Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Brownback's Iowa Strategy

Much has been written about the attention that former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) has lavished on Iowa since the 2004 election. That media coverage, however, has overshadowed the fact that Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kans.) has worked quietly in recent years to make the Hawkeye State a second home -- in hopes of catapulting himself into contention next year with a stronger-than-expected finish in the state's Jan. 14 GOP presidential caucuses.

Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas
Are Republicans in the Hawkeye State hawkish on Brownback? (AP photo)

By The Fix's count, Brownback has made 16 visits to the state since the 2004 election -- once in 2004, five times in 2005, six times in 2006 and five times in just the first ten weeks of 2007. Brownback is headed back to Iowa next Monday to speak to the GOP caucus of Iowa's House of Representatives and participate in a Des Moines Register editorial board meeting. He is also slated to huddle with "conservative activists and religious leaders" in central Iowa, according to a release announcing the trip.

"He has been spending a fair amount of time in Iowa and has picked up the backing of some important social conservatives," said Mike Glover, a longtime Iowa-based reporter for the Associated Press.

Time spent does not always equal results, however. So what does Brownback have to show for his dedication to the state?

From an organizational perspective, Brownback's ace in the hole is Chuck Hurley, who is now the head of the Iowa Family Policy Center -- an influential social conservative organization. Hurley's support, however, can't be directly linked to the attention Brownback has paid to the state over the last few years; he and Hurley attended law school together at the University of Kansas and are longtime friends.

One western Iowa activist who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about Brownback said that the senator is actually focusing his stump speech too much on courting social conservatives to the detriment of addressing other issues. The source recounted an agriculture forum in Treynor, Iowa, where Brownback spent the vast majority of the time talking to the assembled farmers about partial-birth abortion and human cloning. "It seemed like a wasted opportunity," said the source.

Polling, too, seems to show little traction for Brownback in Iowa. In a Strategic Vision survey of likely GOP caucus goers conducted in mid-February, Brownback took just two percent, well behind Rudy Giuliani (29 percent) and John McCain (22 percent). An American Research Group poll in the field at the end of January also put Brownback at two percent. Giuliani led that survey with 27 percent and McCain was second with 22 percent.

Brownback's campaign points to "polling" in Iowa that seems to show Brownback in third place. But a quick check with The Post's polling team raises basic questions about the methodology and legitimacy of those numbers. (From the information available online, the poll appears to have been conducted via auto-dialing technology, which retains it skeptics among establishment pollsters. It also tested nearly 50,000 people -- a sample that appears more aimed at marketing than serious scientific survey research.)

So where does Brownback go from here?

He focuses heavily on a strong performance in the August Ames straw poll, which is traditionally cast as an early test of strength in advance of the caucuses.

The straw poll is an "early indicator of that organizational flexibility and early indicator of support candidates will get in the caucuses," according to Brownback campaign manager Rob Wasinger. "We are putting a lot of time and energy into Iowa especially in the lead up to Ames."

In 1999, George W. Bush won the Ames Straw Poll with 31 percent followed by wealthy publisher Steve Forbes with 21 percent and Elizabeth Dole at 14 percent. Lamar Alexander, who placed 6th in Ames, dropped out of the presidential race soon after.

The following year the results of the caucuses were a near-mirror image of the straw poll. Bush won with 41 percent to Forbes's 30 percent. Dole had dropped from the race before the causes, so Alan Keyes wound up in third place with 14 percent.

(It's worth noting that the results from the last three competitive Iowa GOP caucuses show that roughly one-quarter of the electorate will vote for the candidate viewed as the strongest on social conservative issues. In 2000, Keyes and Gary Bauer received a combined 23 percent; in 1996 Pat Buchanan received 23 percent and in 1988 Pat Robertson took 25 percent.)

For Brownback, a stronger-than-expected showing at Ames is essential to his chances in the Iowa caucuses and beyond. Without a win, place or show in August, Brownback's campaign will struggle to make it the the caucuses. If he can break into the top three, however, Brownback may have set his course as the preferred social conservative candidate in Iowa.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 20, 2007; 1:30 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wag the Blog Follow-up: Jumping Ship on Gonzales
Next: Louisiana: Blanco Bows Out of Gov. Race

Comments

Senator Sam Brownback claims to be the one presidential candidate who represents the traditional conservative principles. But in order to attract the feminist vote Senator Brownback has been quietly making "backdoor arrangements" with radical groups such as the Tahirih Justice center.

Tahirih Justice Center is an Iranian extremist group that enticed Senator Brownback to sponsor the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act.(IMBRA) This new law severely limits an American man's ability to marry traditional conservative women who live outside the boundaries of the USA. The new law creates a brute blocake preventing American men from marrying and corresponding with a woman from a foreign country.

Senator Brownback believes that American men who seek foreign women (a legal pursuit) should be regulated and forced to prove their innocence before they can communicate.
Senator Brownback is a foolish guillible politican who fails to realize that the radical feminists aren't going to vote for him while at the same time alientating mainstream conservatives like myself who feel like our constitutional rights and human rights have been violated by Senator Brownback who thinks Tahirih Justice Center are front line experts.

Posted by: Dave | March 27, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Brownback? Let's see, isn't he one of those right-wing geniuses who felt they knew more than all the of doctors and all the judges in the Schiavo case? Why would we want yet another moron in the White House?

Posted by: steve | March 22, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Praise The Lord and Pass The Loot!

Posted by: PTL My Boehner | March 22, 2007 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Colin, Republicans are only against capitalism when Democrats benefit from it. Go figure.

Posted by: lynne | March 21, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

ProudtobeGOP? What exactly are you proud of? The elephant-sized mess W's leaving behind?

I haven't picked a candidate yet, but unless Hitler rises from the dead and files papers to run in '08, (oh, I forgot. He's got the same problem Arnold has, not native-born) ANYONE is better than what we have now. So you just keep right on being proud as your children and grandchildren spend the next 50 years trying to shovel away the pile of Republican dung left by this, the worst administration in history.

Posted by: Cynthia Martin | March 21, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Nor'Easter -- Congress is a co-equal branch of the government. They have subpoena power and there is no caselaw supporting the proposition that the executive branch can simply ignore a subpoena because an aid works for the president.

If they want to invoke a privilege while under oath, then fine as long as they justify each claim. But simply refusing to comply at all? That's just not the way things work.

Posted by: Colin | March 21, 2007 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Zouk: 'no one trusts a trial attorney'.

As I have said, your pick for prez Rudy was a trial lawyer! So you won't trust him I suppose?

Posted by: Aussie view | March 21, 2007 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Just Say "No" to Zouk - I have to agree with you. I don't like William's views, especially when he gets onto the topic of blacks, but at least you can have a civil discussion with him.

Posted by: Aussie view | March 21, 2007 9:01 AM | Report abuse

"I predict that Speaker of the House Boehner will appreciate the irony in Jan of 2009. I can't wait for President Guilliani to sign his first bill."

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 20, 2007 05:41 PM

Posted by: this is a keeper | March 21, 2007 8:39 AM | Report abuse

roo: You, "U" are trying to say the "hip kids" can't teach an old dog new tricks. Not on your life, anything anyone can teach me, within certain boundries, including, but not limited to, the truth above everything is welcomed and appreciated.

Posted by: lylepink | March 21, 2007 8:14 AM | Report abuse

lylepink--Oh, man, in your later years please do not succumb to the instant messaging-style abbreviations. They detract *incredibly* from any point you are trying to make. Spell the words out, all the hip kids are doing it :)

Posted by: roo | March 21, 2007 6:35 AM | Report abuse

KOZ if you think globabl warming is just going to go away you are sorely mistaken. You will see the effects with your own eyes, in fact you already should be.
Seems like your global warming 'gospel', the British doco you were raving about last week ("the great global warming swindle") turns out to be just more lies from the flat earth society:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece

But you keep on believing what you believe if it makes you feel any better. What did you think about the Phillip Cooney scandal. A disgrace, don't you think?

Posted by: Aussie view | March 21, 2007 6:22 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: anonymous | March 21, 2007 3:05 AM | Report abuse

Correction on my last post. The DUI against GW may not have been while he was Gov. There was something about serving on a jury when this came out, and whether GW was called for jury duty or not, I just recall a little of this and hope someone can get the info for me, as I am not very good at searching the computer for this kind of stuff.

Posted by: lylepink | March 21, 2007 1:30 AM | Report abuse

Brownback is no Huckabee, but he'll do in a pinch. If he flanks left against Hillary, watch a confused electorate make the man president.

Posted by: Charles Coulter - Los Angeles | March 21, 2007 12:51 AM | Report abuse

These Bush boys are afraid of me for I know GW got caught DUI while Gov. of Texas and Gonzales was his attorny and kept it pretty well hush, hush.

Posted by: lylepink | March 21, 2007 12:26 AM | Report abuse

William....you are a boob!

Posted by: Jay | March 20, 2007 11:56 PM | Report abuse

The Iowa August Straw Poll bus-in is a joke.... almost as useless and off-course as the Straight Talk Express.

The only reason Sam would have any chance for the nomination is because the rest of the field is soooo unfit, conservatively speaking. The GOP truly has an "embarrassment" of riches in their candidates.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | March 20, 2007 11:21 PM | Report abuse

IMO, U should NOT use "POTUS" 24/7. Keep it on the QT, or the CIA, FBI, NSA, and ATF will 1-8-7 you PDQ.

OK?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Another Hillary lover has joined the crowd. Welcome to the winning team and don't forget, get your family, friends, and neighbors registered and make sure they get out and vote for Hillary, our next POTUS.

Posted by: lylepink | March 20, 2007 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink - After some thought / research, I think I'm leaning toward "horse," or maybe more accurate to say "mule." Still, I can't help but see at least a little lunchbucket Everyman in Hillary's face. If you look long enough, you would swear you can see a razor burn.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Yes, go, Sam! I need to have a white Midwesterner tell me - tell all of us - how we should live our lives. Being white, male, Christian, conservative, and from a rural part of the country, he is sure to have higher moral standards than mine. How I hope that he will be able to enforce a conformity to his way of thinking and living upon everyone in the country, no matter his background. Gimme that Old Time Repression...

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Sam Brownback is a true conservative whose star is rising. He deserves the GOP nomination. Go Iowa strategy! Go Sam go!

We at Blogs 4 Brownback wish you the very best.

http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/

Posted by: Psycheout | March 20, 2007 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Flat Earth Sam, he is my man! Go Flat Earth Sam.

Posted by: Creator | March 20, 2007 8:20 PM | Report abuse

07:35pm: I just love folks like U. How much did U contribute ? $2,000.00 seems about rite. I have made none yet but expect about ten dollars, since my income is less that $650.00 per month, and when my rent, utilities, meds, and food are paid, there is little left over for anything.

Posted by: lylepink | March 20, 2007 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink - Do you think Hillary looks like a man? Or does she more closely resemble a horse?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 7:35 PM | Report abuse

'Under the Separation of Powers, if they were doing some political, but legal, should they have to testify under oath?'

How on earth do you find out if they have done something illegal if they don't testify under oath?

There is a strong appearance of illegal activity.. isn't that enough?

Posted by: sue | March 20, 2007 7:22 PM | Report abuse

06:37pm: These are yactics used by those that know they are wrong. I wonder if "yactics" is a word. Hillary is doing great on the "C" trail. Finally some of her enemy's are close to an agreement that she will be the next POTUS. I do not mention opponents, for a reason, they are good people, by and large.

Posted by: lylepink | March 20, 2007 7:19 PM | Report abuse

I advocate a return to the feudal system, in which women are property and Libs are serfs. "Democracy" only makes sense for loser Libs. Long Live King Rudy!

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 20, 2007 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Zouk is trying to ruin this discussion. All he does is post this snarky look-at-me stuff, which is almost always - as many here have noticed - counterintuitive and bratty. So here's an idea - let's IGNORE ZOUK from now on. He has no intention in engaging in serious dialogue, preferring rather to "chastise his foes." Now of course he's a blindly partisan idiot, and of course he's wrong, and we can all agree on that. But unless anyone enjoys encouraging him, let's just deny him the satisfaction of a response. If he wants to get people to talk politics with him, he can call Limbaugh or blog on whatever site people like him use. I personally would rather not waste me time on his garbage. He is to William as O'Reilly is Gingrich - I don't agree with either of them, but William and Gingrich at least try to discuss the issues from a somewhat more reasoned point of view. (Usually.) Zouk, on the other hand, wants badly to be the villain everyone resents. So far, he has succeeded. Let's just stop responding, and maybe he will go away.

Posted by: Just Say "No" to Zouk | March 20, 2007 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Under the Separation of Powers, if they were doing some political, but legal, should they have to testify under oath?

Have the people which the committee wants to testify been accused of aynthing illegal?

I tend to side with the Executive Branch at this point.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | March 20, 2007 6:50 PM | Report abuse

It's like all you cons said, if you haven't done anything wrong, why do you care if the government listens to your phone conversations?

Posted by: foaming hypocrites | March 20, 2007 6:48 PM | Report abuse

IF THEY ARE TELLING THE TRUTH, WHY ARE THEY AFRAID TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 6:46 PM | Report abuse

"Last fall I brought up Goss and no one knew who he was,"

A bit of overstatement there. Quite a bit.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Sue: Your mention of Porter Goss is but one reason I said "There are a lot of folks on "The Fix" claiming to be dems etc.". Last fall I brought up Goss and no one knew who he was, funny how these things re-appear when another scandal starts to take shape. I watched GW a few minutes ago, and suprise, suprise, no White House aids to be questioned under oath.

Posted by: lylepink | March 20, 2007 6:20 PM | Report abuse

'WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said Tuesday he does not accept the White House's offer to allow top political adviser Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers to be interviewed by congressional committees with the caveat that the interviews not be under oath.

The interviews are to focus on what Rove and Miers knew about the firings of at least seven U.S. attorneys. Some believe the firings were politically motivated. The Justice Department has admitted that at least one attorney was removed to make way for a former aide to Rove.

"It is not constructive and it is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation, or to prejudge its outcome," said Leahy. "Instead of freely and fully providing relevant documents to the investigating committees, they have only selectively sent documents, after erasing large portions that they do not want to see the light of day."

"Testimony should be on the record, and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Leahy, a Vermont Democrat. "I hope the president will agree to be forthcoming. The straighter the path to the truth, the sooner we will finally know the facts."

Posted by: GO LEAHY!!! | March 20, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Does Iowa really matter anymore? It's hard to imagine the Iowa-based campaigns of Edwards and Brownback amounting to much anywhere else. Iowa's influence was iffy even way back in '92.
http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: ch fl | March 20, 2007 6:10 PM | Report abuse

John Murtha is a political hack that will say anything to rally the Democratic base.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

'I think I have caused a total meltdown for progressive. his fantasy world is crashing down.'

No that would be you. Which explains why you get more delusional and frantic and loony as time goes on...

Posted by: Rose | March 20, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

'Sometimes I wonder if Republicans even know what a liberal is.'

Clearly they're very muddled about it, blarg. Someone who does something they don't like, mostly. Like Murtha was beloved on the far right for years, much like Lieberman is now. But then he did something they didn't like -- so he became, de facto, a liberal.

It just means everything bad in the world, a straw man to blame all your problems, your anger, your frustration, your failure on. Some psychological crutch for weak minds.

George bush is a liberal now, you know.

Posted by: drindl | March 20, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

I think I have caused a total meltdown for progressive. his fantasy world is crashing down. the one election in the entire country that was a single issue event, turned out badly for his side and now he FEELS bad. If you want to learn why rudy is going to be even more popular as time goes on check out:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTI3Mzk2NzJkY2E2MDliNGI5MzEyMmYzMTZiMWMyZjM=

sorry if there are too many issues there and not enough talk of hairstyles, make-up, love for all, etc.

colin - I also cited klintons conservative accomplishment. the point was that they actually have some, as does the R congress. the Dem congress is looking to be a complete dissappointment to all. Its base will be mad that it won't quit the war, the ones who voted on corruption are going to get a rude awakening, the fools who thought the Dems would spend less are going to learn a lesson about the world. all in all a miserable failure. I predict that Speaker of the House Boehner will appreciate the irony in Jan of 2009. I can't wait for President Guilliani to sign his first bill.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 20, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

I just heard the nauseating crook Tommy Thmpson talking about running for prez. Great, you all gonna have abut 15 scumbuckets runninng against each other -- LOL!

You remember Thompson, former 'Secretary of Health 't he one who set up the Gigantic Taxpayer Ripoff called Medicare Part D, which is a big, big funnel where your tax dollars go directly into the pockets of Big Pharma.

Right after that, he left the gov to become their head lobbyist -- because there's no conflict of interest there!

I guess you hate Abe Lincolcn too, since he was a 'trial lawyer, right pinhead?

Posted by: proud to have a brain | March 20, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

here's one for you, 'proud' tobe gop--

-- The Bush-Nazi connection began in the 1930's when GW's grandfather, Prescott Bush, and Prescott's father-in-law George Herbert Walker, made fortunes in the Wall Street offices of Brown Brothers-Harriman. They were managing directors for companies funneling laundered money and strategic materials to Nazi Germany. These banks and shipping companies were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act when The US Congress characterized them as Nazi front organizations.

--still proud? Your president's family money is from nazis.

Posted by: Theo | March 20, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP, are you arguing that Murtha is a liberal? Or was that an unrelated sentence in the same paragraph complaining about liberals? Because he's one of the more conservative Democrats in Congress.

Sometimes I wonder if Republicans even know what a liberal is.

Posted by: Blarg | March 20, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

"do you want to end the war? when? Is it wrong or not? If I give you 12 billion for your farmers, then do you want to end the war? If the weather is nice, will you protest? If the world is ending will you sell your SUV? I don't use this word much but it is hypocritical to say the least."

Okay, so you say this wasn't aimed at me. Fine. Who was it aimed at? Colin? Progressive? Uncle Joe? Or are you under the delusion that members of Congress are reading this blog?

Posted by: Blarg | March 20, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

*it will make no difference who the Democrats run as their candidate*

Your'e right cynthia; the dems are all weak , it doesn't matter which one you pick.

Which candidate do you propose will win for you in 08?

Ultra liberal Obama?..running left of the pack. Surely you can see how the left has been marginalized after the last election...koz is right, why isn't Murtha calling the shots? Why is he being marginalized by his own party?

How about Hillary? do you support her or are you just another conflicted lib? don't like her, but may support her just to try and win?

Who does that leave you to support..the trial lawyer 04-loser Edwards?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 20, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- Once again you didn't respond to 99% of my post. Why? B/c you don't want to admit that what you wrote was wrong. If you're going to blab on and on about "facts," then perhaps you should pay attention to them yourself.

Also, what's with the "you just asked for facts, not facts I agree with" argument. That's just stupid. If you want to have a discourse, don't argue one minute that your against Bush's most "liberal" accomplishments (NCLB, MEDICARE EXPANSION) then cite them as evidence of GOP initiative the next. That's just intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: Colin | March 20, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

A typical day at the DOJ:
Rove: Let's change the laws to imprison only Democratic criminals and let Republican rapists and murderers roam the streets. That way, they can be out of jail to vote for us.
Gonzales: Hey, great idea! After all, no laws would be broken. Except by Democrats.
Rove: We can start by letting Ted Bundy out of prison. He has useful campaign experience involving the re-election of Republicans.
Gonzales: Hey, great idea! After all, no laws would be broken.
Rove: Oh, wait, Bundy's dead.
Gonzales: Darn.
Rove: Doesn't this dialogue seem condescending?
Gonzales: Why yes, it does.
Rove: It might hurt a Republican's feelings. Let's make condescending remarks illegal while letting Republican rapists and murderers roam the streets.
Gonzales: Hey, great idea!!!! After all, no laws would be broken. Except by Democrats.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | March 20, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman won despite his support for the Iraq Disaster, not because of it. You can ask all the questions you want, zouk, but the fact remains that a clear majority of the country believes Bush's Iraq misadventure was not worth the cost, and the people do not support the surge. Bush and his neo-cons lost the war through sheer ineptitude, and they will be held accountable. Cynthia is correct, the Republi-scum are in deep doo-doo.

Posted by: Progressive | March 20, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Brownback's closest connection to Iowa is geography. If he'd had a decent moderate opponent, he'd have had trouble becoming reelected.

That's why he'll have a lot of difficulty gaining traction in Iowa; he simply doesn't know or understand the people. Plus, his presentation and demeanor is about as inspiring as watching corn grow.

Similarly, he won't likely win many converts in New Hampshire, either. At least Huckabee is entertaining and polished. No matter, these are definitely bottom-tier candidates. Once the conservatives consider the bona fides of Guiliani, McCain and Romney, they'll be looking elsewhere. Well, there is always Alan Keyes.

Posted by: pacman | March 20, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

"As long as you FEEL that way, facts don't matter..."

Sorry, Zouk! I see that you finally have admitted it.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

"you asked for evidence of ideas or action. I provided them."

But you never provide anything which explains why you feel compelled to provide false historical facts. We ask repeatedly, and you always ignore.

Was Creative History 101 a course in those quality "private schools" which you attended?

Revisionist history wasn't acceptable in either the private or public schools which I attended. You flunk, Zouk. You get an "F."

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, my epithets are not aimed at you. you seem to be a reasonable fair-minded person. but your type is limited on this site.
Progressive - you seem to be in some alternative universe. your own words - "Who do voters like and who do they trust?
If you are suggesting that hillary is this person, you must be stoned. edwards has lost one election and wants to lose again. No one trusts a trial attorney. Obama may be likeable but so is any young kid. Adults with experience and actual views run this country. and if the majority agres on Iraq, why is Lieberman in office. even in the deep blue NE, a wild crazy Lib with a single agenda (lose the war now) couldn't win. If everyone agrees why was david Obey ranting and stomping about not having the votes. why isn't Murtha maj leader. Why are they bribing members with pork to vote on the current measure. Must be the murtha thing. It is spreading.

It would seem that most disagree. But maybe not in your universe. As long as you FEEL that way, facts don't matter - right?

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 20, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

As an Iowan, I can promise you that Sam Brownback will go down in flames. Even the Moral Majority in Iowa is more worried about Iraq than about gays picking out china together. Even the most hidebound conservative farmer who gets all his news at the local coffee shop knows that Brownback is a character out of a Looney Tunes cartoon.

I think the Republicans are in deep do-do, not only in Iowa but everywhere. McCain is old and tired, Rudy G. foams at the mouth at every full moon, Romney's a Morman (and if you think the Religious Right will accept that, I have a bridge to sell you. Most of the real Bible Belt powerbrokers don't think that Mormans are Christians), and Brownback is an unfunny joke. The Bushies had better pray that Condi decides to run, that Arnold manages to get that pesky Constitution changed so he can run, or that Cheney finally manages to have his brain transplanted into the body of a 40-year-old. Otherwise, it will make no difference who the Democrats run as their candidate; they will stomp the Republicans.

Posted by: Cynthia Martin | March 20, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Republicans were in power for the last 6 years. Democrats weren't. Considering that Republican leaders didn't allow any bill to go to a vote unless it was supported by a majority of Republicans (meaning Democratic support was meaningless), and that Democrats weren't allowed to initiate legislation, why would you expect them to have accomplished anything?

That doesn't mean the Democrats didn't have ideas. During the Social Security debate, I remember seeing several plans proposed by Congressional Democrats and liberal think tanks. All of them were ignored by the administration and Republican leaders in Congress. The Democrats had no power until January of this year. It's silly to blame them for that.

I don't accept "at least Rs are doing something". If what they're doing isn't useful, then I don't accept it. And I don't know why you do. You admit that you don't like the laws Bush has pushed through Congress. So why support them? Why praise him for laws like NCLB that you don't like, and that aren't effective?

I'd answer the questions in your second paragraph, but I don't have any farmers or an SUV. Why are you accusing me of being a hypocrite?

Posted by: Blarg | March 20, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Just remember, kingofzouk predicted a Repub landslide in 2006. (Oops!) I assume my post really touched a raw nerve (vulunerabilities of the leading "R" candidates), judging by his "focus on the issues" rant. If you want to focus on issues, I say "bring it on" because a clear majority of the country agrees with Democrats on the key issues, especially the fiasco in Iraq.

But, in fact, polls show most voters don't really focus on issues when selecting a President. The focus is generally on character, leadership, vision and suitability for the office. Who do voters like and who do they trust?

Posted by: Progressive | March 20, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Finally something illegal in the justice scandel - not what you think:

"We've seen evidence that some state and federal judges with ties to the Democrat Party were given personnel and performance review materials about certain U.S. Attorneys across the country," says a Judiciary Committee staffer. "Some of the review materials were never seen by the Attorney General and his staff, but were reviewed within the Deputy Attorney General's office, as well as by professional staff at the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. [The leaks were] clearly part of a campaign to embarrass the U.S. Attorneys."\

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11165

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 20, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - you asked for evidence of ideas or action. I provided them. I didn't say I liked them, in fact, I don't for the reasons you mentioned. But the initial point was that at least Rs are doing something - Dems do nothing, stomp around, betray their base, hope no one notices, blame it on someone else, take half measures, etc.

do you want to end the war? when? Is it wrong or not? If I give you 12 billion for your farmers, then do you want to end the war? If the weather is nice, will you protest? If the world is ending will you sell your SUV? I don't use this word much but it is hypocritical to say the least.

colin, how was it that klinton came to lose his law license - I forget.

Uncle Joe you said "not one Republican Senator voted for those revenue enhancements" yet in the senate the bill got through - how does this math work?

Revenue enhancements - they are still taxes, even if you change the word. It is still retreat (redeployment), it is still killing a baby (pro-choice).

Try this one on any of your policies - consequences. It will be something new for you to consider.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 20, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

So what's with this nut zouk's spelling of 'Klinton'? After all, it was Preston Bush who bankrolled Hitler and the Nazis.

these folks have a long career at war-profiteering. Generations of young american's blood on their hands.


[6] The Bush-Nazi connection began in the 1930's when GW's grandfather, Prescott Bush, and Prescott's father-in-law George Herbert Walker, made fortunes in the Wall Street offices of Brown Brothers-Harriman. They were managing directors for companies funneling laundered money and strategic materials to Nazi Germany. These banks and shipping companies were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act when The US Congress characterized them as Nazi front organizations.

[7] It is true, as defenders of the President say, that the Bush family were not alone in their support for Hitler. Among the legendary American corporations and individuals who backed the Third Reich were Henry Ford, JP Morgan, The Du Ponts, Allen and John Foster Dulles (America's first CIA director and President Eisenhower's Secretary of State), Charles Lindbergh, William Randolph Hearst, Alcoa Aluminum, Rockefeller's Standard Oil (Exxon), General Motors, ITT and Chase Bank.

[8] Today this history is suppressed by the corporate media which depends on advertising from the very same companies that put Hitler in power, but prominent Americans were not always shy about being fascists. In the 1930's America's industrial elite was so openly pro-Hitler that in 1937 William E. Dodd, US Ambassador to Germany was quoted in the NY Times as saying: "A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy.

I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime.... " [8] Immediately following WWII, the US government brought thousands of Nazis to America, provided them with false identities and established them in the newly formed CIA, in universities, in the media, in medical and psychological research institutions and in the US military. '

Posted by: nothing changes | March 20, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Jawohl, Zoukie! I couldn't do much better at creating history myself!

My you look so cute in those lederhausen.

Posted by: J. Goebbels | March 20, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

that what's zouk's here for, Unnkle Joe -- to spread lies and revisionism. Be warned...he works for the Propaganda Ministry.

uh oh, not lookin good for little alberto...
'
Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Littleton Republican, today said Gonzales should step down. "Alberto Gonzales has repeatedly shown that he is unwilling to enforce the law and unable to effectively manage the department," said Tancredo.'

that's why he

Posted by: gaslight | March 20, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Progressive - I guess there are some straws to grasp at for hope. but you are mis-underestimating the voters as usual. I don't think a lot of voters care who you stay with during a divorce as the primary reason to elect a president. how about we talk about budgets, war, social insecurity, medicare, etc. since you're views ( and edwards, klinton and kerry..I mean che, I mean kucinich - who is the ultra-lib this time around again???)on those issues are so weak and missing, I am not surprised you hope voters don't pay attention to issues and get stuck on stupid. Like who wears a dress - not hillary. why not make fun of this? Maybe Rudy has better gams. but are you getting all your news from chris rock and mahar. I am beginning to understand.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 20, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"No Child Left Behind" isn't exactly a Republican accomplishment. It was co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy, a fact that you'd rather ignore. And a large group of Congressional Republicans is trying to repeal major portions of NCLB. So where do you get off claiming it as evidence that the Republicans are the party with good ideas for education? If you like NCLB, then you also like Ted Kennedy, and oppose its critics like Kyl, Brownback, and Mel Martinez.

The Medicare prescription drug plan does absolutely nothing, except give a lot of money to pharmaceutical manufacturers. It's tremendously expensive (so much for fiscal responsibility), and it doesn't even attempt to fix the underlying problems with retirement and healthcare systems. You're claiming that as a major accomplishment? "at least it is something." It might not be conservative, or effective, but it's definitely something. Obviously you have very high standards for the administration.

Posted by: Blarg | March 20, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- I specificallyl refuted your allegation against Rahm. You, of course, didn't address the substance of my post. Huge surprise. Nore have you responded to detailed explanations regarding why the US Atty's office scandal is a serious one. Reason? You'd rather play gottcha than actually have a discussion. That's a shame.

Oh, and as to your list of Democrats you have been found guilty of crimes: What was Bill Clinton found guilty of? He was impeached, which is the same as an indictment. The Senate acquitted him. He was never charged with a criminal offense.

Finally, one-on-one polls against Rudy are pretty funny to me. Try a three-way poll with the Religious Right candidate and then we can talk. If he gets the GOP nod, your entire coalition evaporates. THAT would be fun indeed. HOpe it happens.

Posted by: Colin | March 20, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Keep at it Zouk! Slipping in another false history factoid hoping that nobody would notice.

"FYI - congress balances budgets, something "klinton" did after the 94 sweep. give the credit where it belongs - the R congress."

Remember how not one Republican Senator voted for those revenue enhancements that proved key to balancing the budget.

Keep those people who know what actually happened wondering if they remember it correctly.

You Go boy!

Posted by: Unkle Joe S. | March 20, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

I admit that the R congress caused some problems they shouldn't have. there were some outside influences such as an attack on our soil but they still spent too much on silly stuff. and they were aptly punished for it. I hope they learned their lesson and won't do it again. the Dems did have something to do with it since it was they who loaded up all the bills with pork, along with their fellows.

the Dems on the other hand clearly have not learned any lessons about wanting to lose wars and the electoral outcome of those policies. - another 20 years in the wilderness.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 20, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Chris Rock said Rudy is like a pit bull. He'll protect the house, but otherwise he might eat the kids. Bill Maher pointed out that Rudy has a fondness for dressing up in women's clothes (have you SEEN all of those photos? It's hilarious). He might lead in polls now because of 9/11, but do you really think he'll withstand the heat of a national political campaign? Will the evangelical voters turn out for a pro-choice, pro-gay rights Republican? Even his own kids won't support him. When his second wife threw him out, he went to live in an apartment with two gay men. The list goes on, and when voters find out who the real Rudy is, he'll tank.

McCain is sinking fast because his fate is tied to the Iraq Disaster, which can now be called "McCain's War" as well as "Bush's War" because McCain supported the surge first. And McCain is older than dirt, and looks and talks like an old fart.

Mormon Romney has flip-flopped on so many issues since first running for Senator and Governor, there's no way a majority will take him seriously.

There's your top 3 Republi-scum. Good luck.

Posted by: Progressive | March 20, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Sam Brownshirt is quickly becoming too conservative for KANSAS, never mind the country as a whole.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | March 20, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

If you are looking for a candidate who is perhaps dimmer than Bush and a TRUE religious zealot, Brownstreak is your man! The only good thing this nutball has ever done is speak stongly about Darfur. The rest of the time he obsessing about "the Gays" and "the Embryo-babies".

Go for it Iowa Republicans, make my day!

Posted by: Maria | March 20, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Well, let's see, there was that no child left behind thing. that could be called making progess toweard some education reform. Bush toured the country seeking ideas on social security reform. all he got from Dems was "you aren't touching it". very wise. the rs have won many, many pres elections if you recall - all but 3 in the last 50 years or so. this is due to the image of weak foreign policy in the 70s. It is still with you. bush passed a prescription drug benefit - at least it is something. Moral and lead by example - I think MR and Mrs Bush are genuine, caring, honest people doing their best for their country. regardless of policy differences, the same can not be said of the klintons - dishonest and fake. Remember all those real scandels, involving lining of the pockets and power grabbing? that was notleading by example. All the current scandels are mostly fabricated and overblown. See the difference?

Note - I don't necessarily agree with all the bush "successes" but they are there nonetheless. klinton's big success - welfare reform (after vetoing and finally succombing to R congress. but if you want to give him credit, go ahead.)

but all this klinton did it and bush did it bickering is just getting so old. How about you tell me what your plans are for the future, if you have any.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 20, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Don't try to reason with me. It won't work. i am completely irrational.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 20, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

It's not "I know you are but what am I." Comparisons to the Republican record are valid. You can't criticize the Democrats for not being able to do X (win the war, fix Social Security, etc.) while giving the Republicans a pass on their failure to do the same thing.

I'll give the Republican Congress from 1994-2000 credit for balancing the budget. If you'll admit that the Republican Congress from 2000 on caused a massive budget deficit, which had absolutely nothing to do with the Democrats. Deal?

Posted by: Blarg | March 20, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

If you think I am a freaking loon now, just wait until I face the reality of my party's loss of the White House next year.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 20, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Zouk other than winning the pres election please tell me what of these things the repubs accomplished in the last six years where they mostly had one party rule:

"Still no clue as to how to win a war, how to balance a budget (hint - not by adding billions to an emergency war bill for avacadoes), how to win a pres election, how to be moral and lead by example, how to fix a broken school system, how to fix a failing retirement system, how to pay for medical benefits, how to hide your own corruption, etc"

The Dems are making some mistakes now but don't pretend like the repubs are better. If the repubs are so amazing they should have gotten a lot more down in the last years since the Dems were a minority in both houses and didn't have the executive. I wouldn't expect partisan hacks to think about that though. Just criticize one side as evil and the other as a bastion of goodness.

Posted by: CBC | March 20, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

'At least the R aren't activly trying to lose a war.'

sure are doing a good job for not trying. see? you all are good at something after all!

Posted by: Sammy | March 20, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - you retort is "I know you are but what am I" typical of Libs with no ideas and no agenda. But you must see the weakness of that response.

At least the R aren't activly trying to lose a war.
FYI - congress balances budgets, something "klinton" did after the 94 sweep. give the credit where it belongs - the R congress.
I am at least glad you admit you can't win a Pres election. I have been trying to tell you why.

Bush tried on schools, retirement. Dems prefer to demagogue, as usual.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 20, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Vice President Dick Cheney went to George Washington University Hospital Tuesday morning after experiencing discomfort in his left lower leg, where a blood clot was discovered a few weeks ago.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I think the days of global warming hysteria are over. Now that actual climatologists have started to correct the record of the world nanny state and anti- corporate ninkompoops. you can all get together at your cocktail parties and vent and rage, then drive home in your SUV to your giant house with oil heat. but the chance of any policy implementations are over. the fraud has been exposed. you can thank Al gore for that movie which exxaggerated everything so much, even the hollywood HS grads (I mean movie stars) noticed.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 20, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

'Philip Cooney, an oil industry lobbyist now working for Exxon Mobil, admitted that while he was chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality '

that sums up this entire admiinistration -- rotten to the core.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

"Still no clue as to how to win a war"
The Republicans have been in charge of the war in Iraq for almost 4 years. Did they win the war?

"how to balance a budget"
Clinton balanced the budget. Bush unbalanced it again.

"how to win a pres election"
Eh. A few thousand votes that went the other way would have won both 2000 and 2004 for the Democrats. Those elections were both very close.

"how to be moral and lead by example"
The Republicans haven't done that.

"how to fix a broken school system"
The Republicans haven't done that.

"how to fix a failing retirement system"
The Republicans haven't done that.

"how to pay for medical benefits"
The Republicans haven't done that.

"how to hide your own corruption"
Finally, something that the Republicans are better at! You must be so proud of your party.

Posted by: Blarg | March 20, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

did you get to see the turnout for last Saturday's anti-war protestors. I can only guess that there are more anti-war people when it is warm out. so much for your devotion to your cause. In fact, I think that was the most poorly attended protest in DC all year and last. Hint, hint.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 20, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

'how to be moral and lead by example' more LOL, this guy has no self-awareness whatsoever. so blind, so deaf, so dumb.

'Bush administration altered scientific evidence of global warming, former high-ranking official has admitted.

Philip Cooney, an oil industry lobbyist now working for Exxon Mobil, admitted that while he was chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality he heavily edited environmental reports playing down on the adverse effects of man-made emissions on the climate.

"My sole loyalty was to the President and advancing the policies of his administration," Cooney told the house government reform committee.

New documents revealed that in 2003 Bush administration officials made at least 181 changes to a 2003 State of the Environment report that dealt with climate change. All the changes played down the consequences of global warming.

There were another 113 changes that downplayed human causes of climate change, to match views within the Bush administration and its friends in the business sector.

"These changes must be made," according to a note in Cooney's handwriting. "The language is mandatory."

Posted by: sue | March 20, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

'Police blocked opposition supporters from protesting outside the Egyptian parliament on Tuesday following the assembly's adoption of a set of constitutional amendments the opposition has denounced as a blow to democracy.

The area around the parliament was sealed off by police officers and plainclothes police agents. Several dozen demonstrators then reconvened outside the press syndicate in downtown Cairo. Police said six activists were arrested, and the protesters said they included two pro-reform bloggers.'

Posted by: feel the democracy spreading across the middle east... | March 20, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Sue - it is not a massive scandel - it is not even illegal. It has years of precedent and what it really is "simply another attempt by the Dems and the Lib press to take the attention off their failing legislation and bickering".

Still no clue as to how to win a war, how to balance a budget (hint - not by adding billions to an emergency war bill for avacadoes), how to win a pres election, how to be moral and lead by example, how to fix a broken school system, how to fix a failing retirement system, how to pay for medical benefits, how to hide your own corruption, etc.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 20, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

progressive -- only on town hall.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Progressive - explain how Rudy beats any of your candidates in every single poll ever taken. and McCain almost always does.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 20, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

'all your heroes are crooks. all our crooks are gone.'

more humor... rich.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Here's a certain reality that even the closest political observers sometimes forget: Bush doesn't care about traditional norms. Our political system is supposed to follow certain unwritten political "rules." When a cabinet secretary screws up, creates a scandal, becomes a distraction, loses the nation's confidence, and possibly engages in criminal behavior, he or she is supposed to resign. If a resignation isn't offered, a president is supposed to ask for it.

I frequently forget this myself, but Bush doesn't concern himself with these "rules." Rumsfeld's political obituary was written dozens of times, but Bush didn't care how tragic Rumsfeld's tenure was or how many lives it cost. HUD's Alphonso Jackson admitted publicly that he denied grants to Bush critics. The rules said Jackson had to go; Bush didn't care. Education Secretary Rod Paige called the National Education Association a "terrorist" organization; gave tax dollars to Armstrong Williams, and had no idea what the No Child Left Behind policy even meant. The rules said Paige had to go; Bush didn't care.

And now Gonzales has been caught in a massive, possibly criminal, scandal. The rules say Gonzales has to go. As of this morning, Bush, true to form, doesn't care.

In the big picture, does it matter? Maybe not.

Bush has a choice. Keep an incompetent Attorney General who's become a lightening rod for scandal, or find a real AG. Either way, the purge scandal's wheels keep turning.

Posted by: sue | March 20, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Just over two weeks ago, doctors discovered a blood clot in the vice president's leg. They said at the time that he likely would have to be treated with blood-thinning medication for several months.

Spokeswoman Lee Anne McBride said at the time that the 66-year-old had visited his doctor's office on March 5 after feeling minor discomfort in his calf. An ultrasound showed the blood clot -- called a deep venous thrombosis -- in his left lower leg.

Blood clots that form deep in the legs can become killers if they break off and float into the lungs. This is called a pulmonary embolism. Deep vein thrombosis strikes an estimated 2 million Americans each year, killing 60,000.

--wonder who they'd replace cheney with? hint: not condi

Posted by: update | March 20, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Tom Delay still hasn't been convicted of anything. Unlike Bergler, klinton, frank, hastings, kennedy, kennedy, murtha = all your heroes are crooks. all our crooks are gone.

If you can't win at the ballot box, in the army, on the economy and now even in the courts you only have the slimy press left as your ally. If you are that desperate for power, I guess you must do what you must.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 20, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

'I know you Libs shun anyone who doesn't fall into the orthodoxy of your fold, but some of us are open-minded'

yet another gem. this guy is a regular laff riot.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't Brownback look like Elmer Gantry or Cotton Mather? That judgmental, sanctimonious and humorless visage and attitude.

I could just imagine him presiding at the Salem Witch Trials:

'Burn them. .. for they made me lust.'

Posted by: drindl | March 20, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Colin, that is not my smear, it is just another viewpoint which you open-minded libs may want to consider. I like townhall, they have a nice array of columnists who are not afraid to speak the truth. I know you Libs shun anyone who doesn't fall into the orthodoxy of your fold, but some of us are open-minded in the way that things aren't leaking out. I even visit a wacky Lib blog to chastise my foes. My experience is that most Libs already know everything and are not open to persuasion. It's not that you don't know anything, it is that what you know is just so wrong.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 20, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Oh, please, oh, please, if there is a God, let him make Sam Brownback the Republican presidential nominee. It will guarantee a landslide for Democrats in 2008.

Moreover, it's clear that the top 3 Democrats (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) are far stronger candidates than the top 3 Republi-scum (Giuliani, McCain, Romney). Same goes for second-tier candidates. The Repubs have wingnuts like Brownback, who can't win. Now many in that party are trying to draft Fred Thompson, a closeted gay man (hypocrisy, anyone?). They are desperate.

Posted by: Progressive | March 20, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

... and lies are YOUR currency.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

'Lobbyists are registered as such and the laws are very strict.' Every post contains a LOL gem such as this... beautiful. classic.

So, do those 'statistics' come from townhall too? [LIES, DAMNED LIES AND STATISTICS' --because they are total bunk. Link to it, coward.

Posted by: sue | March 20, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

'he tactics of personal destruction' he can say this, with a straight face, after 10 years of republican lynch mobs after clinton... no sense of irony here, hmm?

blarg, they are SO delusional -- look at the kook zouk and his loony blathering... after abramoff, and brent wilkes and cunningham and delay and pediaphile gate and the lies lies lies.. the biggest crimes are still to be uncovered, adn that's what firing Carol Lam was alll about, defense contractors and a half a dozen republicans on the take, including some in the FBI under Porter Goss.

But they can't see it, can't see the rottenness because they are part of it.

Posted by: sue | March 20, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - there is a distinct difference in the law between a lobbyist and a corporation or any other entity. Lobbyists are registered as such and the laws are very strict.

I guess if you live by inventing scandel mainly be lying about things, you must be a Dem. Like firing attornies. Or forgetting about a non-crime.

From the brookings inst via the NYT on 6/26/2006 by Tavernise:

Iraqi school attendence
primary - 2002 - 3.5M
2005 - 3.7 M (5.7% increase)
mid and high 2002 - 1.1M
2005 - 1.4M (27% increase)

I bet all half million of those new students don't wish Saddam was still around. My how the facts seem to counter your anecdotes. But so long as you FEEL bad for them it is OK, you are after all A Dem. Feelings are your currency.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 20, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- now we're linking to townhall, eh? I assume that means you're back on the GOP's payroll?

Your smear against Rahm is ridiculous. Want to know how he made his money? He did this crazy thing where, before running for office, he worked as an investment banker at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein. Turns out those guys make a lot of money. Do I take it from your comments that you're now against capitalism? If so, that's quite a turnaround.

Anyway, feel free to go back to splashing ridiculous accusations about Dem "corruption" while ignoring the fact that the administration quite possibly removed PROSECUTORS b/c they investigated republican lawmakers.

Posted by: Colin | March 20, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Tom DeLay wrote a column complaining that Democratic congressmen are corrupt. Specifically, he complained that Democrats took lobbyist-funded trips.

That may actually be the craziest thing I've ever heard.

Posted by: Blarg | March 20, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

I don't know much about Sam Brownback other than that he is a conservative running on a social conservative theme. These issues play well to a portion of the Republican party, but of themselves will not win a candidate the general election. I would like to know where Brownback stands on the Iraq war, global warming, assuring Social Security's viability and other issues that are important to all Americans, not just a portion of the Republican party.

Posted by: jlochner | March 20, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

You finally got one thing right, putting Jefferson and DeLay together.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

August 23, 79 A.D. The good news from Pompei: Today is a lovely day in this part of the world. Life has lots of positive signs. Housewives are out shopping, businessmen are hawking their wares. The local elected officials advise us that there's no need to worry about those rumblings coming from within the mountain. They say that we do you a disservice when we don't focus about what is good in life. And what do those Nervous Nelly scientists know anyway. Especially don't listen to that Caterwalling Cassnadra who is in town saying that the mountain will blow up.

Everybody enjoy life and ignore those doomsayers. What do they know? Those clouds coming over the top of the mountain are nothing to be worried about.

This just in, the local Centurion is asking for more troops to volunteer to go up to the top of Vesuvius and make sure that everything is okay. We say, pish tosh, no need to worry.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Rahm Emanuel, who followed Patrick Kennedy as head of the DCCC, not only made millions of dollars in an inexplicably short period of time, but is also accused of using public employees in his campaign. Nancy Pelosi took a trip to Puerto Rico that has come under suspicion because it was paid for by lobbyists. A federal court held that Jim McDermott was actually found guilty of a crime that violated a federal law by obstructing and giving the tape of an interpreted private conversation among members of the Republican leadership to the New York Times. The case is currently on appeal. Then there is William Jefferson, the congressman from Louisiana, who is being investigated for taking a bribe and was caught by the FBI with ninety thousand dollars in his freezer. Clearly the Democrats have some house cleaning to do, but they seem to prefer the tactics of personal destruction to living up to their own rhetoric about ethics.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/TomDeLay/2007/03/19/the_criminalization_of_politics

"the truth is out there"

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 20, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

'BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Mustafa Karim, a fourth-grader, now lives with family members in a squalid camp in eastern Baghdad where displaced Shias go after fleeing their homes, often after relatives have been killed.

The young boy's eyes fill with tears when he recalls the circumstances that led to his exile.

"They killed my father and uncle in front of my eyes," he says.

He then breaks down sobbing. He can no longer speak. The anguish is unbearable.

Such stories are not uncommon in Iraq four years after the U.S.-led invasion. Health officials say the daily hardships -- bomb blasts, gunfire, killings of family members and sectarian violence -- are taking an increasing toll on Iraq's children.

Hundreds of thousands of children no longer attend school. Others have been forced from their homes to camps, while others have fled the nation with family. (Audio slide show: 'All they've ever known is conflict')

For those that remain behind, there is the constant fear of being killed and the mental toll that warfare takes on its most vulnerable victims.

"Our children are surrounded by violence," said Dr. Saied al Hashimi, a professor of psychiatry at Baghdad's Mustansriya University. "Most of them are traumatized."

He says mass displacement, the death and murder of family members and the constant presence of heavily armed troops, militias and death squads have a long-term impact on the children, especially those in and around Baghdad where violence is most intense. (Watch boy feign death, carried away like martyr)

"I call them the silent victims. Our Iraqi children are the silent victims," he told CNN.'

Posted by: here's your 'good news' happy now? | March 20, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Get over it William -- stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Hillary advertise on Kos. Kos is left-leaning -- they make no secret about it. But they have never been supportive of her.

But most of the R field will advertiise on Faux, won't they? and Faux is far more biased and partisan than any of the blogs-- it's a straighforward propaganda outlet, though they like to pretend otherwise. Why would it be founded and run by a republican strategist if it was jounalism?

Don't be a silly boy. Go do your homework.

Posted by: drindl | March 20, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

'It is imperative we not report any good news in Iraq. willing lackey yellow dogs of the media - please comply.' LOL- laughingstock boy is back, still rocking and talkin like it was 1972...

lackey yellow dogs indeed.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

'where Brownback spent the vast majority of the time talking to the assembled farmers about partial-birth abortion and human cloning'

yeah, that's a brilliant strategy. President Mullah... can't wait to get into your bedroom, can they?

Posted by: sue | March 20, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Democratic leaders add $21 billion in hopes of securing enough undecided votes to pass measure that would pull troops out of Iraq by fall 2008.


Translation - We Dems want the war to end but not too quickly. we don't feel strongly enough about this to do it right away or offer any proposal on its own. Instead we try to bribe weak Members. that goes along with our folly of claiming to be fiscally responsible. If this drags out until right before the next election, we can count on the pliable, lap-dog media to cover up the truth about this. In the meantime we will hype and pretend all scandels we can find, even if there is nothing there. It is imperative we not report any good news in Iraq. willing lackey yellow dogs of the media - please comply.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 20, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

If Sam Brownback wants to stand out in the field of Conservative candidates, he's going to need to find a personality somewhere. Simply repeating conservative mantras and going to Dubuque, Des Moines, Davenport, Marshalltown, Mason City, Keokuk, Ames, Clear Lake a lot doth not a nominee make.

Posted by: Iva Norma Stitts | March 20, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

From: http://www.solidpolitics.com

Has Hillary Clinton bought influence with Daily Kos? If so, it represents at pattern at Daily Kos that goes back to the Howard Dean campaign... In the days leading up to the Clinton advertising campaign, Moulitsas' tone changed. On February 22, 2007, Moulitsas complimented Hillary's annoucement tour.

Posted by: William | March 20, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company