Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Harold Ford Jr.'s Seat at the Party

The new chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council hopes to follow in the footsteps of a former leader of the centrist group, a man who bounced back from defeat in a statewide race to go on to much higher political office. That man, of course, was Bill Clinton.

Harold Ford Jr.
Harold Ford Jr. is the new head of the influential Democratic Leadership Council. (AP File Photo)

But for now, Harold Ford Jr. is content with the soft landing and lofty platform the DLC chairmanship affords him after his closer-than-expected loss in the Tennessee Senate race last year.

At first glance Ford and the DLC appear to be a perfect fit. First elected in 1996 to a House seat his father formerly held for more than two decades, the younger Ford has been forced to beat back the idea that he is a lightweight on issues. His seat atop the DLC should considerably strengthen his heft on domestic and foreign policy matters.

The DLC will benefit too, as it is in need of a young, energetic voice having just said goodbye to former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is running for president in 2008.

Al From, founder of the DLC, praised Ford as a part of a "new generation of leaders in our party who, like us, believes that the challenge [for Democrats] is to take those values we hold dear ... and offer new ways to further them."

In a lengthy interview last week with a handful of reporters, Ford outlined his plans for the DLC -- ranging from its involvement in the 2008 presidential race to its work as the policy shop for the eventual Democratic nominee.

"This is the incubator," Ford said of the DLC, which was founded in 1985 in the wake of Ronald Reagan's landslide reelection. "If you look at the last ten great domestic policy ideas in the last 10-15 years ... 75 percent have come out of this organization."

While the DLC has drawn considerable criticism from the liberal blogosphere for advocating so-called Republican lite policies, Ford insisted that the organization is miscast by its Democratic detractors. "I don't view it as a conservative or liberal or moderate or not moderate," he said. "If you have a great idea, a strong idea you have the best minds in our party to work with." (From, however, sounded a more feisty note: "Democrats have to win as a coalition party," he said. "We can't win any other way.")

Ford predicted the DLC will play a major role in the issues debate that unfolds in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary process. The group will not side with any one candidate, he said, even though the organization has close ties to a number of potential nominees, from Vilsack to Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Joe Biden (Del.) to Gov. Bill Richardson (N.M.). Even Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has expressed interest in "find[ing] ways he could work with the DLC," according to Ford. (Ford describes Obama as a "personal friend" and says they talk regularly.)

While the DLC tends to focus on domestic policy issues, it is a foreign policy matter -- the war in Iraq -- that may well play a decisive role in determining the identity of both the Democratic nominee and the next president of the United States. On a way forward in Iraq, Ford sound a rhetorical note sure to please his party's left but is more cautious about specific policy proposals.

"Of the ten presumptions [Bush] has made on the war, nine and a half were wrong," Ford says. But, he said also believes that an immediate withdrawal -- advocated by some within the party -- would create a "chaos that would be hard to quell." The political reality of the war, Ford said, comes down to this: "Democrats aren't going to win if we are perceived as the anti-war or anti-national security party."

To avoid that perception, Ford believes that the Iraq Study Group findings should be used as a basis to guide America's Iraq policy rather than being "discarded and dismantled because the president disagrees."

Ford's views as the new DLC chairman are in line with those he put forward during the 2006 Senate race, in which he came within 50,000 votes of pulling off a stunning upset of former Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker. Ford eschewed talk of his last race -- insisting he is focused on the future not the past. That future is almost certain to include another run for office, with many Democrats already touting Ford as the party's best chance to hold the governor's mansion in 2010 when Gov. Phil Bredesen (D) is term-limited out.

For now, however, Ford seems content to focus on the challenges and opportunities afforded him by his new seat at the head of the DLC table. "People want good ideas, answers and solutions," he said. "This seems a natural place for it to happen."

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 29, 2007; 9:15 AM ET
Categories:  Democratic Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Line: Can Any '08er Knock Off McCain or Clinton?
Next: Wag the Blog: Iowa, N.H. and the Right to Be First

Comments

Everyone is an expert as to why Harold Ford Jr. lost the senate race. I live in Tennessee and voted for him. As Ford said, there were several factors involved in his loss. Chief among them was the "scandal-ridden mayor" got so desperate when Ford was leading in double digits that he resorted to fear tactics telling us Ford would raise our taxes, cost us our jobs and fail to protect us from terrorists...and frightened the daylights out of many Tennesseans. Ford refused to crawl in the gutter, and lost, but gained a lot of respect that will show up in the next election.

Posted by: LaylaTN | February 2, 2007 9:13 PM | Report abuse

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | January 31, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

i could take 10 of zouk, with my eyes closed.

Posted by: greatest | January 30, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Guido -- you mean you actually found a Republican ready to fight himself? I thought they all had "other priorities" or were busy working on failed Senate campaigns when the actual fighting goes down. You should hold onto this one -- sounds like a rare bread of Republican to me.

Posted by: Colin | January 30, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Zouk's is tough. Once he challenged 10 Democrats to a fight. I have one rule he said. I only fight fair fights so you must be honest, upstanding Americans. All of you who have been unfaithful to your wives, please leave. Three left. All you who have taken bribes and hidden them in your freezer or secret accounts please leave. Three more left. All you who have stolen papers from the National Archives or from your old law firm or campaign accounts please leave. Three more left. Only one remained. Then Zouks said, Sorry, Joe, I won't fight you. You're listed as an Independent Senator from Connecticut so you don't qualify as a Democrat. That's how I saw Zouks defeat 10, I mean 9, Democrats.

Posted by: Guido | January 30, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

K of Z,

You're funny.

You sound like a tough guy.

I'd like to see you and my senator, the honorable Jim Webb all in black with sacks over your heads. Have an ol' fashoined knife fight. It wouldn't be Webb's first.

Sincerely,

V

Posted by: Vincente | January 30, 2007 10:31 AM | Report abuse

"in an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Bush said that each federal agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee" who will monitor the creation of process and procedures and the associated documentation.

"The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency," Pear writes, "to analyze the costs and benefits of new rules and to make sure they carry out the president's priorities."

www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/washington/30rules.html

This from the party of small government?

Ya'll Republicans are a bunch of thieving lying scam artists with no ethical nor moral standing whatsoever.

Posted by: F&B | January 29, 2007 11:35 PM | Report abuse

"the right thing even when it is not popular. Just ask Lincoln. Or Bush. Or Churchill. Or even Truman. Or Ford"

Or Nixon? The ends always justifies the means, apparently.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | January 29, 2007 11:00 PM | Report abuse

'BTW - KOZ capsulized the "states' rights" issue and the Civil War well and succintly.'

yes, every now and then he does something like that. and the fact that 90% of what else he says is just silly parroting of drivel is like someone said about william-- a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 8:14 PM | Report abuse

lyle:

"Mind I didn't say ignorent."

ignorent?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Nor'Easter: So so true. Another name could be "Idiot-olagy". Mind I didn't say ignorent.

Posted by: lylepink | January 29, 2007 7:38 PM | Report abuse

the DLC is an entity that has done more damage to the democratic party than any republican could dream of doing.
If obama gets mixed up with this corporate republican lite group I will lose all respect I have for him.

Posted by: vwcat | January 29, 2007 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Harold Ford lost the Sente race in Tenn. for one simple reason i.e. His opponent got more votes period.

Posted by: lylepink | January 29, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink - the 6:14 p.m. post was mine; just noticed that it wasn't signed.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 29, 2007 6:26 PM | Report abuse

BTW - KOZ capsulized the "states' rights" issue and the Civil War well and succintly.

There was an elemental Constitutional flaw. States' rights was simply a cover for property rights; except the subject property happened to be human beings. There's lots of other nice socio-economic factors which came into play; but they weren't the core issue.

The clash was inevitable.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 29, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink - My take on William is that he is an example of that old ad "A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste." Lots of potential, but... So far, he's simply parrotting a narrow ideology which has been spoonfed to him. More and more of the "ideology" is becoming evident. He knows a lot of simplistic information. Too simplistic, and some of it downright vile.

Evidence his love affair with "states' rights." He probably has no true concept of how "states' rights" were used for abuse for 180 years. There are legitimate states' rights; but not playing with the other states 'cause I don't like the game they are playing, isn't one of them.

His concern with the loss of our "sovereignty" with the League of Nations. The League never got any traction in this country and was toothless as history proved. Who lost any sovereignty? The United Nations has existed for over 60 years now. What real "sovereignty" has the U. S. ceded to the U.N.? We still get to invade any country we want, when we want. That we don't get to have every decision go our way in the big sandbox of the World playground is a loss of sovereignty?

And on...

So far, William is just parrotting somebody else's thinking, like the Young Pioneers/Komsomol used to do.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Zouk... How could you put Bush in the same catagory as Lincoln, Chuchill and Truman. Those great men responded to a crisis with intelligence, putting the good of their countrymen first.

Bush created our current crisis through ignorance and is turning the country into a corporate fascist state that is gutting the middle class.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com


Posted by: Truth Hunter | January 29, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

'the south lost over 25% of their male fighting age men, the highest in history.

This is called leadership'

yes, then I understand why you think bush is Great Leader...

Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Once and for all - the American civil war was about state's rights - TO OWN SLAVES. It was very specific and was never treated properly in the original constitution. It was inevitable. It was worth it. there were no other rights that were under scrutiny. the south took advantage of the popular feelings and recast it as a battle for its own rights. would a poor southerner who owns no slaves go to war to defend the rich? the south lost over 25% of their male fighting age men, the highest in history.

This is called leadership, on both sides. I am not surprised you Libs don't recognize it since you haven't seen it since the 60s. Leadership is often about doing the right thing even when it is not popular. Just ask Lincoln. Or Bush. Or Churchill. Or even Truman. Or Ford

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Harold Ford, Jr. He was the topic, right? Here's a 10-year Congressman who won his House seat with upwards of 80% of the vote and he couldn't beat the mayor of Chattanooga. Corker was saddled with business scandals by the press. Ford showed on the big stage that he's a colossal loser and he only got the job because he's unemployed. How about if the Dems hire a winner once in a while. Why give a crucial position to somebody who just lost a race he should have won going away? A five-time Congressman can't beat a scandal-ridden mayor. So let's ask him to show us the way. Every time the Dems have the bullseye of the winner's circle in their sights they start rehearsing their victory speech, lower the gun, and shoot themselves in the foot.

Posted by: IndyWasDem | January 29, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

William: Your 03:51pm post is something else. First of all I am not Liberal, I am a combination of Lib, Mod, and Cons. The extent that you went to in explaing your views reveals, at least to me, that you are highly intellegent, and anyone that is "highly intellegent" could make the same arguement, no matter how flawed it is. Thanks again.

Posted by: lylepink | January 29, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

There is some evidence that FDR's polices actually lengthened the depression effects and some of those gigantic programs are still with us. no president can be assessed in a vacuum and they were all human, except maybe Andrew Jackson.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

>>>I wonder if native Americans think Europeans belong in the Americas.

We ALL belong in Africa, in that case.

Or do any of you really NOT believe in evolution and instead that Adam (white) and Eve (white) were created in the Garden of Eden by a supernatural deity (white) who is omnipotent and all powerful and commands U.S. forces into Iraq through his chosen conduit, the infallible George W. Bush?

>>>A fifty state solution may be a good idea but we do not need a group of outsiders telling us what we should believe.

We are all Americans, there are no outsiders. You choose to believe what you will and voice your opinion here. And God bless you for that. In my opinion, maybe you didn't like what you heard but since you don't give any substance in your comments about what was said, it is hard to empathize. What was the speech about? universal health care? impeachment? what? Maybe what that person was saying was the thing this country needs most and your little community needs to wake upto the truth? I have no idea, just playing devil's advocate, but you give us nothing to go on other than the fact that you are a Conservative Democrat.

Also, what do you have against places that are cold?

Posted by: F&B | January 29, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

FDR saved thousands of people from starvation during the Great Depression ... oh the *horrors* of Big Government.

so which is it, Wiliam? Do you go to Pepperdine or LibertyU or Bob Jones? Must be one of the three, judging by what you 'know'.

Posted by: sammy | January 29, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Still nothing of merit from ignorant zouk...

but why would that change?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

'A fifty state solution may be a good idea but we do not need a group of outsiders telling us what we should believe.'

No, agree with you there. Every rep hås to represent their constituents and Dems in Texas are different from Dems in Vermonth. What the strategy SHOULD do is help you organize and get out the vote and help with funding.

I also agree with poster somewhee above, that the DLC and the Dean should work together. Unfortuinately, a lot of people in the DLC are too busy attacking the democratic base to work together much.

Posted by: drindl | January 29, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

"I support the VA/KY Resolutions in which states claimed the right to declare acts of Congress and Supreme Court decisions, or any Federal Government policy, unconstitutional, and thus, null and void in their state."

Each state participates in the our Federation as an equal. No one state is more equal than any of the other states.

For any state to pick and choose those official acts of the Federation which they dislike and ignore them, would be to make that state "more equal" than the rest of the states.


I might have suspected that those history courses which William is taking are at Liberty U., but he calls it the Civil War, not the War of Northern Aggression.

Hopefully, these ideas are not coming from Constitutional Law classes.

Also, I would qualify the advice to William to go back and re-read the history books. He needs to read new books on history; some not written by Revisionists.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 29, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Pinkie - I think Hannity is a little slanted even for my taste - a counter balance to that perve colmes. but they are in the business of selling tv and gaining ratings. they are succeeding and Fox news is stomping the competition. I am very amused at them calling the competition the "Paris hilton" of journalism. Very apropos. but despite Hannities partisan angles, the lack of discipline in the clinton military and command structure is evident and proper for review, if only those pesky documents hadn't dissappeared, as they always seem to do when clintons are involved.

Still nothing of merit from ignorant coward.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

'You libs have no sense for humor. '

And you cons have no sense for speech..

Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Just a thought on Dean and his 50 state policy. As a member of the Democratic Party in a small county in Republican East Tennessee, where we actually have two county wide officials who are Democrats, I attend the yearly dinner and try to be as active as my public position will allow. At a recent Annual Dinner a member of the Dean Team spoke to our gathering. It was a slap in the face. This person who was from some distant place where it is cold nine months out of the year gave one of the most left wing speeches ever to be uttered in our county. As she spoke I looked around the room and actually saw jaws drop. A fifty state solution may be a good idea but we do not need a group of outsiders telling us what we should believe.

Harold Ford did a good job in his quest for the Senate. He overcame some considerable baggage in this state to come close to defeating a well funded and well liked opponent. I think he will be an asset to the DLC and I further believe that the DLC represent the best hope for the Party. Of course that is the opinion of a Southern Conservative Democrat.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

'I support the VA/KY Resolutions in which states claimed the right to declare acts of Congress and Supreme Court decisions, or any Federal Government policy, unconstitutional, and thus, null and void in their state.'

Then they should also be allowed to declare acts of the president null and void as the executive is a co-equal branch of government. Hence no one would ever have to pay taxes, or serve in the military or obey laws or... I could go on. Utter chaos.

Why don't you move to Iraq, son? Sounds like just your cup of tea.

Posted by: drindl | January 29, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Zouk: Although you did not mention me by name, I must answer since it was directed at me in your clever way. The SMEAR merchants ARE out and Hannity is but one of them. I have stated and will keep stating facts that most intellegent people know to be fact. The article in Insight magazine smeared not one but two of the dems top three candidates, Obama and Hillary. I have no doubt that most folk that do make comments on forums such as this try to be accurate, yet as with everything else, the bad apples are going to be found.

Posted by: lylepink | January 29, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"This last post doesn't even qualify as intelligable."

But at least the spelling was correct.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

You libs have no sense for humor. Can't you distinguish polemics from rhetoric with a side order of pun?

Sammy, I am not sure why you would keep several photos of Rudy in drag but it makes me wonder.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

I don't, Bobby. My father's ancestors were Cherokee, and we want North Carolina back. All off it.

William, William. "The Muslims don't belong in Europe" -- Don't you think that's up to the people who live there? I mean, is that what we're going to do now, gø around the world and tell people where they can live? Isn't that kind of Big Government for you?

Posted by: drindl | January 29, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Muslims occupied Southern Spain from 711-1492 - in fact most words in Spanish which begin with "Al" are arabic also the Spanish term ojala is really Oh Ala

I wonder if native Americans think Europeans belong in the Americas.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | January 29, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

'When the Dems lose the next election' -- don't you mean when the cons lose the next election?

'I have not seen any evidence that Bush has any but the most noble intentions. ' ROFLOL*tears streaming down cheeks*

'And whether I am in the Army right now is not the point' -- well perhaps it is. perhaps if all you hotshot chickenhawks HAD joined, the military wouldn't be shorthanded now. On the other hand, i doubt they'd want someone iwht such a stunted intellect. Although I hear they've been dropping the bar a lot lately.

--Jesus, what a clown this guy is.

'will he wear the traditional state feather boa to the inaguaration?'

By this do you mean rudy? Becuase he looks very foxy in a boa. I have several pix. He used to dress up like that just all the time when he was mayor.

Posted by: Sammy | January 29, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone have anything intelligible to say about the topic of this post, or should we just rename this blog to: Dartboard for Presidents Past, Present and Future?

Nobody commented on my -- what I thought was thoughtful -- ON-TOPIC post of 12:42pm so I guess everyone agrees! Cool!

Posted by: F&B | January 29, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court has upheld Separate but Equal - in Texas v. White they found that the legal princple of "the right of the people to throw off a government which no longer meets the legitimate ends of government" was abolished with the signing of the constitution. (For the record this was the legal foundation of the Declration of Independence)

The Supreme Court is whatever the politics of the day makes it - in reality today it is impotent - the lower courts know that there is only 1 in 100 chance of their decisions being reviewed if appealed to the Supremes- life time appointments -

The State of Texas criminally prosecutes attorneys who are authorized to practice law before the Supreme Court but who are not admitted to practice law in Texas - Texas has found the Supreme Court has no authority to authorize attorneys who live in Texas to practice law before the Supreme Court without first getting the permission of TExas.

The Supremes have accused the 5th Circuit of only paying lip service to the constitution when it comes to the rights of the people- but maybe will only hear 10 or 15 cases coming from the 5th Circuit of about 800 appeals - the Supremes are impotent and they know it. Not even viagra can revive John Roberts (and I like Chief Justice Roberts - he is a lawyers lawyer - I hope he has the courage to save the Court from the states)

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | January 29, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

William -- You have to understand Minnesota politics to understand why Al Franken will actually win that seat pretty easily. None of the current Congressman want to run for the Senate right now [Betty McCallum would get the nomination if she ran], and Franken will swamp anyone else that runs in the primary.

After that, you'll have the GOP scream "liberal" 7 million times during the general election only to realize the day after that that "smear" doesn't actually prevent folks from getting elected in MN.

Paul Welstone always ran even in out-state MN, which is quite culturally conservative, because he was never afraid to tell people what he thought AND he was always willing to listent to what they had to say. Franken will run a similar campaign and beat Coleman with ease.

Posted by: Colin | January 29, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"And Muslims don't belong in Europe in the first place."

William, I'm going to agree with Colin: Go to the library. There have been Muslims in that part of Europe for over 500 years. And Muslims in other parts of Europe for well over 1000 years. Apparently they don't care where you say they do and don't belong.

Posted by: Blarg | January 29, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - you mean that's not your real name?

william, I would not suggest that clinton was better than either bush since he fiddled while bin laden plotted. but you certainly do seem to have a mean racist streak in you with your muslim in europe comments. I guess if you write the number of words that you do, your inner self must reveal occasionally. I did support the Serbain war and have no regard for congress's supposed ability to declare war. that notion is as outdated as the pony express. Please list all the wars we have been in and then note the paltry number where we actaully declared war. you may also notice how many we were the attacker. so much for pre-emptive war being a new thing for US. We are in it to win.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

"And Muslims don't belong in Europe in the first place."

William, I'm going to agree with Colin: Go to the library. There have been Muslims in that part of Europe for over 500 years. And Muslims in other parts of Europe for well over 1000 years. Apparently they don't care where you say they do and don't belong.

Posted by: Blarg | January 29, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, I tend to agree with you on this one but for a few notes.
Pardoning Nixon is now recognized as the right thing to have done. It was brave and not self-centered. He could have waited until after the election to do it but he was not a calculating man. too bad that walrus Kennedy never apologized for his rantings at the time.

Tell me more about secret plans to get us out of wars, you Dems seem to have this covered now.

disgrace? don't mention interns now.

Blame the war on Lincoln? - blame the war on Bush. astonishing short-sightedness on your part to bring up that subject.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

"The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constition. The Court has upheld all the acts you find objectionable. What's the problem again?"

I support the VA/KY Resolutions in which states claimed the right to declare acts of Congress and Supreme Court decisions, or any Federal Government policy, unconstitutional, and thus, null and void in their state.

Posted by: William | January 29, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Zouk. Franken's book was packed with lies. There was also some discussion of the lying liars who tell them.

I also agree that anyone who doesn't sign their post is a coward. Those of us who sign with stupid made-up names are brave. We deserve medals.

Posted by: Blarg | January 29, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

"I always supported clinton in his military actions, what little there were. I admit I was somewhat suspicious of the timing of some of his missile strikes but wished he would have fired off more. I also took issue with the air campaign that never went below 20,000 feet, as did many military people."

So you supported the Serbian War, where Clinton launched an unconstitutional attack against a nation that was trying to defend itself from vicious Muslim insurgents, who were attacking innocent Serb civilians.

I agree that the Serb response was overly harsh, but they were provoked.

And Muslims don't belong in Europe in the first place.

What is this, the Crusades in reverse?

But I agree with you, Clinton was a better president than either Bush.

Posted by: William | January 29, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

"I always supported clinton in his military actions, what little there were. I admit I was somewhat suspicious of the timing of some of his missile strikes but wished he would have fired off more. I also took issue with the air campaign that never went below 20,000 feet, as did many military people."

So you supported the Serbian War, where Clinton launched an unconstitutional attack against a nation that was trying to defend itself from vicious Muslim insurgents, who were attacking innocent Serb civilians.

I agree that the Serb response was overly harsh, but they were provoked.

And Muslims don't belong in Europe in the first place.

What is this, the Crusades in reverse?

But I agree with you, Clinton was a better president than either Bush.

Posted by: William | January 29, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Apparently winning world wars, trying to prevent further wars, improving the lives of practically everyone in the country, and getting us through the Great Depression makes a president one of the worst. Standing by while the Great Depression ruins uncounted lives, lying about a secret plan to get us out of Vietnam, resigning in disgrace, and pardoning Nixon are apparently okay.

Of course, we're talking about someone who blames the Civil War on Lincoln. The mind boggles.

Posted by: Blarg | January 29, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Ignorant coward, you promised to leave until you came up wtih something intelligent. This last post doesn't even qualify as intelligable.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

It is shaping up that 2008 will be the year of the women and minorities - this is good for the US - but will it change anything?

No - HRC, Obama, Richarson, Ford Jr., et al will continue to ignore the needs of the people in favor of power -

Based on blogging and polling I can say Ford and the entire constructive one party system of Demo-Republicans is so out of touch with the mood of the country 2008 may in fact turn out to be the year of the upset.

Pelosi is so far away in la la land that she is oblivious to the idea that the House could go back to the Reputricans in 2008 - this deliberate disconnect between the people and Washington will result in 2008 being the year of massive upsets

I cannot predict who the winners will be but it will not be the "USUAL SUSPECTS"

Maybe it will be the year of an independent

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | January 29, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Colin, I am just not excited about another comedian (after John Kerry ) running for office. all politicians dig their own grave when they try to be funny. don't know much about Franken, except that his book was packed with lies and exaggerations. If he is going to run his campaign based on lies and exagerrations, I won't like him much. I will leave that decision to the people of his state. they are more capable than I to determine their interests. will he wear the traditional state feather boa to the inaguaration?

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

William -- I think it might be time to re-read some of those history books. Your "chronology" of American presidents does miss a few important subjects. For exaple, in addition to "violating states rights" Lincoln also managed to PRESERVE THE UNION and END SLAVERY. Those are two rather impressive things, although I actually do agree that Lincoln should not have violated civil liberties in the manner that he did.

Wilson -- no mention of WINNING WORLD WAR I. Sort of a big thing to overlook. Also, in 2007 are you really still worried about "one world government?" Seriously man, that kind of stuff just makes you sound crazy. NO ONE is in favor of anything approaching "one world government." Trust me, your fighting against a ghost with that complaint.

FDR -- Again, you're missing a little thing called WWII and the Depression, both of which FDR steered us through. It was sort of a big deal at the time. You can read about it -- seriously check it out at the library. Neat stuff.

Carter -- Not the best president, but he actually started a lot of the "conservative" policies that Reagan continued. He began the deregulation of the energy market, vetoed Democratic spending bills, and started rebuilding the military budget. If your complaint is that he was some "super liberal," that's just not accurate. In many ways, he was the first "new democrat."

On a more macro level, I'm also curious about your views on the government's "unconstitutional acts." Article III of the constitution creates a judicial branch, including the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constition. The Court has upheld all the acts you find objectionable. What's the problem again? To paraphrase Justice Scalia, if you don't like those Supreme Court decisions -- go amend the constititon. Otherwise, quit complaining about the "unconstitutionality" of things that the Court has affirmed for 50 to 100 years.

Posted by: Colin | January 29, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Are our private schools leaving people behind?

Paraphrased "quote": "Webb('s)...foolish "rebuttal" to the SOTU. Imagine quoting a poll taken which says "most" GIs don't support the war,"

Actual quote: "The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction." - J. Webb, SOTU Response

OR,

Compare Quote #1: "to suggest that the President of the US would take any soldiers life lightly is slanderous and beneath contempt,"

to Quote #2: "3000 lost over many years is actually quite pleasing from an attrition perspective."

Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

I always supported clinton in his military actions, what little there were. I admit I was somewhat suspicious of the timing of some of his missile strikes but wished he would have fired off more. I also took issue with the air campaign that never went below 20,000 feet, as did many military people.

But I never doubted he did what he thought was best and his intentions and motives were good. his morality on this aspect was not flawed like some of his other decisions. He did miss the boat on terror and bin laden and failed in that leadership role. no human is perfect.

It is not about questioning, it is how you go about doing that. why is this so hard for you nimrods to comprehend. A little taste and class goes a long way. have the new Dems really lost this ability?

Most distrurbing is this constant tit for tat with the clinton legacy always invoked. You did it to clinton so we are doing it to you. so there. I dissapproved of clinton's intern policy and some others but never despised him or thought him contemptible. there are some things about him I actually like. not so much his wife.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Blarg...another good point.

Colin...I don't think Franken will win the nomination, and if he does, it will be a mistake.

Despite denials from his supports, he is MUCH too extreme to win that race, and what's more, most people view him as a clown. (Whether or not this is fair is up to you to decide, but that's how he's thought of.)

Franken is the GOP dream nominee.

But I think Walz or Oberstar or just about any D congressperson in MN could take out Coleman.

Why nominate Franken when you can nominate someone who is almost guaranteed to win?

Posted by: William | January 29, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

1. Cilizza, call up the WaPo techie, there's something wrong with the site today.

2. Lyle...I can certainly understand why liberals would be surprised and shocked to hear someone opine that LBJ, Carter, FDR, Wilson, etc were terrible presidents.

I could go on for hours about why these men were awful presidents, but for the sake of expediency I'll just write a sentence or two about each, after this metaphor.

OK. Imagine the US as a ship (the Ship of State.)

The ship started to drift off course after the civil war (NO, not because slavery ended, before drindl accuses me of being racist again.)

The ship started to drift off course during the Lincoln presidency because he set a dangerous precedent for the greatly expanded authority, scope and power for the Federal Government. This precedent laid the groundwork for furture POTUSs to expand the intrusive Fed Gov even more.

I am talking about Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus, his use of Federal troops to crush and terrorize anti-war demonstrators, his practice of jailing anyone who didnt agree with him without due process, and his raising an army to invade his own country.

Again, before somebody accuses me of being racist, I am NOT defending slavery. Of course it's a good thing that slavery is gone.

I am defending state rights. The Civil War was NOT launched with the purpose of ending slavery. Most Northerners supported or were ambivalent to slavery, and almost all Northerners felt that blacks were inferior. So Lincoln did not invade the South to free the slaves.

He invaded the South because they resisted the Federal government from imposing its own view on the states unconstitutionally. He invaded the South to deprive the Confederacy of their constitutional right to secede. The South was simply sick of having northern liberals force their views on the South, just like they do today. Liberals, it seems, are never content to simply keep their values in their own states, they always want to force them on others.

On the other hand, if there was a proposal to make gay marriage, abortion, guns, etc a STATE issue, you would find a LOT of conservative support for that. The only reason conservatives are supporting federal bans on gay marriage is because liberals are constantly trying to use COngress and the Supreme Court to foist their views on the Several States.


So, getting back to the metaphor, Lincoln tipped the steering wheel of the ship of state off course.

Then, Wilson came along, and engaged in McCarthyis tactics of demonizing anyone who disagreed with him (sound familiar Curious George?), and passed Sedition Acts to jail people who disagreed with his policies. In short, he tried to usurp powers that were not under the executive branch, and set a dangerous precedent for future and more grandiose stunts by FDR.

But the worst thing Wilson did was come up with the League of Nations. Yes, I know liberals like the UN and the idea of a supranational body policing the world and telling everyone what to do.

But personally I believe membership in the UN is an unconstitutional surrender of part of our sovereignty, and that it is a huge step down a slippery slop to one-world government, under the UN.


FDR: the federal government entered the 30s the size of a mouse and exited the size of an elephant. A large elephant, with lots of unconstitutional powers, a government that tries to stick its big nose into every aspect of American's life, unconstitutionally. FDR instituted a ton of socialist, and even some quasi-fascist programs, he ruled the US like a dictator, and tried to pack SCOTUS with socialist minded judges. FDR is the WORST president ever from my perspective since he is responsible more than anyone for the monstrous hydra of Fed Gov we have today, and for all the unconsitutional things the government today does (like social security, gun control, certain taxation policies, etc.) FDR shredded the constitution and state rights.

So, FDR crashed the ship of state into a rock and it started to sink.

Truman and Eisenhower came along and pumped water out, and patched up some of the holes. But because of all the damage FDR had done, they could not dislodge the ship of state from the rock.

Then after Kennedy was assassinated, LBJ came along, and started pumping water pack in, and removing the repairs, as well as creating some new holes in the hull.

I know that many liberals support FDR's "Great Society" equal rights programs. But the fact remains that they are unconstitutional, and violate state rights too. Even if something is "good" if its unconstitutional, you still cannot institute it.

I blame LBJ for handling Vietnam wrong, but not for fighting the Vietnam War, which was necessary for the containment of communism, and aguably delayed and prevented the spread of communism into SE Asia. The Vietnam War was necessary, or at least achieved something important to our national security, unlike the war in Iraq.

Later, Carter came along, and turned a blind eye to communism, letting it reach the high water mark during his watch. His domestic and foreign policies were pathetic and terrible, and emboldened our enemies. He also ruined the economy. Carter started chopping huge holes in the ship of state. Water flowed in and it started to sink.

Ronald Reagan came along, pumped all the water out, and repaired the ship. America was strong, safe, and prosperous again.

Then Bush I and Clinton came along. They didn't do too much to sink the ship, but they didnt continue the repairs either. For the most part, they said "whatever" and fell asleep at the switch, allowing the repairs of Reagan to come undone and water to begin seeping into the hold again.
Also, Clinton passed up opportunities to eliminate bin laden.

Then Bush II came along and practiced constitutional shredding on a monumental, colossal scale, in addition to introducing treasonous policies like amnesty.

On the foreign policy front, America's enemies are emboldened, and Bush was weakened our standing in the world, damaged our relationships with our allies, and turned a blind eye to North Korea (which set off a nuclear bomb), Iran, China, India, etc.

So basically Bush started chopping holes in the ship of state on a scale not seen since Carter.

It remains to be seen when we will have a president who starts making repairs.

Personally I think the best man to do so is Hayley Barbour.

Of course, since you are liberal, you probably don't agree with parts of my metaphor. But this is how I see it.

Posted by: William | January 29, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- Al Franken is leaving his show because he's getting ready to win a Senate seat in Minnesota. And yes, you can quote me on that. Those wondefully strange people in MN will send Mr. Franken to Washington in 2008. And although I'm sure you'll disagree, Franken will be a MUCH better fit than Coleman currently is for the state. I can barely stand waiting till 2008 to watch the GOP defend all those seats. Could get ugly.

Posted by: Colin | January 29, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

1. Cilizza, call up the WaPo techie, there's something wrong with the site today.

2. Lyle...I can certainly understand why liberals would be surprised and shocked to hear someone opine that LBJ, Carter, FDR, Wilson, etc were terrible presidents.

I could go on for hours about why these men were awful presidents, but for the sake of expediency I'll just write a sentence or two about each, after this metaphor.

OK. Imagine the US as a ship (the Ship of State.)

The ship started to drift off course after the civil war (NO, not because slavery ended, before drindl accuses me of being racist again.)

The ship started to drift off course during the Lincoln presidency because he set a dangerous precedent for the greatly expanded authority, scope and power for the Federal Government. This precedent laid the groundwork for furture POTUSs to expand the intrusive Fed Gov even more.

I am talking about Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus, his use of Federal troops to crush and terrorize anti-war demonstrators, his practice of jailing anyone who didnt agree with him without due process, and his raising an army to invade his own country.

Again, before somebody accuses me of being racist, I am NOT defending slavery. Of course it's a good thing that slavery is gone.

I am defending state rights. The Civil War was NOT launched with the purpose of ending slavery. Most Northerners supported or were ambivalent to slavery, and almost all Northerners felt that blacks were inferior. So Lincoln did not invade the South to free the slaves.

He invaded the South because they resisted the Federal government from imposing its own view on the states unconstitutionally. He invaded the South to deprive the Confederacy of their constitutional right to secede. The South was simply sick of having northern liberals force their views on the South, just like they do today. Liberals, it seems, are never content to simply keep their values in their own states, they always want to force them on others.

On the other hand, if there was a proposal to make gay marriage, abortion, guns, etc a STATE issue, you would find a LOT of conservative support for that. The only reason conservatives are supporting federal bans on gay marriage is because liberals are constantly trying to use COngress and the Supreme Court to foist their views on the Several States.


So, getting back to the metaphor, Lincoln tipped the steering wheel of the ship of state off course.

Then, Wilson came along, and engaged in McCarthyis tactics of demonizing anyone who disagreed with him (sound familiar Curious George?), and passed Sedition Acts to jail people who disagreed with his policies. In short, he tried to usurp powers that were not under the executive branch, and set a dangerous precedent for future and more grandiose stunts by FDR.

But the worst thing Wilson did was come up with the League of Nations. Yes, I know liberals like the UN and the idea of a supranational body policing the world and telling everyone what to do.

But personally I believe membership in the UN is an unconstitutional surrender of part of our sovereignty, and that it is a huge step down a slippery slop to one-world government, under the UN.


FDR: the federal government entered the 30s the size of a mouse and exited the size of an elephant. A large elephant, with lots of unconstitutional powers, a government that tries to stick its big nose into every aspect of American's life, unconstitutionally. FDR instituted a ton of socialist, and even some quasi-fascist programs, he ruled the US like a dictator, and tried to pack SCOTUS with socialist minded judges. FDR is the WORST president ever from my perspective since he is responsible more than anyone for the monstrous hydra of Fed Gov we have today, and for all the unconsitutional things the government today does (like social security, gun control, certain taxation policies, etc.) FDR shredded the constitution and state rights.

So, FDR crashed the ship of state into a rock and it started to sink.

Truman and Eisenhower came along and pumped water out, and patched up some of the holes. But because of all the damage FDR had done, they could not dislodge the ship of state from the rock.

Then after Kennedy was assassinated, LBJ came along, and started pumping water pack in, and removing the repairs, as well as creating some new holes in the hull.

I know that many liberals support FDR's "Great Society" equal rights programs. But the fact remains that they are unconstitutional, and violate state rights too. Even if something is "good" if its unconstitutional, you still cannot institute it.

I blame LBJ for handling Vietnam wrong, but not for fighting the Vietnam War, which was necessary for the containment of communism, and aguably delayed and prevented the spread of communism into SE Asia. The Vietnam War was necessary, or at least achieved something important to our national security, unlike the war in Iraq.

Later, Carter came along, and turned a blind eye to communism, letting it reach the high water mark during his watch. His domestic and foreign policies were pathetic and terrible, and emboldened our enemies. He also ruined the economy. Carter started chopping huge holes in the ship of state. Water flowed in and it started to sink.

Ronald Reagan came along, pumped all the water out, and repaired the ship. America was strong, safe, and prosperous again.

Then Bush I and Clinton came along. They didn't do too much to sink the ship, but they didnt continue the repairs either. For the most part, they said "whatever" and fell asleep at the switch, allowing the repairs of Reagan to come undone and water to begin seeping into the hold again.
Also, Clinton passed up opportunities to eliminate bin laden.

Then Bush II came along and practiced constitutional shredding on a monumental, colossal scale, in addition to introducing treasonous policies like amnesty.

On the foreign policy front, America's enemies are emboldened, and Bush was weakened our standing in the world, damaged our relationships with our allies, and turned a blind eye to North Korea (which set off a nuclear bomb), Iran, China, India, etc.

So basically Bush started chopping holes in the ship of state on a scale not seen since Carter.

It remains to be seen when we will have a president who starts making repairs.

Personally I think the best man to do so is Hayley Barbour.

Of course, since you are liberal, you probably don't agree with parts of my metaphor. But this is how I see it.

Posted by: William | January 29, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton was Commander in Chief for 8 years. Did you respect all of his decisions? Did you refuse to question him because he had more knowledge about military operations than you? Do you think that he had only the most noble intentions and always did what he thought was right? Do you respect his moral superiority?

Or should we only extend this kind of courtesy to Republican presidents?

Posted by: Blarg | January 29, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

New York - Air America Radio, a liberal talk radio network, said Monday that it has reached a tentative agreement to be sold to the founder of a New York area real estate company. The network also said Al Franken, its longtime headline personality, would leave next month. The agreement with Stephen Green, founder and chairman of SL Green Realty, appears to rescue the struggling network. Air America has been seeking a buyer since last fall, when it filed for bankruptcy reorganization after reaching an impasse with one of its creditors.


We'll take the station if you fire Franken. He he ha ha. there ought to be a law. no fair. no one listens to lib radio. Maybe its the mesage. In this case, perhaps the messenger.
If those "free-thinking Dems" get their way, talk radio will be outlawed. what are you afraid of - your monopoly of the airwaves ending? Lenin said it and Dems follow - message control. Also see campaign finance reform. Please ignore 1st amendment.

but then if your ideas stink and you are power crazed, what else can you do. you always lose a fair fight with those Lib notions.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Bush is CinC and has been for some time. Are you really trying to say that you or someone else has more knowledge about the Iraq situation? you must admit that sounds foolish, even from a Dem. Are you then claiming that you have some sort of moral superiority over Bush? that may be open to debate but I have not seen any evidence that Bush has any but the most noble intentions. the Senators on the other hand seem to me to be playing the ultimate in politics - I mean really. non-binding resolutions. We all know the point of that, all reward and no risk. cowards and charlatans. "I voted for the war before I wanted to run for president. now I prefer to hide from all responsibility."

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

William: "Bush is the 5th worst president after FDR, Carter, LBJ, and Wilson." This goes against any intellegent analysis I have ever read or heard about. Think about it again, surely you did not intend to make such a statement. Please reply. Thanks.

Posted by: lylepink | January 29, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

"can you distinguish between an opinion offered by anyone and expert opinion offered by recognized scholars"

so Cheney and Bush are "recognized scholars" with "expert opinion"?????

Posted by: William | January 29, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

William: "Bush is the 5th worst president after FDR, Carter, LBJ, and Wilson." This goes against any intellegent analysis I have ever read or heard about. Think about it again, surely you did not intend to make such a statement. Please reply. Thanks.

Posted by: lylepink | January 29, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

William: "Bush is the 5th worst president after FDR, Carter, LBJ, and Wilson." This goes against any intellegent analysis I have ever read or heard about. Think about it again, surely you did not intend to make such a statement. Please reply. Thanks.

Posted by: lylepink | January 29, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

William: "Bush is the 5th worst president after FDR, Carter, LBJ, and Wilson." This goes against any intellegent analysis I have ever read or heard about. Think about it again, surely you did not mean to make such a statement. Please reply. Thanks, lylepink

Posted by: lylepink | January 29, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

William: "Bush is the 5th worst president after FDR, Carter, LBJ, and Wilson." This goes against any intellegent analysis I have ever read or heard about. Think about it again, surely you did not mean to make such a statement. Please reply. Thanks, lylepink

Posted by: lylepink | January 29, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

simpletons, can you distinguish between an opinion offered by anyone and expert opinion offered by recognized scholars? Of course Webb can offer his opinion on anything he wants and now that he is a Senator, it is worth more than mine is. He may know more about the military than I do, but to extract motives from bush about his care for service members is beyond any recognized expertise and smacks of insulance. Perhaps Webb may have his points but he is certainly lacking in class or manners.

but I don't suppose that writing dirty novels about s*x with soldiers is the same as commanding the whole army. so I do discount Webb's relative knowledge, especially after his twisted attempt to invoke his father and eisenhower in a bid to surrender and retreat.

you all forget that there are many, many veterans out there who don't pretend to know everything just because they were in combat 40 years ago in a country far, far away. suggesting that the president's intentions are anything less than honorable and in the best wishes for the country is deceitful and spiteful. you don't have to be a Bush supporter and your reliance on my motivations is a sure sign of your weak and paltry position. as usual you wimps attack the messenger and ignore the message, since you have no other options.

I played kickball back then but do not pretend to rule the kickball world these days. Haven't any of these Vietnam clowns done anything since then? "Reporting for duty" Ha ha ha. I am a tough Dem. Vote for me. I can surrender and look tough simultaneously.

Again, it has nothing to do with Webb personally, his policies and views are flawed. What does his person have to do with it? Do his ideas stand on their own or does he need to invoke the ghost of his father? Its just silly how the Dems try to gain traction on the thin ice they skate.
And whether I am in the Army right now is not the point, although I am sure your weak approach may want to consider it when all else fails.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

do you people not have jobs? i've never seen a thread that was so off topic as this.

what you should know about ford is he's a hack. he is a closet republican who cares more about advancing himself than he does about the party. he lost in tennessee not because he was too liberal, but because he pandered to the right wing and ran off a large chunk of his base. if you look at the total vote for governor, it was way higher than the total number of votes cast in the senate race. because a lot of democrats DID NOT VOTE because Junior, as he's known down here, ticked them off. It had nothing to do with race, it had to do with record. His voting record stunk.

Posted by: b | January 29, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

chris, c'mon. this is the biggest DLC fluff piece i've read in a LONG time.

Posted by: handjob | January 29, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, thanks for your support. You said what I meant, but better than I could.

For someone to say that having served in combat (and as Nav Sec) doesn't give Webb a better understanding of military issues is rediculous.

Also, people like Webb and Hagel should be taken more seriously than Cheney when discussing military matters, since they actually SERVED.

They understand what it's like to have bullets whizzing past your head.

They know what it's like to have to guy next to you get shot and be wounded (though I guess Cheney does too, ever since that hunting incident.)

In that hunting incident, Cheney broke 3 of the 4 rules of gun safety. :(

I admire Hagel 1,000 times more than Cheney.

Posted by: William | January 29, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

KOZ...I'll thank you not to make "slanderous accusations" about me, right after you complain that I make them about Bush.

"to suggest that the President of the US would take any soldiers life lightly is slanderous and beneath contempt, regardless of politics."

Oh really? How do you explain to points I mentioned above then, such as the TROPHY issue? Do you know what that is? Do a google search.

Despite your claims to be a "libertarian leaning Republican" or whatever, you are obviously a GOP lapdog and a hack for the Bush administration, which keeps trying to use the tactic of accusing anyone who questions Bush policies of treason, disloyalty, partisan politics, etc.

That tactic was descredited by the last elections, which demonstrated that most Americans are not dumb enough to believe that Bush=patriotism and anyone who criticizes Bush is treasonous.

Bush got plenty of mileage out of that tactic, effectively silencing people who questioned his policies for a couple of years, but now the jig is up for Jorge, and his deespicable McCarthyite tactics have been rejected and discredited.

Why should it be unaccetable to question the president's caring for our troops. We should seek the truth, wherever it is found. I think Bush cares more about his ego and about "winning" then about the lives of our soldiers.

You ask if MY values are "fungible."

Do you even HAVE any values aside from blind loyalty to the Bush administration? If you do, then stop using McCarthyite tactics against anyone who dares to question your hero.

In truth, Bush is NOT strong on national security, he is NOT conservative, and he was a TERRIBLE president, and in terms of LONG TERM damage done to our country, he is WORSE than Clinton.

Bush is the fifth worst president, after FDR, Carter, LBJ and Wilson.

Conservatives who blindly support him just because he has an R next to his name make me sick.

Posted by: William | January 29, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Sorry if this posts multiple times; the software is having some problems.

KOZ: "William, according to your logic, you had better have several medals pinned to your chest in order to have an opinion on this. but that is just not that way things work. any fool can have an opinion on anything."

Okay, so Webb's military experience doesn't give him any special authority on military issues. Got it.

KOZ, next paragraph: "If you don't think that cheney's long service in government gives him some special insight that you or I don't posess, you are not dealing with a full deck."

Okay, so Cheney's government experience gives him special authority on military issues. Makes sense.

Cognitive dissonance: You've got to love it!

Posted by: Blarg | January 29, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

KOZ...I'll thank you not to make "slanderous accusations" about me, right after you complain that I make them about Bush.

"to suggest that the President of the US would take any soldiers life lightly is slanderous and beneath contempt, regardless of politics."

Oh really? How do you explain to points I mentioned above then, such as the TROPHY issue? Do you know what that is? Do a google search.

Despite your claims to be a "libertarian leaning Republican" or whatever, you are obviously a GOP lapdog and a hack for the Bush administration, which keeps trying to use the tactic of accusing anyone who questions Bush policies of treason, disloyalty, partisan politics, etc.

That tactic was descredited by the last elections, which demonstrated that most Americans are not dumb enough to believe that Bush=patriotism and anyone who criticizes Bush is treasonous.

Bush got plenty of mileage out of that tactic, effectively silencing people who questioned his policies for a couple of years, but now the jig is up for Jorge, and his deespicable McCarthyite tactics have been rejected and discredited.

Why should it be unaccetable to question the president's caring for our troops. We should seek the truth, wherever it is found. I think Bush cares more about his ego and about "winning" then about the lives of our soldiers.

You ask if MY values are "fungible."

Do you even HAVE any values aside from blind loyalty to the Bush administration? If you do, then stop using McCarthyite tactics against anyone who dares to question your hero.

In truth, Bush is NOT strong on national security, he is NOT conservative, and he was a TERRIBLE president, and in terms of LONG TERM damage done to our country, he is WORSE than Clinton.

Bush is the fifth worst president, after FDR, Carter, LBJ and Wilson.

Conservatives who blindly support him just because he has an R next to his name make me sick.

Posted by: William | January 29, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"William, according to your logic, you had better have several medals pinned to your chest in order to have an opinion on this. but that is just not that way things work. any fool can have an opinion on anything."

Okay, so Webb's military experience doesn't give him any special authority on military issues. Got it.

"If you don't think that cheney's long service in government gives him some special insight that you or I don't posess, you are not dealing with a full deck."

Okay, so Cheney's government experience gives him special authority on military issues. Makes sense.

Cognitive dissonance: You've got to love it!

Posted by: Blarg | January 29, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

William, according to your logic, you had better have several medals pinned to your chest in order to have an opinion on this. but that is just not that way things work. any fool can have an opinion on anything. Some experts opinions are more valuable, but in the arena of morality, there are no experts. I appreciate your views on capital punishment but don't concur, for example.

If you don't think that cheney's long service in government gives him some special insight that you or I don't posess, you are not dealing with a full deck.

and Webb is pandering. eisenhower didn't win the Korean war, it goes on. webb's dad didn't redeploy. and to suggest that the President of the US would take any soldiers life lightly is slanderous and beneath contempt, regardless of politics. you must be a Dem in wolf's clothing. shame on you and him. Have you Dems lost ALL sense of shame? Are you values and motives that fungible?

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I can't wait for Ford to run for office again. It will assure that Bredesen is replaced by a Republican! :)
---------------------------------------


KOZ and ProudtobeGOP, while I'm not a Webb fan (he beat Allen, whom I want to run for POTUS), I really do respect him.

He served with honor and courage in Vietnam (unlike Kerry's service) and he is pro-military and writes military novels. He is certainly a true patriot, and he also certainly has the right to criticize the Bush administration for their handling of Iraq and Afghanistan, since he was a combat veteran, and secretary of the navy.

Also, I thought his rebuttal to Bush's pathetic SOTU was actually very good, even excellent. He made completely valid points, and his accusations that the Bush admin has treated the troops callously and that he led us into war "recklessly" are arguably not that far off the mark.

Did you hear how the NG and Army troops having their tour extended found out from phone calls from their distraught loved ones, not their commanders?

Did you hear how the Bushies refused to provide our troops in Iraq with the TROPHY anti-RPG system, because Raytheon is building a competing system that won't be ready until 2011, and is inferior to TROPHY?

Bush and his ilk HAVE mishandled the war, and I think GOP commentators like John Hawkins,etc are trying to smear him because they feel threatened. Finally the Dems have a real war hero in their ranks.

Well, I don't tailor my views to fit a party line. I stick to my beliefs and values, and I admire Jim Webb's service (but not his writing.)

While Webb and Hagel were bleeding in Viet Nam, Bush was chilling in the National Guard sitting around in TX, and Cheney (a coward if there ever was one) was on "deferment."

How DARE Cheney criticize Chuck Hagel, a war hero, when Cheney was hiding under his bed during Vietnam??

Posted by: William | January 29, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

So clinton and Sandy burglar just missed 13 opportunities to get bin Laden by accident? and now pointing this out in any objective fashion is smear?

why can't you Dems relish the fact that you are weak on defense and can't protect the country. Own it. all your supporters know it already and won't leave you because of it. they may appreciate the honesty for a change.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

All of us, coward? - there is ony one of you. you must be some kind of John Kerry - "Do you know who I am?" " the rules don't apply to me. "" It's not even a real name you twit.

entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

drindl: You may have missed the Hannity show last night, but it was another example of how the smear merchants work. By playing the portion that was edited out of the original 9/11, that was proven false, btw, and no way will anyone with any intelligence at all see it for any other reason than what it was, SMEAR.

Posted by: lylepink | January 29, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

With regard to the post alleging that Huckabee was instrumental in having a serial rapist paroled, it would not surprise me in the least, although I will not jump to conclusions until I see confirmation of this report.

Huckabee is one of those conservatives who for some inexplicable reason, feel that the death penalty is imhumane, or whatever.

Personally, with no intentions of offending anyone, I think that is a very stupid stance.

People who kill, rape, or molest others deserve to forfeit their lives. They showed no mercy to their victims, and deserve none.

But Schmuckabee seems to be a member of the loony "restorative justice" crowd, that believes for true justice to be done, the perp must be given therapy, and societal problems that lead to crime must be addressed.

I say, forget the societal problems. Hang all murderers, rapists, molesters, armed robbers, care jackers, burglars, pimps and drug dealers, and then see how many people want to commit crimes.

Preferably, the hangings would be public, and also live on TV :)

Posted by: William | January 29, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

What's the scandal about Occidental College? Obama went there, but doesn't talk about it, instead focusing on the higher-profile universities he also attended. Also, when he was younger, he went by a nickname. Why is any of that worth mentioning?

Posted by: Blarg | January 29, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Is anyone planing on buying UpChuck's new book? I hear he based it on conversations with pretend people who live in his head. doesn't he know any actual people? Can't he predict any numbers that are based in reality other than "let's just take 50% of everything" Is he serious? I think he is heading around the bend.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Proud's and KOZ's comments are an insult to all of us who fail to post under a name.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

To whomever asked about Rudy's border stance, the last I heard, he was pro-amnesty. But at the rate at which candidates are flip flopping, who knows what he thinks this week, and who knows what he'll think next week.

I don't trust Guliani, or Romney either.

Re: Huckabee, he is not anti-immigrant at ALL. In fact, he is strongly pro-amnesty, and favors giving illegals government benefits as part of his "compassionate conservative" agenda. Huckabee goes out of his way to pander to the Hispanic lobby for some strange reason.

Also, the only issues Huckabee is actually conservative on are abortion, gay marriage, and, I suppose, guns.

Posted by: William | January 29, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

'More projection from IC. He has no brain, posts meaningless drivel and sucks. '

ROFLOL-- look in the mirror.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"This was his decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy," Clinton, D-N.Y. said Sunday. "We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office" in January 2009.

"that way I won't ever have to come up with a policy or opinion on this."

Posted by: Hillary | January 29, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

When the Dems lose the next election they will lay the blame on the ignorant fools who failed to vote for their enlightened candidate. they will assume that it was because she was the wrong sex or he was the wrong color or some fringe group picked on him.

consider that most of us don't want a mommy government to solve each and every problem we encounter in our daily lives. Just consider that you may be losing on the issues. Imagine that.

why did Lamont lose if 80% of everyone wants to surrender now? even in connecticut you couldn't find a majority of quitters. this was a one issues race and you can almost eliminate confounding variables and draw a reasonable conclusion.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I like Harold Ford, and thought he got a dirty deal in the past election..BUT, I understood that he was the favorite going in, on an open seat against a local politician... Now it appears that the MSM is calling his effort an attempted "upset" to further cushion the hard landing of losing a winnable seat. The DLC for all of the good and bad press, was a centrist coalition group that showed sanity in public policy, and that Clinton used, and learned from, in his quest for national stature. His wife is not so introspective. Her naked ambition and ego,won't stop for any policy reflection, especially from the DLC. She even turned one against Bill,to her advantage in Iowa, leaving the impression that she has plenty of experience standing up to "evil and bad MEN"....at home............ Harold Ford should be a welcome edition to the DLC group, and grow in stature because of it.

Posted by: L. Sterling. | January 29, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

coward, please do not include me in your ignorant attempt at a statement. You obviously know nothing of military service or sacrifice. Go back to supporting your pathetic elected officials who are now spending your money to non-bindingly opine and put their views "on the record" as if we don't already know what those views are.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 29, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

More projection from IC. He has no brain, posts meaningless drivel and sucks. Look in the mirror coward. I will take rest of the day off if you can come up with one intelligent thing to say.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Andy R & KOZ -- Clinton did NOT win because of Perot. There's plenty of data out there that shows that Perot voters would have evenly split 1/3 to Bush, 1/3 to Clinton, and 1/3 simply wouldn't have voted at all. Hard to remember in 2007, but 1992 was also a "change" election and Clinton tapped into the electorate's discontent very effectively. The race would have been closer if Perot hadn't run, but Clinton still would have won.

Posted by: Colin | January 29, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

'Al Sharpton wants to know.'

So here's where we begin the racist portion of the day. I'm leaving. You wingers sure know how to hate, don't you? You're not even worth bothering with -- you sicken me.

and I have no understanding of things military? spoken like a true chickenhawk. where'd you get YOUR understanding of it?Your GI Joe doll?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

The rehab center is opening today in Texas. This is an example of how a few people with connections in the media can do so many really good things. The idea that the folks, dems in particular, do not support our troops is but another way the smear merchants works. The dems must answer these charges now, for they will get traction very quickly if not shut down. Two of the first pols that were on board at the start will be speaking, McCain and Hillary, if reports are accurate.

Posted by: lylepink | January 29, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Mike Huckabee announces, and there's no post for that, or even a mention of it?

Cilizza, do you even have a brain? Stop posting about meaningless things and post about what's important. Honestly!

This blog sucks!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Ignorant coward - please point to one thing you have EVER written which is not vile spam. you're self-descriptive accusation is telling - it is called projection.
continue to ignore the message and attack the messenger - your usual MO. you have no alternatives because you and your ilk are bereft of any actual ideas, only possessed of insults.

I knew I shouldn't have broken my non-fraternization with moonbats pledge.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of being born on third base....

White House Brings in New Pastry Chef
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 29, 2007
Filed at 12:53 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- There's a new name behind the decadent desserts at the White House: William Yosses. Yosses has been named as the executive pastry chef for the White House, first lady Laura Bush announced Monday.

''Chef Yosses has impressed us from the start with his original and delicious creations,'' the first lady said. ''He has a light touch with desserts, and the enthusiasm with which he approaches his profession makes him a real asset for all of us.''

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | January 29, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Here's another right-wing conspiracy:
Occidental recalls 'Barry' Obama
" a former Haines Hall resident from Hawaii known at the time as Barry announced that he was forming an exploratory committee to run for president of the United States.

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama is usually described as an alumnus of Columbia University, where he earned his bachelor's degree, and of Harvard Law School.
Despite the somewhat awkward facts that Obama transferred from Occidental and that his official website biography doesn't even mention the campus, old friends and former teachers at the well-regarded 120-year-old school proudly described him as a serious scholar and a good athlete who helped the JV Tigers basketball team to an undefeated season."

Good ole' Barry. What does he stand for?
How does he define himself? Al Sharpton wants to know.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 29, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

'Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and other top Shiite religious figures were the apparent targets of a plot by a Muslim messianic cult intent on seizing the Shiite holy city of Najaf, Iraqi officials said. '

Because our troops really need to be in the middle of this batsh** crazy kind of stuff.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

all zouk knows how to do is spew hatred and lies... ever notice how the comments drop about 50 IQ points once he's on?

once someone utters the term 'moonbats' you should just stop listening -- because everything that comes after will be the same mindless parroting and drivel.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Ignorant coward, you have lived up to your title. I knew some PC nut would ignore the message and pick on the wording. you have no understanding on anything military and should just keep quite, unless showing off you stupidity is a joy for you.

anyone who is not even man (or woman) enough to display a name doesn't deserve any effort on my part to post well-known statistics. find them yourself.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Fat and Bald - another moombat heard from. At least Kerry had an initial chance at success, before we found out who he really was, as if even he knows.

But Hillary doesn't have that luxury, we all know exactly how conniving and ruthless she is. the hope that is Obama will melt away just like it did for Dean as his wildly liberal attitudes and desires are exposed, despite his best effort to hide them. who will fill the gap from third place this time in the guise of "electability", only to lose and then be blamed for the entire parties shortcomings.

Because it can't be the dumb policies (when any exist at all), so it must be the individual or some sort of crime by those nitwit neocons. they are so dumb but they get over on us everytime. how?

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

'GIs don't support the war, but they reenlist in record numbers.'

just like most other wingers, you just make stuff up. show backup.

'I seem to remember Bush saying from the outset that this would be long and hard. and continuing to say it.'

show me the quotes. that's total BS.

'3000 lost over many years is actually quite pleasing from an attrition perspective'

i really wonder what sort of animal you were raised by, zouk. certainly wasn't human. how you can speak of 3000 deaths as 'pleasing' is astonishing to me.

ask proudGOP, if her husband was blown away in Iraq if we she would find it 'pleasing'..

you are one sick puppy

Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

This is a "fix" temporary situation...the real FIX would be real participation in party politics, I suppose.

I wanted to resist comment, and cannot. Addicted to this ongoing coverage of the people moving to the fore, and seeming to need the blog comments!

The topic above is how the Democrats can get what they want done...and how Ford might succeed in harnessing the right people for the right agenda?

So, I will avoid names for the moment, and emphasize what ought to be the solid ground for Ford to focus on no matter WHO he is talking to...deal with MERITS....and the obvious agenda of ANTI-WAR at 76% with MERITS as the way to get the 76% happy with the party direction.

I checked Ralph Nader's opinion website this morning, and noted his comment on the obvious opportunity for the local backing of activist citizenry pushing for what they truly want for an agenda.

See http://www.nader.org

I noted what I believe is apparent...his upbringing, according to the biography, was not typical...and he likely believes it can and should be...every town having an activist form....his town, Winsted, Connecticut had town hall meetings...much like the early Boston Faneuil Hall with activist leaders inspiring their fellow citizenry to expect democracy, by listening, and leading, and knowing what's up! Sam Adams was first heard as a leader in Faneuil Hall, then they moved to the Old South Meeting...where you can still find dissent and leadership opinions expressed...but it can happen all over the country, in everyone's home town...that is what is on http://www.nader.org....

Democracy example and role model inspiration...

I am still a fan of Nader...cannot help it...and am still commenting on this blog...similar addiction...likely it is good and the diversity of comments are welcome, and supposed to be!

Cheers!

But, note the 76% and the claim and proper anti-war is supposed to bring democratic representation in action at the front....

start locally, I believe is what is suggested, but, certainly give Ford some input, sure!

What happened to Dean, in my view, as a former state government agency publicist, is the media pre-empted his candidacy because of his campaign manager's idiocy and belief in the media favorite of Kerry...the response to an idiotic question that was anathema, "if Kerry wins tomorrow, will you join the Kerry Campaign?" And idiot question on a campaign trail. The answer should have been on track with solidity....NO, WE ARE GOING TO WIN...wait and see.

FACTS are FACTS. Pre-emption is supposed to be refused.

Campaign managers are supposed to support their candidate's solidity. The media certainly has the right to attack whether or not the solidity exists and whether or not the agenda is a match to the public opinion of what they seek in office.

Track record and standing up! That was the proper substance that Dean's manager owed.

Right now, the 76% momentum of Bring the Troops home, certainly is not demonstrated in Clinton's track record. Nowhere to be seen. Escape artist without backbone? Boston Metro coverage, what track record of achievement to fight can you offer, Mrs. Clinton? She avoided the answer and threw her supposed challenge to Bush. Not Democratic Congressional credible planning. Not a shred.

Proper media forced results should be ANSWER THE QUESTION, WHAT TRACK RECORD DO YOU OFFER YOUR STATEMENT FOR BACKING AND CREDIBILITY? She had no plan? She should admit it. The media CAN MAKE HER OFFER A SOLID PLAN, or admit she is not even Bush in her hypocrisy. Work with Congress if they offer a tenable plan, is the demand before Bush from the example of Kennedy, NOT Kerry, noted. But, would Clinton and Kerry back such a plan, likely yes. But are they leaders? Not in view. Edwards is at least able to stand on a beginning. He is willing to say he has the goal of Bringing the Troops home as the position NOW. Not after Bush leaves office, NOW. A plan now. Plan, sanity, and restoration of the proper view of Congress. Introduced by Kennedy. In View. Leadership? Where is that? Not from Hillary Clinton. She has no offering tendered. No show.

A Democratic Party Plan to Bring the Troops Home was a major F on her part--I think she shouuld concede her candidacy to Edwards as a beginning of standing for the Democratic majority in Congress and admitting she does not offer a stand or any leadership at all. Accusing Bush and not offering the substance to correct the exit plan is not acceptable.

The fact that Bush is not taking responsibility for what he did is clear enough to everyone, even the people backing him.

Hillary's lack of reply is the same difference. What does she offer? Plan or track record? Neither? Then what! Money and her support of her husband is not the Democratic Agenda.

She should answer the question. She cannot try to make it Bush's. A vote for Hillary is a Vote for Bush...from my view...try it on for size. She indeed tossed the responsiblity off her shoulders, and offered nothing.

Nader in 2004 offered a plan. He was opposing Bush with a real substantial plan. 6 months to offer self-rule to Iraq. U.S. withdrawal and neutral international troops via the United Nations would restore world order and bring peace.

The Democrats lied in 2000 and in 2004. Of course a vote for an Independent was not a vote for Bush when the Independent saw the same problem showing in the supposed leadership of both major parties, corrupted by corporate interests and abandoning principle and honor and law. Congress is supposed to represent the majority of this country. In November 7 we got some hope shown. Thank goodness. For me, it is not enough, but it is a shred of hope. I saw strong leadership in Kennedy's proposed legal requirement for a vote by Congress on the troops.

The fact that Bush will lose if that vote holds force, is not the country's loss. Nor Iraq's. It is the required restoration of order due Democracy. Self-rule is proper for Iraq. And, Democracy no arbitrary King, a Warrior-King, at that, is not what is Constitutional for the United States.

Nader obviously still believes we can have our Democracy.

I say people are not supposed to watch media pre-emption. To me, it is corrupt when it is not on the merits. Bush and even Kerry or Gore is Corporate Rule instead of Democracy, in my opinion.

I would not invest my hopes in military force. I would invest it in good, sound, solid leaders who have track records showing public interest and ability to stand when pressured, still insisting on the truth. We do not want enemies, we want friends, world-wide. Money should be for friendship world-wide and at the local level.

Again, I will say, Deval Patrick is seeking what ought to be real, not atypical, "Together We Can!"

I want to see each party and any independent running to run on MERITS. That is what, of course would be welcome if Ford focuses on insisting on that priority.

The media is supposed to pick up the MERITS and support them at their proper reality level of SUPPORT TRUE DEMOCRACY.

Posted by: Elizabeth | January 29, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Just wanted to respond to a canard that is getting repeated on this board.

Clinton did not win in 92 because of Perot. Clinton would have gotten about 25 percent of the Perot vote, enough to still win (narrowly, but of course a win is a win).

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | January 29, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

JEP, since that is the shortest and most astute thing you have ever posted I will break my moonbat pledge and respond (oops, I already responded to drindl, going to be one of those days is it?) FYI, we haven't bombed N Korea and we do supply them with food. what was your point besides being peevish?

I am suggesting that bugging out of difficult situations because of combat fatigue never leaves the players in a good spot. Or the subjegated population. would you have us abandon Iraq, leave it to the killers and then come back in a while with some food? Perhaps we could "redeploy" to Darfur because that is not a civil war and we belong there getting killed for no particular national interest.

Try to come up with one idea that is not laughable today.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Oh and Zouk? You should probably wake up to the fact that you won't be running against John Kerry this time. But by all means, keep up your inanity. It's funny stuff.

Posted by: F&B | January 29, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

I seem to remember Bush saying from the outset that this would be long and hard. and continuing to say it.
Of course some errors are always made in war. Most war errors result in thousands being killed in short order (antietam- 22,000 dead in one day). 3000 lost over many years is actually quite pleasing from an attrition perspective. It is estimated we are killing 28-30 enemy for each one of ours. Again, militarily a good ratio.
Of course, if the Dems ever came up with ANY policy whatsoever, we could compare them. but strictly speaking - "run away" isn't usually how the US Marines operate. you may have to think up some alternatives if you want to be taken seriously. based on most of your posts, you clearly do not want to be taken seriously.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

"Since the 50s, entire hordes of Koreans have starved to death."

Zook; Surely you aren't suggesting that we feed these people? Drop food, not bomblets?

That wouldn't be very "super-powerish" though, now, would it? No "shock and awe" value.

Posted by: JEP | January 29, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Drindl's right, the explosion of liberal blogs -- and thus their influence -- is almost a direct reaction to the MSM coverage of the singularly most-hyped 3 seconds of political infamy.

Drindl is ALSO right abt the 50 state strategy. It is clearly scaring the pants off of anyone with an R, be they neocon, conservative, moderate or lieberman.

Back to Ford, he is in a great position at the DLC. My liberal friends must remember that more extreme Democratic positions do not work as well in places like TN, which is imho one reason why his message resonates so strongly in that state. I think Corker is already dead in the water. He is a patsy with zero capability for independent thought. And I think TN and many other traditionally Red states are tired of the same ol' hopeless GOP flailing about and the radical over-politicization of every single issue. Results matter. I guess in that respect 2008 will be very much like in '92 when the answers to the country's problems seemed so clear and yet Bush and the GOP were so incapable of addressing them at the Presidential level that we needed a young southern Democratic upstart to get sh*t done.

Howard Dean + Harold Ford Jr. working together will be a force to be reckoned with for many election cycles to come if they (particularly Ford) can minimize their personal aspirations and focus on the task at hand -- turning Red States Blue by way of promoting the Democrats' effective government programs and their triumphant return of this country to fiscal sanity. This is sure to happen with the Dem Congress and sure to accelerate once Hillary or Barack become President. I don't see any hope for the GOP for a long long time.

Posted by: F&B | January 29, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

' Everyone is just about sick and tired of the old schoool bush bashing'

yeah, you bet -- and that's why his approval rating is lower than Nixon's ever were. everybody loves bush.

'Get a policy and let us know.'

You mean like bush's policy for invading iraq? Won't cost us a cent, you know.. will be a cakewalk, they'll throw flowers at us... itll' be over in 3 months...last throes...

so much for republican 'policies' -- why not just call them what they are -- travesties?

Posted by: drindl | January 29, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, if you still don't know, maybe you should adjust your tin-foil hat to a different frequency. I am waiting to see what Paris Hilton thinks before I decide on my war posture, as I think are most people.
Perhaps all these foreign sounding names and places are mixing you up. Or maybe its just because it is so reasonable to follow through on committments - that must be anathema to you Libs.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't say that Clinton won only because of Perot. Sure, Perot took votes from Bush 41. Sure Bush broke his "read my lips" tax pledge. But, first of all, you have to admit that Clinton was an excellent candidate. Look at the last four decades. The White House was 28 years red and 12 years blue. If Carter narrowly won, Clinton didn't. He's really an exception. Get used to it, it's already a good thing when a democratic candidate gets elected.

Posted by: Pierre | January 29, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

The smear merchants are out in force as expected. Congrats to Harold Ford in his new position. Don't be at all suprised that in the very near future these same smear merchants will adjust according to polls. Remember the "fear" factor I so often speak about.

Posted by: lylepink | January 29, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Ooohhh more conspiracies for JEP to uncover - my hero.

GOP, I wouldn't quote Webb much, he is now known for exaggerations and spin after his foolish "rebuttal" to the SOTU. Imagine quoting a poll taken which says "most" GIs don't support the war, but they reenlist in record numbers. HMMMMM??? Imagine using your father's service in the Berlin airlift to justify surrender in a difficult situation. I wonder if Daddy Webb wanted to redeploy elsewhere from Berlin at the time. consider using eisenhower as a model for fixing a broken war. Note to Dems - we are still at war in Korea (cease-fire in place) and have sunstantial troops standing by there while the North develops nukes. Ummm good example of a Dem outcome??? Since the 50s, entire hordes of Koreans have starved to death.

you poor fool Dems are so confused you can't even find a metaphor to use. Please leave the military to the gruups. you clearly are completely out of your depth.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

This sandy is a real case. Have you nohting to say, sandy, except to parrot rush limbuagh? Not a single original thought?Nothing to say except calling Dems kindergarten names. I thought not. You're rather simple-minded.

Why does it matter to you, GOP, whether 'celebrities' do or don't protest a particular war? I don't pay much attention to them, myself, and I don't understand why so many other people do. Why do you care?

and 'Hanoi Jane' as you call her, is now a devout Christian who spends much of her time [and money] actually helping poor people, especially girls. Last time I looked, we all still [thank god, and no thanks to the republican party' had a Constitution and free speech.

Whether Iraq is parallel to vietname is irrelevant now. We have a 'war' where 'winning' -- the best possible outcome we can hope for -- is a government domined by the Shia majority with strong ties to Iran.

What exactly did that gain for us?

Posted by: drindl | January 29, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"I wonder how many evangelical christians realize how deeply their party is in bed with this nut and how much of their taxpayer dollars goes to support him?"

Brownback's probably going to benefit the most from all these evangelicals you mention here, waking up to the faith-based scam, it will be a test of his real bent, whether he can dislodge the Evangelicals from the faith-based feeding trough that they share with some very unsavory hogs.

He should hire David Kuo onto his staff: It would be a very smart political move, almost as Machiavelian as McCain's staffing choices. Whether Dobson wants to admit it or not, most Evangelicals believe Kuo's book, the truth tends to shine forth despite all mortal denial.

(Is there any more profane piece of prose to come out of this election cycle than "..just give me a f#&*%*g faith-based thing!!!") Doesanyone reading this blog actually doubt Rove used those very words?

And trhe Faith-Based bonanza isn't actually a bona-fide government agency, it hangs by a Damoclean thread.

Anyone know otherwise, pleasse elucidate, but since it was one of Bush's first "official unofficial" acts of his first purloined presidency (July 4th, 2001, Liberty Hall, Philadelphia), the Faith-Based initiative has never been approved by Congress, has it?

Isn't it still some sort of "executive order" and not an official vote of COngress that keeps that office open?

Is there a website, government or otherwise, that gives that information, about where the money goes and just where it comes from, in terms of the taxes we pay.

We know the office was originally manned by David Kuo, then by Kansas Congressman Jim Ryun's daughter, but with Jim Ryun(R) replaced by Nancy Boyda(D), who's at the Faith-based-office helm now? And what can they tell us about the program,...specifically, where our money went (and please, may we see the receipts?)

Or is this another no-bid project, like Iraq?

The Hare Krisna's (the cult, not the avatar) and the Scientologists also benefit quite handsomely from this magnanimous Presidential give-away, so now that the Dems have the House, why not look a bit more deeply into this questionable initiative?

Who would pressure Congress to ignore this travesty? It would be worth watching closely, which interests resisted an inquiry into the whole Faith Based program. What might they be trying to hid or whom they are trying to protect?

And while we are at it, we should be looking closely at tax exemptions for some of these cults.

If they are just billion-dollar international corporations disguised as hokey psuedo-religious congregations, we should change that immediately. We need a new kind of "Hammer" in Congress, someone with the legal mind, pit-bull guts and the Congressional subpoena power to bring these giants down to committee level. Then we can extricate the truth from them, in a civilized fashion.

No waterboards allowed in Congressional hearings....

Posted by: JEP | January 29, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Less than 100,000 at that anti-war rally. A big bored shrug. susan saranwrap and "only slightly crazier than Ted" Jane Turner or fonda or whatever just don't have the draw that say the Beach Boys on the 4th of July have. can you see that there are a few loudmouths that have some influence over some primaries but no real depth in the general population. See Lamont again. this is why rudy will be the next president. Everyone is just about sick and tired of the old schoool bush bashing, the rush to surrender and the name calling. Get a policy and let us know.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Note to Hanoi jane and the rest of the hollywood nut jobs who have the audacity to think that their celebrity status equates with statesmanship:
No one knows the tragic story of America in Vietnam better than Jim Webb, first as a Marine, then as a writer. So the newly elected Democratic senator from Virginia--a fierce opponent of the war in Iraq--wants to keep Vietnam out of the debate over Iraq. "As much as possible, we need to keep this debate away from Vietnam," Webb said last week. Iraq "is not a parallel situation."

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 29, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

"So we should jump for joy and praise Howard Dean just because he obeys the law at the airport?"


Yeeeeaaaaah!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Clinton only won because of Perot, very true. Bush broke his taxes pledge, a fatal mistake for conservatives, and clinton ran as a centrist and stole all contraversial issues. don't get the idea that this means anyone is ready for one of your leftist candidates. Look what happened to Lamont.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 29, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

So we should jump for joy and praise Howard Dean just because he obeys the law at the airport? The guy is a raving lunatic - worse than that President of Iran. Howard Dean is a crackpot. No one takes him seriously - not even the congressional leadership of his own party.

Posted by: Sandy | January 29, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

andy r, your xmas airport story confirms what i had always thought about dean - that he's a real person who deals with daily life just as the rest of us do. it also says sth about the state of vermont and city of burlington, where i'd be living now if i could have found a job there 20 years ago. thanks.

Posted by: meuphys | January 29, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

"Bill Clinton [became] the first Democrat to be elected President for a full two terms since Truman"

I would say "since Roosevelt" given that Truman was initially FDR's VP.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

Observations on Washington-style democracy

By Barry Grey in Washington, D.C.
24 January 2007

Political life in the US capital is increasingly an exercise in deceit and self-delusion. It does not take long for an objective observer to discern that behind the traditional forms of parliamentary democracy--congressional debates, floor votes, hearings, etc.--the machinery of a presidential dictatorship is being consolidated and already operating in key areas of policy, both foreign and domestic.

The Bush administration has successfully asserted, due largely to the compliance of a complicit and cowardly Democratic Party and a corrupt media, a degree of unchecked and unaccountable power that is unprecedented in US history. On the basis of the pseudo-constitutional theory of the "unitary executive" and the supposed war-time powers of the commander-in-chief (in the undeclared, unlimited and phony "war on terror"), the right-wing clique around the White House routinely violates constitutional norms and legal statutes, snubs Congress and takes actions that flagrantly violate the democratic rights of the American people.

All those involved--administration officials, judges, congressmen, the Washington press corps--are well aware of the advanced state of decay of traditional democratic procedures and the buildup of police-state forms of rule. Yet the outer trappings of parliamentary process for the most part continue, by mutual consent of all involved, in what amounts to a democratic Potemkin Village, maintained in part to keep the people in the dark about the imperiled state of their democratic rights.

There are internal debates and conflicts, which can become heated at times, about the wisdom, legality and propriety of the administration's more brazen assertions of absolute power, but such disputes are never allowed to resonate in any significant way beyond the narrow confines of the Washington establishment.

Among themselves, in their offices, clubs and watering holes, the denizens of the capital engage in gallows humor about the latest administration outrage against democratic norms and the constitutional principle of "checks and balances" between coequal branches of government. But since they all have a stake in maintaining the existing two-party political monopoly, through which the financial-corporate elite asserts its basic interests, and they all share an allegiance to American capitalism and its imperialist aims around the world, they continue to play the game as though nothing much had changed.

Last Thursday's appearance by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Senate Judiciary Committee provided the latest example of administration stonewalling and contempt for Congress and the impotence of the legislators.

The day before the hearing, Gonzales notified the committee that the administration had obtained authorization from one anonymous member of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court to continue its National Security Agency program of electronic surveillance of Americans' phone calls and e-mails. It was patently obvious that this was a maneuver to provide a judicial fig leaf for an illegal and unconstitutional invasion of privacy, close down court challenges to the program, and provide Bush and other administration officials with legal cover in the event of future criminal action against them.

At the Senate hearing, Gonzales flatly refused to answer questions from committee members about the content of the authorization granted by the unnamed FISA judge or any aspect of the ongoing domestic spying program.

In the course of his remarks, Democratic Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy declared: "In the 32 years since I first came to the Senate, during the era of Watergate and Vietnam, I have never seen a time when our constitution and fundamental rights as Americans were more threatened by their own government."

For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/wash-j24.shtml

Posted by: che | January 29, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, As usual, it appears the media is annointing the major players. And, the major players are ignoring the will of the electorate to secure our borders and stem the illegal alien invasion.

Except for one announced candidate, Sen. Joe Biden. He has stated he wants to secure our borders and stop illegal immigration.

Maybe his stance on these issues is keeping his media support on mute.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | January 29, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

The DLC and the DNC need to get their top people together and come to some sort of strategic agreement, along the lines of Reagan's old "never trash a fellow Republican" motto.

But, I'll be candid and honest here, isn't is great we have such a well-defined debate going on in our own party, instead of the lock-stepping and goose-stepping we've seen over the last few years on the other side of the aisle? Its is one thing to win elections with iron-fisted Rovian Republican complicity, but it is even more impressive when the winners come from the harmonic chaos of the Democratic Party

I coined the phraze a couple years ago,"...who needs a third party when you've got the Democrats?"

Meuphys, I agree with your assessment that when all three branches are working together like a mcahine, something is wrong with our system of government. It was INTENDED to be a debate, not a club-like consensus. We need multiple voices, not just opposing opinions.

But I don't necessarily think we can manage a third-party or a multi-party system at this juncture in history.

Fortunately, the Democrats are split in so many ways, we have that healthy debate going right on in our own party, even if it has been missing from Congress and DC in general for the past decade.

The diversity and ideological spectrum of the Democrats is best exemplified by conjuring up an image of the two sides of the Clinton Impeachment circus, the Democrats and the Republicans on either side of the committee.

The Republicans all looked identical, but only one Democrat looked like the Republicans, and the rest were, well, "varietal," to put it mildly.

That is still the face of American politics today, one party consisting of one "type," and another party of many "types." This Democratic Party diversity also exists in the spectrum of ideology, not just the personal images of those many different types.

ANd here we see it again in the candidates for 08;
line up the R's top 5 and what do you have? Racially, gender-wise, even the suits they all wear, they all look something alike.

Now line up the Democrats' top 5 and you will have women, blacks, latinos, AND "white men".

There's all the proof I need to make the argument that the Democratic Party represents "We,the People" much more comprehensively and inclusively than the Republicans.

Don't get me wrong, I would support a non-partisan league, or a grassroots third-party, if we had a legal handle on the world-shaker corporate powers making all this mischief (and all this money).

But for now I think the Democrats represent so many diversified interests joining the Democratic "party of many causes" is the only way to overcome a Republican party with a single cause(corporate greed).

And while we are a mixed-up mess of many mantras, the Democrats are merging and emerging as the populist winners in places where the Dem Party was pronounced DOA year after year, not even fielding a candidate. But what became as a Democratic romp in 2006 should turn into a complete rout in 2008, and many more new faces will enter the field.

Posted by: JEP | January 29, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Sagacitty? I thought Richard's comment was when she was running against W for gov of Texas -- which if true, would make it a rather sharper remark by Huckabee -- a direct criticism of bush2.

Andy--one of the biggest disappointments I have ever felt in the MM was the way they all ganged up and cowardly smeared Howard Dean with that phony altered 'scream' tape. It was matched only by their equally cowardly and disingenious assaults on Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry.

But now a lot more people are watching and we have the numbers via internet to have some influence this time. I was happy to see that at least so far, the MM hasn't been so quick to help the wingers spread lies.

Posted by: drinndl | January 29, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Sagacity, thanks I didn't know that. I will look into and see if he did credit her on the show.

Posted by: Andy R | January 29, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Huckabee's line "Some people are born on third base and think they hit a triple" is swiped from Ann Richard's keynote address in 1988 (about G.H.W. Bush). He ought to credit her. That said, I agree he's the best one the Rs have for 08, but I'm hoping they won't notice.

Posted by: Sagacity | January 29, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Huckabee's line "Some people are born on third base and think they hit a triple" is swiped from Ann Richard's keynote address in 1988 (about G.H.W. Bush). He ought to credit her. That said, I agree he's the best one the Rs have for 08, but I'm hoping they won't notice.

Posted by: Sagacity | January 29, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, I also agree that Dean's fifty state strategy is the way the party needs to go.

Also an interesting story about the type of real guy Howard Dean is. I was in Burlington VT on christmas day to fly to meet my wife. I was outside getting my luggage togethor Howard Dean pulls up in his Toyota Highlander Hybrid and he and his daughter get out. His wife then drives around the airport, like all of us have to do, while Howard went in and stood in line with his daughter while she got her ticket and stuff. Then waited till she went through security before he left.

This is the ex-governor of Vermont and he didn't ask the State Trooper if he could keep his car in the drop-off area, or ask the TSA folks to let his daughter through security quicker. It was one of the reasons I liked him when he ran for president and still support him now. He is a regular guy that really wants to help out America and the Democratic party.

I can only imagine what John Kerry or Mitt Romney do when they go to the airport.

Posted by: Andy R | January 29, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse

JEP--you're right about the Reverend Moon. He has been a pernicious influence in Washington, often in concert with Drudge, as a starting point and original source for some of the worst slime-and-slander attacks against Democrats. And he has received millions from bush for the Unification Church-- a cult that recogtnizes Moon as the Messiah, which allows hiim to order mass marriages of his followers and dictate how they may have sex [facing a photo of Moon] and when they may have children.

I wonder how many evangelical christians realize how deeply their party is in bed with this nut and how much of their taxpayer dollars goes to support him?

Posted by: drndl | January 29, 2007 10:41 AM | Report abuse

I think you're absolutely right meuphys, that healthy disagreement within parties, and not rigid ideology, is the best basis for good governance.

However, in terms of campaigning, a party that is as fractured internally and ideologically as the Republicans are now may have a difficult time coming together to support a primary candidate who can possibly win in the general.

Posted by: drindl | January 29, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Ok what else has Carville done? NOTHING.

And by the way the only reason Clinton won in 1992 is because Ross Perot ate up so much of the Reagan Democrat vote, which usually would have gone to the first President Bush. So please quit annointing Clinton's campaign staff as the end all be all. They had one of the Best campaigners of all time, and one of the most intelligent people in this country as their nominee. A well trained monkey could have run that campaign.

Also I heard a great line from Huckabee on Meet the Press yesterday talking about helping out poor people. He said "Some people in this country are born on third base and think they have hit a triple."

Huckabee is going to be a force in this election. He also spoke about the paroling of the rapist issue and he answered it pretty well IMO. He apologized and said that the whole thing was a mistake.
He is well spoken and really comes off that he cares about people. If it weren't for his extreme pro-life and anti-gay views I would even think about voting for him. He is my darkhorse in the GOP election and he is looking more and more like a serious challenger everytime I see him.

Posted by: Andy R | January 29, 2007 10:29 AM | Report abuse

drndl, it seems to me that the "soul" of the GOP is indeed up for grabs. as someone who doesn't drink the koolaid, i think that's good, but even from a nonpartisan perspectivem well - i'm sure you have heard at least some people who support - strongly - the concept of divided government, their argument being that historically more has been accomplished when the prez + at least one house of congress are of different parties. we have seen over the past several years what happens when there is no one - in power - to ask "yes but," or to openly support an alternative proposal. one thing i have always actually LIKED about the Democrats is that they are usually NOT all on the same page, which may not make for expedited policy-making, but does have the advantage of further exploration and thus more complete understanding of an issue. in an ideal, post-partisan world, a ruling party would be unable to enact its ideology without questions both from within the party and from the opposition. i think (reasonable) dispute and disagreement are essential parts of the governance of any group, and i would guess that the lack thereof is a large part of why we are in the situation we find ourselves in today.

Posted by: meuphys | January 29, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Drindl;
'It is Howard Dean's pushback against these DC-centric, lobbyist-friendly corporatists and his 50 state strategy that we need to adhere to, to confront the challenges that face the country as a whole and the embattled middle class in particular.'

Well said, and quite accurate. While they all deserve credit for the overwhelming Democratic victory in November, Howard Dean's 50-state strategy was the core of it, and should be the continued model for future success. Nancy Boyda(KS)and Dave Loebsack(IA) are both examples of the 50-state strategy workers going forth where none dared tread, with ultimately successful results.


Posted by: JEP | January 29, 2007 10:20 AM | Report abuse

'Loser league? I do believe James Carville helped Bill Clinton win the presidency and become the first Democrat to be elected President for a full two terms since Truman'

If you've ever seen Bill Clinton speak, you will realize that Bill Clinton hellped Bill Clinton more than any advisor ever could. He has tremendous personal charisma. Carville and the DLC may have been somewhat helpful then, but the landscape [and the climate] have changed tremendously , and Carville's attacks against Dean, and his desire to keep all DNC dollars flowing to DC instead of to state parties, is in his personal interest and no one els'se.

He and his wife Mary Matalin are instutional money pits, neither of whom can be trusted.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Remember a while back when I blogged about the term "pernicious influence" that they always label "cults" with, when relatives of brainwashed victims take them to court to retrieve the family fortunes that their wayward, zombified siblings had given to Moon or some other imaginary avatar?

Here's more proof that I wasn't exaggerating their influence, or their intent, taken from today's NYTimes...http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/us/politics/29media.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

"Jeffrey T. Kuhner, whose Web site published the first anonymous smear of the 2008 presidential race, is hardly the only editor who will not reveal his reporters' sources. What sets him apart is that he will not even disclose the names of his reporters.But their anonymity has not stopped them from making an impact. In the last two weeks, Mr. Kuhner's Web site, Insight, the last remnant of a defunct conservative print magazine owned by the Unification Church led by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, was able to set off a wave of television commentary, talk-radio chatter, official denials, investigations by journalists around the globe and news media self-analysis that has lasted 11 days and counting. The controversy started with a quickly discredited Jan. 17 article on the Insight Web site asserting that the presidential campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was preparing an accusation that her rival, Senator Barack Obama, had covered up a brief period he had spent in an Islamic religious school in Indonesia when he was 6."

These groups are growing very active in our political process, particularly in the "secrets and lies" department. They certainly enjoyed a lot of easy "faith-based" money under the W administration, so their influence clearly reaps rewards.

There ought to be a law...

Posted by: JEP | January 29, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

"DLC should considerably strengthen his heft"

Wow. So the way for Democrats to develop "heft" in Cillizza's eyes is to kowtow to big money corporate interests, the inheritor class, and pseudo-Republican policies.

That explains a lot (about Chris Cillizza).

Posted by: Fascinating... | January 29, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

"Al From is the worst kind of DC bubble hack -- in the same loser league as James Carville and Bob Shrum."

I agree with Vince that Carville could hardly be called a loser. But you can keep Shrum in your league.

Posted by: Pierre | January 29, 2007 9:54 AM | Report abuse

What Tom Tancredo says:

'If I don't run, the Frightening Possibility is that BOTH the Republican and Democratic nominees for President in 2008 will advocate a virtual abandonment of border security.

Don't believe it? Think about a President John McCain. He co-sponsored a bill last year to DOUBLE legal immigration. McCain SCORNS the defenders of America's borders. He HATES the border fence.

How about a President Sam Brownback? A good man, we all agree. But Brownback NEVER MET AN AMNESTY HE DIDN'T LIKE! He wants all illegal aliens to be made citizens.

So maybe you think Mitt Romney is better? Romney is WAFFLING on strong borders. He refused to support those persecuted Border Patrol agents who were recently sent to prison for wounding an illegal alien drug dealer.'

Question: Do you think the immigration issue will split the Republican Party? Does anyone know where Rudy stands?

Could Brownback and Huckabee split the conservative religious vote on immigration plus pro/anti war sentiment?

'While 52 percent of Republicans support the surge according to a just-released AP/Ipsos poll, some 60 percent of white evangelicals oppose it, as do 56 percent of self-described conservatives.'

So we have the beginnings of what Andrew Sullivan said on the Chris Matthews' Show: an anti-war, socially conservative surge in the Republican party.

Brownback is antiwar Catholic, and also supports the Church's approval of amnesty for illegal Mexican immigrants, the great majority of whom are --Catholics.

Huckabee is a protestant evangelist, prowar and anti-immigrant.

How will this play out as a battle for the 'soul' of the party?

Posted by: drindl | January 29, 2007 9:48 AM | Report abuse

"Al From is the worst kind of DC bubble hack -- in the same loser league as James Carville and Bob Shrum."
Loser league? I do believe James Carville helped Bill Clinton win the presidency and become the first Democrat to be elected President for a full two terms since Truman. We could use more losers like these.

Posted by: Vince | January 29, 2007 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Don't tell the DLC, but Hillary is throwing their strategy out the window in her campaign
http://political-buzz.com/?p=17
This anti-war talk might just solve her Iraq problem.

Posted by: paul | January 29, 2007 9:38 AM | Report abuse

'New sources, including an advisor to Gov. Mike Huckabee, have told the Arkansas Times that Huckabee and a senior member of his staff exerted behind-the-scenes influence to bring about the parole of rapist Wayne Dumond, who Missouri authorities say raped and killed two women there shortly after his parole.

The Times' new reporting shows the extent to which Huckabee and a key aide were involved in the process to win Dumond's release. It was a process marked by deviation from accepted parole practice and direct personal lobbying by the governor, in an apparently illegal and unrecorded closed-door meeting with the parole board (the informal name by which the Post Prison Transfer Board is known).'

Does anyone think this story, which has been floating around for a couple of months, will hurt Huckabee at all?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 9:37 AM | Report abuse

'Negroponte, the son of a Greek shipping magnate, and Diana, the daughter of the chairman of British Steel, educated the children as they had been educated, taking them skiing at the Negroponte chalet in Switzerland, sending some to Negroponte's boarding school at Exeter and others to Diana's British boarding school, St. Mary's.'

How can people like this have any understanding whatsoever of what life is like for real people, who have to struggle just to get by?

Posted by: What's Wrong with Washington | January 29, 2007 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Al From is the worst kind of DC bubble hack -- in the same loser league as James Carville and Bob Shrum. They are corporate lackeys who can't be differiated from Republicans.

If the party would have listened to them in this last election, we would never have won. It is Howard Dean's pushback against these DC-centric, lobbyist-friendly corporatists and his 50 state strategy that we need to adhere to, to confront the challenges that face the country as a whole and the embattled middle class in particular. The wealthy and the global corporations are quite capable of taking care of themselves.

Posted by: drndl | January 29, 2007 9:29 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company