his charming side. I wonder how this will play out.

Original Story
 
490walk
      ID: 7952415
      Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 09:56
I mean, in fairness to Huckabee, at this point, it's a "he said vs. they said" thing, but man, the cumulative stuff in the "they said" piece looks pretty bad when you add it all up.
 
491walk
      ID: 7952415
      Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 16:04
NY Times Editorial on Separation of Church & State

I agree with this editorial mucho.
 
492Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Wed, Dec 12, 2007, 11:34
 
493walk
      ID: 7952415
      Thu, Dec 13, 2007, 12:45
NY Times, Cohen: American & European Zeitgeist
 
494Wilmer McLean
      ID: 481181610
      Sun, Dec 16, 2007, 11:56
Here's an interesting political factchecking site: Politifact.com

Example:

"It's just outrageous that under President Bush, the National Institutes of Health have been basically decreased in funding."
Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, October 30th, 2007 in Philadelphia, Pa.



NIH funding is up under Bush

At a Democratic debate in Philadelphia, Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked what she would do as president to fight cancer. As part of her answer, she said, "It's just outrageous that under President Bush, the National Institutes of Health have been basically decreased in funding. We are on the brink of so many medical breakthroughs, and I will once again fund that research."

Her claim about the funding of NIH is not accurate, no matter how you slice the numbers.

Regardless of which years you choose to compare, or whether the numbers are adjusted for inflation, funding went up.

In non-inflation-adjusted dollars, funding increased. Bush requested $28.9 billion dollars in net budget authority for fiscal 2008 (the year that began Oct. 1, 2007), and the agency received an estimated $28.6 billion in fiscal 2007. Either of these numbers is greater than when Bush came into office -- $20.6 billion in fiscal 2001, the last year for which Clinton presided over the congressional budgeting process, or $17.8 billion in fiscal 2000, the last full fiscal year Clinton was in office.

The numbers tell the same tale for net outlays, with an estimated $28.1 billion in fiscal 2007 compared with $17.3 billion and $15.4 billion for fiscal 2001 and 2000, respectively.

The increases aren't as large when the numbers are adjusted for inflation. But they still went up.

In response to an inquiry from PolitiFact, the Clinton campaign provided two newspaper stories that said the NIH budget had been flat since 2003. We acknowledge that is accurate, but we still find funding has gone up during Bush's presidency. We find her statement to be False.


-------------------------------------------------

Speaking of factchecking...

Al Gore did not win an Oscar.

The Academy of Motion Picture Art And Sciences reveals that Davis Guggenheim has his name on the statuette.

An Inconvenient Truth
Lawrence Bender/Laurie David Production; Paramount Classics and Participant Productions.
2006 (79th)
* DOCUMENTARY (Feature) -- Davis Guggenheim
* MUSIC (Original Song) -- "I Need to Wake Up," Music and Lyric by Melissa Etheridge

Only three persons named Gore have been nominated.

Christopher Gore {d. May 18, 1988}
1980 (53rd)
WRITING (Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen) -- Fame

Lesley Gore
1980 (53rd)
MUSIC (Original Song) -- "Out Here On My Own" from Fame [Music by Michael Gore; Lyric by Lesley Gore]

Michael Gore
1980 (53rd)
* MUSIC (Original Score) -- Fame [statuette]
* MUSIC (Original Song) -- "Fame" from Fame [Music by Michael Gore; Lyric by Dean Pitchford] [statuette]
MUSIC (Original Song) -- "Out Here On My Own" from Fame [Music by Michael Gore; Lyric by Lesley Gore]
1983 (56th)
MUSIC (Original Score) -- Terms of Endearment


The only Gore to have won an Oscar is Michael Gore, twice for his music in the movie Fame in 1980. (Original Score and Original Song)
 
495Perm Dude
      ID: 81139157
      Sun, Dec 16, 2007, 12:35
Good find on that first one, Wilmer. Another fact check site is all to the good.

I am not aware of people saying that Al Gore won an Oscar, but maybe I'm in the wrong circles! It has always been cited as An Inconvenience Truth winning the Oscar from what I've seen. I do see that many on the Right are calling this "Algore's movie" and so on, but he only starred in it.
 
496Wilmer McLean
      ID: 481181610
      Sun, Dec 16, 2007, 16:33
Some examples of the media's mythmaking.

After Gore Wins Emmy Media Falsely Claim He Also Won Oscar (Newsbusters.org)

So he wasn't elected president. Big deal. How many other presidential candidates have an Emmy and an Oscar to brag about? -- Associated Press

Six months after grabbing Oscar glory for his eco-documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," former Vice President Al Gore collected an Emmy Award on Sunday for his fledgling youth-oriented cable network, Current TV. -- Reuters

Former vice-president Al Gore can add Emmy- award winner to his already very diverse resume. He has already won an Oscar, been the Grammy's and as of last week Spain gave him the country's equivalent of the Nobel Prize for his efforts to build environmental awareness around the world. No other major politician has two Hollywood awards like this - Reagan and Schwarzenegger only ever received Golden Globes. -- Hollywood Today


-------------------------------------------------

NPR

And former Vice President Al Gore now has an Oscar. Does that give him fresh clout?


-------------------------------------------------

Telegraph (UK)

Just after Gore won an Oscar for his global warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth - in which he asked American households to cut their use of electricity - the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research took a look at Al's energy bills.


Telegraph (UK)

Mr Gore, President Bill Clinton's deputy, has said he wants to concentrate on publicising the need to combat climate change, a case made in his film, An Inconvenient Truth, which won him an Oscar this year.
(Thanks nerveclinic. 174)
 
497nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Sun, Dec 16, 2007, 16:53

OK Wilmer but you're splitting hairs.

Perhaps he wasn't the person named on the statue, perhaps he wasn't the literal "winner" but he did narrate and have a big hand in an Oscar winning documentary.

He certainly had a big part in the success of the documentary that won the Oscar. It's not like a film where they break out the best actor part.

You're really splitting hairs.

But heck I never saw the thing and probably wouldn't enjoy it, so don't take my comments too seriously.

 
498Wilmer McLean
      ID: 481181610
      Sun, Dec 16, 2007, 20:11
I can understand the blurry "Oscar glory" and "brag about" (the documentary that earned Davis Guggenheim the Oscar).

And yes, Gore had a big part in the documentary's success.

But, Gore being pregnant or not is not splitting hairs. ;)

Phrases like "won an Oscar" and "has an Oscar" show that the media is, at the least, lazy and/or incompetent, and at the most accusatory, intentful - for a profession that pledges accuracy.


Society of Professional Journalists -- Code of Ethics

Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.



Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:


— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

...


International GfK survey on how far people trust a number of different professional groups (GFK.co.yu -- Growth from Knowledge)

Nuremberg, August 3, 2007 – In Europe and the USA, doctors and teachers are regarded as the most trustworthy professionals. The public are generally least likely to trust politicians and top managers, which applies also in Germany. These are the findings of the GfK Trust Index 2007 survey of 18 countries carried out by GfK Custom Research.

With average figures of 3.2 and 3.1, doctors and teachers scored highest in all countries on the Trust Index scale of 1 “very untrustworthy” to 4 “very trustworthy”. Next are the police and army, each with a score of 2.9, followed by the clergy with 2.7, lawyers with 2.4 and journalists with an index value of 2.2. Respondents found politicians to be the least trustworthy group, giving them a trust index of only 1.7. With an index value of only 2.1, top managers of major companies did not score much higher.

...


There is a chart on the GFK site link.
 
499walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Tue, Dec 18, 2007, 16:02
NY Times David Brooks on Obama

I think another conservative blogger, Andrew Sullivan, also like Obama. Interesting take from Brooks here, who is conservative.
 
500biliruben
      ID: 5610442715
      Tue, Dec 18, 2007, 18:37
Kleiman has been an unabashed Obama supporter. Here's an article along the same vein as Brooks, discussing Krugman's negative article (Krugman's a Hillaryophile).

I generally enjoy and agree with Krugman when he sticks to economics. I don't really like his overly-strident political stances, and I think he misses the mark and misreads Obama here.

I love the possibilities of Obama. An extremely intelligent, thoughtful man, who appears to able to give as well as he gets. His upside, in my opinion, is huge.

That said, when discussing specific proposals, the issue that is the most important to me, and in my wheelhouse, is health care. I agree with Krugman that we absolutely cannot make health insurance optional. Obama want to make it optional, so I am now leaning towards Edwards, purely on that key issue.

I'm struggling with this. I am generally very optimistic, and am willing to, and even prefer to take risks to the up-side. This makes really like Obama. His potential for sweeping change and improvement is huge. But then there is healthcare...
 
501Perm Dude
      ID: 11162110
      Fri, Dec 21, 2007, 22:23
Obama doesn't want to make health care optional per se. He just doesn't want to force health care on those who don't want it. Jay has a good compare/contrast here, I think

The health care crisis doesn't revolve around those who want to opt out of the system. The health care crisis is about those people who want to opt in but can't, or can only opt in by making huge sacrifices elsewhere. We need to keep our eyes on the prize here: Affordable health care for those who want it is the goal. Not some never-to-be-obtained standard of "universal = everyone must buy in."

Krugman (and Clinton) believes that the whole scheme needs to force those who don't want insurance to buy in, in order to make the whole thing affordable for the government. Politically this is a stupid, stupid move. And it doesn't make much more sense economically either. The goal is to cover everyone who wants affordable insurance, and by reversing the Bush tax cuts we'll be able to make that goal.

Finally, a President Hillary Clinton proposing a far-reaching health care initiative which forces those who don't want to buy insurance to do so is just the recipe for a Republican relapse.

In the meantime, Clinton's whole "I'm the electable candidate" argument just went out the window.
 
502Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sat, Dec 22, 2007, 08:23
Krugman (and Clinton) believes that the whole scheme needs to force those who don't want insurance to buy in, in order to make the whole thing affordable for the government. Politically this is a stupid, stupid move. And it doesn't make much more sense economically either.

It also can't work! In every state in which this has been attempted (including MA under Mitt Romney's plan - which is very similar to Hillary's plan and some say whcih her's is actually based on) they have failed to get any significant percentage of uninsure to sign up after years of implimentation. In fact, in most cases, years after implimentation there are many more uninsured than when the plan first took effect.
 
503biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Sat, Dec 22, 2007, 10:00
Never to be obtained? Just send everyone an insurance card. Done.
 
504Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Dec 22, 2007, 10:51
They still have to pay for their insurance. Sure, call them insured the day they receive the card if you want but the reason the plan needs everyone involved is that it needs the whole population paying their premiums in order to stay afloat.
 
505biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Sat, Dec 22, 2007, 11:00
Well, of course. I was commenting on PD's statement. If we are going to "keep our eye on the prize", and don't mind using tax revenues to fund it anyway, then why not just insure everyone. That's the prize I have my eye on. Once everyone's in the system, then we can fiddle with how to most fairly pay for it.

As soon as you let anyone opt out, it gets much more expensive. You need those who would choose to opt-out to subsidize the expensive folks: mainly the elderly. Those who would now choose to opt-out are eventually going to be elderly too, and so they are essentially subsidizing their future selves.

This is frustrating because the single-payer system that makes the most sense, both for quality of care as well as costs, isn't politically palatable.
 
506Perm Dude
      ID: 3211292211
      Sat, Dec 22, 2007, 12:44
then why not just insure everyone Because thar's not the goal, and will end up killing reform. It is political suicide, and (like last time) is certain to fail and put off real reforms for many years.

Krugman is right that having those people who don't want insurance overpaying for it will make it easier to pay for those who truky need & want insurance (to which I add: "No kidding.") But Krugman is wrong that this is the only way to insure those who need it and can't get it. Let's take care of those folks first.

I swear: Liberals sometimes seem more proud of their political failures that actual movement toward their stated goals.
 
507biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Sat, Dec 22, 2007, 13:54
Because it's a crappy goal, and it will actually move backwards; sabotaging real reform.

We have the mandate, now all we need is the political will.

Sometimes liberals can be such pussies, not using strength when they have it.
 
508Seattle Zen
      ID: 529121611
      Mon, Dec 24, 2007, 18:34
Giuliani has jumped the shark, few people actually like him, he is making a huge gamble by ignoring Iowa and NH, and running on his record as NYC mayor is a HUGE mistake!
Some of Mr. Giuliani’s advisers are frustrated at the extent to which his decision not to compete aggressively in Iowa has pushed him to the side of the stage at a moment when the political world’s attention is focused on the caucuses there that will kick off the election season in less than two weeks.

Mr. Giuliani’s initial campaign theme, built around his record as mayor of New York, has given way to a new one: “Tested. Ready. Now.” But its introduction, in a speech last Saturday in Tampa, drew little attention on a day when most of the other Republican and Democratic presidential candidates were grabbing the spotlight in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Compounding his problems, Mr. Giuliani drew the kind of attention last week that a candidate with declining national poll numbers and a history of treatment for prostate cancer would just as soon avoid after he abruptly entered the hospital in St. Louis and stayed there overnight.


His prostate saved him from a humiliating loss to Hillary Clinton back in 2002. Maybe it will save him from further humiliation on a national scale.

His advisers say that a recent run of negative news reports, focusing on an extramarital affair and his association with Bernard Kerik, the disgraced former police commissioner that Mr. Giuliani recommended as homeland security secretary, is beginning to take a toll.

Ya think? Well, the whole "security detail for his mistress paid for by stealing from obscure city departments" story stemmed that tide :)

Just QUIT already!
 
509Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Fri, Dec 28, 2007, 14:26
In 2002, the drug maker, Purdue Pharma of Stamford, Conn., hired Mr. Giuliani and his consulting firm, Giuliani Partners, to help stem the controversy about OxyContin. Among Mr. Giuliani’s missions was the job of convincing public officials that they could trust Purdue because they could trust him.

This story is pretty damning. Giuliani repeatedly used his star power to mollify government critics of Purdue, delaying the government from imposing needed controls upon their distribution of OxyCotin.

As a celebrity, Mr. Giuliani helped the company win several public relations battles, playing a role in an effort by Purdue to persuade an influential Pennsylvania congressman, Curt Weldon, not to blame it for OxyContin abuse.

Despite these efforts, Purdue suffered a crushing defeat in May at the hands of Mr. Brownlee when the company and three top executives pleaded guilty to criminal charges.


There's more:

By the time of the 2004 settlement, it appeared that Purdue, with Mr. Giuliani’s help, had averted any significant damage. As the tide was turning, the drug maker’s top lawyer, Howard R. Udell, gave credit to Mr. Giuliani.

“We believe that government officials are more comfortable knowing that Giuliani is advising Purdue Pharma,” Mr. Udell said in a promotional brochure put out by Giuliani Partners. “It is clear to us, and we hope it is clear to the government, that Giuliani would not take an assignment with a company that he felt was acting in an improper way.”


I guess I could see how business-centric Republicans devoid of morals might appreciate a guy making a buck, but no one else.
 
510Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Fri, Dec 28, 2007, 14:35
Anyone with the obscenely poor judgment to get into bed with the murdeous drug dealers at Purdue over Oxycotin does not need to be in a position of public trust.
 
511Perm Dude
      ID: 5803649
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 14:22
Charles Peters on Obama's legislative record and experience
 
512Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 09:10
Huckabee and Faith (hat tip: Sam Smith):
December 31, 2007
ARKADELPHIA, ARK. -- Five days after the tornado tore through the state, this city of 10,000 lay in ruins. The cyclone destroyed an office building, a bank, a pharmacy and 70 other businesses. The electricity was out. The National Guard patrolled the streets. Six people were dead.

In Little Rock, GOP Gov. Mike Huckabee was reviewing a disaster insurance measure that he intended to support when he became troubled: The bill, drawing on centuries-old legal terminology, referred to natural disasters as "acts of God."

In a time of emergency, Huckabee would hold up the measure for more than three weeks to press his personal objection that the Almighty could not be blamed for the region's loss. In the process, he drew damaging headlines and created new strains in his relations with the state's legislature, the General Assembly.


If voters want to know how his faith would influence his presidency, "the best way to look at it is how I served as a governor," Huckabee said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I didn't ever propose a bill that we would remove the Capitol dome of Arkansas and replace it with a steeple. You know, we didn't do tent revivals on the grounds of the Capitol. But my faith is important to me."

Huckabee's tenure as governor, 1996 to 2007, shows that his faith sometimes created political burdens for him, turning minor issues into public controversies and exacerbating tensions with other state leaders.

Huckabee at times seemed too biblical even for fellow believer-politicians in the Bible Belt. In the "acts of God" dispute, there is no indication that anyone was harmed by the delay, but some felt that the governor's religiosity, as politically expressed, came close to pettiness.

" 'Petty' is the best word to describe him," said Dennis R. Young, a state representative at the time who sponsored the relief measure and had been an early Huckabee supporter. "In these kinds of things, he'd make mountains out of molehills."


Huckabee, 52, has argued that his pastoral background helped him get some things done. He helped create a nonprofit foundation to enlist churches in moving families off welfare. After Hurricane Katrina hit neighboring Louisiana, his connections to ministers around the state hastened the opening of dozens of church camps to evacuees.

He cited God in explaining his special outreach efforts to African Americans. He invoked the Christian notion of stewardship -- that " 'the earth is the Lord's,' and that we are not its owners, merely its caretakers" -- in promoting a tax increase to fund parks and conservation.

And by his account, his faith deeply influenced his policies on abortion. Under Huckabee, the state banned late-term abortion procedures and unsuccessfully challenged a federal rule requiring Medicaid coverage of abortions for rape victims.

"When I became governor of Arkansas in 1996," he later wrote, "I recognized the same moral authority -- God's authority -- that I did as a pastor. . . . I not only want to know Him, I want others to be able to see Him through the decisions I make and by the way I make them."

In time, there was a backlash. In 1998, the Arkansas Times, an alternative weekly, ran a political cartoon of the state Capitol covered with a revival tent. Critics referred to Huckabee dismissively as the "Rev.-Gov."

And his judgment was strongly questioned after he publicly signaled an interest in granting clemency to a convicted rapist, Wayne DuMond, who had said he found religion in prison. Though it was the state parole board that opened the prison door, some board members said Huckabee had pressured them to release DuMond. DuMond was later convicted of killing a woman after his parole. Huckabee has denied applying pressure.
 
513CJ
      Leader
      ID: 499271021
      Sun, Jan 13, 2008, 23:26
OKAY Needs some help in Understanding this Michigan Primary. I m going to Place a vote AGAIST McCain....and I am leaning to vote for Romney or the Huck. Like I said it is really a vote against McCain. I like the guy but his immigration, and against lower taxes disgust me and I do not trust he will reverse course once elected as he now claims in recent debates.

Now I understand Democrats in Michigan can vote and skew the registered Republican voters. Meaning Democrats could vote for McCain?