Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Can McCain Win?

A confluence of events highlighted by a far weaker-than-expected first quarter fundraising effort and a series of seemingly overly optimistic comments about the on-the-ground conditions in Iraq have led to speculation that Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) has gone from frontrunner to afterthought in the race for the 2008 presidential nomination.

The reasons for this alleged collapse are legion and range from McCain's attempts to transform himself into the establishment candidate, his position on the war, his age or even -- as the Boston Phoenix's Steve Stark argues compellingly -- the disappearance of the "radical middle" that propelled McCain's upstart bid in 2000.

There is truth in each of these arguments, and there's no question that McCain must find his footing soon if he hopes to right his bid. But, it's also far too early to assume that McCain's recent dip signals the end of his presidential chances. Here's why:

*McCain's Organizational Strength: While his disappointing fundraising quarter exposed problems within McCain's finance operation, he remains well positioned -- on a staff and activist level -- in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Literally every day McCain's campaign rolls out another endorsement from a state legislator, member of Congress or community leader in one of these early states. Endorsements alone don't win you anything but McCain's organizational heft should enable him to weather this bad period. Unless of course major supporters begin jumping ship.

*Republican Party History: Unlike Democrats, the GOP has shown a tendency to reward candidates who have already run once before for the nation's highest office. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole had all run for their party's nomination and lost before running and winning. A more hierarchical party by nature, Republicans seem to operate on a "wait your turn" mentality and reward candidates willing to take the lumps of a loss and come back for more. McCain's advocacy on behalf of George W. Bush in 2004 won him major kudos within the Republican Party and reinforced the idea that he was a good soldier for his party.

*McCain's experience: Don't underestimate the importance of having been through the rigors of running for president before. McCain knows that there are peaks and valleys in races like this one and is less likely to panic over his recent downward slide than a candidate who has never been in this situation before. No less important is that McCain knows how to pace himself for the race to come, making sure that he doesn't wear out too soon. Running for president is an incredibly grueling task and only by doing it can you learn your own limits. McCain benefits from his experience in 2000 while former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney must figure out the process even as they participate in it.

*McCain's Poll Position: Sure, McCain's not in first place in most state and national polls but he's dang close. McCain runs second to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in most surveys but his support is regularly in the high-to-mid 20s. A financial underperformance like McCain's coupled with single-digit poll numbers would be disastrous. A poor financial showing and relatively high poll numbers make McCain's chances at the nomination longer but far from nonexistent.

*McCain the Candidate: Watching McCain labor to explain why he continues to support the war, it's easy to forget that he is a very good candidate out on the stump. McCain is still funny and engaging -- the twin traits that endeared him to voters and reporters alike in 2000. The more time McCain spends in Iowa and New Hampshire means the less time he spends in Washington. And that will accrue to his benefit as the campaign wears on.

All of these factors mean that McCain should not be counted out of the nomination fight just yet. Remember it is still only April 2007 -- a full nine months before voters in any state will cast a vote for the Republican presidential nominee. Setbacks like those that McCain has experienced of late are never welcome in a campaign but are less damaging now than they would be in six months time. McCain has time to fix what ails his campaign. Now, whether he is able to do so is an entirely different debate.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 5, 2007; 11:47 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: New Faces Shine in Fundraising
Next: The Line: 46 Days to Ky.'s Gubernatorial Primary!

Comments

No. Senator McCain might be able to win average Americans over and is arguably America's greatest statesman. But he can't win over the hearts of his own party.

Friday, April 6th Senator Orrin Hatch (UT) spoke to a government class at the University of Utah. When asked about campaign finance he said McCain-Feingold was "inexcusable". Hatch went on to say he I thinks "McCain didn't even know what was in the act."

Republicans have despised McCain's former maverick attitude. Although the Senator from Arizona has worked to mend ties with his party, they won't forgive him for McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act.


Posted by: Gehrke | April 10, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

He can't win the primary. The self-righteous right comprise a fifth of the total the parties voters. Once upon a republican nightmare, Big John let the self-righteous right have it with both barrels.

Wouldn't have been so bad, but he told them the truth.

Bill Clinton taught us all most Americans will eventually forgive you for a lie if you say ask forgiveness and act contrite. If you can get the Rev. Jesse Jackson to come to your house and pray over you, that helps too. The problem McCain has is, he did not lie.

Once you've called the right reverend mega-pastor Falwell an agent of intolerance, I don't think he's gonna turn the other cheek. Now, I'm sure Rev. Falwell believes that Jesus wants all them people to vote republican, just like I'm sure he believes Jesus don't want them people voting for THAT republican.

Posted by: Dijetlo | April 10, 2007 12:20 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: anonymus | April 9, 2007 10:53 PM | Report abuse

I think McCain should dropped out now, anyone that has rode the cost tail of Bush and stood for Bush, and along side Bush, for this disgraceful adminstration of Bush, A disgrace to this nation, They are just like Bush and Chaney. They all need to go ahead and retire, so sadly at the tax payers expense, but get out of the public eye. McCain is no better than Bush and Chaney, he needs to resign and retire.

Posted by: eagle eyes | April 9, 2007 6:32 PM | Report abuse

John McCain has decided to link all his political fortunes to Don Rumsfeld's military acumen. He is busy demanding that the entire country is wrong about Iraq, but he is only willing to support an upscaled version of the original Rumsfeld/neocon fairy tale for Iraq. Once the Neocons decided to fire General Shinseki because he wasn't a team player, and substitute their evaluation that we could win in Iraq with both arms lopped off as well as one leg, ala the persistant knight in Monte Python's Holy Grail, the Bush administration ceased to have a plan. We have gone more than four years in Iraq without ever considering securing all those thousands of tons of high explosives that we know are out there in the desert. We have never even attempted to get the right mix of military forces into country, and we have definitely never had a quarter of the forces we would need, at a minimum, to stand a chance. To even hope to succeed, now a certain impossibility, and even at the start probasbly impossible, we would need another 2.1 Million active duty Army, to permit a Viet Nam sized war, and to pursue that war for ten years. McCain can't possibly actually call for that, and the taxes and draft it would take to support it, so he has decided that we have to continue the current fairy tale that is being played out in Iraq.

Should the Republican Party be so fatuous as to actually nominate him for President, he will have to defend the extra 2000 dead and 20000 wounded that will have accumulated in the next 18 months, with exactly nothing to show for it, and no one will even then have begun securing the unguarded ammunition sites. Every Republican Senator running for reelection will be inextricably linked to John and George, and soon headed for a lucrative post-congressional consulting carrer. Most of the House Republicans will have equally compromised themselves as well. With John heading the ticket, the Republicans will be heading for the exits from Washington D.C. enmasse and permanently.

If John were a true Neocon insider those considerations wouldn't stop the party from using him to commit suicide, but since the neocons have never liked him, at the last moment they will nominate someone else.

That probably won't really help, but from the Neocon point of view it will be better than kowtowing to the Progressive Wing.

Posted by: crazycattail | April 9, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

McCain is as close as the U.S. could get to reelecting Bush in 2008. They even like the same kind of photo-ops: wouldn't Bush have loved to do that "Mission Accomplished" stroll through that well-secured Baghdad market?

Posted by: Matt H | April 9, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

I am an Independent that "always" supported McCain. With 3 members of my family in the military, his grasp of reality lost me completely. But talk about a blast from my past! Fred Malek?? Is this the same Fred Malek that worked for the Nixon administration? As a Federal employee, I remember his handiwork during the Nixon administration. Namely, the Malek Manual on how to circumvent the Merit Promotion System. THIS........paragon of virtue is working for McCain?? Now I could just cry. Another hero bites the dust.

Posted by: carolbarker | April 9, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

McCain has tied himself to the war in Iraq and to the failed policies of the Bush II Administration in Iraq. If nothing changes there between now and the Iowa caucuse and GOP support collapses, there will be no reason to support McCain. Who wants four more years of more of the same?

Posted by: Sean Scallon | April 9, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I always like McCain until he took all of his Bush criticismsn and trashed them to chase the Republican base.

He has become nothing but another one of those sold out politicians. Sold out his principles.

And now he has become even more so with his absurd comments about Iraq.

This guy is done.

Posted by: Mr. Bill | April 9, 2007 10:21 AM | Report abuse

lylepink: Sorry it took me so long to reply to your initial response. I was out of town for a few days and hadn't had a chance to do so. Anyway, here are the reasons I don't support Hillary Clinton for President:
1) support for the Iraq War
2) refusal to apologize for same
3) insistence that universal halth care can be provided without raising taxes
4) her version of universal health care isn't universal and too complicated to garner any actual support
5) seems to believe in the unitary executive
6) a centrist
7) surrounds herself with the DLC types who have screwed this party in the first place
8) unwilling to take a stand on most tough issues
9) tries to be all things to all people
10) confuses stubbornness with principle

There you go. Ten reasons why Hillary Clinton should not be the Democratic nominee for President, and they are all based on policy.

William: do you honestly believe that "all three seats should be GOP" in WV? Let me tell you a little secret: only two of our three seats in the House are Dem. The candidate who is always in the closest race of the three is Shelley Moore Capito, the lone Republican, who has only won more than 57% of the vote once.

Every election cycle this decade I have heard about how the GOP is going to break through and turn this state red. I remember hearing and reading for months about how Chris Wakim was going to defeat Alan Mollohan in the first district. Well, once again Mollohan won with ease, despite raising very little money through the first half of the year. Except for Captio, there has been no serious Republican candidate for the House since 1982 or the Senate since 1984. The GOP has very little orginization in the state, as can be noticed in the fact that Dems even *gained* a net of six seats in the state legislature last year (four in the House and two in the Senate) despite already having advantages of 68-32 and 21-13 in each house. The only GOP pick-up in the legislature was because an 80-year-old sitting Delegate was forced into a nursing home after a stroke with only four weeks left to go in the campaign and too late to replace on the ballot. The GOP can't win seats to major offices in this state because they have no bench.

Don't be fooled by Bush's two electoral wins in WV. This state has learned its lesson and we will go back to our solid blue ways.

Posted by: Steve | April 9, 2007 10:00 AM | Report abuse

no mccain cannot win. and if any of the other republican candidates do, we all lose.

Posted by: gus hall | April 8, 2007 6:14 PM | Report abuse

My love has a red, bulbous nose
And a face that sags
And when she speaks construction folks
They hide in paper bags
That grating whine, it haunts me
And that 'do, it even taunts me
It will be mine, it will be mine
(something that rhymes with 'bags')

Posted by: lylepink | April 8, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

The sagging, bug-eyed Hillary
Demand, demand, demand
She thirst for power, hungers to
Be leader of the land
No new ideas, no special cause
No reason for her reign
But vote for my poor Hillary
Or else she'll go insane!

Posted by: lylepink | April 8, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

What McCain needs to do is withdraw from the election and stop wasting everyone time, energy and thought and we might be able to save some troops. You have to ask yourself why does he keeping backing this war. Let's put this into prospective: Our troops are involved in a civil war where there is no clear of win or lose, our troops are being used in a huge opium producing region of the world. It that today? NO that was Vietnam; McCain must think that he can correct the past by fighting the same war. Haven't learned anything? And before anyone thinks that I don't support our troops, I am a member of the military and have been for 19 years.

TSgt. USAF

Posted by: Tony | April 8, 2007 9:29 AM | Report abuse

What McCain needs to do is withdraw from the election and stop wasting everyone time, energy and thought and we might be able to save some troops. You have to ask yourself why does he keeping backing this war. Let's put this into prospective: Our troops are involved in a civil war where there is no clear of win or lose, our troops are being used in a huge opium producing region of the world. It that today? NO that was Vietnam; McCain must think that he can correct the past by fighting the same war. Haven't learned anything? And before anyone thinks that I don't support our troops, I am a member of the military and have been for 19 years.

TSgt. USAF

Posted by: Dr. M | April 8, 2007 9:28 AM | Report abuse

McCain can't even decide if he's a Republican or Democrat, much less win an election... His views are all wrong for his party. Giuliani or Thompson will win. The dumbocrats will probably put Obama or
Hillary on the ballot and 230 years of white male leadership will not end in 2008.

Posted by: Dr. Ralph | April 7, 2007 10:04 PM | Report abuse

McCain, Romney, Guiliani.... talk about a Hobson's Choice. Really, these are not good options. Conditions are ripe for a candidate such as Fred Thompson, a "fresh" face.

McCain won't snag most right-wingers, has ditched his Straight Talk Express for a Bush sanitation truck and is on the wrong side of the Iraq war.

Since his $$ support is down, he may soon find he needs to spend more time with his family.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | April 7, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

no more republican propaganda they are destroying the heart of america

Posted by: bob | April 7, 2007 9:44 AM | Report abuse

I think McCain is still very much in the race to win it. Romney has already started to spend in key early primary states and Guiliani's numbers are already fallen and Romney's are already raising. McCain's, however, has remained pretty constant. Again, were not talking about national polls. I'm referring to early key primary states that prove you belong to build momentum and encourage donors. As Guiliani loses some of his numbers, the question is will Romney gain enough of them to become the winner or will McCain gain some of them as well? I think the latter. McCain already has a base support as well as instant name recognition as a war hero. All this helps. Plus he has an independent streak a mile wide that may help him, plus his organization is great. He could pick off enough supporters of Guiliani to be victorious. Of course, Guiliani could keep enough supporters to win or Romney could really become the come-back kid and win this thing. Right now, it looks like a 3 person race.

Posted by: reason | April 7, 2007 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Mike B - obviously it varies depending on where you find your statistics, but I have found plenty of sites that show that the level of gun violence has dropped significantly since the restrictions.
Here's a random example among many (this is a bit old but the restrictions came in in 96 so it is reasonable)
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

If you really think violent crime has 'soared' and 'more than doubled', I want proof. Homicide has definitely not increased since the restrictions, not sure what you class as 'violent crime'.
"The 2003 figure for homicide was 3% lower than in
1996 and 7% lower than in 2002."

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2004/facts_and_figures_2004.pdf

As for your 'final solution' claims, are you for real? I mean seriously, to compare whatever took place to that is quite sick. I would hate to stand between you and your gun by the sound of it.

Posted by: Aussie view | April 6, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

CM: I notice you use the "liberal" word in your response, and that you are doing EXACTLY what I have been saying for such a long time now. When you folks lose an arguement you go back to "Liberal" as your your only reason for you having lost the arguement. For a person as uneducated as myself, having completed one year of high scool and got my HS GED while in The AF, at least try and show you are not a complete hostage to the right wing kooks.

Posted by: lylepink | April 6, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

CM - 1) How will leaving Iraq make the Middle East any less stable than it has been for over a half-century?

2) The Democrats don't propose to repeal the Bush tax cuts. Those tax cuts have expiration dates, put there by Republican Congresses. So, how do the Democrats get blamed?

3) That economic growth is funded by the Debt, most of which we now owe to whom? The Chinese. Not exactly good for national security purposes is it.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Patrick Henry

I guess you think throwing around the term "neo-nut" when speaking of Conservatives makes you sound sophisticated? Quite the contrary.

Because someone believes that life begins at conception does not make them a nut. You may choose to disagree with that position but talk intelligently about the social and moral dilemmas that the issue creates.

As for Rudy Giuliani's position, I may not agree with it but this is one Conservative who finds his candor refreshing. Hillary Clinton seems incapable of formulating a consistent position on this or any other issue.

By the way, when was the last time the Democrats proposed new proposals to address the serious foreign and domestic issues facing this country? They achieved narrow majorities last Fall by running conservative Democrats (not liberals) in key areas of the country, but have yet to display the ability to galvanize the various factions of their newfound majority status.

While some of the criticism regarding the way in which the so called neo-conservatives have handled the Iraq war is valid, I am still waiting for any of the Democratic candidates to tell us how leaving Iraq will stabilize the country or the Middle East.

What makes any of them believe that Iran (a country that has proclaimed its desire to wipe Israel off the map) and Syria won't use Iraq as a training ground for Hezbollah and Hamas?
That would not only serve to further destabilize
the Middle East, but will eventually create havoc on the European continent.

Furthermore, how do they propose dealing with an Iranian regime that is just a few years a way from having a nuclear weapon?

Once they answer those questions, it would be refreshing to get their views on dealing with the fact that come 2030 spending on entitlement programs will be upwards of 70% of the federal budget.

While they have shot down proposals to privatize Social Security they never have put forth a proposal to deal with the coming crisis in that program or Medicare. While everyone focuses on global warming, there is a pending financial Armageddon that is not being addressed.

Along those lines, how does repealing the Bush tax cuts-which have created a period of strong economic growth and new jobs (unemployment at 4.4%)- help the American people?

My bet is that the American people are waiting for someone to answer these and other questions. In the end, I think they will turn to a leader (warts and all) like a Rudy Giuliani or perhaps Fred Thompson over candidates who are either inexperienced, too liberal or trying to be all things to all people.

Posted by: CM | April 6, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

McCain's 'moment' was in 2000, possibly 2004 had he decided to come out and run a 3rd party campaign for President.

His problem now is that he's let himself get caught up in a political process that continues to spiral out of control in cost and time. McCain has lost his way and this coming from someone who wrote him in for President in 2004.

I would love it if he would simply drop out of the Republican race and declare himself as an Independent for President.

He'd never become President, but at this juncture of his career, McCain could be the conduit desperately needed for disaffected citizens of all political persuasions to vent their frustration at a system that has become inherently corrupt in big money special interests who dominate both parties.

Posted by: Swamp Pirate | April 6, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

I am not sure but the thought of McCain dropping out of the race, as I suggested. seems to be getting closer by the day. I can think of only a couple fundraising events these past few weeks and it just might be that he is looking for an honorable way, as he sees it, to get out. Even the trip to Iraq, and his statements from there, were nothing anyone can even start to believe, and when he drops out is now only a question of when and how he can "save face".

Posted by: lylepink | April 6, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

The terrorists are those that do not agree with this Administration on any matter, no matter how small the difference may be, and from the very begining it has been based on lies and more lies. When we have folks in the media pretending to inform the public of what is going on and doing the exact opposite, it is no wonder the public has such distain for them. This is in print as well as electronic.

Posted by: lylepink | April 6, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Dan W--"If we can't have ammunition because the Constitution does not say we can have ammunition then turn off your computer because the Constitution doesn't say you can have one."

No, no. I am saying that you have no constitutional protection for possessing ammunition--unlike the weapons themselves for which there is a provision. This allows for possible legislation restricting it (on same grounds as controlled substances, for example.)


MikeB--"That is the dumbest comment I've head here."

I do notice a conspicuous lack of a provided line in the Constitution from you, though.

Jefferson clearly means that you should carry a gun because the additional weight adds to the effectiveness of your normal walk.

Besides, we are strict constructionists here.

Posted by: roo | April 6, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Anguish Over Iraq Shakes Public's Faith in Military Solutions, Poll Finds

Trevails over U.S. involvement in Iraq has created skepticism among Americans related to U.S. military options overseas, according to a survey by Public Agenda, a poll opinion and policy organization.

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/anguish-over-iraq-shakes-publics-faith.html

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

On Tuesday, meeting with the press in the White House Rose Garden, the President responded to a question about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria this way: "[P]hoto opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror." There should, he added to the assembled reporters, be no meetings with state sponsors of terror.

That night, Brian Ross of ABC News reported that, since 2005, the U.S. has "encouraged and advised" Jundullah, a Pakistani tribal terrorist group, led by a former Taliban fighter and drug smuggler, which has been launching guerrilla raids into Baluchi areas of Iran. These incursions involve kidnappings and terror bombings of civilians, as well as the murder (recorded on video) of Iranian prisoners.

Posted by: US sponsors terrorists | April 6, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Today, Tony Blair called the attack that killed four British soldiers yesterday an act of terrorism. You didn't see that wrong. Yes, now attacking soldiers is also an act of terrorism. So, that's it. It's official. The word "terrorism" no longer means anything.

The whole point of labeling something a terrorist act was that it targeted civilians, and hence, was particularly heinous. Of course, this is a relatively recent definition since the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo targeted civilians, to say the least. And to say that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki also targeted civilians is a dramatic understatement.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have used the weapons we did in World War II. And I'm definitely not saying that attacking the British troops was acceptable. The loss of those four young lives is a tragedy. But if you call it terrorism to attack our troops now, there is no conceivable definition of terrorism that makes sense anymore.

Unless, of course, we just wanted to confirm what has unofficially been true for some time now. We pretty much call our enemies terrorists. And if our allies do the same exact thing we call them militants or soldiers or even freedom fighters. Does there get to be a point when the hypocrisy is a little too much to bear? And if it does, can anyone really argue we're not at that point?

Posted by: cenk | April 6, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

It seems that at least two of the three GOP frontrunners (i.e. McCain and Romney) are trying to pretend to support neo-nut causes they have previously opposed in order to try and appease the neo-nut conservatives. McCain's overall political support appears to be disappearing quickly as we speak. Romney's poll numbers have never been terribly impressive and seems to be banking on the fact that he looks and sounds good and has a lot of money. Both of these GOP candidates seem very weak and doomed to quick implosions. Also, with Guiliani's recent apparent change of strategy (giving his nod to public funding of abortions) he seems to have decided that he does NOT need to appease the neo-nuts, as this abortion position seems to put the nail in his neo-nut coffin. As I live in NYC, I have seen some of the many controversies that have swirled around him and his aggressive management style. Even before the various ones that have erupted recently (children not supporting him, thrice married wife working for group that harms animals), he has a LOT of skeletons in the closet that will NOT endear him to the neonuts or even humans. I could easily see his campaign exploding rather decisively. Thus, the Repubs have some interesting issues that do not seem to be matched on the DEM side. Who can they elect? Nobody, seems to be the existing answer.

Posted by: Patrick Henry | April 6, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

PArt of the problem is we no longer have a true militia, the National Guard comes close but is not truly a Militia.

Frankly I would call the Guard to be the Army of the State whereas the Militia is the Army of the people.

Posted by: Dan W | April 6, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Mark: I don't know that it has to do with him being a Repub president, merely that he is a president whose party controlled both houses.

Posted by: Dan W | April 6, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

The issue about Guns is a no brainer. No matter the position anyone takes, the other side can tear it apart. The only arguement about the 2nd that makes sense at all is in the "well regulated militia" part. Different opinions on that is where the real arguement is found.

Posted by: lylepink | April 6, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

'Specifically, if the Constitution does not allow the Federal government to do something, then the Federal government can't do it.'

...unless a republican is president. then it's okay.

Posted by: Mark | April 6, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

roo: If we can't have ammunition because the Constitution does not say we can have ammunition then turn off your computer because the Constitution doesn't say you can have one. Get rid of your car. The Constitution doesn't say you can have one. Get rid of your phone, the Constitution doesn't say you can have one.

The Constitution is not a permissions document for the people, it is a permissions document against the Federal government.

Specifically, if the Constitution does not allow the Federal government to do something, then the Federal government can't do it.

Posted by: Dan W | April 6, 2007 10:47 AM | Report abuse

1972 video of Karl Rove discussing his strategy to motivate youth in the campaign to reelect Nixon. Karl Rove was serving then as the College Director of the Republican National Committee.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/04/06/karl-rove-discusses-work-_n_45131.html

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

That's the thing with True Believers. They all think no one but themselves is pure enough. Everyone that differs doctrinally even slightly is seen as apostate.

Posted by: drindl | April 6, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Colin,
Please accept my apologies if you took my remarks for being insulting. I was trying to be flipant and have a notable lack of talent, in writing, for that sort of thing. However, friends tell me I'm actually quite funny in person :)

Aussie,
I have freinds from Austrailia who tell me about what happened in your country when a small group of gun control nuts managed to dictate that debate. Doors broken dow, threats and intimidation, and government thugs taking guns and immediately melting them down so as to preclude even the possibility of someone else taking power and changing the laws. It was rather like the "Final Solution" and what the Nazi's did to the Jews or wha PETA would inflict on us if they gained control of government for a short while. Disguisting, despicable, cowardly, insane, and utterly without honor. As for the crime rate in Austrialia since....it has soared! The violent crime rate has more than doubled. You can "believe" in gun control all you want, just don't try and inflict your nonsense on us.

Posted by: MikeB | April 6, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

I want to leave an irrelevant comment too!

Posted by: IntrepidTroll | April 6, 2007 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Colin, in William's estimation everyone is a liberal. He's said that McCain is a leftist. I think William considers himself to be the only real conservative in the world.

Posted by: Blarg | April 6, 2007 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Whenever I feel that others are not respecting my penetrating analysis of R's, Dems and Libs, I retreat into my fantasy world, where I am the king of an imaginary country. (GRUNT)

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 6, 2007 8:21 AM | Report abuse

MikeB -- not sure why you had to get insulting. I merely said I didn't think it was a constitutional right. In point of fact, i don't want to ban guns at all. You seem to have missed that part.

William -- Many conservatives still want to put Bork on the bench. He's been upheld as the perfect "textualist" judge by the right for 20 years. So comparing him to Stevens is just stupid. Nice try though. Oh, and Burger started the process of walking-back the most far reaching decisions of the warren court. Good to k now that in your expert legal opinion he's "liberal" as well.

Posted by: Colin | April 6, 2007 7:23 AM | Report abuse

William--"I just can't understand the people who want to ban guns. The only guess I can come up with is that they feel sorry for criminals and want them to have a safe work environment."

Hmmm....maybe because America has the highest rate of gun related crime in the Western world(and not coincidentally, it's the easiest place to get a gun)?

I am exactly the opposite, I just can't understand people who think it's a good idea for guns to be legal. I think it's sad that so many Americans feel the need to have a gun for self defence. Even sadder is kids bringing guns to school. Gun control works.

Posted by: Aussie view | April 6, 2007 4:39 AM | Report abuse

MikeB: We are on the same page. I have given this a lot of thought over the years, and it started when I was working in Racine, Wisconsin at a Steel/Mallable iron foundry as a timekeeper, 66-72. Close to America Moters which was in Kenosha and Mitt Romney's father became the head honcho, btw. At that time the labor market in the area was such that employers went hunting for workers in various states, WV for me. Latino workers were some of the best I have seen and if anyone knows anything about this kind of work, it is brutally hard. I am not sure, but I think the legal staus of workers started gaining strength in the 80's. Lou Dobbs of CNN has a daily show that highlights this problem, along with the shrinking middle class. Research appears very good.

Posted by: lylepink | April 6, 2007 2:43 AM | Report abuse

lylepink - Oh, I agree we need to crack down on employers. But we're going to need to take some direct action against the illegals, too, The current estimates are that at least 60% of the construction trades have been taken over by illegals. We got into that mess when, back in the 1980's federal laws were relaxed that allowed constuction companies to hire subcontractors and not be responsible for their Social Security, Medicaid, and other taxes. That also was the demise of the small outfit and marked the beginning of these giant construction national corporations that are nothing more than some guy with a general contractors license and a mailbox. He subcontracts the actual work, the plans, everything, out to subcontractors. This was a custom designed loophole allowing these people to "innocently" hire illegals. No checks for citizenship, etc. necessary. So the home construction industry has been flooded with people who really don't know code, have no licenses, and are building a lot of shoddy homes all acoss the country. As with all corporations taking advantage of cheap labor, the savings go into the pockets of the corporate officers and investors. And, thanks to the laws passed by the unlamented Repblican Congress and George Bush, the corporation assumes all of the responsability, not the corporate officers, so here are going to be a lot of unhappy home owners in years to come with nowhere to turn to. The exact same thing has nt passed the notice of other employers. So we are witnessing a repeat of this subcontractor nonsense with janitorial, landscaping, and other outfits. Even some of the larger truck and RV manufacturing firms are getting into the act. You can't o after hose employers, but the employer IS the illegal immigrant. By now, we have pretty much figured out that we cannot afford them without doing grave harm to our own citizens and those citizens come first for jobs. The only solution is to round up the illegals and deport them. After that, we need to have the Congess back out the lunatic laws passed by Bush and the Republican mobsters, but that is going to take a lot of time and a lot of work. The corporate swine that were the beneficiaries of this largesse have amassed a fortune becasue of it and are/will use that money to defend it. In coming years, we are going to see Democratic and Republican politician's convicted of taking bribes and kickbacks that is going o shake this country. It is all due to the vast amounts of money in the hands of a few greedy and immoral individuals and the corporate entities they use to do their dirty work.

Posted by: MikeB | April 6, 2007 1:44 AM | Report abuse

roo - That is the dumbest comment I've head here. And, besides that, comments from Jefferson about shooting being the sort of sport that build character wouldn't be possible without ammunition.
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature,
are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind.
Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walk."

And Colin, if you don't understand the importance of guns and shooting and character and citizenship after reading what I have posted, then you need to find some of those liberal gun nuts (conseratives, too, but start with the liberals) where you live and spend some time with them. I's not just fun, it really does build character.

Posted by: MikeB | April 5, 2007 11:58 PM | Report abuse

"That's a good one buddy. Judges hand picked by Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan are now officially too liberal for William."

Um...David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Conner, John Stevens are/were all REPUBLICAN appointees and LIBERAL!

Just b/c a judge is appointed by a Republican doesn't mean they are conservative.

Posted by: William | April 5, 2007 11:56 PM | Report abuse

McCain can definitely win, but only if he acts now to name Sanjaya for Vice President

Posted by: Sandy | April 5, 2007 11:30 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -- the DC Circuit case you're thinking of was decided by three REPUBLICAN appointees. There were no democratic appointees on the panel. Before that decision, there has been exactly ONE federal circuit court that has upheld an individual rights interpretation of the second amendment. Ever.

Believe it or not, I respect the fact that reasonable people can argue in favor of an individual rights reading. It's a legitimate argument. But it's not a slam dunk by any stretch. All of that, however, is actually besides the point for me. What I don't understand is why this is such a HUGE issue for you and William when allowing gun control to be decided on a state by state basis has worked out quite well.

William -- Lopez was decided on commerce clause grounds and as such is a completely unrelated case. It had nothing to do with the secon amendment. I realize you don't respect supreme court precedent at all, but please leave the legal scholarship to those of us who have actually read the cases you're citing.

Also, Warren Burger and Robert Bork are now Liberals, eh? That's a good one buddy. Judges hand picked by Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan are now officially too liberal for William. Good god.

Posted by: Colin | April 5, 2007 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Patrick Henry, I don't think McCain will win either, but I find it hard to picture Romney as the nominee. As for Guiliani, the polls have made him over-confident and he is getting arrogant. He's too liberal to be nominated. If he's nominated, the GOP will have gone the way of the British Tories, and become a slightly more moderate version of the Democrats.

That will turn off millions of grassroots voters that even the most oily pseudo-conservative snake oil salesmen (Sean Hannity in particular) will not be able to prevent.

I cannot see Guiliani being nominated. That would destroy the Republican Party as we know it. Already the delicate alliance of social conservatives, libertarians, economic supply-siders, fiscal conservatives, free traders, and neocons is starting to crack.

Evidence of this cracking is, for example, out West, where Republicans have been losing ground as Democrats rapidly make inroads. Colorado, New Mexico, and, to a lesser extent, Nevada and Arizona, or trending blue rapidly, partially due to Hispanic immigration, and partially due to the fact that these states are libertarian leaning, and are upset with Bush policies.

Down South, until the civil rights era of the 1960s and 1970s, and in some places, even until the 1980s or 1990s, most elected officials were "conservative" Democrats.

Indeed, even today, some states, such as AR and WV and LA prefer conservative Democrats to Republicans.

After the Republican Revolution in 1994, the GOP made tremendous inroads in the South, which last to this day.

But in some places, conservative Democrats are making a comeback. The South has been badly hurt by free trade policies like NAFTA and CAFTA, and Southerners are mad at the GOP for ignoring illegal immigration.

Indeed, there are quite a number of senate, governor, and congressional seats held by "conservative" Democrats that should be held by Republicans, and would be, if the GOP returned to its conservtaive roots.

In TX, there are at least 3-4 seats that should be GOP, including Chet Edwards' and Nick Lampson's.

In LA, Charlie Melancon's seat should be held by the GOP, considering that Bush got 67% of the vote in his district.

TN: 3-4 Dem seats should be GOp

GA: 4 seats should be GOP but are Dem

NC: 4-5 seats should be GOP but are Dem.

AR: at least 2 Dem seats should be GOP.

SC: John Spratt's seat should be GOP.

VA: 1 Dem seat should be GOP.

WV: All 3 Dem seats should be GOP.

MS: Taylor's seat should be GOP.

AL: Cramer's seat should be GOP.

FL: 203 Dem seats should be GOP.

Posted by: William | April 5, 2007 9:51 PM | Report abuse

MikeB--Hey! Can YOU point out where the Second Amendment says you are allowed to have ammunition? :)

Posted by: roo | April 5, 2007 9:14 PM | Report abuse

McCain has lost the one thing he could not afford to lose: his credibility. Once lost, such is nearly impossible to recover. To win the Republican nomination, he has given up his soul. At the same time, although he started down the same neo-nut pandering path as McCain initially, Guiliani has apparently astutely realized recently that he does NOT need to sell his soul to the neo-nuts to win the nomination (when he stated that he would support public funding of abortions). This abortion funding position is a major, unforgivable slap in the face to the conservative Repubs all three have been chasing. However, McCain and Romneys' failures to dent Guiliani's poll numbers despite his anti-conservative positions, among other things (e.g. many states' change to earlier primaries), have convinced Guiliani to "not try to wear someone else's suit." I think this is smart. Guiliani is too bull-headed to convincingly pretend that he's something he is not. He is also new to this national spotlight -- without the same kind of indelible record as McCain -- so he does not face the same problems as McCain by giving up on pandering now. By being himself, he does not need to try and figure out how every particular political issue insults or pleases the desired target. He's a much stronger candidate using this strategy of truth in advertising. On the other hand, McCain is toast I believe. He has made his pact with the devil and long ago committed himself to pandering to the unpopular Bushies and their tragic war and other neo-nut causes. The recent Iowa interview where he was about to have a melt-down on the issue of free birth control because he could not come up with an intelligent neo-nut response is but one example. Inconsistently, McCain still blurts out anti neo-nut statements (e.g. about the many failures of Cheny and Rumsfeld and other Bushies in prosecuting this war). However, he has been in the national spotlight too long (e.g. publicly smooching Bush at the convention) to back off now from supporting the neo-nuts without major political backlash. Most conservative Repubs are going to run, not walk, from McCain, as the Independents and Democrats have already done. I do not care whether McCain raised 50 million dollars in this first quarter (instead of the $12.5 mil), because of the failure of this war and the continuing meltdown of the Shrub Administration, McCain has little chance of winning this election.

Posted by: Patrick Henry | April 5, 2007 9:09 PM | Report abuse

WILLIAM, JOHN EDWARDS HAS PUBLICALLY AND REPEATEDLY SAID HE OPPOSES GUN CONTROL LAWBEYOND WHAT WE HAVE IN PLACE NOW.
COLIN - The Supreme Court, to my knowledge, hasn't a direct challenge to gun control based on the Second Amendment. I truely believe they would toss out bans in places like New York if that did happen, however. In a recent case, challen ging the gun ban in Washington D.C., the descenting judge was a Bush appointee. The majority were Clinton appointees and they threw out the gun ban. The people challenging it were liberal gun owners like myself, not the NRA.
Something a lot of people don't recognize is that lots of Republican's are THE gun control nuts. Gonzales has actually advocated confiscating all privately ownd handguns. The Brady's are Republican's, too. Opposition to gun control runs across Party and conservative-liberal lines. William and I might disagree almost totallly on most politics but we would agree almost completely on guns. (If you read any of the forums on hunting and target shooting, too, you will find as many liberals as conservatives that are active and will oppose any candidate that is for gun control. We even have competitions and the tease is that they liberals usually win becaue we woukld rather target shoot than hunt! True, by the way. I do prefer target shooting.) That is one of the reason the control nuts don't like Second Amendment challenges. We WILL win. That would toss out New Yorks ban and that scares them. The only hingey have left are the lame, and obvious unconstitutional "let the individual states decide" garbage, or a Constitutional Amendment, which has no chance whatsoever.

Posted by: MikeB | April 5, 2007 8:51 PM | Report abuse

MikeB: I forgot to mention these visa's are greater in the computer business as a percentage with wages around 12 to 16.000.00 $$ less. The farms and hotels/motels, resturant and domestic help make up a great deal of the illegal workers and small construction outfits are very hard to estimate. Many ways have been suggested to curb the flow, but the only way I can see is to crack down on the employers.

Posted by: lylepink | April 5, 2007 8:35 PM | Report abuse

William--"That was about the dumbest thing I've heard this year."

William, please point out to me where in the constitution it says that you are allowed to be in possession of ammunition for firearms. Or, for that matter, that you may discharge a firearm.

Strict constructionism.

Posted by: roo | April 5, 2007 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Anyways,

The thing that separates the Repub. and Dem. fundraising is the more compassionate platform the Democrats are taking over the Republicans. The sheer amount that has been raised by Hilary and Obama alone contests for the need to rework our government. It's definitely time for our leaders to lead us in the world and face the problems that are before us by addressing the international issues that cause them, specifically global poverty.

The poverty in America alone is astounding, but when viewed in a global perspective, something really needs to be done. Our leaders need to support the UN Millennium Development Goals to end poverty, and only the Democrats will try it. The fact that only the Democrats appear to be willing to do something besides stay the course is probably why they are leading. Imagine how different this world would be without poverty. There would probably be no war on terror. On the Borgen Project Website, it states that it costs $19 billion annually to relieve starvation and malnutirtion. Seems like a lot right? Well, not really. We have already spent $340 billion on the war in Iraq to "fight terrorism."

Posted by: Biggest flip-flop since Kerry! | April 5, 2007 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Steve, I agree with you that ending the judicial filibuster would have been extremely stupid and foolish, as well as set a dangerous precedent for all filibusters to be abolished.

Unfortunately, dumb people like Mitch "Messed up teeth" McConnell (R-KY) don't seem to realize this.

McMoron still wants to throw away Congress's check on the executive by giving the president a line-item veto, something a Democratic president would benefit from, especially with Bush's term almost over.

Honestly, don't these people think 3 months ahead of the present?

Posted by: William | April 5, 2007 7:21 PM | Report abuse

It seems that several of the posters on this board are slightly (or in some cases) grossly misinformed.

If money was equal to free speech then it was taken away a loong time ago by the USSC when they ruled that limits on campaign contributions were constituional.

In the past, if you gave your money to an outside organization with the assurance that they would attack your candidates, you could circumvent the intent of the ruling.

Soooo, what M-F CFR says is that organizations can still run ads up to the time of the election but the money spent on such ads are subject to each donors hard money cap. Not exactly what you hear from the clowns at Redstate, but true nonetheless.

As far as the gang of 14--who are you kidding? What happens if Hillary wins and the Republicans don't win back the Senate. That fool Frist wanted to destroy the only option that we would have to stop her from appointing bad candidates. None of this would even have been necessary if the Republicans had followed the same procedures for approving judges that were in effect under Clinton (ie,Senators able to veto judges from their own state)

Frankly, I think McCain is going to win. No way Rudy will make it through the primaries. FlipFlop Mitt?--give me a break, Hillary would rip him apart.

Immigration, Campaign Finance Reform, the War--there's virually no difference in any of the top 3's positions (although I admitantly haven't checked current Mitt's position as of 7pm) The only differences are experience and abortion. McCain's record speaks for itself.

Posted by: SteveinVa | April 5, 2007 7:17 PM | Report abuse

I am still waiting for someone who knows to inform me of John Robert Edwards' beliefs on guns.

Obviously, Clinton and Obama and Dodd and Biden are reliably anti-gun, but what about Edwards?

Someone please inform me.

Interestingly enough, Richardson is a very pro-gun governor, who expanded concealed carry rights, and carries a concealed handgun himself.

But while he was in Congress, he voted for the Assault Weapons Ban, as well as a National Waiting Period and Registration law (which failed to pass.)

Posted by: William | April 5, 2007 7:17 PM | Report abuse

"By the way, I agree. The constitution gives you the right to bear arms. What it does NOT authorise you to do is to have ammunition."

That was about the dumbest thing I've heard this year.

Posted by: William | April 5, 2007 7:14 PM | Report abuse

William--"I just can't understand the people who want to ban guns. The only guess I can come up with is that they feel sorry for criminals and want them to have a safe work environment."

There are many reasons why people want to ban guns to varying degrees but that is not one of them. Generally we want the same as you: a safe country. Our methods may differ but misrepresenting our motives is just reprehensible.

Some want to ban guns altogether, believing that it would make the country safer (criminals would be less likely to carry guns because of reduced availability and risk to them.)

Some want to ban carrying guns, concealed or not, outside one's home where they are less likely to be necessary due to increased presence of authorities and more likely to cause fatal misunderstandings.

Some want to ban weapons unnecessary to domestic protection or legitimate hunting (handguns, shotguns and rifles) such as assault rifles, machine guns and grenades.

Some want stricter controls over who is allowed weapons such as training courses or that all guns are kept under lock.


By the way, I agree. The constitution gives you the right to bear arms. What it does NOT authorise you to do is to have ammunition.

Posted by: roo | April 5, 2007 7:09 PM | Report abuse

MikeB - If you don't think there's ambiguity on the 2nd Amendment, check out the following.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301508_pf.html

You may not fully agree, but it's not a slam dunk either way. Yet!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 7:06 PM | Report abuse

"the far-left burger"

You can't be serious, boy!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 6:50 PM | Report abuse

polls for canidates on 4/4/2007
Dem canidates
Hillary Rodham Clinton 41
John Edwards 19
Barack Obama 17
Other 1

gop canidates
Rudy Giuliani 34
John McCain 17
Fred Thompson 10(no annoucement)
Newt Gingrich 9(no annoucement)
Mitt Romney 6

www.pollingreport.com
note, the recent numbers are from the Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll so please dont have a cow on where i pulled those numbers from.

also this is interesting if if this poll holds up for 2008
"Regardless of how you might plan to vote in your own district, which party would you like to see in control of Congress after the congressional elections in 2008: the Democrats or the Republicans?" If other/unsure: "Well, which way do you lean -- more toward the Democrats or the Republicans?"
ALL reg. voters
Democrats Republicans Other Unsure
52 36 4 7


Posted by: spartan | April 5, 2007 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Change "illegitmate government" to "oppressive government" in the post above.

Posted by: Foamin' | April 5, 2007 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Is it such a big deal to "regulate" which arms the people can bear?

Does anybody (other than law enforcement) need an AR-15, and AK-47 or any other assualt weapon for anything other than competition?

When you connect "power residing in the people" and the "right to bear arms" doesn't that imply the "people" using those weapons against an illegitimate government?

Yet many of the "rights people" who are so adamant about not regulating such weapons are the ones who become apoplectic when "revolutionaries" on the Left talk about overthrowing governments.

Same weapons philosphies just from different ends of trhe spectrum. When you come down to it The NRA types aren't much different than the Trotskyites.

Posted by: Foamin' at The Mouth | April 5, 2007 6:47 PM | Report abuse

There are way too many unsigned posts on this site and there are way too many posts which are used to broadcast columns from elsewhere, whether those writers get any attribution here or not.

If you want your fellow Fix Fans to read something, use your post to recommend it or post a link to it, but not to publish it in its entirety or near entirety.

To all who continue to repeat, like a parakeet that has never learned to say anything else, that Senator Clinton cannot win a General Election, here's a reminder to print and paste onto your computer: Saying something over and over again does not make it true. If it did, Fox "News" would be known for facts instead of fiction.

The idea of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama being associated with any kind of "lunatic fringe" is the flat-out funniest thing I read all day.

Posted by: LonestarJR | April 5, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Colin -

"That, combined with the fact that the US SUpreme Court has NEVER overturned any gun control legislation,"

Part of the Brady Law was overturned, IIRC the case was Lopez v. US, or something like that.

In any case, the Supreme Court has never overturned slavery as being unconstitutional. The last SCOTUS ruling on slavery was, IIRC, 1854, the Dredd Scot decision. At one point, SCOTUS upheld the internment of Japanese during WW2, and segeregation, as well.

The Supreme Court justices follow their own political ideologies, not what the constitution actually says.

As far as I can see, there should be no place for unelected judges in a free society. If not abolished outright, SCOTUS justices should at least have to be re-approved by a majority of state legislatures every year or every 2 years.


"there's genuine ambiguity regarding the scope of the second amendment and what type of right it provides"

If you look at the quotes and intent of the Founders and consider that, there is NO ambiguity. There is only ambiguity because leftist college professors and "intellectuals" and activist judges have concocted out of thin air the "state militias (national guard) view."

Weird, considering the Guard wasnt created until over 100 years after the COnstitution was written.

Any honest person with half a brain will admit that the Founders wanted every American citizen (then, free males) to have a gun to prevent government tyranny, their greatest concern.

Anyone who argues otherwise is either stupid or lying, usually the latter.


"My only point is that I don't understand what's so terrible with letting states decide the issue for themselves."

And the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 were letting the states decide how, exactly?

Conservatives would LOVE to make EVERY issue a state issue, from abortion to the sanctity of marriage, to guns. But leftists and their activist judges are never content to do so, and insist on forcing their views on everyone else.

So, we have to fight attacks on our values that occur at the federal level by defending ourselves on the federal level.

If a "states rights" amendment to the Constitution was proposed, granting state control over all key issues and forbidding COngress and the SCOTUS from intervening, you would see a TON of conservative support for that. But not much liberal support, since liberals feel obligated to force their views on others. Which is what started the Civil War in the first place.

Re: Bork - Bork is a statist neocon who thinks the 9th (or was it 10th) amendment is "an inkblot." What a fascist. George Bush and Cheney and Co must love him.

Re Burger: You're kidding, right? Quoting the far-left Burger on key issues to support your view?

That's like quoting George Wallace when discussing race issues.

The fact is that the Founders wanted every citizen (in the culture of their era, only men fought) to own a gun to deter government tyranny.

That means that EVERY individual American is entitled to own guns.

Any opposing viewpoint has no evidence to support it, and those who try just look foolish and dishonest.

Posted by: William | April 5, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

MikeB: I am getting a better take on you as time goes on. These visa's will never be stopped when the control of MONEY is what this is about. What most folks do not understand is the stockholders are the ones to blame. When anyone puts money in the stock market they expect, and even demand a good return. The decline in union members is yet another way to decrease the average workers pay. I am not a big union fan myself, but it does help and also hurts in many ways. Each of us would like to have a little more than we now have and that could be refered to as greed. We must do what we can to make it better for those that cannot do it themselves and by getting all the information about Hillary from her childhood to this day, she has always been, at least trying to do what she can to help. Hillary has been potrayed as something she is not for so many years that folks tend to believe what is not true.

Posted by: lylepink | April 5, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cilliza is right - counting John McCain out would be fool-hearty and short-sighted. He's far too smart, his organization is too strong, and he's hungry. Campaigns run through peaks and valleys - a solid candidate understands that, makes adjustments when necessary, while never taking his eye off the prize. That is John McCain.

Posted by: Antonia Ferrier | April 5, 2007 6:25 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -- The Supreme Court and courts generally seem to disagree with you on the second amendment. As does that noted "liberal," Robert Bork, who thinks an individual rights reading of the second amendment is crazy.

Guess what though? From a policy perspective, I'm not disagreing with you. I DON'T want to take anyone's gun awawy. If I was in a legislature, I would be very unlikely to vote in favor of any gun control legislation. My only point is that I don't understand what's so terrible with letting states decide the issue for themselves. Since the courts have traditionally agreed with that perspective -- without Oregon, NM, Utah, etc. passing any crazy gun control legislation -- I have to wonder what exactly it is that you're so worried about.

Oh, here's are some statements by Bork and other "liberals" on the Second Amendment:

"[T]he National Rifle Association is always arguing that the Second Amendment determines the right to bear arms. But I think it really is people's right to bear arms in a militia. The NRA thinks it protects their right to have Tefloncoated
bullets. But That's not the original understanding."
--Robert H. Bork, Former Federal Appeals Court Judge
(3/14/89, Distinguished Lecture Series, UC-Irvine)

The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to
ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia', "would be
maintained for the defense of the state.... The very
language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument
that it was intended to guarantee every citizen
an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or
she desires."
--Warren E. Burger, Former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

"[T]hat the Second Amendment poses no barrier to
strong gun laws is perhaps the most well-settled proposition
in American constitutional law. Yet the incantation
of this phantom right continues to pervade
congressional debate."
--Erwin N. Griswold, Solicitor General, Nixon Administration
(11/4/90, Washington Post)


That, combined with the fact that the US SUpreme Court has NEVER overturned any gun control legislation, at the very least suggests to me that there's genuine ambiguity regarding the scope of the second amendment and what type of right it provides.


Posted by: Colin | April 5, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, another good post.

I can never understand liberals' irrational fear of guns.

Don't they understand that people want to be able to effectively protect their loved ones from criminals?

The "ban guns" mentality just doesn't make any sense to me. Any rational person realizes that banning guns will not make the country a safer place.

I just can't understand the people who want to ban guns. The only guess I can come up with is that they feel sorry for criminals and want them to have a safe work environment.

By the way, I was wondering, what is Edwards' position on guns. I went to his website, but there was no mention of it. Does he support the AWB?

Posted by: William | April 5, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

zouk

What do they say about 'sticks and stones'? No one has ever called me liberal

This election will be about us folks in the middle. Not the conservative crazies who hijacked the Republicans.

Posted by: poor richard | April 5, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk--Hey, you did not give your thoughts on this:

I believe it is constitutional to disallow *paying* to air a political message.

This way, a law could be devised that guarantees groups equal access to advertising.

You bring up the "incumbency protection" that financing restrictions would cause. I am therefore sure you will happily admit that having the organisation with the most money to speak the loudest is also the same since an incumbent person or issue is likely to have better funding.

Posted by: roo | April 5, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

We, Purge Congress, believe that McCain is a hero, but clueless regarding mainstream America.

Seems that McCain, a republican, sought the Vice President position with John Kerry, a democrat.

We believe that McCain is nothing more than another wannabe president that seeks millions in donor's dollars in order to continue his elite self-serving activities, direction and ideology that we believe is bad for America.

In addition, we believe McCain is primarily focused on careerism in Congress rather than America and his home state Arizona.

Again, we believe McCain is a hero, but clueless.

Respectfully,
Purge Congress

Posted by: Purge Team | April 5, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Colin. Gun control is a deal breaker for me and for millions of other voters. If you care to check the various forums, you will find about as mnay liberals opposed to gun control laws as conservatives. No candidate can hope to win the Presidentcy if they are for Brady style gun control laws. They will be defeated and there really isn't much chance of their hidding their stance on into the general election.

As for the Second Amendment being "confusing", the confusion is a purposeful twisting on the part of certain activists. Thomas Jefferson was asked about the Second Amnedment and here is what he wrote:
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.


And, how about John Adams:
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States

And Tenche Coxe:
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


All of this is pretty plain stuff. There really isn't anything to argue about here and I am amazed that some people still try.

Posted by: MikeB | April 5, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

States do their own gerrymandering, congress has nothing to do with it peabrain.

Posted by: General Pelosi | April 5, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, GOOD post about the Second. There are a number of other quotes as well, making the intent of the Founders crystal clear.

If Dems simply ended and renounced their efforts to implement more gun control, such as the "assault weapons ban", they would get a lot more support.

Quite a number of socially conservative districts and states are represented by pro-gun Dems.

For example, Jim Webb.

Posted by: William | April 5, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Now.

McCain doesn't have a chance.

If there are still boots on the ground in Iraq in 2008 any candidate would be detached from reality if he/she held Mr. McCain's "Stay the Course" mentality. Actually I don't think the Republicans would nominate him at that point. They'd be too scared of getting voted into irrelevance.

But then, that would mean Newt gets nominated and most Republicans but Bush's what, 33% this week, would stay home.

Give credit it to Tom Delay. If he hadn't done such a good job of gerrymandering the House, the Republicans could be as obsolete as the Whigs.


Posted by: poor richard | April 5, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

MikeB: I'm deeply, deeply concerned about negative pressures on wages, and I respect your concern.

I'm wondering if you've considered the immigration position currently advanced by the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win coalition (the rival labor group most commonly associated with the SEIU.) These labor organizations argue that the principal reason illegal immigration drives down wages is not that it's immigration but that it's illegal. If Mexican workers weren't concerned about Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, they could insist on fair wages, labor and safety standards, benefits, FICA contributions, and other protections. With these protection, negative wage pressures could be ameliorated without criminalizing a large group of people.

Guest worker programs, including McCain's, are particularly bad, because they make it easier for employers to hire immigrants while making it harder for immigrants to respond to mistreatment from their employers.

Posted by: Chris M. | April 5, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Poor richard - that was certainly well-thought out and original. but how was that on topic? how is it not mindless partisan rambling with the inclusion of "No wonder your guy, the Current Occupant, is is so detached from reality."

your poverty seems to inflict your intellect and your soul.

"You will alienate anyone with any level of sanity from contributing to this blog" - your conclusion then must be that you have no sanity. you have succesfully talked yourself in circles and made no sense. I bet this happens to you all the time. Maybe your friends are too polite to say anything.

why post this pointless drivel? what has it contributed. you may not like what I have to say - then challenge it, don't insult, don't pull a Jane and re-invent me to make yourself look good. You libs are pitiful when you can't defend your weak positions.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Tarheel, Al Gore is not going to run.

If he were going to be annointed as the Dem nominee, he might be convinced to run, but he is in a lucrative position right now as Official Global Warming Prophet And Forseer Of Doom, so why would he give that up to run in a highly competitive race when most big donors have already picked their candidate? Also, the liberal base, who would ordinarily be yearning for Gore, have their dream candidates in Obama and Edwards. Hillary is the "moderate" candidate while Richardson purports to be the "redstate" Dem. Not sure what Dodd or Biden think their role is.

In other words, there's no real niche for Gore to fill. He's swung out too far to the left since 2000, is a past loser, and is probably unelectable.

Liberals like Gore but he is a highly polarizing candidate.

I strongly doubt he will run, unless Obama and Clinton stumble BADLY.

Then, he may get in the race and try to compete.

But unless that happens, I doubt it. I don't think he has the will to run.

Posted by: William | April 5, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

sorry folks, my ears were burning when someone mentioned my screen name. anyway to the topic at hand

can mc cain win? my prediction he wont make it out of the 2nd quarter fundraising.
i guess its going to be romney(fun fact he's already airing ads in michigan trying to re-introduce himself)

zouk-here's the deal, we both stop using wikipedia for sources, fair enough?

mikeb-i happen to agree with you with illegal immigration and free trade. im willing to vote for any canidate who will stop either one. just out of curiosity, what do you think of lou dobbs?

tarheel-no thank you i dont need that image in my head.

proud to be gop-just wondering if none of the current crop impresses you then who would you like to run?

Posted by: spartan | April 5, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Colin - The Seocond Amendment is not at all ambiguous, it is distorted by people who want to pick and choose what ought to be American's rights. Gund frighten some of them and, so, they want them banned and to heck with the consequences. And, "YES", as an issue IT IS more important to me than virtually anything else and is the deal breaker for me in choosing between a McCain and an Obama or Clinton. It WILL BE for millions fo other voters, ordinarily liberal voters like me, who will abandon the Democratic candidate over that one issue. Like it or not, that and jobs will cost the Democrats the Whitehouse if they stand on the wrong side of the issue.

As for ambiguity of what Mr. Jefferson meant. He was asked about the Second Amendment and here is what he said:
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.


And Samual Adams, 1788 -
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..."

Those quotes are pretty self explanatory. Anyone, no matter how ell meaning the claim to be, no matter what "social good" they claim to represent, who adocates restrictions on gun ownership, is an tyrannt and has n business being president (nor even in Congress).

Posted by: MikeB | April 5, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, you must have missed the other citation I provided in tandem with the FEELINGS result. It was an honest university study of media news reporting that verified the major news outlets lean left. It was not feelings, it was fact based on sourced articles and mathematical methods. I think it is on the other blog over. there are many more that support this conclusion. Is this really up for grabs, can't we at least agree on something so obvious that even 84% of the people see it? why not try to explain it instead of denying it?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

tarheel stains my brain with
"Strange to see them all sharing the same bed, so to speak. Now there's a mental image none of us need!"

Thanks.

Posted by: bsimon | April 5, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

zouk

go crawl back under you rock. You are always off topic with that mindless partisan rambling.No wonder your guy, the Current Occupant, is is so detached from reality.

You will alienate anyone with any level of sanity from contributing to this blog.

Posted by: poor richard | April 5, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, yes, Romney is a completely disgusting, repulsive, and despicable character.

Every time I see his slick, deceitful face on TV I want to throw up.

One day he is pro-choice, the next day he wants to ban abortion, the next day he is somewhere in the middle.

And he somehow does it all with a straight face. I guess lying to people is a skill that Mormons have perfected over the years.

Romney was extremely liberal when he ran for MassGov, and now that there is no niche conservative in the race he is trying to fil that role.

If Allen was running, ROmney would be posturing himself as the moderate.

He has no moral values and simply says anything he thinks will get him elected.

If he immediately began trashing liberals once they elected him in MA, why would he not immediately begin trashing conservatives when elected president?

He can't be trusted, and is a proven liar.

He was extremely liberal until about 6 months ago.

The only reason he raised 23 million is because he has a lot of corrupt, conniving Mormon buddies who want a Mormon in the WH.

Romney also uses other dishonest, sleazy and corrupt fundraising practices like allowing people who raise money for him to keep 10%. Isnt that illegal??? People give money thinking it will go to Romney, but instead it is kept by the people who convinced them to donate?

Slick Mitt and his Mormon buddies can keep on dreaming.

Neither I nor any other conservative Southerners I know (Catholic or Protestant) are willing to vote for a Mormon.

The only person who Romney could beat in the South is Obama.

Aside from that, the South would go for Edwards, or Biden or Dodd, before they went for Romney.

Not so sure about Richardson or HRC though.

That would be interesting.

If Romney is the GOp nominee, there will almost certainly be a 3rd party challenge Ross Perot style.

Except unlike Perot, it would actually take some states.

Posted by: William | April 5, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

BaLANCE thanks. Someone actually followed a link and verified the information. You are a rare bird on this site. Just to reinforce the Harris poll, the three candidates (or potential candidates) with the most negative ratings are listed. The candidates in order with the highest percentage of negatives are:

Al Gore 51% negative rating.
Newt Gingrich 49% negative rating.
Hillary Clinton 44% negative rating.

Strange to see them all sharing the same bed, so to speak. Now there's a mental image none of us need!


Posted by: tarheel | April 5, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

William, is there anyone you don't think is a Democrat and/or guilty of treason?

I don't know why this Zogby poll is such a big deal. All it reports on is whether people feel there's media bias. (Translation for Zouk: Whether people FEEL there's media bias.) That has nothing to do with whether media bias actually exists. Conservatives have been whining about liberal media bias for decades; even if liberal media bias doesn't exist, everyone is aware of the stereotype.

Posted by: Blarg | April 5, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Jane so sorry to go against your world view. care to support your nonsense with anything but your opinion and speculation?

FYI - I am independently wealthy and don't work anymore. I made a killing as hillary's cattle broker but now must live outside the US to avoid prosecution. I founded the kingdom of zouk on a private island and created a market driven utopia. Our nearest neighbor is the island of the elephants ruled by Babar. they always beat us in sports but like our food.

I guess you can identify with this story since the liberal world you would like to live in can never exist.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

CC asks "Can McCain Win?"

He could, perhaps, win the general, particularly if the Dems nominate HRC. But McCain can't win the GOP primary. Though that opinion begs the question: who can? Given the pending implosions of the Giuliani & Romney campaigns, the GOP is starting to look like a party without a frontrunner. Perhaps William is correct, above, in his prediction that the DA from New York will run.

Posted by: bsimon | April 5, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

lylepink - And I supppose Hillary's readiness to continue to allow the outsourcing of American jobs, her allowing millions of illegals into the country that are bankrupting taxpayers, her cozy relationship with multinational corporations, her supporting INCREAED H1B visas and other guest worker visas, are all excuses, too. Huh? Ms. Clinton is a dud and all her nomination will do is split the Democratic Party apart. I wont vote for her unless she comes out and swears that she will flat out end outsourcing and end *all* guet worker visas at the very least. Not "limit", not "study", I want them gone for good. ANd I want corporations taxed until they bleed. If Ford can pay their CEO $24 million for four months work, Ford can afford to pay at least that same amount in federal taxes. But they don't. Hey, there's an idea. How about the minimum corporate tax being 100 times the executive par plus bonus rate? Apply that to any corporation doing business in the U.S., even they set up a Dubai Post Office box. More than anything I can think of, THAT would reign in the obscenity of some of these excesses.

Posted by: MikeB | April 5, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

The long post above that is unsigned was by me.

Posted by: William | April 5, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

speaking of misinformation, what's the consensus on Romney's claim of being a 'Lifetime Hunter' who's hunted twice? Just another irrelevant fact to be categorized with "I was for abortion and gay marriage before I was against them?"

Posted by: bsimon | April 5, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

I don't have the time to read all of the posts on this thread, many of which are unsigned spam from Che copycats, so I'll just give my two cents.

- Re McCain: He's betrayed us on too many issues, which are too numerous to mention. There's nothing conservative about him except the R next to his name. While he served honorably in Nam, he has become a traitor and a leftist since being elected to office. Conservatives hate McCain and will not vote for him. People like Terry Nelson who signed on with McCain underestimated how much conservatives hate him. All the conservatives I know plan on staying home on election day if McCain is the GOP nominee. If he is elected, he'll do nothing but triangulate with Dems for 4 years. He is a closet Dem himself.


ProudtobeGOP- Why, exactly, are you a Republican? BY your own admission you don't care about social issues, and your favorite candidate is a leftist who supports Big Government, fosters class warfare, and opposes strict constructionist judges and taax cuts. McCain is strongly pro-amnesty, and anti-gun.

So why don't you just become a Democrat? That party would seem to be a better fit for you.

And after all, your hero McSh-t almost became a Dem, and even approached Kerry about becoming his running mate.

McSh-t is nothing but a shameless, greedy, opportunistic, selfish, treasonous self-promoter.

--------------------------------------------

I expect Fred D. Thompson to get in the race and win the nomination.

He's moderate enough to be electable, but conservative enough that the base can live with him.

If FDT doesnt run, and no other high profile conservative does, then I will vote for Tancredo, Hunter, or Paul in the primaries.

-------------------------------------------

Jefferson was not a Dem, he was a Democratic-Republican IIRC. Correct me if I'm wrong.


------------------------------------------

MikeB, I'm glad to see that you are concerned about illegal immigration and outsourcing, and that you realize HRC and Obama are far-left.

But why do you believe that John Edwards will address these issues?

I find it hard to believe he will do anything about either problem.

The only candidates currently running who would do something about it are Tancredo, Paul, and maybe Hunter.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

There seems to be a proliferation of copy cat zouks. Am I the source of all contrary opinion. are you that paranoid? do any of you mimics even know what a zouk is? I am considering promoting myself to Lord Zouk to leave my kingdom and wordly posessions behind. My subjects will probably not allow me to go since our society is ideal under my leadership.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Shaun, don't bother. You're trying to reason with a world-class idiot who thinks Bush is a good president -- but Thomas Jefferson was not... give up -- it's just a waste of time, which apparently he was WAY too much of. But then I guess he's too obnoxious to be hired anywhere...

'Jefferson was a Democrat. a great founding father but not so hot at President.'

Posted by: Jane | April 5, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -- Just curious, but why shouldn't gun control be a state-specific issue? The text of the Second Amendment is -- at the very least -- ambiguous. Until this year, the Courts have ALWAYS interpreted it to provide a collective right rather than an individual right. Assuming that no one tries to pass federal gun control legislation (and trust me, democrats have learned their lesson on that one), what's wrong with letting Utah (and Oregon apparently) be Utah and New York be New York? Seems like a pretty obvious solution to me.

Also, are you really saying that guns is more important to you than all the other differences that exist between all the Dems and McCain? Is that difference really enough for you to pull the lever for someone who (1) wants to keep us in Iraq indefinitely; (2) supports trickle down economic policies, which hurt the middle class; (3) unabashedly supports free trade (Obama doesn't, so that's just untrue); and (4) wants to privatize social security and gut medicare.

Some of that stuff seems more important to me, but what do I know. Oh, and Rudy is worse than McCain on all those issues AND is a huge proponent of gun control. So if you vote for him, then god help you.

Posted by: Colin | April 5, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Demsda facts - you forgot to say the 2/3 think the bias is beneficial to Liberals. since you linked directly to the poll and are a Dem, you may proceed without question. The poll must be true.

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

'CONCORD, N.H. - A spring storm brought more than a foot of snow to parts of the upper Northeast, closing schools, tangling traffic and knocking out power to more than 180,000 homes and businesses on Thursday.

If it weren't for global warming, it might snow all summer.'

ahh, the corporate climate change misinformation campaing out in full force. everyone wiht a brain [altho that doesn't include tha tparticular poster] knows that global warming overall causes climate change, which leads to more erratic weather, unusual storms, more precipation, and in certain places, cooling.

too late, fool, even the oil companies admit it's real now...

Posted by: get real zouk | April 5, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

harris is unamerican and shaves his cat. that poll is worthless

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

you spelled zogby wrong so that poll means nothing

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's money means nothing. She's going to be all dressed up with no place to go, particularly not the White House. Just read tarheel's link to the Harris poll. 50% of voters won't vote for her including 21% of her own party. In case you missed the earlier post here is the link to the survey. It's around 10 pages. Maybe the most thorough survey of one candidate I've ever seen. And it contains nothing positive. Even 52% of married women say they won't vote for Hillary.

The survey can be found at: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=744


Posted by: BaLANCE | April 5, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone else see this Zogby poll? Very interesting. The headline is: Released: March 14, 2007, Zogby Poll: Voters Believe Media Bias is Very Real.

Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet/Zogby Poll shows American voters are skeptical political motivation may be behind blogs run by mainstream news organizations. The vast majority of American voters believe media bias is alive and well - 83% of likely voters said the media is biased in one direction or another, while just 11% believe the media doesn't take political sides, a recent IPDI/Zogby Interactive poll shows.

Here's the link if anyone is interested. Very interesting survey. If this link goes back to the search box just type in media.

http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262

Posted by: DemsDaFacts | April 5, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Dan W: Like I said, excuses.

Posted by: lylepink | April 5, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

CONCORD, N.H. - A spring storm brought more than a foot of snow to parts of the upper Northeast, closing schools, tangling traffic and knocking out power to more than 180,000 homes and businesses on Thursday.

If it weren't for global warming, it might snow all summer.

Posted by: Sean Penn | April 5, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

If you take a close look at that site, you will see no difference between the stands of Obama, Clinton and McCain with regards to outsourcing, guest workers, and all of the rest. They are the same. The deal breaker here is gun control; the other issue I mentioned. Obama is flat out scary there. Anyone with an inkling of understanding the West or the Bill Of Rights wouldn't even suggest confiscation of guns. But Obama does! And Hillary panders to the fears of the brain dead soccer moms and wants to bring back the Brady laws (which were so nonsensical they ended up banning the most popular skeet gun of all time...the Browning A6 and did nothing whatsoever to rid the streets of such genuine menaces as the SKS or the Makarov). They have both lived in big cities for far too long, know nothing about guns or people who own them, and are as out of touch with Western voters as you can get). McCain, at least, IS a Westerner and wouldn't impose more senseless gun control laws on sportsmen (oops, my gorgeous 21 year daughter wants to tell you that she shoots trap and hunts upland game birds and ducks and the proper term should, thus, be: "sportspersons"). Gun control ought to be an acid test for all candidates. Any candidate that would propose limiting America's citizens the right to keep and bear arms would just as easily turn around and do the same with their freedom of speech or freedom of the press.

Posted by: MikeB | April 5, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - I have no problem with citing a kruggman article as the basis for a discussion. I would then encourage the readers or bloggers to further investigate the information given. Kruggman has a reputation for stretching the truth and manipulating the facts. go to NR if you doubt this for an ongoing critique. simply citing kruggman and leaving it at that is not sufficient. you must then delve into his methods to discover the real truth.

As far as zogby goes, if you want to attack the methods used by zogby to arrive at the conclusion, I'll be happy to listen. I am not big on polls and don't accept as fact that the media is biased based on that one result. that is why I cited an additional resource from a university with actual standards that are transparent and that had citations from refereed journals. as all academic papers do. I would challenge you to take this one on if you still think there is no liberal bias in the news. and I don't mean supplying opinion and talking points. I have not found blarg ot be dishonest and manipulative in the past so that is why this response is directed at him/her. the rest of you, you know who you are, seem to be beyond the reach of discourse. and that is why no one else listens to you anymore. Perhaps a desert island with rosie is in your future.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

'Almost to a person, you that do not support Hillary have been unable to come up with a real reason as to "why", and keep giving excuses. Look in the mirrow.'

Lylepink: Her failed health care initiative during Bill's presidency is enough for me to not support her. Not because it failed but because she tried it to begin with.

Posted by: Dan W | April 5, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Shaun, did you intend to display such ignorance and illogic to so many who don't already know you?

Here is the post from wiki in question:
"A poll of likely 2008 presidential election voters released on March 14, 2007 by Zogby International reports that 83% of those surveyed believe that there is a bias in the media, with 64% of respondents of the opinion that this bias favors liberals and 28% of respondents believing that this bias is conservative.[4]

Notice this is a simple report stating where the info came from:
http://www.zogby.com/

In all fairness, if this were an academic paper, I would have cited the original source. but this is lazy internet blogging.

contrast that fact from wiki with the one that I said shouldn't be sourced from wiki about rudy. It concerned the attribution of two big egos colliding as the metric for anaysis.

do you really not see the difference?

how is it not reliable? do I need to post all the articles about how wiki is unreliable? have you been living under a rock. because not all the sources or authors are reliable. simple deductive reasoning. If all the sources are reliable the conclusion is reliable if not - the conclusion may be suspect. Is that clear enough for you?

It is amazing that these most simple concepts escape you Libs.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

'Apparently you don't have a problem with policies that are only good for the rich.'

Yes I read Mike's Posts.

I don't think a Flat tax is only good for the Rich. 20% is 20% is 20%. NO deductions, NO shelters. And if you check archives you would see that I believe in a flat tax on ALL income over a 'threshold'. We can argue what that threshold is if you would like.

I am tired of people who say that the rich mans fair share means the poor dont need to pay taxes. That doesn't sound fair to me.

Eliminate all deductions, loopholes, shelters etc. and have everyone pay the exact same percent.

Don't get me started on Universal health care.

Posted by: Dan W | April 5, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, Every one, without exception, of those posting the Wikipedia remarks knows it brought a Zogby poll to your attention and you were quoting the actual Zogby poll, not Wikipedia. But it is an excellent example of Democratic reporting to intentionally leave out facts that validate a point of view. In this case, the fact that you quoted Zogby. They didn't like the poll, so they must attack it with irrelevant remarks based in half-truths. The Zogby poll said what it said and they can't change it by crying that Wikipedia referred to that Zogby poll. Its sad when people are so partisan they go postal over a unbiased scientific poll from Zogby.

Posted by: tarheel | April 5, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

"right to affordable healthcare"...
as a supporter of affordable healthcare I wish Dems would stop talking about fake "rights".

There is no "right" to affordable health care. Bringing that canard up is just throwing a softball to anti-health-care people. Instead, affordable health care would be sensible POLICY because it would minimize wasted dollars on more inefficient types of health care.

Analogy: There is no "right" to get your trash removed either, but it is sensible POLICY to have a sanitation program.

Posted by: Golgi | April 5, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Steve: You must not read why I support Hillary, for I have stated many times "why", and you stating that "for she should to be President it is Politics at its worst". That is just a tad out of line. Almost to a person, you that do not support Hillary have been unable to come up with a real reason as to "why", and keep giving excuses. Look in the mirrow.

Posted by: lylepink | April 5, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, you could have avoided the issue by just linking to the article Wikipedia cited. And as for complaining about sources, aren't you the one always screaming when someone posts an excerpt from the New York Times, particularly a Krugman column?

Dan W, I was responding to a post in which MikeB complained about income inequality. If you're concerned about income inequality, then a flat tax is bad and universal healthcare is good. Apparently you don't have a problem with policies that are only good for the rich.

Posted by: Blarg | April 5, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Jefferson was a Democrat. a great founding father but not so hot at President.

why should groups be prohibited from bundling their resources?

DanW - don't take those numbskulls word for anything, they inhabit the spectre of lies only. try to find a single post to an outside source of data - you won't. It is all opinion, muck and prevarications. the light of day and truth would wilt them in an instant. they count on laziness to remain unexposed. a simple click of the mouse to any source is enough to send them scurrying.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

wikipedia itself is not a reliable source for information, but it can lead to other reliable sources, if any of you care, which I posit you do not. Prove me wrong.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 03:35 PM

Riggght..

If Wikipedia leads to reliable sources and it uses those reliable sources as the basis for it's article, how is it not reliable itself? That's right, it's too 'left-leaning' (as much of reality is these days). You and your ilk are such a joke and have marginalized yourself because of stupid statements like this. You cons are the last ones to know that you are now irrelevant.

Perhaps the more "reliable" Conservipedia would suit you fool. You can go there to learn all about creationism and learn that global warming and science in general is all a scam.

Posted by: Shaun | April 5, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

'Soft money made large contributors indispensable to the political parties and reduced the power of the broader electorate. I could be wrong, but this is not exactly a Jeffersonian ideal.'

None of it, hard or soft money, is exactly a Jeffersonian ideal... money in politics distorts and degrades the process.

Posted by: Jane | April 5, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Can he win?

No.

Now, lets' get back to the real question - will Gore get back in the race before Obama locks it up?

Posted by: Will in Seattle | April 5, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

'Brian Montopoli: It seems that some reporters who have actually been covering Iraq, have taken umbrage at John McCain's recent comments, essentially saying that there are a lot of neighborhoods where you can walk around relatively safely. Is it fair to say that that sort of bothered reporters?

Allen Pizzey: Yes. It's disgraceful for a man seeking highest office, I think, to talk utter rubbish. And that is utter rubbish. It's electoral propaganda. It is simply not true. No one in his right mind who has been to Baghdad believes that story.

Now, McCain and some other senators were there on Sunday, and they claimed, "Oh, we walked around for a whole hour...and we drove in from the airport. Gosh, aren't we great, we drove in from the airport." Excuse me, Mr. McCain, you drove in in a large convoy of heavily armed vehicles. The last one had a sign on it saying "Keep back 100 yards. Deadly force authorized." Every single car that they approached or passed pulled over and stopped, because that's the way it is. When one of those security details goes by, every ordinary person gets the hell out of the way, in case they get shot.

If he did walk around that market, and I didn't see him do it, and he didn't announce he was going to do it, you can bet your life there were an awful lot of soldiers deployed to make sure that nobody came near that place. He's talking rubbish. And he should not get away with it.'

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

koz , Given the odd coalition of liberal groups, including the AFL-CIO and the ACLU, and conservative groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Christian Coalition that fought against McCain-Feingold I don't see how the issue of the influence of money on politics is a strictly liberal issue.

Soft money donors were doing more than supporting the democratic process...they were making an investment.

Soft money made large contributors indispensable to the political parties and reduced the power of the broader electorate. I could be wrong, but this is not exactly a Jeffersonian ideal.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 5, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Jeb Bush's policy solution:

'The sparkling blue waters off Miami's Julia Tuttle Causeway look as if they were taken from a postcard. But the causeway's only inhabitants see little paradise in their surroundings. Five men -- all registered sex offenders convicted of abusing children -- live along the causeway because there is a housing shortage for Miami's least welcome residents'.

Posted by: jane | April 5, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

If any of you imps would have bothered to actually read and follow that post, you would have seen it goes to a Zogby poll that is the source of the numbers, wiki is only pointing to that, not supplying content. Is this difference too complex for you? I compared it to a summary about Rudy with editorial license taken by the author.

I am beginning to think that Dems have no ability to reason and only consider the source of any information that arrives. If it is a good source - like NYT, WaPo, Daily Kos, moveon, etc - it is true. If it is a bad source - fox news, WSJ, WASHtimes etc is is bad and all lies. the reaction to any input on this blog enforces this view.


wikipedia itself is not a reliable source for information, but it can lead to other reliable sources, if any of you care, which I posit you do not. Prove me wrong.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

'Spartan - it's a waste of time to engage in debate with Zouk.

Whenever challenged on the history he fabricates or things he wrote such as the use of Wikipedia, he either totally ingores being caught, changes the subject in his response to some RNC talking point, or rationalizes'

looks like you're the one no one listens to, zoukie...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

"Zouk quoted Wikipedia earlier today, in the "New faces shine" topic"

Well aint that a kick in the pants. My apologies to Anonymous343.

Posted by: Dan W | April 5, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

'But, even more troubling is his constant and continual chipping away, distorting, the Constitution and laws that have served this country for more than 200 years. The problem, as I see it, is that some other lunatic will come after we have dumped this piece of garbage and push his or her distortion of the law and Contitution just a bit farther. Eventually, this will be the end of this country'

agree with you wholeheartedly there, MikeB. It can happen a lot faster than that though, as we have seen often in history.

Posted by: drindl | April 5, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"I don't know how you can support a candidate who wants a flat tax and no universal healthcare."

Blarg, I actually feel the exact same way in reverse... I don't see how you can support a candidtate who DOESNT want a flat tax and who WANTS universal healthcare.

Posted by: Dan W | April 5, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Dan W, Zouk quoted Wikipedia earlier today, in the "New faces shine" topic.

Posted by: Blarg | April 5, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

McCain has always been the candidate that coldn't win the nomination but couldn't lose the General. Ironic that the more he does to win the nomination the further he gets from being able to win the General.

Posted by: Dan W | April 5, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

you don't think the Rs learned from the 1992 error with a third party that turned out to be the only reason a Dem could get elected president? the risk didn't seem too bad then, times have changed.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, thanks for your courteous response. I still don't see how any of that translates into support for John McCain. I compared Obama to McCain on that site www.whereistand.com that you posted about the other day.

Both agree that illegals should be offered a path to citizenship and that there should be a fence along the border. Obama says that outsourcing weakens the economy; McCain says outsourcing strenghtens the economy. McCain doesn't believe in universal healthcare, or that there's a right to affordable healthcare. Obama supports universal healthcare. McCain is also in favor of tax cuts, a flat tax, and elimination of the estate tax, regressive policies that help the rich and hurt everyone else. And I don't see how Obama's gun-control policies would stop you or anyone else from hunting, but if you're against gun control in any form I see how you'd consider him a problem.

Basically, I don't see any reason to support McCain over Obama. I didn't look at Hillary in particular, but I'm sure you'd find more to agree with in her platform than McCain's. If you're concerned about theft from workers to help the rich, I don't know how you can support a candidate who wants a flat tax and no universal healthcare.

Posted by: Blarg | April 5, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

"Spartan - it's a waste of time to engage in debate with Zouk.

Whenever challenged on the history he fabricates or things he wrote such as the use of Wikipedia, he either totally ingores being caught, changes the subject in his response to some RNC talking point, or rationalizes more than Terry McAuliffe."

This is Unfair to Zouk. While I agree he is often over the top, he has never used Wikipedia as a source. In fact he often criticizes me because I do use it.

And to our anonymous friends...Would you all kindly create unique anonymous handles so we can keep you separate from one another. Pick an animal, a color, a number, anything.

Posted by: Dan W | April 5, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

I do not think the religious right will mount a 3rd party challenge against McCain. His voting record is mostly in line with their agenda. Giuliani, however, is another matter. There will undoubtedly be a religious right independent if he gets the Republican nomination.

I think that McCain's candidacy is in danger of collapsing. I always saw his support in the nomination battle as a mile wide and an inch deep. Puncture the aura of inevitability and his support will disappear.

Posted by: JimD in FL | April 5, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Wowee - ignorant noname coward is on a Trotsky tear today. all spew and no facts. Can't you see that no one is paying any attention to your venom. If you want to make a point
1.get a name
2. try to say something intelligent supported by any modicum of facts, today you seem to be approaching total meltdown with evermore irrational rants. Is the attention that important to you?

Otherwise we will all continue to ignore your ravings. you may notice that behavior is not really appreciated here. go back to daily Kos for that.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Spartan - it's a waste of time to engage in debate with Zouk.

Whenever challenged on the history he fabricates or things he wrote such as the use of Wikipedia, he either totally ingores being caught, changes the subject in his response to some RNC talking point, or rationalizes more than Terry McAuliffe.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

McCain has no shot. His pandering drives me up the wall.

Posted by: PeterPaulMary | April 5, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

McCain isn't dead... but I don't see him getting a whole lot better.

In 2000, McCain got his strength from "open primaries", where independents could choose to vote in the GOP race. Back then McCain had huge crossover appeal. Those days are gone; independents are now overwhelmingly identifying with the Democrats, and McCain's unwaring pro-war stance has abraded away his former "maverick" status. He is now establishment- he is now W, part II. No one will be less electable in 2008 than W Part II.

Posted by: pinkboy | April 5, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Colin, Loudoun Voter - Actually, I'm much more of a Democrat than most of the people writing to this forum. I actually do Party work, I don't just blather. I have two issues with Clinton and Obama. Both are pro-FreeTrade and both are gun control freaks. I detest free trade, globalization, whatever you want to call it, because it amounts to the outright theft, transfer of wealth, from working men and women to the already wealthy top 2% in this country. It is also a threat to the very existance of this country. I am opposed to gun control because I hunt and target shoot, but more because I actually read the Bill Of Rights and Jefferson's letters and I figure anyone who would propose or justify gun control laws would just as easily propose curbs on the First Amendment or the Fourth or Sixth. Right now, I am angry at Bush's misuse of the recess appointment provision to stick us with a couple of the maggots that do his bidding; it amounts to a gross distortion of the Constitution. I'd bet most of you are, too. But, even more troubling is his constant and continual chipping away, distorting, the Constitution and laws that have served this country for more than 200 years. The problem, as I see it, is that some other lunatic will come after we have dumped this piece of garbage and push his or her distortion of the law and Contitution just a bit farther. Eventually, this will be the end of this country. I really don't much care if they are doing it for the good of the country, even if it is somethig I happen to like, what I care about is that they limit themselves to obeying the letter AND THE SPIRIT of the law. If you, thus, think I am a conservative. SO be it. If you, thus, think I am a liberal; so be that.

Posted by: MikeB | April 5, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

'If money is the measure of work, reward and success in this country, why shouldn't I be allowed to expend the fruits of my labor on effecting change in my government? '

Today, money, especially big money is the measure of cronyism, nepotism, insider trader, inheritance and no taxes for the wealthy. Why should people be allowed to expend the fruits of their illegal wealth stolen from the rest of us to warp government in their favor, and make themselves wealthier, again at the expense of the rest of us?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

"So if I run an ad on my local TV station 65 days before an election that says "bush stinks" its OK but 6 days later it is against the law. Why?"

This ad is actually not illegal under BCRA; as you are not an organization. As an individual, you can place this ad whenever you want.

Posted by: Dan W | April 5, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Mcain should stick his head where it belongs, in his as_s.

Posted by: jwh | April 5, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Some anonymous fool wrote: "Dems are hoping that '08 will be an election about the war in Iraq just like '07.

That's why they keep pushing back the benchmarks and trying to micromanage and slow-bleed. With help from the liberal media, and the incessant din of anti-Bush rhetoric their negative campaign can stay it on the front page."

Oh please. Bush himself has said the war in Iraq will be a problem for the next president to solve. So of course '08 will be about the war, einstein.

And surely you are not suggesting that the war and criticism of how it's being waged doesn't belong on the front page? If so, your at least twice the fool than I originally estimated.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 5, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

'Private organizations need not disclose - its none of your business.

there is only one problem with the presumed motivation of donors. I have found they generally give to candidates who already support their position or at least show some sign of considering it. Most of the cynical public gets this reversed and thinks you can buy a candidate.'

you mean, the smart public, those not as gullible as you. or rather, those who actually care what happens to this country, not you. clearly all you care about is the continuing ability of global corporations to write their own laws and run roughshod over the rest of us.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

"Actually, jobs are what the vast majority of voters care about most"

mikeB- the dems didn't take Congress because of the job crisis!

Dems are hoping that '08 will be an election about the war in Iraq just like '07.

That's why they keep pushing back the benchmarks and trying to micromanage and slow-bleed. With help from the liberal media, and the incessant din of anti-Bush rhetoric their negative campaign can stay it on the front page.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Proud - you are recommending controlling the "market" for free speech through government intervention. would you want to do this with any other market? Is anything in our society more important than the market for political speech? shouldn't we wish to expand this opportunity instead of diminish it? would you place a cieling on this expense which is currently below the Easter candy totals? you sound like a big government Dem on this issue. Hence your support for McCain.

If money is the measure of work, reward and success in this country, why shouldn't I be allowed to expend the fruits of my labor on effecting change in my government? Why limit this measure of the population's motivations? you can guess why the Dems wanted this law.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - In a word - "Yep!". Actually, jobs are what the vast majority of voters care about most -- more than Iraq, more than pollution, more than national health care, more than the abortion or choice, more than gun control, more than our corrupt President, more than any government program, more than anything. And, mark my words, in this election, either the Democratic candidate comes out against outsourcing and guest woker visas or the Republican candidate will in one form or another. In recent polls, nearly 80% of the American VOTING public is opposed to outsourcing, opposed to all forms of guest worker visas, opposed to any sort of amnesty for illegal immigrants (50% want them rounded up and shipped back and close to that percentage want to deny automatic citizenship to the children of illegals), and *over* 80% of voters want constraints placed on corporations and corporate officers and board members, making them responsible for the actions of the corporation as a whole. So Hillary can beat on her feminist tin drum, Obama can rant and rave about Iraq, but those are loosing issues when jobs are on the line. Now, virtually every economic expert is predicting a nasty recession by the summer of 2008. A lot of those experts claim we're in it right now, but that the statistics being released by the Bush controlled government are so rigged that no one can figure out what is really going on. So, jobs and outsourcing and guest workers, taxes used to pay for services for these aliens, will all be placed front and center before the voters. If the Democrats in Congress have done something so insane as to somehow grant worker permits or amnesty to the 20 million or so illegals already here, THAT issue and THAT ISSUE alone will cost them control of the House and Senate. I will definitely cost them the White House if either Clinton or Obama is the candidate. There really isn't one anounced Democratic candidate that is in line with the thinking of the voters on this, either. Oh, Feingold is. John Edwards pretty much is. But no one else has a clue.

Allow me to releate to you a true story. I was a campaign worker for John Kerry during the last Presidential election. I had hosted a gathering of about 200 workers from a local factory at the local Grange Hall. People were cheering Mr. Kerry. I believe ths was the second debate. Somehow, in the middle of it all, John Kerry came out and said something to the effect that he would end outsourcing nor guest worker visas.. Now most of these people were factory workers; working at two very large RV corporations here. Most had been in trades like the construction trades and had watched their jobs disappear to illegals who would take those jobs, with no benefits, for $6 or $8 an hour, usually paid under the table. I want you to know how embarrassed I was when over half of those people simply got up and walked out right then and there. They never came back. You see, they were all desparately afraid that somehow those illegals would come in and take there factory job, too. Those jobs pay between $10 to $14 an hour and feature medical benefits and one or two weeks of vacation. That may not mean much to you, but these people feed their children and pay the rent on a house or apartment with that. It's all they've got. Now, and I mean right now, illegals are showing up with fake i.d., taking those very jobs. Thousands of people are simply out of work and they are angry. Our county government employees 80 people running some hosuing program for illegals, another 20 or so for special ESL programs, and god only knows spends how much more money on other programs. At the same time, our crime rate has doubled here in the past few years. Now, they have placed a special 1.5% income tax levy on the ballot to pay for this and people have just come unglued. Three Commissioners are being recalled and there is a mass movement under way to cut the county budget. It's mess, but his is the ant hill that has been kicked over and the DNC hasn't got the slightest idea of the train heading right at them. People are angry and they blame government. I think they are right. No government has an excuse to exist that does not place the interests of its own citizen first. People know this. It's common sense. The Democratic Party, the Hillary fanatics and most of the rest of them, however, does not apparently know this. And they will pay for that ignorance.

Posted by: MikeB | April 5, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

I may have mis-interpreted your disclosure question. I do not think you should have to say much of anything at the end of your TV commercial. Let's evaluate the facts and not the mkotivation of the messenger. If moveon makes an ad, all Ds will beleive and all rs will not. the content will be lost and the opportunity to debate cancelled. who cares who says it, let the neo-nazis make their point and be torn apart on the merits of the position. that is the american way. the press can report who makes the commercials for those interested.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

"So if I run an ad on my local TV station 65 days before an election that says "bush stinks" its OK but 6 days later it is against the law. Why?"

It was a decent attempt at reform, until the law of unintended consequences kicked in. nonetheless it was and is a worthy goal imho.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 5, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

I think full discloure is not only possible but helpful and in the spirit of an open democracy. I don't know any candidates who oppose this and this law is already in place for election fundraising. Private organizations need not disclose - its none of your business.

there is only one problem with the presumed motivation of donors. I have found they generally give to candidates who already support their position or at least show some sign of considering it. Most of the cynical public gets this reversed and thinks you can buy a candidate. there is very little evidence if any to support a radical change in belief and position based on donations. I would love to see any actual evidence of this.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

just the fact that people talk about Hillary's "inevitability" instead of some other word like unbeatability shows how little people like her.

Inevitable means unavoidable.

If something is inevitable, that means it is something you want to avoid, but can't.

Thank goodness Hillary is NOT inevitable. We want to avoid her and CAN.

Posted by: Golgi | April 5, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

lylepink: Our party is not a monarchy where the Presidential nomination is some divine right, and to talk about Hillary's inevitability instead of *why* she should be President is politics at its worst.

I actually think that Edwards in the best position based on the calendar, unless Gore gets in, and then it will be his to lose. (After all, he is in a statistical dead heat w/Senator Clinton in California despite his insistence that he is not a candidate.)

However, getting back to the original question, I do not think McCain can win, because his biggest supporters until 2006 weren't the people who vote in Republican primaries. However, the things that he has done to attempt to win over those who do is not only not gaining any traction, but it is aleinating the people who used to like McCain. (I would never vote for him, but I used to respect him, until I saw him hug Bush in 2004 and I remembered all the things that Bush did to smear him and his family four years earlier.) There must be nothing worse than selling your soul for something and still lose anyway.

Posted by: Steve | April 5, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"I'm still holding out my hope for a social conservative 3rd party candidate to kill any chance of a Republican being elected president next year. Keep your fingers crossed."

that seems to be the only way to get a Dem elected in the last 30 years.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

KOZ, I was wondering if you think that if everyone has a right to spend as much money on political advertising as they want do you also agree that we the public should know who those people are? Basically do you also support full disclosure.

Posted by: Andy R | April 5, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

We need McCain as president. He is the only candidate who has the experience and the spine to fix the messes of the past administration- and see us through the tough times ahead.

Posted by: Chris | April 5, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

McCain's big problem will be with the social conservatives and the Christian right, which is why he's been loving up to the Jerry Falwells of the world in the last year or so. This, to me, is one of those textbook examples of pandering we see all the time in politics, on both sides of the aisle.

McCain's problem is the same one that Guliani will have if he wins the nomination. That social conservative base that didn't come to the polls in 2006 is likely to do the same with one of those two on the ballot in '08.

Once again, I would say that Fred Thompson would be the only candidate that can bridge that gap effectively. If he runs, no matter when he jumps in the race, he's a dangerous GOP contender. Mark my words.

I'm still holding out my hope for a social conservative 3rd party candidate to kill any chance of a Republican being elected president next year. Keep your fingers crossed.

Posted by: JamesCH | April 5, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Proud - he will skate on the "present" vote, no lib press will dare expose this.

I am afraid we will have to disagree on the fundraising aspect. I firmly believe that any citizen, alone or in a group, has the right to air his views about any candidate. why should I be stifled 60 days before an election, when it is most important. this should have been called the incumbent protection act. since that law went into effect and the state and national parties have no control over the media message, you have seen a spiraling down of negative and untrue TV spots, run by anyone who wants to. there is nothing necessarily wrong with this except the candidates are prohibited from responding properly.
It is very simple and effective muzzling of free political speech - the type of speech the 1st amendment was designed to protect "at the individual level". now the only free speech we get is from the NYT and WaPo and you know how that turns out. In this case, free turns out to be a value and you know the value of something that is free.

So if I run an ad on my local TV station 65 days before an election that says "bush stinks" its OK but 6 days later it is against the law. Why?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Herbert, I agree with you. McCain isn't over because he is a senator or a pander bear, he is just over because he's over. He's not going to win, because he's not a winner. My feeling is it is no more complex than that.

Posted by: Golgi | April 5, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

'that way, he won't have to vote for something before he votes against it.'

you mean like mitt romney and rudy guiliani and john mccain?

biggest flipfloppers in history. Hey, how do you like that rudy, wanting YOU to pay for poor women's abortions, huh? wouldn't you love that?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

"Now you see why Senators have such a hard time getting elected president - they have such a long line of votes and compromises to defend"

Exactly koz. That must be the rationale behind Senator Obama's 'present' votes. How transparent and pathetic.

that way, he won't have to vote for something before he votes against it.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 5, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Sen. McCain did not win the Republican nomination in 2000.

"Drindl" pointed out to me at the previous comment site that Sen. McCain seemed to be adopting the strategy that beat him in 2000 by hiring tricksters to run his campaign.

I have no confidence that Sen. McCain can win the nomination by trekking down from clean campaigning, assuming the trickster hires evidence that descent.

He does have time to right his course, and to campaign consistent with dignity. I hope that he does, regardless of the impact on the nominating process.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | April 5, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

it looks like the vote will come down to

__republican

__not republican

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

I admire McCain's efforts to reduce the influence of money in politics - all this hoo-ha about fundraising makes me sick and I think most Americans agree it is out of control.

Also, McCain has an unblemished record as a hawk on national security.

"And so we have a major anomaly in the Republican presidential campaign: The candidate with the most conservative record of the top contenders is the least liked by conservatives.

McCain has led on other Republican issues, notably spending cuts. He was one of the few Republican senators to vote against the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003.

He is also one of the architects of a Republican plan for comprehensive immigration reform that is now being drafted in the Senate, and which should be more acceptable to conservatives than was the bill he cosponsored last year. The new plan is based on securing the border first and foremost."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/487toqos.asp

Posted by: proutobeGOP | April 5, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

'The disproportionate hatred of him by the far right is something I can't quite figure out...why not channel that sentiment toward our real enemies. '


You mean like Democrats?

I'll tell you why. Because the right is motivated by NOTHING BUT HATE. They hate dems, they hate moderates, they hate blacks and brown people, they hated jews until they became useful, they hate homosexuals, they hate women, they hate anyone of a different relgion, they hate paying taxes and pulling their weight, they hate marriage, they hate families, they hate responsibility, they hate accountability, they hate government, they even hate each other, unless it suits their selfish purposes not to.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

MidwestDem: I hope you like the taste of a little crow, for you will be eating it when the results of the 2008 election are counted and Hillary is the winner. I can not understand how some folks will not or can not accept the fact that Hillary will be the next occupant of The White House. I consult my crystal ball from time to time and it keeps telling me Hillary is the winner in 08.

Posted by: lylepink | April 5, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

KOZ: Now you see why Senators have such a hard time getting elected president - they have such a long line of votes and compromises to defend. so much easier for a governor or mayor.

wow, zouk says something reasonable and intelligent. But forget about mayors becoming president. That's like a Pony League player going straight to the majors.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 5, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

It looks to me the vote will come down to:

__ hillary


__ Not hillary

We already seem to sense the outcome of that vote in the general, wil she make it that far?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Now you see why Senators have such a hard time getting elected president - they have such a long line of votes and compromises to defend. so much easier for a governor or mayor.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

You are overanalyzing this. Whom are you going to believe-me or your lying eyes? McCain looks to be 70 going on 90. He looks old and haggard. That is why is support will drop rather than increase. He is toast.

Posted by: Herbert Kay | April 5, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

"we can do much better and will."

OK zouk. You know I'll pull the R lever for someone else if I have to, but I still think the anti-McCain sentiment is disproportionate.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 5, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Wow. That Hillary headline really is an attention grabber. Fifty Percent of U.S. Adults Would Not Vote for Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Candidate for President. Twenty-one percent of Democrats also say they would not vote for the United States Senator.

I clicked on the link and read the whole story. She has no chance of winning the presidency. It looks like she is going to spend over $100 million at least to just feed her ego. She should drop out and let Obama or Edwards start gaining momentum before she gives the election away to, gulp, a Republican.

Posted by: MidwestDem | April 5, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Colin: MikeB is no Democrat. Kucinich you could consider part of the lunatic Dem fringe, but not Obama and certainly not Clinton.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 5, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Proud to be GOP - McCain is detested because of his policies - McCain feingold - the end of free speech. the gang of 14 - the beginning of GOP spinlessness. the list goes on and on for him. we can do much better and will.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Wolfowitz's worst crime was not being one of the key members of the pro-war cabal. It was being caught on camera using his spit to tame a nasty cowlick.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 5, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -- Help me out here. How is Senator Obama part of the "lunatic fring?" And as to Senator Clinton, weren't you complaining just a few days ago that your problem with her is that she's too CONSERVATIVE? You know, b/c -- to use your words -- she's just like GWB?

Similarly, what do you like about McCain exactly? He's the architect of the failed immigration proposal that you hate. He's another republican puppet for big business who thinks cutting taxes for the rich is more important than helping the middle class. AND he's a huge supporter of Bush's war in Iraq, which you used to think was a bad idea.

Honestly, can you explain to me how your seemingly contradictory comments make any sense at all? I'm baffled at this point.

Posted by: Colin | April 5, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

"I think McCain has a pretty good chance of winning because he now can retreat to his more comfortable position as the underdog. "

AndyR -I agree with your insightful assesment.

And, McCain has NOT been "a reliable cheerleader of the war in Iraq" as someone said above -rather he has been critical of the way it has been handled from the beginning and he was right about Rumsfeld being a terrible sec def imo.

He's great on the stump - Not just good; he's dang good!

Now that he's out and about, I hope people will at least give him a listen.
-listen to him speak and you'll be hearing a man who truly has the nation's best interests at heart.

The disproportionate hatred of him by the far right is something I can't quite figure out...why not channel that sentiment toward our real enemies.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 5, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

McCain sadly, once the photos of his pathetic stroll through the Baghdad market make the rounds, will become a laughingstock like Dukakis in the tank and Bush in the flight suit.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 5, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Brilliant foreign policy ... offer taxpayer-funded advanced weaponry to the country that gave us 9/11 --sometimes do you wonder if the bush administration is so slavishly devoted to oil and arab princes that they are willing to sabotage this country? They'd be fabulously wealthy and treated like princes themselves in Riyadh [where bush I maintains an office] or Dubai [where Halliburton is moving]...

'A major arms-sale package that the Bush administration is planning to offer Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf allies to deter Iran has been delayed because of objections from Israel, which says that the advanced weaponry would erode its military advantage over its regional rivals, according to senior United States officials.

Israeli officials, including the former defense minister, Shaul Mofaz, have come to Washington in recent months to argue against elements of the planned sales. In particular, the Israelis are concerned about the possible transfer of precision-guided weapons that would give Saudi warplanes much more accurate ability to strike targets, officials said. [...]

"It's not like the Israelis are going to end up with nothing," said a senior administration official, adding "the Israelis understand that it's in our interest and their interest" that the United States try to shore up military systems for Sunni Arab allies. But Israel is also concerned that the Bush administration's ambitions for an American-Israeli-Sunni coalition allied against Iran may never materialize, or that there could be a revolution in Saudi Arabia that would leave the mostly American-made Saudi arsenal in the hands of militant Islamists. ...'

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

From http://www.solidpolitics.com

With his campaign feeling lower than a snake's belly, John McCain rounded up a few cowboys from Texas to run his campaign... And it didn't take the Texans long to convince the "straight talker" that he needs to abandon his principles, chuck McCain-Feingold and raise money like a Bush...

Posted by: William | April 5, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

McCain may be good out on the stump, but on TV he comes across as a grumpy old man who is mad at everyone. I do not think that attitude will give him the the support he is looking for.

Posted by: KEG | April 5, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

McCain is toast. There are many reasons for this that I will not go into, suffice it to say that what happened to him in 2000 is nothing compared to what is out rhere. A couple days ago I said he should drop out to save his family and friends a whole bunch of grief. Make no mistake about the way he has been kissee, kissee with the Bushies, there is a reason.

Posted by: lylepink | April 5, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Mother - the blood! Oh mother.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

How can McCain win? For those of you independent enough to read an unbiased professional poll, click on last week's poll on Hillary. And it 2,223 people not one of those wimpy 500 people polls. Here's a sampling.

The Harris Poll ®#28, March 27, 2007

Fifty Percent of U.S. Adults Would Not Vote for Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Candidate for President. Twenty-one percent of Democrats also say they would not vote for the United States Senator.

Senator Hillary Clinton is still the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States according to recent polls, even as Senator Barack Obama gains ground on her in the race. However, according to a new Harris Poll, half of U.S. adults say they would not vote for Senator Clinton if she was the Democratic candidate, while only 36 percent say they would, with 11 percent unsure. Her own party is not unanimously behind her either, as 21 percent of Democrats say they would not vote for her. In the all-important contest for Independents, 48 percent say they would not vote for Senator Clinton, while 37 percent say they would.

Gender also plays an important role. While one would expect that women would be more likely than men to lean towards Senator Clinton, this is not the case as 38 percent of women and 34 percent of men both say they would vote for her. Even among women there is a divide as four in 10 (41%) single women say they would vote for Senator Clinton, compared to 36 percent of married women. Over half of both men (56%) and married women (52%) say they would not vote for her for president.

These are just some of the results of a Harris Poll of 2,223 U.S. adults conducted online between March 6 and 14, 2007 by Harris Interactive®.

The rest of the poll can be found at: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=744

Enjoy, or not. Just reporting the news.


Posted by: tarheel | April 5, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Can people please stop using the comments section as a blog? If you're not going to comment on the article, find somewhere else to post your thoughts.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

SO IN OTHEER WORDS, REPUBLICAN DARREL ISSA BASHED THE PRESIDENT IN SYRIA, PELOSI DIDN'T. ACCORDING TO A REPUBLICAN.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

see? zouk is hired by the administration to cover it's a**. notice how he defends everything they do, and then tries to trivialize and demmonize and discredit anyone who makes a valid point -- old propaganda tricks and total BS.

The Stench of Hypocrisy is particularly strong today...

'Breaking: Republican Congressman Darrell Issa Currently In Syria For Talks

The AP reports that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) met with Syrian President Bashar Assad today in Damascus. And according to the article, Issa criticized the administration while on the visit:

Commenting on Bush's criticism, California Republican Darrell Issa said the president had failed to promote the necessary dialogue to resolve disagreements between the U.S. and Syria.

"That's an important message to realize: We have tensions, but we have two functioning embassies," Issa told reporters after separate meetings with Assad and his foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem.

UPDATE: More Issa criticism of the administration's failed approach:

"President Bush, is the head of state, but he hasn't encouraged dialogue. That's an important message to realize: we have tensions, but we have two functioning embassies."

UPDATE II: Issa is heading a 3-person delegation.

UPDATE III: House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) explains that it's okay for Republicans to visit Syria, just not Pelosi:

Boehner declined to criticize [fellow Republican Rep. David Hobson] for joining Pelosi, saying her stature gave the visit an imprimatur it didn't deserve.

"It's one thing for other members to go," Boehner said, "but you have to ask yourself, 'Why is Pelosi going?' She's going for one reason and that is to embarrass the president. She is the speaker of the House. She's giving (the Syrian) government more credit than they deserve. They sponsor terrorism. They have not been at all helpful. I wish she wasn't there."

Hobson [a Republican] defended Pelosi, saying she "did not engage in any bashing of Bush in any meeting I was in and she did not in any meeting I was in bash the policies as it relates to Syria."

Posted by: Smell something disgusting inn here? | April 5, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

If Chris puts up another Wag the Blog tomorrow without posting from last week, it will be pretty cheesy.

Posted by: Golgi | April 5, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

as much as the media doesnt want to admit it, McCain is among the most hypocritical 'pander bears' in Washington. He makes Hillary look honest.

Posted by: will c | April 5, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

MikeB - I feel compelled to agree with you - the loonies have taken over your party. McCain is toast. After McCain-Feingold, it was over for him. the gang of 14 put the dirt on the coffin. the fundraising numbers are just the after-action report. - a eulogy so to speak.

notice ignorant coward trying to stir up another non-scandal. Two divorced adults date. shameful. why can't they just cheat on their wives with interns like normal people do?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 5, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Yes he can win
But not with my vote
Would have voted for him (first time for a Rep) but not after the kissing up to the evangelicals and the slavish defense of Bushs Iraq War

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure Can McCain win? is the right or even an especially meaningful question. It strikes me what is occurring can be easily paralleled with House or Senate elections in which strong candidates sit out particular years because opponents are too strong or the wind is so obviously blowing the wrong way.

All 3 of the clowns running for POTUS on the repub. side (I don't count Fred Thompson) are back bench candidates. RG wouldn't even be elected mayor again in NYC. McCain is ancient, enervated and clueless about the war and Romney would join the Brownshirts or the Freethinkers (whichever) if he thought it would get him elected.

Posted by: Damian in Pittsburgh | April 5, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

She is presently working for Dick Cheney's daughter, Liz Cheney, in the State Department.

She has been romantically linked to the current head of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, since the time when he was an undersecretary for defense in the Bush Administration. Vanity Fair magazine reports (March 2007 issue) that Shaha Riza worked for Science Applications International Corporation, a US defense establishment contractor.[1]

yes! I knew it... a defense contractor. just a peek under the tent as to where your tax money is REALLY going -- into the pockets of bush cronies.

there's no reconstruction in iraq -- just bucketloads of cash disappearing down a black hole.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

'The appointment of George Bush's leading hawk as head of the World Bank was heading for a crisis over his relationship with a senior British employee.

Influential members of staff at the international organisation have complained to its board that Paul Wolfowitz, a married father of three, is so besotted with Oxford-educated Shaha Riza he cannot be impartial.

Extraordinarily, they claim she played a key role in pushing the 61-year-old Pentagon official into the Iraq War. And the row comes amid claims that Wolfowitz's wife Clare once warned George Bush of the threat to national security any infidelity by her husband could cause.'

Well, well... it gets even better, doesn't it? She's a Saudi and the Saudis pushed the US hard to oust saddam, because they didn't want to do the dirty work themselves. But I guess it took a woman's touch to tip the balance. And YOU are paying her salary, folks! She's probably a spy.

And I'm sure now she's pushing hard to hit Iran -- the saudi's next target. Maybe they could just send in some 9/11 bombers -- seemed to have worked for them here.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Wolfowitz, 61, and Riza, who's said to be in her mid-fifties, are both divorced. They have declined to publicly discuss their relationship but share a desire to democratize the Middle East. Riza, an Oxford-educated British citizen, was born in Tunisia and grew up in Saudi Arabia. She's known for her expertise on women's rights and has been listed on the bank's Web site as a media contact for Iraq reconstruction issues.

--delciious. She's from Saudi Arabia and she's involved in iraq war-profiteering -- i mean, reconstruction--just life wolfie himself. Roll up your sleeves, ladies and gentlemen, the bush cronies want your blood.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

'Social Washington has been buzzing for months about the discreet romance between Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Shaha Riza, an Arab Muslim feminist and a communications adviser at the World Bank. Now that he's been nominated to head the bank and their relationship has become public, some of Riza's neighbors have become irked enough to dish.

This being Washington, there's a political undercurrent to the gossip: Turns out that some Iraq war foes in the diplomat-heavy neighborhood south of American University don't seem to appreciate that Wolfowitz regularly spends the night at Riza's home. Two residents told us that Wolfowitz's guards wait in a car outside until he departs early in the morning.

"They kind of picked the wrong place, if they want to be private about it. I don't know if it could be more public if it were on 16th and K streets," said one neighbor, who declined to be identified, citing a desire to maintain cordial relations with Riza. "It's an international neighborhood and he's the icon for a fabulously expensive, tragic war. It's the one thing we talk about now."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Employees of the World Bank have been "expressing concern, dismay, and outrage" regarding favoritism shown by the bank and the Bush administration towards the one-time girlfriend of World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, according to an internal memo circulated within the bank by the World Bank Group Association, which represents the rights of the bank's 13,000 employees. Among other things, the April 3 memo alleges that Shaha Riza, Wolfowitz's romantic interest was given a "promotion [that] clearly does not conform" to bank procedures. Moreover, the memo alleges, she was then given a raise "more than double the amount allowed" by the bank's rules.

A copy of the memorandum was leaked to myself and other journalists Wednesday evening as World Bank employees have become more outspoken in their criticism of Wolfowitz's tenure as president of the bank.

Wolfowitz, who as Deputy Secretary of Defense was considered an architect of the U.S. war with Iraq, disclosed to bank board members that he had a romantic relationship with a senior bank communications officer, Shaha Riza, shortly after he was nominated to head the World Bank. Bank regulations disallow bank employees from supervising spouses or romantic partners, but Wolfowitz reportedly attempted to circumvent the rules so he would be able to continue to work with Riza. Informed by the bank's ethics officers that that would not be allowable, the problem appeared solved when Riza was detailed to work at the State Department's public diplomacy office in September 2005--even though her salary was still to be paid by the World Bank.

Before she was detailed over to the State Department, Riza was earning $132,660, according to the bank's payroll records obtained by the Governmental Accountability Project. Had the bank's board adhered to its ordinary rules, as Riza was shifted over to the State Department, she should have only been eligible for a raise of about $20,000. Instead she was given a raise of $47,340, whereupon her salary became $180,000. Then last year, she received yet another raise which brought her salary to $193,000. That salary increase not only meant that Riza earned more than Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, but apparently made her the single highest paid State Department official.'

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Haven't been hearing much about Dark Horsabee recently, where is the governor of Arkansas?

Posted by: Golgi | April 5, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, I know that immigration and outsourcing are the most important issues to you. But are they really all you care about? You're talking about supporting McCain, who's extremely socially conservative and a reliable cheerleader of the war in Iraq, because you like his stance on immigration. Is immigration really important enough to sacrifice everything else for?

Posted by: Blarg | April 5, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse


The GOP should save its money and sit out the 2008 presidential election -- their profound hatred of all things good, pure and decent will translate to a solid bashing at the polls.

Posted by: Parakeeta | April 5, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

agree with anon. mccain let the swiftboaters attack his wife and children -- and then he hired the very same people. shameless hack and weasel -- he's unfit.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Can McCain win? No. He lost me when he got up on that stage like a jelly fish and endorsed Bush who had stabbed him in the back.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

WE DONT HOPE SO !!!!

Posted by: JWH | April 5, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

The other thing is that McCain is viewed favorably by about 55 percent of the country and unfavorably by about 35%. That means that most people know him and like him (in general). For comparison the same numbers for Hillary are about equal at 45 each.

Posted by: Andy R | April 5, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Of course he can win. He wouldn't be my first choice. He wouldn't be my second or third choice, either, but, and I say this as a Democrat, I would vote for him before I would vote for Hillary Clnton or Mr. Obama. I hate to say it, but the lunatic fringe apparently have come out of the woodwork and taken control of my party and I fear they are going to run Hillary or Obama. Once the voting public gets acquainted with those two, we loose.

Posted by: MikeB | April 5, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I think McCain has a pretty good chance of winning because he now can retreat to his more comfortable position as the underdog.
Guiliani will fade IMO as soon as the real voters of Iowa, NH, and espectially South Carolina start to pick him apart. He supports publicly funding abortions, which I agree with by the way, but that alone will kill him with the republican core especially in the south.
I know Romney can raise money and is a good speaker, but it take one comparison to any of a slew of Cult Leaders and he is done. I like to think our country has come along way in regards to religious freedom but not that far.

Also don't count out his experience and the fact that he is a WELL decorated veteran. That plays real well in the GOP group.

Posted by: Andy R | April 5, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

'Bush's loss of the popular majority by 543,895 votes in the 2000 election was a shock to his political advisors and prompted an internal rethinking of his strategy. During the Florida contest and before the Supreme Court delivered the presidency to Bush, Dowd wrote a confidential memo to Rove that analyzed data from the recent vote and argued that there was no significant center in the electorate. "Dowd's analysis destroyed the rationale for Bush to govern as 'a uniter, not a divider,'" wrote Thomas Edsall in his book "Building Red America." Bush's confected campaign persona as a "compassionate conservative" was suddenly discarded. The "architect," as Bush called Rove, had an architect. Bush's brain had an outsourced brain. Rove's and Bush's radical imperatives derived from Dowd's conclusions. With Bush as president, Dowd was put on the Republican National Committee payroll and became an intimate participant in White House strategy sessions. Bush and the Republicans now exploited divisive wedge issues and tactics with a vengeance. After Sept. 11, 2001, fear was bundled with loathing, the terrorist threat from abroad conflated with the gay menace within. By 2004, relying on Dowd's numbers, Republicans made gay marriage the most salient social issue, exceeding abortion and gun control in its inflammatory potential to mobilize conservatives. Dowd prescribed the strategy for targeting of Republican base voters' "anger points," as GOP consultants called them, for maximum turnout.

The "war on terror" was the glue that held the Bush message together. In the political rinse cycle, Dowd transformed the disinformation justifying the Iraq war into platitudinous Republican talking points. In the interviews he granted, Dowd repeated them effortlessly. "Events in Iraq," he told National Public Radio during the Republican Convention in September 2004, "and removing Saddam Hussein is all part of the war on terror. You can't separate out removing a brutal dictator from a place that harbored terrorists from the war on terror." One plus one equals three; the clock struck 13.

Dowd packaged his vicious tactics as nothing more than the application of basic advertising technique. His slicing and dicing of wedge issues was no such thing, he explained. He was, he said, just creating a new Republican "brand." After Rove executed Dowd's carefully calculated targeting to produce Bush's narrow victory in 2004, Dowd was triumphant. "Issues don't matter in presidential campaigns," he exulted in 2005, "it's your brand values that matter." For Dowd, facts didn't matter either, only "brand" identity....'

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

'And now we come to the part of our day where I call Fred Hiatt a bloviating fact challenged tool:

...This claim is directly contradicted by the Post's own reporting this morning, which states, "Foreign policy experts generally agree that Pelosi's dealings with Middle East leaders have not strayed far, if at all, from those typical for a congressional trip." Pelosi herself has "described the trip as little different than the visit paid to Syria the same week led by Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-VA)," and she went to great lengths to express her unity of purpose with President Bush on terrorism issues. The Post's own reporting today also cites several instances of members of Congress meeting with foreign leaders during the past 30 years. As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, in contrast with Pelosi's trip, previous congressional actions abroad attempted to directly undermine President Clinton....

There is more, and ThinkProgress hits the whole op-ed, but seriously -- why is Fred Hiatt writing editorial blather without even reading the reporting done by journalists within the same damn paper in which his bloviating fact free missives appear? Doesn't Hiatt find it the least bit embarrassing that he is contradicted not once, but multiple times, in the same paper on the same day? Hello??!!?? (And, honestly, how many times does this have to happen before someone -- anyone -- at the WaPo gets embarrassed on behalf of Hiatt and plans a fact intervention? Unless, of course, Donald Graham is doing special requests for the editorial page again. Not exactly holding my breath on this one...)'

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

swiftboaters, jewcounters and dogeaters for mccain...

'Fred Malek, John McCain's new funding co-chair, was one of Richard Nixon's Jew-counters -- as in he, uh, counted Jews in the Bureau of Labor Statistics because Nixon though a cabal of them were doctoring the numbers -- and, when he was younger, got arrested for killing, skinning, and barbecuing a dog.'

Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company